# What Americans Were.....sigh....



## PoliticalChic

March 22.1775, Edmund Burke took the floor of the British Parliament, and explained why his country should seek reconciliation with the Americans, asserting that the colonists derived their ideas about freedom and resistance from their Protestant Christianity.  

They were Protestants &#8220;of that kind which is *most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,*&#8221; and their dissent from the Anglican Church *not only favored liberty, it was &#8220;built upon it.&#8221;* 
Edmund Burke, &#8220;The Speech of Edmund Burke, Esq,; On Moving His Resolution for Conciliation with the Colonies,&#8221; p.15-17.

Today, another March 22, this great nation is half filled with folks who demand that others pay for their chosen styles of life, their insurance, their leisure....who give up individuality and liberty for the embrace of the collective, the state.

What would Edmund Burke think of Americans today...and the poster child for the spoiled, full-of-themselves wastrels, Sandra Fluke?

November will tell if the other kinds of Americans are still around...I think they are.

Who was Edmund Burke? 
The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.


----------



## AquaAthena

PoliticalChic said:


> March 22.1775, Edmund Burke took the floor of the British Parliament, and explained why his country should seek reconciliation with the Americans, asserting that the colonists derived their ideas about freedom and resistance from their Protestant Christianity.
> 
> They were Protestants of that kind which is *most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,* and their dissent from the Anglican Church *not only favored liberty, it was built upon it.*
> Edmund Burke, The Speech of Edmund Burke, Esq,; On Moving His Resolution for Conciliation with the Colonies, p.15-17.
> 
> Today, another March 22, this great nation is half filled with folks who demand that others pay for their chosen styles of life, their insurance, their leisure....who give up individuality and liberty for the embrace of the collective, the state.
> 
> What would Edmund Burke think of Americans today...and the poster child for the spoiled, full-of-themselves wastrels, Sandra Fluke?
> 
> November will tell if the other kinds of Americans are still around...I think they are.
> 
> Who was Edmund Burke?
> The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.


 
*The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion....Edmund Burke*


----------



## Artevelde

Ah Edmund Burke! Real Conservatism indeed!


----------



## PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic said:


> March 22.1775, Edmund Burke took the floor of the British Parliament, and explained why his country should seek reconciliation with the Americans, asserting that the colonists derived their ideas about freedom and resistance from their Protestant Christianity.
> 
> They were Protestants of that kind which is *most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,* and their dissent from the Anglican Church *not only favored liberty, it was built upon it.*
> Edmund Burke, The Speech of Edmund Burke, Esq,; On Moving His Resolution for Conciliation with the Colonies, p.15-17.
> 
> Today, another March 22, this great nation is half filled with folks who demand that others pay for their chosen styles of life, their insurance, their leisure....who give up individuality and liberty for the embrace of the collective, the state.
> 
> What would Edmund Burke think of Americans today...and the poster child for the spoiled, full-of-themselves wastrels, Sandra Fluke?
> 
> November will tell if the other kinds of Americans are still around...I think they are.
> 
> Who was Edmund Burke?
> The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.





March 23, 1775  Patrick Henry spoke at the Virginia Convention advocating for a defensive state militia, calling the struggle against Britain as a holy cause of liberty, with God fighting on their behalf.  In what would be his signature, he proclaimed *as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!*


----------



## Douger

PoliticalChic said:


> November will tell if the other kinds of Americans are still around...I think they are.


If there aren't any ?


----------



## Nosmo King

If we could only live as our founding father did and believe in the same things, what a glorious adventure we would have.

No paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic, and a life span of around 42 years.


----------



## midcan5

It has always struck me as curious that we would never go back and use the medicine or the science of the time in which Burke lived, but somehow his vague and often contradictory ranting and raving is just wonderful and still appropriate. Of course the reason for that is obvious, he exists not as a reality of the time but as a dream of the present that looks back and see the lost garden of Eden. My advice to PC and others who dream of this imaginary past of wine and roses: grow up, face the fact that while life ain't super great and government ain't super great, and most people ain't superwo/man, it is a helluva lot better than those times of plague, slavery, turmoil, unequal rights, and early death. Work in the now and forget the fantasy.


----------



## Wry Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


> March 22.1775, Edmund Burke took the floor of the British Parliament, and explained why his country should seek reconciliation with the Americans, asserting that the colonists derived their ideas about freedom and resistance from their Protestant Christianity.
> 
> They were Protestants of that kind which is *most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,* and their dissent from the Anglican Church *not only favored liberty, it was built upon it.*
> Edmund Burke, The Speech of Edmund Burke, Esq,; On Moving His Resolution for Conciliation with the Colonies, p.15-17.
> 
> Today, another March 22, this great nation is half filled with folks who demand that others pay for their chosen styles of life, their insurance, their leisure....who give up individuality and liberty for the embrace of the collective, the state.
> 
> What would Edmund Burke think of Americans today...and the poster child for the spoiled, full-of-themselves wastrels, Sandra Fluke?
> 
> November will tell if the other kinds of Americans are still around...I think they are.
> 
> Who was Edmund Burke?
> The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.



"You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who's just going to be a little different than the person in there," Santorum told supporters in San Antonio. "If you're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future."
Rick Santorum
March 22, 2012

"Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.'
George W. Bush
March 22, 2003

The difference between Sandra Fluke and PC is clear.  Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK:  "Some men see things as they are and say why. 
I dream things that never were and say why not."

PC's mind is stuck in the 18th century and cannot factor in the world as it is today.  Such is the world of the Reactionary, not a conservative as she likes to pretend.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Nosmo King said:


> If we could only live as our founding father did and believe in the same things, what a glorious adventure we would have.
> 
> No paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic, and a life span of around 42 years.



What does that have to do with self-respect, initiative, a desire for freedom and liberty?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> March 22.1775, Edmund Burke took the floor of the British Parliament, and explained why his country should seek reconciliation with the Americans, asserting that the colonists derived their ideas about freedom and resistance from their Protestant Christianity.
> 
> They were Protestants of that kind which is *most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,* and their dissent from the Anglican Church *not only favored liberty, it was built upon it.*
> Edmund Burke, The Speech of Edmund Burke, Esq,; On Moving His Resolution for Conciliation with the Colonies, p.15-17.
> 
> Today, another March 22, this great nation is half filled with folks who demand that others pay for their chosen styles of life, their insurance, their leisure....who give up individuality and liberty for the embrace of the collective, the state.
> 
> What would Edmund Burke think of Americans today...and the poster child for the spoiled, full-of-themselves wastrels, Sandra Fluke?
> 
> November will tell if the other kinds of Americans are still around...I think they are.
> 
> Who was Edmund Burke?
> The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who's just going to be a little different than the person in there," Santorum told supporters in San Antonio. "If you're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future."
> Rick Santorum
> March 22, 2012
> 
> "Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.'
> George W. Bush
> March 22, 2003
> 
> The difference between Sandra Fluke and PC is clear.  Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK:  "Some men see things as they are and say why.
> I dream things that never were and say why not."
> 
> PC's mind is stuck in the 18th century and cannot factor in the world as it is today.  Such is the world of the Reactionary, not a conservative as she likes to pretend.
Click to expand...



Every time I read your post, I shake my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth.
" *Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK: "Some men see things *as they are and say why. 
I dream things that never were and say why not."

Every time I read your post, I shake my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth.

There's only one part of Ms. Fluke that "some men see."

I guess you don't realize how moronic you sound....RFK running on a platform of the United States of America paying spoiled 30-something brats to have as much sex as they would like....and demanding that working Americans pay for same.....

Exactly what the OP was claiming about the Left.

As predicted, the lower Obama and the Democrats fall in the polls, the more loud and loony the Left becomes.


----------



## Mr Natural

You're going to tell me that you're willing to trade what we have now with what they had then?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Mr Clean said:


> You're going to tell me that you're willing to trade what we have now with what they had then?



Well, first I'm going to compliment you on the use of the phrase "...tell me..." rather than the phrase of choice of the fearful little Lefties...the "...tell us..." crowd.


Then, I'm going to point out that you are making a huge bone-head mistake in trying to make your point.
In order for your question to have any meaning you would have to claim that it is impossible to have the current state of technological advancement AND believe in the following:

1. The US Constitution being the law of the land...specifically Article I, section 8.

2. Limited government

3. Checks and balances

4. Federalism

"*Upon entering office, the president must solemnly promise that, to the best of his ability, he will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution *of the United States. That is required by the Constitution, which also says that senators and representatives, and all executive and judicial officers  shall be* bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution.*

Far too many of these leaders have taken that oathand then done the opposite! The *current president has, to the best of his ability, smeared, ignored and undermined that founding document!*

...the seeds of this anti-law thinking were sown a century ago by Woodrow Wilson, who viewed the *Constitutions doctrines of limited government as obsolete.* Wilson argued that progress and evolution had brought human beings to a place and time where we didnt have to worry about limited government,..."
The Obama Administration vs. the American Constitution - theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God


So, is that the trade you have in mind?
I never believed it was.


----------



## Wiseacre

I think the SCOTUS decision on the constitutionality of ObamaCare will have a big influence too.   If it's upheld then basically there's no limit to what the gov't can force you to do.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wiseacre said:


> I think the SCOTUS decision on the constitutionality of ObamaCare will have a big influence too.   If it's upheld then basically there's no limit to what the gov't can force you to do.



The mechanism for determining constitutionality is based on the assumptions that each branch agree of same as follows...
The Congress must feel the bill is constitutional or should not pass it.
The President must also assent or should not sign it...
And the Court should determine that the language of the Constitution forbids same, or 
must find it constitutional....

Uh, oh.

And, Jeffrey Rosen, New Republic Magazine Legal Affairs Editor, suggested
Pro-Business Conservatives on the Court, represented by policies of the US Chamber of Commerce, strongly represented on the Roberts Court, where they *won some 13 of 18 cases *in which they filed a brief. Most *business cases are unanimous or 7-2 decisions,* vs those cases that deal with culture war issues. 

These conservatives favored TARP, and he use of federal pre-emption (federal law to take precedence over or to displace a state law) for farm subsidies, healthcare cases.  Based on this sentiment, a court which has embraced a broad vision of federal power, as found in regulation of medical marijuana, *expect the Roberts Court to reject the pro-states rights view *that would lead to the invalidation of the healthcare case.

Double uh, oh.


I would be so pleased to be wrong.....


----------



## 007

Wiseacre said:


> I think the SCOTUS decision on the constitutionality of ObamaCare will have a big influence too.   If it's upheld then basically there's no limit to what the gov't can force you to do.



Yup... goodbye free America, hello socialist states of America.


----------



## daveman

Nosmo King said:


> If we could only live as our founding father did and believe in the same things, what a glorious adventure we would have.
> 
> No paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic, and a life span of around 42 years.


Yes, because only modern liberals could have given us civilization.


----------



## daveman

midcan5 said:


> It has always struck me as curious that we would never go back and use the medicine or the science of the time in which Burke lived, but somehow his vague and often contradictory ranting and raving is just wonderful and still appropriate. Of course the reason for that is obvious, he exists not as a reality of the time but as a dream of the present that looks back and see the lost garden of Eden. My advice to PC and others who dream of this imaginary past of wine and roses: grow up, face the fact that while life ain't super great and government ain't super great, and most people ain't superwo/man, it is a helluva lot better than those times of plague, slavery, turmoil, unequal rights, and early death. Work in the now and forget the fantasy.





Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> March 22.1775, Edmund Burke took the floor of the British Parliament, and explained why his country should seek reconciliation with the Americans, asserting that the colonists derived their ideas about freedom and resistance from their Protestant Christianity.
> 
> They were Protestants of that kind which is *most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,* and their dissent from the Anglican Church *not only favored liberty, it was built upon it.*
> Edmund Burke, The Speech of Edmund Burke, Esq,; On Moving His Resolution for Conciliation with the Colonies, p.15-17.
> 
> Today, another March 22, this great nation is half filled with folks who demand that others pay for their chosen styles of life, their insurance, their leisure....who give up individuality and liberty for the embrace of the collective, the state.
> 
> What would Edmund Burke think of Americans today...and the poster child for the spoiled, full-of-themselves wastrels, Sandra Fluke?
> 
> November will tell if the other kinds of Americans are still around...I think they are.
> 
> Who was Edmund Burke?
> The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who's just going to be a little different than the person in there," Santorum told supporters in San Antonio. "If you're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future."
> Rick Santorum
> March 22, 2012
> 
> "Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.'
> George W. Bush
> March 22, 2003
> 
> The difference between Sandra Fluke and PC is clear.  Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK:  "Some men see things as they are and say why.
> I dream things that never were and say why not."
> 
> PC's mind is stuck in the 18th century and cannot factor in the world as it is today.  Such is the world of the Reactionary, not a conservative as she likes to pretend.
Click to expand...

Why do you idiots insist that a call for the return to conservative principles means abandoning modern civilization?

Oh...it's because you don't have a rational rebuttal to conservative principles.

Kerry on.


----------



## PoliticalChic

daveman said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has always struck me as curious that we would never go back and use the medicine or the science of the time in which Burke lived, but somehow his vague and often contradictory ranting and raving is just wonderful and still appropriate. Of course the reason for that is obvious, he exists not as a reality of the time but as a dream of the present that looks back and see the lost garden of Eden. My advice to PC and others who dream of this imaginary past of wine and roses: grow up, face the fact that while life ain't super great and government ain't super great, and most people ain't superwo/man, it is a helluva lot better than those times of plague, slavery, turmoil, unequal rights, and early death. Work in the now and forget the fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> March 22.1775, Edmund Burke took the floor of the British Parliament, and explained why his country should seek reconciliation with the Americans, asserting that the colonists derived their ideas about freedom and resistance from their Protestant Christianity.
> 
> They were Protestants of that kind which is *most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,* and their dissent from the Anglican Church *not only favored liberty, it was built upon it.*
> Edmund Burke, The Speech of Edmund Burke, Esq,; On Moving His Resolution for Conciliation with the Colonies, p.15-17.
> 
> Today, another March 22, this great nation is half filled with folks who demand that others pay for their chosen styles of life, their insurance, their leisure....who give up individuality and liberty for the embrace of the collective, the state.
> 
> What would Edmund Burke think of Americans today...and the poster child for the spoiled, full-of-themselves wastrels, Sandra Fluke?
> 
> November will tell if the other kinds of Americans are still around...I think they are.
> 
> Who was Edmund Burke?
> The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who's just going to be a little different than the person in there," Santorum told supporters in San Antonio. "If you're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future."
> Rick Santorum
> March 22, 2012
> 
> "Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.'
> George W. Bush
> March 22, 2003
> 
> The difference between Sandra Fluke and PC is clear.  Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK:  "Some men see things as they are and say why.
> I dream things that never were and say why not."
> 
> PC's mind is stuck in the 18th century and cannot factor in the world as it is today.  Such is the world of the Reactionary, not a conservative as she likes to pretend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you idiots insist that a call for the return to conservative principles means abandoning modern civilization?
> 
> Oh...it's because you don't have a rational rebuttal to conservative principles.
> 
> Kerry on.
Click to expand...



I'd be only too pleased to review for our Liberal friends:

1.Individualism, 

2. Free markets, 

3. and Limited constitutional government.


----------



## daveman

PoliticalChic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has always struck me as curious that we would never go back and use the medicine or the science of the time in which Burke lived, but somehow his vague and often contradictory ranting and raving is just wonderful and still appropriate. Of course the reason for that is obvious, he exists not as a reality of the time but as a dream of the present that looks back and see the lost garden of Eden. My advice to PC and others who dream of this imaginary past of wine and roses: grow up, face the fact that while life ain't super great and government ain't super great, and most people ain't superwo/man, it is a helluva lot better than those times of plague, slavery, turmoil, unequal rights, and early death. Work in the now and forget the fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who's just going to be a little different than the person in there," Santorum told supporters in San Antonio. "If you're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future."
> Rick Santorum
> March 22, 2012
> 
> "Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.'
> George W. Bush
> March 22, 2003
> 
> The difference between Sandra Fluke and PC is clear.  Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK:  "Some men see things as they are and say why.
> I dream things that never were and say why not."
> 
> PC's mind is stuck in the 18th century and cannot factor in the world as it is today.  Such is the world of the Reactionary, not a conservative as she likes to pretend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you idiots insist that a call for the return to conservative principles means abandoning modern civilization?
> 
> Oh...it's because you don't have a rational rebuttal to conservative principles.
> 
> Kerry on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be only too pleased to review for our Liberal friends:
> 
> 1.Individualism,
> 
> 2. Free markets,
> 
> 3. and Limited constitutional government.
Click to expand...

You may as well be speaking in Esperanto, dear.  They're not equipped to understand those ideas.


----------



## Unkotare

Pale Rider said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the SCOTUS decision on the constitutionality of ObamaCare will have a big influence too.   If it's upheld then basically there's no limit to what the gov't can force you to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup... goodbye free America, hello socialist states of America.
Click to expand...




And just imagine what an obama that doesn't have to worry about reelection would try to pull if the worst happens and he wins in Nov.


----------



## regent

What are free markets, and when did America, since the Constitution was ratified, ever have free markets? Whatever free markets means.
Individualism has many definitions what is yours? What is it, and who should qualify? 
As for limited government that's pretty apparent with the Court about to rule on the health care law, that limited government still exists. But even beyond the health care law there are numerous court decisions regarding limited government.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> If we could only live as our founding father did and believe in the same things, what a glorious adventure we would have.
> 
> No paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic, and a life span of around 42 years.



The naïve idiocy of reactionaryism blinds the adherent to the facts of reality, then and today. 



> PC's mind is stuck in the 18th century and cannot factor in the world as it is today. Such is the world of the Reactionary, not a conservative as she likes to pretend.



The bane of reactionaryism imperils our Nation, founded on the principles of progress and embracing the future, not fearing the future and seeking refuge in the past.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> What are free markets, and when did America, since the Constitution was ratified, ever have free markets? Whatever free markets means.
> Individualism has many definitions what is yours? What is it, and who should qualify?
> As for limited government that's pretty apparent with the Court about to rule on the health care law, that limited government still exists. But even beyond the health care law there are numerous court decisions regarding limited government.



Don't have dictionaries where you reside?


----------



## PoliticalChic

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> If we could only live as our founding father did and believe in the same things, what a glorious adventure we would have.
> 
> No paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic, and a life span of around 42 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The naïve idiocy of reactionaryism blinds the adherent to the facts of reality, then and today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC's mind is stuck in the 18th century and cannot factor in the world as it is today. Such is the world of the Reactionary, not a conservative as she likes to pretend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bane of reactionaryism imperils our Nation, founded on the principles of progress and embracing the future, not fearing the future and seeking refuge in the past.
Click to expand...


You write so nicely.

It is surprising to find same in one whose understanding is so limited.


----------



## Wry Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> March 22.1775, Edmund Burke took the floor of the British Parliament, and explained why his country should seek reconciliation with the Americans, asserting that the colonists derived their ideas about freedom and resistance from their Protestant Christianity.
> 
> They were Protestants of that kind which is *most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,* and their dissent from the Anglican Church *not only favored liberty, it was built upon it.*
> Edmund Burke, The Speech of Edmund Burke, Esq,; On Moving His Resolution for Conciliation with the Colonies, p.15-17.
> 
> Today, another March 22, this great nation is half filled with folks who demand that others pay for their chosen styles of life, their insurance, their leisure....who give up individuality and liberty for the embrace of the collective, the state.
> 
> What would Edmund Burke think of Americans today...and the poster child for the spoiled, full-of-themselves wastrels, Sandra Fluke?
> 
> November will tell if the other kinds of Americans are still around...I think they are.
> 
> Who was Edmund Burke?
> The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who's just going to be a little different than the person in there," Santorum told supporters in San Antonio. "If you're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future."
> Rick Santorum
> March 22, 2012
> 
> "Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.'
> George W. Bush
> March 22, 2003
> 
> The difference between Sandra Fluke and PC is clear.  Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK:  "Some men see things as they are and say why.
> I dream things that never were and say why not."
> 
> PC's mind is stuck in the 18th century and cannot factor in the world as it is today.  Such is the world of the Reactionary, not a conservative as she likes to pretend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I read your post, I shake my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth.
> " *Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK: "Some men see things *as they are and say why.
> I dream things that never were and say why not."
> 
> Every time I read your post, I shake my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth.
> 
> There's only one part of Ms. Fluke that "some men see."
> 
> I guess you don't realize how moronic you sound....RFK running on a platform of the United States of America paying spoiled 30-something brats to have as much sex as they would like....and demanding that working Americans pay for same.....
> 
> Exactly what the OP was claiming about the Left.
> 
> As predicted, the lower Obama and the Democrats fall in the polls, the more loud and loony the Left becomes.
Click to expand...


A typical PC retort; no substance, a pound of hyperbole and a quart of mendacity.


----------



## daveman

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who's just going to be a little different than the person in there," Santorum told supporters in San Antonio. "If you're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future."
> Rick Santorum
> March 22, 2012
> 
> "Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.'
> George W. Bush
> March 22, 2003
> 
> The difference between Sandra Fluke and PC is clear.  Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK:  "Some men see things as they are and say why.
> I dream things that never were and say why not."
> 
> PC's mind is stuck in the 18th century and cannot factor in the world as it is today.  Such is the world of the Reactionary, not a conservative as she likes to pretend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I read your post, I shake my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth.
> " *Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK: "Some men see things *as they are and say why.
> I dream things that never were and say why not."
> 
> Every time I read your post, I shake my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth.
> 
> There's only one part of Ms. Fluke that "some men see."
> 
> I guess you don't realize how moronic you sound....RFK running on a platform of the United States of America paying spoiled 30-something brats to have as much sex as they would like....and demanding that working Americans pay for same.....
> 
> Exactly what the OP was claiming about the Left.
> 
> As predicted, the lower Obama and the Democrats fall in the polls, the more loud and loony the Left becomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A typical PC retort; no substance, a pound of hyperbole and a quart of mendacity.
Click to expand...

Once again, you unknowingly describe Obama.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are free markets, and when did America, since the Constitution was ratified, ever have free markets? Whatever free markets means.
> Individualism has many definitions what is yours? What is it, and who should qualify?
> As for limited government that's pretty apparent with the Court about to rule on the health care law, that limited government still exists. But even beyond the health care law there are numerous court decisions regarding limited government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have dictionaries where you reside?
Click to expand...


Yes, but I have discovered that freqently the dictionary and the poster each have their own definitions and not always the same. For example one of the favorite terms of conservatives is "socialism" but on asking what it means there were few answers, but it is still used as often just a form of name-calling.


----------



## 007

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who's just going to be a little different than the person in there," Santorum told supporters in San Antonio. "If you're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future."
> Rick Santorum
> March 22, 2012
> 
> "Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.'
> George W. Bush
> March 22, 2003
> 
> The difference between Sandra Fluke and PC is clear.  Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK:  "Some men see things as they are and say why.
> I dream things that never were and say why not."
> 
> PC's mind is stuck in the 18th century and cannot factor in the world as it is today.  Such is the world of the Reactionary, not a conservative as she likes to pretend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I read your post, I shake my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth.
> " *Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK: "Some men see things *as they are and say why.
> I dream things that never were and say why not."
> 
> Every time I read your post, I shake my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth.
> 
> There's only one part of Ms. Fluke that "some men see."
> 
> I guess you don't realize how moronic you sound....RFK running on a platform of the United States of America paying spoiled 30-something brats to have as much sex as they would like....and demanding that working Americans pay for same.....
> 
> Exactly what the OP was claiming about the Left.
> 
> As predicted, the lower Obama and the Democrats fall in the polls, the more loud and loony the Left becomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A typical PC retort; no substance, a pound of hyperbole and a quart of mendacity.
Click to expand...


:Irony alert:


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who's just going to be a little different than the person in there," Santorum told supporters in San Antonio. "If you're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future."
> Rick Santorum
> March 22, 2012
> 
> "Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.'
> George W. Bush
> March 22, 2003
> 
> The difference between Sandra Fluke and PC is clear.  Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK:  "Some men see things as they are and say why.
> I dream things that never were and say why not."
> 
> PC's mind is stuck in the 18th century and cannot factor in the world as it is today.  Such is the world of the Reactionary, not a conservative as she likes to pretend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I read your post, I shake my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth.
> " *Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK: "Some men see things *as they are and say why.
> I dream things that never were and say why not."
> 
> Every time I read your post, I shake my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth.
> 
> There's only one part of Ms. Fluke that "some men see."
> 
> I guess you don't realize how moronic you sound....RFK running on a platform of the United States of America paying spoiled 30-something brats to have as much sex as they would like....and demanding that working Americans pay for same.....
> 
> Exactly what the OP was claiming about the Left.
> 
> As predicted, the lower Obama and the Democrats fall in the polls, the more loud and loony the Left becomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A typical PC retort; no substance, a pound of hyperbole and a quart of mendacity.
Click to expand...


How about we plumb the depths of your stupidity...

....well beyond the jejune, you've reached down to the troglodyte level of abject and abysmal asininity.


As you can see, words don't quite fail me in assailing your jaw-dropping attempt to use RFK to excuse the arrogance of demanding other peoples hard-earned assets to support ones licentious lifestyle.... 

You are so ignorant that you use a Kennedy scion to support Fluke's absurd demands...and are unaware that *Robert Kennedy's father had his daughter surgically 'altered' *so that *promiscuity *would not stain the family reputation...

"In 1941, Joseph Kennedy, worried his daughter's mild mental retardation would lead her into situations that *could damage the family's reputation*, arranged for Rosemary to have a* lobotomy.* She was 23.

"Rosemary was a woman, and there was* a dread fear of pregnancy, disease and disgrace," *author Laurence Leamer wrote in his book "The Kennedy Women: The Saga of an American Family." 
Retarded Kennedy sister dies at 86 - Democratic Underground
There are many rumors that he had her sterilized.


You would have been far wiser to have chosen Ted Kennedy, the poster child for profligacy...but then you wouldn't be 'you.'


Now, you buffoon, would you like to go on to state that Mother Teresa an Mahatma Gandhi also support Sandra Fluke????

DUNCE.


And....'pound' goes with 'ounces,' and 'gallons' with 'quarts,' nincompoop.

And....use a dictionary to research the meaning of 'mendacity'....you will find that that term  in no way applies to me.
You ignoramus.


----------



## midcan5

daveman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you idiots insist that a call for the return to conservative principles means abandoning modern civilization?
> 
> Oh...it's because you don't have a rational rebuttal to conservative principles.
> 
> Kerry on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be only too pleased to review for our Liberal friends:
> 
> 1.Individualism,
> 
> 2. Free markets,
> 
> 3. and Limited constitutional government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may as well be speaking in Esperanto, dear.  They're not equipped to understand those ideas.
Click to expand...



Those are just words my friends, they mean nothing outside of context, especially if you consider the historical reality of the times you worship. Read a bit of history sometime - but allow me again, for maybe the hundred time, to ask what conservatism has done for all the people? No one can answer, as conservatism is merely reactionary partisanship, and when given the reigns of power a complete failure as Bush Jr demonstrated so well. 'All you need is freedom, freedom is all you need....'    Sing it enough times and it still means nada. More to it than empty phrases. 

"Hirschman draws his examples from three successive waves of reactive thought, that arose in response to the liberal ideas of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, to democratization and the drive toward universal suffrage in the nineteenth century, and to the welfare state in our own century. In each case he identifies three principal arguments invariably used - the theses of perversity, futility, and jeopardy. He illustrates these propositions by ciung writers across the centuries from Alexis de Tocqueville to George Stigler, Herbert Spencer to Jay Forrester, Edmund Burke to Charles Murray."  From backcover http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HIRRHE.html?show=reviews

Your tries are here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/186726-republican-ideology-through-history-7.html#post4251322


----------



## regent

There is the theory that liberals move the country too fast, and America has to stop once in a while and digest such things as women get the vote, or Social Security. After we learn to live with the new liberal programs, we are ready to move on again.  In due time America will have a health care program, and all the Republican attempts to stop that progress with their slogans, scare words, platitudes and so forth will not matter. When America is ready to move forward again, it will.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> A typical PC retort; no substance, a pound of hyperbole and a quart of mendacity.



It&#8217;s not fair to single-out this particular poster, as a conservative ideologue she knows no substance and can only respond with hyperbole and dogma. The fault lies not with her but with whomever failed to teach her critical thinking skills. 



> Those are just words my friends, they mean nothing outside of context, especially if you consider the historical reality of the times you worship. Read a bit of history sometime - but allow me again, for maybe the hundred time, to ask what conservatism has done for all the people? No one can answer, as conservatism is merely reactionary partisanship, and when given the reigns of power a complete failure as Bush Jr demonstrated so well. 'All you need is freedom, freedom is all you need....'   Sing it enough times and it still means nada. More to it than empty phrases.


Correct. 

Reactionaries dream in naïve ignorance of an idealized American past that never existed to begin with. 

The reality of America&#8217;s past &#8211; the past the right longs for &#8211; is a past of racism, segregation, and discrimination; a past of restricted liberties, no right to counsel, no right to equal access to the law, no right to due process. 

It was only through the efforts of progressives and liberals in the courts &#8211; efforts fought every step of the way by the right &#8211; which the American dream was finally realized *for all Americans. *


----------



## Wry Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I read your post, I shake my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth&#8230;.
> " *Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK: "Some men see things *as they are and say why.
> I dream things that never were and say why not."
> 
> Every time I read your post, I shake my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth&#8230;.
> 
> There's only one part of Ms. Fluke that "some men see."  (Shame on you)
> 
> I guess you don't realize how moronic you sound....RFK running on a platform of the United States of America paying spoiled 30-something brats to have as much sex as they would like....and demanding that working Americans pay for same.....(Same, shame)
> 
> Exactly what the OP was claiming about the Left.
> 
> As predicted, the lower Obama and the Democrats fall in the polls, the more loud and loony the Left becomes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A typical PC retort; no substance, a pound of hyperbole and a quart of mendacity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about we plumb the depths of your stupidity...
> 
> ....well beyond the jejune, you've reached down to the troglodyte level of abject and abysmal asininity.
> 
> 
> As you can see, words don't quite fail me in assailing your jaw-dropping attempt to use RFK to excuse the arrogance of demanding other peoples hard-earned assets to support ones licentious lifestyle.... (liar, you have no way to know her private life, and licentious, really - self righteous prig)
> 
> You are so ignorant that you use a Kennedy scion to support Fluke's absurd demands...and are unaware that *Robert Kennedy's father had his daughter surgically 'altered' *so that *promiscuity *would not stain the family reputation...(liar, liar)
> 
> "In 1941, Joseph Kennedy, worried his daughter's mild mental retardation would lead her into situations that *could damage the family's reputation*, arranged for Rosemary to have a* lobotomy.* She was 23. (pants on fire)
> 
> "Rosemary was a woman, and there was* a dread fear of pregnancy, disease and disgrace," *author Laurence Leamer wrote in his book "The Kennedy Women: The Saga of an American Family."
> Retarded Kennedy sister dies at 86 - Democratic Underground
> There are many rumors that he had her sterilized. (lobotomy, if I recall correctly - a medical procedure once considered beneficial)
> 
> 
> You would have been far wiser to have chosen Ted Kennedy, the poster child for profligacy...but then you wouldn't be 'you.'
> 
> 
> Now, you buffoon, would you like to go on to state that Mother Teresa an Mahatma Gandhi also support Sandra Fluke????
> 
> DUNCE.
> 
> 
> And....'pound' goes with 'ounces,' and 'gallons' with 'quarts,' nincompoop. (being cavil now?  It's called style, to bad you haven't any)
> 
> And....use a dictionary to research the meaning of 'mendacity'....you will find that that term  in no way applies to me. (Know thyself, it does, it does)
> You ignoramus.
Click to expand...


Once again you transgress the boundaries of civil discourse and offend the language with your "enchant for promulgating your esoteric cogitations or articulating your superficial sentimentalities, and amicable philosophical or psychological observations"  

RSB -- News (Details)

Mendacity forms your entire being, I suppose that will fly over your pompous head too.  Stating that Ms. Fluke spoke out of her concern that others pay for her alleged sexual activities was a lie (do you have a primary source for such an allegation?).  Of course this is only one of the outrageous allegations you make in this single post.  Shame on you.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we could only live as our founding father did and believe in the same things, what a glorious adventure we would have.
> 
> No paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic, and a life span of around 42 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with self-respect, initiative, a desire for freedom and liberty?
Click to expand...


Americans have the same self respect, initiative and desire for freedom and liberty as they always have

Even more so


----------



## daveman

midcan5 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be only too pleased to review for our Liberal friends:
> 
> 1.Individualism,
> 
> 2. Free markets,
> 
> 3. and Limited constitutional government.
> 
> 
> 
> You may as well be speaking in Esperanto, dear.  They're not equipped to understand those ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those are just words my friends, they mean nothing outside of context...
Click to expand...

In the context of liberalism, sure, they're meaningless.  That's why I said you can't understand them.  

And you proved me right.  Thanks.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A typical PC retort; no substance, a pound of hyperbole and a quart of mendacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we plumb the depths of your stupidity...
> 
> ....well beyond the jejune, you've reached down to the troglodyte level of abject and abysmal asininity.
> 
> 
> As you can see, words don't quite fail me in assailing your jaw-dropping attempt to use RFK to excuse the arrogance of demanding other peoples hard-earned assets to support ones licentious lifestyle.... (liar, you have no way to know her private life, and licentious, really - self righteous prig)
> 
> You are so ignorant that you use a Kennedy scion to support Fluke's absurd demands...and are unaware that *Robert Kennedy's father had his daughter surgically 'altered' *so that *promiscuity *would not stain the family reputation...(liar, liar)
> 
> "In 1941, Joseph Kennedy, worried his daughter's mild mental retardation would lead her into situations that *could damage the family's reputation*, arranged for Rosemary to have a* lobotomy.* She was 23. (pants on fire)
> 
> "Rosemary was a woman, and there was* a dread fear of pregnancy, disease and disgrace," *author Laurence Leamer wrote in his book "The Kennedy Women: The Saga of an American Family."
> Retarded Kennedy sister dies at 86 - Democratic Underground
> There are many rumors that he had her sterilized. (lobotomy, if I recall correctly - a medical procedure once considered beneficial)
> 
> 
> You would have been far wiser to have chosen Ted Kennedy, the poster child for profligacy...but then you wouldn't be 'you.'
> 
> 
> Now, you buffoon, would you like to go on to state that Mother Teresa an Mahatma Gandhi also support Sandra Fluke????
> 
> DUNCE.
> 
> 
> And....'pound' goes with 'ounces,' and 'gallons' with 'quarts,' nincompoop. (being cavil now?  It's called style, to bad you haven't any)
> 
> And....use a dictionary to research the meaning of 'mendacity'....you will find that that term  in no way applies to me. (Know thyself, it does, it does)
> You ignoramus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you transgress the boundaries of civil discourse and offend the language with your "enchant for promulgating your esoteric cogitations or articulating your superficial sentimentalities, and amicable philosophical or psychological observations"
> 
> RSB -- News (Details)
> 
> Mendacity forms your entire being, I suppose that will fly over your pompous head too.  Stating that Ms. Fluke spoke out of her concern that others pay for her alleged sexual activities was a lie (do you have a primary source for such an allegation?).  Of course this is only one of the outrageous allegations you make in this single post.  Shame on you.
Click to expand...


 Your post was overstated, unjust, slanderous, weak, lazy, irresponsible, poorly informed, and misleading. Other than that, I liked it.

I read your link....if you can't keep up, .....don't.

You remain everything I said you were.



You might as well gas up the dinghy and go fishing with Fredo because you are dead to me.


----------



## Wry Catcher

" Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK: "Some men see things as they are and say why. 
I dream things that never were and say why not."

I posted this because I believe Ms. Fluke sees in the New Right an effort by those extremists to put women in their place and asks why.  She likely dreams of the day when the Equal Rights Amendment would no longer necessary.

Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person.  Is there any greater proof that her ideas and opinions are those of a parrot?


----------



## daveman

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> A typical PC retort; no substance, a pound of hyperbole and a quart of mendacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not fair to single-out this particular poster, as a conservative ideologue she knows no substance and can only respond with hyperbole and dogma. The fault lies not with her but with whomever failed to teach her critical thinking skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are just words my friends, they mean nothing outside of context, especially if you consider the historical reality of the times you worship. Read a bit of history sometime - but allow me again, for maybe the hundred time, to ask what conservatism has done for all the people? No one can answer, as conservatism is merely reactionary partisanship, and when given the reigns of power a complete failure as Bush Jr demonstrated so well. 'All you need is freedom, freedom is all you need....'   Sing it enough times and it still means nada. More to it than empty phrases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Reactionaries dream in naïve ignorance of an idealized American past that never existed to begin with.
> 
> The reality of Americas past  the past the right longs for  is a past of racism, segregation, and discrimination; a past of restricted liberties, no right to counsel, no right to equal access to the law, no right to due process.
> 
> It was only through the efforts of progressives and liberals in the courts  efforts fought every step of the way by the right  which the American dream was finally realized *for all Americans. *
Click to expand...

Never before have I ever seen someone so utterly proud of the fact that he's unable to think for himself.

Mindlessly repeating leftist horseshit does not mean you're intelligent.  Quite the opposite.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Americans have the same self respect, initiative and desire for freedom and liberty as they always have
> 
> Even more so.


Agreed  the best America is yet to come, provided we survive the bane of conservative reactionaryism, as exhibited by the OP.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we could only live as our founding father did and believe in the same things, what a glorious adventure we would have.
> 
> No paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic, and a life span of around 42 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with self-respect, initiative, a desire for freedom and liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Americans have the same self respect, initiative and desire for freedom and liberty as they always have
> 
> Even more so
Click to expand...



I have no doubt they will recoup same in November, 

...after they send Après moi le Déluge and his ilk packing.


----------



## daveman

Wry Catcher said:


> Of course this is only one of the outrageous allegations you make in this single post.  Shame on you.


Yeah, PC.  You're supposed to kiss Wry's ass because he thinks he's entitled to it.


----------



## daveman

Wry Catcher said:


> Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person.


And of course, you NEVER do that.  NEVER EVER.  

And when you do, it's different.  Somehow.  It just is.

Right?


----------



## sparky

Do i look fat in this avatar?

~S~


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with self-respect, initiative, a desire for freedom and liberty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Americans have the same self respect, initiative and desire for freedom and liberty as they always have
> 
> Even more so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt they will recoup same in November,
> 
> ...after they send Après moi le Déluge and his ilk packing.
Click to expand...


Elections have little bearing on the spirit of Americans. We have always served as a model for the rest of the world in the passion that Americans have for basically........doing the right thing

Our founding fathers had that passion, Americans during WWII had that passion....as do Americans today

What has changed through time is what "the right thing" is for each era


----------



## Wry Catcher

daveman said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person.
> 
> 
> 
> And of course, you NEVER do that.  NEVER EVER.
> 
> And when you do, it's different.  Somehow.  It just is.
> 
> Right?
Click to expand...


I attack you daveboy 'cause you don't have ideas; the evidence that you do not is in the record; the body of your work is easily summerized:  "libtards, ain't they awful".


----------



## daveman

Wry Catcher said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person.
> 
> 
> 
> And of course, you NEVER do that.  NEVER EVER.
> 
> And when you do, it's different.  Somehow.  It just is.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I attack you daveboy 'cause you don't have ideas; the evidence that you do not is in the record; the body of your work is easily summerized:  "libtards, ain't they awful".
Click to expand...


"And when you do, it's different.  Somehow.  It just is."

Yep, I called it.

You are such a flaming hypocrite.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wry Catcher said:


> " Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK: "Some men see things as they are and say why.
> I dream things that never were and say why not."
> 
> I posted this because I believe Ms. Fluke sees in the New Right an effort by those extremists to put women in their place and asks why.  She likely dreams of the day when the Equal Rights Amendment would no longer necessary.
> 
> Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person.  Is there any greater proof that her ideas and opinions are those of a parrot?




"Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person."

Welcome to Ouch-town, broPopulation: you.

  Youre such a delicate child.you must wash in Woolite.


So, help me to understand: you don't feature being referred to in the following terms: ignoramus, nincompoop, dunce, stupid, and having abysmal asininity....?

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim.
You've earned each and every one.


If you need a shoulder to cry on, pull off to the side of the road.


----------



## Wry Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> " Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK: "Some men see things as they are and say why.
> I dream things that never were and say why not."
> 
> I posted this because I believe Ms. Fluke sees in the New Right an effort by those extremists to put women in their place and asks why.  She likely dreams of the day when the Equal Rights Amendment would no longer necessary.
> 
> Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person.  Is there any greater proof that her ideas and opinions are those of a parrot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person."
> 
> Welcome to Ouch-town, broPopulation: you.
> 
> Youre such a delicate child.you must wash in Woolite.
> 
> 
> So, help me to understand: you don't feature being referred to in the following terms: ignoramus, nincompoop, dunce, stupid, and having abysmal asininity....?
> 
> Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim.
> You've earned each and every one.
> 
> 
> If you need a shoulder to cry on, pull off to the side of the road.
Click to expand...


Thanks for sharing and proving my point.  I explained my reasoning for using a quote by RFK which you ignore and focus on defending your ego from a 'scurrilous" attack.

An attack which simply pointed out how I perceive you, an honest analysis, unlike your comments about Ms Fluke which were not only exaggerated but vile and mendacious.

Your ego may inflate by calling others stupid based simply on your disagreement with their opinion.  That's fine on the internet but in a debate or a seminar that behavior would be greeted by laughter and evaluated as a failure.


----------



## sparky

So to sum it up, the founding fathers & company were demanded big gov (namely Brittan) off their backs, then went on to solicit another big gov (France) to defend their mutual interests

They also instituted a living doctrine , based on a 3 branch system , from what i understand modeled after the indigenous Indian nations, which they wiped out in the next century

Seems they also sold the ideal of nation building to the aristo's first too, due mainly to the fact they had the most $$$ to loose to the Brits

and then they went around yammering about all men being created equal, yet equal rights took another 2 centuries to come to fruition

and you want these folks to be roll models for what PC?



~S~


----------



## PoliticalChic

sparky said:


> So to sum it up, the founding fathers & company were demanded big gov (namely Brittan) off their backs, then went on to solicit another big gov (France) to defend their mutual interests
> 
> They also instituted a living doctrine , based on a 3 branch system , from what i understand modeled after the indigenous Indian nations, which they wiped out in the next century
> 
> Seems they also sold the ideal of nation building to the aristo's first too, due mainly to the fact they had the most $$$ to loose to the Brits
> 
> and then they went around yammering about all men being created equal, yet equal rights took another 2 centuries to come to fruition
> 
> and you want these folks to be roll models for what PC?
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~



You didn't sum up....you purloined Howard Zinn's version of United States history....

And "... a living doctrine , based on a 3 branch system..." ???
That's the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" version of the United States Constitution.

Now, focus like a laser:

1.Individualism, 

2. Free markets, 

3. and Limited constitutional government.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> " Ms. Fluke speaks HER mind and reflects the words of RFK: "Some men see things as they are and say why.
> I dream things that never were and say why not."
> 
> I posted this because I believe Ms. Fluke sees in the New Right an effort by those extremists to put women in their place and asks why.  She likely dreams of the day when the Equal Rights Amendment would no longer necessary.
> 
> Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person.  Is there any greater proof that her ideas and opinions are those of a parrot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person."
> 
> Welcome to Ouch-town, broPopulation: you.
> 
> Youre such a delicate child.you must wash in Woolite.
> 
> 
> So, help me to understand: you don't feature being referred to in the following terms: ignoramus, nincompoop, dunce, stupid, and having abysmal asininity....?
> 
> Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim.
> You've earned each and every one.
> 
> 
> If you need a shoulder to cry on, pull off to the side of the road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing and proving my point.  I explained my reasoning for using a quote by RFK which you ignore and focus on defending your ego from a 'scurrilous" attack.
> 
> An attack which simply pointed out how I perceive you, an honest analysis, unlike your comments about Ms Fluke which were not only exaggerated but vile and mendacious.
> 
> Your ego may inflate by calling others stupid based simply on your disagreement with their opinion.  That's fine on the internet but in a debate or a seminar that behavior would be greeted by laughter and evaluated as a failure.
Click to expand...


Stop sobbing.

Ya' know, jerk, you have the nerve to use the hyperbolic term 'mendacity' with reference to me, and carp that I wipe up the street with you...*and every single thing I said is true.*

You start a fight with me, and before we begin, 
 a) you may want to have the first responders on alert.  
b) state where should we send the flowers
 c) be sure you sign the release form that has the skull and crossbones on it and
d) did you fill out your organ-donor card?



I flunked anger management.
My favorite soup is Cream of Gristle!

Now, step off.


----------



## Bfgrn

AquaAthena said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> March 22.1775, Edmund Burke took the floor of the British Parliament, and explained why his country should seek reconciliation with the Americans, asserting that the colonists derived their ideas about freedom and resistance from their Protestant Christianity.
> 
> They were Protestants of that kind which is *most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,* and their dissent from the Anglican Church *not only favored liberty, it was built upon it.*
> Edmund Burke, The Speech of Edmund Burke, Esq,; On Moving His Resolution for Conciliation with the Colonies, p.15-17.
> 
> Today, another March 22, this great nation is half filled with folks who demand that others pay for their chosen styles of life, their insurance, their leisure....who give up individuality and liberty for the embrace of the collective, the state.
> 
> What would Edmund Burke think of Americans today...and the poster child for the spoiled, full-of-themselves wastrels, Sandra Fluke?
> 
> November will tell if the other kinds of Americans are still around...I think they are.
> 
> Who was Edmund Burke?
> The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion....Edmund Burke*
Click to expand...


It's ironic that I find Burke quotes as some of the best antiseptic for modern conservatism.

Here is a few of my favorites...

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke


----------



## sparky

PoliticalChic said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to sum it up, the founding fathers & company were demanded big gov (namely Brittan) off their backs, then went on to solicit another big gov (France) to defend their mutual interests
> 
> They also instituted a living doctrine , based on a 3 branch system , from what i understand modeled after the indigenous Indian nations, which they wiped out in the next century
> 
> Seems they also sold the ideal of nation building to the aristo's first too, due mainly to the fact they had the most $$$ to loose to the Brits
> 
> and then they went around yammering about all men being created equal, yet equal rights took another 2 centuries to come to fruition
> 
> and you want these folks to be roll models for what PC?
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't sum up....you purloined Howard Zinn's version of United States history....
> 
> And "... a living doctrine , based on a 3 branch system..." ???
> That's the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" version of the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> perspective counts.......
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/books/review/05GEWE01.html?pagewanted=all
> 
> American history was a story of cruel domination by the wealthy and privileged. The founding fathers ''created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times,'' Zinn stated. The Civil War was a conflict of elites, and World War II was fought not to stop fascism but to extend America's empire. The United States and the Soviet Union both sought to control their oppressed populations, ''each country with its own techniques.'' The Vietnam War was a clash between organized modern technology and organized human beings, ''and the human beings won.'' We have traveled a long way from the sophisticated ironies of the consensus historians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, focus like a laser:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Individualism,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Individualism is often contrasted[10] either with totalitarianism or with collectivism, but in fact there is a spectrum of behaviors at the societal level ranging from highly individualistic societies through mixed societies (a term the UK has used[citation needed] in the post-World War II period) to collectivist. Also, many collectivists (particularly supporters of collectivist anarchism or libertarian socialism) point to the enormous differences between liberty-minded collectivism and totalitarian practices.Individualism, sometimes closely associated with certain variants of anarchism or liberalism, typically takes it for granted that individuals know best and that public authority or society has no right to interfere in the person's decision-making process, unless a very compelling need to do so arises (and maybe not even in those circumstances). This type of argument can occur in policy debates regarding regulation of industries, as well as in relation to personal choice of lifestyle.
> Individualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Free markets,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free-market anarchism (sometimes called simply market anarchism,[1] and occasionally libertarian anarchism[2] or propertarian anarchism)[3] refers to an individualist anarchist philosophy in which monopoly of force held by government would be replaced by a competitive market of non-monopolistic organizations providing security, justice, and other defense services.
> Free-market anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. and Limited constitutional government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited government is a government in which anything more than minimal governmental intervention in personal liberties and the economy is not generally allowed by law, usually in a written constitution. It is written in the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 8. It is related to free market libertarianism and classical liberalism and some tendencies of liberalism and conservatism in the United States.[1] The theory of limited government contrasts, for example, with the idea that government should intervene to promote equality and opportunity through regulation of property and wealth redistribution.[2] This definition is generally assumed by those who identify "limited government" with "small government." The national government is only allowed some powers, not supreme power.
> 
> The meaning of "limited government" is most easily grasped in contrast to the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. Under that doctrine, the king, and by extension his entire government, held unlimited sovereignty over its subjects. The king could do what he wanted to do to whomever he wanted to it whenever he chose. Limited government exists where some effective limits restrict governmental power.
> 
> In Western civilization, the Magna Carta stands as the early exemplar of a document limiting the reach of the king's sovereignty. While its limits protected only a small portion of the English population, it did state that the king's barons possessed rights which they could assert against the king. The English Bill of Rights associated with the Glorious Revolution of 1688 established limits of royal sovereignty. The United States Constitution of 1787 created a government limited by the terms of the written document itself, by the election by the people of the legislators and the executive, and by the checks and balances through which the three branches of government limited each others' power.
> 
> Limited government can take many forms. As a conception it has no bearing on whether a government is "large" or "small." It has little to say about how a government should be organized or what policies it should pursue. For example, European social democratic states like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or France, which sustain programs of government supported medicine and other social welfare programs, have limited governments.
> Limited government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


----------



## PoliticalChic

sparky said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to sum it up, the founding fathers & company were demanded big gov (namely Brittan) off their backs, then went on to solicit another big gov (France) to defend their mutual interests
> 
> They also instituted a living doctrine , based on a 3 branch system , from what i understand modeled after the indigenous Indian nations, which they wiped out in the next century
> 
> Seems they also sold the ideal of nation building to the aristo's first too, due mainly to the fact they had the most $$$ to loose to the Brits
> 
> and then they went around yammering about all men being created equal, yet equal rights took another 2 centuries to come to fruition
> 
> and you want these folks to be roll models for what PC?
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> perspective counts.......
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/books/review/05GEWE01.html?pagewanted=all
> 
> American history was a story of cruel domination by the wealthy and privileged. The founding fathers ''created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times,'' Zinn stated. The Civil War was a conflict of elites, and World War II was fought not to stop fascism but to extend America's empire. The United States and the Soviet Union both sought to control their oppressed populations, ''each country with its own techniques.'' The Vietnam War was a clash between organized modern technology and organized human beings, ''and the human beings won.'' We have traveled a long way from the sophisticated ironies of the consensus historians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok...
> 
> Individualism is often contrasted[10] either with totalitarianism or with collectivism, but in fact there is a spectrum of behaviors at the societal level ranging from highly individualistic societies through mixed societies (a term the UK has used[citation needed] in the post-World War II period) to collectivist. Also, many collectivists (particularly supporters of collectivist anarchism or libertarian socialism) point to the enormous differences between liberty-minded collectivism and totalitarian practices.Individualism, sometimes closely associated with certain variants of anarchism or liberalism, typically takes it for granted that individuals know best and that public authority or society has no right to interfere in the person's decision-making process, unless a very compelling need to do so arises (and maybe not even in those circumstances). This type of argument can occur in policy debates regarding regulation of industries, as well as in relation to personal choice of lifestyle.
> Individualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Free-market anarchism (sometimes called simply market anarchism,[1] and occasionally libertarian anarchism[2] or propertarian anarchism)[3] refers to an individualist anarchist philosophy in which monopoly of force held by government would be replaced by a competitive market of non-monopolistic organizations providing security, justice, and other defense services.
> Free-market anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. and Limited constitutional government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited government is a government in which anything more than minimal governmental intervention in personal liberties and the economy is not generally allowed by law, usually in a written constitution. It is written in the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 8. It is related to free market libertarianism and classical liberalism and some tendencies of liberalism and conservatism in the United States.[1] The theory of limited government contrasts, for example, with the idea that government should intervene to promote equality and opportunity through regulation of property and wealth redistribution.[2] This definition is generally assumed by those who identify "limited government" with "small government." The national government is only allowed some powers, not supreme power.
> 
> The meaning of "limited government" is most easily grasped in contrast to the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. Under that doctrine, the king, and by extension his entire government, held unlimited sovereignty over its subjects. The king could do what he wanted to do to whomever he wanted to it whenever he chose. Limited government exists where some effective limits restrict governmental power.
> 
> In Western civilization, the Magna Carta stands as the early exemplar of a document limiting the reach of the king's sovereignty. While its limits protected only a small portion of the English population, it did state that the king's barons possessed rights which they could assert against the king. The English Bill of Rights associated with the Glorious Revolution of 1688 established limits of royal sovereignty. The United States Constitution of 1787 created a government limited by the terms of the written document itself, by the election by the people of the legislators and the executive, and by the checks and balances through which the three branches of government limited each others' power.
> 
> Limited government can take many forms. As a conception it has no bearing on whether a government is "large" or "small." It has little to say about how a government should be organized or what policies it should pursue. For example, European social democratic states like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or France, which sustain programs of government supported medicine and other social welfare programs, have limited governments.
> Limited government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, your point is.....obfuscation?
Click to expand...


----------



## PoliticalChic

"Not surprisingly, irrefutable evidence has emerged that the man who hated America for at least 70 of his 87 years was &#8212; (Guess what! Shhhhh! No coaching from the audience, please!)....Hate-America Howie was &#8212; a Communist. We always knew that was the worldview of his heart. But now it turns out that he made it official. Hate-America Howie was a formal member of the Communist Party-USA.

Hate America Howie (HAH) taught a class on "Basic Marxism" at party headquarters in Brooklyn, N.Y., advising his "students" that the basic teachings of Marx and Lenin "were sound and should be adhered to by those present"; HAH was a pro-Castro activist and backed radical groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Socialist Workers Party (SWP), Progressive Labor Party, and Black Panther Party; supported a Communist victory in Vietnam, visiting the Communist regime in Hanoi (ala "Hanoi Jane" Fonda &#8212; who &#8212; BTW &#8212; paid tribute to Howie upon his departure); in 1962, while President John F. Kennedy warned the Soviets to back off or suffer the consequences, HAH &#8212; at his quisling best &#8212; publicly protested the U.S. demand for withdrawal of missiles from Cuba ("hence," according to Kincaid, "Zinn wanted the United States and its citizens to be vulnerable to a Soviet nuclear attack" &#8212; Attention, parlor pinks: Note this great nice guy humanitarian's wish for you and me was nearly 10 years after Stalin died); a video tribute to Zinn was posted by the pro-Marxist Institute for Policy Studies (IPW)"
Howard Zinn: Communist liar
http://www.renewamerica.com/analysis/vernon/100809


----------



## Listening

Nosmo King said:


> If we could only live as our founding father did and believe in the same things, what a glorious adventure we would have.
> 
> No paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic, and a life span of around 42 years.



I can see that logical fallacy still exists today as it did in their day.


----------



## yidnar

PoliticalChic said:


> March 22.1775, Edmund Burke took the floor of the British Parliament, and explained why his country should seek reconciliation with the Americans, asserting that the colonists derived their ideas about freedom and resistance from their Protestant Christianity.
> 
> They were Protestants of that kind which is *most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,* and their dissent from the Anglican Church *not only favored liberty, it was built upon it.*
> Edmund Burke, The Speech of Edmund Burke, Esq,; On Moving His Resolution for Conciliation with the Colonies, p.15-17.
> 
> Today, another March 22, this great nation is half filled with folks who demand that others pay for their chosen styles of life, their insurance, their leisure....who give up individuality and liberty for the embrace of the collective, the state.
> 
> What would Edmund Burke think of Americans today...and the poster child for the spoiled, full-of-themselves wastrels, Sandra Fluke?
> 
> November will tell if the other kinds of Americans are still around...I think they are.
> 
> Who was Edmund Burke?
> The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.



the left is what happened to America ...


----------



## Listening

midcan5 said:


> Those are just words my friends, they mean nothing outside of context, especially if you consider the historical reality of the times you worship.



What context would that be ?  One where a set of colonies (and just a subset within that) pulls away from the mother country and has to establish a government from first principles having studied the history of other governments....and somehow comes up with a system of government that has survived pretty well and allowed the U.S. to become somewhat prominent relative to the rest of the world ?



midcan5 said:


> [Read a bit of history sometime - but allow me again, for maybe the hundred time, to ask what conservatism has done for all the people?


And what part of that history don't you understand.  "Conservatism" has provided the world plenty as it has been a philosphy that has allowed the U.S. business community to flourish in ways you can't find in any other nation.  Now, what was the question ?



midcan5 said:


> [No one can answer, as conservatism is merely reactionary partisanship,



I just answered....of course it would be great if you defined conservatisim for us.  Because, as a rule most people can't do it universally.



midcan5 said:


> [and when given the reigns of power a complete failure as Bush Jr demonstrated so well. 'All you need is freedom, freedom is all you need....'



GWB is a poor choice of example given he was not much of a true conservative.  But then, the left can't let go because without Chimera there is no Bellerophon (the likes of Obama).  Of course, this is all mythology, just like the Greeks had.  But you need it to survive.



midcan5 said:


> [Sing it enough times and it still means nada. More to it than empty phrases.



If you can't dazzle them with brilliance.....



midcan5 said:


> [
> "Hirschman draws his examples from three successive waves of reactive thought, that arose in response to the liberal ideas of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, to democratization and the drive toward universal suffrage in the nineteenth century, and to the welfare state in our own century. In each case he identifies three principal arguments invariably used - the theses of perversity, futility, and jeopardy. He illustrates these propositions by ciung writers across the centuries from Alexis de Tocqueville to George Stigler, Herbert Spencer to Jay Forrester, Edmund Burke to Charles Murray."  From backcover http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HIRRHE.html?show=reviews



Case in point.....



midcan5 said:


> [
> Your tries are here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/186726-republican-ideology-through-history-7.html#post4251322


[/QUOTE]

In your own words...nada.


----------



## Bfgrn

Who was Edmund Burke?
The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.







"If I should claim any man as my master, that man would be Burke"
Woodrow Wilson


----------



## Wry Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Of course PC needs to attack anyone who disagrees with her world view - not their ideas, but the person."
> 
> Welcome to Ouch-town, broPopulation: you.
> 
> Youre such a delicate child.you must wash in Woolite.
> 
> 
> So, help me to understand: you don't feature being referred to in the following terms: ignoramus, nincompoop, dunce, stupid, and having abysmal asininity....?
> 
> Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim.
> You've earned each and every one.
> 
> 
> If you need a shoulder to cry on, pull off to the side of the road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing and proving my point.  I explained my reasoning for using a quote by RFK which you ignore and focus on defending your ego from a 'scurrilous" attack.
> 
> An attack which simply pointed out how I perceive you, an honest analysis, unlike your comments about Ms Fluke which were not only exaggerated but vile and mendacious.
> 
> Your ego may inflate by calling others stupid based simply on your disagreement with their opinion.  That's fine on the internet but in a debate or a seminar that behavior would be greeted by laughter and evaluated as a failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop sobbing.
> 
> Ya' know, jerk, you have the nerve to use the hyperbolic term 'mendacity' with reference to me, and carp that I wipe up the street with you...*and every single thing I said is true.*
> 
> You start a fight with me, and before we begin,
> a) you may want to have the first responders on alert.
> b) state where should we send the flowers
> c) be sure you sign the release form that has the skull and crossbones on it and
> d) did you fill out your organ-donor card?
> 
> 
> 
> I flunked anger management.
> My favorite soup is Cream of Gristle!
> 
> Now, step off.
Click to expand...


And with that I LMAO, the "S" on your T-Shirt must stand for for silly; I can think of other words which begin with the letter S, one popularized by Rush Limbaugh.  But, unlike you, I woud never characterize a women using that word.  Its use is reserved for abusers, bullys and cowards.


----------



## daveman

Wry Catcher said:


> Your ego may inflate by calling others stupid based simply on your disagreement with their opinion.


That's exactly what you do.


----------



## daveman

PoliticalChic said:


> "Not surprisingly, irrefutable evidence has emerged that the man who hated America for at least 70 of his 87 years was  (Guess what! Shhhhh! No coaching from the audience, please!)....Hate-America Howie was  a Communist. We always knew that was the worldview of his heart. But now it turns out that he made it official. Hate-America Howie was a formal member of the Communist Party-USA.
> 
> Hate America Howie (HAH) taught a class on "Basic Marxism" at party headquarters in Brooklyn, N.Y., advising his "students" that the basic teachings of Marx and Lenin "were sound and should be adhered to by those present"; HAH was a pro-Castro activist and backed radical groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Socialist Workers Party (SWP), Progressive Labor Party, and Black Panther Party; supported a Communist victory in Vietnam, visiting the Communist regime in Hanoi (ala "Hanoi Jane" Fonda  who  BTW  paid tribute to Howie upon his departure); in 1962, while President John F. Kennedy warned the Soviets to back off or suffer the consequences, HAH  at his quisling best  publicly protested the U.S. demand for withdrawal of missiles from Cuba ("hence," according to Kincaid, "Zinn wanted the United States and its citizens to be vulnerable to a Soviet nuclear attack"  Attention, parlor pinks: Note this great nice guy humanitarian's wish for you and me was nearly 10 years after Stalin died); a video tribute to Zinn was posted by the pro-Marxist Institute for Policy Studies (IPW)"
> Howard Zinn: Communist liar
> Howard Zinn: Communist liar


You know that will only make them love him more.


----------



## editec

I laught at you guys who imagine that the Floundering Fathers believed the same things you do.

FREE MARKETS?

Clearly if you imagine that the FF's stood for those you don't know jackshit about American trade policy.


----------



## sparky

PoliticalChic said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> perspective counts.......
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/books/review/05GEWE01.html?pagewanted=all
> 
> American history was a story of cruel domination by the wealthy and privileged. The founding fathers ''created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times,'' Zinn stated. The Civil War was a conflict of elites, and World War II was fought not to stop fascism but to extend America's empire. The United States and the Soviet Union both sought to control their oppressed populations, ''each country with its own techniques.'' The Vietnam War was a clash between organized modern technology and organized human beings, ''and the human beings won.'' We have traveled a long way from the sophisticated ironies of the consensus historians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok...
> 
> Individualism is often contrasted[10] either with totalitarianism or with collectivism, but in fact there is a spectrum of behaviors at the societal level ranging from highly individualistic societies through mixed societies (a term the UK has used[citation needed] in the post-World War II period) to collectivist. Also, many collectivists (particularly supporters of collectivist anarchism or libertarian socialism) point to the enormous differences between liberty-minded collectivism and totalitarian practices.Individualism, sometimes closely associated with certain variants of anarchism or liberalism, typically takes it for granted that individuals know best and that public authority or society has no right to interfere in the person's decision-making process, unless a very compelling need to do so arises (and maybe not even in those circumstances). This type of argument can occur in policy debates regarding regulation of industries, as well as in relation to personal choice of lifestyle.
> Individualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Free-market anarchism (sometimes called simply market anarchism,[1] and occasionally libertarian anarchism[2] or propertarian anarchism)[3] refers to an individualist anarchist philosophy in which monopoly of force held by government would be replaced by a competitive market of non-monopolistic organizations providing security, justice, and other defense services.
> Free-market anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Limited government is a government in which anything more than minimal governmental intervention in personal liberties and the economy is not generally allowed by law, usually in a written constitution. It is written in the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 8. It is related to free market libertarianism and classical liberalism and some tendencies of liberalism and conservatism in the United States.[1] The theory of limited government contrasts, for example, with the idea that government should intervene to promote equality and opportunity through regulation of property and wealth redistribution.[2] This definition is generally assumed by those who identify "limited government" with "small government." The national government is only allowed some powers, not supreme power.
> 
> The meaning of "limited government" is most easily grasped in contrast to the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. Under that doctrine, the king, and by extension his entire government, held unlimited sovereignty over its subjects. The king could do what he wanted to do to whomever he wanted to it whenever he chose. Limited government exists where some effective limits restrict governmental power.
> 
> In Western civilization, the Magna Carta stands as the early exemplar of a document limiting the reach of the king's sovereignty. While its limits protected only a small portion of the English population, it did state that the king's barons possessed rights which they could assert against the king. The English Bill of Rights associated with the Glorious Revolution of 1688 established limits of royal sovereignty. The United States Constitution of 1787 created a government limited by the terms of the written document itself, by the election by the people of the legislators and the executive, and by the checks and balances through which the three branches of government limited each others' power.
> 
> Limited government can take many forms. As a conception it has no bearing on whether a government is "large" or "small." It has little to say about how a government should be organized or what policies it should pursue. For example, European social democratic states like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or France, which sustain programs of government supported medicine and other social welfare programs, have limited governments.
> Limited government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your point is.....obfuscation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you asked that i focus on topics of _your_ choice
> 
> i did
> 
> unfortunately, while the info i've posted fits the request, and by proxy _your_ OP,  it doesn't seem to jive with _your_ narrow world view
> 
> thus, as with most myoptic extreemists , you choose to fiegn confusion
> 
> the waste of time is not unexpected.....
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


----------



## jillian

sparky said:


> No, you asked that i focus on topics of _your_ choice
> 
> i did
> 
> unfortunately, while the info i've posted fits the request, and by proxy _your_ OP,  it doesn't seem to jive with _your_ narrow world view
> 
> thus, as with most myoptic extreemists , you choose to fiegn confusion
> 
> the waste of time is not unexpected.....
> 
> ~S~



ah...I see  you've figured out that they get "frustrated" if you don't let them frame the debate.


----------



## sparky

more fodder for the futility>

In recent years, there has been a stigma attached to the word protectionism. But in order for a nation to thrive economically, it is vital to make sure its businesses are protected from unregulated foreign competition. And just as the most successful nations in the world right now embrace that principle, the United States has gotten away from it.
During the first century of American independence, the United States was financed through protectionism. After just 100 years, the national net worth was twenty-five billion dollars more than the worlds next wealthiest country, Great Britain. U.S. gross national product was more than twice that of Germany and Russia. The United States was so rich in goods and services that it was more self-sustaining than any industrial power in history. In fact, there wasnt even a need for a federal income tax until 1913. Up until then, the government was supported almost entirely through tariffs and protectionism.

In those days, more than half of the worlds cotton, corn, copper and oil flowed from America, and at least one-third of all steel, iron, silver and gold. Even though the U.S. was not flush with raw materials, excellent manufacturing guaranteed dominance of world markets. Wall Street was overflowing with foreign capital. It was estimated that America could afford to buy the entire United Kingdom, along with all of their national debt. Even the world-leading Bank of England began to borrow money on Wall Street. In short order, New York City was destined to replace London as the worlds financial center.

The Importance of Protecting Our Economy | Economy In Crisis

~S~


----------



## sparky

During colonial times, British law was to arrest and jail anyone with manufacturing talent who relocated from Great Britain to the colonies. In response to this and several trade practices that impeded our ability to manufacture our own resources, economist and founding father Alexander Hamilton drew up steps to build up our own manufacturing  and begin our own country.

Decades later, Abraham Lincoln decided against importing steel from England to build a transcontinental railroad. Instead, he decided to encourage development of our own steel plants. He put import restrictions on British steel thereby giving birth to one of the key industrial engines of growth in this country.

In the darkest days of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt developed a system of import quotas and subsidies for American agriculture. This system remains in place to this day and that same group of farmers now receives annually over $180 billion worth of subsidies.

President Eisenhower, in the mid-1950s, applied oil import quotas. John F. Kennedy produced the seven-point Kennedy textile program of restrictions on textile imports in 1961. Ronald Reagan put import quotas on steel, machine tools, semiconductors and a 50-percent import tariff on motorcycles.


What Made Leaders of the Past Successful? Focusing on American Industry | Economy In Crisis

~S~


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing and proving my point.  I explained my reasoning for using a quote by RFK which you ignore and focus on defending your ego from a 'scurrilous" attack.
> 
> An attack which simply pointed out how I perceive you, an honest analysis, unlike your comments about Ms Fluke which were not only exaggerated but vile and mendacious.
> 
> Your ego may inflate by calling others stupid based simply on your disagreement with their opinion.  That's fine on the internet but in a debate or a seminar that behavior would be greeted by laughter and evaluated as a failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop sobbing.
> 
> Ya' know, jerk, you have the nerve to use the hyperbolic term 'mendacity' with reference to me, and carp that I wipe up the street with you...*and every single thing I said is true.*
> 
> You start a fight with me, and before we begin,
> a) you may want to have the first responders on alert.
> b) state where should we send the flowers
> c) be sure you sign the release form that has the skull and crossbones on it and
> d) did you fill out your organ-donor card?
> 
> 
> 
> I flunked anger management.
> My favorite soup is Cream of Gristle!
> 
> Now, step off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And with that I LMAO, the "S" on your T-Shirt must stand for for silly; I can think of other words which begin with the letter S, one popularized by Rush Limbaugh.  But, unlike you, I woud never characterize a women using that word.  Its use is reserved for abusers, bullys and cowards.
Click to expand...


Now you just leave Bill Clinton out of this!


----------



## PoliticalChic

daveman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Not surprisingly, irrefutable evidence has emerged that the man who hated America for at least 70 of his 87 years was  (Guess what! Shhhhh! No coaching from the audience, please!)....Hate-America Howie was  a Communist. We always knew that was the worldview of his heart. But now it turns out that he made it official. Hate-America Howie was a formal member of the Communist Party-USA.
> 
> Hate America Howie (HAH) taught a class on "Basic Marxism" at party headquarters in Brooklyn, N.Y., advising his "students" that the basic teachings of Marx and Lenin "were sound and should be adhered to by those present"; HAH was a pro-Castro activist and backed radical groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Socialist Workers Party (SWP), Progressive Labor Party, and Black Panther Party; supported a Communist victory in Vietnam, visiting the Communist regime in Hanoi (ala "Hanoi Jane" Fonda  who  BTW  paid tribute to Howie upon his departure); in 1962, while President John F. Kennedy warned the Soviets to back off or suffer the consequences, HAH  at his quisling best  publicly protested the U.S. demand for withdrawal of missiles from Cuba ("hence," according to Kincaid, "Zinn wanted the United States and its citizens to be vulnerable to a Soviet nuclear attack"  Attention, parlor pinks: Note this great nice guy humanitarian's wish for you and me was nearly 10 years after Stalin died); a video tribute to Zinn was posted by the pro-Marxist Institute for Policy Studies (IPW)"
> Howard Zinn: Communist liar
> Howard Zinn: Communist liar
> 
> 
> 
> You know that will only make them love him more.
Click to expand...


OMG- you're right!!!

It's resume enhancement to the Left!!!!


----------



## PoliticalChic

editec said:


> I laught at you guys who imagine that the Floundering Fathers believed the same things you do.
> 
> FREE MARKETS?
> 
> Clearly if you imagine that the FF's stood for those you don't know jackshit about American trade policy.



Although I always like to give you a good laugh, that your downward trajectory is increasing due to the effects of political gravity....

Let me show you what has happened to the free market: Regulation


1.	Consider, by example, Title 42 of the US Code: Laws dealing with public health and welfare.  USC : Title 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE | LII / Legal Information Institute 
Today, this federal law is 1700 pages more than it was prior to the New Deal.  The reason is the creation of more and more bureaus and agencies endowed with ever broader responsibilities and discretion in defining the rules that govern our activities and our lives. And these rules have the full force of law! Congress has increased the number of rules whose infractions are criminalized, waiving the common law requirement that one knows he is breaking the law.  Today, one can be jailed for violating a regulation that one had no reason to know even existed! 

a.	While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often, they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions. 

From his lecture, James L. Buckley  Freedom at Risk: Reflections on Politics, Liberty, and the State



	There seem to be only two ironclad rules of government: 
Rule no.1: Always try to expand; 
Rule no. 2:  see Rule no. 1.   
Beck, Balfe, Broke, p. 115


----------



## PoliticalChic

sparky said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your point is.....obfuscation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you asked that i focus on topics of _your_ choice
> 
> i did
> 
> unfortunately, while the info i've posted fits the request, and by proxy _your_ OP,  it doesn't seem to jive with _your_ narrow world view
> 
> thus, as with most myoptic extreemists , you choose to fiegn confusion
> 
> the waste of time is not unexpected.....
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that I obviated your blather by showing what a poor source Zinn is for American history...
> 
> and find that you prove that you have no understanding of the Constitution, once you refer to a 'living Constitution.'
Click to expand...


----------



## PoliticalChic

jillian said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you asked that i focus on topics of _your_ choice
> 
> i did
> 
> unfortunately, while the info i've posted fits the request, and by proxy _your_ OP,  it doesn't seem to jive with _your_ narrow world view
> 
> thus, as with most myoptic extreemists , you choose to fiegn confusion
> 
> the waste of time is not unexpected.....
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ah...I see  you've figured out that they get "frustrated" if you don't let them frame the debate.
Click to expand...


"they get "frustrated" if you don't let them frame the debate."
Couldn't agree more!

1.  That's why the NYTimes used the term *'white* Hispanic' for Mr. Zimmerman....

2. ..and ignored this story: 
YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE, WHITE BOY: 13-YEAR-OLD SET ON FIRE IN HORRIFIC RACIALLY CHARGED ATTACK"
Horrifying: 13-Year-Old White Boy Set On Fire In Racially-Charged Attack | Video | TheBlaze.com


I'm certain that you noted that strategy from the Left.....


----------



## rightwinger

yidnar said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> March 22.1775, Edmund Burke took the floor of the British Parliament, and explained why his country should seek reconciliation with the Americans, asserting that the colonists derived their ideas about freedom and resistance from their Protestant Christianity.
> 
> They were Protestants of that kind which is *most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,* and their dissent from the Anglican Church *not only favored liberty, it was built upon it.*
> Edmund Burke, The Speech of Edmund Burke, Esq,; On Moving His Resolution for Conciliation with the Colonies, p.15-17.
> 
> Today, another March 22, this great nation is half filled with folks who demand that others pay for their chosen styles of life, their insurance, their leisure....who give up individuality and liberty for the embrace of the collective, the state.
> 
> What would Edmund Burke think of Americans today...and the poster child for the spoiled, full-of-themselves wastrels, Sandra Fluke?
> 
> November will tell if the other kinds of Americans are still around...I think they are.
> 
> Who was Edmund Burke?
> The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the left is what happened to America ...
Click to expand...


The left created America


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> March 22.1775, Edmund Burke took the floor of the British Parliament, and explained why his country should seek reconciliation with the Americans, asserting that the colonists derived their ideas about freedom and resistance from their Protestant Christianity.
> 
> They were Protestants of that kind which is *most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,* and their dissent from the Anglican Church *not only favored liberty, it was built upon it.*
> Edmund Burke, The Speech of Edmund Burke, Esq,; On Moving His Resolution for Conciliation with the Colonies, p.15-17.
> 
> Today, another March 22, this great nation is half filled with folks who demand that others pay for their chosen styles of life, their insurance, their leisure....who give up individuality and liberty for the embrace of the collective, the state.
> 
> What would Edmund Burke think of Americans today...and the poster child for the spoiled, full-of-themselves wastrels, Sandra Fluke?
> 
> November will tell if the other kinds of Americans are still around...I think they are.
> 
> Who was Edmund Burke?
> The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the left is what happened to America ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The left created America
Click to expand...


So....how many times did you fail history, if you don't mind my asking?


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yidnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> the left is what happened to America ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left created America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So....how many times did you fail history, if you don't mind my asking?
Click to expand...


I did quite well actually..

It was the right wing Torries who defended the crown


----------



## PoliticalChic

sparky said:


> During colonial times, British law was to arrest and jail anyone with manufacturing talent who relocated from Great Britain to the colonies. In response to this and several trade practices that impeded our ability to manufacture our own resources, economist and founding father Alexander Hamilton drew up steps to build up our own manufacturing  and begin our own country.
> 
> Decades later, Abraham Lincoln decided against importing steel from England to build a transcontinental railroad. Instead, he decided to encourage development of our own steel plants. He put import restrictions on British steel thereby giving birth to one of the key industrial engines of growth in this country.
> 
> In the darkest days of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt developed a system of import quotas and subsidies for American agriculture. This system remains in place to this day and that same group of farmers now receives annually over $180 billion worth of subsidies.
> 
> President Eisenhower, in the mid-1950s, applied oil import quotas. John F. Kennedy produced the seven-point Kennedy textile program of restrictions on textile imports in 1961. Ronald Reagan put import quotas on steel, machine tools, semiconductors and a 50-percent import tariff on motorcycles.
> 
> 
> What Made Leaders of the Past Successful? Focusing on American Industry | Economy In Crisis
> 
> ~S~



This is my fav:

"In the darkest days of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt developed..."

Another of those FDR hagiographies....


In actuality:
"How to Turn a Recession into a Depression

by William A. Niskanen

Four federal economic policies transformed the Hoover recession into the Great Depression: higher tariffs, stronger unions, higher marginal tax rates, and a lower money supply. President Obama, unfortunately, has endorsed some variant of the first three of these policies, and he will face a critical choice on monetary policy in a year or so."
How to Turn a Recession into a Depression


----------



## Triton

Keep the collectivism in the compact urban areas where it belongs.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left created America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....how many times did you fail history, if you don't mind my asking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did quite well actually..
> 
> It was the right wing Torries who defended the crown
Click to expand...


Here's your remedial:


1. Classical liberalism
	a. The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked *liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power)* precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal. War Is the Health of the State

	b. Wilson and the *Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent*, but the voters didnt agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where men of action were creating utopias. Also, *John Dewey renamed Progressivism as liberalism,* which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. *Dewey changed the meaning* to *the Prussian meaning*: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.

c. Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to *repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding.* Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism. 
John Dewey and the Philosophical Refounding of America by Tiffany Jones Miller - National Review Online

	d. DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion. 


Again: "...repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding."

So, you can see that the Left definitely is not responsible for the greatness that is (was?) America.

Ain't knowledge great?


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....how many times did you fail history, if you don't mind my asking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did quite well actually..
> 
> It was the right wing Torries who defended the crown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's your remedial:
> 
> 
> 1. Classical liberalism
> a. &#8220;The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked *liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power)* precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.&#8221; War Is the Health of the State
> 
> b. Wilson and the *Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent*, but the voters didn&#8217;t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where &#8216;men of action&#8217; were creating utopias. Also, *John Dewey renamed Progressivism as &#8216;liberalism,&#8217;* which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. *Dewey changed the meaning* to *the Prussian meaning*: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.
> 
> c. &#8220;Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to *repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding.* Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.&#8221;
> John Dewey and the Philosophical Refounding of America by Tiffany Jones Miller - National Review Online
> 
> d. &#8220;DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion.
> 
> 
> Again: "...repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding."
> 
> So, you can see that the Left definitely is not responsible for the greatness that is (was?) America.
> 
> Ain't knowledge great?
Click to expand...


Revisionist crapola.......

Each generation faces it's own challenges. Those challenges are met through either a liberal or conservative mindset. As each challenge is different, the chosen path for meeting it will change. 

During the founding of this great nation, it was the liberal, or left wing that developed the complex strategy to form a new nation predicated on the equality of man. 
Meanwhile, the conservatives of the day, who we like to call right wing, resisted those changes and maintained their loyalty to the monarchy.

Isn't history great when you don't change it to meet your 21st century agenda?


----------



## regent

The recent dilemmas of conservatives has been threefold. One, how to blame the Bush recession on Obama, two, how to turn the slow recovery into a deepening recession, three, how to make liberalism a conservative idea.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did quite well actually..
> 
> It was the right wing Torries who defended the crown
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's your remedial:
> 
> 
> 1. Classical liberalism
> a. The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked *liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power)* precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal. War Is the Health of the State
> 
> b. Wilson and the *Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent*, but the voters didnt agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where men of action were creating utopias. Also, *John Dewey renamed Progressivism as liberalism,* which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. *Dewey changed the meaning* to *the Prussian meaning*: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.
> 
> c. Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to *repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding.* Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.
> John Dewey and the Philosophical Refounding of America by Tiffany Jones Miller - National Review Online
> 
> d. DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion.
> 
> 
> Again: "...repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding."
> 
> So, you can see that the Left definitely is not responsible for the greatness that is (was?) America.
> 
> Ain't knowledge great?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revisionist crapola.......
> 
> Each generation faces it's own challenges. Those challenges are met through either a liberal or conservative mindset. As each challenge is different, the chosen path for meeting it will not change.
> 
> During the founding of this great nation, it was the liberal, or left wing that developed the complex strategy to form a new nation predicated on the equality of man.
> Meanwhile, the conservatives of the day, who we like to call right wing, resisted those changes and maintained their loyalty to the monarchy.
> 
> Isn't history great when you don't change it to meet your 21st century agenda?
Click to expand...


I fully understand your fear to accept the truth.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> The recent dilemmas of conservatives has been threefold. One, how to blame the Bush recession on Obama, two, how to turn the slow recovery into a deepening recession, three, how to make liberalism a conservative idea.



reggie, there is not one teeny-weeny, itsy-bitsy mote of truth in your entire post.

Unless it's in some kind of upside-down, backwards-writing, bizarro code.....
...is it?

Otherwise, you're getting to be as flaky as Greek pastry.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's your remedial:
> 
> 
> 1. Classical liberalism
> a. The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked *liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power)* precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal. War Is the Health of the State
> 
> b. Wilson and the *Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent*, but the voters didnt agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where men of action were creating utopias. Also, *John Dewey renamed Progressivism as liberalism,* which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. *Dewey changed the meaning* to *the Prussian meaning*: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.
> 
> c. Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to *repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding.* Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.
> John Dewey and the Philosophical Refounding of America by Tiffany Jones Miller - National Review Online
> 
> d. DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion.
> 
> 
> Again: "...repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding."
> 
> So, you can see that the Left definitely is not responsible for the greatness that is (was?) America.
> 
> Ain't knowledge great?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist crapola.......
> 
> Each generation faces it's own challenges. Those challenges are met through either a liberal or conservative mindset. As each challenge is different, the chosen path for meeting it will not change.
> 
> During the founding of this great nation, it was the liberal, or left wing that developed the complex strategy to form a new nation predicated on the equality of man.
> Meanwhile, the conservatives of the day, who we like to call right wing, resisted those changes and maintained their loyalty to the monarchy.
> 
> Isn't history great when you don't change it to meet your 21st century agenda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fully understand your fear to accept the truth.
Click to expand...


The truth is that most significant social changes in this country have come about because of liberals. Those we like to call "left"

These changes have included ending slavery, womens rights, labor laws, environmental proections, civil rights, gay rights....

What has remained constant through our history is that these social changes have been strongly resisted by conservatives .

Many still are


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist crapola.......
> 
> Each generation faces it's own challenges. Those challenges are met through either a liberal or conservative mindset. As each challenge is different, the chosen path for meeting it will not change.
> 
> During the founding of this great nation, it was the liberal, or left wing that developed the complex strategy to form a new nation predicated on the equality of man.
> Meanwhile, the conservatives of the day, who we like to call right wing, resisted those changes and maintained their loyalty to the monarchy.
> 
> Isn't history great when you don't change it to meet your 21st century agenda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fully understand your fear to accept the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth is that most significant social changes in this country have come about because of liberals. Those we like to call "left"
> 
> These changes have included ending slavery, womens rights, labor laws, environmental proections, civil rights, gay rights....
> 
> What has remained constant through our history is that these social changes have been strongly resisted by conservatives .
> 
> Many still are
Click to expand...


Of course your point is refuted right in item #1: "...individualism, private property, and limits on power."

Unless you would like to argue that the phrase identifies  Modern Liberals....

Didn't think so.


----------



## Wry Catcher

regent said:


> The recent dilemmas of conservatives has been threefold. One, how to blame the Bush recession on Obama, two, how to turn the slow recovery into a deepening recession, three, how to make liberalism a conservative idea.



Clear, concise and spot on.  And you did all that without an internet search and posting a outline of partisan pablum.  Thanks.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wry Catcher said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The recent dilemmas of conservatives has been threefold. One, how to blame the Bush recession on Obama, two, how to turn the slow recovery into a deepening recession, three, how to make liberalism a conservative idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clear, concise and spot on.  And you did all that without an internet search and posting a outline of partisan pablum.  Thanks.
Click to expand...


You have all the discrimination of Don Quixote.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully understand your fear to accept the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that most significant social changes in this country have come about because of liberals. Those we like to call "left"
> 
> These changes have included ending slavery, womens rights, labor laws, environmental proections, civil rights, gay rights....
> 
> What has remained constant through our history is that these social changes have been strongly resisted by conservatives .
> 
> Many still are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course your point is refuted right in item #1: "...individualism, private property, and limits on power."
> 
> Unless you would like to argue that the phrase identifies  Modern Liberals....
> 
> Didn't think so.
Click to expand...


You mean your cut and paste?

Refutes nothing, just more of you blindly posting rightwing propaganda and selling it as your own opinion


----------



## Wry Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The recent dilemmas of conservatives has been threefold. One, how to blame the Bush recession on Obama, two, how to turn the slow recovery into a deepening recession, three, how to make liberalism a conservative idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clear, concise and spot on.  And you did all that without an internet search and posting a outline of partisan pablum.  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have all the discrimination of Don Quixote.
Click to expand...


To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
To run where the brave dare not go

To right the unrightable wrong
To love pure and chaste from afar (ah, skip this one)
To try when the arms are too weary
To reach the unreachable star

This is my quest,
To follow that star
No matter how hopeless
No matter how far

To fight for the right
Without question or pause
To be willing to march into Hell
For a heavenly cause

And I know if I'll only be true 
To this glorious quest
That my heart will lie peaceful and calm
When I'm laid to my rest

And the world will be better for this
That one man, scorned and covered with scars
Still strove with his last ounce of courage
To reach the unreachable star

I find Don Quixote quite admirable; unlike Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, McConnell, Boehner or Cantor.  That is quite discriminating, in my humble opinion.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist crapola.......
> 
> Each generation faces it's own challenges. Those challenges are met through either a liberal or conservative mindset. As each challenge is different, the chosen path for meeting it will not change.
> 
> During the founding of this great nation, it was the liberal, or left wing that developed the complex strategy to form a new nation predicated on the equality of man.
> Meanwhile, the conservatives of the day, who we like to call right wing, resisted those changes and maintained their loyalty to the monarchy.
> 
> Isn't history great when you don't change it to meet your 21st century agenda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fully understand your fear to accept the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth is that most significant social changes in this country have come about because of liberals. Those we like to call "left"
> 
> These changes have included ending slavery, womens rights, labor laws, environmental proections, civil rights, gay rights....
> 
> What has remained constant through our history is that these social changes have been strongly resisted by conservatives .
> 
> Many still are
Click to expand...



 'The truth is that most significant social changes in this country have come about because of liberals. Those we like to call "left"'

I suppose if I want something done right, I'll have to do it myself.

1. *Woodrow Wilson*, you philosophical doppelganger, wished to establish an administrative state of unelected bureaucrats. He wanted government indoctrination of children. He wanted to see the Constitution discarded. He wanted unbridled systemic racism. He instituted the Hegelian view of the collective as superior to the individual, and made America into the first fascist nation.
*Behold your patriarch.*

a.  The electorate threw his successors out in a huge landslide election. (Be prepared for same in November).

2. The fulcrum of the progressive century was* FDR.* 

a. Consider the following *pluses for FDR*( from The Hundred Days of FDR, by Schlesinger)
	"Who can now imagine a day when America offered no Social Security, no unemployment compensation, no food stamps, no Federal guarantee of bank deposits, no Federal supervision of the stock market, no Federal protection for collective bargaining, no Federal standards for wages and hours, no Federal support for farm prices or rural electrification, no Federal refinancing for farm and home mortgages, no Federal commitment to high employment or to equal opportunity - in short, no Federal responsibility for Americans who found themselves, through no fault of their own, in economic or social distress?"
http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/11/26/specials/schlesinger-hundred.html

That's what you should have posted.

b. But, *FDR decided he was far more prescient than our Founders,* and he endangered this great nation by inserting *equality of result* where the Founders had written equality of opportunity.

He memorialized his view in the *Second Bill of Rights* speech, in which he incorrectly called a batch of new *entitlements, as 'rights."*

3. The legacy of Barack Obama will be that he coalesced all those who recognize the errors of progressive socialism.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clear, concise and spot on.  And you did all that without an internet search and posting a outline of partisan pablum.  Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have all the discrimination of Don Quixote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To dream the impossible dream
> To fight the unbeatable foe
> To bear with unbearable sorrow
> To run where the brave dare not go
> 
> To right the unrightable wrong
> To love pure and chaste from afar (ah, skip this one)
> To try when the arms are too weary
> To reach the unreachable star
> 
> This is my quest,
> To follow that star
> No matter how hopeless
> No matter how far
> 
> To fight for the right
> Without question or pause
> To be willing to march into Hell
> For a heavenly cause
> 
> And I know if I'll only be true
> To this glorious quest
> That my heart will lie peaceful and calm
> When I'm laid to my rest
> 
> And the world will be better for this
> That one man, scorned and covered with scars
> Still strove with his last ounce of courage
> To reach the unreachable star
> 
> I find Don Quixote quite admirable; unlike Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, McConnell, Boehner or Cantor.  That is quite discriminating, in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...


I knew you were good for something: I didn't even have to put in a quarter!

And, I'm glad that you recognize that you have every reason to be humble.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that most significant social changes in this country have come about because of liberals. Those we like to call "left"
> 
> These changes have included ending slavery, womens rights, labor laws, environmental proections, civil rights, gay rights....
> 
> What has remained constant through our history is that these social changes have been strongly resisted by conservatives .
> 
> Many still are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course your point is refuted right in item #1: "...individualism, private property, and limits on power."
> 
> Unless you would like to argue that the phrase identifies  Modern Liberals....
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean your cut and paste?
> 
> Refutes nothing, just more of you blindly posting rightwing propaganda and selling it as your own opinion
Click to expand...


I've often been gratified to find that the only thing lesser posters can find to criticize is the style of a post....


----------



## Dragon

To argue that classical liberalism was about small, limited government is equivalent to arguing that transportation is about horsemanship.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course your point is refuted right in item #1: "...individualism, private property, and limits on power."
> 
> Unless you would like to argue that the phrase identifies  Modern Liberals....
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean your cut and paste?
> 
> Refutes nothing, just more of you blindly posting rightwing propaganda and selling it as your own opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've often been gratified to find that the only thing lesser posters can find to criticize is the style of a post....
Click to expand...


You have "lesser posters" now?


----------



## sparky

PoliticalChic said:


> I've often been gratified to find that the only thing lesser posters can find to criticize is the style of a post....



Usually the ability to digest and debate flys anywhere PC

you see, things political are _not_ a hard science, so those of us that rise to constructive critique accept that

but those history revisionists just piss me off, same as holocaust deniers do

that  they'll continue on, even in light of some reading members that have actual sheepskins in history, or those that can easily provide historical links 

it's the epitome of ignorance parading itself publicly

a shame it sells so well.....

~S~


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully understand your fear to accept the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that most significant social changes in this country have come about because of liberals. Those we like to call "left"
> 
> These changes have included ending slavery, womens rights, labor laws, environmental proections, civil rights, gay rights....
> 
> What has remained constant through our history is that these social changes have been strongly resisted by conservatives .
> 
> Many still are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 'The truth is that most significant social changes in this country have come about because of liberals. Those we like to call "left"'
> 
> I suppose if I want something done right, I'll have to do it myself.
> 
> 1. *Woodrow Wilson*, you philosophical doppelganger, wished to establish an administrative state of unelected bureaucrats. He wanted government indoctrination of children. He wanted to see the Constitution discarded. He wanted unbridled systemic racism. He instituted the Hegelian view of the collective as superior to the individual, and made America into the first fascist nation.
> *Behold your patriarch.*
> 
> a.  The electorate threw his successors out in a huge landslide election. (Be prepared for same in November).
> 
> 2. The fulcrum of the progressive century was* FDR.*
> 
> a. Consider the following *pluses for FDR*( from The Hundred Days of FDR, by Schlesinger)
> "Who can now imagine a day when America offered no Social Security, no unemployment compensation, no food stamps, no Federal guarantee of bank deposits, no Federal supervision of the stock market, no Federal protection for collective bargaining, no Federal standards for wages and hours, no Federal support for farm prices or rural electrification, no Federal refinancing for farm and home mortgages, no Federal commitment to high employment or to equal opportunity - in short, no Federal responsibility for Americans who found themselves, through no fault of their own, in economic or social distress?"
> http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/11/26/specials/schlesinger-hundred.html
> 
> That's what you should have posted.
> 
> b. But, *FDR decided he was far more prescient than our Founders,* and he endangered this great nation by inserting *equality of result* where the Founders had written equality of opportunity.
> 
> He memorialized his view in the *Second Bill of Rights* speech, in which he incorrectly called a batch of new *entitlements, as 'rights."*
> 
> 3. The legacy of Barack Obama will be that he coalesced all those who recognize the errors of progressive socialism.
Click to expand...


I hope you realize what you just cut and pasted has nothing to do with what I posted

Do you even bother to read or do you just blindly cut and paste your rightwing propaganda?


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean your cut and paste?
> 
> Refutes nothing, just more of you blindly posting rightwing propaganda and selling it as your own opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've often been gratified to find that the only thing lesser posters can find to criticize is the style of a post....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have "lesser posters" now?
Click to expand...


Shoe fit?


----------



## PoliticalChic

sparky said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've often been gratified to find that the only thing lesser posters can find to criticize is the style of a post....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Usually the ability to digest and debate flys anywhere PC
> 
> you see, things political are _not_ a hard science, so those of us that rise to constructive critique accept that
> 
> but those history revisionists just piss me off, same as holocaust deniers do
> 
> that  they'll continue on, even in light of some reading members that have actual sheepskins in history, or those that can easily provide historical links
> 
> it's the epitome of ignorance parading itself publicly
> 
> a shame it sells so well.....
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


What you've failed to consider is that some of those "actual sheepskins in history" are, actually, worthless.

If you have been 'educated' under the wings of biased professors....perhaps education is no more than indoctrination in that case.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that most significant social changes in this country have come about because of liberals. Those we like to call "left"
> 
> These changes have included ending slavery, womens rights, labor laws, environmental proections, civil rights, gay rights....
> 
> What has remained constant through our history is that these social changes have been strongly resisted by conservatives .
> 
> Many still are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'The truth is that most significant social changes in this country have come about because of liberals. Those we like to call "left"'
> 
> I suppose if I want something done right, I'll have to do it myself.
> 
> 1. *Woodrow Wilson*, you philosophical doppelganger, wished to establish an administrative state of unelected bureaucrats. He wanted government indoctrination of children. He wanted to see the Constitution discarded. He wanted unbridled systemic racism. He instituted the Hegelian view of the collective as superior to the individual, and made America into the first fascist nation.
> *Behold your patriarch.*
> 
> a.  The electorate threw his successors out in a huge landslide election. (Be prepared for same in November).
> 
> 2. The fulcrum of the progressive century was* FDR.*
> 
> a. Consider the following *pluses for FDR*( from The Hundred Days of FDR, by Schlesinger)
> "Who can now imagine a day when America offered no Social Security, no unemployment compensation, no food stamps, no Federal guarantee of bank deposits, no Federal supervision of the stock market, no Federal protection for collective bargaining, no Federal standards for wages and hours, no Federal support for farm prices or rural electrification, no Federal refinancing for farm and home mortgages, no Federal commitment to high employment or to equal opportunity - in short, no Federal responsibility for Americans who found themselves, through no fault of their own, in economic or social distress?"
> http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/11/26/specials/schlesinger-hundred.html
> 
> That's what you should have posted.
> 
> b. But, *FDR decided he was far more prescient than our Founders,* and he endangered this great nation by inserting *equality of result* where the Founders had written equality of opportunity.
> 
> He memorialized his view in the *Second Bill of Rights* speech, in which he incorrectly called a batch of new *entitlements, as 'rights."*
> 
> 3. The legacy of Barack Obama will be that he coalesced all those who recognize the errors of progressive socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you realize what you just cut and pasted has nothing to do with what I posted
> 
> Do you even bother to read or do you just blindly cut and paste your rightwing propaganda?
Click to expand...


So....you're at a loss here, as well?


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've often been gratified to find that the only thing lesser posters can find to criticize is the style of a post....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have "lesser posters" now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shoe fit?
Click to expand...


At least some of us don't have to resort to cutting and pasting the work of others and passing it off as our opinion

Did you actually get through college that way? Pretty pathetic actually


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have "lesser posters" now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shoe fit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least some of us don't have to resort to cutting and pasting the work of others and passing it off as our opinion
> 
> Did you actually get through college that way? Pretty pathetic actually
Click to expand...


See...now you are reduced to prevarication.

I source and link.

I don't know whether you sound more resentful, or more whiny.

Now, why would I be getting under your skin....could it be the truth of my posts?

Could be?


Imagine how you'll feel November 7th......


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shoe fit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least some of us don't have to resort to cutting and pasting the work of others and passing it off as our opinion
> 
> Did you actually get through college that way? Pretty pathetic actually
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See...now you are reduced to prevarication.
> 
> I source and link.
> 
> I don't know whether you sound more resentful, or more whiny.
> 
> Now, why would I be getting under your skin....could it be the truth of my posts?
> 
> Could be?
> 
> 
> Imagine how you'll feel November 7th......
Click to expand...


Just seems intellectually lazy to constantly have to rely on the opinions of others rather than forming your own conclusions


----------



## daveman

PoliticalChic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Not surprisingly, irrefutable evidence has emerged that the man who hated America for at least 70 of his 87 years was  (Guess what! Shhhhh! No coaching from the audience, please!)....Hate-America Howie was  a Communist. We always knew that was the worldview of his heart. But now it turns out that he made it official. Hate-America Howie was a formal member of the Communist Party-USA.
> 
> Hate America Howie (HAH) taught a class on "Basic Marxism" at party headquarters in Brooklyn, N.Y., advising his "students" that the basic teachings of Marx and Lenin "were sound and should be adhered to by those present"; HAH was a pro-Castro activist and backed radical groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Socialist Workers Party (SWP), Progressive Labor Party, and Black Panther Party; supported a Communist victory in Vietnam, visiting the Communist regime in Hanoi (ala "Hanoi Jane" Fonda  who  BTW  paid tribute to Howie upon his departure); in 1962, while President John F. Kennedy warned the Soviets to back off or suffer the consequences, HAH  at his quisling best  publicly protested the U.S. demand for withdrawal of missiles from Cuba ("hence," according to Kincaid, "Zinn wanted the United States and its citizens to be vulnerable to a Soviet nuclear attack"  Attention, parlor pinks: Note this great nice guy humanitarian's wish for you and me was nearly 10 years after Stalin died); a video tribute to Zinn was posted by the pro-Marxist Institute for Policy Studies (IPW)"
> Howard Zinn: Communist liar
> Howard Zinn: Communist liar
> 
> 
> 
> You know that will only make them love him more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG- you're right!!!
> 
> It's resume enhancement to the Left!!!!
Click to expand...

Nothing but.

Remember, "Communism never worked because American never LET it work!  When WE'RE in charge, it'll work GREAT!!"


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least some of us don't have to resort to cutting and pasting the work of others and passing it off as our opinion
> 
> Did you actually get through college that way? Pretty pathetic actually
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See...now you are reduced to prevarication.
> 
> I source and link.
> 
> I don't know whether you sound more resentful, or more whiny.
> 
> Now, why would I be getting under your skin....could it be the truth of my posts?
> 
> Could be?
> 
> 
> Imagine how you'll feel November 7th......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just seems intellectually lazy to constantly have to rely on the opinions of others rather than forming your own conclusions
Click to expand...


Became some kind of thorn in your side, huh?

Seems excessive to post over and over how you object to 'cut and paste'...

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Nope, It *must be the content* that you are objecting to....right-wing rectitude, and *corrections of your misinformation*.
I believe that's it.

Better get used to it.

Now, there is the suggestion that you attended college....then you should know:

1. Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. (Guide to Writing Research Papers: MLA-Style)

2. What has been pejoratively referred to as &#8216;simply cut and paste,&#8217; is, in fact, carefully chosen to substantiate a point. Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts.(Critically Analyzing Information Sources | olinuris.library.cornell.edu)

3. A valid objection to this selection of sources* may be the type of audience being addressed.* Is the &#8216;pasted selection&#8217; aimed at a specialized or a general audience? Do you find *the level &#8216;over your head&#8217;* or is this source too elementary? Ibid.


I'm gonna guess that #3 applies to you.....

...true?


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did quite well actually..
> 
> It was the right wing Torries who defended the crown
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's your remedial:
> 
> 
> 1. Classical liberalism
> a. The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked *liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power)* precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal. War Is the Health of the State
> 
> b. Wilson and the *Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent*, but the voters didnt agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where men of action were creating utopias. Also, *John Dewey renamed Progressivism as liberalism,* which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. *Dewey changed the meaning* to *the Prussian meaning*: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.
> 
> c. Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to *repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding.* Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.
> John Dewey and the Philosophical Refounding of America by Tiffany Jones Miller - National Review Online
> 
> d. DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion.
> 
> 
> Again: "...repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding."
> 
> So, you can see that the Left definitely is not responsible for the greatness that is (was?) America.
> 
> Ain't knowledge great?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revisionist crapola.......
> 
> Each generation faces it's own challenges. Those challenges are met through either a liberal or conservative mindset. As each challenge is different, the chosen path for meeting it will change.
> 
> During the founding of this great nation, it was the liberal, or left wing that developed the complex strategy to form a new nation predicated on the equality of man.
> Meanwhile, the conservatives of the day, who we like to call right wing, resisted those changes and maintained their loyalty to the monarchy.
> 
> Isn't history great when you don't change it to meet your 21st century agenda?
Click to expand...

How would you know?

Modern liberals would have informed on the revolutionaries.  You hate the idea of small government and individual liberties.

This is undeniable.  Predictably, you will deny it, but not credibly.


----------



## daveman

Wry Catcher said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The recent dilemmas of conservatives has been threefold. One, how to blame the Bush recession on Obama, two, how to turn the slow recovery into a deepening recession, three, how to make liberalism a conservative idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clear, concise and spot on.  And you did all that without an internet search and posting a outline of partisan pablum.  Thanks.
Click to expand...

One retard echoing another retard's opinion does not make it fact.  

It just means you like the opinions of retards.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that most significant social changes in this country have come about because of liberals. Those we like to call "left"
> 
> These changes have included ending slavery, womens rights, labor laws, environmental proections, civil rights, gay rights....
> 
> What has remained constant through our history is that these social changes have been strongly resisted by conservatives .
> 
> Many still are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course your point is refuted right in item #1: "...individualism, private property, and limits on power."
> 
> Unless you would like to argue that the phrase identifies  Modern Liberals....
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean your cut and paste?
> 
> Refutes nothing, just more of you blindly posting rightwing propaganda and selling it as your own opinion
Click to expand...

At least she's provided citations.  All you offer is petulant foot-stamping.  

How's that working out for you?


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least some of us don't have to resort to cutting and pasting the work of others and passing it off as our opinion
> 
> Did you actually get through college that way? Pretty pathetic actually
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See...now you are reduced to prevarication.
> 
> I source and link.
> 
> I don't know whether you sound more resentful, or more whiny.
> 
> Now, why would I be getting under your skin....could it be the truth of my posts?
> 
> Could be?
> 
> 
> Imagine how you'll feel November 7th......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just seems intellectually lazy to constantly have to rely on the opinions of others rather than forming your own conclusions
Click to expand...

Then you're intellectually lazy.


----------



## PoliticalChic

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> See...now you are reduced to prevarication.
> 
> I source and link.
> 
> I don't know whether you sound more resentful, or more whiny.
> 
> Now, why would I be getting under your skin....could it be the truth of my posts?
> 
> Could be?
> 
> 
> Imagine how you'll feel November 7th......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just seems intellectually lazy to constantly have to rely on the opinions of others rather than forming your own conclusions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you're intellectually lazy.
Click to expand...


Whistle!

Piling on!

15-yards!


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's your remedial:
> 
> 
> 1. Classical liberalism
> a. The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked *liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power)* precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal. War Is the Health of the State
> 
> b. Wilson and the *Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent*, but the voters didnt agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where men of action were creating utopias. Also, *John Dewey renamed Progressivism as liberalism,* which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. *Dewey changed the meaning* to *the Prussian meaning*: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.
> 
> c. Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to *repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding.* Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.
> John Dewey and the Philosophical Refounding of America by Tiffany Jones Miller - National Review Online
> 
> d. DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion.
> 
> 
> Again: "...repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding."
> 
> So, you can see that the Left definitely is not responsible for the greatness that is (was?) America.
> 
> Ain't knowledge great?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist crapola.......
> 
> Each generation faces it's own challenges. Those challenges are met through either a liberal or conservative mindset. As each challenge is different, the chosen path for meeting it will change.
> 
> During the founding of this great nation, it was the liberal, or left wing that developed the complex strategy to form a new nation predicated on the equality of man.
> Meanwhile, the conservatives of the day, who we like to call right wing, resisted those changes and maintained their loyalty to the monarchy.
> 
> Isn't history great when you don't change it to meet your 21st century agenda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would you know?
> 
> Modern liberals would have informed on the revolutionaries.  You hate the idea of small government and individual liberties.
> 
> This is undeniable.  Predictably, you will deny it, but not credibly.
Click to expand...


Historically invalid

It was the conservative (Torries) of the day who informed on the liberal patriots. Often costing them their lives


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just seems intellectually lazy to constantly have to rely on the opinions of others rather than forming your own conclusions
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're intellectually lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whistle!
> 
> Piling on!
> 
> 15-yards!
Click to expand...


Sorry Chic...

But using daveman to try to prove you are right is about as low as you can go


----------



## jillian

PoliticalChic said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you asked that i focus on topics of _your_ choice
> 
> i did
> 
> unfortunately, while the info i've posted fits the request, and by proxy _your_ OP,  it doesn't seem to jive with _your_ narrow world view
> 
> thus, as with most myoptic extreemists , you choose to fiegn confusion
> 
> the waste of time is not unexpected.....
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ah...I see  you've figured out that they get "frustrated" if you don't let them frame the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "they get "frustrated" if you don't let them frame the debate."
> Couldn't agree more!
> 
> 1.  That's why the NYTimes used the term *'white* Hispanic' for Mr. Zimmerman....
> 
> 2. ..and ignored this story:
> YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE, WHITE BOY: 13-YEAR-OLD SET ON FIRE IN HORRIFIC RACIALLY CHARGED ATTACK"
> Horrifying: 13-Year-Old White Boy Set On Fire In Racially-Charged Attack | Video | TheBlaze.com
> 
> 
> I'm certain that you noted that strategy from the Left.....
Click to expand...


white hispanic is a census designation. it wasn't made up by the New York Times. Mr. Zimmerman is only HALF hispanic, you know that, right? And he is most certainly white.

Again, you can pretend otherwise if it makes you feel better.  If that helps you justify his hunting a black kid then have at it.

And why do I use the word "hunting"? (just so you're not confused by it). I use the word "hunting" because Mr. Zimmerman was TOLD not to pursue the young man and he did so anyway saying "f*****g coons always get away with it".

I'd think even you would understand that under those circumstances an INVESTIGATION would have been appropriate and it seems that racial hatred *MAY* have been A motivating factor.

Again, so you aren't confused, I use the word "may" simply because the matter WASN'T investigated properly and needs to be.

Surely people of good will can agree on at least that much. 


Right?


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're intellectually lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whistle!
> 
> Piling on!
> 
> 15-yards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Chic...
> 
> But using daveman to try to prove you are right is about as low as you can go
Click to expand...


Silly....I've proven I was right over and over.
I just don't wait for you to admit it verbally....after all, you've admitted
it with your petulance.

My posts are pointed, and well constructed. You don't realize that 
you've admitted as much by the 'cut and paste' perseveration.

While a public message board is the exact venue for giving opinions no matter their provenance, their attachment to reality, or even whether they are on a cognitive wavelength of any human on the planet, one should invest more credence to those that are able to show relevance, documentation and/or links. 
And, of course, a sense of humor.

Some time ago I suggested that the lower Obama falls in the estimation of the electorate, the more short-tempered folks like you will become.

And, voilà!


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whistle!
> 
> Piling on!
> 
> 15-yards!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Chic...
> 
> But using daveman to try to prove you are right is about as low as you can go
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly....I've proven I was right over and over.
> I just don't wait for you to admit it verbally....after all, you've admitted
> it with your petulance.
> 
> My posts are pointed, and well constructed. You don't realize that
> you've admitted as much by the 'cut and paste' perseveration.
> 
> While a public message board is the exact venue for giving opinions no matter their provenance, their attachment to reality, or even whether they are on a cognitive wavelength of any human on the planet, one should invest more credence to those that are able to show relevance, documentation and/or links.
> And, of course, a sense of humor.
> 
> Some time ago I suggested that the lower Obama falls in the estimation of the electorate, the more short-tempered folks like you will become.
> 
> And, voilà!
Click to expand...


Hey...at least you convinced daveman you know what you are talking about


----------



## koshergrl

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have "lesser posters" now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shoe fit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least some of us don't have to resort to cutting and pasting the work of others and passing it off as our opinion
> 
> Did you actually get through college that way? Pretty pathetic actually
Click to expand...

 
You're a fucking idiot.

In COLLEGE you are REQUIRED to provide citations and to reference supporting material. Otherwise you have no argument.

The cites and references SUPPORT your opinion. Your opinion without them is worthless. Which is why your opinions are worthless.

PC, Foxy, some others, and I consistently provide links and evidence to SUPPORT the veracity of our OPINIONS. That is the way argument (at the college level) works, you lazy ignoramus.

Only at usmb have I ever heard somebody criticized for backing up their opinion with evidence. What a loon.


----------



## PoliticalChic

jillian said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> ah...I see  you've figured out that they get "frustrated" if you don't let them frame the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "they get "frustrated" if you don't let them frame the debate."
> Couldn't agree more!
> 
> 1.  That's why the NYTimes used the term *'white* Hispanic' for Mr. Zimmerman....
> 
> 2. ..and ignored this story:
> YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE, WHITE BOY: 13-YEAR-OLD SET ON FIRE IN HORRIFIC RACIALLY CHARGED ATTACK"
> Horrifying: 13-Year-Old White Boy Set On Fire In Racially-Charged Attack | Video | TheBlaze.com
> 
> 
> I'm certain that you noted that strategy from the Left.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> white hispanic is a census designation. it wasn't made up by the New York Times. Mr. Zimmerman is only HALF hispanic, you know that, right? And he is most certainly white.
> 
> Again, you can pretend otherwise if it makes you feel better.  If that helps you justify his hunting a black kid then have at it.
> 
> And why do I use the word "hunting"? (just so you're not confused by it). I use the word "hunting" because Mr. Zimmerman was TOLD not to pursue the young man and he did so anyway saying "f*****g coons always get away with it".
> 
> I'd think even you would understand that under those circumstances an INVESTIGATION would have been appropriate and it seems that racial hatred *MAY* have been A motivating factor.
> 
> Again, so you aren't confused, I use the word "may" simply because the matter WASN'T investigated properly and needs to be.
> 
> Surely people of good will can agree on at least that much.
> 
> 
> Right?
Click to expand...


"...it wasn't made up by the New York Times."
Let's be accurate: what I said was "hat's why *the NYTimes used *the term..."

Census. Not in the press. Not in my memory...in yours?

When was the last time you saw it in the press?

It is *selected by the Left-wing media* to give impetus to folks like you who love to *pretend *that America is a white racist nation....while the proof of the contrary is looking at you from the Oval Office.

And as a flimsy cover for the administration's strategy of ginning up the minority vote.

You agree to that, don't you?


----------



## Listening

PoliticalChic said:


> March 22.1775, Edmund Burke took the floor of the British Parliament, and explained why his country should seek reconciliation with the Americans, asserting that the colonists derived their ideas about freedom and resistance from their Protestant Christianity.
> 
> They were Protestants of that kind which is *most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,* and their dissent from the Anglican Church *not only favored liberty, it was built upon it.*
> Edmund Burke, The Speech of Edmund Burke, Esq,; On Moving His Resolution for Conciliation with the Colonies, p.15-17.
> 
> Today, another March 22, this great nation is half filled with folks who demand that others pay for their chosen styles of life, their insurance, their leisure....who give up individuality and liberty for the embrace of the collective, the state.
> 
> What would Edmund Burke think of Americans today...and the poster child for the spoiled, full-of-themselves wastrels, Sandra Fluke?
> 
> November will tell if the other kinds of Americans are still around...I think they are.
> 
> Who was Edmund Burke?
> The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.



Maybe we could get back to the original (and I might add thought provoking) OP.

If I had to guess, the founding fathers might have taken a look at today's U.S.A. and decided it was to big.

It is clear they feared an overarching central government.  The Articles of Confederation were an example of just how far they were willing to go to keep the federal government from getting to much power.  Alas, they were to weak.

So we got a wonderful U.S. Constitution whose primary function was to LIMIT the federal government in favor of the states.  History bears out this was their intent and it is reflected in the way the country behaved (despite John Marshall) up until we get to FDR (the wanna be king).

By then things are changing fast.  The industrial revolution, our ability to kill each other en mass, and communications are all moving at a torid pace.  We have progress and wars and social upheaval.

We also have all kinds of information.  In fact, it is quite clear that anyone who has a point of view can go find the information/disinformation they need to glom together an argument (it is unfortunate that people like Chris still won't do it...but that's a different story).

The population of the country was about 6,500,000 (from memory) when it was formed.  Even then, decentralization was considered key.

How would they feel about centralizing 310,000,000 people on things like health care ?

Do you really believe there is an economy of scale past 5,000,000 that you get with 310,000,000 ?  Really ?

There is no doubt in my mind where Burke would wind up.

As to Sandra Fluke.....I can only guess he'd be rolling on the floor.  More than likely laughing at both sides.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Chic...
> 
> But using daveman to try to prove you are right is about as low as you can go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly....I've proven I was right over and over.
> I just don't wait for you to admit it verbally....after all, you've admitted
> it with your petulance.
> 
> My posts are pointed, and well constructed. You don't realize that
> you've admitted as much by the 'cut and paste' perseveration.
> 
> While a public message board is the exact venue for giving opinions no matter their provenance, their attachment to reality, or even whether they are on a cognitive wavelength of any human on the planet, one should invest more credence to those that are able to show relevance, documentation and/or links.
> And, of course, a sense of humor.
> 
> Some time ago I suggested that the lower Obama falls in the estimation of the electorate, the more short-tempered folks like you will become.
> 
> And, voilà!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey...at least you convinced daveman you know what you are talking about
Click to expand...


Face-saving?  'Cause you know better.

The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it's still on the list.


----------



## Listening

jillian said:


> Surely people of good will can agree on at least that much.
> 
> 
> Right?



Yes, but this is America !!!


----------



## sparky

PoliticalChic said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've often been gratified to find that the only thing lesser posters can find to criticize is the style of a post....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Usually the ability to digest and debate flys anywhere PC
> 
> you see, things political are _not_ a hard science, so those of us that rise to constructive critique accept that
> 
> but those history revisionists just piss me off, same as holocaust deniers do
> 
> that  they'll continue on, even in light of some reading members that have actual sheepskins in history, or those that can easily provide historical links
> 
> it's the epitome of ignorance parading itself publicly
> 
> a shame it sells so well.....
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you've failed to consider is that some of those "actual sheepskins in history" are, actually, worthless.
> 
> If you have been 'educated' under the wings of biased professors....perhaps education is no more than indoctrination in that case.
Click to expand...


biased professors?

too good.........

i rest my case

~S~


----------



## PoliticalChic

sparky said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually the ability to digest and debate flys anywhere PC
> 
> you see, things political are _not_ a hard science, so those of us that rise to constructive critique accept that
> 
> but those history revisionists just piss me off, same as holocaust deniers do
> 
> that  they'll continue on, even in light of some reading members that have actual sheepskins in history, or those that can easily provide historical links
> 
> it's the epitome of ignorance parading itself publicly
> 
> a shame it sells so well.....
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you've failed to consider is that some of those "actual sheepskins in history" are, actually, worthless.
> 
> If you have been 'educated' under the wings of biased professors....perhaps education is no more than indoctrination in that case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> biased professors?
> 
> too good.........
> 
> i rest my case
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


Your case was lost as soon as you accepted the professors' tales without doing your own research.


----------



## rightwinger

koshergrl said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shoe fit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least some of us don't have to resort to cutting and pasting the work of others and passing it off as our opinion
> 
> Did you actually get through college that way? Pretty pathetic actually
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> In COLLEGE you are REQUIRED to provide citations and to reference supporting material. Otherwise you have no argument.
> 
> The cites and references SUPPORT your opinion. Your opinion without them is worthless. Which is why your opinions are worthless.
> 
> PC, Foxy, some others, and I consistently provide links and evidence to SUPPORT the veracity of our OPINIONS. That is the way argument (at the college level) works, you lazy ignoramus.
> 
> Only at usmb have I ever heard somebody criticized for backing up their opinion with evidence. What a loon.
Click to expand...


Not in lieu of an actual opinion


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist crapola.......
> 
> Each generation faces it's own challenges. Those challenges are met through either a liberal or conservative mindset. As each challenge is different, the chosen path for meeting it will change.
> 
> During the founding of this great nation, it was the liberal, or left wing that developed the complex strategy to form a new nation predicated on the equality of man.
> Meanwhile, the conservatives of the day, who we like to call right wing, resisted those changes and maintained their loyalty to the monarchy.
> 
> Isn't history great when you don't change it to meet your 21st century agenda?
> 
> 
> 
> How would you know?
> 
> Modern liberals would have informed on the revolutionaries.  You hate the idea of small government and individual liberties.
> 
> This is undeniable.  Predictably, you will deny it, but not credibly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Historically invalid
> 
> It was the conservative (Torries) of the day who informed on the liberal patriots. Often costing them their lives
Click to expand...

And the Torries then were nothing like conservatives today.

You lose.


----------



## koshergrl

What a moron you are, rightwinger.

You aren't making sense. I'm sure you make sense to yourself, but your argument is insane gibberish. PC states her opinions and then backs them up. Which pisses you off because you are incapable, for whatever reason, of doing that. So you pretend that the ESTABLISHED way to debate is just to state your own opinion, and allow that to suffice.

Sorry, you're an idiot. Nice attempt to completely turn academic and scholarly discussion on it's ear, but you've never been able to even approach academic and scholarly discussion. I think we can rest assured you never will.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're intellectually lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whistle!
> 
> Piling on!
> 
> 15-yards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Chic...
> 
> But using daveman to try to prove you are right is about as low as you can go
Click to expand...

Really?  When's the last time you provided a citation to any of your bullshit?

You rely solely on opinion.  Just because it comes out of your keyboard doesn't make it true.

I'll give you a moment to come to grips with this shocking reality.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Chic...
> 
> But using daveman to try to prove you are right is about as low as you can go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly....I've proven I was right over and over.
> I just don't wait for you to admit it verbally....after all, you've admitted
> it with your petulance.
> 
> My posts are pointed, and well constructed. You don't realize that
> you've admitted as much by the 'cut and paste' perseveration.
> 
> While a public message board is the exact venue for giving opinions no matter their provenance, their attachment to reality, or even whether they are on a cognitive wavelength of any human on the planet, one should invest more credence to those that are able to show relevance, documentation and/or links.
> And, of course, a sense of humor.
> 
> Some time ago I suggested that the lower Obama falls in the estimation of the electorate, the more short-tempered folks like you will become.
> 
> And, voilà!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey...at least you convinced daveman you know what you are talking about
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, I don't have much patience for idiots who think -- sorry, _feel_ -- that "Because I say so!!" is sufficient corroboration.

This means you.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least some of us don't have to resort to cutting and pasting the work of others and passing it off as our opinion
> 
> Did you actually get through college that way? Pretty pathetic actually
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> In COLLEGE you are REQUIRED to provide citations and to reference supporting material. Otherwise you have no argument.
> 
> The cites and references SUPPORT your opinion. Your opinion without them is worthless. Which is why your opinions are worthless.
> 
> PC, Foxy, some others, and I consistently provide links and evidence to SUPPORT the veracity of our OPINIONS. That is the way argument (at the college level) works, you lazy ignoramus.
> 
> Only at usmb have I ever heard somebody criticized for backing up their opinion with evidence. What a loon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in lieu of an actual opinion
Click to expand...

You really DO believe "Because I say so!!" is proof.

What a retard.


----------



## koshergrl

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silly....I've proven I was right over and over.
> I just don't wait for you to admit it verbally....after all, you've admitted
> it with your petulance.
> 
> My posts are pointed, and well constructed. You don't realize that
> you've admitted as much by the 'cut and paste' perseveration.
> 
> While a public message board is the exact venue for giving opinions no matter their provenance, their attachment to reality, or even whether they are on a cognitive wavelength of any human on the planet, one should invest more credence to those that are able to show relevance, documentation and/or links.
> And, of course, a sense of humor.
> 
> Some time ago I suggested that the lower Obama falls in the estimation of the electorate, the more short-tempered folks like you will become.
> 
> And, voilà!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey...at least you convinced daveman you know what you are talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, well, I don't have much patience for idiots who think -- sorry, _feel_ -- that "Because I say so!!" is sufficient corroboration.
> 
> This means you.
Click to expand...

 
The priceless thing is that he derides those who provide citations and references, lol. 

My lit teacher would have made him a public laughing stock. I can't even begin to imagine what would have happened to him in speech class, or BIOLOGY. My biology professor would have made him wear a flipping dunce cap, or just ousted him from the class.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you know?
> 
> Modern liberals would have informed on the revolutionaries.  You hate the idea of small government and individual liberties.
> 
> This is undeniable.  Predictably, you will deny it, but not credibly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically invalid
> 
> It was the conservative (Torries) of the day who informed on the liberal patriots. Often costing them their lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Torries then were nothing like conservatives today.
> 
> You lose.
Click to expand...


We are talking 1776

Try to keep up


----------



## rightwinger

koshergrl said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey...at least you convinced daveman you know what you are talking about
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, I don't have much patience for idiots who think -- sorry, _feel_ -- that "Because I say so!!" is sufficient corroboration.
> 
> This means you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The priceless thing is that he derides those who provide citations and references, lol.
> 
> My lit teacher would have made him a public laughing stock. I can't even begin to imagine what would have happened to him in speech class, or BIOLOGY. My biology professor would have made him wear a flipping dunce cap, or just ousted him from the class.
Click to expand...


There is nothing wrong with providing references in support of your opinion.....the problem arises when PC provides references in lieu of an opinion


----------



## daveman

koshergrl said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey...at least you convinced daveman you know what you are talking about
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, I don't have much patience for idiots who think -- sorry, _feel_ -- that "Because I say so!!" is sufficient corroboration.
> 
> This means you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The priceless thing is that he derides those who provide citations and references, lol.
> 
> My lit teacher would have made him a public laughing stock. I can't even begin to imagine what would have happened to him in speech class, or BIOLOGY. My biology professor would have made him wear a flipping dunce cap, or just ousted him from the class.
Click to expand...

Indeed.  Liarwinger's "say-so" is worth exactly squat.  

He cannot comprehend this basic fact.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historically invalid
> 
> It was the conservative (Torries) of the day who informed on the liberal patriots. Often costing them their lives
> 
> 
> 
> And the Torries then were nothing like conservatives today.
> 
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking 1776
> 
> Try to keep up
Click to expand...


No, when you brought up the laughable notion that modern liberals are just like the Founding Fathers, you opened it up to modern times.

It must really make you angry that you don't get to dictate anything around here.

Tough shit.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, I don't have much patience for idiots who think -- sorry, _feel_ -- that "Because I say so!!" is sufficient corroboration.
> 
> This means you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The priceless thing is that he derides those who provide citations and references, lol.
> 
> My lit teacher would have made him a public laughing stock. I can't even begin to imagine what would have happened to him in speech class, or BIOLOGY. My biology professor would have made him wear a flipping dunce cap, or just ousted him from the class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with providing references in support of your opinion.....the problem arises when PC provides references in lieu of an opinion
Click to expand...

She doesn't do that.

One of your fellow leftists, Midcan, however, does that all the time.

Yet you never castigate him for it.

The only possible conclusion is that PC kicks your ass repeatedly, and you're desperately flailing for some excuse to show she doesn't.

You fail.


----------



## koshergrl

You're right, that's exactly what midcan does.

He'll post a link, with no comment, no quotation, nothing. When you ask him what his point is, his response is "do your own research, idiot".

Like we're supposed to research HIS opinion and figure it out.

I don't bother with it. Like it matters anyway.


----------



## sparky

Don't know much about history
Don't know much about society
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know jack about the french I took

But I do know what i want it to be
And if you'll fiegn sympathy
What a wonderful forum this would be

Don't know much about geography
Don't know much trigonometry
Don't know much about algebra
Don't know what a slide rule is for

But I know the Founding Fathers rule
And if you'll only be my tool
What a wonderful forum this would be

(wih ap'ologies to S Cooke)
~S~


----------



## daveman

koshergrl said:


> You're right, that's exactly what midcan does.
> 
> He'll post a link, with no comment, no quotation, nothing. When you ask him what his point is, his response is "do your own research, idiot".
> 
> Like we're supposed to research HIS opinion and figure it out.
> 
> I don't bother with it. Like it matters anyway.



Rule of thumb:  If Midcan believes it, it's wrong.


----------



## koshergrl

I dont' even have any luck getting him to say what he thinks. He just posts random crap with nothing to explain it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

sparky said:


> Don't know much about history
> Don't know much about society
> Don't know much about a science book
> Don't know jack about the french I took
> 
> But I do know what i want it to be
> And if you'll fiegn sympathy
> What a wonderful forum this would be
> 
> Don't know much about geography
> Don't know much trigonometry
> Don't know much about algebra
> Don't know what a slide rule is for
> 
> But I know the Founding Fathers rule
> And if you'll only be my tool
> What a wonderful forum this would be
> 
> (wih ap'ologies to S Cooke)
> ~S~
> 
> Sam Cooke - Wonderful World - YouTube



Do you do requests?

Could you sing long ago and far away...

(f-e-i-g-n)


----------



## sparky

Here's my story, it's sad but true
It's about a Chic that I once knew
She took my posts then ran around
With every partisan hack in town

I should have known it from the very start
This Chic will leave me with a broken heart
Now listen people what I'm telling you
A-keep away from-a Partisan Chic, yeah

I might miss her slips and the smile on her face
The touch of her pen and her troll embrace
So if you don't wanna cry like I do
A-keep away from-a Partisan Chic

She likes to post all around, yeah
She'll write you then she'll put you down
Now people let me put you wise
Chic posts with partisan guys

Here's the moral and the story from the guy who knows
I like to post and my post still grows
Ask any fool that she ever wrote, they'll say
A-keep away from-a Partisan Chic



~S~


----------



## daveman

koshergrl said:


> I dont' even have any luck getting him to say what he thinks. He just posts random crap with nothing to explain it.


He doesn't think at all.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> You hate the idea of small government and individual liberties.



Your mistake is in equating those two quite different things.

Liberals, classical or modern, LOVE the idea of individual liberties. Classical liberals loved small government _as a means to that end_. Modern liberals recognize that, since the industrial revolution, that means no longer consistently serves the end.

But it's the end -- liberty -- that defines liberalism, not the means.


----------



## PoliticalChic

sparky said:


> Here's my story, it's sad but true
> It's about a Chic that I once knew
> She took my posts then ran around
> With every partisan hack in town
> 
> I should have known it from the very start
> This Chic will leave me with a broken heart
> Now listen people what I'm telling you
> A-keep away from-a Partisan Chic, yeah
> 
> I might miss her slips and the smile on her face
> The touch of her pen and her troll embrace
> So if you don't wanna cry like I do
> A-keep away from-a Partisan Chic
> 
> She likes to post all around, yeah
> She'll write you then she'll put you down
> Now people let me put you wise
> Chic posts with partisan guys
> 
> Here's the moral and the story from the guy who knows
> I like to post and my post still grows
> Ask any fool that she ever wrote, they'll say
> A-keep away from-a Partisan Chic
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~



Tin-boy! You surprise me with your talent!


Attack...with a sense of humor....pretty my motto too.

Of course, the difference is that I am RIGHT....while you.......



Another of my rules of life: Some people say If you cant beat them, join them. 
I say If you cant beat them, beat them, because they will be expecting you to join them, so you will have the element of surprise.


----------



## Dragon

PoliticalChic said:


> Of course, the difference is that I am RIGHT....while you.......



Are left . . . and therefore right.


----------



## Listening

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hate the idea of small government and individual liberties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your mistake is in equating those two quite different things.
> 
> Liberals, classical or modern, LOVE the idea of individual liberties. Classical liberals loved small government _as a means to that end_. Modern liberals recognize that, since the industrial revolution, that means no longer consistently serves the end.
> 
> But it's the end -- liberty -- that defines liberalism, not the means.
Click to expand...


So you abhord Obamacare......?


----------



## rightwinger

Listening said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hate the idea of small government and individual liberties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your mistake is in equating those two quite different things.
> 
> Liberals, classical or modern, LOVE the idea of individual liberties. Classical liberals loved small government _as a means to that end_. Modern liberals recognize that, since the industrial revolution, that means no longer consistently serves the end.
> 
> But it's the end -- liberty -- that defines liberalism, not the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you abhord Obamacare......?
Click to expand...


Your reading comprehension needs work


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hate the idea of small government and individual liberties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your mistake is in equating those two quite different things.
> 
> Liberals, classical or modern, LOVE the idea of individual liberties. Classical liberals loved small government _as a means to that end_. Modern liberals recognize that, since the industrial revolution, that means no longer consistently serves the end.
> 
> But it's the end -- liberty -- that defines liberalism, not the means.
Click to expand...

Past and recent history say you're wrong.  

Overarching government is anathema to individual liberty.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your mistake is in equating those two quite different things.
> 
> Liberals, classical or modern, LOVE the idea of individual liberties. Classical liberals loved small government _as a means to that end_. Modern liberals recognize that, since the industrial revolution, that means no longer consistently serves the end.
> 
> But it's the end -- liberty -- that defines liberalism, not the means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you abhord Obamacare......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reading comprehension needs work
Click to expand...

"You WILL buy insurance or face government penalties."

Whole lotta liberty in there, huh?


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you abhord Obamacare......?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reading comprehension needs work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You WILL buy insurance or face government penalties."
> 
> Whole lotta liberty in there, huh?
Click to expand...


More than the liberty to go to an emergency room and demand care for free


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your reading comprehension needs work
> 
> 
> 
> "You WILL buy insurance or face government penalties."
> 
> Whole lotta liberty in there, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More than the liberty to go to an emergency room and demand care for free
Click to expand...



You just keep pretending the government cares about you as a person, and unelected bureaucrats have your best interests at heart.


----------



## rightwinger

If not for the worst field of Republican candidates in a generation, the Republicans may have had a chance this year

Mitt Romney, the third best candidate in 2008 is the best they have to offer this go round. On top of the dismal public perception of Republicans in general, all Mitt Romney has to offer is that he passed Obamacare too


----------



## Listening

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your reading comprehension needs work
> 
> 
> 
> "You WILL buy insurance or face government penalties."
> 
> Whole lotta liberty in there, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More than the liberty to go to an emergency room and demand care for free
Click to expand...


So take away the first.....don't add the second.

Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## Listening

rightwinger said:


> If not for the worst field of Republican candidates in a generation, the Republicans may have had a chance this year
> 
> Mitt Romney, the third best candidate in 2008 is the best they have to offer this go round. On top of the dismal public perception of Republicans in general, all Mitt Romney has to offer is that he passed Obamacare too



I'd say the field in 2008 was pretty crappy.

It is very interesting to see how Ron Paul has progressed.  In 2008, he was a wackjob.  Now, he's seen as somewhat legitimate.

What is so funny is that someone out of this group is going to spank Obama in November.

Just like the disorganized GOP kicked your butts in 2010.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> If not for the worst field of Republican candidates in a generation, the Republicans may have had a chance this year
> 
> Mitt Romney, the third best candidate in 2008 is the best they have to offer this go round. On top of the dismal public perception of Republicans in general, all Mitt Romney has to offer is that he passed Obamacare too



He could be the 100th best candidate....

....he'll be running against a man who was overheard promising the Russians that as soon as he tricks the gullible into electing him, he'll be ready to betray America!

"President Barack Obama apparently isn't too worried about the upcoming United States presidential election in November. At a nuclear summit in Seoul, microphones picked up what was supposed to be a private exchange between Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Reuters reported. 

"This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility," Obama was overheard saying."
Obama asks Medvedev for "space" until after election, not realizing the exchange was caught on microphones


Now, I know you won't admit it....but I know you are too much of a patriot to ever vote for this back-stabber.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If not for the worst field of Republican candidates in a generation, the Republicans may have had a chance this year
> 
> Mitt Romney, the third best candidate in 2008 is the best they have to offer this go round. On top of the dismal public perception of Republicans in general, all Mitt Romney has to offer is that he passed Obamacare too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He could be the 100th best candidate....
> 
> ....he'll be running against a man who was overheard promising the Russians that as soon as he tricks the gullible into electing him, he'll be ready to betray America!
> 
> "President Barack Obama apparently isn't too worried about the upcoming United States presidential election in November. At a nuclear summit in Seoul, microphones picked up what was supposed to be a private exchange between Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Reuters reported.
> 
> "This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility," Obama was overheard saying."
> Obama asks Medvedev for "space" until after election, not realizing the exchange was caught on microphones
> 
> 
> Now, I know you won't admit it....but I know you are too much of a patriot to ever vote for this back-stabber.
Click to expand...


Obama has repeatedly indicated that he wants to deplete stockpiles of nuclear weapons on both sides.......as did Reagan

Did you catch your candidate Romney this morning claiming Russia is our greatest enemy?     OOOPS


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If not for the worst field of Republican candidates in a generation, the Republicans may have had a chance this year
> 
> Mitt Romney, the third best candidate in 2008 is the best they have to offer this go round. On top of the dismal public perception of Republicans in general, all Mitt Romney has to offer is that he passed Obamacare too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He could be the 100th best candidate....
> 
> ....he'll be running against a man who was overheard promising the Russians that as soon as he tricks the gullible into electing him, he'll be ready to betray America!
> 
> "President Barack Obama apparently isn't too worried about the upcoming United States presidential election in November. At a nuclear summit in Seoul, microphones picked up what was supposed to be a private exchange between Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Reuters reported.
> 
> "This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility," Obama was overheard saying."
> Obama asks Medvedev for "space" until after election, not realizing the exchange was caught on microphones
> 
> 
> Now, I know you won't admit it....but I know you are too much of a patriot to ever vote for this back-stabber.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama has repeatedly indicated that he wants to deplete stockpiles of nuclear weapons on both sides.......as did Reagan
> 
> Did you catch your candidate Romney this morning claiming Russia is our greatest enemy?     OOOPS
Click to expand...


1. When your idol PROVES what a turncoat he is, I understand you'd hope to spin it.

2. Is there any reason to believe that what you say is the real 'flexibility' since you state that "Obama has repeatedly indicated..."
Therefore, he'd have no reason to try to whisper the message..would he?

3. No...logic dictates that he was offering something so contemptible that the American public would find it revolting....and end his re-election bid.

In your heart of hearts you know the truth....maybe you always knew.

That's what David Mamet meant by "The Left must bear a Sisyphean burden having to *suspend reason and accountability,* in order to rationalize the positions that they claim to espouse."


Only you will know whether you can make the only judgment that an intelligent person can make, or if you are a Left-wing automaton.

I won't ask.


----------



## rightwinger

Listening said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If not for the worst field of Republican candidates in a generation, the Republicans may have had a chance this year
> 
> Mitt Romney, the third best candidate in 2008 is the best they have to offer this go round. On top of the dismal public perception of Republicans in general, all Mitt Romney has to offer is that he passed Obamacare too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say the field in 2008 was pretty crappy.
> 
> It is very interesting to see how Ron Paul has progressed.  In 2008, he was a wackjob.  Now, he's seen as somewhat legitimate.
> 
> What is so funny is that someone out of this group is going to spank Obama in November.
> 
> Just like the disorganized GOP kicked your butts in 2010.
Click to expand...


Obama didn't run in 2010

Now Republicans have to pray that conservatives will get out the vote with Romney leading the ticket. Pretty scary for the GOP


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> He could be the 100th best candidate....
> 
> ....he'll be running against a man who was overheard promising the Russians that as soon as he tricks the gullible into electing him, he'll be ready to betray America!
> 
> "President Barack Obama apparently isn't too worried about the upcoming United States presidential election in November. At a nuclear summit in Seoul, microphones picked up what was supposed to be a private exchange between Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Reuters reported.
> 
> "This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility," Obama was overheard saying."
> Obama asks Medvedev for "space" until after election, not realizing the exchange was caught on microphones
> 
> 
> Now, I know you won't admit it....but I know you are too much of a patriot to ever vote for this back-stabber.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has repeatedly indicated that he wants to deplete stockpiles of nuclear weapons on both sides.......as did Reagan
> 
> Did you catch your candidate Romney this morning claiming Russia is our greatest enemy?     OOOPS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. When your idol PROVES what a turncoat he is, I understand you'd hope to spin it.
> 
> 2. Is there any reason to believe that what you say is the real 'flexibility' since you state that "Obama has repeatedly indicated..."
> Therefore, he'd have no reason to try to whisper the message..would he?
> 
> 3. No...logic dictates that he was offering something so contemptible that the American public would find it revolting....and end his re-election bid.
> 
> In your heart of hearts you know the truth....maybe you always knew.
> 
> That's what David Mamet meant by "The Left must bear a Sisyphean burden having to *suspend reason and accountability,* in order to rationalize the positions that they claim to espouse."
> 
> 
> Only you will know whether you can make the only judgment that an intelligent person can make, or if you are a Left-wing automaton.
> 
> I won't ask.
Click to expand...


There are issues that are not best handled in election years. Reagan himself did not negotiate nuclear reductions until he won his second term

Now....what are we going to do about your man Romney declaring Russia to be our largest foe?

Just a harbinger of his foreign policy naïveté?


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has repeatedly indicated that he wants to deplete stockpiles of nuclear weapons on both sides.......as did Reagan
> 
> Did you catch your candidate Romney this morning claiming Russia is our greatest enemy?     OOOPS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When your idol PROVES what a turncoat he is, I understand you'd hope to spin it.
> 
> 2. Is there any reason to believe that what you say is the real 'flexibility' since you state that "Obama has repeatedly indicated..."
> Therefore, he'd have no reason to try to whisper the message..would he?
> 
> 3. No...logic dictates that he was offering something so contemptible that the American public would find it revolting....and end his re-election bid.
> 
> In your heart of hearts you know the truth....maybe you always knew.
> 
> That's what David Mamet meant by "The Left must bear a Sisyphean burden having to *suspend reason and accountability,* in order to rationalize the positions that they claim to espouse."
> 
> 
> Only you will know whether you can make the only judgment that an intelligent person can make, or if you are a Left-wing automaton.
> 
> I won't ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are issues that are not best handled in election years. Reagan himself did not negotiate nuclear reductions until he won his second term
> 
> Now....what are we going to do about your man Romney declaring Russia to be our largest foe?
> 
> Just a harbinger of his foreign policy naïveté?
Click to expand...


I have a very laid back attitude about most things, and politics specifically....

....but I was shocked, and, I admit, emotionally injured, hearing that open-mic admission.

I'm not over it.

So, I understand why you need to change the subject...but I'm not ready to do that. 
Let's just leave it at that.

Be well.


----------



## Dragon

To want to stop wasting public money on something that can't work as advertised, and exists mainly to funnel profits to defense contractors and secondarily to facilitate the possibility of a first nuclear strike (or at least delusions thereof), is hardly to be a traitor to one's country.


----------



## Dragon

Listening said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hate the idea of small government and individual liberties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your mistake is in equating those two quite different things.
> 
> Liberals, classical or modern, LOVE the idea of individual liberties. Classical liberals loved small government _as a means to that end_. Modern liberals recognize that, since the industrial revolution, that means no longer consistently serves the end.
> 
> But it's the end -- liberty -- that defines liberalism, not the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you abhord Obamacare......?
Click to expand...


Actually, I do. Obamacare comes in for a LOT of criticism from the left. We should have a single payer system, not that piece of crap. It's better than nothing, and having said that, I've pretty much exhausted all the praise it deserves.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Past and recent history say you're wrong.
> 
> Overarching government is anathema to individual liberty.



Whose liberty to do what?

I find conservatives seldom understand what the word "liberty" means. To conservatives, the word applies to the freedom to own slaves, more than to the freedom not to be one. Metaphorically speaking, of course (at least since the literal issue of slavery was settled in the 1860s).


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When your idol PROVES what a turncoat he is, I understand you'd hope to spin it.
> 
> 2. Is there any reason to believe that what you say is the real 'flexibility' since you state that "Obama has repeatedly indicated..."
> Therefore, he'd have no reason to try to whisper the message..would he?
> 
> 3. No...logic dictates that he was offering something so contemptible that the American public would find it revolting....and end his re-election bid.
> 
> In your heart of hearts you know the truth....maybe you always knew.
> 
> That's what David Mamet meant by "The Left must bear a Sisyphean burden having to *suspend reason and accountability,* in order to rationalize the positions that they claim to espouse."
> 
> 
> Only you will know whether you can make the only judgment that an intelligent person can make, or if you are a Left-wing automaton.
> 
> I won't ask.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are issues that are not best handled in election years. Reagan himself did not negotiate nuclear reductions until he won his second term
> 
> Now....what are we going to do about your man Romney declaring Russia to be our largest foe?
> 
> Just a harbinger of his foreign policy naïveté?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a very laid back attitude about most things, and politics specifically....
> 
> ....but I was shocked, and, I admit, emotionally injured, hearing that open-mic admission.
> 
> I'm not over it.
> 
> So, I understand why you need to change the subject...but I'm not ready to do that.
> Let's just leave it at that.
> 
> Be well.
Click to expand...


Awwwwwww.........

Can I give you a hug?


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> To want to stop wasting public money on something that can't work as advertised, and exists mainly to funnel profits to defense contractors and secondarily to facilitate the possibility of a first nuclear strike (or at least delusions thereof), is hardly to be a traitor to one's country.



Bet you supported Obama Solyndra payback, didn't you?


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Past and recent history say you're wrong.
> 
> Overarching government is anathema to individual liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whose liberty to do what?
> 
> I find conservatives seldom understand what the word "liberty" means. *To conservatives, the word applies to the freedom to own slaves*, more than to the freedom not to be one. Metaphorically speaking, of course (at least since the literal issue of slavery was settled in the 1860s).
Click to expand...

You're a retard.  Nobody wants to own slaves, you fucking idiot.

Good Gaea, but you're _stupid_.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> To want to stop wasting public money on something that can't work as advertised, and exists mainly to funnel profits to defense contractors and secondarily to facilitate the possibility of a first nuclear strike (or at least delusions thereof), is hardly to be a traitor to one's country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bet you supported Obama Solyndra payback, didn't you?
Click to expand...


Haven't studied it enough to know. The general idea of support for renewable energy, yes. That particular program (which is not limited to Solyndra -- if we could know ahead of time which companies are going to fail, wouldn't that be grand?), insufficient data.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Nobody wants to own slaves.



Not literally. Not anymore.

I believe I did say I was speaking metaphorically. You do know what a metaphor is, don't you?


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> To want to stop wasting public money on something that can't work as advertised, and exists mainly to funnel profits to defense contractors and secondarily to facilitate the possibility of a first nuclear strike (or at least delusions thereof), is hardly to be a traitor to one's country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bet you supported Obama Solyndra payback, didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't studied it enough to know. The general idea of support for renewable energy, yes. That particular program (which is not limited to Solyndra -- if we could know ahead of time which companies are going to fail, wouldn't that be grand?), insufficient data.
Click to expand...

He wasted half a billion dollars on something _he was told would fail_.  

Obama is an idiot.  Do you really want him making decisions about self-defense?  He's _guaranteed_ to fuck it up.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody wants to own slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not literally. Not anymore.
> 
> I believe I did say I was speaking metaphorically. You do know what a metaphor is, don't you?
Click to expand...

Yes.  That explains why you used the present tense.  

GTFO, douchebag.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Yes.  That explains why you used the present tense.



LOL no it doesn't. I guess you really don't know what a metaphor is. I guess I'll have to explain it.

A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a description of one thing is used to mean another thing that is similar. It's comparable to a simile, except that in a simile the fact that one is making a comparison is expressly stated. For example, in talking about a politician who made a foolish statement on the campaign trail that hurt his chances of being elected:

Simile: "That statement was like falling flat on his face."

Metaphor: "He fell flat on his face."

Now, in regard to my use of "slavery," that was a metaphor for conservative approval of one person's exercising control or dominance or authority over someone else, e.g. employers over employees, or husbands over wives. It can also be a metaphor for conservative approval of one person or entity's economic exploitation of someone else, e.g. producers of consumers or lenders of creditors. These are similar to the control or economic exploitation of a slave by a master.

Conservatives have not LITERALLY approved of slavery since the end of the 19th century at latest. It's still a good metaphor for what they DO still approve of.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PoliticalChic said:


> The mechanism for determining constitutionality is based on the assumptions that each branch agree of same as follows...
> The Congress must feel the bill is constitutional or should not pass it.
> The President must also assent or should not sign it...
> And the Court should determine that the language of the Constitution forbids same, or
> must find it constitutional....
> 
> Uh, oh.
> 
> And, Jeffrey Rosen, New Republic Magazine Legal Affairs Editor, suggested
> Pro-Business Conservatives on the Court, represented by policies of the US Chamber of Commerce, strongly represented on the Roberts Court, where they *won some 13 of 18 cases *in which they filed a brief. Most *business cases are unanimous or 7-2 decisions,* vs those cases that deal with culture war issues.
> 
> These conservatives favored TARP, and he use of federal pre-emption (federal law to take precedence over or to displace a state law) for farm subsidies, healthcare cases.  Based on this sentiment, a court which has embraced a broad vision of federal power, as found in regulation of medical marijuana, *expect the Roberts Court to reject the pro-states rights view *that would lead to the invalidation of the healthcare case.
> 
> Double uh, oh.
> 
> 
> I would be so pleased to be wrong.....



I think you are going to pleased in this case. 

I expect a 5-4 decision invalidating the individual mandate.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PoliticalChic said:


> How about we plumb the depths of your stupidity...
> 
> ....well beyond the jejune, you've reached down to the troglodyte level of abject and abysmal asininity.
> 
> 
> As you can see, words don't quite fail me in assailing your jaw-dropping attempt to use RFK to excuse the arrogance of demanding other peoples hard-earned assets to support ones licentious lifestyle....
> 
> You are so ignorant that you use a Kennedy scion to support Fluke's absurd demands...and are unaware that *Robert Kennedy's father had his daughter surgically 'altered' *so that *promiscuity *would not stain the family reputation...
> 
> "In 1941, Joseph Kennedy, worried his daughter's mild mental retardation would lead her into situations that *could damage the family's reputation*, arranged for Rosemary to have a* lobotomy.* She was 23.
> 
> "Rosemary was a woman, and there was* a dread fear of pregnancy, disease and disgrace," *author Laurence Leamer wrote in his book "The Kennedy Women: The Saga of an American Family."
> Retarded Kennedy sister dies at 86 - Democratic Underground
> There are many rumors that he had her sterilized.
> 
> 
> You would have been far wiser to have chosen Ted Kennedy, the poster child for profligacy...but then you wouldn't be 'you.'
> 
> 
> Now, you buffoon, would you like to go on to state that Mother Teresa an Mahatma Gandhi also support Sandra Fluke????
> 
> DUNCE.
> 
> 
> And....'pound' goes with 'ounces,' and 'gallons' with 'quarts,' nincompoop.
> 
> And....use a dictionary to research the meaning of 'mendacity'....you will find that that term  in no way applies to me.
> You ignoramus.



What is really startling about the Kennedy story is the fact that Ted was far more severely mentally retarded than Rosemary.  Had they lobotomized Teddy, NO ONE would have noticed the difference.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Uncensored2008 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about we plumb the depths of your stupidity...
> 
> ....well beyond the jejune, you've reached down to the troglodyte level of abject and abysmal asininity.
> 
> 
> As you can see, words don't quite fail me in assailing your jaw-dropping attempt to use RFK to excuse the arrogance of demanding other peoples hard-earned assets to support ones licentious lifestyle....
> 
> You are so ignorant that you use a Kennedy scion to support Fluke's absurd demands...and are unaware that *Robert Kennedy's father had his daughter surgically 'altered' *so that *promiscuity *would not stain the family reputation...
> 
> "In 1941, Joseph Kennedy, worried his daughter's mild mental retardation would lead her into situations that *could damage the family's reputation*, arranged for Rosemary to have a* lobotomy.* She was 23.
> 
> "Rosemary was a woman, and there was* a dread fear of pregnancy, disease and disgrace," *author Laurence Leamer wrote in his book "The Kennedy Women: The Saga of an American Family."
> Retarded Kennedy sister dies at 86 - Democratic Underground
> There are many rumors that he had her sterilized.
> 
> 
> You would have been far wiser to have chosen Ted Kennedy, the poster child for profligacy...but then you wouldn't be 'you.'
> 
> 
> Now, you buffoon, would you like to go on to state that Mother Teresa an Mahatma Gandhi also support Sandra Fluke????
> 
> DUNCE.
> 
> 
> And....'pound' goes with 'ounces,' and 'gallons' with 'quarts,' nincompoop.
> 
> And....use a dictionary to research the meaning of 'mendacity'....you will find that that term  in no way applies to me.
> You ignoramus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is really startling about the Kennedy story is the fact that Ted was far more severely mentally retarded than Rosemary.  Had they lobotomized Teddy, NO ONE would have noticed the difference.
Click to expand...


I can't believe how little the Left asks of their heroes....this slaughterer of a young girl, another one a rapist...the one in office a traitor....

All they have to do is yell 'I'm for abortion' and they win the lottery.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wry Catcher said:


> I attack you daveboy 'cause you don't have ideas; the evidence that you do not is in the record; the body of your work is easily summerized:  "libtards, ain't they awful".



Yeah, not so much.

Failure to faithfully recite party dogma as bequeathed by the hate sites is not evidence of a lack of ideas.

Quite the opposite.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sparky said:


> So to sum it up, the founding fathers & company were demanded big gov (namely Brittan) off their backs, then went on to solicit another big gov (France) to defend their mutual interests
> 
> They also instituted a living doctrine , based on a 3 branch system , from what i understand modeled after the indigenous Indian nations, which they wiped out in the next century
> 
> Seems they also sold the ideal of nation building to the aristo's first too, due mainly to the fact they had the most $$$ to loose to the Brits
> 
> and then they went around yammering about all men being created equal, yet equal rights took another 2 centuries to come to fruition
> 
> and you want these folks to be roll models for what PC?
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~




So, you're on heavy drugs?

Or are you just mentally retarded?


----------



## Uncensored2008

sparky said:


> perspective counts.......
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/books/review/05GEWE01.html?pagewanted=all
> 
> American history was a story of cruel domination by the wealthy and privileged. The founding fathers ''created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times,'' Zinn stated. The Civil War was a conflict of elites, and World War II was fought not to stop fascism but to extend America's empire. The United States and the Soviet Union both sought to control their oppressed populations, ''each country with its own techniques.'' The Vietnam War was a clash between organized modern technology and organized human beings, ''and the human beings won.'' We have traveled a long way from the sophisticated ironies of the consensus historians.



Yeah, there may have been one or two that didn't understand that Zinn was an utter moron with no integrity.

Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PoliticalChic said:


> So, your point is.....obfuscation?



He follows Zinn.

Clear thinking is not his forte'.


----------



## Uncensored2008

editec said:


> I laught at you guys who imagine that the Floundering Fathers believed the same things you do.
> 
> FREE MARKETS?
> 
> Clearly if you imagine that the FF's stood for those you don't know jackshit about American trade policy.



The contempt you of the left have for the founding fathers is only surpassed by the contempt you have for liberty.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Revisionist crapola.......
> 
> Each generation faces it's own challenges. Those challenges are met through either a liberal or conservative mindset. As each challenge is different, the chosen path for meeting it will change.
> 
> During the founding of this great nation, it was the liberal, or left wing that developed the complex strategy to form a new nation predicated on the equality of man.



Well, of course that is quite false, as the vast majority of what you post is.

There was little that one could even grasp as being "left wing."  John Adams, with his Alien and Sedition act embraced the spirit of the left, directly assaulting the freedom of Republican papers to print opinion that criticized his administration. But Adams was no leftist - not in the way that Castro or Obama is a leftist.

Once again you offer absurdity as if it were factual and had merit. It does not.



> Meanwhile, the conservatives of the day, who we like to call right wing, resisted those changes and maintained their loyalty to the monarchy.



Please show where Thomas Jefferson or George Mason were loyal to the monarchy?

Oh, you were just lying; I get it.

Kerry on.



> Isn't history great when you don't change it to meet your 21st century agenda?



What experience would you have in that?

You're not quite Howard Zinn, but you're sure not honest, either.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Obama has repeatedly indicated that he wants to deplete stockpiles of nuclear weapons on both sides.......as did Reagan
> 
> Did you catch your candidate Romney this morning claiming Russia is our greatest enemy?     OOOPS



Obviously the Catholic Church is Obama's greatest enemy.

Who is your greatest enemy? Running dog capitalists?


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  That explains why you used the present tense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL no it doesn't. I guess you really don't know what a metaphor is. I guess I'll have to explain it.
> 
> A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a description of one thing is used to mean another thing that is similar. It's comparable to a simile, except that in a simile the fact that one is making a comparison is expressly stated. For example, in talking about a politician who made a foolish statement on the campaign trail that hurt his chances of being elected:
> 
> Simile: "That statement was like falling flat on his face."
> 
> Metaphor: "He fell flat on his face."
> 
> Now, in regard to my use of "slavery," that was a metaphor for conservative approval of one person's exercising control or dominance or authority over someone else, e.g. employers over employees, or husbands over wives. It can also be a metaphor for conservative approval of one person or entity's economic exploitation of someone else, e.g. producers of consumers or lenders of creditors. These are similar to the control or economic exploitation of a slave by a master.
> 
> Conservatives have not LITERALLY approved of slavery since the end of the 19th century at latest. It's still a good metaphor for what they DO still approve of.
Click to expand...

No, it's not, you moron.  It's a shitty metaphor used by people unable to think for themselves -- like you.

It's amusing how you consider yourself an intelligent human being.  Because you're not.


----------



## daveman

Uncensored2008 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I attack you daveboy 'cause you don't have ideas; the evidence that you do not is in the record; the body of your work is easily summerized:  "libtards, ain't they awful".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, not so much.
> 
> Failure to faithfully recite party dogma as bequeathed by the hate sites is not evidence of a lack of ideas.
> 
> Quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

It's understandable, though.  He has to have all his ideas dictated to him.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> No, it's not, you moron.  It's a shitty metaphor used by people unable to think for themselves -- like you.



I touched a nerve, evidently. 

Conservatives have always approved of some people exercising control and domination over other people. The archetype of this sort of thing was slavery, which remains a pretty good metaphor for all forms of it.

If you think I'm wrong about this, you need to do something a little more rational in rebuttal than foam at the mouth, which is all you've done so far.


----------



## koshergrl

Slave owners in this country were democrats, you nitwit.


----------



## rightwinger

koshergrl said:


> Slave owners in this country were democrats, you nitwit.



Slavery predated the Democratic Party


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not, you moron.  It's a shitty metaphor used by people unable to think for themselves -- like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I touched a nerve, evidently.
Click to expand...

No, I just get tired of morons lying about conservatism.  


Dragon said:


> Conservatives have always approved of some people exercising control and domination over other people. The archetype of this sort of thing was slavery, which remains a pretty good metaphor for all forms of it.


Wow.  What a dumbass.

From its inception the GOP has ALWAYS been about, first, ending slavery, then assuring civil rights for all.

This is indisputable.  Yet, there you are, stupidly disputing it.

Moron.


Dragon said:


> If you think I'm wrong about this...


I KNOW you're wrong about this.


Dragon said:


> ...you need to do something a little more rational in rebuttal than foam at the mouth, which is all you've done so far.


You get what you deserve.  If you think obvious _horsehit_ requires anything more, you're quite mistaken.

You know, your default mode.


----------



## Trajan

Nosmo King said:


> If we could only live as our founding father did and believe in the same things, what a glorious adventure we would have.
> 
> No paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic, and a life span of around 42 years.



no one has said that...


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slave owners in this country were democrats, you nitwit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery predated the Democratic Party
Click to expand...


But the Dems sure didn't like the idea of blacks with civil rights.

A comparison of the two parties' platforms through history.  

History once again kicks leftism in the ass.


----------



## koshergrl

rightwinger said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slave owners in this country were democrats, you nitwit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery predated the Democratic Party
Click to expand...

 
So?
Slave owners in this country were democrats, you nitwit.

I'll keep saying that until it sinks in.


----------



## koshergrl

And conservatives were the ones who struggled to free the slaves and maintain the union.

So irritating.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Slave owners in this country were democrats, you nitwit.



You make a statement like that and call someone else a nitwit? 

Otherwise, I dont know if Id go so far as to use a slavery metaphor, but it is true that conservatives perceive the working class as deserving whatever misery they experience, if one subjugates himself to the will of an employer, and his livelihood is dependent upon that subjugation.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slave owners in this country were democrats, you nitwit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery predated the Democratic Party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Dems sure didn't like the idea of blacks with civil rights.
> 
> A comparison of the two parties' platforms through history.
> 
> History once again kicks leftism in the ass.
Click to expand...


Good link

Shows how out of touch the Republicans remain


----------



## rightwinger

koshergrl said:


> And conservatives were the ones who struggled to free the slaves and maintain the union.
> 
> So irritating.



Actually, conservatives of the day pushed for states rights and maintaining the status quo

But thanks anyway, your attempt at revisionism was refreshing


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> From its inception the GOP has ALWAYS been about, first, ending slavery, then assuring civil rights for all.



I said conservatives, not Republicans. In the beginning of the party, Republicans were liberals.

And you also need to put that in the past tense. In 1965, your statement as written would be true. In 2012, it's not anymore.

Here's another analogy, just as good, if the slavery one is distasteful.

When the king stops the barons from exploiting the peasants, the barons call it oppression, but the peasants call it liberty.

When the king helps the barons to exploit the peasants, or stands aside and lets them get away with it, the barons call it liberty, but the peasants call it oppression.

Conservatives are always on the side of the barons. Liberals are always on the side of the peasants. Conservatives talk as if it's the king who oppresses the peasants. It's not.


----------



## Douger

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-KPGh3wysw]Barbra Streisand - The Way We Were (1975) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery predated the Democratic Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the Dems sure didn't like the idea of blacks with civil rights.
> 
> A comparison of the two parties' platforms through history.
> 
> History once again kicks leftism in the ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good link
> 
> Shows how out of touch the Republicans remain
Click to expand...

Support for civil rights is out of touch?

Well, that explains a lot about you.

Of course, you didn't even read it.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> From its inception the GOP has ALWAYS been about, first, ending slavery, then assuring civil rights for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said conservatives, not Republicans. In the beginning of the party, Republicans were liberals.
> 
> And you also need to put that in the past tense.
> 
> Here's another analogy, just as good, if the slavery one is distasteful.
> 
> When the king stops the barons from exploiting the peasants, the barons call it oppression, but the peasants call it liberty.
> 
> When the king helps the barons to exploit the peasants, or stands aside and lets them get away with it, the barons call it liberty, but the peasants call it oppression.
> 
> Conservatives are always on the side of the barons. Liberals are always on the side of the peasants.
Click to expand...

What kind of idiot history have you read...or had read to you?


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> What kind of idiot history have you read...or had read to you?



[Shrug.] You know your opponent has lost when he has nothing left to offer but childish insults.

Your surrender is graciously accepted.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Dems sure didn't like the idea of blacks with civil rights.
> 
> A comparison of the two parties' platforms through history.
> 
> History once again kicks leftism in the ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good link
> 
> Shows how out of touch the Republicans remain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Support for civil rights is out of touch?
> 
> Well, that explains a lot about you.
> 
> Of course, you didn't even read it.
Click to expand...


Read your whole link...pretty funny stuff Republicans support


----------



## Dragon

Anyone who thinks that the Republicans have always been conservative, or that the Democrats have always been liberal, has no grasp of history at all. Read up on Theodore Roosevelt (R) sometime. Or on Grover Cleveland (D).

On the slavery issue, the Republicans were liberals. On the same issue, while not all Democrats were conservative, all conservatives were Democrats unless they were some right-wing extremist party. Party and ideology are not the same thing.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of idiot history have you read...or had read to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Shrug.] You know your opponent has lost when he has nothing left to offer but childish insults.
> 
> Your surrender is graciously accepted.
Click to expand...


Oh, you mean childish insults like "Conservatives have always approved of some people exercising control and domination over other people"?

And yes, that was childish.  Did you get that from Zinn's History For Children?

Come back when you've read some real history.  And no, nothing you've read is real.  It's leftist blather.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good link
> 
> Shows how out of touch the Republicans remain
> 
> 
> 
> Support for civil rights is out of touch?
> 
> Well, that explains a lot about you.
> 
> Of course, you didn't even read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read your whole link...pretty funny stuff Republicans support
Click to expand...


Now civil rights is "funny stuff".

You're not even attempting to hide it any more.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> Anyone who thinks that the Republicans have always been conservative, or that the Democrats have always been liberal, has no grasp of history at all. Read up on Theodore Roosevelt (R) sometime. Or on Grover Cleveland (D).
> 
> On the slavery issue, the Republicans were liberals. On the same issue, while not all Democrats were conservative, all conservatives were Democrats unless they were some right-wing extremist party. Party and ideology are not the same thing.



And there is it:

Liberal = good.

Conservative = bad.

This is the basis for your whole view of history.  And it's ludicrous.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Oh, you mean childish insults like "Conservatives have always approved of some people exercising control and domination over other people"?



No, I mean insults hurled specifically at another poster in lieu of an argument. That amounts to a confession that you don't have an argument.

What you just quoted is simply calling it like it is.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks that the Republicans have always been conservative, or that the Democrats have always been liberal, has no grasp of history at all. Read up on Theodore Roosevelt (R) sometime. Or on Grover Cleveland (D).
> 
> On the slavery issue, the Republicans were liberals. On the same issue, while not all Democrats were conservative, all conservatives were Democrats unless they were some right-wing extremist party. Party and ideology are not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is it:
> 
> Liberal = good.
> 
> Conservative = bad.
> 
> This is the basis for your whole view of history.  And it's ludicrous.
Click to expand...


You are encouraged to list the contributions of of Conservatives to our society


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> And there is it:
> 
> Liberal = good.
> 
> Conservative = bad.



LOL close, but not quite.

Liberal = for the common person.

Conservative = for the wealthy, powerful elite.

Which of those is "good" or "bad" is a value judgment. Naturally I do think that being for the common people is "good" while being for the wealthy, powerful elite is "bad," because I'm a liberal. That doesn't mean conservatives are guilty of EVERY evil, or that something is "conservative" merely because it's also bad. It has to be a specific KIND of bad.


----------



## Dragon

rightwinger said:


> You are encouraged to list the contributions of of Conservatives to our society



Betcha he gives us some contributions of liberal Republicans. Watch and see.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> [Shrug.] You know your opponent has lost when he has nothing left to offer but childish insults.
> 
> Your surrender is graciously accepted.


True. One only need consider the source, as well. 



> Support for civil rights is out of touch?
> 
> Well, that explains a lot about you.
> 
> Of course, you didn't even read it.



The republican support of civil rights is inconsistent at best. 

The sections on abortion and homosexuality, for instance, are classic examples of conservative authoritarianism and the rights efforts to stifle dissent.


----------



## Listening

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks that the Republicans have always been conservative, or that the Democrats have always been liberal, has no grasp of history at all. Read up on Theodore Roosevelt (R) sometime. Or on Grover Cleveland (D).
> 
> On the slavery issue, the Republicans were liberals. On the same issue, while not all Democrats were conservative, all conservatives were Democrats unless they were some right-wing extremist party. Party and ideology are not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is it:
> 
> Liberal = good.
> 
> Conservative = bad.
> 
> This is the basis for your whole view of history.  And it's ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are encouraged to list the contributions of of Conservatives to our society
Click to expand...


Which is an argument to many fall for.  Conservatives don't make "contributions" in the form of positives that you can count up because that is exactly what we don't want.

The SCOTUS under FDR stood their ground until he came up with his court packing scheme.  I consider their efforts to be a contribution.  They were keeping the fed out of peoples lives.  They were protecting the constitution.

GWB was not a conservative.  He crapped out NCLB.  They should shove it back up his ass (and they should dig up Ted Kennedy and shove it up his too).

Anyway.....they don't make contributions...they keep others from making unwanted contributions......if they are conservatives.

Thanks for playing.


----------



## Listening

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is it:
> 
> Liberal = good.
> 
> Conservative = bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL close, but not quite.
> 
> Liberal = for the common person.
> 
> Conservative = for the wealthy, powerful elite.
> 
> Which of those is "good" or "bad" is a value judgment. Naturally I do think that being for the common people is "good" while being for the wealthy, powerful elite is "bad," because I'm a liberal. That doesn't mean conservatives are guilty of EVERY evil, or that something is "conservative" merely because it's also bad. It has to be a specific KIND of bad.
Click to expand...


You are one of the most self-serving morons I have seen post on this board.

Liberals at the federal level are not for the common person.  They are the tool of special interests.

Crapping out posts about the wealthy is hysterical.  The 1% were not the ones who kicked your ass in 2010.


----------



## rightwinger

Listening said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is it:
> 
> Liberal = good.
> 
> Conservative = bad.
> 
> This is the basis for your whole view of history.  And it's ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are encouraged to list the contributions of of Conservatives to our society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is an argument to many fall for.  Conservatives don't make "contributions" in the form of positives that you can count up because that is exactly what we don't want.
> 
> The SCOTUS under FDR stood their ground until he came up with his court packing scheme.  I consider their efforts to be a contribution.  They were keeping the fed out of peoples lives.  They were protecting the constitution.
> 
> GWB was not a conservative.  He crapped out NCLB.  They should shove it back up his ass (and they should dig up Ted Kennedy and shove it up his too).
> 
> Anyway.....they don't make contributions...they keep others from making unwanted contributions......if they are conservatives.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


Exactly

Conservatives are the party of "Go fuck yourself"


----------



## Dante

PoliticalChic said:


> March 22.1775, Edmund Burke took the floor of the British Parliament, and explained why his country should seek reconciliation with the Americans, asserting that the colonists derived their ideas about freedom and resistance from their Protestant Christianity.
> 
> They were Protestants of that kind which is *most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,* and their dissent from the Anglican Church *not only favored liberty, it was built upon it.*
> Edmund Burke, The Speech of Edmund Burke, Esq,; On Moving His Resolution for Conciliation with the Colonies, p.15-17.
> 
> Today, another March 22, this great nation is half filled with folks who demand that others pay for their chosen styles of life, their insurance, their leisure....who give up individuality and liberty for the embrace of the collective, the state.
> 
> What would Edmund Burke think of Americans today...and the poster child for the spoiled, full-of-themselves wastrels, Sandra Fluke?
> 
> November will tell if the other kinds of Americans are still around...I think they are.
> 
> Who was Edmund Burke?
> The philosopher who is generally considered the father of modern conservatism.



The First Conservative Idiot who misrepresented America?


----------



## Dragon

Listening said:


> Liberals at the federal level are not for the common person.



There aren't many liberals at the federal level. Let's see if you can name any of them.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> You are encouraged to list the contributions of of Conservatives to our society



The Bill of Rights.

Standard Disclaimer: It's part of that constitution that you work so hard to get rid of...


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are encouraged to list the contributions of of Conservatives to our society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights.
> 
> Standard Disclaimer: It's part of that constitution that you work so hard to get rid of...
Click to expand...


No, actually conservatives were not allowed to sign it

They were still loyal to the king just like they are loyal to the one percent today

Conservatives do love their kings don't they?


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> No, actually conservatives were not allowed to sign it



Oh, I meant the US Constitution, not the Soviet one that you so love.



> They were still loyal to the king just like they are loyal to the one percent today



I'm still awaiting evidence that Jefferson, Mason, et al. were loyal to the king?

I mean, you lie most of the time, so chances are that you're lying again.



> Conservatives do love their kings don't they?



So, you're actually a conservative, posting as a leftist to discredit leftists through your incessant buffoonery, aren't you?


----------



## Dragon

rightwinger said:


> Conservatives do love their kings don't they?



Kings, aristocrats, slave-owners, capitalists, and those at the top of the heap generally. Yes. That's what conservatism is all about in a nutshell.


----------



## koshergrl

Rudy Giuliani conservative accomplishments:

"As Mayor, Rudy Giuliani has returned accountability to City government and improved the quality of life for all New Yorkers. Under his leadership, overall crime is down 57%, murder has been reduced 65%, and New York City - once infamous around the world for its dangerous streets - has been recognized by the F.B.I. as the safest large city in America for the past five years. 
New York City's law enforcement strategies have become models for other cities around the world, particularly the CompStat program, which won the 1996 Innovations in Government Award from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. CompStat allows police to statistically monitor criminal activity on specific street corners as well as citywide, holding precinct commanders accountable for criminal activity in their neighborhoods. Because this data is updated constantly, it enables the police to become a proactive force in fighting crime, stopping crime trends before they become crime waves that negatively effect the quality of life for neighborhood residents. 
When Mayor Giuliani took office, one out of every seven New Yorkers was on welfare. Mayor Giuliani has returned the work ethic to the center of City life by implementing the largest and most successful welfare-to-work initiative in the country, cutting welfare rolls in half while moving over 640,000 individuals from dependency on the government to the dignity of self-sufficiency. In addition, Giuliani has enacted a record of over $2.5 billion in tax reductions - including the commercial rent tax, personal income tax, the hotel occupancy tax, and the sales tax on clothing for purchases up to $110 dollars. In addition, hundreds of millions of dollars have been returned to the private sector as a result of the Mayor's aggressive campaign to root out organized crime's influence over the Fulton Fish Market, the private garbage hauling industry, and wholesale food markets throughout the City. These reforms, combined with the fiscal discipline which enabled the Mayor to turn an inherited $2.3 billion dollar budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus, have led the City to an era of broad-based growth with a record 450,000 new private sector jobs created in the past seven years. As news of the City's resurgence has spread around the nation and the world, tourism has grown to record levels. "

Rudy Giuliani biography from Boycottliberalism.com


----------



## rightwinger

Dragon said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives do love their kings don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kings, aristocrats, slave-owners, capitalists, and those at the top of the heap generally. Yes. That's what conservatism is all about in a nutshell.
Click to expand...


Even though most are not allowed in the country club, they are satisfied that they are at least allowed to park cars


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Even though most are not allowed in the country club, they are satisfied that they are at least allowed to park cars



You leftist prefer keeping them on work farms.








RW's vision for America.


----------



## Dragon

rightwinger said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives do love their kings don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kings, aristocrats, slave-owners, capitalists, and those at the top of the heap generally. Yes. That's what conservatism is all about in a nutshell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even though most are not allowed in the country club, they are satisfied that they are at least allowed to park cars
Click to expand...


I think there are a number of reasons why those who aren't on the top of the heap would vote for the interests of those who are. Perhaps they've been convinced they have a realistic chance to get there, and want to maximize the pay-off. Perhaps they have self-esteem problems and are subordinating their own interests to those of their "betters." Perhaps -- and I think this is really common -- they get diverted into being angry at some made-up target, like a foreign enemy, or a minority group at home, or "the gub'mint."

All that's just theory, of course, but it's an interesting question, to be sure.


----------



## rightwinger

Dragon said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kings, aristocrats, slave-owners, capitalists, and those at the top of the heap generally. Yes. That's what conservatism is all about in a nutshell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though most are not allowed in the country club, they are satisfied that they are at least allowed to park cars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think there are a number of reasons why those who aren't on the top of the heap would vote for the interests of those who are. Perhaps they've been convinced they have a realistic chance to get there, and want to maximize the pay-off. Perhaps they have self-esteem problems and are subordinating their own interests to those of their "betters." Perhaps -- and I think this is really common -- they get diverted into being angry at some made-up target, like a foreign enemy, or a minority group at home, or "the gub'mint."
> 
> All that's just theory, of course, but it's an interesting question, to be sure.
Click to expand...


I think they religiously believe in trickle down. That if you keep throwing money at the wealthy.....eventually something will trickle down


----------



## Listening

Dragon said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals at the federal level are not for the common person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There aren't many liberals at the federal level. Let's see if you can name any of them.
Click to expand...


That's my point......

If I say Harry Ried...you say he's not a liberal.....but he looks and smells like one.

If you call GWB a conservative, I ROTFLMAO.

They are nothing but stooges.

And you bastards want to allow them to control our health care system.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> I think they religiously believe in trickle down. That if you keep throwing money at the wealthy.....eventually something will trickle down



Some of us never got a paycheck from poor people..

Even that gubmint check you get, most of it comes from those "rich" that you hate. 

{The 10% of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70% of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.}

Fact check: The wealthy already pay more tax

Without the rich, who is going to be paying your bills?


----------



## Listening

rightwinger said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though most are not allowed in the country club, they are satisfied that they are at least allowed to park cars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are a number of reasons why those who aren't on the top of the heap would vote for the interests of those who are. Perhaps they've been convinced they have a realistic chance to get there, and want to maximize the pay-off. Perhaps they have self-esteem problems and are subordinating their own interests to those of their "betters." Perhaps -- and I think this is really common -- they get diverted into being angry at some made-up target, like a foreign enemy, or a minority group at home, or "the gub'mint."
> 
> All that's just theory, of course, but it's an interesting question, to be sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think they religiously believe in trickle down. That if you keep throwing money at the wealthy.....eventually something will trickle down
Click to expand...


Oh, how I enjoy watching the death throws of the libs as they see Obamacare get ready to hit the rocks and sink.

All the old invective....

All the worn out names.....

All the accusations......

I can't wait for the party.


----------



## koshergrl

Another accomplished conservative:

"As one of the most influential black men of his time, Washington was not without his critics. Many charged that his conservative approach undermined the quest for racial equality. "In all things purely social we can be as separate as the fingers," he proposed to a biracial audience in his 1895 Atlanta Compromise address, "yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress." 

Booker T. Washington Biography from Boycottliberalism.com


----------



## Listening

Dragon said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives do love their kings don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kings, aristocrats, slave-owners, capitalists, and those at the top of the heap generally. Yes. That's what conservatism is all about in a nutshell.
Click to expand...


And this is what makes you such a hypocrite (or drug smoker).

You don't get to parse the qualifications of a "true liberal" all the while calling most anything you don't like conservative.

Conservatives don't care about their kings (like Obama).   They care who is mayor (or should).

Please stop making me laugh.


----------



## Dragon

Listening said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals at the federal level are not for the common person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There aren't many liberals at the federal level. Let's see if you can name any of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's my point......
> 
> If I say Harry Ried...you say he's not a liberal.....but he looks and smells like one.
Click to expand...


Well, no, actually he doesn't. I can name three off the top of my head, although one of them will be leaving Congress at the end of this year. The three are Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich, and Bernie Sanders. I'm sure there are a few more, but most Democrats are not liberals, and as best I can tell at this point no Republicans are liberals. Most politicians of both parties are too beholden to corporate interests to be liberals.


----------



## koshergrl

Another conservative who accomplished a bit:

"As President, he built the Republican Party into a strong national organization. Further, he rallied most of the northern Democrats to the Union cause. On January 1, 1863, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation that declared forever free those slaves within the Confederacy. 
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Lincoln never let the world forget that the Civil War involved an even larger issue. This he stated most movingly in dedicating the military cemetery at Gettysburg: "that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Lincoln won re-election in 1864, as Union military triumphs heralded an end to the war. In his planning for peace, the President was flexible and generous, encouraging Southerners to lay down their arms and join speedily in reunion. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The spirit that guided him was clearly that of his Second Inaugural Address, now inscribed on one wall of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D. C.: "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds.... " [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT] 
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Abraham Lincoln Biography from Boycottliberalism.com[/FONT]


----------



## rightwinger

koshergrl said:


> Another conservative who accomplished a bit:
> 
> "As President, he built the Republican Party into a strong national organization. Further, he rallied most of the northern Democrats to the Union cause. On January 1, 1863, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation that declared forever free those slaves within the Confederacy.
> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Lincoln never let the world forget that the Civil War involved an even larger issue. This he stated most movingly in dedicating the military cemetery at Gettysburg: "that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." [/FONT]
> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Lincoln won re-election in 1864, as Union military triumphs heralded an end to the war. In his planning for peace, the President was flexible and generous, encouraging Southerners to lay down their arms and join speedily in reunion. [/FONT]
> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The spirit that guided him was clearly that of his Second Inaugural Address, now inscribed on one wall of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D. C.: "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds.... " [/FONT]
> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Abraham Lincoln Biography from Boycottliberalism.com[/FONT]



Lincoln was a Republican but far from a conservative


----------



## koshergrl

He was a conservative. He declared war on the South because he believed secession was ILLEGAL, and to protect the status quo of the Union.

That's about as conservative as you can get.


----------



## koshergrl

"
Abraham Lincoln&#8217;s firm and unyielding opposition to slavery grew out of his dedication to the principles of our Founding Fathers, principles which have been under assault by the Left for decades. The Left seeks to reinterpret Lincoln as the father of the centralized administrative state that was actually created by early Progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Croly, and John Dewey (among others).
Those who actually study Lincoln&#8217;s thoughts and speeches know that, in his words, he &#8220;never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.&#8221; He loved and admired &#8220;the sentiments of those old-time men,&#8221; our Founding Fathers. He was dedicated to their principles &#8211; equal rights under the law, economic liberty, and a fidelity to the Constitution, our fundamental law."

Lincoln


----------



## Uncensored2008

Listening said:


> And this is what makes you such a hypocrite (or drug smoker).
> 
> You don't get to parse the qualifications of a "true liberal" all the while calling most anything you don't like conservative.
> 
> Conservatives don't care about their kings (like Obama).   They care who is mayor (or should).
> 
> Please stop making me laugh.



Conservatives believe the rights of the individual are preeminent. Whether that individual is rich or poor, they are the master of their fate, fortune and mind. 

Leftists believe that the group is preeminent. The individual must bow and submit to the group. Fortune and fate belong to the group, to be doled out to those the group views most worthy. The individual must subdue their mind to the views and attitudes of the group. 

A king cannot exist in a conservative system. Wealthy men may ply others with cash, but they have no power above any other man. In a conservative society, they have no standing in the law above any other.

The left yearns for a ruler, they look to Obama, Castro, Pol Pot, etc. to rule them. They see the strong-man as the shepherd who guides the flock. It is the same desire that led to monarchs. The belief that rulers are better suited to dictate the details of a person's life than the person themselves.

A march to the left is always a march to dictatorship.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Lincoln was a Republican but far from a conservative



Oh?

Did Lincoln push for socialized medicine and government control of industry?

Oh wait, you're just lying again....

Kerry on.


----------



## rightwinger

koshergrl said:


> He was a conservative. He declared war on the South because he believed secession was ILLEGAL, and to protect the status quo of the Union.
> 
> That's about as conservative as you can get.



Unless you haven't been paying attention, states rights is a decidedly conservative value


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a Republican but far from a conservative
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?
> 
> Did Lincoln push for socialized medicine and government control of industry?
> 
> Oh wait, you're just lying again....
> 
> Kerry on.
Click to expand...


Ummmm.....Lincoln did control industry, fought for a strong FEDERAL Government and against States Rights


----------



## Mr Natural

koshergrl said:


> He was a conservative. He declared war on the South because he believed secession was ILLEGAL, and to protect the status quo of the Union.
> 
> That's about as conservative as you can get.




No, he declared war on the Confederacy after the Confederate troops opened fire on Ft Sumpter.


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to tell me that you're willing to trade what we have now with what they had then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first I'm going to compliment you on the use of the phrase "...tell me..." rather than the phrase of choice of the fearful little Lefties...the "...tell us..." crowd.
> 
> 
> Then, I'm going to point out that you are making a huge bone-head mistake in trying to make your point.
> In order for your question to have any meaning you would have to claim that it is impossible to have the current state of technological advancement AND believe in the following:
> 
> 1. The US Constitution being the law of the land...specifically Article I, section 8.
> 
> 2. Limited government
> 
> 3. Checks and balances
> 
> 4. Federalism
> 
> "*Upon entering office, the president must solemnly promise that, to the best of his ability, he will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution *of the United States. That is required by the Constitution, which also says that senators and representatives, and all executive and judicial officers  shall be* bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution.*
> 
> Far too many of these leaders have taken that oathand then done the opposite! The *current president has, to the best of his ability, smeared, ignored and undermined that founding document!*
> 
> ...the seeds of this anti-law thinking were sown a century ago by Woodrow Wilson, who viewed the *Constitutions doctrines of limited government as obsolete.* Wilson argued that progress and evolution had brought human beings to a place and time where we didnt have to worry about limited government,..."
> The Obama Administration vs. the American Constitution - theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God
> 
> 
> So, is that the trade you have in mind?
> I never believed it was.
Click to expand...


Yes we do need a good Federalists program and law like the Alien Sedetion act of 1798, get real or get to the loom my darling


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Ummmm.....Lincoln did control industry,



Oh? Kewl! So you'll be posting 5 year industrial and manufacturing and production plans, showing the industries nationalized and the industrial boards Lincoln controlled.

Unless you're just lying through your fucking teeth...

As usual.....



> fought for a strong FEDERAL Government and against States Rights



Lincoln was pretty federalist, that's in the same county as accurate - which for you is damned astounding.

Lincoln was a Nationalist Whig. In the Douglas debates he argued that States and the Federal Government were "coequal" in authority. Quite a break from the Republican position of Jefferson, but not the opponent of states rights you dishonestly portray.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to tell me that you're willing to trade what we have now with what they had then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first I'm going to compliment you on the use of the phrase "...tell me..." rather than the phrase of choice of the fearful little Lefties...the "...tell us..." crowd.
> 
> 
> Then, I'm going to point out that you are making a huge bone-head mistake in trying to make your point.
> In order for your question to have any meaning you would have to claim that it is impossible to have the current state of technological advancement AND believe in the following:
> 
> 1. The US Constitution being the law of the land...specifically Article I, section 8.
> 
> 2. Limited government
> 
> 3. Checks and balances
> 
> 4. Federalism
> 
> "*Upon entering office, the president must solemnly promise that, to the best of his ability, he will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution *of the United States. That is required by the Constitution, which also says that senators and representatives, and all executive and judicial officers  shall be* bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution.*
> 
> Far too many of these leaders have taken that oathand then done the opposite! The *current president has, to the best of his ability, smeared, ignored and undermined that founding document!*
> 
> ...the seeds of this anti-law thinking were sown a century ago by Woodrow Wilson, who viewed the *Constitutions doctrines of limited government as obsolete.* Wilson argued that progress and evolution had brought human beings to a place and time where we didnt have to worry about limited government,..."
> The Obama Administration vs. the American Constitution - theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God
> 
> 
> So, is that the trade you have in mind?
> I never believed it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we do need a good Federalists program and law like the Alien Sedetion act of 1798, get real or get to the loom my darling
Click to expand...


So....you were unable to digest the meaning of the post to which you were, ostensibly, replying?

Why am I not shocked?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Mr Clean said:


> No, he declared war on the Confederacy after the Confederate troops opened fire on Ft Sumpter.



That federal troops occupied Ft. Sumpter was a declaration of war.


----------



## Mr Natural

Uncensored2008 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he declared war on the Confederacy after the Confederate troops opened fire on Ft Sumpter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That federal troops occupied Ft. Sumpter was a declaration of war.
Click to expand...


Ft Sumpter was a US facility.  Why wouldn't there be US troops there?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Mr Clean said:


> Ft Sumpter was a US facility.  Why wouldn't there be US troops there?



The mobilization of troops into the Carolinas was an act of war, just as marching the US Army into Sacramento would be an act of war today.


----------



## Mr Natural

Uncensored2008 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ft Sumpter was a US facility.  Why wouldn't there be US troops there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mobilization of troops into the Carolinas was an act of war, just as marching the US Army into Sacramento would be an act of war today.
Click to expand...



Ft Sumpter was a US Army Facilty.  

US troops in a US facility is the norm.


----------



## Dragon

U.S. troops marching into Sacramento would not be an act of war, either. In fact, U.S. troops go through Sacramento frequently. I see them in San Jose, too. Most definitely U.S. troops at Beale Air Force Base in California do not constitute an act of war.

However, that's really neither here nor there. Lincoln, for his time, was a liberal. He was a liberal on the slavery issue, and on the rights of labor, too. So was Theodore Roosevelt, another Republican and the nation's first "progressive" president in the modern sense. Party is one thing, ideology is another.


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm.....Lincoln did control industry,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Kewl! So you'll be posting 5 year industrial and manufacturing and production plans, showing the industries nationalized and the industrial boards Lincoln controlled.
> 
> Unless you're just lying through your fucking teeth...
> 
> As usual.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fought for a strong FEDERAL Government and against States Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was pretty federalist, that's in the same county as accurate - which for you is damned astounding.
> 
> Lincoln was a Nationalist Whig. In the Douglas debates he argued that States and the Federal Government were "coequal" in authority. Quite a break from the Republican position of Jefferson, but not the opponent of states rights you dishonestly portray.
Click to expand...


You guys would have loved Lincoln during the Civil War

And you call Obama a dictator?

Suspended Habeus Corpus, Controlled the railroad and telegraph systems, ignored states rights and centralized power in the Federal Government


----------



## Uncensored2008

Mr Clean said:


> Ft Sumpter was a US Army Facilty.
> 
> US troops in a US facility is the norm.



Nope.

The fort was being built as a means to wage war against the Carolinas. It was unfinished at the time of the battle. It was meant to provoke a war, and it did.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragon said:


> U.S. troops marching into Sacramento would not be an act of war, either. In fact, U.S. troops go through Sacramento frequently. I see them in San Jose, too. Most definitely U.S. troops at Beale Air Force Base in California do not constitute an act of war.
> 
> However, that's really neither here nor there. Lincoln, for his time, was a liberal. He was a liberal on the slavery issue, and on the rights of labor, too. So was Theodore Roosevelt, another Republican and the nation's first "progressive" president in the modern sense. Party is one thing, ideology is another.


 
No, he wasn't. He fought to preserve the Union as he believed the founding fathers conceived it.

The very definition of conservative.

You lose. As usual.

The liberals are the southerners who wanted to secede from the Union and form their own nation...who defied the federal government for the sake of maintaining a captive slave population.

Just like libs today. Nothing has changed atall.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> You guys would have loved Lincoln during the Civil War
> 
> And you call Obama a dictator?
> 
> Suspended Habeus Corpus, Controlled the railroad and telegraph systems, ignored states rights and centralized power in the Federal Government



So you acknowledge that you were lying, and are now changing the subject?

Figures.


----------



## Uncensored2008

koshergrl said:


> No, he wasn't. He fought to preserve the Union as he believed the founding fathers conceived it.
> 
> The very definition of conservative.
> 
> You lose. As usual.



Conservative and leftist are meaningless terms in regard to Lincoln. RW is a disingenuous troll. If we take the position that Republicans like Jefferson and Mason were the definition of "liberals," then Lincoln was the polar opposite of a liberal. Lincoln would be more aligned with Adams, as an advocate of nationalism.

Lincoln was no conservative either, he was an advocate of a central bank and a proponent of direct taxation through income tax. Lincoln was an abolitionist and believed that the use of the federal government to abolish slavery was justified. Those who claim that Lincoln had no such plans have simply not read the writings of Abe. He was very clear on his intent to end slavery. 

Lincoln simply does not fit into the mold of modern politics. He was a 19th century man dealing with 19th century issues.


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys would have loved Lincoln during the Civil War
> 
> And you call Obama a dictator?
> 
> Suspended Habeus Corpus, Controlled the railroad and telegraph systems, ignored states rights and centralized power in the Federal Government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you acknowledge that you were lying, and are now changing the subject?
> 
> Figures.
Click to expand...


No, I am admitting that you obviously don't know what you are talking about

But that is not news to anyone


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> No, I am admitting that you obviously don't know what you are talking about



Well, obviously. I mean, you lie, I point out that you're a fucking liar - clearly that means I don't know what I'm talking about.



> But that is not news to anyone



So, you're actually a right wing troll, pretending to be a leftist to defame the left, then?

You're doing a superb job - seriously.


----------



## koshergrl

Uncensored2008 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he wasn't. He fought to preserve the Union as he believed the founding fathers conceived it.
> 
> The very definition of conservative.
> 
> You lose. As usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative and leftist are meaningless terms in regard to Lincoln. RW is a disingenuous troll. If we take the position that Republicans like Jefferson and Mason were the definition of "liberals," then Lincoln was the polar opposite of a liberal. Lincoln would be more aligned with Adams, as an advocate of nationalism.
> 
> Lincoln was no conservative either, he was an advocate of a central bank and a proponent of direct taxation through income tax. Lincoln was an abolitionist and believed that the use of the federal government to abolish slavery was justified. Those who claim that Lincoln had no such plans have simply not read the writings of Abe. He was very clear on his intent to end slavery.
> 
> Lincoln simply does not fit into the mold of modern politics. He was a 19th century man dealing with 19th century issues.
Click to expand...

 
I agree, but for the purposes of idiots who want to apply today's labels to yesterday's politicians, it bears noting that the REASON Lincoln was profoundly anti-secession and anti-slavery is because he believed the principles upon which this country were founded prohibited those things....

Plus I'm pretty sure he was anti-abortion, and Christian to boot.


----------



## Uncensored2008

koshergrl said:


> I agree, but for the purposes of idiots who want to apply today's labels to yesterday's politicians, it bears noting that the REASON Lincoln was profoundly anti-secession and anti-slavery is because he believed the principles upon which this country were founded prohibited those things....



The country was not founded on the principle of anti-secession. Jefferson, the founder of the Republicans, held that the Federal government was an agent of the states, and had absolutely no power over them. Jackson, the founder of the Democrats, likewise held that the Federal government was simply a means for the many states to conduct their affairs with foreign nations and the Indian tribes, and was not a nation unto itself. 

John Adams had a differing view, and favored Nationalism and perhaps an Empire.



> Plus I'm pretty sure he was anti-abortion, and Christian to boot.



"In religion, Mr. Lincoln was about of the same opinion as Bob Ingersoll, and there is no account of his ever having changed. He went to church a few times with his family while he was President, but so far as I have been able to find out, he remained an unbeliever. Mr. Lincoln in his younger days wrote a book, in which he endeavored to prove the fallacy of the plan of salvation and the divinity of Christ."
-- Judge James M Nelson, who had an intimate acquaintance with Lincoln in Washington, in the Louisville Times, in 1887, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beleifs of Our Presidents, p. 137


----------



## rightwinger

koshergrl said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he wasn't. He fought to preserve the Union as he believed the founding fathers conceived it.
> 
> The very definition of conservative.
> 
> You lose. As usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative and leftist are meaningless terms in regard to Lincoln. RW is a disingenuous troll. If we take the position that Republicans like Jefferson and Mason were the definition of "liberals," then Lincoln was the polar opposite of a liberal. Lincoln would be more aligned with Adams, as an advocate of nationalism.
> 
> Lincoln was no conservative either, he was an advocate of a central bank and a proponent of direct taxation through income tax. Lincoln was an abolitionist and believed that the use of the federal government to abolish slavery was justified. Those who claim that Lincoln had no such plans have simply not read the writings of Abe. He was very clear on his intent to end slavery.
> 
> Lincoln simply does not fit into the mold of modern politics. He was a 19th century man dealing with 19th century issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, but for the purposes of idiots who want to apply today's labels to yesterday's politicians, it bears noting that the REASON Lincoln was profoundly anti-secession and anti-slavery is because he believed the principles upon which this country were founded prohibited those things....
> 
> Plus I'm pretty sure he was anti-abortion, and Christian to boot.
Click to expand...


Please don't post when you obviously don't know what you are talking about

This country was founded on the principle of anti-slavery?

Lincoln was anti-abortion?  in the 1860s?


----------



## koshergrl

Lol.


----------



## Mr Natural

Uncensored2008 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ft Sumpter was a US Army Facilty.
> 
> US troops in a US facility is the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> The fort was being built as a means to wage war against the Carolinas. It was unfinished at the time of the battle. It was meant to provoke a war, and it did.
Click to expand...


It was built following the War of 1812.

But nonetheless, it was still a US military facility and troops stationed there would have been neither unusual or a provocation.


----------



## rightwinger

Mr Clean said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ft Sumpter was a US Army Facilty.
> 
> US troops in a US facility is the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> The fort was being built as a means to wage war against the Carolinas. It was unfinished at the time of the battle. It was meant to provoke a war, and it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was built following the War of 1812.
> 
> But nonetheless, it was still a US military facility and troops stationed there would have been neither unusual or a provocation.
Click to expand...


US Military bases are Federal property. The attack on Ft Sumter was an act of treason


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean childish insults like "Conservatives have always approved of some people exercising control and domination over other people"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean insults hurled specifically at another poster in lieu of an argument. That amounts to a confession that you don't have an argument.
> 
> What you just quoted is simply calling it like it is.
Click to expand...

Of course it is.  It's always different.  Somehow.  It just is.  

You're pathetic.  

And that's simply calling it like it is.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks that the Republicans have always been conservative, or that the Democrats have always been liberal, has no grasp of history at all. Read up on Theodore Roosevelt (R) sometime. Or on Grover Cleveland (D).
> 
> On the slavery issue, the Republicans were liberals. On the same issue, while not all Democrats were conservative, all conservatives were Democrats unless they were some right-wing extremist party. Party and ideology are not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is it:
> 
> Liberal = good.
> 
> Conservative = bad.
> 
> This is the basis for your whole view of history.  And it's ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are encouraged to list the contributions of of Conservatives to our society
Click to expand...

Only to have you mindlessly screech "Nuh-UHH!!" and fling poo, you dishonest slug?

Why should I bother?  

You will now predictably claim that I can't think of any, and wet your pants in glee.

So feel free to eat shit.  I heard you really like Obama's.  You'll have to arm wrestle Synthia for it, though.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is it:
> 
> Liberal = good.
> 
> Conservative = bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL close, but not quite.
> 
> Liberal = for the common person.
> 
> Conservative = for the wealthy, powerful elite.
> 
> Which of those is "good" or "bad" is a value judgment. Naturally I do think that being for the common people is "good" while being for the wealthy, powerful elite is "bad," because I'm a liberal. That doesn't mean conservatives are guilty of EVERY evil, or that something is "conservative" merely because it's also bad. It has to be a specific KIND of bad.
Click to expand...

Lots of words that do nothing but prove me right.

Good job, kid.  You've proven unequivocally that you're utterly mindless and, as is typical of leftists, capable only of binary thinking.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are encouraged to list the contributions of of Conservatives to our society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Betcha he gives us some contributions of liberal Republicans. Watch and see.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you're not worth the effort either, kid.

It's funny the way you two pretend you want debate, but there is not a single chance in hell that you'd EVER consider allowing an unapproved thought rattle around in your vacuous craniums.  

So you can stop lying about it any time now.

But you won't.


----------



## daveman

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> [Shrug.] You know your opponent has lost when he has nothing left to offer but childish insults.
> 
> Your surrender is graciously accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> True. One only need consider the source, as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Support for civil rights is out of touch?
> 
> Well, that explains a lot about you.
> 
> Of course, you didn't even read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The republican support of civil rights is inconsistent at best.
> 
> The sections on abortion and homosexuality, for instance, are classic examples of conservative authoritarianism and the rights efforts to stifle dissent.
Click to expand...

  Utter nonsense.

Meanwhile, I notice you're STILL too stupid to know how the quote function works.

Moron.


----------



## daveman

Listening said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is it:
> 
> Liberal = good.
> 
> Conservative = bad.
> 
> This is the basis for your whole view of history.  And it's ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are encouraged to list the contributions of of Conservatives to our society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is an argument to many fall for.  Conservatives don't make "contributions" in the form of positives that you can count up because that is exactly what we don't want.
> 
> The SCOTUS under FDR stood their ground until he came up with his court packing scheme.  I consider their efforts to be a contribution.  They were keeping the fed out of peoples lives.  They were protecting the constitution.
> 
> GWB was not a conservative.  He crapped out NCLB.  They should shove it back up his ass (and they should dig up Ted Kennedy and shove it up his too).
> 
> Anyway.....they don't make contributions...they keep others from making unwanted contributions......if they are conservatives.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

That government is best which governs least.

-- Henry David Thoreau


The left is utterly incapable of understanding this simple concept.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is it:
> 
> Liberal = good.
> 
> Conservative = bad.
> 
> This is the basis for your whole view of history.  And it's ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are encouraged to list the contributions of of Conservatives to our society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to have you mindlessly screech "Nuh-UHH!!" and fling poo, you dishonest slug?
> 
> Why should I bother?
> 
> You will now predictably claim that I can't think of any, and wet your pants in glee.
> 
> So feel free to eat shit.  I heard you really like Obama's.  You'll have to arm wrestle Synthia for it, though.
Click to expand...


I know.....it was a trick question
But I had to ask it. Everyone knows that conservatives have contributed nothing to our society

In each generation, when problems arose.........Conservatives replied "Go fuck yourself"


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals at the federal level are not for the common person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There aren't many liberals at the federal level. Let's see if you can name any of them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they're mostly far-left leftists.  

Not too many reasonable liberals in the bunch.

Oh, wait, this is where you pretend your misinterpretation of the word "liberal" is the only possible definition, isn't it?

It would be nice if you idiots didn't keep redefining words when you're losing arguments.  Of course, that's about the only way you can pretend you win.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are encouraged to list the contributions of of Conservatives to our society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights.
> 
> Standard Disclaimer: It's part of that constitution that you work so hard to get rid of...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually conservatives were not allowed to sign it
> 
> They were still loyal to the king just like they are loyal to the one percent today
> 
> Conservatives do love their kings don't they?
Click to expand...

It ain't conservatives deifying Obama, schmuck.  

Face it, liarwinger:  You would have informed on the revolutionaries to King George.  In a heartbeat.

Remember, it's your side that came up with flag@whitehouse.gov and www.attackwatch.com to encourage people to inform on their anti-Obama neighbors.

Now go polish your jackboots, you little Brown Shirt.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives do love their kings don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kings, aristocrats, slave-owners, capitalists, and those at the top of the heap generally. Yes. That's what conservatism is all about in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

Kid, what is so missing in your life that you feel the need to fill it with lies?

Seek help.


----------



## daveman

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though most are not allowed in the country club, they are satisfied that they are at least allowed to park cars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You leftist prefer keeping them on work farms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RW's vision for America.
Click to expand...

Putting political opponents in camps is one of the left's go-to solutions.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kings, aristocrats, slave-owners, capitalists, and those at the top of the heap generally. Yes. That's what conservatism is all about in a nutshell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though most are not allowed in the country club, they are satisfied that they are at least allowed to park cars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think...
Click to expand...

Objection.  Assertion of fact not in evidence.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights.
> 
> Standard Disclaimer: It's part of that constitution that you work so hard to get rid of...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually conservatives were not allowed to sign it
> 
> They were still loyal to the king just like they are loyal to the one percent today
> 
> Conservatives do love their kings don't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It ain't conservatives deifying Obama, schmuck.
> 
> Face it, liarwinger:  You would have informed on the revolutionaries to King George.  In a heartbeat.
> 
> Remember, it's your side that came up with flag@whitehouse.gov and AttackWatch to encourage people to inform on their anti-Obama neighbors.
> 
> Now go polish your jackboots, you little Brown Shirt.
Click to expand...


Is that really the best you got?

No wonder you have sunk to being a Political Chick toady

"Yea.......you are right PC......can I lick your feet?"


----------



## daveman

koshergrl said:


> Another accomplished conservative:
> 
> "As one of the most influential black men of his time, Washington was not without his critics. Many charged that his conservative approach undermined the quest for racial equality. "In all things purely social we can be as separate as the fingers," he proposed to a biracial audience in his 1895 Atlanta Compromise address, "yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress."
> 
> Booker T. Washington Biography from Boycottliberalism.com


Booker T was conservative?

Obviously, he wasn't black enough.

Right, white USMB liberals?


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> There aren't many liberals at the federal level. Let's see if you can name any of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's my point......
> 
> If I say Harry Ried...you say he's not a liberal.....but he looks and smells like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, actually he doesn't. I can name three off the top of my head, although one of them will be leaving Congress at the end of this year. The three are Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich, and Bernie Sanders. I'm sure there are a few more, but most Democrats are not liberals, and as best I can tell at this point no Republicans are liberals. Most politicians of both parties are too beholden to corporate interests to be liberals.
Click to expand...

Your political compass desperately need re-calibration, kid.  Bernie Sanders is no liberal, he's an out-and-out socialist.

You're so far to the left you make Marx look like Teddy Kennedy with a beard.  

And if anyone needed further reason, all your posts may now be safely dismissed as utterly ridiculous.


----------



## daveman

Uncensored2008 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what makes you such a hypocrite (or drug smoker).
> 
> You don't get to parse the qualifications of a "true liberal" all the while calling most anything you don't like conservative.
> 
> Conservatives don't care about their kings (like Obama).   They care who is mayor (or should).
> 
> Please stop making me laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives believe the rights of the individual are preeminent. Whether that individual is rich or poor, they are the master of their fate, fortune and mind.
> 
> Leftists believe that the group is preeminent. The individual must bow and submit to the group. Fortune and fate belong to the group, to be doled out to those the group views most worthy. The individual must subdue their mind to the views and attitudes of the group.
> 
> A king cannot exist in a conservative system. Wealthy men may ply others with cash, but they have no power above any other man. In a conservative society, they have no standing in the law above any other.
> 
> The left yearns for a ruler, they look to Obama, Castro, Pol Pot, etc. to rule them. They see the strong-man as the shepherd who guides the flock. It is the same desire that led to monarchs. The belief that rulers are better suited to dictate the details of a person's life than the person themselves.
> 
> A march to the left is always a march to dictatorship.
Click to expand...

That's why I look down on leftists.  They want to be subjects, not citizens.

Utterly spineless _weaklings_.


----------



## koshergrl

Most leftists fantasize that everybody else will be subjects, and they will enjoy the privileges of the tyrannical elite. I have no idea why they think they're entitled but they do.


----------



## daveman

Moonglow said:


> Yes we do need a good Federalists program and law like the Alien Sedetion act of 1798, get real or get to the loom my darling


Ahhh, the Alien and Sedition Act -- Obamabots would love this.

It would criminalize any criticism of The Boy King.

Tell me again how you idiots support the freedom of speech?  That one _never_ gets old.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> U.S. troops marching into Sacramento would not be an act of war, either. In fact, U.S. troops go through Sacramento frequently. I see them in San Jose, too. Most definitely U.S. troops at Beale Air Force Base in California do not constitute an act of war.
> 
> However, that's really neither here nor there. Lincoln, for his time, was a liberal. He was a liberal on the slavery issue, and on the rights of labor, too. So was Theodore Roosevelt, another Republican and the nation's first "progressive" president in the modern sense. Party is one thing, ideology is another.



Once again, you prove me right:  The basis for your "thinking" is

Conservative = bad.

Liberal = good.

Now go ahead and type 500 words denying what I claim but actually proving me correct -- you know, like you did last time.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are encouraged to list the contributions of of Conservatives to our society
> 
> 
> 
> Only to have you mindlessly screech "Nuh-UHH!!" and fling poo, you dishonest slug?
> 
> Why should I bother?
> 
> You will now predictably claim that I can't think of any, and wet your pants in glee.
> 
> So feel free to eat shit.  I heard you really like Obama's.  You'll have to arm wrestle Synthia for it, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.....it was a trick question
> But I had to ask it. Everyone knows that conservatives have contributed nothing to our society
> 
> In each generation, when problems arose.........Conservatives replied "Go fuck yourself"
Click to expand...

Yep.  I called it.  You dance to my tune.  

How does it feel to know that you're so utterly simple-minded and predictable?  Somehow, it seems you've convinced yourself that it's the superior way to be.

Normal people laugh at you.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually conservatives were not allowed to sign it
> 
> They were still loyal to the king just like they are loyal to the one percent today
> 
> Conservatives do love their kings don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> It ain't conservatives deifying Obama, schmuck.
> 
> Face it, liarwinger:  You would have informed on the revolutionaries to King George.  In a heartbeat.
> 
> Remember, it's your side that came up with flag@whitehouse.gov and AttackWatch to encourage people to inform on their anti-Obama neighbors.
> 
> Now go polish your jackboots, you little Brown Shirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that really the best you got?
> 
> No wonder you have sunk to being a Political Chick toady
> 
> "Yea.......you are right PC......can I lick your feet?"
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I can't understand you when your head is up Dragon's ass.  

Meanwhile, the fact remains that leftism is authoritarian.  You simple-minded fools need a Daddy to take care of you.  

Currently, your Daddy is Obama.  That's why you tell on the big mean conservatives who frighten you so badly.

When you report me to ATTACK WATCH!!, make sure you spell my username right, &#1086;&#1089;&#1074;&#1077;&#1076;&#1086;&#1084;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1100;.  Your masters will be pleased with you.


----------



## daveman

koshergrl said:


> Most leftists fantasize that everybody else will be subjects, and they will enjoy the privileges of the tyrannical elite. I have no idea why they think they're entitled but they do.



Little do they realize that as soon as their useful idiocy is no longer useful, they'll be put up against the wall.  

Fact.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It ain't conservatives deifying Obama, schmuck.
> 
> Face it, liarwinger:  You would have informed on the revolutionaries to King George.  In a heartbeat.
> 
> Remember, it's your side that came up with flag@whitehouse.gov and AttackWatch to encourage people to inform on their anti-Obama neighbors.
> 
> Now go polish your jackboots, you little Brown Shirt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that really the best you got?
> 
> No wonder you have sunk to being a Political Chick toady
> 
> "Yea.......you are right PC......can I lick your feet?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, I can't understand you when your head is up Dragon's ass.
> 
> Meanwhile, the fact remains that leftism is authoritarian.  You simple-minded fools need a Daddy to take care of you.
> 
> Currently, your Daddy is Obama.  That's why you tell on the big mean conservatives who frighten you so badly.
> 
> When you report me to ATTACK WATCH!!, make sure you spell my username right, &#1086;&#1089;&#1074;&#1077;&#1076;&#1086;&#1084;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1100;.  Your masters will be pleased with you.
Click to expand...


As daveman replies....


I know you are, but what am I?

You can't make this stuff up......he really writes this stuff


----------



## Listening

rightwinger said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are encouraged to list the contributions of of Conservatives to our society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is an argument to many fall for.  Conservatives don't make "contributions" in the form of positives that you can count up because that is exactly what we don't want.
> 
> The SCOTUS under FDR stood their ground until he came up with his court packing scheme.  I consider their efforts to be a contribution.  They were keeping the fed out of peoples lives.  They were protecting the constitution.
> 
> GWB was not a conservative.  He crapped out NCLB.  They should shove it back up his ass (and they should dig up Ted Kennedy and shove it up his too).
> 
> Anyway.....they don't make contributions...they keep others from making unwanted contributions......if they are conservatives.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> Conservatives are the party of "Go fuck yourself"
Click to expand...


In your case that is certainly true.  So get to it.

When it comes to others, conservatives tend to believe there are better ways help people than to first steal their liberties.

Have a good time.  I am sure you will enjoy it.


----------



## Listening

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are encouraged to list the contributions of of Conservatives to our society
> 
> 
> 
> Only to have you mindlessly screech "Nuh-UHH!!" and fling poo, you dishonest slug?
> 
> Why should I bother?
> 
> You will now predictably claim that I can't think of any, and wet your pants in glee.
> 
> So feel free to eat shit.  I heard you really like Obama's.  You'll have to arm wrestle Synthia for it, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.....it was a trick question
> But I had to ask it. Everyone knows that conservatives have contributed nothing to our society
> 
> In each generation, when problems arose.........Conservatives replied "Go fuck yourself"
Click to expand...


Actually, it's more like "You can go f__k each other, but leave us out of it."

What part of that don't you understand ?


----------



## rightwinger

Listening said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is an argument to many fall for.  Conservatives don't make "contributions" in the form of positives that you can count up because that is exactly what we don't want.
> 
> The SCOTUS under FDR stood their ground until he came up with his court packing scheme.  I consider their efforts to be a contribution.  They were keeping the fed out of peoples lives.  They were protecting the constitution.
> 
> GWB was not a conservative.  He crapped out NCLB.  They should shove it back up his ass (and they should dig up Ted Kennedy and shove it up his too).
> 
> Anyway.....they don't make contributions...they keep others from making unwanted contributions......if they are conservatives.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> Conservatives are the party of "Go fuck yourself"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your case that is certainly true.  So get to it.
> 
> When it comes to others, conservatives tend to believe there are better ways help people than to first steal their liberties.
> 
> Have a good time.  I am sure you will enjoy it.
Click to expand...


Women: We deserve the right to vote
Conservatives: Go fuck yourself

Blacks: We deserve equal treatment under the law
Conservatives: Go fuck yourself

Gays: Our relationships deserve the same recognition as heterosexual relationships
Conservatives: Go fuck yourselves


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Your political compass desperately need re-calibration, kid.  Bernie Sanders is no liberal, he's an out-and-out socialist.



He's a member of a socialist party. As far as the policies he advocates, he's a liberal His positions are no further left than those of Kucinich, who (nominally) is not a socialist, he's a Democrat.


----------



## Bfgrn

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historically invalid
> 
> It was the conservative (Torries) of the day who informed on the liberal patriots. Often costing them their lives
> 
> 
> 
> And the Torries then were nothing like conservatives today.
> 
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking 1776
> 
> Try to keep up
Click to expand...



Loyalists - Conservapedia

Loyalists were colonists who remained loyal subjects of the British crown as the thirteen American colonies declared independence in 1776 and became the United States of America. Loyalists refused to support independence, and sometimes joined Loyalist regiments set up by the British to defeat the American Revolution. Loyalists at the time were also called Tories, King's Men, or Royalists. Those Loyalists who left and resettled in Canada called themselves the United Empire Loyalists. Their colonial opponents, who supported the Revolution, were called Patriots, Whigs, Rebels, Congress Men, or, in view of their loyalty to the new United States of America, just Americans. Historians have estimated that about 15-20% of the white population may have been Loyalists (that is, about 500,000), but there are no exact numbers.

*The Loyalists were conservatives who rejected the radicalism of the new nation*; those who went to Canada resisted democracy there and became famous for their loyalty to the British crown, their admiration of royalty and aristocracy, and their anti-Americanism. The great majority of Loyalists remained in the United States, but their political beliefs had very little or no impact on the anti-aristocratic republicanism that became central to American values.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Once again, you prove me right:  The basis for your "thinking" is
> 
> Conservative = bad.
> 
> Liberal = good.



Once again, you prove that you are severely challenged in the area of reading comprehension.


----------



## Dragon

Similarities between the Tories and today's conservatives:

1) Advocacy for a wealthy elite.
2) Advocacy for authority.
3) Contempt for the rights of ordinary people.

Differences between the Tories and today's conservatives:

1) It's a different wealthy elite now than it was then.
2) It's a different set of authorities now than then.
3) The specific rights under discussion then are (mostly) not in dispute today.

The details change. The essence is a constant.


----------



## Uncensored2008

koshergrl said:


> Most leftists fantasize that everybody else will be subjects, and they will enjoy the privileges of the tyrannical elite. I have no idea why they think they're entitled but they do.



Because conservatives cherish liberty, the leftists believe that conservatives will be in prisons and camps, with the authorities constantly pursuing them - which will leave weasels like RW in some nice bureaucracy - still a toady, but one with a semblance of power over others.

Anyone who has worked in an office knows of the "little hitlers," the busy body who always demands that even the most minute rule be followed to the letter. These are the basis of the left. A rule for everything, how to sit, how to write, what to think, what to eat, what to watch, what to drive - the left will micromanage the tiniest detail.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> As daveman replies....
> 
> 
> I know you are, but what am I?
> 
> You can't make this stuff up......he really writes this stuff



Were you a hall monitor as a child? Did you make sure that those who dared chew their pencil were properly punished?

Leftism - the political position of ninnies who never grew out of it.

Oh, I take it you're "gonna tell."

AttackWatch

You can report me to the KGB - Obama does not tolerate dissent.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As daveman replies....
> 
> 
> I know you are, but what am I?
> 
> You can't make this stuff up......he really writes this stuff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you a hall monitor as a child? Did you make sure that those who dared chew their pencil were properly punished?
> 
> Leftism - the political position of ninnies who never grew out of it.
> 
> Oh, I take it you're "gonna tell."
> 
> AttackWatch
> 
> You can report me to the KGB - Obama does not tolerate dissent.
Click to expand...


"Sen. John Cornyn, accusing the White House of compiling an "enemies list" on health care, is asking President Barack Obama to cease a new program to have Americans send "fishy" information on health care to the White House."
UPDATED: Cornyn to White House: Quit collecting health care info | Trail Blazers Blog | dallasnews.com


----------



## editec

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As daveman replies....
> 
> 
> I know you are, but what am I?
> 
> You can't make this stuff up......he really writes this stuff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you a hall monitor as a child? Did you make sure that those who dared chew their pencil were properly punished?
> 
> Leftism - the political position of ninnies who never grew out of it.
> 
> Oh, I take it you're "gonna tell."
> 
> AttackWatch
> 
> You can report me to the KGB - Obama does not tolerate dissent.
Click to expand...

 
And yet oddly, *most cops* are conservatives by nature.

Odd, isn't it?


----------



## Uncensored2008

editec said:


> And yet oddly, *most cops* are conservatives by nature.
> 
> Odd, isn't it?



Izzatrite?

{The National Association of Police Organizations endorsed Barack Obama today. On a conference call with reporters, NAPO president Tom Nee pledged the support of more than 287,000 police officers and 2,000 police organizations from around the country.}

NAPO Endorses Obama - Real Clear Politics &#8211; TIME.com


Leftists: Are they liars, or really that fucking stupid?


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As daveman replies....
> 
> 
> I know you are, but what am I?
> 
> You can't make this stuff up......he really writes this stuff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you a hall monitor as a child? Did you make sure that those who dared chew their pencil were properly punished?
> 
> Leftism - the political position of ninnies who never grew out of it.
> 
> Oh, I take it you're "gonna tell."
> 
> AttackWatch
> 
> You can report me to the KGB - Obama does not tolerate dissent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Sen. John Cornyn, accusing the White House of compiling an "enemies list" on health care, is asking President Barack Obama to cease a new program to have Americans send "fishy" information on health care to the White House."
> UPDATED: Cornyn to White House: Quit collecting health care info | Trail Blazers Blog | dallasnews.com
Click to expand...


How does being informed of faulty information equate to an "enemies list"?

Is that like the Republican "Death Panel"?


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As daveman replies....
> 
> 
> I know you are, but what am I?
> 
> You can't make this stuff up......he really writes this stuff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you a hall monitor as a child? Did you make sure that those who dared chew their pencil were properly punished?
> 
> Leftism - the political position of ninnies who never grew out of it.
> 
> Oh, I take it you're "gonna tell."
> 
> AttackWatch
> 
> You can report me to the KGB - Obama does not tolerate dissent.
Click to expand...


As the daveman posse comes out in force..

Now it's......."Liberals are tattletales"


----------



## koshergrl

Uncensored2008 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet oddly, *most cops* are conservatives by nature.
> 
> Odd, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Izzatrite?
> 
> {The National Association of Police Organizations endorsed Barack Obama today. On a conference call with reporters, NAPO president Tom Nee pledged the support of more than 287,000 police officers and 2,000 police organizations from around the country.}
> 
> NAPO Endorses*Obama - Real Clear Politics  TIME.com
> 
> 
> Leftists: Are they liars, or really that fucking stupid?
Click to expand...

 
Don't limit them, they're both!


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> How does being informed of faulty information equate to an "enemies list"?
> 
> Is that like the Republican "Death Panel"?




Yeah, what makes conservatives so opposed to being moved to nice, clean work camps?

I mean, THEY chose to dissent against Obama, they should expect to be put into gulags...


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> As the daveman posse comes out in force..
> 
> Now it's......."Liberals are tattletales"



You're no liberal, you're a leftists.

Leftists are authoritarian thugs - so were you a hall monitor as a child? Did you report to teacher when other kids broke the rules?


----------



## koshergrl

That would be too up front. 

I suspect he was a mole, who informed on fellow students after getting cozy with them.


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does being informed of faulty information equate to an "enemies list"?
> 
> Is that like the Republican "Death Panel"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what makes conservatives so opposed to being moved to nice, clean work camps?
> 
> I mean, THEY chose to dissent against Obama, they should expect to be put into gulags...
Click to expand...


That's right!

I forgot your FEMA work camps.  The fear of Obama has no limits


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> That's right!
> 
> I forgot your FEMA work camps.  The fear of Obama has no limits



Bet you were outraged with Bush asked citizens to report those who spoke against him..


Oh wait, Bush never did that.

Obama does, though.

Say, are you on an Obama Truthiness Squad? Bet you look spiffy in your crisp, Brown shirt...

Serious question;

If you report a neighbor who you caught supporting the Glenn Beck network, and Obama doesn't dispatch Truthiness monitors to take the neighbor into custody, will you take matters into your own hands? You know, slit their tires, break windows, poison their cat - just so they know that you're watching them?


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right!
> 
> I forgot your FEMA work camps.  The fear of Obama has no limits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bet you were outraged with Bush asked citizens to report those who spoke against him..
> 
> 
> Oh wait, Bush never did that.
> 
> Obama does, though.
> 
> Say, are you on an Obama Truthiness Squad? Bet you look spiffy in your crisp, Brown shirt...
> 
> Serious question;
> 
> If you report a neighbor who you caught supporting the Glenn Beck network, and Obama doesn't dispatch Truthiness monitors to take the neighbor into custody, will you take matters into your own hands? You know, slit their tires, break windows, poison their cat - just so they know that you're watching them?
Click to expand...


Paranoia Patrol is coming to your neighborhood


----------



## Uncensored2008

{Obama Campaign Launches &#8216;Truth Teams&#8217;}

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/obama-campaign-launches-truth-teams/

Wear that Brown Shirt proudly, RW.....

Shall we sing a round of "Onward Obama Soldiers?"







Coming soon, to a neighborhood near you...


----------



## Uncensored2008

RW has a vision for America


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> RW has a vision for America



  Well put....I must say

Shows how out of touch with reality the radical right really is

And I DO encourage you to keep it up......America is depending on you!


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually conservatives were not allowed to sign it
> 
> They were still loyal to the king just like they are loyal to the one percent today
> 
> Conservatives do love their kings don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> It ain't conservatives deifying Obama, schmuck.
> 
> Face it, liarwinger:  You would have informed on the revolutionaries to King George.  In a heartbeat.
> 
> Remember, it's your side that came up with flag@whitehouse.gov and AttackWatch to encourage people to inform on their anti-Obama neighbors.
> 
> Now go polish your jackboots, you little Brown Shirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that really the best you got?
> 
> No wonder you have sunk to being a Political Chick toady
> 
> "Yea.......you are right PC......can I lick your feet?"
Click to expand...


Yeah, I know there's no possible way you can defend Obama's encouragement of citizens to inform upon each other.  That's why you impotently attack me.  

You gutless freak.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that really the best you got?
> 
> No wonder you have sunk to being a Political Chick toady
> 
> "Yea.......you are right PC......can I lick your feet?"
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I can't understand you when your head is up Dragon's ass.
> 
> Meanwhile, the fact remains that leftism is authoritarian.  You simple-minded fools need a Daddy to take care of you.
> 
> Currently, your Daddy is Obama.  That's why you tell on the big mean conservatives who frighten you so badly.
> 
> When you report me to ATTACK WATCH!!, make sure you spell my username right, &#1086;&#1089;&#1074;&#1077;&#1076;&#1086;&#1084;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1100;.  Your masters will be pleased with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As daveman replies....
> 
> 
> I know you are, but what am I?
> 
> You can't make this stuff up......he really writes this stuff
Click to expand...

Yup.  You can't defend your little tin god dictator-wannabe.

Normal people see it for what it is.  You pretend it;s not there and mindlessly lash out.

How many people have you denounced, coward?


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your political compass desperately need re-calibration, kid.  Bernie Sanders is no liberal, he's an out-and-out socialist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's a member of a socialist party. As far as the policies he advocates, he's a liberal His positions are no further left than those of Kucinich, who (nominally) is not a socialist, he's a Democrat.
Click to expand...

Why would a non-socialist join the Socialist Party?

This is where you huff and puff and sputter and pretend you've given a valid answer but haven't.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Yup.  You can't defend your little tin god dictator-wannabe.



That's wrong both in its description of Obama and in the suggestion that Rightwinger claims him.



> Normal people see it for what it is.



I guess we can add "delusion of normality" to your long and growing list of errors.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you prove me right:  The basis for your "thinking" is
> 
> Conservative = bad.
> 
> Liberal = good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you prove that you are severely challenged in the area of reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

The problem is not my comprehension.  The problem is you thinking you can pretty up what I summarized and pretend it means something completely different.

A hole semester of Poli Sci 101 under a far-liberal prof really doesn't prepare you for the real world, kid.  Sit down, shut up, and take notes.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> The problem is not my comprehension.  The problem is you thinking you can pretty up what I summarized and pretend it means something completely different.



Nope, it's your reading comprehension. What I said was that ideology is not party, and that Republicans have in the past sometimes been liberal while Democrats have sometimes been conservative, depending on the times, the individuals, and the issues. Specifically, on the issue of slavery, I noted that all of the Republicans were liberals, and many of the Democrats (though not all of them) were conservative.

Equating liberal with good and conservative with bad is NOT what that means or implies. You just read it into it for no better reason than that you, personally, don't like slavery, and so you find it hard to accept that supporting slavery was, at that time, a conservative position. (Now it's not. Now it would be a radical right-wing position. But when slavery was still a living issue, it was.)

If I were equating conservative with "bad," I would also say that conservatives practice every evil from rape to bank robbery to spitting on little old ladies to cannibalism. Obviously, that's not what I'm saying.

Obvious, that is, to everyone but you.


----------



## daveman

PoliticalChic said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As daveman replies....
> 
> 
> I know you are, but what am I?
> 
> You can't make this stuff up......he really writes this stuff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you a hall monitor as a child? Did you make sure that those who dared chew their pencil were properly punished?
> 
> Leftism - the political position of ninnies who never grew out of it.
> 
> Oh, I take it you're "gonna tell."
> 
> AttackWatch
> 
> You can report me to the KGB - Obama does not tolerate dissent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Sen. John Cornyn, accusing the White House of compiling an "enemies list" on health care, is asking President Barack Obama to cease a new program to have Americans send "fishy" information on health care to the White House."
> UPDATED: Cornyn to White House: Quit collecting health care info | Trail Blazers Blog | dallasnews.com
Click to expand...


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you a hall monitor as a child? Did you make sure that those who dared chew their pencil were properly punished?
> 
> Leftism - the political position of ninnies who never grew out of it.
> 
> Oh, I take it you're "gonna tell."
> 
> AttackWatch
> 
> You can report me to the KGB - Obama does not tolerate dissent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Sen. John Cornyn, accusing the White House of compiling an "enemies list" on health care, is asking President Barack Obama to cease a new program to have Americans send "fishy" information on health care to the White House."
> UPDATED: Cornyn to White House: Quit collecting health care info | Trail Blazers Blog | dallasnews.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does being informed of faulty information equate to an "enemies list"?
> 
> Is that like the Republican "Death Panel"?
Click to expand...

It's none of the government's motherfucking business what I say.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As daveman replies....
> 
> 
> I know you are, but what am I?
> 
> You can't make this stuff up......he really writes this stuff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you a hall monitor as a child? Did you make sure that those who dared chew their pencil were properly punished?
> 
> Leftism - the political position of ninnies who never grew out of it.
> 
> Oh, I take it you're "gonna tell."
> 
> AttackWatch
> 
> You can report me to the KGB - Obama does not tolerate dissent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the daveman posse comes out in force..
Click to expand...

I don't have a posse.  These are people who are tired of your lies.

Don't like it?

Stop lying, asshole.


rightwinger said:


> Now it's......."Liberals are tattletales"


ATTACKWATCH!! and informanddenounce@whitehouse.gov say you are.  

So suck it.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> It's none of the government's motherfucking business what I say.



It is when you say it publicly.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right!
> 
> I forgot your FEMA work camps.  The fear of Obama has no limits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bet you were outraged with Bush asked citizens to report those who spoke against him..
> 
> 
> Oh wait, Bush never did that.
> 
> Obama does, though.
> 
> Say, are you on an Obama Truthiness Squad? Bet you look spiffy in your crisp, Brown shirt...
> 
> Serious question;
> 
> If you report a neighbor who you caught supporting the Glenn Beck network, and Obama doesn't dispatch Truthiness monitors to take the neighbor into custody, will you take matters into your own hands? You know, slit their tires, break windows, poison their cat - just so they know that you're watching them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paranoia Patrol is coming to your neighborhood
Click to expand...

It's Obama who's paranoid.  He wants people to inform on their neighbors.  

How many have you turned in?  Have you yet been named _Gruppenführer_ of your neighborhood's Party Purity Committee?


----------



## daveman

Uncensored2008 said:


> {Obama Campaign Launches Truth Teams}
> 
> Obama Campaign Launches &#8216;Truth Teams&#8217; - ABC News
> 
> Wear that Brown Shirt proudly, RW.....
> 
> Shall we sing a round of "Onward Obama Soldiers?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coming soon, to a neighborhood near you...


----------



## daveman

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It ain't conservatives deifying Obama, schmuck.
> 
> Face it, liarwinger:  You would have informed on the revolutionaries to King George.  In a heartbeat.
> 
> Remember, it's your side that came up with flag@whitehouse.gov and AttackWatch to encourage people to inform on their anti-Obama neighbors.
> 
> Now go polish your jackboots, you little Brown Shirt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that really the best you got?
> 
> No wonder you have sunk to being a Political Chick toady
> 
> "Yea.......you are right PC......can I lick your feet?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know there's no possible way you can defend Obama's encouragement of citizens to inform upon each other.  That's why you impotently attack me.
> 
> You gutless freak.
Click to expand...

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to daveman For This Useful Post:
*rightwinger (Today)*, Uncensored2008 (Today)

Liarwinger admits he's both impotent and gutless.

We already knew that.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  You can't defend your little tin god dictator-wannabe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's wrong both in its description of Obama and in the suggestion that Rightwinger claims him.
Click to expand...

I guess you missed all the posts where he had the opportunity to defend Obama's "inform on your neighbors for criticizing me" actions but chose instead to be stupid.

Re-read the thread.  Educate yourself.  Stop looking like a moron.



Dragon said:


> Normal people see it for what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we can add "delusion of normality" to your long and growing list of errors.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you can't defend your little tin god dictator-wannabe either, I see.

Typical.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is not my comprehension.  The problem is you thinking you can pretty up what I summarized and pretend it means something completely different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's your reading comprehension. What I said was that ideology is not party, and that Republicans have in the past sometimes been liberal while Democrats have sometimes been conservative, depending on the times, the individuals, and the issues. Specifically, on the issue of slavery, I noted that all of the Republicans were liberals, and many of the Democrats (though not all of them) were conservative.
> 
> Equating liberal with good and conservative with bad is NOT what that means or implies. You just read it into it for no better reason than that you, personally, don't like slavery, and so you find it hard to accept that supporting slavery was, at that time, a conservative position. (Now it's not. Now it would be a radical right-wing position. But when slavery was still a living issue, it was.)
> 
> If I were equating conservative with "bad," I would also say that conservatives practice every evil from rape to bank robbery to spitting on little old ladies to cannibalism. Obviously, that's not what I'm saying.
> 
> Obvious, that is, to everyone but you.
Click to expand...

Good Gaea -- you're STILL DOING IT.

Also, this particularly juicy bit of lunacy:  "...supporting slavery was, at that time, a conservative position. (Now it's not. *Now it would be a radical right-wing position.*"
Prove it, you lttle shit.  Prove it or shut the hell up.  Post links from radical right-wingers saying they support slavery.  

You won't.  You can't.  Because you're a dishonest little bastard.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's none of the government's motherfucking business what I say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is when you say it publicly.
Click to expand...

Oooh, another little Brown Shirt.  

_Fuck_ Obama.  Report me, snitch.  Make sure you spell my username right.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daveman said:


> The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to daveman For This Useful Post:
> *rightwinger (Today)*, Uncensored2008 (Today)
> 
> Liarwinger admits he's both impotent and gutless.
> 
> We already knew that.



Yeah, I noticed that too.

This is part of the reason I'm convinced that RW is just a sock meant to mock the lefties. He is SO absurd that he defames the mindless left. He is a parody of the leftist extreme.


----------



## daveman

Uncensored2008 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to daveman For This Useful Post:
> *rightwinger (Today)*, Uncensored2008 (Today)
> 
> Liarwinger admits he's both impotent and gutless.
> 
> We already knew that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I noticed that too.
> 
> This is part of the reason I'm convinced that RW is just a sock meant to mock the lefties. He is SO absurd that he defames the mindless left. He is a parody of the leftist extreme.
Click to expand...

You may be correct.  No one can believe the utterly stupid shit he says and still be smart enough to operate a computer.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Good Gaea -- you're STILL DOING IT.



Hey, I think I'm in a better position to know what Good Gaea would approve of or not than you are.



> "...supporting slavery was, at that time, a conservative position. (Now it's not. *Now it would be a radical right-wing position.*"
> 
> Prove it, you lttle shit.  Prove it or shut the hell up.  Post links from radical right-wingers saying they support slavery.



That's not necessary as a proof, since the phrase I used was "would be" not "is." It would be a radical right-wing position (if anyone actually held it) because it's not defense of something currently or recently in the status quo (that would make it conservative), but a radical restoration of an oppressive system done away with long ago.

It WAS a conservative position to defend slavery in the 1850s-1860s, because at that time slavery WAS part of the status quo, which liberals like Lincoln wanted to abolish gradually, while radicals like Garrison wanted to abolish immediately.

All of which follows logically from an understanding of what those words really mean, which I realize you lack, but there it is.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Oooh, another little Brown Shirt.



Goodness, but you get bent out of shape over having your opinions exposed, don't you? You do realize that no penalties can be assessed for exercising your free speech BEYOND having your opinions exposed for all to see, which is a very significant difference between what you're complaining about and genuine fascism?


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> I guess you missed all the posts where he had the opportunity to defend Obama's "inform on your neighbors for criticizing me" actions but chose instead to be stupid.



Well, that looks to me as if he isn't trying to claim Obama for his own, honestly. So why are you calling him "your" little tin god or whatever you said?

It's not hard to defend, because it's not anything to really complain about. All that's being done is to expose propaganda and lies to public view and point it out so people can be aware of it. You know, even if Obama wanted to actually PUNISH people for expressing those views, a desire for which there is zero evidence, he couldn't do so because of the First Amendment. So what the hell are you worried about?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Hey, I think I'm in a better position to know what Good Gaea would approve of or not than you are.



Why?

Would a Greek be in a better position to know what Zeus approves of?

In fact, Zeus is far more sophisticated than the Gaea idiocy.



> That's not necessary as a proof, since the phrase I used was "would be" not "is." It would be a radical right-wing position because it's not defense of something currently or recently in the status quo (that would make it conservative), but a radical restoration of an oppressive system done away with long ago.



Trying to assign 17th century issues to 21st century politics is sophomoric pud pulling.

From a rational standpoint - not that you have any experience with being rational, the left is collectivist. I mean, you would agree that collectivism is a major feature of the left, wouldn't you?

So the left essentially views society as a collection, which can be broken into groups. Rights, privileges and immunities accrue to the group, with the individual accruing those rights that belong to the group.

The right is all about the individual. Individual rights to have weapons, individual rights to speech, individuals having the right to decide if and what health coverage they will have, etc. 

Given the nature of each, then one must conclude logically, that the authoritarian left would be more prone to declaring a group to be without civil protection and forced to serve other groups.



> It WAS a conservative position to defend slavery in the 1850s-1860s, because at that time slavery WAS part of the status quo,



Complete idiocy and fabrication.

Again, you attempt to dishonestly mold issues from a past era into modern politics. 



> which liberals like Lincoln wanted to abolish gradually, while radicals like Garrison wanted to abolish immediately.



Yawn, sophomoric dishonesty is so banal.



> All of which follows logically from an understanding of what those words really mean, which I realize you lack, but there it is.



There is nothing "logical" about your little fib, it is complete idiocy, fabricated in hopes of supporting unrelated political positions you currently hold.

Let's check some facts, I know how you hate facts, but..

Slavery ended in America in 1862.

In the Marxist government of China, slavery is practiced today.

In the Marxist government of the USSR, slavery was practiced to the day the wall fell.

In the Marxist government of the Khmer Rouge, slavery was practiced for the entire span of the regime.

In the Marxist government of Vietnam, slavery is practiced today.

So logically, WHO is more likely to support slavery? Who DOES support slavery? The left - Marxists.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to daveman For This Useful Post:
> *rightwinger (Today)*, Uncensored2008 (Today)
> 
> Liarwinger admits he's both impotent and gutless.
> 
> We already knew that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I noticed that too.
> 
> This is part of the reason I'm convinced that RW is just a sock meant to mock the lefties. He is SO absurd that he defames the mindless left. He is a parody of the leftist extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may be correct.  No one can believe the utterly stupid shit he says and still be smart enough to operate a computer.
Click to expand...


Wow....I provoked a right wing circle jerk


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Wow....I provoked a right wing circle jerk



Hey dude, I think you're brilliant. You have 90% of the forum fooled. Plus you do more for the conservative cause by exposing the idiocy of the left than any of the rest of us do.

Keep up the good work.


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....I provoked a right wing circle jerk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dude, I think you're brilliant. You have 90% of the forum fooled. Plus you do more for the conservative cause by exposing the idiocy of the left than any of the rest of us do.
> 
> Keep up the good work.
Click to expand...


Thanks....you can go back to blowing daveman


----------



## Dragon

One common source of confusion, and I know why this happens, is that conservatives don't like to think of conservative positions as changing over time. To think of it that way is to validate progressivisim. To acknowledge that conservatives in the mid 19th century defended slavery, which today no conservative will do, is to admit that we are moving in a progressive direction, and that as liberals win various battles, things that were once conservative causes became lost causes and then became things that conservatives disavowed, while moving on to new issues (as did liberals).

All of that's true, though. The liberalism of today will be the conservatism of tomorrow. The conservatism of today will be unthinkably reactionary tomorrow.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I noticed that too.
> 
> This is part of the reason I'm convinced that RW is just a sock meant to mock the lefties. He is SO absurd that he defames the mindless left. He is a parody of the leftist extreme.
> 
> 
> 
> You may be correct.  No one can believe the utterly stupid shit he says and still be smart enough to operate a computer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow....I provoked a right wing circle jerk
Click to expand...

You like to watch circle jerks?

Well, takes all kinds, I suppose.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....I provoked a right wing circle jerk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dude, I think you're brilliant. You have 90% of the forum fooled. Plus you do more for the conservative cause by exposing the idiocy of the left than any of the rest of us do.
> 
> Keep up the good work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks....you can go back to blowing daveman
Click to expand...

And there's the typical leftist homophobia.  

You're really good at this!


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> One common source of confusion, and I know why this happens, is that conservatives don't like to think of conservative positions as changing over time. To think of it that way is to validate progressivisim. To acknowledge that conservatives in the mid 19th century defended slavery, which today no conservative will do, is to admit that we are moving in a progressive direction, and that as liberals win various battles, things that were once conservative causes became lost causes and then became things that conservatives disavowed, while moving on to new issues (as did liberals).
> 
> All of that's true, though. The liberalism of today will be the conservatism of tomorrow. The conservatism of today will be unthinkably reactionary tomorrow.


There you go again:

Liberal = good.

Conservative = bad.


It's a tropism for you, isn't it?


----------



## Listening

rightwinger said:


> Women: We deserve the right to vote
> Conservatives: Go fuck yourself



That's why Wyoming (that liberal bastion even in the 1800's) gave women the right to vote in local elections something like 50 years before the 19th was ratified.

But you keep trying.

In reading through this thread is has become obvious that your stormtrooper talking points were to hastily put together.


----------



## Listening

rightwinger said:


> Blacks: We deserve equal treatment under the law
> Conservatives: Go fuck yourself



Sure, that is what Romney is campaigning on.....

Liberals.....to blacks: Just listen to us, we'll keep you in the dark (pardon the pun).

All you need to know is that whitey is not on your side....


----------



## Listening

Prop. 8 and the Hispanic Vote - HispanicBusiness.com

Yep....that is why over 50% of those nasty conservative hispanics voted Yes on prop 8:

Hispanics have been both criticized and praised for their role in Prop. 8 passing. The Yes campaign thanked the turnout of Hispanics who were eager to vote for Barack Obama, but whose religious values would lead them to vote yes on Prop. 8. Hispanic supporters of gay marriage are quick to point out that the discrimination homosexuals face is similar to the discrimination Hispanics continue to face. Said Los Angeles Spanish-language radio personality Fernando Espuelas, "The irony of Latino support for Prop. 8 is sad. That a community that continues to struggle for basic rights would deny them to another is particularly baffling."

*****************************

Way to easy.


----------



## Listening

rightwinger said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....I provoked a right wing circle jerk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dude, I think you're brilliant. You have 90% of the forum fooled. Plus you do more for the conservative cause by exposing the idiocy of the left than any of the rest of us do.
> 
> Keep up the good work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks....you can go back to blowing daveman
Click to expand...


Smacked that one right out of the park.

I think what you provoked was a masacre.  

But, you'll get over this ass kicking like you have all the others.


----------



## daveman

Listening said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dude, I think you're brilliant. You have 90% of the forum fooled. Plus you do more for the conservative cause by exposing the idiocy of the left than any of the rest of us do.
> 
> Keep up the good work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks....you can go back to blowing daveman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smacked that one right out of the park.
> 
> I think what you provoked was a masacre.
> 
> But, you'll get over this ass kicking like you have all the others.
Click to expand...

He defeated us by repeating slamming his ass into our boots.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> There you go again:
> 
> Liberal = good.
> 
> Conservative = bad.



You really need to work on that reading comprehension problem, Dave. What I've said isn't as hard to understand as your confusion would lead one to believe. To say that when it was a live issue, conservatives supported slavery, is not to say "conservatism is bad." It's merely to state a fact of history.


----------

