Explaining Conservatives

[PoliticalChic]

Evoking family members...how unclassy and how unsurprising.

Wow....do you walk into it each and every time!!!!

Thank you for bringing up "unclassy" (you lose style points- should have used "classless")....let's get into that:


1. Why would an astute individual champion a low-class individual like Fluke, who broadcasts her bedroom habits.....demands that the public advance her supplies she needs for her sexual endeavors, and....on top of it....is wealthy enough to pay for her own, in private?

"Poor Sandra Fluke… She Wants You To Pay For Her $9/Month Birth Control As She Frolics in Spain & Pompeii"
Poor Sandra Fluke? She Wants You To Pay For Her $9/Month Birth Control As She Frolics in Spain & Pompeii | The Gateway Pundit


Guess you aren't astute, eh?

Compared to you, I'm a freaking Rhode Scholar. But please continue to put the GOP on the other side of the contraception/abortion battle. You've lost 5 of the last 6 popular votes....largely due to the votes of women. Keep up your assault and you're going to see 6 out of 7.

Anyone can see this but you're not very bright are you....

2. And, I love being able to point your protests out as an example of those of a dupe of the communist/socialist/Liberal/Democrats....
The following where part of the statement of goals by the Communist Party....

a. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

b. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

c. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals

See how neatly you fit in?
So, that identifies you as a classless dupe.

Raise your paw.

There were a lot of words there...quoting rense.com (here is picture of where you get your "wisdom"...)

Whatever you say...

Fluke may not be the gift that keeps on giving...your idiotic ass is.

Lets play house. You be the door and I'll slam you. Here we go:



1. "Compared to you, I'm a freaking Rhode Scholar..."
I'll leave that up to the readers....but I'm fairly certain that the sentence above takes you out of the running.





2. "There were a lot of words there...quoting rense.com (here is picture of where you get your "wisdom"...)

It's been shown regularly that the most ignorant of posters argue about the source of the material rather than the veracity of same.
Do you know what that means?

Had you availed yourself of the link, you would have found that the origin was a member of Congress...
Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963 .






3. The three items quoted...

a. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

b. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

c. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce

....show the link between those who aim to culturally undermine the nation....and how Fluke and you fit as examples.


Seems that you were piqued by same, as you were unable to claim the connections untrue.
Need the dictionary again?




4. But let's remember, you have a lot of well-wishers. They would all like to throw you down one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think that the best way to explain present-day "conservatism" is through an historical perspective:

Crackpot Doom Scandal: "Conservatism"

You defeated your own purpose when you fibbed by using those first two words.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why are you people trashing the first lady for her talking about what country the presidents family hails from?

because you are racists

Because he claims that his family is from Hawaii. The kenyans claim he was born in Kenya, Michelle calls Kenya his home country. But his BC say Hawaii and his SS number was issued in Conn (even though he never lived in Conn).

You still don't know who he is and where he came from, but yet , you worship his every word and deed like he is your religious messiah.

fishy......Obama is so unpopular today that Kenyans are claiming in was born in America.

 

[Mathbud1]

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

From your source:

At a time when most movements that are thought to be progressive advocate further encroachments on individual liberty,[1] those who cherish freedom are likely to expend their energies in opposition. In this they find themselves much of the time on the same side as those who habitually resist change. In matters of current politics today they generally have little choice but to support the conservative parties. But, though the position I have tried to define is also often described as "conservative," it is very different from that to which this name has been traditionally attached. There is danger in the confused condition which brings the defenders of liberty and the true conservatives together in common opposition to developments which threaten their ideals equally. It is therefore important to distinguish clearly the position taken here from that which has long been known - perhaps more appropriately - as conservatism.

Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense.[2] This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling themselves "liberals." I will nevertheless continue for the moment to describe as liberal the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true conservatism as from socialism. Let me say at once, however, that I do so with increasing misgivings, and I shall later have to consider what would be the appropriate name for the party of liberty. The reason for this is not only that the term "liberal" in the United States is the cause of constant misunderstandings today, but also that in Europe the predominant type of rationalistic liberalism has long been one of the pacemakers of socialism.

So he does not seem to be liberal (progressive) by today's standards either. Instead he's the kind of classical liberal or libertarian who feels compelled to stand by the conservatives in opposition to the progressives.

It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments. But, though there is a need for a "brake on the vehicle of progress,"[3] I personally cannot be content with simply helping to apply the brake. What the liberal must ask, first of all, is not how fast or how far we should move, but where we should move. In fact, he differs much more from the collectivist radical of today than does the conservative.

I'd say that is a compelling argument that we cannot simply hang on to the good things we have from our past but push for better things in our future. And not through some collectivist grey methods of mediocrity and uber-equality.

 

[candycorn]

Wow....do you walk into it each and every time!!!!

Thank you for bringing up "unclassy" (you lose style points- should have used "classless")....let's get into that:


1. Why would an astute individual champion a low-class individual like Fluke, who broadcasts her bedroom habits.....demands that the public advance her supplies she needs for her sexual endeavors, and....on top of it....is wealthy enough to pay for her own, in private?

"Poor Sandra Fluke… She Wants You To Pay For Her $9/Month Birth Control As She Frolics in Spain & Pompeii"
Poor Sandra Fluke? She Wants You To Pay For Her $9/Month Birth Control As She Frolics in Spain & Pompeii | The Gateway Pundit


Guess you aren't astute, eh?

Compared to you, I'm a freaking Rhode Scholar. But please continue to put the GOP on the other side of the contraception/abortion battle. You've lost 5 of the last 6 popular votes....largely due to the votes of women. Keep up your assault and you're going to see 6 out of 7.

Anyone can see this but you're not very bright are you....

2. And, I love being able to point your protests out as an example of those of a dupe of the communist/socialist/Liberal/Democrats....
The following where part of the statement of goals by the Communist Party....

a. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

b. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

c. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals

See how neatly you fit in?
So, that identifies you as a classless dupe.

Raise your paw.

There were a lot of words there...quoting rense.com (here is picture of where you get your "wisdom"...)

Whatever you say...

Fluke may not be the gift that keeps on giving...your idiotic ass is.

Lets play house. You be the door and I'll slam you. Here we go:

That is so lame, it's funny.

1. "Compared to you, I'm a freaking Rhode Scholar..."
I'll leave that up to the readers....but I'm fairly certain that the sentence above takes you out of the running.

You said "conservatives know whats going on". You don't know shit as I've demonstrated 50 times so far. You predicted a Romney landslide. He lost bigtime. Give it up you daft moron.
Putting 5 lines between your "thoughts" doesn't do shit to make people think you're intelligent.

2. "There were a lot of words there...quoting rense.com (here is picture of where you get your "wisdom"...)

It's been shown regularly that the most ignorant of posters argue about the source of the material rather than the veracity of same.
Do you know what that means?

Had you availed yourself of the link, you would have found that the origin was a member of Congress...
Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

Ahh, a terror warning from 1963...really germane to the topic of you "knowing what's going on.

Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963 .






3. The three items quoted...

a. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

b. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

c. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce

....show the link between those who aim to culturally undermine the nation....and how Fluke and you fit as examples.


Seems that you were piqued by same, as you were unable to claim the connections untrue.
Need the dictionary again?
[/quote]
No caffeine, you bore the shit out of everyone you come in contact with.

4. But let's remember, you have a lot of well-wishers. They would all like to throw you down one.

[/QUOTE]

Again, so lame it's funny on it's own...

 

[Foxfyre]

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

From your source:

At a time when most movements that are thought to be progressive advocate further encroachments on individual liberty,[1] those who cherish freedom are likely to expend their energies in opposition. In this they find themselves much of the time on the same side as those who habitually resist change. In matters of current politics today they generally have little choice but to support the conservative parties. But, though the position I have tried to define is also often described as "conservative," it is very different from that to which this name has been traditionally attached. There is danger in the confused condition which brings the defenders of liberty and the true conservatives together in common opposition to developments which threaten their ideals equally. It is therefore important to distinguish clearly the position taken here from that which has long been known - perhaps more appropriately - as conservatism.

Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense.[2] This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling themselves "liberals." I will nevertheless continue for the moment to describe as liberal the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true conservatism as from socialism. Let me say at once, however, that I do so with increasing misgivings, and I shall later have to consider what would be the appropriate name for the party of liberty. The reason for this is not only that the term "liberal" in the United States is the cause of constant misunderstandings today, but also that in Europe the predominant type of rationalistic liberalism has long been one of the pacemakers of socialism.

So he does not seem to be liberal (progressive) by today's standards either. Instead he's the kind of classical liberal or libertarian who feels compelled to stand by the conservatives in opposition to the progressives.

It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments. But, though there is a need for a "brake on the vehicle of progress,"[3] I personally cannot be content with simply helping to apply the brake. What the liberal must ask, first of all, is not how fast or how far we should move, but where we should move. In fact, he differs much more from the collectivist radical of today than does the conservative.

I'd say that is a compelling argument that we cannot simply hang on to the good things we have from our past but push for better things in our future. And not through some collectivist grey methods of mediocrity and uber-equality.

It is the difference between the definitions of liberalism and conservatism from the 18th and 19th centuries as opposed to what those terms came to be identified with in 20th Century America which is pretty much what those terms are identified with now. And the reality of what they are identified with now has little in common with the traditional dictionary definitions.

Modern day American liberalism has much more in common with the concepts of Marxism. And modern day Conservatives have much more in common with the 19th century liberals which most sociologists now characterize as 'classical liberalism'.

The difference between the two is profound and contains many components. But modern day conservatism aka classical liberalism can be boiled down to one concept: government's role should be to recognize and secure our unalienable rights and otherwise the people should be left to form whatever sort of societies they wish to have and govern themselves.

Modern day liberals mostly see the state as owner of everything and as authorized to dictate to the people what they should and should not have, what they should or should not be allowed to be, think, or express, and to allocate the common resources among the people as the state deems proper. Or that is the way things should be.

 

[Mathbud1]

Who are the Tea Partiers (with some name recognition) who can't be considered conservatives?

All A are B does not mean all B are A.

Pretty basic.

You claimed Tea Party doesn't equal Conservative. Who are the Tea Partiers who aren't conservatives?

Tea Party is a subset of Conservatives. It does not equal Conservatives.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All A are B does not mean all B are A.

Pretty basic.

You claimed Tea Party doesn't equal Conservative. Who are the Tea Partiers who aren't conservatives?

Tea Party is a subset of Conservatives. It does not equal Conservatives.

1. Libertarian attitudes are fueling roughly half the tea party activists, according to our new Cato Institute survey. These libertarian tea partiers believe “the less government the better” and don’t see a role for government in promoting “traditional values.” This is a big reason why the movement has largely focused on economic matters, resisting attempts to add social issues to its agenda.

2. Just under half, or 48 percent, of tea partiers at the recent Virginia Tea Party Convention held views that are more accurately described as libertarian — fiscally conservative, to be sure, but moderate to liberal on social and cultural issues.

3. 60 percent of the libertarian tea partiers label themselves as “independent” or “something else,” compared to 37 percent of tea party conservatives. The other half of our survey sample, roughly 51 percent, held traditional conservative views — agreeing on “the less government the better” but also believing that government should promote traditional values.

4. Many still mistake the tea party as one large group, sharing common interests, which our research shows is incorrect. Understanding the tea party’s two halves—libertarian and conservative—may help unravel the seemingly contradictory impulses of the group: If it is an independent movement,….
Opinion: Tea party's other half - David Kirby and Emily Ekins - POLITICO.com

 

[Foxfyre]

All A are B does not mean all B are A.

Pretty basic.

You claimed Tea Party doesn't equal Conservative. Who are the Tea Partiers who aren't conservatives?

Tea Party is a subset of Conservatives. It does not equal Conservatives.

I don't think it is even a subset. The Tea Party is so broad and takes in so many different personality types and ideological perspectives about so many things that it can't be defined as a particular ideology. It includes Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and has a HUGE difference of opinions on almost all social issues from abortion to gay marriage to guns to welfare to religion to drugs or pick your controversial topic of choice.

What Tea Partiers do have in common is a commitment to small, efficient, effective, constitutional government, recognition of unalienable rights, and leaving as much resources with the people as possible so that they can govern themselves. All conservative concepts, yes, but that is not all the Tea Partiers are personally. Maybe some incidental groups calling themselves Tea Party get into social activism, but that is not common among the Tea Party--is very rare. Most Tea Party groups get into no social activism or speak to that at all.

 

[candycorn]

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

From your source:



So he does not seem to be liberal (progressive) by today's standards either. Instead he's the kind of classical liberal or libertarian who feels compelled to stand by the conservatives in opposition to the progressives.

It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments. But, though there is a need for a "brake on the vehicle of progress,"[3] I personally cannot be content with simply helping to apply the brake. What the liberal must ask, first of all, is not how fast or how far we should move, but where we should move. In fact, he differs much more from the collectivist radical of today than does the conservative.

I'd say that is a compelling argument that we cannot simply hang on to the good things we have from our past but push for better things in our future. And not through some collectivist grey methods of mediocrity and uber-equality.

It is the difference between the definitions of liberalism and conservatism from the 18th and 19th centuries as opposed to what those terms came to be identified with in 20th Century America which is pretty much what those terms are identified with now. And the reality of what they are identified with now has little in common with the traditional dictionary definitions.

Modern day American liberalism has much more in common with the concepts of Marxism. And modern day Conservatives have much more in common with the 19th century liberals which most sociologists now characterize as 'classical liberalism'.

The difference between the two is profound and contains many components. But modern day conservatism aka classical liberalism can be boiled down to one concept: government's role should be to recognize and secure our unalienable rights and otherwise the people should be left to form whatever sort of societies they wish to have and govern themselves.

Modern day liberals mostly see the state as owner of everything and as authorized to dictate to the people what they should and should not have, what they should or should not be allowed to be, think, or express, and to allocate the common resources among the people as the state deems proper. Or that is the way things should be.

Bull-shit.

Only Conservatives want to tell a woman she can't have an abortion; many times under only the specter of death herself and sometimes not even then.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Compared to you, I'm a freaking Rhode Scholar. But please continue to put the GOP on the other side of the contraception/abortion battle. You've lost 5 of the last 6 popular votes....largely due to the votes of women. Keep up your assault and you're going to see 6 out of 7.

Anyone can see this but you're not very bright are you....



There were a lot of words there...quoting rense.com (here is picture of where you get your "wisdom"...)

Whatever you say...

Fluke may not be the gift that keeps on giving...your idiotic ass is.

Lets play house. You be the door and I'll slam you. Here we go:

That is so lame, it's funny.


You said "conservatives know whats going on". You don't know shit as I've demonstrated 50 times so far. You predicted a Romney landslide. He lost bigtime. Give it up you daft moron.
Putting 5 lines between your "thoughts" doesn't do shit to make people think you're intelligent.

2. "There were a lot of words there...quoting rense.com (here is picture of where you get your "wisdom"...)

It's been shown regularly that the most ignorant of posters argue about the source of the material rather than the veracity of same.
Do you know what that means?

Had you availed yourself of the link, you would have found that the origin was a member of Congress...
Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

Ahh, a terror warning from 1963...really germane to the topic of you "knowing what's going on.

Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963 .






3. The three items quoted...

a. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

b. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

c. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce

....show the link between those who aim to culturally undermine the nation....and how Fluke and you fit as examples.


Seems that you were piqued by same, as you were unable to claim the connections untrue.
Need the dictionary again?

No caffeine, you bore the shit out of everyone you come in contact with.

4. But let's remember, you have a lot of well-wishers. They would all like to throw you down one.

[/QUOTE]

Again, so lame it's funny on it's own...[/QUOTE]



1. Here are the three items quoted...

a. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

b. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

c. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce

....show the link between those who aim to culturally undermine the nation....and how Fluke and you fit as examples.


2. Those would seem to any normal person to be quite an indictment....

....and your only defense is "Ahh, a terror warning from 1963...really germane to the topic of you "knowing what's going on."

If the above describes a slut in 1963....and you champion that behavior today.....well, still seems to be that of a slut.
Or, is it your view that 50 years later, everyone is a slut?
Or that somehow you lead the vanguard in said behavior?
Really?
Didn't anyone ever love you enough to teach you self respect?





3. Admit it....you've been put in your place, and you actually helped prove what a low-life you are.

Did you leave the stove on? Cause you just got burned.

The best part? You will never be able to live down to your reputation!



You just don't seem able to recognize that if you were a swine, you would be what you are now!





4. Thou art only mark'd for hot vengeance and the rod of heaven.

I just threw that in to remind how uneducated you are, and I wanted to see if you would recognize the author.
Shakespeare.

I'm certain that E. L. James is more your speed.
You do read....don't you?



I'd like to leave you with one thought, ....but I'm not sure you have anywhere to put it.

Come back whenever you need another lesson.

 

[candycorn]

1. Here are the three items quoted...

a. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

b. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

c. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce

....show the link between those who aim to culturally undermine the nation....and how Fluke and you fit as examples.

How many times was Newt Gingrich divorced? I guess he was trying to undermine the nation?

2. Those would seem to any normal person to be quite an indictment....

....and your only defense is "Ahh, a terror warning from 1963...really germane to the topic of you "knowing what's going on."

If the above describes a slut in 1963....and you champion that behavior today.....well, still seems to be that of a slut.
Or, is it your view that 50 years later, everyone is a slut?
Or that somehow you lead the vanguard in said behavior?
Really?
Didn't anyone ever love you enough to teach you self respect?

So Newt Gingrich is a slut? He's been married and divorced more times than Sandra Fluke for certain. He's the epitome of reckless behavior where words and actions have no consequence...

But somehow, like all conservatives, when a woman may be promiscuous (not saying Ms. Fluke is or isn't--she wanted contraceptives included in her medical plan; thats all--she gets that monniker; when a man does it, he's doing what comes natural?

3. Admit it....you've been put in your place, and you actually helped prove what a low-life you are.

No, I've simply demonstrated how wrong you were in the OP which is why you keep coming back and trying to level insult after insult; even bringing my mother into it. I haven't felt the need to impune your parents. If anything, you've illustrated just what a piece of shit you are as, again, all I have done is demonstrate how flawed your "thinking" is.

Did you leave the stove on? Cause you just got burned.

Oh gee, another lame joke. Why don't you make like a banana and split...but then again, what would you use for entertainment tonight?

The best part? You will never be able to live down to your reputation!

I predicted a Romney Massacre, you predicted a Romney Landslide. In the parlance of the forum, my reputation is in tact. Yours is somewhere between the gutter and your home inside the gutter.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Here are the three items quoted...

a. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

b. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

c. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce

....show the link between those who aim to culturally undermine the nation....and how Fluke and you fit as examples.

How many times was Newt Gingrich divorced? I guess he was trying to undermine the nation?

2. Those would seem to any normal person to be quite an indictment....

....and your only defense is "Ahh, a terror warning from 1963...really germane to the topic of you "knowing what's going on."

If the above describes a slut in 1963....and you champion that behavior today.....well, still seems to be that of a slut.
Or, is it your view that 50 years later, everyone is a slut?
Or that somehow you lead the vanguard in said behavior?
Really?
Didn't anyone ever love you enough to teach you self respect?

So Newt Gingrich is a slut? He's been married and divorced more times than Sandra Fluke for certain. He's the epitome of reckless behavior where words and actions have no consequence...

But somehow, like all conservatives, when a woman may be promiscuous (not saying Ms. Fluke is or isn't--she wanted contraceptives included in her medical plan; thats all--she gets that monniker; when a man does it, he's doing what comes natural?





No, I've simply demonstrated how wrong you were in the OP which is why you keep coming back and trying to level insult after insult; even bringing my mother into it. I haven't felt the need to impune your parents. If anything, you've illustrated just what a piece of shit you are as, again, all I have done is demonstrate how flawed your "thinking" is.

Did you leave the stove on? Cause you just got burned.

Oh gee, another lame joke. Why don't you make like a banana and split...but then again, what would you use for entertainment tonight?

The best part? You will never be able to live down to your reputation!

I predicted a Romney Massacre, you predicted a Romney Landslide. In the parlance of the forum, my reputation is in tact. Yours is somewhere between the gutter and your home inside the gutter.

Rather than either denying the charges against Fluke or yourself....your strategy is to claim that others are as culpable?

I certainly want you to take it personally.....but it is the the breakdown of society that we are really discussing.


And you don't seem able to understand what the problem is.
I have to speak to you as though your are a three year old.
You're not very bright....one proof of that is that a sense of humor is a sign of intelligence.
You have no ability to be clever, nor appreciate it in others......the best you can do is "another lame joke."


I do enjoy needling you.....and I'm very careful of how I express my opinions of you because I want to put as much vituperation in them as possible.

If it makes me laugh....you will continue to be the butt of the joke.


And....I haven't used any vulgar language...as you have.
More evidence of how you've been brought up?


You see, those who think like you are ruining this nation. Out of wedlock births,
promiscuity, lack of self control, doing what ever feels good....are detrimental...and, happen to be exactly what those three quotes predicted.



I can prove it very simply.
Would you teach your children to subscribe to the values that are associated with Fluke....and you have taken as yours?


I don't think so.


And, to borrow from Edmond Rostand....'as I end my refrain...thrust home:'

You better hide, the garbage collector is coming!

 

[OODA_Loop]

So Newt Gingrich is a slut?

Not one that I have to provide contraception for.

 

[candycorn]

1. Here are the three items quoted...

a. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

b. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

c. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce

....show the link between those who aim to culturally undermine the nation....and how Fluke and you fit as examples.

How many times was Newt Gingrich divorced? I guess he was trying to undermine the nation?


So Newt Gingrich is a slut? He's been married and divorced more times than Sandra Fluke for certain. He's the epitome of reckless behavior where words and actions have no consequence...

But somehow, like all conservatives, when a woman may be promiscuous (not saying Ms. Fluke is or isn't--she wanted contraceptives included in her medical plan; thats all--she gets that monniker; when a man does it, he's doing what comes natural?





No, I've simply demonstrated how wrong you were in the OP which is why you keep coming back and trying to level insult after insult; even bringing my mother into it. I haven't felt the need to impune your parents. If anything, you've illustrated just what a piece of shit you are as, again, all I have done is demonstrate how flawed your "thinking" is.


Oh gee, another lame joke. Why don't you make like a banana and split...but then again, what would you use for entertainment tonight?

The best part? You will never be able to live down to your reputation!

I predicted a Romney Massacre, you predicted a Romney Landslide. In the parlance of the forum, my reputation is in tact. Yours is somewhere between the gutter and your home inside the gutter.

Rather than either denying the charges against Fluke or yourself....your strategy is to claim that others are as culpable?

I certainly want you to take it personally.....but it is the the breakdown of society that we are really discussing.

No.

It's a breakdown in society you're alleging.

And you're quoting this breakdown from 1963...some 50 years ago. I'm sure we're going to go over the edge any old time now right Ms. Cleaver?

You're attempting to paint Ms. Fluke as some sort of harbinger of this alleged breakdown but, of course, as always I'm pointing out that the so called "in touch" conservatives are just as "culpable" and even more so. And, as always, I rub your nose in the shit you spew.....you cited "easy divorce" so I simply brought up Ms. Fluke wasn't divorced however, Conservative Hero has been on that ride a few times (as have other heroes such as Reagan, Limbaugh, etc...) Want another helping?

And you don't seem able to understand what the problem is.

Sure I do. I called you on your bullshit, you got your feelings hurt and we've been going on for what, 2 days now because you haven't realized you've lost the argument numerous times now.

I have to speak to you as though your are a three year old.

That is the length of your comprehension so I expect nothing different.

You're not very bright....one proof of that is that a sense of humor is a sign of intelligence.
You have no ability to be clever, nor appreciate it in others......the best you can do is "another lame joke."

Your repertoire of humor is somewhere between Hinny Youngman and Phyllis Diller honey...it wasn't funny in 1980 and it's hardly funny now.

I do enjoy needling you.

I'm pretty sure you enjoy doing a lot of things with needles.

If it makes me laugh....you will continue to be the butt of the joke.

If? You've done nothing but make me laugh honey. Keep setting them up and I'll keep knocking them down as schedule allows.

And....I haven't used any vulgar language...as you have.
More evidence of how you've been brought up?

I guess calling people "slut" isn't vulgar in the ghetto where you were raised. (Post 173). In most society it is a term of vulgarity.

You see, those who think like you are ruining this nation. Out of wedlock births,
promiscuity, lack of self control, doing what ever feels good....are detrimental...and, happen to be exactly what those three quotes predicted.

Sounds like Newt Gingrich to me...

I can prove it very simply.
Would you teach your children to subscribe to the values that are associated with Fluke....and you have taken as yours?

I would be proud to have kids that grew up to be like Ms. Fluke before I'd be proud to have kids that grew up to be like Newt Gingrich...yes.

I don't think

No kidding.

And, to borrow from Edmond Rostand....'as I end my refrain...thrust home:'

You better hide, the garbage collector is coming!

Another lame joke but it pretty much embodies your life...a lame joke.

 

[candycorn]

So Newt Gingrich is a slut?

Not one that I have to provide contraception for.

Actually, he's probably getting a government pension so you're likely paying for a lot more than his contraception...you're probably paying for the lifestyles of his ex wife(s).

Meanwhile Ms. Fluke is costing you $0.00.

 

[Meister]

So Newt Gingrich is a slut?

Not one that I have to provide contraception for.

Actually, he's probably getting a government pension so you're likely paying for a lot more than his contraception...you're probably paying for the lifestyles of his ex wife(s).

Meanwhile Ms. Fluke is costing you $0.00.

Fluke was no more than a campaign prop. It began and ended there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How many times was Newt Gingrich divorced? I guess he was trying to undermine the nation?


So Newt Gingrich is a slut? He's been married and divorced more times than Sandra Fluke for certain. He's the epitome of reckless behavior where words and actions have no consequence...

But somehow, like all conservatives, when a woman may be promiscuous (not saying Ms. Fluke is or isn't--she wanted contraceptives included in her medical plan; thats all--she gets that monniker; when a man does it, he's doing what comes natural?





No, I've simply demonstrated how wrong you were in the OP which is why you keep coming back and trying to level insult after insult; even bringing my mother into it. I haven't felt the need to impune your parents. If anything, you've illustrated just what a piece of shit you are as, again, all I have done is demonstrate how flawed your "thinking" is.


Oh gee, another lame joke. Why don't you make like a banana and split...but then again, what would you use for entertainment tonight?


I predicted a Romney Massacre, you predicted a Romney Landslide. In the parlance of the forum, my reputation is in tact. Yours is somewhere between the gutter and your home inside the gutter.

Rather than either denying the charges against Fluke or yourself....your strategy is to claim that others are as culpable?

I certainly want you to take it personally.....but it is the the breakdown of society that we are really discussing.

No.

It's a breakdown in society you're alleging.

And you're quoting this breakdown from 1963...some 50 years ago. I'm sure we're going to go over the edge any old time now right Ms. Cleaver?

You're attempting to paint Ms. Fluke as some sort of harbinger of this alleged breakdown but, of course, as always I'm pointing out that the so called "in touch" conservatives are just as "culpable" and even more so. And, as always, I rub your nose in the shit you spew.....you cited "easy divorce" so I simply brought up Ms. Fluke wasn't divorced however, Conservative Hero has been on that ride a few times (as have other heroes such as Reagan, Limbaugh, etc...) Want another helping?


Sure I do. I called you on your bullshit, you got your feelings hurt and we've been going on for what, 2 days now because you haven't realized you've lost the argument numerous times now.


That is the length of your comprehension so I expect nothing different.


Your repertoire of humor is somewhere between Hinny Youngman and Phyllis Diller honey...it wasn't funny in 1980 and it's hardly funny now.


I'm pretty sure you enjoy doing a lot of things with needles.


If? You've done nothing but make me laugh honey. Keep setting them up and I'll keep knocking them down as schedule allows.


I guess calling people "slut" isn't vulgar in the ghetto where you were raised. (Post 173). In most society it is a term of vulgarity.


Sounds like Newt Gingrich to me...


I would be proud to have kids that grew up to be like Ms. Fluke before I'd be proud to have kids that grew up to be like Newt Gingrich...yes.

I don't think

No kidding.

And, to borrow from Edmond Rostand....'as I end my refrain...thrust home:'

You better hide, the garbage collector is coming!

Another lame joke but it pretty much embodies your life...a lame joke.

"I would be proud to have kids that grew up to be like Ms. Fluke....."

That pretty much says it all....


You'd probably climb a glass wall to what was on the other side

 

[candycorn]

Rather than either denying the charges against Fluke or yourself....your strategy is to claim that others are as culpable?

I certainly want you to take it personally.....but it is the the breakdown of society that we are really discussing.

No.

It's a breakdown in society you're alleging.

And you're quoting this breakdown from 1963...some 50 years ago. I'm sure we're going to go over the edge any old time now right Ms. Cleaver?

You're attempting to paint Ms. Fluke as some sort of harbinger of this alleged breakdown but, of course, as always I'm pointing out that the so called "in touch" conservatives are just as "culpable" and even more so. And, as always, I rub your nose in the shit you spew.....you cited "easy divorce" so I simply brought up Ms. Fluke wasn't divorced however, Conservative Hero has been on that ride a few times (as have other heroes such as Reagan, Limbaugh, etc...) Want another helping?


Sure I do. I called you on your bullshit, you got your feelings hurt and we've been going on for what, 2 days now because you haven't realized you've lost the argument numerous times now.


That is the length of your comprehension so I expect nothing different.


Your repertoire of humor is somewhere between Hinny Youngman and Phyllis Diller honey...it wasn't funny in 1980 and it's hardly funny now.


I'm pretty sure you enjoy doing a lot of things with needles.


If? You've done nothing but make me laugh honey. Keep setting them up and I'll keep knocking them down as schedule allows.


I guess calling people "slut" isn't vulgar in the ghetto where you were raised. (Post 173). In most society it is a term of vulgarity.


Sounds like Newt Gingrich to me...


I would be proud to have kids that grew up to be like Ms. Fluke before I'd be proud to have kids that grew up to be like Newt Gingrich...yes.


No kidding.

And, to borrow from Edmond Rostand....'as I end my refrain...thrust home:'

You better hide, the garbage collector is coming!

Another lame joke but it pretty much embodies your life...a lame joke.

"I would be proud to have kids that grew up to be like Ms. Fluke....."

That pretty much says it all....

A tough smart liberated woman...you betcha I'd take Ms. Fluke as a role model well before I'd take Newt Gingrich.

You'd probably climb a glass wall to what was on the other side

The 70's called, they want their sense of humor back.

 

[candycorn]

Not one that I have to provide contraception for.

Actually, he's probably getting a government pension so you're likely paying for a lot more than his contraception...you're probably paying for the lifestyles of his ex wife(s).

Meanwhile Ms. Fluke is costing you $0.00.

Fluke was no more than a campaign prop. It began and ended there.

Yeah, you would think it would have but for some reason, conservatives haven't learned their lesson.