How Liberals Debate

[red states rule]

show me one.

and I'll show you their ties to the fossil fuel industry.

This article tells you all need to know about the fraud and manufactured crisis known as global warming


Global warming swindle
By Thomas Sowell
March 17, 2007


Britain's Channel 4 has produced a devastating documentary titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It has apparently not been broadcast by any of the networks in the United States. But, fortunately, it is available on the Internet.
Distinguished scientists specializing in climate and climate-related fields talk in plain English and present readily understood graphs showing what a crock the current global warming hysteria is.
These include scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and top-tier universities in a number of countries. Some are scientists whose names were paraded on some of the global warming publications being promoted in the media -- but who state plainly that they neither wrote those publications nor approved them.
One scientist threatened to sue unless his name was removed.
While the public has been led to believe "all" the leading scientists buy the global warming hysteria and the political agenda that goes with it, in fact the official reports from the United Nations or the National Academy of Sciences are written by bureaucrats -- and then garnished with the names of leading scientists who were "consulted," but whose contrary conclusions have been ignored.
There is no question the globe is warming, but it has warmed and cooled before, and is not as warm today as it was some centuries ago, before there were any automobiles and before there was as much burning of fossil fuels as today.
None of the dire things predicted today happened then.
The British documentary goes into some of the many factors that have caused the Earth to warm and cool for centuries, including changes in activities on the sun, 93 million miles away and wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the Kyoto treaty.
According to these climate scientists, human activities have very little effect on the climate, compared to many other factors, from volcanoes to clouds. These climate scientists likewise debunk mathematical models used to hype global warming though hard evidence stretching back over centuries contradicts these models.
What is even scarier than seeing how easily the public, the media and the politicians have been manipulated and stampeded, is discovering how much effort has been put into silencing scientists who dare to say the emperor has no clothes.
Academics who jump on the global warming bandwagon are far likelier to get big research grants than those who express doubts -- and research is the lifeblood of an academic career at leading universities.
Environmental movements around the world are committed to global warming hysteria and nowhere more so than on college and university campuses, where they can harass those who say otherwise. One of the scientists interviewed on the British documentary reported getting death threats.

In politics, even conservative Republicans seem to have taken the view that, if you can't lick 'em, join 'em. So have big corporations, which have joined the stampede.
This only enables the green crusaders to declare at every opportunity that "everybody" believes the global warming scenario, except for a scattered few "deniers" who are likened to Holocaust deniers.
The difference is that we have the hardest and most painful evidence that there was a Holocaust. But, for the global warming scenario causing such hysteria, we have only a movie made by a politician and mathematical models whose results change drastically when you change a few of the arbitrarily selected variables.
No one denies that temperatures are about a degree warmer than a century ago.
What the climate scientists in the British documentary deny is that you can mindlessly extrapolate that, or that we are headed for a climate catastrophe if we don't take drastic steps that could cause an economic catastrophe.
"Global warming" is just the latest in a long line of hysterical crusades to which we seem to be increasingly susceptible.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/...4745-4182r.htm
__________________

 

[red states rule]

show me one.

and I'll show you their ties to the fossil fuel industry.

Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth
COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.

University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.


It is generally assumed the Earth's atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.


"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".


He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.


The argument is presented in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.


http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Danish_...-012154-7403r/

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Right wing conservatives now DECLARE NASA A LEFT WING MEDIA WHORE!!!!


Just wait wiggles. Red State Rules will find some way to make this true. Even if he has to lie thru his teeth.

Another point of contention is that no one has ever proven outside of the laboratory whether global warming occurs as a result of carbon dioxide. Scientists have ample fossil evidence that shows that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen as the Earth grows warmer, but no one has yet shown that a rise in carbon dioxide is responsible for the past temperature increases. It is possible that the warming in the distant past could have triggered the rise in carbon dioxide

 

[red states rule]

Another point of contention is that no one has ever proven outside of the laboratory whether global warming occurs as a result of carbon dioxide. Scientists have ample fossil evidence that shows that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen as the Earth grows warmer, but no one has yet shown that a rise in carbon dioxide is responsible for the past temperature increases. It is possible that the warming in the distant past could have triggered the rise in carbon dioxide

When Al Bore trades in his limo for a Yugo - then I will listen to what he bellows

 

[red states rule]

Libs are starting to stake out their anti war and anti military platform for the 08 election



Democrats in '08 race battle over anti-war vote
By Donald Lambro

The race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination has turned almost entirely into a contest over who has the toughest and most credible plan to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq.
Now, the front-runners are adjusting their positions and escalating their rhetoric in an all-out battle for support among anti-war Democratic voters in January's early caucus and primary states.
"Basically, the race is on for the hearts and minds of the majority of Democratic primary voters who oppose the war, and that's what you see happening now," said campaign consultant Bud Jackson, who produces TV ads for Democratic candidates.
In Iowa, for example, where the nation's first presidential caucuses take place, "it's the major issue with core Democrats," said Rob Tully, the state's former Democratic chairman.
Among the top contenders, no one has had more political difficulty with the issue than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who until recently has opposed proposals from within her party to set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq. She opposed President Bush's plan to send additional troops to Iraq, and instead favored keeping the current level of forces there.
But with her presidential-preference polls in decline, she abruptly adjusted her position last week, deciding to support legislation the Senate approved Thursday that would begin phased troop withdrawals within four months, "with the goal" of pulling all combat forces out of Iraq by March 31, 2008.
Mrs. Clinton's strategists said she concluded the term "goal" did not set an absolute deadline for troop withdrawal, a move that she has said was "not smart strategy" to defeat insurgents in Iraq.
Her midcourse correction also came after her chief rival for the nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, escalated his opposition to the war during a campaign stop in Iowa.
"We're in the midst of a war that should never have been authorized," Mr. Obama said in Dubuque. During the campaign stop, his staff distributed the text of a speech Mr. Obama gave in 2002 as a state senator denouncing the U.S.-led war.
"I think it's a contrast between me and the other candidates," he told the Des Moines Register. "I have consistently believed this war was not just a problem of execution, but was a problem of conception."
His remarks were seen as stepped-up criticism of Mrs. Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the party's 2004 vice presidential nominee, both of whom voted for the Senate resolution authorizing the war. Mrs. Clinton has refused calls to admit her vote was a mistake or to apologize for it, while Mr. Edwards has renounced his vote and called it the worst vote he cast in the Senate.
Mr. Tully, who is backing Mr. Edwards, said Mr. Obama's decision to fire up his anti-war attacks on his rivals "is a very smart move."

"That's a challenge for Hillary to overcome that," he said.
Mrs. Clinton held a narrow lead in the national polls last week, but in Iowa, Mr. Edwards was leading the pack with his calls for a withdrawal of all troops within 12 months -- a position that receives standing ovations from Democratic audiences. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama were in a virtual dead heat for second place.
"In a multi-candidate field, you try to differentiate your position from the others. This is one issue where Obama feels he has a better record," said Mr. Jackson, the campaign consultant.
"He's trying to stake out the claim that he is the true anti-war Democrat and has never wavered. He's trying to drive a wedge between his position on the war and Hillary's," he said.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070318-124643-9437r.htm

 

[T-Bor]

Dude, do you not see the hypocrisy here? All YOU do is bash the left, thats all you do. You call them Moonbats and defeatocrats and everyother name in the book. Yet you say thats all Republicans do. This is too freaking funny. Red states does to dems EXACTLY what he says Dems do to republicans. LOL...

Yes you have debated - like a typical liberal. You insult, smear, and attack.

It is so typical of the moonbat left to attack an opponent when he/she posts articals that back up their position.

For someone you hold in such low esteem - you do respond frequently to my posts

 

[Dr Grump]

Another point of contention is that no one has ever proven outside of the laboratory whether global warming occurs as a result of carbon dioxide. Scientists have ample fossil evidence that shows that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen as the Earth grows warmer, but no one has yet shown that a rise in carbon dioxide is responsible for the past temperature increases. It is possible that the warming in the distant past could have triggered the rise in carbon dioxide

You could be right, but I think throwing billions of tonnes of toxins into the air has to affect the Earth in a derogatory way. Try going to Shanghei and breath in the air. I mean, take huge, gulping lungfulls for a coulpe of weeks and see how your health is. And at least scientists have proved it in the laboratory. The naysayers of global warming haven't proved anything other than they don't believe (shrug)...

 

[wiggles]

Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth
COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.

University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.


It is generally assumed the Earth's atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.


"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Danish_...-012154-7403r/

That's why they changed the terminology to climate change years ago. Despite the slanted headline, no one in this article is saying that CO2-induced climate change isn't happening.

NEXT!

 

[GeeWhiz]

I would say that those on the right are bigoted, prejudiced against everyone and everything not in agreement with their narrow-minded, very conservative view of the world. The right's ignorance and stubbornness tend to cause there malaprop-filled arguments to self-destruct. The right often responds to uncomfortable truths by blowing a raspberry.

 

[red states rule]

I would say that those on the right are bigoted, prejudiced against everyone and everything not in agreement with their narrow-minded, very conservative view of the world. The right's ignorance and stubbornness tend to cause there malaprop-filled arguments to self-destruct. The right often responds to uncomfortable truths by blowing a raspberry.

If you want to racism look no farther the left.

as far as the topic of the thread..............


Scientists Blame Hollywood for Global Warming Hysteria
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 19, 2007 - 13:21.
March 2007 might go down in science history as the month the global warming skeptics struck back.

From a British documentary debunking myths currently being advanced by the alarmists to Al Gore being challenged to a debate, scientists across the questionably warming globe have clearly thrown down the gauntlet.

The most recent event transpired at a conference in Oxford today, where some noted scientists stated that Hollywood is not doing the world a service by overstating and exaggerating the risks of climate change.

As reported by the Daily Mail (emphasis added throughout):

Leading climate change experts have thrown their weight behind two scientists who hit out at the "Hollywoodisation" of global warming.

Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, criticised fellow scientists they accuse of "overplaying" the message.

Wise words, wouldn’t you agree? The article continued:

Professor Hardaker warned against the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and climate seen in films such as the 2004 smash hit film The Day After Tomorrow, which depicts terrifying consequences after the melting of the Arctic ice shelf.

Such films, he said, only work to create confusion in the public mind.

Hardaker offered suggestions:

"I don't think the way to make people pay attention is to make them afraid about it," he said.

"We have to help them understand it and allow them to make choices - because the impact of climate change is going to mean we have got some quite difficult choices to make both in policy and as members of the public.

"Unless we can understand the science behind it, we can't be expected to get our heads around making these difficult choices."

Presenting events such as the shutting off of the Gulf Stream, creating a cooling effect, and the rise of temperatures together could be "confusing", he said, unless it is made clear that the former is far less likely than the latter.

He said the scientists should avoid being forced to make wild predictions about the future in response to climate change sceptics such as those seen in Channel 4's recent programme, Global Climate Swindle.

He said: "We must be careful not to sensationalise our side of the argument or Hollywoodise the argument otherwise you end up in an ever increasing cycle of claim and counter-claim.

"We have to be clear about what our level of understanding is and to be clear about where we are making judgements based on understanding."

Hardaker wasn’t alone in these sentiments:

Dr Peter Stott, manager of understanding and attributing climate change at the Hadley Centre for Climate Change, said he believes scientists have to make it clear there is a long way to go until we know how bad climate change will be.

He said: "There is a lot more research to do to understand about exactly what effects its going to have on you and me in the future."

He said that while he welcomed a growing public awareness about the dangers brought about by films and headlines, informed debate was vital.

"I think it is important that having said there is a problem, it would be unfortunate if people got the impression that there's nothing we can do about it because there is a lot we can do to change the future of climate change," he said.

Hmmm. Reasoned debate? About a scientific issue that has now been politicized by politicians and media representatives in several countries?

What a concept.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11512

 

[red states rule]

Dude, do you not see the hypocrisy here? All YOU do is bash the left, thats all you do. You call them Moonbats and defeatocrats and everyother name in the book. Yet you say thats all Republicans do. This is too freaking funny. Red states does to dems EXACTLY what he says Dems do to republicans. LOL...

I call them as I see them. Libs ahve a long history of being on the wrong side of history and appeasing evil

 

[glockmail]

I would say that those on the right are bigoted, prejudiced against everyone and everything not in agreement with their narrow-minded, very conservative view of the world. The right's ignorance and stubbornness tend to cause there malaprop-filled arguments to self-destruct. The right often responds to uncomfortable truths by blowing a raspberry.

?

 

[red states rule]

Racist liberalism...............


Negroes vs. black conservatives

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 23, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern




In the minds of elite, white, liberal, socialist Democrats, there is an unambiguous dichotomy between Negroes and black conservatives. A glaring example of this truth is the racist bastardization of America's newest secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. And the support for this racism from corporate America to Bob Beckel to rank and file Democrats in leadership.

Rice is one of America's most accomplished individuals, notwithstanding women – as is Bush judicial nominee Justice Janice Rogers-Brown; as is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; as is Ambassador and senatorial candidate Alan Keyes; as is Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Colin Powell and the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson. The aforementioned comprise a very small number of a very large and ever increasing number of conservatives who happen to be black.

It is interesting to observe that these are not the impuissant or recreant. These are either the best or among the best in their respective fields. It is further interesting to note that these listed are not recognized because of financial impropriety, illegitimate children, drugs, philandering, number of abortions, race baiting or complaints of whites holding them back. They are recognized for their hard work, honesty, integrity and diligence. They are recognized for their educational accomplishments, their personal sacrifices and their love for country.

In a day and time of nihilistic, blame whitey, "somebody owes me something and can't get ahead because I'm black" – these are the people elite liberals vilify and viciously ridicule – not based on issues, but based on their being black with conservative ideologies.

In a day when there are over 10 million fewer blacks under the age of 18 because of abortion alone, white racist liberals like Aaron McGruder, Gary Trudeau, Ted Rall, and John "Sly" Sylvester seek to humiliate Rice and Rogers-Brown.

Democrat campaign manager, long-time operative and extreme white, liberal, socialist Bob Beckel invoked a "Saturday Night Live" rendition of Scripture references while debating Ann Coulter regarding the hate-filled racist cartoons of Rice. But he didn't invoke disdain – for the cartoons that is. His disdain was directed at Coulter for daring to argue in support of Rice.

This is not recrudence for elitist liberals and the Democrat Party – it is the continuation of that which they have stood for since their inception in 1840, when they wrote that efforts by abolitionists to interfere with questions of slavery ... endangered the stability and permanency of the Union. In 1852, the Democrat Party wrote they would oppose all efforts to oppose slavery.

From 1876 until 1960, Democrats successfully blocked all progress in civil rights. Prior to that, from 1860 to 1876, Republicans were singularly responsible for all black civil-rights accomplishments despite fierce opposition by Democrats.

Much is made of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision striking down state segregated education. What is never mentioned is that the Supreme Court ruling was a reinstating of what Republicans had done nearly 75 years earlier in their 1875 civil-rights bill, which was overturned by Democrats in 1880.

Liberal Democrats, aided by the true "house slaves," railed against Trent Lott, R-Miss., for his jocund comments celebrating the late Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday. While Thurmond was at one time a segregationist Democrat, it receives little notice that he switched parties in 1964, denounced his prior leanings and was the first Southern senator to hire a black in his senate office – something no Southern Democrat had ever done.

Yet there is nothing mentioned by liberals per Christopher Dodd's, D-Conn., superlatives about the racist Klansman, Robert Byrd, D-W.V. His comments that Byrd "would have been right for the Civil War" were accurate in his Democrat mind.

It was the Republican Party that was formed in 1854 expressly to combat slavery and secure civil rights for blacks. The Democrats were responsible for the Dred Scott decision declaring blacks were not persons – but property – and as such had no rights.

Contrary to popular myth and revisionist history, the Civil War was fought precisely because of slavery, and Klansman Byrd was an outspoken sympathizer for the Dred Scott Doctrine.

Byrd's comments of knowing "white *******" was nothing more than reducing whites he didn't like to the level of blacks.

Herein lies the unfortunate truth: Liberal elites will suffer lecherous impotents like Jackson, Sharpton, the NAACP, Whoopi Goldberg and Danny Glover as long as they sing the right tune. Democrats like Harold McCall, Maynard Jackson and Harold Ford, D-Tenn., are quickly reminded of their proper place.

Erica from "Brenner, Ford, Monroe and Scott" in Chicago saw fit to tell me I was the reason "The black race couldn't get along." Does anyone believe for an instant that such liberal racism would be tolerated if even hinted by conservatives?

Independent thought, belief in meritocracy, self-initiative and self-determination are not words elite liberals are willing to accept from their black subjects. The question isn't why would blacks be conservatives – the question is why would they ever be Democrats?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41598

 

[red states rule]

1. Avoid factual arguments, they're usually against you anyway.

So what are you arguing that subjective opinions are facts? Sweetheart, you need to stop eating all those retard sandwiches.

5. When you're losing, and you usually will be, abruptly change the subject. Again the object of this is to distract and deflect attention from your opponent's argument.

I haven't changed the subject at all. This whole thread's been about the merits of your original post all along. It's the same subject now as it was 15 posts ago.

8. Purposely misunderstand what is being said by your opponent and distort it into something you can use.

All you're saying is that what you pasted into the original post is a "good article" full of "facts." I'm explaining to you that it's full of the writer's subjective opinions, which you happen to share.
Again, slowly, subjective opinions are not facts. My opinion that the color chartreuse is pretty doesn't mean it's a cold hard fact that it is pretty.

This from one the big liberal rags:

Betraying their base -- the Democrats can do it too
March 20, 2007


IT'S IRONIC. Republicans by most accounts got trounced in the last election because they "lost their way." The latest cover of Time magazine even has a picture of Ronald Reagan crying like that American Indian from the old anti-pollution ads of the 1970s. Instead of a bunch of roadside litter, the Gipper is supposedly looking at the GOP's mess.

How did Republicans lose their way? The cliches runneth over. They grew comfortable in power. They forgot why they were sent to Washington. They became addicted to spending. They lost touch with their constituents, their principles, their souls.

Just because such statements are cliches doesn't mean they're not true. Indeed, you hear these complaints from the conservative base more than from anywhere else. The GOP grew sweaty and bloated like a fat man at an all-you-can-eat pasta bar, and the voters were right to pry the Republicans' white-knuckled grip from the hot table's sneeze guard.

So here's the ironic part. Suddenly, it looks as if the Democrats are the Republicans on fast-forward. It's early yet, and the Democrats did finish their mini-Contract with America — the so-called first 100 hours — with mixed success on the substance but great fanfare in the media. Yet items like upping the minimum wage and shafting oil companies, although certainly not insubstantial, were primarily symbolic.

The most important issue in the November elections, as every single political observer with a pulse will tell you, was the war in Iraq. The weasel words and euphemisms — "strategic redeployment," "course change," whatever — couldn't conceal the simple fact that the Democrats were elected in large part to end the war. That was certainly how the party's liberal base saw it, then and now.

But look at how the Democrats are behaving. They've completely failed to stop the surge, and their latest efforts to derail the war are so convoluted — timetables on top of timetables — that even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.), a cosponsor of legislation to withdraw troops by September 2008, can't explain them.

CNN's John Roberts played a clip on "Late Edition" from a news briefing in which Obey muddled nearly every detail of the Democrats' plan. Roberts then asked Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), "How do you pass or enforce something you can't even explain?" It's a good question.

But the answer may not matter because House Democrats have decided to lard the supplemental appropriations bill with billions in pork to sell their troop-withdrawal gimmicks. "Included in the legislation," reported the Washington Post, "is a lot of money to help win support. The price tag exceeds the president's war request by $24 billion." That number includes giveaways for spinach farmers and money for peanut storage. Back when Democrats were in the minority, they would have denounced this as piggy-backing pork on the troops.

When Obey was confronted in the halls of Congress by a group of antiwar activists, they demanded to know why it was taking so long to end the war. He responded by calling them "idiot liberals." Conservatives may believe that Obey is demonstrating that he's not out of touch with the base, but somehow I doubt liberals see it that way.

Forget the war for a minute. What's the second most important issue for liberals today? Global warming, of course. For example, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) claims that he's not running for president in '08 so he can dedicate himself to the issues of Iraq and climate change. John Edwards says global warming will make world war look like heaven. Major donors in Hollywood who hate the prospect of sweating in greenhouse gases as they walk to the gangway of their private jets think that global warming is the defining issue of our age.

So now's the time to solve global warming, right? For years, we've been subjected to charges that President Bush "refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol." Well, guess what? Bush couldn't sign Kyoto. It was already signed by the previous president — that Clinton guy — who immediately shoved it in his desk drawer. (Bush didn't sign the Treaty of Versailles either, by the way.)

If Kyoto's such a priority, why hasn't Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) fought to take it up? There's a strong legal case that, once signed, a treaty is automatically in the Senate's court. Senators can take it up anytime they want. But you don't hear Reid fighting to take up Kyoto even though it's our best hope to combat the Most Dangerous Threat Facing Mankind.

Of course, Kyoto would never pass even a Democrat-controlled Senate because it would wreak havoc on the economy. And other Democratic betrayals in the making face similar problems. Democrats could never repeal the Defense of Marriage Act or the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But that's the ironic part. Republicans went soft because doing what the base wanted was too damn hard. It seems the same fate awaits the Democrats.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg20mar20,0,881976.column?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I call them as I see them. Libs ahve a long history of being on the wrong side of history and appeasing evil

If you call them like you see them, then can't see shit.

You really don't get it. There is no liberal and conservative anymore. Today's political climate has skewed the lines that were once black and white. Everyone has their own preconcieved notions of conservative and liberal. If a Senator votes to cut taxes 84 times in a term but votes nay to an anti-abortion bill he is immediately labeled liberal.

There is no liberal and conservative anymore, there is simply comtempt and hatred for views other than your own. Your hypocrisy is downright hilarious. So far in this thread you have railed against liberals with a cut and paste job from this mornings e-mail and passed it off as your own. You have called Bully a "moonbat", that is real mature. At least Bully has an original thought every now and then. You do nothing but rail against "librulls". Yet you probablt cannot even give a proper definition of one. You are no better than the idiots in congress trying to supbeona Karl Rove. You sound like Chuck Schumer.

 

[maineman]

If you call them like you see them, then can't see shit.

You really don't get it. There is no liberal and conservative anymore. Today's political climate has skewed the lines that were once black and white. Everyone has their own preconcieved notions of conservative and liberal. If a Senator votes to cut taxes 84 times in a term but votes nay to an anti-abortion bill he is immediately labeled liberal.

There is no liberal and conservative anymore, there is simply comtempt and hatred for views other than your own. Your hypocrisy is downright hilarious. So far in this thread you have railed against liberals with a cut and paste job from this mornings e-mail and passed it off as your own. You have called Bully a "moonbat", that is real mature. At least Bully has an original thought every now and then. You do nothing but rail against "librulls". Yet you probablt cannot even give a proper definition of one. You are no better than the idiots in congress trying to supbeona Karl Rove. You sound like Chuck Schumer.

it cracks me up when conservatives say that liberals are on the "wrong side of history" which is a clear sign that they know little about history. If they did, they would know that progressive liberalism WON the 20th century and will undoubtedly win this century as well. From suffrage, to civil rights, to child labor laws to social security to minimum wage to workplace safety to environmental protection - to name just a few - liberals shoved their agenda up the asses of stubborn, but continually losing conservatives.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

it cracks me up when conservatives say that liberals are on the "wrong side of history" which is a clear sign that they know little about history. If they did, they would know that progressive liberalism WON the 20th century and will undoubtedly win this century as well. From suffrage, to civil rights, to child labor laws to social security to minimum wage to workplace safety to environmental protection - to name just a few - liberals shoved their agenda up the asses of stubborn, but continually losing conservatives.

Easy, that was not a defense of liberalism. It was commentary on how there is no liberalism anymore. The lines are skewed. As for the 20th century, It was more of a collected effort of both sides. You forget that it was liberals that damn near let Germany take over the whole of Europe twice. It was liberals that undermined that Vietnam Conflict and it was a liberal that cut the military down to almost nothing in a so called time of "peace."

 

[maineman]

Easy, that was not a defense of liberalism. It was commentary on how there is no liberalism anymore. The lines are skewed. As for the 20th century, It was more of a collected effort of both sides. You forget that it was liberals that damn near let Germany take over the whole of Europe twice. It was liberals that undermined that Vietnam Conflict and it was a liberal that cut the military down to almost nothing in a so called time of "peace."

I think if you go and check, the secretary of defense who asked for the biggest dollar cut in defense spending was named Cheney.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I think if you go and check, the secretary of defense who asked for the biggest dollar cut in defense spending was named Cheney.

Cutting dollars and cutting resources are two different concepts. Besides you are talking about one single instance. If you add up eight years of cuts , Cheney's reduction in spendin pales in comparison. Try again sparky.

 

[maineman]

Cutting dollars and cutting resources are two different concepts. Besides you are talking about one single instance. If you add up eight years of cuts , Cheney's reduction in spendin pales in comparison. Try again sparky.

building and buying defense assets to fight the cold war after it was won was stupid...don't you agree, sparky?