liberalism is nothing but emotion. NO logic

[Mr. Shaman]

liberalism is nothing but emotion. NO logic

​

March 16, 2013

Newt Gingrich:
GOP establishment "mired in stupidity"​

.

.

 

[Redfish]

Shaman-----mired in juvenile large font colored posts that have absolutely no value.

grow up idiot.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Liberals refuse to take responsibility for themselves. I just heard one complaining to Stephanie that he hates his own girlfriend and her name is Stephanie. Duh.. why is he dating her if he hates her? Liberals. They make no sense!!!!! - Jeremiah

 

[Dubya]

Liberals refuse to take responsibility for themselves. I just heard one complaining to Stephanie that he hates his own girlfriend and her name is Stephanie. Duh.. why is he dating her if he hates her? Liberals. They make no sense!!!!! - Jeremiah

What responsiblity do conservatives take? They claim to believe in a Republican and every election they try voter suppression. Do you see conservatives refuting their kind who post threads about keeping people from voting? If one of their kind starts a thread about poor people shouldn't vote or only people who pay taxes should vote, you don't hear a word out of the hypocrites. Do conservatives take responsibility for fucking up the economy?

Face the facts, you can lie all you want to, but this country has rejected your kind!

 

[Erand7899]

You are a damn nutcase. The entire far right is based on emotion, fear and paranoia.

and your last post is --------- emotion, fear, and paranoia free??? LOL not even close. you like all liberals, are an angry child, you probably got picked last for dodgeball during recess and you have been trying to get even ever since. pathetic little whiner

Excellent work showing off two more right wing emotions, hate and ignorance.

Just look at most every post on this site from the right wingers, all they do is bitch and bitch about how everything is "da libs" fault, blaming them for their miserable existences and failures in life.

Just another dumbass contradiction in your political dogma. You cannot seem to figure out whether conservatives are rich, greedy bastards, or miserable failures in life.

Let me give you a hint to chew on. Success is not measured in dollars or assets. It is measured in self respect and self confidence.

 

[Redfish]

Liberals refuse to take responsibility for themselves. I just heard one complaining to Stephanie that he hates his own girlfriend and her name is Stephanie. Duh.. why is he dating her if he hates her? Liberals. They make no sense!!!!! - Jeremiah

What responsiblity do conservatives take? They claim to believe in a Republican and every election they try voter suppression. Do you see conservatives refuting their kind who post threads about keeping people from voting? If one of their kind starts a thread about poor people shouldn't vote or only people who pay taxes should vote, you don't hear a word out of the hypocrites. Do conservatives take responsibility for fucking up the economy?

Face the facts, you can lie all you want to, but this country has rejected your kind!

LOL, the obama thugs invented voter suppression, and voter fraud.

But I guess that you think proving who you are before voting is some kind of suppression, but voting multiple times and voting from the grave are fine and dandy.

you are a special kind of stupid, dub.

 

[Nosmo King]

If even once Conservatives were on the right side of history, if even once a Conservative proffered an opinion that was based in fact rather than anecdote, if even once a Conservative reasoned out the conclusion of his ideology, you might have a point.

As it is, you cannot persuade without precedent. You cannot convince without winning results.

A made up mind is a closed mind. Those who cling to failed ideology are both delusional and specious. Congratulations!

Another dipshit moaning for facts while offering none.

Ho-hum.

All right let's talk facts.

I said Conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history. Conservatives opposed civil rights, workplace safety regulations, environmental protections, child labor laws, equal rights for women, marriage equality for homosexual couples, economic safety nets for the poor, elderly and infirmed, collective bargaining for workers, a woman's right to her own reproductive system. Without the ossified objections by Conservatives, all of these things would have been resolved without political divisiveness, bloodshed and turmoil.

If I'm wrong, please cite the Conservative leaders and organizations that championed any of these issues.

 

[RandallFlagg]

If even once Conservatives were on the right side of history, if even once a Conservative proffered an opinion that was based in fact rather than anecdote, if even once a Conservative reasoned out the conclusion of his ideology, you might have a point.

As it is, you cannot persuade without precedent. You cannot convince without winning results.

A made up mind is a closed mind. Those who cling to failed ideology are both delusional and specious. Congratulations!

Another dipshit moaning for facts while offering none.

Ho-hum.

All right let's talk facts.

I said Conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history. Conservatives opposed civil rights, workplace safety regulations, environmental protections, child labor laws, equal rights for women, marriage equality for homosexual couples, economic safety nets for the poor, elderly and infirmed, collective bargaining for workers, a woman's right to her own reproductive system. Without the ossified objections by Conservatives, all of these things would have been resolved without political divisiveness, bloodshed and turmoil.

If I'm wrong, please cite the Conservative leaders and organizations that championed any of these issues.

Ok, let's talk FACTS here. The REPUBLICANS passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (you know, the one where that DEMOCRAT stalwart Strom Thurmond held the longest filibuster in American history) AND 1960 in direct opposition to the Democrats. The 1964 bill that Lyndon Johnson signed was a continuation of the 1957 bill. How's that for being on the right side of history?

LBJ - a DEMOCRAT - escalated American involvement in the Vietnam War, from 16,000 American advisors/soldiers in 1963 to 550,000 combat troops in early 1968. How's THAT for history?

The EPA (Enviromental Protection Agency) was proposed by Richard Nixon and began operation in December 1970. Additionally, Nixon endorsed the ERA. How's that for being on the right side of history?

The other things were not passed as the ACA - in the dead of night WITHOUT debate and with NO bipartisan support (that's NOT legislation - that's a coup); Far from it. They were passed with at least a measure of bipartisan support from one side or another. I realize that you feel that democrats are the "people's party". That is a crock of crap, quite frankly. You guys trumpet "Gay rights" as though they are some sort of "civil right" - they are not. What fudge packers do in the privacy of their own homes is THEIR business and none of mine. I detest the behavior, but again, if that's what floats your boat, go for it. I fail to see how it is any of the government's business, however. We have enough problems facing this country (thanks to YOUR party) than to waste time about what light in the loafer folks do.

Obviously, you were a product of the public school "revisionist" history classes. That's unfortunate. There's a whole generation of young men and women (like yourself) brainwashed by this nonsense.

 

[RandallFlagg]

and your last post is --------- emotion, fear, and paranoia free??? LOL not even close. you like all liberals, are an angry child, you probably got picked last for dodgeball during recess and you have been trying to get even ever since. pathetic little whiner

Excellent work showing off two more right wing emotions, hate and ignorance.

Just look at most every post on this site from the right wingers, all they do is bitch and bitch about how everything is "da libs" fault, blaming them for their miserable existences and failures in life.

Just another dumbass contradiction in your political dogma. You cannot seem to figure out whether conservatives are rich, greedy bastards, or miserable failures in life.

Let me give you a hint to chew on. Success is not measured in dollars or assets. It is measured in self respect and self confidence.

Couldn't agree more!!

 

[Nosmo King]

Another dipshit moaning for facts while offering none.

Ho-hum.

All right let's talk facts.

I said Conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history. Conservatives opposed civil rights, workplace safety regulations, environmental protections, child labor laws, equal rights for women, marriage equality for homosexual couples, economic safety nets for the poor, elderly and infirmed, collective bargaining for workers, a woman's right to her own reproductive system. Without the ossified objections by Conservatives, all of these things would have been resolved without political divisiveness, bloodshed and turmoil.

If I'm wrong, please cite the Conservative leaders and organizations that championed any of these issues.

Ok, let's talk FACTS here. The REPUBLICANS passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (you know, the one where that DEMOCRAT stalwart Strom Thurmond held the longest filibuster in American history) AND 1960 in direct opposition to the Democrats. The 1964 bill that Lyndon Johnson signed was a continuation of the 1957 bill. How's that for being on the right side of history?

LBJ - a DEMOCRAT - escalated American involvement in the Vietnam War, from 16,000 American advisors/soldiers in 1963 to 550,000 combat troops in early 1968. How's THAT for history?

The EPA (Enviromental Protection Agency) was proposed by Richard Nixon and began operation in December 1970. Additionally, Nixon endorsed the ERA. How's that for being on the right side of history?

The other things were not passed as the ACA - in the dead of night WITHOUT debate and with NO bipartisan support (that's NOT legislation - that's a coup); Far from it. They were passed with at least a measure of bipartisan support from one side or another. I realize that you feel that democrats are the "people's party". That is a crock of crap, quite frankly. You guys trumpet "Gay rights" as though they are some sort of "civil right" - they are not. What fudge packers do in the privacy of their own homes is THEIR business and none of mine. I detest the behavior, but again, if that's what floats your boat, go for it. I fail to see how it is any of the government's business, however. We have enough problems facing this country (thanks to YOUR party) than to waste time about what light in the loafer folks do.

Obviously, you were a product of the public school "revisionist" history classes. That's unfortunate. There's a whole generation of young men and women (like yourself) brainwashed by this nonsense.

You poor political illiterate soul. You cannot differentiate between political party and political ideology. Here I am talking about a political ideology (Conservatism) and you don't know the difference between party affiliation and political ideology.

Once you've figured out that Conservatives are the idiots who block social and economic progress and tthe Democrat and Republican parties, we'll chat. Until then, seek a better education than the one you've been saddled with, will you? For you see, I lived through the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s when all the stuff you mentioned happened. And I know who is Conservative and who is Liberal and that those ideologies don't and rarely have, ever matched up with political parties.

Read on, son. Read on. And stop relying on moronic pundits for your information.

 

[RandallFlagg]

All right let's talk facts.

I said Conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history. Conservatives opposed civil rights, workplace safety regulations, environmental protections, child labor laws, equal rights for women, marriage equality for homosexual couples, economic safety nets for the poor, elderly and infirmed, collective bargaining for workers, a woman's right to her own reproductive system. Without the ossified objections by Conservatives, all of these things would have been resolved without political divisiveness, bloodshed and turmoil.

If I'm wrong, please cite the Conservative leaders and organizations that championed any of these issues.

Ok, let's talk FACTS here. The REPUBLICANS passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (you know, the one where that DEMOCRAT stalwart Strom Thurmond held the longest filibuster in American history) AND 1960 in direct opposition to the Democrats. The 1964 bill that Lyndon Johnson signed was a continuation of the 1957 bill. How's that for being on the right side of history?

LBJ - a DEMOCRAT - escalated American involvement in the Vietnam War, from 16,000 American advisors/soldiers in 1963 to 550,000 combat troops in early 1968. How's THAT for history?

The EPA (Enviromental Protection Agency) was proposed by Richard Nixon and began operation in December 1970. Additionally, Nixon endorsed the ERA. How's that for being on the right side of history?

The other things were not passed as the ACA - in the dead of night WITHOUT debate and with NO bipartisan support (that's NOT legislation - that's a coup); Far from it. They were passed with at least a measure of bipartisan support from one side or another. I realize that you feel that democrats are the "people's party". That is a crock of crap, quite frankly. You guys trumpet "Gay rights" as though they are some sort of "civil right" - they are not. What fudge packers do in the privacy of their own homes is THEIR business and none of mine. I detest the behavior, but again, if that's what floats your boat, go for it. I fail to see how it is any of the government's business, however. We have enough problems facing this country (thanks to YOUR party) than to waste time about what light in the loafer folks do.

Obviously, you were a product of the public school "revisionist" history classes. That's unfortunate. There's a whole generation of young men and women (like yourself) brainwashed by this nonsense.

You poor political illiterate soul. You cannot differentiate between political party and political ideology. Here I am talking about a political ideology (Conservatism) and you don't know the difference between party affiliation and political ideology.

Once you've figured out that Conservatives are the idiots who block social and economic progress and tthe Democrat and Republican parties, we'll chat. Until then, seek a better education than the one you've been saddled with, will you? For you see, I lived through the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s when all the stuff you mentioned happened. And I know who is Conservative and who is Liberal and that those ideologies don't and rarely have, ever matched up with political parties.

Read on, son. Read on. And stop relying on moronic pundits for your information.

Hey stupid - I lived through those times myself. Got news for you dumbass - you're wrong. From start to finish - wrong. I just proved it and you have no damn answer. Climb back into your hole, Sonny.

 

[P@triot]

If even once Conservatives were on the right side of history, if even once a Conservative proffered an opinion that was based in fact rather than anecdote, if even once a Conservative reasoned out the conclusion of his ideology, you might have a point.

As it is, you cannot persuade without precedent. You cannot convince without winning results.

A made up mind is a closed mind. Those who cling to failed ideology are both delusional and specious. Congratulations!

Isn't that the TRUTH? The liberals mind is made up before the facts, AND thus they are forced to disregard those facts.

 

[Nosmo King]

Ok, let's talk FACTS here. The REPUBLICANS passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (you know, the one where that DEMOCRAT stalwart Strom Thurmond held the longest filibuster in American history) AND 1960 in direct opposition to the Democrats. The 1964 bill that Lyndon Johnson signed was a continuation of the 1957 bill. How's that for being on the right side of history?

LBJ - a DEMOCRAT - escalated American involvement in the Vietnam War, from 16,000 American advisors/soldiers in 1963 to 550,000 combat troops in early 1968. How's THAT for history?

The EPA (Enviromental Protection Agency) was proposed by Richard Nixon and began operation in December 1970. Additionally, Nixon endorsed the ERA. How's that for being on the right side of history?

The other things were not passed as the ACA - in the dead of night WITHOUT debate and with NO bipartisan support (that's NOT legislation - that's a coup); Far from it. They were passed with at least a measure of bipartisan support from one side or another. I realize that you feel that democrats are the "people's party". That is a crock of crap, quite frankly. You guys trumpet "Gay rights" as though they are some sort of "civil right" - they are not. What fudge packers do in the privacy of their own homes is THEIR business and none of mine. I detest the behavior, but again, if that's what floats your boat, go for it. I fail to see how it is any of the government's business, however. We have enough problems facing this country (thanks to YOUR party) than to waste time about what light in the loafer folks do.

Obviously, you were a product of the public school "revisionist" history classes. That's unfortunate. There's a whole generation of young men and women (like yourself) brainwashed by this nonsense.

You poor political illiterate soul. You cannot differentiate between political party and political ideology. Here I am talking about a political ideology (Conservatism) and you don't know the difference between party affiliation and political ideology.

Once you've figured out that Conservatives are the idiots who block social and economic progress and tthe Democrat and Republican parties, we'll chat. Until then, seek a better education than the one you've been saddled with, will you? For you see, I lived through the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s when all the stuff you mentioned happened. And I know who is Conservative and who is Liberal and that those ideologies don't and rarely have, ever matched up with political parties.

Read on, son. Read on. And stop relying on moronic pundits for your information.

Hey stupid - I lived through those times myself. Got news for you dumbass - you're wrong. From start to finish - wrong. I just proved it and you have no damn answer. Climb back into your hole, Sonny.

I would be wrong if Democrat always equals Liberal and Republican always equals Conservative. But they don't and never have.

We're talking about Liberalism and Conservatism here, zippy. You are the one who suddenly and erroneously introduced POLITICAL PARTIES as some ersatz substitute for an argument.

The only "proof' you provided is you have no idea what ideology means. You seem to want to hide behind the skirts of party politics to justify your hollow statements. Get it right and we'll chat.

 

[Nosmo King]

If even once Conservatives were on the right side of history, if even once a Conservative proffered an opinion that was based in fact rather than anecdote, if even once a Conservative reasoned out the conclusion of his ideology, you might have a point.

As it is, you cannot persuade without precedent. You cannot convince without winning results.

A made up mind is a closed mind. Those who cling to failed ideology are both delusional and specious. Congratulations!

Isn't that the TRUTH? The liberals mind is made up before the facts, AND thus they are forced to disregard those facts.

Conservatives rely on dogma and anecdote. Anecdotes like the one you just proffered and dogma where social issues are concerned e.g. Gay rights. Are those attributes of an open mind?

 

[Redfish]

If even once Conservatives were on the right side of history, if even once a Conservative proffered an opinion that was based in fact rather than anecdote, if even once a Conservative reasoned out the conclusion of his ideology, you might have a point.

As it is, you cannot persuade without precedent. You cannot convince without winning results.

A made up mind is a closed mind. Those who cling to failed ideology are both delusional and specious. Congratulations!

Isn't that the TRUTH? The liberals mind is made up before the facts, AND thus they are forced to disregard those facts.

Conservatives rely on dogma and anecdote. Anecdotes like the one you just proffered and dogma where social issues are concerned e.g. Gay rights. Are those attributes of an open mind?

some people believe that homosexuality is a violation of God's laws. Do they have a right to those beliefs? Are your beliefs somehow superior? Do we have freedom or not? Does the first amendment apply or not?

I am not stating my opinions, just asking why you think yours should take precedence over those of others.

 

[Nosmo King]

Isn't that the TRUTH? The liberals mind is made up before the facts, AND thus they are forced to disregard those facts.

Conservatives rely on dogma and anecdote. Anecdotes like the one you just proffered and dogma where social issues are concerned e.g. Gay rights. Are those attributes of an open mind?

some people believe that homosexuality is a violation of God's laws. Do they have a right to those beliefs? Are your beliefs somehow superior? Do we have freedom or not? Does the first amendment apply or not?

I am not stating my opinions, just asking why you think yours should take precedence over those of others.

An interpretation of God's law is all together fitting and proper for an individual, but not necessarily for a nation. If we wanted God's laws written into civil code, we would not have provided the first amendment. Writing God's law (or mankind's interpretation of them) into civil code is precisely what the Taliban wants to do.

My beliefs are not superior to anyone else's. But my beliefs error on the side of freedom and tolerance, not the narrow side of exclusion, fear, prejudice, dogma and hate.

 

[Redfish]

Conservatives rely on dogma and anecdote. Anecdotes like the one you just proffered and dogma where social issues are concerned e.g. Gay rights. Are those attributes of an open mind?

some people believe that homosexuality is a violation of God's laws. Do they have a right to those beliefs? Are your beliefs somehow superior? Do we have freedom or not? Does the first amendment apply or not?

I am not stating my opinions, just asking why you think yours should take precedence over those of others.

An interpretation of God's law is all together fitting and proper for an individual, but not necessarily for a nation. If we wanted God's laws written into civil code, we would not have provided the first amendment. Writing God's law (or mankind's interpretation of them) into civil code is precisely what the Taliban wants to do.

My beliefs are not superior to anyone else's. But my beliefs error on the side of freedom and tolerance, not the narrow side of exclusion, fear, prejudice, dogma and hate.

Does majority rule apply to social beliefs? if the majority of the voters in a state want prayer in classrooms and the pledge of allegiance, should that be the law in that state? or do we allow minority views to prevail because we don't want to hurt anyones feeeeeeeeeeelings?

 

[Redfish]

Conservatives rely on dogma and anecdote. Anecdotes like the one you just proffered and dogma where social issues are concerned e.g. Gay rights. Are those attributes of an open mind?

some people believe that homosexuality is a violation of God's laws. Do they have a right to those beliefs? Are your beliefs somehow superior? Do we have freedom or not? Does the first amendment apply or not?

I am not stating my opinions, just asking why you think yours should take precedence over those of others.

An interpretation of God's law is all together fitting and proper for an individual, but not necessarily for a nation. If we wanted God's laws written into civil code, we would not have provided the first amendment. Writing God's law (or mankind's interpretation of them) into civil code is precisely what the Taliban wants to do.

My beliefs are not superior to anyone else's. But my beliefs error on the side of freedom and tolerance, not the narrow side of exclusion, fear, prejudice, dogma and hate.

what does "endowed by their creator" mean to you?

 

[regent]

While this nation's founders were of different political pursuasions, they declared independence, wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the state constititutions, the Bill of Rights, and our present constitution, based on liberal ideas, from the Age of Enlightenment.
A nation too liberal for some and not liberal enough for others, but still liberal.

 

[Nosmo King]

some people believe that homosexuality is a violation of God's laws. Do they have a right to those beliefs? Are your beliefs somehow superior? Do we have freedom or not? Does the first amendment apply or not?

I am not stating my opinions, just asking why you think yours should take precedence over those of others.

An interpretation of God's law is all together fitting and proper for an individual, but not necessarily for a nation. If we wanted God's laws written into civil code, we would not have provided the first amendment. Writing God's law (or mankind's interpretation of them) into civil code is precisely what the Taliban wants to do.

My beliefs are not superior to anyone else's. But my beliefs error on the side of freedom and tolerance, not the narrow side of exclusion, fear, prejudice, dogma and hate.

Does majority rule apply to social beliefs? if the majority of the voters in a state want prayer in classrooms and the pledge of allegiance, should that be the law in that state? or do we allow minority views to prevail because we don't want to hurt anyones feeeeeeeeeeelings?

When the majority mandates kids pray in school, it eradicates the rights of the kids, while mandated to BE in school, who do not want to pray the way teh majority prays. It's just a way to make the kids who are different feel even more different. It's a way to ignore the kid getting beat up at recess because he did not pray the way the other kids did. We mandate education for our children. They must attend. If we then mandate religion upon them, we have crossed the line clearly drawn in the first amendment to wit: the establishment of religion by the state.

The amendment protects the unpopular. Popular beliefs, speech and practices don't need constitutional protections the way the unpopular practices do.