Discussion:
Why is 'Liberal' a dirty word???
(too old to reply)
w.h.y.
2006-09-04 21:54:32 UTC
Permalink
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?

If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.

If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.

If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.

If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.

If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.

It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
h***@earthlink.net
2006-09-04 21:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Because Talk Radio told a lot of people who can't think for themselves
that it was a bad word.
nimue
2006-09-04 22:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@earthlink.net
Because Talk Radio told a lot of people who can't think for themselves
that it was a bad word.
Good point.
--
nimue

"As an unwavering Republican, I have quite naturally burned more books
than I have read." Betty Bowers

English is our friend. We don't have to fight it.
Oprah
Ron O'Neal
2006-09-05 01:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@earthlink.net
Because Talk Radio told a lot of people who can't think for themselves
that it was a bad word.
Talk Radio? Do you mean the Loveable Laughable Looney Limbaugh Lemming
League?

Crush Themballs, Talent on Loan from God? Whadda' Bean Bag.

But you're correct: Tune in Talk. Turn off brain.

RO
S***@aol.com
2006-09-05 10:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron O'Neal
Post by h***@earthlink.net
Because Talk Radio told a lot of people who can't think for themselves
that it was a bad word.
Talk Radio? Do you mean the Loveable Laughable Looney Limbaugh Lemming
League?
Crush Themballs, Talent on Loan from God? Whadda' Bean Bag.
But you're correct: Tune in Talk. Turn off brain.
RO
From someone that probably never listened to five minutes of the show
at one time!
Ron O'Neal
2006-09-05 12:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@aol.com
Post by Ron O'Neal
Post by h***@earthlink.net
Because Talk Radio told a lot of people who can't think for themselves
that it was a bad word.
Talk Radio? Do you mean the Loveable Laughable Looney Limbaugh Lemming
League?
Crush Themballs, Talent on Loan from God? Whadda' Bean Bag.
But you're correct: Tune in Talk. Turn off brain.
RO
From someone that probably never listened to five minutes of the show
at one time!
Wrong. I listen to Limbaugh's ramblings a couple of times a week, and for
more than 5 minutes.

It's a weekly refresher course on how stupid he and his lemmings can be.

RO
S***@aol.com
2006-09-05 13:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron O'Neal
Post by S***@aol.com
Post by Ron O'Neal
Post by h***@earthlink.net
Because Talk Radio told a lot of people who can't think for themselves
that it was a bad word.
Talk Radio? Do you mean the Loveable Laughable Looney Limbaugh Lemming
League?
Crush Themballs, Talent on Loan from God? Whadda' Bean Bag.
But you're correct: Tune in Talk. Turn off brain.
RO
From someone that probably never listened to five minutes of the show
at one time!
Wrong. I listen to Limbaugh's ramblings a couple of times a week, and for
more than 5 minutes.
It's a weekly refresher course on how stupid he and his lemmings can be.
RO
For the most part what he says is true. Tell me exactly what he says
that you find in error. Give me specifics!
Ron O'Neal
2006-09-05 15:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@aol.com
Post by Ron O'Neal
Post by S***@aol.com
Post by Ron O'Neal
Post by h***@earthlink.net
Because Talk Radio told a lot of people who can't think for themselves
that it was a bad word.
Talk Radio? Do you mean the Loveable Laughable Looney Limbaugh Lemming
League?
Crush Themballs, Talent on Loan from God? Whadda' Bean Bag.
But you're correct: Tune in Talk. Turn off brain.
RO
From someone that probably never listened to five minutes of the show
at one time!
Wrong. I listen to Limbaugh's ramblings a couple of times a week, and for
more than 5 minutes.
It's a weekly refresher course on how stupid he and his lemmings can be.
RO
For the most part what he says is true. Tell me exactly what he says
that you find in error. Give me specifics!
Off the top of my head and it's been some time ago, but Rush stated "Here is
an item you will never see in the main stream media". It was concerning a
public statement from a Florida Liberal that sided with Rush's view. Rush
dwelled on the absence of the item in the media for a minute or more,
emphasizing that we would never see it there. I went to the Web within
minutes of hearing this and found it all over the media. CBS, CNN, NBC,
etc. This, from a man who is Talent on Loan from God.

And Rush stated some outlandish and erroneous figures for compensation paid
to 9-11 victim's families:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deathpay.asp

And a critique of Limbaugh's book "The Way Things Ought To Be":
http://members.aol.com/Falconnn/rushlie.html
http://members.aol.com/Falconnn/Rushlie2.html

RO
nimue
2006-09-04 22:01:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Well said. I can't snip a word.
--
nimue

"As an unwavering Republican, I have quite naturally burned more books
than I have read." Betty Bowers

English is our friend. We don't have to fight it.
Oprah
El Puerco
2006-09-04 23:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by nimue
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Well said. I can't snip a word.
I would add the following caveat: liberalism is an incredible set of ideas
for gradually improving the human condition because it's excesses are
ameliorated by conservatives. When liberalism isn't checked, we get things
like the French Revolution. :-)

And when conservatives start thinking it's their place to champion progress
(and liberals haven't yet learned how to effectively criticize bad ideas),
we get things like our current Mess-o-potamia.
Green Clogs
2006-09-05 02:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Because every good liberal minded idea that was once important has
deteriorated into political special interest bullshit.
El Puerco
2006-09-05 06:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Green Clogs
Because every good liberal minded idea that was once important has
deteriorated into political special interest bullshit.
Ideas like habeus corpus, emancipation, and universal suffrage?
Mitchell Holman
2006-09-04 22:03:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
lib·er·al
adj.

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox,
or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from
bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress,
and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal
jdoe
2006-09-04 22:38:49 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:03:29 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
lib·er·al
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox,
or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from
bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress,
and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal
not willing to work in order to improve themselves
always looking for someone to bail them out
finding ways to make other people to fund their needs
usually a loser in the game of life
rarely uses critical thinking
claims to love all people, except for including those whose opinions
don't agree with their dogma
Thinks al franken is one of te great sages of all time
thinks dean is a clear thinking visionary
El Puerco
2006-09-04 23:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by jdoe
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:03:29 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
lib·er·al
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox,
or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from
bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress,
and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal
not willing to work in order to improve themselves
always looking for someone to bail them out
finding ways to make other people to fund their needs
usually a loser in the game of life
Not at all. Liberals merely understand that some people will fall through
the cracks no matter how many bootstraps they yank. It's the job of the
liberal to champion these individuals and their communities (just as it is
the conservative's job to say, "now hang on a sec...").
Post by jdoe
rarely uses critical thinking
Both ends of the spectrum could benefit from more of that. Where
conservatives fail is that their arguments tend to rely on Reductio ad
Absurdum ("if you give a little money to people, no one will want to
work!"). Not disimilarly, liberals fail in that they often dismiss all the
potential costs of their policy proposals.
Post by jdoe
claims to love all people, except for including those whose opinions
don't agree with their dogma
Not unlike Christians who bomb abortion clinics?
Post by jdoe
Thinks al franken is one of te great sages of all time
thinks dean is a clear thinking visionary
Both being matters of personal opinion and having nothing to do with
liberalism.
Cisco Kid
2006-09-04 23:21:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Puerco
Post by jdoe
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:03:29 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
lib·er·al
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox,
or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from
bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress,
and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal
not willing to work in order to improve themselves
always looking for someone to bail them out
finding ways to make other people to fund their needs
usually a loser in the game of life
Not at all. Liberals merely understand that some people will fall through
the cracks no matter how many bootstraps they yank. It's the job of the
liberal to champion these individuals and their communities (just as it is
the conservative's job to say, "now hang on a sec...").
Post by jdoe
rarely uses critical thinking
Both ends of the spectrum could benefit from more of that. Where
conservatives fail is that their arguments tend to rely on Reductio ad
Absurdum ("if you give a little money to people, no one will want to
work!"). Not disimilarly, liberals fail in that they often dismiss all
the potential costs of their policy proposals.
Post by jdoe
claims to love all people, except for including those whose opinions
don't agree with their dogma
Not unlike Christians who bomb abortion clinics?
Or female (?) right wing pundits who urge the poisoning of sitting Justices
of the SCOTUS?
Post by El Puerco
Post by jdoe
Thinks al franken is one of te great sages of all time
thinks dean is a clear thinking visionary
Both being matters of personal opinion and having nothing to do with
liberalism.
l***@yahoo.com
2006-09-05 00:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by jdoe
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:03:29 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
lib·er·al
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox,
or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from
bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress,
and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal
not willing to work in order to improve themselves
always looking for someone to bail them out
finding ways to make other people to fund their needs
usually a loser in the game of life
rarely uses critical thinking
claims to love all people, except for including those whose opinions
don't agree with their dogma
These descriptions sound a description of almost every red state
christian conservative. I am not sure how they applies to liberals.
Can you actually supply evidence to support your inflammatory opinions
or are they simply based upon your personal faith that they are true?

If you actually look at Howard Dean's record and positions, he's a
moderate. I would not call him liberal, speaking as a liberal.
Docky Wocky
2006-09-05 03:41:48 UTC
Permalink
lionelhutz6 sez:


'If you actually look at Howard Dean's record and positions, he's a
moderate. I would not call him liberal, speaking as a liberal..."
_______________________________
YeeeeHAAA! Yeah, Howie's a moderate all right.

A moderate kook with a mission and an agenda.

Wait'll he gets his uniforms.
l***@yahoo.com
2006-09-05 04:40:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Docky Wocky
'If you actually look at Howard Dean's record and positions, he's a
moderate. I would not call him liberal, speaking as a liberal..."
_______________________________
YeeeeHAAA! Yeah, Howie's a moderate all right.
A moderate kook with a mission and an agenda.
Wait'll he gets his uniforms.
I am honestly not sure whether you are disagreeing with me. Whether
he's crazy or not, doesn't make his moderate positions any less so.
Docky Wocky
2006-09-05 04:58:31 UTC
Permalink
lionelhutz6 sez:

"I am honestly not sure whether you are disagreeing with me. Whether
he's crazy or not, doesn't make his moderate positions any less so..."
___________________________________
You are entirely correct, Lionel. My apologies. I have a tendency to apply
my abhorence of certain Democrats to anyone else who uses them as examples
of normal folks.

Just because Howie's a loon has no real bearing on whether he is a moderate
loon, or a completely whacko loon. That, by itself, is my opinion only.

However, it does bring to question whether your interpretation of his
supposedly "moderate" positions reflects on you, or not.

I, too, being a registered Democrat, am on the DNC mailing list. So Howie's
positions on stuff has been coming in here since his initial appointment,
and I interpret his stuff as the utterences of a loonie.
l***@yahoo.com
2006-09-05 19:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Docky Wocky
"I am honestly not sure whether you are disagreeing with me. Whether
he's crazy or not, doesn't make his moderate positions any less so..."
___________________________________
You are entirely correct, Lionel. My apologies. I have a tendency to apply
my abhorence of certain Democrats to anyone else who uses them as examples
of normal folks.
Just because Howie's a loon has no real bearing on whether he is a moderate
loon, or a completely whacko loon. That, by itself, is my opinion only.
However, it does bring to question whether your interpretation of his
supposedly "moderate" positions reflects on you, or not.
I, too, being a registered Democrat, am on the DNC mailing list. So Howie's
positions on stuff has been coming in here since his initial appointment,
and I interpret his stuff as the utterences of a loonie.
First, my name is joe - lionel hutz is a Simpsons reference. Actually,
I am a regitered Green, so I have not seen his posts to the list. I
was basing my opinion of his positions based upon his original run for
the presidency and the interviews I have seen/read since.

What he posts to the list may be very looney if it strays much from his
public positions.

Joe
jdoe
2006-09-05 11:13:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
If you actually look at Howard Dean's record and positions, he's a
moderate. I would not call him liberal, speaking as a liberal.
and this proves how convoluted your thinking is
Mitchell Holman
2006-09-05 00:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by jdoe
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:03:29 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
lib·er·al
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox,
or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from
bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress,
and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal
not willing to work in order to improve themselves
Clinton - Rhodes Scholar.
Bush - C Average frat boy and professional drunk.
Post by jdoe
always looking for someone to bail them out
Who bailed Bush out of his repeated oil business failures?
Post by jdoe
finding ways to make other people to fund their needs
Like Daddykins rich Saudi friends.
Post by jdoe
usually a loser in the game of life
Harken Energy - bust
Arbusto Energy - bust
Post by jdoe
rarely uses critical thinking
"I want you to know that farmers are not going to
be secondary thoughts to a Bush administration. They
will be in the forethought of our thinking."
George Bush, Salinas, Calif., Aug. 10, 2000
S***@aol.com
2006-09-05 10:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by jdoe
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:03:29 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
lib·er·al
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox,
or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from
bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress,
and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal
not willing to work in order to improve themselves
Clinton - Rhodes Scholar.
Bush - C Average frat boy and professional drunk.
Post by jdoe
always looking for someone to bail them out
Who bailed Bush out of his repeated oil business failures?
Post by jdoe
finding ways to make other people to fund their needs
Like Daddykins rich Saudi friends.
Post by jdoe
usually a loser in the game of life
Harken Energy - bust
Arbusto Energy - bust
Post by jdoe
rarely uses critical thinking
"I want you to know that farmers are not going to
be secondary thoughts to a Bush administration. They
will be in the forethought of our thinking."
George Bush, Salinas, Calif., Aug. 10, 2000
Clinton is an intelligent book learner but no common sense. Hence the
reason he couldn't keep zipped up. I know plenty of intelligent people
that aren't too swift when it comes to common sense. As for Bush no
one cares anymore if he's your boogeyman!
Don Klipstein
2006-09-05 02:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by jdoe
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:03:29 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
lib·er·al
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox,
or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from
bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress,
and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal
not willing to work in order to improve themselves
always looking for someone to bail them out
finding ways to make other people to fund their needs
usually a loser in the game of life
rarely uses critical thinking
claims to love all people, except for including those whose opinions
don't agree with their dogma
Thinks al franken is one of te great sages of all time
thinks dean is a clear thinking visionary
According to what authority?

Plenty of people that you want to target I would consider more
conservative than liberal, and I think the failing people that I suspect
you like to consider largely do not drift to close to either leftmost nor
rightmost point of a political spectrum!

- Don Klipstein (***@misty.com)
B***@msn.com
2006-09-05 06:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by jdoe
Post by Mitchell Holman
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal
not willing to work in order to improve themselves
always looking for someone to bail them out
Blue states pay money to red states in federal taxes.
Post by jdoe
finding ways to make other people to fund their needs
usually a loser in the game of life
rarely uses critical thinking
Scientists and mathematicians are usually liberal, and they make their
living doing critical thinking.
Post by jdoe
claims to love all people, except for including those whose opinions
don't agree with their dogma
Thinks al franken is one of te great sages of all time
thinks dean is a clear thinking visionary
Those all sound like things Rush told you.

BP
jdoe
2006-09-05 11:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@msn.com
Post by jdoe
Post by Mitchell Holman
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal
not willing to work in order to improve themselves
always looking for someone to bail them out
Blue states pay money to red states in federal taxes.
Post by jdoe
finding ways to make other people to fund their needs
usually a loser in the game of life
rarely uses critical thinking
Scientists and mathematicians are usually liberal, and they make their
living doing critical thinking.
Post by jdoe
claims to love all people, except for including those whose opinions
don't agree with their dogma
Thinks al franken is one of te great sages of all time
thinks dean is a clear thinking visionary
Those all sound like things Rush told you.
BP
ah yes, blame everything on rush, maybe you won't believe it but I
never have listened to the guy, now how about coming up with an
intelligent rebuttal
B***@msn.com
2006-09-05 14:09:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by jdoe
Post by B***@msn.com
Post by jdoe
Post by Mitchell Holman
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal
not willing to work in order to improve themselves
always looking for someone to bail them out
Blue states pay money to red states in federal taxes.
Post by jdoe
finding ways to make other people to fund their needs
usually a loser in the game of life
rarely uses critical thinking
Scientists and mathematicians are usually liberal, and they make their
living doing critical thinking.
Post by jdoe
claims to love all people, except for including those whose opinions
don't agree with their dogma
Thinks al franken is one of te great sages of all time
thinks dean is a clear thinking visionary
Those all sound like things Rush told you.
BP
ah yes, blame everything on rush, maybe you won't believe it but I
never have listened to the guy, now how about coming up with an
intelligent rebuttal
Everything you typed in your screed was just a stereotype of "liberals"
of exactly the sort that Rush would provide. My rebuttal? Most of the
"liberals" I know don't fit any of these. They are hard working,
successful, intelligent, religious folks. Now if you don't believe my
small sample, why not look at the statistical breakdown of IQ, economic
level, etc. of Democrats and Republicans and try to make the case for
any of your ridiculous assertions? The reason is that you can't. You
just repeated some bullshit that you heard.

Baldin Pramer
Gooserider
2006-09-04 22:08:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Liberalism conceded middle America to the Republicans when they embraced
several divisive issues.

1) GUN CONTROL. The Democratic Party really screwed up when they made this
an integral part of their party platform. This is an issue which motivates
voters almost like no other. To be fair, there are Democrats who do not
support that issue. Those Democrats also usually get the endorsement of the
NRA. However, those Democrats are few and far between. It's a loser of an
issue, and the Democrats would be well advised to ditch it.

2) ABORTION. There are huge numbers of people who find the practice
abhorrent. I understand the politics on both sides, but supporting a "right
to choose" will always be viewed by some people as wanting to kill babies. I
don't see it that way, but it's an issue which turns off lots of voters.

3) GAY RIGHTS. The Democratic party cannot afford to be seen as the
anti-normalcy party. As shown by voting trends, most Americans, given a
choice, do not support gay marriage.

The Democratic party has issues they can win on. The Bush administration is
weak on the war, the economy, and illegal immigration. If they play their
cards right they can pick up some house seats on those issues.
Unfortunately, lots of Democrats just marched along with Bush and voted for
the war in Iraq, and voted for the Patriot Act. They are also not making any
moves toward addressing the illegal immigration issue, which is dumb. The
people who are affected most by illegal immigration are the ones who vote
Democratic. Lots of poor working class people are having to compete with
cheap illegal immigrant labor, and they could surely be motivated to vote
for a Democrat who had a plan to solve the problem. Unfortunately, neither
party wants to risk offending Hispanic voters.

I'm afraid the presidency will remain in the hands of the Republicans,
because the losers the Democrats want to run have no chance. Does anybody
think Hilary Clinton has a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the south,
midwest, and Rocky Mountain states?Al Gore? John Kerry? John Edwards?
SyVyN11
2006-09-04 23:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gooserider
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Liberalism conceded middle America to the Republicans when they embraced
several divisive issues.
1) GUN CONTROL. The Democratic Party really screwed up when they made this
an integral part of their party platform. This is an issue which motivates
voters almost like no other. To be fair, there are Democrats who do not
support that issue. Those Democrats also usually get the endorsement of
the NRA. However, those Democrats are few and far between. It's a loser of
an issue, and the Democrats would be well advised to ditch it.
2) ABORTION. There are huge numbers of people who find the practice
abhorrent. I understand the politics on both sides, but supporting a
"right to choose" will always be viewed by some people as wanting to kill
babies. I don't see it that way, but it's an issue which turns off lots of
voters.
3) GAY RIGHTS. The Democratic party cannot afford to be seen as the
anti-normalcy party. As shown by voting trends, most Americans, given a
choice, do not support gay marriage.
The Democratic party has issues they can win on. The Bush administration
is weak on the war,
As opposed to the dems who don't want to fight any war any time.
Post by Gooserider
the economy,
Are you kidding, except for the first quarter of the Bush administration the
econmey has been going gang busters, unemployment is lower now than this
time in the Clinton administration (and yet libs are screaming that there
are bread lines all over the USA). All because tax cuts increased what
has been recived by the IRS.
Post by Gooserider
and illegal immigration.
Thing is they aren't serious about it! Like anytime during the Clinton
administration, they would lay platatudes all over, but when it can time to
deliver, they reneged on their word and hope people didn't notice.
Post by Gooserider
If they play their cards right they can pick up some house seats on those
issues.
we call these people 'idiots!'
Post by Gooserider
Unfortunately, lots of Democrats just marched along with Bush and voted
for the war in Iraq, and voted for the Patriot Act.
The american people never voted for the Patriot Act! get your facts
straight. All the PA did was realign all existing terror laws under one
blanket, it was a useful weapon in the War against Islamic Terror. But
dems demonized it, John Ashcroft and Bush, because Dems aren't serious about
fighting terrorism.
Post by Gooserider
They are also not making any moves toward addressing the illegal
immigration issue, which is dumb. The people who are affected most by
illegal immigration are the ones who vote Democratic.
Here's the dirty little secret, the dems know that ILLEGALS will vote for
the candidate who will give them more stuff. In a San Deigo race a few
months ago the sitting congress woman screamed that people should help
register illegals voters. She lost.
Post by Gooserider
Lots of poor working class people are having to compete with cheap illegal
immigrant labor, and they could surely be motivated to vote for a Democrat
who had a plan to solve the problem. Unfortunately, neither party wants to
risk offending Hispanic voters.
Dems don't care about working class, they want power.
Post by Gooserider
I'm afraid the presidency will remain in the hands of the Republicans,
because the losers the Democrats want to run have no chance.
We agree, all the dems have is 'we hate bush' and as of this november, that
dog just won't hunt any more. Bush will not run for a third term. And
they can't find a new boogeyman!
Post by Gooserider
Does anybody think Hilary Clinton has a snowball's chance in Hell of
winning the south, midwest, and Rocky Mountain states?Al Gore? John Kerry?
John Edwards?
No, No, No, No!

But it will be fun to watch these four attack each other for a few months in
the primary season.
l***@yahoo.com
2006-09-05 00:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Wow. Could you be more misinformed?
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
The Democratic party has issues they can win on. The Bush administration
is weak on the war,
As opposed to the dems who don't want to fight any war any time.
Any basis for this? For the record, completely wrong. Look at the
Clinton administrations bombings of Iraq and the campaign in Yugoslavia
(I did not agree with latter, myself.) Not to mention the attention
they tried to focus on terrorism, which the current Bush administration
ignored to its peril.

However, to assert the D's are against any war any time has no basis in
reality. I would be interested in seeing why you state this.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
the economy,
Are you kidding, except for the first quarter of the Bush administration the
econmey has been going gang busters, unemployment is lower now than this
time in the Clinton administration (and yet libs are screaming that there
are bread lines all over the USA). All because tax cuts increased what
has been recived by the IRS.
The economy has not gone gangbusters in a long time. The tax cuts
exacerbated the recession and helped extend the period of decline. Up
to today, job and wage growth has been slow. Corporate profits have
gone up at the expense of the worker.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
and illegal immigration.
Unfortunately, lots of Democrats just marched along with Bush and voted
for the war in Iraq, and voted for the Patriot Act.
The american people never voted for the Patriot Act! get your facts
straight. All the PA did was realign all existing terror laws under one
blanket, it was a useful weapon in the War against Islamic Terror.
Wow. This is the height of ignorance. Again just flat out incorrect.
Are you that ignorant, or do you think if you lie enough, people will
just accept your word.

But
Post by SyVyN11
dems demonized it, John Ashcroft and Bush, because Dems aren't serious about
fighting terrorism.
Dems have been more serious about terrorism for longer than the
Republicans. Even after 9/11, Bush was still pushing for Star Wars and
new planes and military weaponry which is completely useless against
terrorists. Maybe Republicans are as serious, and just have not put as
much thought into it.

I wish your assertion about the PATRIOT Act was true, and more dems had
demonized it.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
They are also not making any moves toward addressing the illegal
immigration issue, which is dumb. The people who are affected most by
illegal immigration are the ones who vote Democratic.
Here's the dirty little secret, the dems know that ILLEGALS will vote for
the candidate who will give them more stuff. In a San Deigo race a few
months ago the sitting congress woman screamed that people should help
register illegals voters. She lost.
Post by Gooserider
Lots of poor working class people are having to compete with cheap illegal
immigrant labor, and they could surely be motivated to vote for a Democrat
who had a plan to solve the problem. Unfortunately, neither party wants to
risk offending Hispanic voters.
Dems don't care about working class, they want power.
Post by Gooserider
I'm afraid the presidency will remain in the hands of the Republicans,
because the losers the Democrats want to run have no chance.
We agree, all the dems have is 'we hate bush' and as of this november, that
dog just won't hunt any more. Bush will not run for a third term. And
they can't find a new boogeyman!
Post by Gooserider
Does anybody think Hilary Clinton has a snowball's chance in Hell of
winning the south, midwest, and Rocky Mountain states?Al Gore? John Kerry?
John Edwards?
No, No, No, No!
But it will be fun to watch these four attack each other for a few months in
the primary season.
SyVyN11
2006-09-05 02:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Wow. Could you be more misinformed?
I would ask you the same question.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
The Democratic party has issues they can win on. The Bush
administration
is weak on the war,
As opposed to the dems who don't want to fight any war any time.
Any basis for this? For the record, completely wrong. Look at the
Clinton administrations bombings of Iraq and the campaign in Yugoslavia
(I did not agree with latter, myself.) Not to mention the attention
they tried to focus on terrorism, which the current Bush administration
ignored to its peril.
Wag the dog? Also, stop lying! Clinton did shit about terrorism.
The First WTC attack, BlackHawk Down, Kobar Arms, the african embassys, and
the USS COLE were all attacks planned and exucuted by Al-Queda during the
clinton years. Clinton was offered OBL on a platter three times and he
refused, he could have stopped 9/11, but he did not want to 'de-stablize the
middle east'.

But you seemed to be a person who thinks the second Bush placed his hand on
the bible, Al-Queda started planing 9/11, not so. Terrorism flourished
under clinton, Bush 41, Reagan and Carter (by doing jack shit when Iranian
crazies raided our embassy!)
Post by l***@yahoo.com
However, to assert the D's are against any war any time has no basis in
reality. I would be interested in seeing why you state this.
From their words. If they have a plan, tell it to us. They refuse to
give their plan, other than John Murtha saying that there should be a
immediate withdraw from Iraq.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
the economy,
Are you kidding, except for the first quarter of the Bush administration the
econmey has been going gang busters, unemployment is lower now than this
time in the Clinton administration (and yet libs are screaming that there
are bread lines all over the USA). All because tax cuts increased what
has been recived by the IRS.
The economy has not gone gangbusters in a long time. The tax cuts
exacerbated the recession and helped extend the period of decline. Up
to today, job and wage growth has been slow. Corporate profits have
gone up at the expense of the worker.
A record amount of recipts into the treasury, that is a fact. More money
spent! That means more taxes collected, that means you don't know what you
have been talking about.

If dems take over, they will fight to increase taxes, and every time it is
done, it ruins a economey, not helps it. Don't let Howie Dean do your
thinking!
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
and illegal immigration.
Unfortunately, lots of Democrats just marched along with Bush and voted
for the war in Iraq, and voted for the Patriot Act.
The american people never voted for the Patriot Act! get your facts
straight. All the PA did was realign all existing terror laws under one
blanket, it was a useful weapon in the War against Islamic Terror.
Wow. This is the height of ignorance. Again just flat out incorrect.
Are you that ignorant, or do you think if you lie enough, people will
just accept your word.
Other than saying I'm stupid, why don't you tell me where I am wrong and
give a counter point.

to a lib, calling someone they disagree with stupid is a argument point.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
But
Post by SyVyN11
dems demonized it, John Ashcroft and Bush, because Dems aren't serious about
fighting terrorism.
Dems have been more serious about terrorism for longer than the
Republicans. Even after 9/11, Bush was still pushing for Star Wars and
new planes and military weaponry which is completely useless against
terrorists. Maybe Republicans are as serious, and just have not put as
much thought into it.
You're right, we wouldn't need Missle Defense or new weapons if Iran or
North Korea were to get a nuclear weapon. CRAZY ME!

John Kerry voted against developing almost every military weapon and vehicle
for the past 20 years.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I wish your assertion about the PATRIOT Act was true, and more dems had
demonized it.
what part did you dissagree about?


truth is every part of the patriot act existed pre-911.

Truth is that the Patriot Act was under judical review by the Supreme Court
every three months (in private session).

Thuth is that the Patriot Act did not impeed the freedoms of any american
citizen!

The TRUTH IS THAT THE DEMOCRATS CAN ONLY WIN IF DEMONIZE ENOUGH OF THE FIGHT
AGAINST ISLAMIC TERROR!
l***@yahoo.com
2006-09-05 04:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by SyVyN11
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Wow. Could you be more misinformed?
I would ask you the same question.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
The Democratic party has issues they can win on. The Bush
administration
is weak on the war,
As opposed to the dems who don't want to fight any war any time.
Any basis for this? For the record, completely wrong. Look at the
Clinton administrations bombings of Iraq and the campaign in Yugoslavia
(I did not agree with latter, myself.) Not to mention the attention
they tried to focus on terrorism, which the current Bush administration
ignored to its peril.
Wag the dog? Also, stop lying! Clinton did shit about terrorism.
The First WTC attack, BlackHawk Down, Kobar Arms, the african embassys, and
the USS COLE were all attacks planned and exucuted by Al-Queda during the
clinton years. Clinton was offered OBL on a platter three times and he
refused, he could have stopped 9/11, but he did not want to 'de-stablize the
middle east'.
Umm, what happened to the terrists who bombed the WTC (less than two
months after Clinton took office, mind you)? -- Oh yeah, they were
captured, dumbass.

The Clinton administration was focused on al qaeda, and unlike the Bush
administration to date, they were concerned with homeland security.
They did feel their hands were tied somehwat with the intelligence
agancies in the states they were (overreactive states that were a
reaction to their rampant out of control behavior during the 50s-70s).
Post by SyVyN11
But you seemed to be a person who thinks the second Bush placed his hand on
the bible, Al-Queda started planing 9/11, not so. Terrorism flourished
under clinton, Bush 41, Reagan and Carter (by doing jack shit when Iranian
crazies raided our embassy!)
Where in my post did I make such an assertion? All I said was the
outgoing Clinton administration was much more aware of the threat of
terrorism, informed the incoming administration of the dangers of
al-qaeda, and recommended to the Bush administration that a department
of homeland security should be established. Maybe they were going to
get around to it eventually.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by l***@yahoo.com
However, to assert the D's are against any war any time has no basis in
reality. I would be interested in seeing why you state this.
From their words. If they have a plan, tell it to us. They refuse to
give their plan, other than John Murtha saying that there should be a
immediate withdraw from Iraq.
You're confusing opposition to our elective, uwanted, and ultimately
destructive presence in Iraq with an opposition to "any war, any time."
Any sane, rational person would realize we never should have gone to
Iraq and that our continued presence there only exacerbates the current
situation.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
the economy,
Are you kidding, except for the first quarter of the Bush administration the
econmey has been going gang busters, unemployment is lower now than this
time in the Clinton administration (and yet libs are screaming that there
are bread lines all over the USA). All because tax cuts increased what
has been recived by the IRS.
The economy has not gone gangbusters in a long time. The tax cuts
exacerbated the recession and helped extend the period of decline. Up
to today, job and wage growth has been slow. Corporate profits have
gone up at the expense of the worker.
A record amount of recipts into the treasury, that is a fact. More money
spent! That means more taxes collected, that means you don't know what you
have been talking about.
So more money spent = better economy? That's a pretty piss-poor
definition.
Post by SyVyN11
If dems take over, they will fight to increase taxes, and every time it is
done, it ruins a economey, not helps it. Don't let Howie Dean do your
thinking!
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
and illegal immigration.
Unfortunately, lots of Democrats just marched along with Bush and voted
for the war in Iraq, and voted for the Patriot Act.
The american people never voted for the Patriot Act! get your facts
straight. All the PA did was realign all existing terror laws under one
blanket, it was a useful weapon in the War against Islamic Terror.
Wow. This is the height of ignorance. Again just flat out incorrect.
Are you that ignorant, or do you think if you lie enough, people will
just accept your word.
Other than saying I'm stupid, why don't you tell me where I am wrong and
give a counter point.
to a lib, calling someone they disagree with stupid is a argument point.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
But
Post by SyVyN11
dems demonized it, John Ashcroft and Bush, because Dems aren't serious about
fighting terrorism.
Dems have been more serious about terrorism for longer than the
Republicans. Even after 9/11, Bush was still pushing for Star Wars and
new planes and military weaponry which is completely useless against
terrorists. Maybe Republicans are as serious, and just have not put as
much thought into it.
You're right, we wouldn't need Missle Defense or new weapons if Iran or
North Korea were to get a nuclear weapon. CRAZY ME!
John Kerry voted against developing almost every military weapon and vehicle
for the past 20 years.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I wish your assertion about the PATRIOT Act was true, and more dems had
demonized it.
what part did you dissagree about?
truth is every part of the patriot act existed pre-911.
Truth is that the Patriot Act was under judical review by the Supreme Court
every three months (in private session).
Thuth is that the Patriot Act did not impeed the freedoms of any american
citizen!
Umm. secret snooping without the victim being notified? for example.
Post by SyVyN11
The TRUTH IS THAT THE DEMOCRATS CAN ONLY WIN IF DEMONIZE ENOUGH OF THE FIGHT
AGAINST ISLAMIC TERROR!
SyVyN11
2006-09-05 08:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by SyVyN11
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Wow. Could you be more misinformed?
I would ask you the same question.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
The Democratic party has issues they can win on. The Bush administration
is weak on the war,
As opposed to the dems who don't want to fight any war any time.
Any basis for this? For the record, completely wrong. Look at the
Clinton administrations bombings of Iraq and the campaign in Yugoslavia
(I did not agree with latter, myself.) Not to mention the attention
they tried to focus on terrorism, which the current Bush administration
ignored to its peril.
Wag the dog? Also, stop lying! Clinton did shit about terrorism.
The First WTC attack, BlackHawk Down, Kobar Arms, the african embassys, and
the USS COLE were all attacks planned and exucuted by Al-Queda during the
clinton years. Clinton was offered OBL on a platter three times and he
refused, he could have stopped 9/11, but he did not want to 'de-stablize the
middle east'.
Umm, what happened to the terrists who bombed the WTC (less than two
months after Clinton took office, mind you)? -- Oh yeah, they were
captured, dumbass.
The Clinton administration was focused on al qaeda, and unlike the Bush
administration to date, they were concerned with homeland security.
They did feel their hands were tied somehwat with the intelligence
agancies in the states they were (overreactive states that were a
reaction to their rampant out of control behavior during the 50s-70s).
Right! And what happened with BHD, Kobar Arms, Afriacan Embassys bombings,
and the USS COLE? Guess what these things had two things in common. 1)
americans died, 2) we knew that Al-queda was behind each one! Did Clinton
hunt these people down? The only reason that we caught the First WTC
bombers is that one of them was so fucking stupid that he tried to get a
deposit back on the uhall truck that he used to destroy as the bomb for the
building. PURE LUCK!!!

Ask Louis Fhree about what Clinton did against terrorism, it might open your
mind.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by SyVyN11
But you seemed to be a person who thinks the second Bush placed his hand on
the bible, Al-Queda started planing 9/11, not so. Terrorism flourished
under clinton, Bush 41, Reagan and Carter (by doing jack shit when Iranian
crazies raided our embassy!)
Where in my post did I make such an assertion? All I said was the
outgoing Clinton administration was much more aware of the threat of
terrorism, informed the incoming administration of the dangers of
al-qaeda, and recommended to the Bush administration that a department
of homeland security should be established. Maybe they were going to
get around to it eventually.
Every lib has made that assertion. Every lib has screamed that Bush is
solely responsible for 9/11, and that is not so, he has some blame so does
clinton.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by SyVyN11
Post by l***@yahoo.com
However, to assert the D's are against any war any time has no basis in
reality. I would be interested in seeing why you state this.
From their words. If they have a plan, tell it to us. They refuse to
give their plan, other than John Murtha saying that there should be a
immediate withdraw from Iraq.
You're confusing opposition to our elective, uwanted, and ultimately
destructive presence in Iraq with an opposition to "any war, any time."
Any sane, rational person would realize we never should have gone to
Iraq and that our continued presence there only exacerbates the current
situation.
You mean the far left realized they should never have gone to Iraq. I
guess you aren't scared of a iraq that would have a missle delivery system
to send WMDs to Israel or sneak into the USA. And yes, get over it,
saddam had weapons of mass destrustion. Since we have invaded we have
found canisters of mustard and sarin gas, violations of the cease fire
saddam signed to end the first gulf war.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by SyVyN11
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
the economy,
Are you kidding, except for the first quarter of the Bush
administration
the
econmey has been going gang busters, unemployment is lower now than this
time in the Clinton administration (and yet libs are screaming that there
are bread lines all over the USA). All because tax cuts increased what
has been recived by the IRS.
The economy has not gone gangbusters in a long time. The tax cuts
exacerbated the recession and helped extend the period of decline. Up
to today, job and wage growth has been slow. Corporate profits have
gone up at the expense of the worker.
A record amount of recipts into the treasury, that is a fact. More money
spent! That means more taxes collected, that means you don't know what you
have been talking about.
So more money spent = better economy? That's a pretty piss-poor
definition.
And it's fitting and RIGHT!!! but i'm curious, what is your defintion of
a better economy?
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by SyVyN11
If dems take over, they will fight to increase taxes, and every time it is
done, it ruins a economey, not helps it. Don't let Howie Dean do your
thinking!
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
and illegal immigration.
Unfortunately, lots of Democrats just marched along with Bush and voted
for the war in Iraq, and voted for the Patriot Act.
The american people never voted for the Patriot Act! get your facts
straight. All the PA did was realign all existing terror laws
under
one
blanket, it was a useful weapon in the War against Islamic Terror.
Wow. This is the height of ignorance. Again just flat out incorrect.
Are you that ignorant, or do you think if you lie enough, people will
just accept your word.
Other than saying I'm stupid, why don't you tell me where I am wrong and
give a counter point.
to a lib, calling someone they disagree with stupid is a argument point.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
But
Post by SyVyN11
dems demonized it, John Ashcroft and Bush, because Dems aren't serious about
fighting terrorism.
Dems have been more serious about terrorism for longer than the
Republicans. Even after 9/11, Bush was still pushing for Star Wars and
new planes and military weaponry which is completely useless against
terrorists. Maybe Republicans are as serious, and just have not put as
much thought into it.
You're right, we wouldn't need Missle Defense or new weapons if Iran or
North Korea were to get a nuclear weapon. CRAZY ME!
John Kerry voted against developing almost every military weapon and vehicle
for the past 20 years.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I wish your assertion about the PATRIOT Act was true, and more dems had
demonized it.
what part did you dissagree about?
truth is every part of the patriot act existed pre-911.
Truth is that the Patriot Act was under judical review by the Supreme Court
every three months (in private session).
Thuth is that the Patriot Act did not impeed the freedoms of any american
citizen!
Umm. secret snooping without the victim being notified? for example.
Happened all the time BEFORE the patriot act, it's called criminal
investigations!

Get over it, you little child, and learn something.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by SyVyN11
The TRUTH IS THAT THE DEMOCRATS CAN ONLY WIN IF DEMONIZE ENOUGH OF THE FIGHT
AGAINST ISLAMIC TERROR!
t1gercat
2006-09-05 01:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Liberalism conceded middle America to the Republicans when they embraced
several divisive issues.
1) GUN CONTROL. The Democratic Party really screwed up when they made this
an integral part of their party platform. This is an issue which motivates
voters almost like no other. To be fair, there are Democrats who do not
support that issue. Those Democrats also usually get the endorsement of
the NRA. However, those Democrats are few and far between. It's a loser of
an issue, and the Democrats would be well advised to ditch it.
2) ABORTION. There are huge numbers of people who find the practice
abhorrent. I understand the politics on both sides, but supporting a
"right to choose" will always be viewed by some people as wanting to kill
babies. I don't see it that way, but it's an issue which turns off lots of
voters.
3) GAY RIGHTS. The Democratic party cannot afford to be seen as the
anti-normalcy party. As shown by voting trends, most Americans, given a
choice, do not support gay marriage.
Confusion heaped on befuddlement follows.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
The Democratic party has issues they can win on. The Bush administration
is weak on the war,
As opposed to the dems who don't want to fight any war any time.
Wars are generally very bad. A lot of things get destroyed and a lot of
people get killed. They're also extremely expensive. If you can keep
the parties contained and talking eventually conditions will change and
the idea of war will fade. That's exactly what we did with the
Communist states, Liberals and Conservatives together, in a consistent
effort to contain them but avoid war. That's what responsible,
intelligent people do. Neo-cons (read: stupid), however, pride
themselves on their simplicity and predilection for action. As a
result, neo-cons tend to push us into comic-opera wars against easily
defeatable enemies without thinking about the consequences. With
Grenada, Panama, and the Fisrt Gulf War there were no consequences.
Iraq, which was a totally ridiculous war generated by lies and
stupidity, is a completely different story. In Iraq, We gloriously
vanquished a third world country with a dispirited, third-rate
military, but we went too far and are now stuck with an endless and
extremely expensive police action.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
the economy,
Are you kidding, except for the first quarter of the Bush administration the
econmey has been going gang busters, unemployment is lower now than this
time in the Clinton administration (and yet libs are screaming that there
are bread lines all over the USA). All because tax cuts increased what
has been recived by the IRS.
The country is in a huge deficit. Unemployment declined steadily during
the Clinton administration and has risen since (Quit comparing this
time to that time, it makes no sense. Clinton left with the economy at
virtually full employment. Under Bush, unemploymet increased, and Bush
has never caught-up. ) There's no miracle of managment involved. One
expects unemployment to decline during a period of deficit; it's basic
Kenseynian economics. In the long run, however, the debt has to be
paid. In the case of this administration, it's a particularly bad
situation. In the past, we always could shrug off the debt with the
idea that it's money we owe ourselves. Today, however, it's money we
others, especially the Chinese. Economically, the Bushies have pushed
us into huge debts with Communist China, an economic and military rival
that has no compunctions against dealing with our blood enemies, Iran
and North Korea.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
and illegal immigration.
Thing is they aren't serious about it! Like anytime during the Clinton
administration, they would lay platatudes all over, but when it can time to
deliver, they reneged on their word and hope people didn't notice.
Uh... perhaps you could provide an example of what occurred during the
Clinton administration. By the way, Sport, Bush is rounding out his
5th year as president. Have things gotten better or worse since the
Bush Junta took over? Funny, I don't remember any grand parades of
illegal immigrants when Clinton was president.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
If they play their cards right they can pick up some house seats on those
issues.
we call these people 'idiots!'
Who? The House? Yes, it's been run by fools and idiots since 1994.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Unfortunately, lots of Democrats just marched along with Bush and voted
for the war in Iraq, and voted for the Patriot Act.
The american people never voted for the Patriot Act! get your facts
straight. All the PA did was realign all existing terror laws under one
blanket, it was a useful weapon in the War against Islamic Terror. But
dems demonized it, John Ashcroft and Bush, because Dems aren't serious about
fighting terrorism.
No, the Patriot Act did nothing to help "fight the war." (What war, by
the way?) It was a half-assed effort at best, and the half it had was
uncomfortable to anyone who thinks liberty and privacy are blessings.
The Patriot Act, however, is not the signal effort of the Bush
administration's rather pathetic and stupid attempts to shore-up
domestic security. The first was the creation of the ridiculous Office
of Homeland Security, a bureacratic conglamorate that never even got
within a hundred miles of doing what was necessary -- creating a
clearing house for intelligence that would allow for better monitoring
and control of potential terrorist activities through a meaningful
sharing of information. Instead, we got a large bureaucracy that in
total is much less competent that any of its parts. It's also headed by
a political hack and utter wierd-o, Michael Chertoff, whose only
qualification for the job was his work on Bush's re-election campaign.
Oh, yes, he's a lawyer, too. As if lawyers were trained to manage
anything.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
They are also not making any moves toward addressing the illegal
immigration issue, which is dumb. The people who are affected most by
illegal immigration are the ones who vote Democratic.
Here's the dirty little secret, the dems know that ILLEGALS will vote for
the candidate who will give them more stuff. In a San Deigo race a few
months ago the sitting congress woman screamed that people should help
register illegals voters. She lost.
Illegals don't vote. They can't register and they can't vote. Period.
They're not citizens. The "sitting Congressman" in the race you're
trying vainly to remember was Duke Cunningham, a Republican who went to
prison for taking bribes. His seat opened whan he was convicted, which
is why they were having an election for the rump of his term. His
district is heavily Republican. Nevertheless, Francine Busby, a School
Board member, who was outspent by Republicans two-to-one, came within
5% of taking the seat. It was loss for Democrats but a damning victory
to Republicans who normally took the seat by 20-25%. As for her
comments on illegals and voting, it was a slip of the tongue. She NEVER
endorsed registering illegals. She immediately corrected herself but
the Pugs wouldn't drop the issue and tried everything they could to
exploit it. Being a Republican and, I suppose, a supporter of Bush, you
must be used to slips of the tongue, blurred speech and general
incomprehensibility by now.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Lots of poor working class people are having to compete with cheap illegal
immigrant labor, and they could surely be motivated to vote for a Democrat
who had a plan to solve the problem. Unfortunately, neither party wants to
risk offending Hispanic voters.
Dems don't care about working class, they want power.
The history of the Democratic Party from the late 19th Century until
now has shown a deep concern for the working class, the middle class
and the poor. Rural Electrification, the TVA, the whole system of
supporting farm loans and home mortgages by providing banks that would
make secondary markets for the financial instruments, Social Security,
Workman's Compensation, Medicare and Medicaid, the Small Business
Administration, the social safety net were all inventions of the
Democrats. In addition, they've championed ecological issues, medical
research, social and health issues, and a myriad of things. Sure, they
need to be in power to do all this, and, sure, some are crooks, and
some insincere, and some are confused, and some are stupid. But in the
end, it's the Democrats who have taken up the challenge of progress and
who have stood in the way of exploitative corporate interests,
profiteers, and hate mongers, who have championed working people,
constructed fair laws that allowed them to unionize, and who have
worked to eradicate the worst ravages of poverty.

The Republicans?? They're the anti-Democrats.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
I'm afraid the presidency will remain in the hands of the Republicans,
because the losers the Democrats want to run have no chance.
We agree, all the dems have is 'we hate bush' and as of this november, that
dog just won't hunt any more. Bush will not run for a third term. And
they can't find a new boogeyman!
I know it comforts you to believe this nonsense -- and it's what the
talking heads on Fox and what Rush wants you to believe -- but it's not
true. The Democrats have a very viable platform, much more so than the
Pugs, who can do little but drool and mutter "stay the course." Run
one your Pug champions and see what happens. Virtually all of them are
dirty in one way or anyother. If a Democratic Congress takes over in
November (which might very well happen) and the hearings on Pug bribery
and influence peddling begin, when the ethical breeches of men like
Frisk and Hastert become clear, you'll be luck if the party doesn't
change its name and pretend never to have heard of Republicans.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Does anybody think Hilary Clinton has a snowball's chance in Hell of
winning the south, midwest, and Rocky Mountain states?Al Gore? John Kerry?
John Edwards?
No, No, No, No!
Gore, Kerry and Edwards have more than a fighting chance of taking the
presidency. The Rocky Mountain States are inconsequential. If the
Northeast, the West Coast and a few midwesten states go for them,
they'll have it. Forget Florida. Without a Bush as Governor and a
political whore as Attorney General, It'll go Democratic. As a matter
of fact, if Bush's rating continue to tumble, his coattails might drag
down whatever Pug would run enough to be Hillary in the White House.
Post by SyVyN11
But it will be fun to watch these four attack each other for a few months in
the primary season.
It'll be fun watching the Pugs eat their own after the Democrats take
the Congress (and maybe the Senate) in 2006.


Wexford
SyVyN11
2006-09-05 02:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Liberalism conceded middle America to the Republicans when they embraced
several divisive issues.
1) GUN CONTROL. The Democratic Party really screwed up when they made this
an integral part of their party platform. This is an issue which motivates
voters almost like no other. To be fair, there are Democrats who do not
support that issue. Those Democrats also usually get the endorsement of
the NRA. However, those Democrats are few and far between. It's a loser of
an issue, and the Democrats would be well advised to ditch it.
2) ABORTION. There are huge numbers of people who find the practice
abhorrent. I understand the politics on both sides, but supporting a
"right to choose" will always be viewed by some people as wanting to kill
babies. I don't see it that way, but it's an issue which turns off lots of
voters.
3) GAY RIGHTS. The Democratic party cannot afford to be seen as the
anti-normalcy party. As shown by voting trends, most Americans, given a
choice, do not support gay marriage.
Confusion heaped on befuddlement follows.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
The Democratic party has issues they can win on. The Bush
administration
is weak on the war,
As opposed to the dems who don't want to fight any war any time.
Wars are generally very bad. A lot of things get destroyed and a lot of
people get killed. They're also extremely expensive. If you can keep
the parties contained and talking eventually conditions will change and
the idea of war will fade. That's exactly what we did with the
Communist states, Liberals and Conservatives together, in a consistent
effort to contain them but avoid war. That's what responsible,
intelligent people do. Neo-cons (read: stupid), however, pride
themselves on their simplicity and predilection for action. As a
result, neo-cons tend to push us into comic-opera wars against easily
defeatable enemies without thinking about the consequences. With
Grenada, Panama, and the Fisrt Gulf War there were no consequences.
Iraq, which was a totally ridiculous war generated by lies and
stupidity, is a completely different story. In Iraq, We gloriously
vanquished a third world country with a dispirited, third-rate
military, but we went too far and are now stuck with an endless and
extremely expensive police action.
Yer right, let's keep treating Terrorism as a law enforcement policy,
because it worked so well for Carter, Reagan, Bush41, and Clinton! It
didn't.

Guess what I don't war either. War is dark, grim, every death is a
tradgy. But I am a realist.

Thing is that you can't approch our enemy and give them a flower and things
will be fine. Right now we have a enemy who thinks that their way to
worship is the only way to worship. That refusing Allah is death. A
enemy who doesn't fear death, but welcome it. If they die fighting their
enemy, they get a spot in heaven with 72 virgins! How do you fight that?
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
the economy,
Are you kidding, except for the first quarter of the Bush administration the
econmey has been going gang busters, unemployment is lower now than this
time in the Clinton administration (and yet libs are screaming that there
are bread lines all over the USA). All because tax cuts increased what
has been recived by the IRS.
The country is in a huge deficit. Unemployment declined steadily during
the Clinton administration and has risen since (Quit comparing this
time to that time, it makes no sense. Clinton left with the economy at
virtually full employment. Under Bush, unemploymet increased, and Bush
has never caught-up. )
Riiiight.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-060901economy-story,1,4737159.story?coll=chi-business-hed

this article says that the current unemployment rate is 4.7, down from 4.8.

Do you want to retract or revise that statement?
Post by t1gercat
There's no miracle of managment involved. One
expects unemployment to decline during a period of deficit; it's basic
Kenseynian economics. In the long run, however, the debt has to be
paid. In the case of this administration, it's a particularly bad
situation. In the past, we always could shrug off the debt with the
idea that it's money we owe ourselves. Today, however, it's money we
others, especially the Chinese. Economically, the Bushies have pushed
us into huge debts with Communist China, an economic and military rival
that has no compunctions against dealing with our blood enemies, Iran
and North Korea.
BULLSHIT!
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
and illegal immigration.
Thing is they aren't serious about it! Like anytime during the Clinton
administration, they would lay platatudes all over, but when it can time to
deliver, they reneged on their word and hope people didn't notice.
Uh... perhaps you could provide an example of what occurred during the
Clinton administration. By the way, Sport, Bush is rounding out his
5th year as president. Have things gotten better or worse since the
Bush Junta took over? Funny, I don't remember any grand parades of
illegal immigrants when Clinton was president.
Not just about immigration (which was NON EXISTANT in those years). But
anything, a Clinton's word meant nothing then or now.
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
If they play their cards right they can pick up some house seats on those
issues.
we call these people 'idiots!'
Who? The House? Yes, it's been run by fools and idiots since 1994.
Now you just talk like a nutter!
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Unfortunately, lots of Democrats just marched along with Bush and voted
for the war in Iraq, and voted for the Patriot Act.
The american people never voted for the Patriot Act! get your facts
straight. All the PA did was realign all existing terror laws under one
blanket, it was a useful weapon in the War against Islamic Terror. But
dems demonized it, John Ashcroft and Bush, because Dems aren't serious about
fighting terrorism.
No, the Patriot Act did nothing to help "fight the war." (What war, by
the way?) It was a half-assed effort at best, and the half it had was
uncomfortable to anyone who thinks liberty and privacy are blessings.
The Patriot Act, however, is not the signal effort of the Bush
administration's rather pathetic and stupid attempts to shore-up
domestic security. The first was the creation of the ridiculous Office
of Homeland Security, a bureacratic conglamorate that never even got
within a hundred miles of doing what was necessary -- creating a
clearing house for intelligence that would allow for better monitoring
and control of potential terrorist activities through a meaningful
sharing of information. Instead, we got a large bureaucracy that in
total is much less competent that any of its parts. It's also headed by
a political hack and utter wierd-o, Michael Chertoff, whose only
qualification for the job was his work on Bush's re-election campaign.
Oh, yes, he's a lawyer, too. As if lawyers were trained to manage
anything.
THEN TELL US HOW YOU WOULD HAVE DONE IT BETTER!! STOP BITCHING GIVE
SOLUTIONS!
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
They are also not making any moves toward addressing the illegal
immigration issue, which is dumb. The people who are affected most by
illegal immigration are the ones who vote Democratic.
Here's the dirty little secret, the dems know that ILLEGALS will vote for
the candidate who will give them more stuff. In a San Deigo race a few
months ago the sitting congress woman screamed that people should help
register illegals voters. She lost.
Illegals don't vote. They can't register and they can't vote. Period.
They're not citizens. The "sitting Congressman" in the race you're
trying vainly to remember was Duke Cunningham, a Republican who went to
prison for taking bribes. His seat opened whan he was convicted, which
is why they were having an election for the rump of his term. His
district is heavily Republican. Nevertheless, Francine Busby, a School
Board member, who was outspent by Republicans two-to-one, came within
5% of taking the seat. It was loss for Democrats but a damning victory
to Republicans who normally took the seat by 20-25%. As for her
comments on illegals and voting, it was a slip of the tongue. She NEVER
endorsed registering illegals. She immediately corrected herself but
the Pugs wouldn't drop the issue and tried everything they could to
exploit it. Being a Republican and, I suppose, a supporter of Bush, you
must be used to slips of the tongue, blurred speech and general
incomprehensibility by now.
Wrong! This is a woman from san diego. So please try to keep up.
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Lots of poor working class people are having to compete with cheap illegal
immigrant labor, and they could surely be motivated to vote for a Democrat
who had a plan to solve the problem. Unfortunately, neither party wants to
risk offending Hispanic voters.
Dems don't care about working class, they want power.
The history of the Democratic Party from the late 19th Century until
now has shown a deep concern for the working class, the middle class
and the poor. Rural Electrification, the TVA, the whole system of
supporting farm loans and home mortgages by providing banks that would
make secondary markets for the financial instruments, Social Security,
Workman's Compensation, Medicare and Medicaid, the Small Business
Administration, the social safety net were all inventions of the
Democrats. In addition, they've championed ecological issues, medical
research, social and health issues, and a myriad of things. Sure, they
need to be in power to do all this, and, sure, some are crooks, and
some insincere, and some are confused, and some are stupid. But in the
end, it's the Democrats who have taken up the challenge of progress and
who have stood in the way of exploitative corporate interests,
profiteers, and hate mongers, who have championed working people,
constructed fair laws that allowed them to unionize, and who have
worked to eradicate the worst ravages of poverty.
The new radical democratic party is about power, they don't give a damn
about you or your family.
Post by t1gercat
The Republicans?? They're the anti-Democrats.
Thank god!
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
I'm afraid the presidency will remain in the hands of the Republicans,
because the losers the Democrats want to run have no chance.
We agree, all the dems have is 'we hate bush' and as of this november, that
dog just won't hunt any more. Bush will not run for a third term.
And
they can't find a new boogeyman!
I know it comforts you to believe this nonsense -- and it's what the
talking heads on Fox and what Rush wants you to believe --
First I don't have Cable! SO I don't have Fox News Channel! Second on
noon time my radio is not on Rush, but Jim Rome. Rome is a show about
sports, not politics. So that's two strikes.
Post by t1gercat
but it's not
true. The Democrats have a very viable platform, much more so than the
Pugs, who can do little but drool and mutter "stay the course."
WHAT IS IT?? What is the plan? We are smart enough to understand it.
Know why they don't give their plan? THEIR PLAN IS INCREASED SPENDING ON
SOICAL SPENDING, INCREASED TAXES, CUT MILITARY!
Post by t1gercat
Run
one your Pug champions and see what happens. Virtually all of them are
dirty in one way or anyother. If a Democratic Congress takes over in
November (which might very well happen) and the hearings on Pug bribery
and influence peddling begin, when the ethical breeches of men like
Frisk and Hastert become clear, you'll be luck if the party doesn't
change its name and pretend never to have heard of Republicans.
Right, with proud and upright citizens like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy
Kennedy and others, dems run circles around republicans.

I don't know how many republicans drowned their aids and hid from police for
6-8 hours to get his story straight and sober up.
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Does anybody think Hilary Clinton has a snowball's chance in Hell of
winning the south, midwest, and Rocky Mountain states?Al Gore? John Kerry?
John Edwards?
No, No, No, No!
Gore, Kerry and Edwards have more than a fighting chance of taking the
presidency. The Rocky Mountain States are inconsequential. If the
Northeast, the West Coast and a few midwesten states go for them,
they'll have it. Forget Florida. Without a Bush as Governor and a
political whore as Attorney General, It'll go Democratic. As a matter
of fact, if Bush's rating continue to tumble, his coattails might drag
down whatever Pug would run enough to be Hillary in the White House.
It's hillary's. She wants to be president, never mind she swore not to
run while she was in the senate (Bill CLinton broke a similar promise while
he was Governor of AK. He said he would not run for president while he
was in the state house in AK!) But what is a promise, but a bunch of
words.
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
But it will be fun to watch these four attack each other for a few months in
the primary season.
It'll be fun watching the Pugs eat their own after the Democrats take
the Congress (and maybe the Senate) in 2006.
Don't be like Nancy Pelosi and select drapes and carpet before the election
took place.

there is two months left!
Post by t1gercat
Wexford
Gee you are a nutter.
b***@cruller.invalid
2006-09-05 03:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by SyVyN11
Guess what I don't war either. War is dark, grim, every death is a
tradgy. But I am a realist.
Vote for this as the second best line characterizing contemporary Usenet
articles.
t1gercat
2006-09-05 03:48:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by SyVyN11
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Liberalism conceded middle America to the Republicans when they embraced
several divisive issues.
1) GUN CONTROL. The Democratic Party really screwed up when they made this
an integral part of their party platform. This is an issue which motivates
voters almost like no other. To be fair, there are Democrats who do not
support that issue. Those Democrats also usually get the endorsement of
the NRA. However, those Democrats are few and far between. It's a loser of
an issue, and the Democrats would be well advised to ditch it.
2) ABORTION. There are huge numbers of people who find the practice
abhorrent. I understand the politics on both sides, but supporting a
"right to choose" will always be viewed by some people as wanting to kill
babies. I don't see it that way, but it's an issue which turns off lots of
voters.
3) GAY RIGHTS. The Democratic party cannot afford to be seen as the
anti-normalcy party. As shown by voting trends, most Americans, given a
choice, do not support gay marriage.
Confusion heaped on befuddlement follows.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
The Democratic party has issues they can win on. The Bush
administration
is weak on the war,
As opposed to the dems who don't want to fight any war any time.
Wars are generally very bad. A lot of things get destroyed and a lot of
people get killed. They're also extremely expensive. If you can keep
the parties contained and talking eventually conditions will change and
the idea of war will fade. That's exactly what we did with the
Communist states, Liberals and Conservatives together, in a consistent
effort to contain them but avoid war. That's what responsible,
intelligent people do. Neo-cons (read: stupid), however, pride
themselves on their simplicity and predilection for action. As a
result, neo-cons tend to push us into comic-opera wars against easily
defeatable enemies without thinking about the consequences. With
Grenada, Panama, and the Fisrt Gulf War there were no consequences.
Iraq, which was a totally ridiculous war generated by lies and
stupidity, is a completely different story. In Iraq, We gloriously
vanquished a third world country with a dispirited, third-rate
military, but we went too far and are now stuck with an endless and
extremely expensive police action.
respone
Post by SyVyN11
Yer right, let's keep treating Terrorism as a law enforcement policy,
because it worked so well for Carter, Reagan, Bush41, and Clinton! It
didn't.
Actually, it did. There were no foreign attacks on American soil after
the first flawed attempt on the World Trade Center. The excellent work
of the FBI arrested most of the culprits within a matter of days, and
eventually all were thrown into maximum security prison. The second
attempt was stoped at the border. After that, the terrorists waited
until CLinton was gone and went after Bush on 9/11. Since then, we've
failed to capture Bin Laden and lost almost 3,000 men to terrorists in
a futile police action in Iraq that has no end and has produced not
even a pocket of security in the country. Afghanistan is a mess, too.
Post by SyVyN11
Guess what I don't war either. War is dark, grim, every death is a
tradgy. But I am a realist.
Ever been a war? I have. If you ever have, and you're a realist, you'll
know that wars are to be avoided if at all possible.
Post by SyVyN11
Thing is that you can't approch our enemy and give them a flower and things
will be fine.
Who is suggesting that? Did Reagan hand a flower to Gorbachov?
Post by SyVyN11
Right now we have a enemy who thinks that their way to
worship is the only way to worship. That refusing Allah is death. A
enemy who doesn't fear death, but welcome it. If they die fighting their
enemy, they get a spot in heaven with 72 virgins! How do you fight that?
You don't. You contain them and let them self-destruct. What you've
described, by the way, is only a small percentage of the population,
the nutcases. Unfortunately, they have money and backing, and can
garner quite a bit of attention and do some damage.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
the economy,
Are you kidding, except for the first quarter of the Bush administration the
econmey has been going gang busters, unemployment is lower now than this
time in the Clinton administration (and yet libs are screaming that there
are bread lines all over the USA). All because tax cuts increased what
has been recived by the IRS.
The country is in a huge deficit. Unemployment declined steadily during
the Clinton administration and has risen since (Quit comparing this
time to that time, it makes no sense. Clinton left with the economy at
virtually full employment. Under Bush, unemploymet increased, and Bush
has never caught-up. )
Riiiight.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-060901economy-story,1,4737159.story?coll=chi-business-hed
this article says that the current unemployment rate is 4.7, down from 4.8.
Do you want to retract or revise that statement?
From what? Unemployment rose when Bush took office. Here are the stats
per month:
When Clinton left office the rate was at 3.9%.
Source:
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/ru

2000 1244 3.9
2001 01 22 4.2
2001 02 77 4.2
2001 03 11 4.3
2001 04 00 4.4
2001 05 55 4.3
2001 06 99 4.5
2001 07 11 4.6
2001 08 44 4.9
2001 09 99 5.0
2001 10 55 5.3
2001 11 22 5.5
2001 12 88 5.7
2002 0100 5.7
2002 0277 5.7
2002 0377 5.7
2002 0444 5.9
2002 0577 5.8
2002 0633 5.8
2002 0788 5.8
2002 0833 5.7
2002 0966 5.7
2002 1033 5.7
2002 1122 5.9
2002 1288 6.0
2003 01 55 5.8
2003 02 44 5.9
2003 03 88 5.9
2003 04 77 6.0
2003 05 44 6.1
2003 06 77 6.3
2003 07 99 6.2
2003 08 00 6.1
2003 09 11 6.1
2003 10 22 6.0
2003 11 33 5.9
2003 12 00 5.7
2004 0188 5.7
2004 0200 5.6
2004 0355 5.7
2004 0400 5.5
2004 0588 5.6
2004 0644 5.6
2004 0733 5.5
2004 0855 5.4
2004 0977 5.4
2004 1000 5.4
2004 1111 5.4
2004 1299 5.4
2005 01 88 5.2
2005 02 88 5.4
2005 03 88 5.1
2005 04 55 5.1
2005 05 55 5.1
2005 06 66 5.0
2005 07 88 5.0
2005 08 44 4.9
2005 09 55 5.1
2005 10 44 4.9
2005 11 77 5.0
2005 12 44 4.9
2006 0177 4.7
2006 0288 4.8
2006 0322 4.7
2006 0422 4.7
2006 0544 4.6
2006 0655 4.6
2006 0744 4.8
2006 0866 4.7
Post by SyVyN11
Post by t1gercat
There's no miracle of managment involved. One
expects unemployment to decline during a period of deficit; it's basic
Kenseynian economics. In the long run, however, the debt has to be
paid. In the case of this administration, it's a particularly bad
situation. In the past, we always could shrug off the debt with the
idea that it's money we owe ourselves. Today, however, it's money we
others, especially the Chinese. Economically, the Bushies have pushed
us into huge debts with Communist China, an economic and military rival
that has no compunctions against dealing with our blood enemies, Iran
and North Korea.
BULLSHIT!
Why? Do you understand how the debt works? The Fed Treasurey sells
bills bonds and notes at auction every Monday. They're then traded and
resold in the market. In the past, Ameircans purchased most of these
instruments, but today foreigners do, which makes us a net debtor
nation. The Chinese have bought a lot of them.

Read about it here:
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/10/subsidizing_us_.html
Post by SyVyN11
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
and illegal immigration.
Thing is they aren't serious about it! Like anytime during the Clinton
administration, they would lay platatudes all over, but when it can time to
deliver, they reneged on their word and hope people didn't notice.
Uh... perhaps you could provide an example of what occurred during the
Clinton administration. By the way, Sport, Bush is rounding out his
5th year as president. Have things gotten better or worse since the
Bush Junta took over? Funny, I don't remember any grand parades of
illegal immigrants when Clinton was president.
Not just about immigration (which was NON EXISTANT in those years). But
anything, a Clinton's word meant nothing then or now.
As compared to Bush's word? Get real. At least Clinton never lied us
into a war.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
If they play their cards right they can pick up some house seats on those
issues.
we call these people 'idiots!'
Who? The House? Yes, it's been run by fools and idiots since 1994.
Now you just talk like a nutter!
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Unfortunately, lots of Democrats just marched along with Bush and voted
for the war in Iraq, and voted for the Patriot Act.
The american people never voted for the Patriot Act! get your facts
straight. All the PA did was realign all existing terror laws under one
blanket, it was a useful weapon in the War against Islamic Terror. But
dems demonized it, John Ashcroft and Bush, because Dems aren't serious about
fighting terrorism.
No, the Patriot Act did nothing to help "fight the war." (What war, by
the way?) It was a half-assed effort at best, and the half it had was
uncomfortable to anyone who thinks liberty and privacy are blessings.
The Patriot Act, however, is not the signal effort of the Bush
administration's rather pathetic and stupid attempts to shore-up
domestic security. The first was the creation of the ridiculous Office
of Homeland Security, a bureacratic conglamorate that never even got
within a hundred miles of doing what was necessary -- creating a
clearing house for intelligence that would allow for better monitoring
and control of potential terrorist activities through a meaningful
sharing of information. Instead, we got a large bureaucracy that in
total is much less competent that any of its parts. It's also headed by
a political hack and utter wierd-o, Michael Chertoff, whose only
qualification for the job was his work on Bush's re-election campaign.
Oh, yes, he's a lawyer, too. As if lawyers were trained to manage
anything.
THEN TELL US HOW YOU WOULD HAVE DONE IT BETTER!! STOP BITCHING GIVE
SOLUTIONS!
I don't run the country. I expect the elected officials to have the
solutions. If they don't, in a democracy we fire them and elect others.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
They are also not making any moves toward addressing the illegal
immigration issue, which is dumb. The people who are affected most by
illegal immigration are the ones who vote Democratic.
Here's the dirty little secret, the dems know that ILLEGALS will vote for
the candidate who will give them more stuff. In a San Deigo race a few
months ago the sitting congress woman screamed that people should help
register illegals voters. She lost.
Illegals don't vote. They can't register and they can't vote. Period.
They're not citizens. The "sitting Congressman" in the race you're
trying vainly to remember was Duke Cunningham, a Republican who went to
prison for taking bribes. His seat opened whan he was convicted, which
is why they were having an election for the rump of his term. His
district is heavily Republican. Nevertheless, Francine Busby, a School
Board member, who was outspent by Republicans two-to-one, came within
5% of taking the seat. It was loss for Democrats but a damning victory
to Republicans who normally took the seat by 20-25%. As for her
comments on illegals and voting, it was a slip of the tongue. She NEVER
endorsed registering illegals. She immediately corrected herself but
the Pugs wouldn't drop the issue and tried everything they could to
exploit it. Being a Republican and, I suppose, a supporter of Bush, you
must be used to slips of the tongue, blurred speech and general
incomprehensibility by now.
Wrong! This is a woman from san diego. So please try to keep up.
Cunningham's District was in San Diego. You try to keep up. Why do you
think they were having a Congressional election in the Summer?
Post by SyVyN11
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Lots of poor working class people are having to compete with cheap illegal
immigrant labor, and they could surely be motivated to vote for a Democrat
who had a plan to solve the problem. Unfortunately, neither party wants to
risk offending Hispanic voters.
Dems don't care about working class, they want power.
The history of the Democratic Party from the late 19th Century until
now has shown a deep concern for the working class, the middle class
and the poor. Rural Electrification, the TVA, the whole system of
supporting farm loans and home mortgages by providing banks that would
make secondary markets for the financial instruments, Social Security,
Workman's Compensation, Medicare and Medicaid, the Small Business
Administration, the social safety net were all inventions of the
Democrats. In addition, they've championed ecological issues, medical
research, social and health issues, and a myriad of things. Sure, they
need to be in power to do all this, and, sure, some are crooks, and
some insincere, and some are confused, and some are stupid. But in the
end, it's the Democrats who have taken up the challenge of progress and
who have stood in the way of exploitative corporate interests,
profiteers, and hate mongers, who have championed working people,
constructed fair laws that allowed them to unionize, and who have
worked to eradicate the worst ravages of poverty.
The new radical democratic party is about power, they don't give a damn
about you or your family.
Really? Look, you've got the talking point down, but there's no
substance. As for power, what in God's name do the Pugs stand for?
Useless wars? Megabuck deficits? Fouling the air and water? Selling off
federal land and destroying the enviornment?
Post by SyVyN11
Post by t1gercat
The Republicans?? They're the anti-Democrats.
Thank god!
THe Pub god is Moloch, I'm aftrad.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
I'm afraid the presidency will remain in the hands of the Republicans,
because the losers the Democrats want to run have no chance.
We agree, all the dems have is 'we hate bush' and as of this november, that
dog just won't hunt any more. Bush will not run for a third term.
And
they can't find a new boogeyman!
I know it comforts you to believe this nonsense -- and it's what the
talking heads on Fox and what Rush wants you to believe --
First I don't have Cable! SO I don't have Fox News Channel! Second on
noon time my radio is not on Rush, but Jim Rome. Rome is a show about
sports, not politics. So that's two strikes.
Post by t1gercat
but it's not
true. The Democrats have a very viable platform, much more so than the
Pugs, who can do little but drool and mutter "stay the course."
WHAT IS IT?? What is the plan? We are smart enough to understand it.
Know why they don't give their plan? THEIR PLAN IS INCREASED SPENDING ON
SOICAL SPENDING, INCREASED TAXES, CUT MILITARY!
Post by t1gercat
Run
one your Pug champions and see what happens. Virtually all of them are
dirty in one way or anyother. If a Democratic Congress takes over in
November (which might very well happen) and the hearings on Pug bribery
and influence peddling begin, when the ethical breeches of men like
Frisk and Hastert become clear, you'll be luck if the party doesn't
change its name and pretend never to have heard of Republicans.
Right, with proud and upright citizens like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy
Kennedy and others, dems run circles around republicans.
I don't know how many republicans drowned their aids and hid from police for
6-8 hours to get his story straight and sober up.
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Does anybody think Hilary Clinton has a snowball's chance in Hell of
winning the south, midwest, and Rocky Mountain states?Al Gore? John Kerry?
John Edwards?
No, No, No, No!
Gore, Kerry and Edwards have more than a fighting chance of taking the
presidency. The Rocky Mountain States are inconsequential. If the
Northeast, the West Coast and a few midwesten states go for them,
they'll have it. Forget Florida. Without a Bush as Governor and a
political whore as Attorney General, It'll go Democratic. As a matter
of fact, if Bush's rating continue to tumble, his coattails might drag
down whatever Pug would run enough to be Hillary in the White House.
It's hillary's. She wants to be president, never mind she swore not to
run while she was in the senate (Bill CLinton broke a similar promise while
he was Governor of AK. He said he would not run for president while he
was in the state house in AK!) But what is a promise, but a bunch of
words.
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
But it will be fun to watch these four attack each other for a few months in
the primary season.
It'll be fun watching the Pugs eat their own after the Democrats take
the Congress (and maybe the Senate) in 2006.
Don't be like Nancy Pelosi and select drapes and carpet before the election
took place.
there is two months left!
Post by t1gercat
Wexford
Gee you are a nutter.
SyVyN11
2006-09-05 08:45:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Liberalism conceded middle America to the Republicans when they embraced
several divisive issues.
1) GUN CONTROL. The Democratic Party really screwed up when they
made
this
an integral part of their party platform. This is an issue which motivates
voters almost like no other. To be fair, there are Democrats who do not
support that issue. Those Democrats also usually get the endorsement of
the NRA. However, those Democrats are few and far between. It's a
loser
of
an issue, and the Democrats would be well advised to ditch it.
2) ABORTION. There are huge numbers of people who find the practice
abhorrent. I understand the politics on both sides, but supporting a
"right to choose" will always be viewed by some people as wanting to kill
babies. I don't see it that way, but it's an issue which turns off
lots
of
voters.
3) GAY RIGHTS. The Democratic party cannot afford to be seen as the
anti-normalcy party. As shown by voting trends, most Americans, given a
choice, do not support gay marriage.
Confusion heaped on befuddlement follows.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
The Democratic party has issues they can win on. The Bush administration
is weak on the war,
As opposed to the dems who don't want to fight any war any time.
Wars are generally very bad. A lot of things get destroyed and a lot of
people get killed. They're also extremely expensive. If you can keep
the parties contained and talking eventually conditions will change and
the idea of war will fade. That's exactly what we did with the
Communist states, Liberals and Conservatives together, in a consistent
effort to contain them but avoid war. That's what responsible,
intelligent people do. Neo-cons (read: stupid), however, pride
themselves on their simplicity and predilection for action. As a
result, neo-cons tend to push us into comic-opera wars against easily
defeatable enemies without thinking about the consequences. With
Grenada, Panama, and the Fisrt Gulf War there were no consequences.
Iraq, which was a totally ridiculous war generated by lies and
stupidity, is a completely different story. In Iraq, We gloriously
vanquished a third world country with a dispirited, third-rate
military, but we went too far and are now stuck with an endless and
extremely expensive police action.
respone
Post by SyVyN11
Yer right, let's keep treating Terrorism as a law enforcement policy,
because it worked so well for Carter, Reagan, Bush41, and Clinton! It
didn't.
Actually, it did. There were no foreign attacks on American soil after
the first flawed attempt on the World Trade Center. The excellent work
of the FBI arrested most of the culprits within a matter of days, and
eventually all were thrown into maximum security prison. The second
attempt was stoped at the border. After that, the terrorists waited
until CLinton was gone and went after Bush on 9/11. Since then, we've
failed to capture Bin Laden and lost almost 3,000 men to terrorists in
a futile police action in Iraq that has no end and has produced not
even a pocket of security in the country. Afghanistan is a mess, too.
Yeah, we had BlackHawk Down in Africa, we had the Kobar Arms, We had attacks
on two of our Embassys in Africa (and our embassys are considered american
soil, no matter where they are) and the attack on the USS COLE, all attacks
american lives were lost and the perps were never caught or charged. This
embolden the terrorists.
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Guess what I don't war either. War is dark, grim, every death is a
tradgy. But I am a realist.
Ever been a war? I have. If you ever have, and you're a realist, you'll
know that wars are to be avoided if at all possible.
Do we wait it a mushroom cloud from Iran and Al-Queda to happen in the USA
before we do something?
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Thing is that you can't approch our enemy and give them a flower and things
will be fine.
Who is suggesting that? Did Reagan hand a flower to Gorbachov?
Shut up commie, you know what I mean.
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Right now we have a enemy who thinks that their way to
worship is the only way to worship. That refusing Allah is death. A
enemy who doesn't fear death, but welcome it. If they die fighting their
enemy, they get a spot in heaven with 72 virgins! How do you fight that?
You don't. You contain them and let them self-destruct. What you've
described, by the way, is only a small percentage of the population,
the nutcases. Unfortunately, they have money and backing, and can
garner quite a bit of attention and do some damage.
And then how do you fight them? Enlighten this idiot conservative! HOW!
Talk to me like a two year old, because every republican can't understand
even the simplest of terms!

jackass
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
the economy,
Are you kidding, except for the first quarter of the Bush
administration
the
econmey has been going gang busters, unemployment is lower now than this
time in the Clinton administration (and yet libs are screaming that there
are bread lines all over the USA). All because tax cuts increased what
has been recived by the IRS.
The country is in a huge deficit. Unemployment declined steadily during
the Clinton administration and has risen since (Quit comparing this
time to that time, it makes no sense. Clinton left with the economy at
virtually full employment. Under Bush, unemploymet increased, and Bush
has never caught-up. )
Riiiight.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-060901economy-story,1,4737159.story?coll=chi-business-hed
this article says that the current unemployment rate is 4.7, down from 4.8.
Do you want to retract or revise that statement?
From what? Unemployment rose when Bush took office. Here are the stats
When Clinton left office the rate was at 3.9%.
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/ru
2000 1244 3.9
2001 01 22 4.2
2001 02 77 4.2
2001 03 11 4.3
2001 04 00 4.4
2001 05 55 4.3
2001 06 99 4.5
2001 07 11 4.6
2001 08 44 4.9
2001 09 99 5.0
2001 10 55 5.3
2001 11 22 5.5
2001 12 88 5.7
2002 0100 5.7
2002 0277 5.7
2002 0377 5.7
2002 0444 5.9
2002 0577 5.8
2002 0633 5.8
2002 0788 5.8
2002 0833 5.7
2002 0966 5.7
2002 1033 5.7
2002 1122 5.9
2002 1288 6.0
2003 01 55 5.8
2003 02 44 5.9
2003 03 88 5.9
2003 04 77 6.0
2003 05 44 6.1
2003 06 77 6.3
2003 07 99 6.2
2003 08 00 6.1
2003 09 11 6.1
2003 10 22 6.0
2003 11 33 5.9
2003 12 00 5.7
2004 0188 5.7
2004 0200 5.6
2004 0355 5.7
2004 0400 5.5
2004 0588 5.6
2004 0644 5.6
2004 0733 5.5
2004 0855 5.4
2004 0977 5.4
2004 1000 5.4
2004 1111 5.4
2004 1299 5.4
2005 01 88 5.2
2005 02 88 5.4
2005 03 88 5.1
2005 04 55 5.1
2005 05 55 5.1
2005 06 66 5.0
2005 07 88 5.0
2005 08 44 4.9
2005 09 55 5.1
2005 10 44 4.9
2005 11 77 5.0
2005 12 44 4.9
2006 0177 4.7
2006 0288 4.8
2006 0322 4.7
2006 0422 4.7
2006 0544 4.6
2006 0655 4.6
2006 0744 4.8
2006 0866 4.7
And yet the libs are screaming at bread lines that don't exist.

Have you ever taken a basic economics class in college, you learn that the
closest to complete employment is 5.0. Because you always have people
transitioning between jobs. Even at it's highest during Bush's term, it
doesn't hold a candle to the 15% unemployment during the Carter years.
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by t1gercat
There's no miracle of managment involved. One
expects unemployment to decline during a period of deficit; it's basic
Kenseynian economics. In the long run, however, the debt has to be
paid. In the case of this administration, it's a particularly bad
situation. In the past, we always could shrug off the debt with the
idea that it's money we owe ourselves. Today, however, it's money we
others, especially the Chinese. Economically, the Bushies have pushed
us into huge debts with Communist China, an economic and military rival
that has no compunctions against dealing with our blood enemies, Iran
and North Korea.
BULLSHIT!
Why? Do you understand how the debt works? The Fed Treasurey sells
bills bonds and notes at auction every Monday. They're then traded and
resold in the market. In the past, Ameircans purchased most of these
instruments, but today foreigners do, which makes us a net debtor
nation. The Chinese have bought a lot of them.
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/10/subsidizing_us_.html
I don't trust libs.

and I'm sure you don't trust conservatives.
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
and illegal immigration.
Thing is they aren't serious about it! Like anytime during the Clinton
administration, they would lay platatudes all over, but when it can
time
to
deliver, they reneged on their word and hope people didn't notice.
Uh... perhaps you could provide an example of what occurred during the
Clinton administration. By the way, Sport, Bush is rounding out his
5th year as president. Have things gotten better or worse since the
Bush Junta took over? Funny, I don't remember any grand parades of
illegal immigrants when Clinton was president.
Not just about immigration (which was NON EXISTANT in those years). But
anything, a Clinton's word meant nothing then or now.
As compared to Bush's word? Get real. At least Clinton never lied us
into a war.
Nah, he just lied to a grand jury! and Bush didn't lie!

jackass!
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
If they play their cards right they can pick up some house seats on those
issues.
we call these people 'idiots!'
Who? The House? Yes, it's been run by fools and idiots since 1994.
Now you just talk like a nutter!
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Unfortunately, lots of Democrats just marched along with Bush and voted
for the war in Iraq, and voted for the Patriot Act.
The american people never voted for the Patriot Act! get your facts
straight. All the PA did was realign all existing terror laws
under
one
blanket, it was a useful weapon in the War against Islamic Terror.
But
dems demonized it, John Ashcroft and Bush, because Dems aren't serious about
fighting terrorism.
No, the Patriot Act did nothing to help "fight the war." (What war, by
the way?) It was a half-assed effort at best, and the half it had was
uncomfortable to anyone who thinks liberty and privacy are blessings.
The Patriot Act, however, is not the signal effort of the Bush
administration's rather pathetic and stupid attempts to shore-up
domestic security. The first was the creation of the ridiculous Office
of Homeland Security, a bureacratic conglamorate that never even got
within a hundred miles of doing what was necessary -- creating a
clearing house for intelligence that would allow for better monitoring
and control of potential terrorist activities through a meaningful
sharing of information. Instead, we got a large bureaucracy that in
total is much less competent that any of its parts. It's also headed by
a political hack and utter wierd-o, Michael Chertoff, whose only
qualification for the job was his work on Bush's re-election campaign.
Oh, yes, he's a lawyer, too. As if lawyers were trained to manage
anything.
THEN TELL US HOW YOU WOULD HAVE DONE IT BETTER!! STOP BITCHING GIVE
SOLUTIONS!
I don't run the country. I expect the elected officials to have the
solutions. If they don't, in a democracy we fire them and elect others.
THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP!

And that is why the dems will lose, they have hate and that's it! No
solutions=no votes.
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
They are also not making any moves toward addressing the illegal
immigration issue, which is dumb. The people who are affected most by
illegal immigration are the ones who vote Democratic.
Here's the dirty little secret, the dems know that ILLEGALS will vote for
the candidate who will give them more stuff. In a San Deigo race a few
months ago the sitting congress woman screamed that people should help
register illegals voters. She lost.
Illegals don't vote. They can't register and they can't vote. Period.
They're not citizens. The "sitting Congressman" in the race you're
trying vainly to remember was Duke Cunningham, a Republican who went to
prison for taking bribes. His seat opened whan he was convicted, which
is why they were having an election for the rump of his term. His
district is heavily Republican. Nevertheless, Francine Busby, a School
Board member, who was outspent by Republicans two-to-one, came within
5% of taking the seat. It was loss for Democrats but a damning victory
to Republicans who normally took the seat by 20-25%. As for her
comments on illegals and voting, it was a slip of the tongue. She NEVER
endorsed registering illegals. She immediately corrected herself but
the Pugs wouldn't drop the issue and tried everything they could to
exploit it. Being a Republican and, I suppose, a supporter of Bush, you
must be used to slips of the tongue, blurred speech and general
incomprehensibility by now.
Wrong! This is a woman from san diego. So please try to keep up.
Cunningham's District was in San Diego. You try to keep up. Why do you
think they were having a Congressional election in the Summer?
GET IT IN YOUR STUPID HEAD, IT WASN"T THE THEIF CUNNINGHAM!! Another case
where libs know everything!

jackass!
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Lots of poor working class people are having to compete with cheap illegal
immigrant labor, and they could surely be motivated to vote for a Democrat
who had a plan to solve the problem. Unfortunately, neither party
wants
to
risk offending Hispanic voters.
Dems don't care about working class, they want power.
The history of the Democratic Party from the late 19th Century until
now has shown a deep concern for the working class, the middle class
and the poor. Rural Electrification, the TVA, the whole system of
supporting farm loans and home mortgages by providing banks that would
make secondary markets for the financial instruments, Social Security,
Workman's Compensation, Medicare and Medicaid, the Small Business
Administration, the social safety net were all inventions of the
Democrats. In addition, they've championed ecological issues, medical
research, social and health issues, and a myriad of things. Sure, they
need to be in power to do all this, and, sure, some are crooks, and
some insincere, and some are confused, and some are stupid. But in the
end, it's the Democrats who have taken up the challenge of progress and
who have stood in the way of exploitative corporate interests,
profiteers, and hate mongers, who have championed working people,
constructed fair laws that allowed them to unionize, and who have
worked to eradicate the worst ravages of poverty.
The new radical democratic party is about power, they don't give a damn
about you or your family.
Really? Look, you've got the talking point down, but there's no
substance. As for power, what in God's name do the Pugs stand for?
Useless wars? Megabuck deficits? Fouling the air and water? Selling off
federal land and destroying the enviornment?
I wish that republcans would stop the spending, but I know that dems aren't
the answer. I want solutions to Social Security that will make it there
when I get to 65. But the Dems have successfully demonized any attempt to
fix the mess others has made. I wish that they would secure the borders
and stop talk about amensty for illegals. But I know dems aren't the
answer.
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by t1gercat
The Republicans?? They're the anti-Democrats.
Thank god!
THe Pub god is Moloch, I'm aftrad.
No, my god is the heavenly host, the archangel Michael (that's god if you
never went to sunday school).
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
I'm afraid the presidency will remain in the hands of the Republicans,
because the losers the Democrats want to run have no chance.
We agree, all the dems have is 'we hate bush' and as of this november, that
dog just won't hunt any more. Bush will not run for a third term.
And
they can't find a new boogeyman!
I know it comforts you to believe this nonsense -- and it's what the
talking heads on Fox and what Rush wants you to believe --
First I don't have Cable! SO I don't have Fox News Channel! Second on
noon time my radio is not on Rush, but Jim Rome. Rome is a show about
sports, not politics. So that's two strikes.
Post by t1gercat
but it's not
true. The Democrats have a very viable platform, much more so than the
Pugs, who can do little but drool and mutter "stay the course."
WHAT IS IT?? What is the plan? We are smart enough to understand it.
Know why they don't give their plan? THEIR PLAN IS INCREASED SPENDING ON
SOICAL SPENDING, INCREASED TAXES, CUT MILITARY!
Post by t1gercat
Run
one your Pug champions and see what happens. Virtually all of them are
dirty in one way or anyother. If a Democratic Congress takes over in
November (which might very well happen) and the hearings on Pug bribery
and influence peddling begin, when the ethical breeches of men like
Frisk and Hastert become clear, you'll be luck if the party doesn't
change its name and pretend never to have heard of Republicans.
Right, with proud and upright citizens like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy
Kennedy and others, dems run circles around republicans.
I don't know how many republicans drowned their aids and hid from police for
6-8 hours to get his story straight and sober up.
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Does anybody think Hilary Clinton has a snowball's chance in Hell of
winning the south, midwest, and Rocky Mountain states?Al Gore? John Kerry?
John Edwards?
No, No, No, No!
Gore, Kerry and Edwards have more than a fighting chance of taking the
presidency. The Rocky Mountain States are inconsequential. If the
Northeast, the West Coast and a few midwesten states go for them,
they'll have it. Forget Florida. Without a Bush as Governor and a
political whore as Attorney General, It'll go Democratic. As a matter
of fact, if Bush's rating continue to tumble, his coattails might drag
down whatever Pug would run enough to be Hillary in the White House.
It's hillary's. She wants to be president, never mind she swore not to
run while she was in the senate (Bill CLinton broke a similar promise while
he was Governor of AK. He said he would not run for president while he
was in the state house in AK!) But what is a promise, but a bunch of
words.
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
But it will be fun to watch these four attack each other for a few
months
in
the primary season.
It'll be fun watching the Pugs eat their own after the Democrats take
the Congress (and maybe the Senate) in 2006.
Don't be like Nancy Pelosi and select drapes and carpet before the election
took place.
there is two months left!
Post by t1gercat
Wexford
Gee you are a nutter.
S***@aol.com
2006-09-05 10:27:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by t1gercat
As compared to Bush's word? Get real. At least Clinton never lied us
into a war.
And never took out OBL when he had multiple chances. Quit trying to
exonerate Clinton on the war on terror because he failed miserably.
Doing nothing is worse than trying to do to much!
jdoe
2006-09-05 11:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by t1gercat
Actually, it did. There were no foreign attacks on American soil after
the first flawed attempt on the World Trade Center. The excellent work
of the FBI arrested most of the culprits within a matter of days,
you fool, the ONLY reason they got caught was their own stupidity,
they tried to get a refund of the deposit for the rental truck that
they used in the bombing. You can thank the local cops in NJ for their
capture.
SyVyN11
2006-09-05 11:50:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by jdoe
Post by t1gercat
Actually, it did. There were no foreign attacks on American soil after
the first flawed attempt on the World Trade Center. The excellent work
of the FBI arrested most of the culprits within a matter of days,
you fool, the ONLY reason they got caught was their own stupidity,
they tried to get a refund of the deposit for the rental truck that
they used in the bombing. You can thank the local cops in NJ for their
capture.
The guy will now say that "CLINTON PUT OUT 100,000 cops on the street and
one of those cops caught the terrorist!"

no matter what, the libs will always make clinton out better than he
deserves.
Don Klipstein
2006-09-05 04:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by SyVyN11
Post by t1gercat
The country is in a huge deficit. Unemployment declined steadily during
the Clinton administration and has risen since (Quit comparing this
time to that time, it makes no sense. Clinton left with the economy at
virtually full employment. Under Bush, unemploymet increased, and Bush
has never caught-up. )
Riiiight.
(I split into two lines because I have a newsreader demanding tradition)
Post by SyVyN11
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/
chi-060901economy-story,1,4737159.story?coll=chi-business-hed
this article says that the current unemployment rate is 4.7, down from 4.8.
Conmpared to closer to 4.0 achieved in the last 2 of the fiscal years
that started when Clinton was president? 4.0 or below 4.5 was an
achievement mainly of latter years of Clinton ever since Ford or Nixon?

<SNIP mostly stuff said since at least twice>

- Don Klipstein (***@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
2006-09-05 04:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
the economy,
Are you kidding, except for the first quarter of the Bush administration the
econmey has been going gang busters, unemployment is lower now than this
time in the Clinton administration (and yet libs are screaming that there
are bread lines all over the USA). All because tax cuts increased what
has been recived by the IRS.
The country is in a huge deficit. Unemployment declined steadily during
the Clinton administration and has risen since (Quit comparing this
time to that time, it makes no sense. Clinton left with the economy at
virtually full employment. Under Bush, unemploymet increased, and Bush
has never caught-up. ) There's no miracle of managment involved. One
expects unemployment to decline during a period of deficit; it's basic
Kenseynian economics.
Traditionally Democrat until the Republicans took on "supply side
economics" that Bush I opposed as "voodoo economics" before no longer
saying such a thing as of the beginning of his successful Presidential
campaign!
Post by t1gercat
In the long run, however, the debt has to be
paid. In the case of this administration, it's a particularly bad
situation. In the past, we always could shrug off the debt with the
idea that it's money we owe ourselves.
Still true - and interest accrues! This is something taxpayers have to
pay! Either today, or in the future plus more accrued interest!
Post by t1gercat
Today, however, it's money we
others, especially the Chinese.
USA national debt is taxpayer obligation to those who lent the money
(bought Treasury bonds).
Traditionally Treasury bond purchasers have been those buying them more
and less of corporate bonds (for corporate activities which have better
chance of net job creation than government activities do), and by non-USA
nationality in the past 2.5-3 decades that has traditionally been by Japan
more than China.
Post by t1gercat
Economically, the Bushies have pushed
us into huge debts with Communist China, an economic and military rival
that has no compunctions against dealing with our blood enemies, Iran
and North Korea.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
and illegal immigration.
Thing is they aren't serious about it! Like anytime during the Clinton
administration, they would lay platatudes all over, but when it can time to
deliver, they reneged on their word and hope people didn't notice.
Uh... perhaps you could provide an example of what occurred during the
Clinton administration. By the way, Sport, Bush is rounding out his
5th year as president. Have things gotten better or worse since the
Bush Junta took over? Funny, I don't remember any grand parades of
illegal immigrants when Clinton was president.
(SNIP following previously quoted material, due to my ability to add new
comments in agreement with the poster that I am followupping to decreasing
to a smaller but mostly positive margin of worth saying anything.)

- Don Klipstein (***@misty.com)
SyVyN11
2006-09-05 08:47:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Klipstein
Post by t1gercat
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
the economy,
Are you kidding, except for the first quarter of the Bush administration the
econmey has been going gang busters, unemployment is lower now than this
time in the Clinton administration (and yet libs are screaming that there
are bread lines all over the USA). All because tax cuts increased what
has been recived by the IRS.
The country is in a huge deficit. Unemployment declined steadily during
the Clinton administration and has risen since (Quit comparing this
time to that time, it makes no sense. Clinton left with the economy at
virtually full employment. Under Bush, unemploymet increased, and Bush
has never caught-up. ) There's no miracle of managment involved. One
expects unemployment to decline during a period of deficit; it's basic
Kenseynian economics.
Traditionally Democrat until the Republicans took on "supply side
economics" that Bush I opposed as "voodoo economics" before no longer
saying such a thing as of the beginning of his successful Presidential
campaign!
TRANSLATION:I was never a republican, I just say that to make my betters
think that they are wrong and hope they change.
Don Klipstein
2006-09-05 04:11:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Liberalism conceded middle America to the Republicans when they embraced
several divisive issues.
1) GUN CONTROL. The Democratic Party really screwed up when they made this
an integral part of their party platform. This is an issue which motivates
voters almost like no other. To be fair, there are Democrats who do not
support that issue. Those Democrats also usually get the endorsement of
the NRA. However, those Democrats are few and far between. It's a loser of
an issue, and the Democrats would be well advised to ditch it.
2) ABORTION. There are huge numbers of people who find the practice
abhorrent. I understand the politics on both sides, but supporting a
"right to choose" will always be viewed by some people as wanting to kill
babies. I don't see it that way, but it's an issue which turns off lots of
voters.
3) GAY RIGHTS. The Democratic party cannot afford to be seen as the
anti-normalcy party. As shown by voting trends, most Americans, given a
choice, do not support gay marriage.
The Democratic party has issues they can win on. The Bush administration
is weak on the war,
As opposed to the dems who don't want to fight any war any time.
Post by Gooserider
the economy,
Are you kidding, except for the first quarter of the Bush administration the
econmey has been going gang busters, unemployment is lower now than this
time in the Clinton administration (and yet libs are screaming that there
are bread lines all over the USA). All because tax cuts increased what
has been recived by the IRS.
How can you explain the official unemployment rate having lowest in the
past 35 or so years being essentialy during the last few fiscal years of
the Clinton administration?

How about median male worker inflation-adjusted-earnings having biggest
2-3 years of raises, biggest gains sustained at least two years of median
earnings of wage earners in general covering both genders, ever since the
1973 median highpoint with median male worker earnings yet to exceed by
more than close to 1% while the mean has since 1973 enjoyed an
inflation-adjusted raise a good 10% due to above-average-percentage raises
since 1973 and especially since 2000 being on a whole statistically
reserved to those with income already in the top 20%?
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
and illegal immigration.
Thing is they aren't serious about it! Like anytime during the Clinton
administration, they would lay platatudes all over, but when it can time to
deliver, they reneged on their word and hope people didn't notice.
Post by Gooserider
If they play their cards right they can pick up some house seats on those
issues.
we call these people 'idiots!'
Story is the same in the current administration! Those
most-recently-favored "immigration reforms" do not have big-felonly-like
penalties (like prison time at least a month for all voting-to-offend
corporate directors and notably-agreeing corporate officers in addition to
fines having any chance of exceeding cost savings by hiring illegals)
against employers that hire illegals!
Make hiring illegal immigrants fail to pay as a crime should, and see
how much that crime occurs!
And now that the "R" party has held the White House for almost 6 years,
the Senate for about 10 of the past 11.5 years, and the House of
Representatives for every second of the past 11.5-11.6 years, how does
the party blame go? (Although I do not advocate letting off the hook any
other parties that could have made any difference at all or even affected
margin of passage of key big pieces of legislation going the wrong way or
wrongfully failing or wrongfully failing to get modified in some
corrective manner!)
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Unfortunately, lots of Democrats just marched along with Bush and voted
for the war in Iraq, and voted for the Patriot Act.
The american people never voted for the Patriot Act! get your facts
straight.
Actually, a majority of Americans did support such BS in a brief period
when that was popular (and such BS should have failed in the Senate since
that "Upper House of Congress" with members enjoying 6-year terms should
think less short-term!)
Post by SyVyN11
All the PA did was realign all existing terror laws under one
blanket, it was a useful weapon in the War against Islamic Terror. But
dems demonized it, John Ashcroft and Bush, because Dems aren't serious about
fighting terrorism.
Both main parties are more interested in "scoring points" than "doing
the right thing"!

In addition the current administration has been more concerned with
being vindictive against political threats than in national security even
in the areas where those goals conflict - best exemplified by the Valorie
Plame incident!

- Don Klipstein (***@misty.com)
SyVyN11
2006-09-05 08:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Klipstein
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Liberalism conceded middle America to the Republicans when they embraced
several divisive issues.
1) GUN CONTROL. The Democratic Party really screwed up when they made this
an integral part of their party platform. This is an issue which motivates
voters almost like no other. To be fair, there are Democrats who do not
support that issue. Those Democrats also usually get the endorsement of
the NRA. However, those Democrats are few and far between. It's a loser of
an issue, and the Democrats would be well advised to ditch it.
2) ABORTION. There are huge numbers of people who find the practice
abhorrent. I understand the politics on both sides, but supporting a
"right to choose" will always be viewed by some people as wanting to kill
babies. I don't see it that way, but it's an issue which turns off lots of
voters.
3) GAY RIGHTS. The Democratic party cannot afford to be seen as the
anti-normalcy party. As shown by voting trends, most Americans, given a
choice, do not support gay marriage.
The Democratic party has issues they can win on. The Bush administration
is weak on the war,
As opposed to the dems who don't want to fight any war any time.
Post by Gooserider
the economy,
Are you kidding, except for the first quarter of the Bush administration the
econmey has been going gang busters, unemployment is lower now than this
time in the Clinton administration (and yet libs are screaming that there
are bread lines all over the USA). All because tax cuts increased what
has been recived by the IRS.
How can you explain the official unemployment rate having lowest in the
past 35 or so years being essentialy during the last few fiscal years of
the Clinton administration?
How about median male worker inflation-adjusted-earnings having biggest
2-3 years of raises, biggest gains sustained at least two years of median
earnings of wage earners in general covering both genders, ever since the
1973 median highpoint with median male worker earnings yet to exceed by
more than close to 1% while the mean has since 1973 enjoyed an
inflation-adjusted raise a good 10% due to above-average-percentage raises
since 1973 and especially since 2000 being on a whole statistically
reserved to those with income already in the top 20%?
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
and illegal immigration.
Thing is they aren't serious about it! Like anytime during the Clinton
administration, they would lay platatudes all over, but when it can time to
deliver, they reneged on their word and hope people didn't notice.
Post by Gooserider
If they play their cards right they can pick up some house seats on those
issues.
we call these people 'idiots!'
Story is the same in the current administration! Those
most-recently-favored "immigration reforms" do not have big-felonly-like
penalties (like prison time at least a month for all voting-to-offend
corporate directors and notably-agreeing corporate officers in addition to
fines having any chance of exceeding cost savings by hiring illegals)
against employers that hire illegals!
Make hiring illegal immigrants fail to pay as a crime should, and see
how much that crime occurs!
And now that the "R" party has held the White House for almost 6 years,
the Senate for about 10 of the past 11.5 years, and the House of
Representatives for every second of the past 11.5-11.6 years, how does
the party blame go? (Although I do not advocate letting off the hook any
other parties that could have made any difference at all or even affected
margin of passage of key big pieces of legislation going the wrong way or
wrongfully failing or wrongfully failing to get modified in some
corrective manner!)
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Unfortunately, lots of Democrats just marched along with Bush and voted
for the war in Iraq, and voted for the Patriot Act.
The american people never voted for the Patriot Act! get your facts
straight.
Actually, a majority of Americans did support such BS in a brief period
when that was popular (and such BS should have failed in the Senate since
that "Upper House of Congress" with members enjoying 6-year terms should
think less short-term!)
Post by SyVyN11
All the PA did was realign all existing terror laws under one
blanket, it was a useful weapon in the War against Islamic Terror. But
dems demonized it, John Ashcroft and Bush, because Dems aren't serious about
fighting terrorism.
Both main parties are more interested in "scoring points" than "doing
the right thing"!
I will agree with that, but dems are not the answer.
Post by Don Klipstein
In addition the current administration has been more concerned with
being vindictive against political threats than in national security even
in the areas where those goals conflict - best exemplified by the Valorie
Plame incident!
arachnid
2006-09-05 14:14:36 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Don Klipstein
How can you explain the official unemployment rate having lowest in
the past 35 or so years being essentialy during the last few fiscal
years of the Clinton administration?
That's easy. We have Bush I to thank for the good things that happened
when Clinton was in office.

It works like this:

Anything good that happens under a republican administration, is due to
wise republican policies.

Anything bad that happens under a republican administration, was caused by
the stupid corrupt democrats who preceded them.

Anything bad that happened during the preceding democrat administration,
was the stupid corrupt democrats' fault.

Anything good that happened during the preceding stupid corrupt democrat
administration, is due to the wise republican administration that preceded
it.

And so on, back to the beginning of time.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Don Klipstein
Both main parties are more interested in "scoring points" than "doing
the right thing"!
I will agree with that, but dems are not the answer.
Neither are the republicans. Unfortunately the one thing those two have
worked well together on is locking out other parties.
ChinaMan
2006-09-05 17:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Because it symbolizes "rule by emotion" and nothing else. It changes colors
more times per day than a chameleon or mentruating woman.
Post by SyVyN11
Post by Gooserider
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Liberalism conceded middle America to the Republicans when they embraced
several divisive issues.
1) GUN CONTROL. The Democratic Party really screwed up when they made
this an integral part of their party platform. This is an issue which
motivates voters almost like no other. To be fair, there are Democrats
who do not support that issue. Those Democrats also usually get the
endorsement of the NRA. However, those Democrats are few and far between.
It's a loser of an issue, and the Democrats would be well advised to
ditch it.
2) ABORTION. There are huge numbers of people who find the practice
abhorrent. I understand the politics on both sides, but supporting a
"right to choose" will always be viewed by some people as wanting to kill
babies. I don't see it that way, but it's an issue which turns off lots
of voters.
3) GAY RIGHTS. The Democratic party cannot afford to be seen as the
anti-normalcy party. As shown by voting trends, most Americans, given a
choice, do not support gay marriage.
The Democratic party has issues they can win on. The Bush administration
is weak on the war,
As opposed to the dems who don't want to fight any war any time.
Post by Gooserider
the economy,
Are you kidding, except for the first quarter of the Bush administration
the econmey has been going gang busters, unemployment is lower now than
this time in the Clinton administration (and yet libs are screaming that
there are bread lines all over the USA). All because tax cuts increased
what has been recived by the IRS.
Post by Gooserider
and illegal immigration.
Thing is they aren't serious about it! Like anytime during the Clinton
administration, they would lay platatudes all over, but when it can time
to deliver, they reneged on their word and hope people didn't notice.
Post by Gooserider
If they play their cards right they can pick up some house seats on those
issues.
we call these people 'idiots!'
Post by Gooserider
Unfortunately, lots of Democrats just marched along with Bush and voted
for the war in Iraq, and voted for the Patriot Act.
The american people never voted for the Patriot Act! get your facts
straight. All the PA did was realign all existing terror laws under
one blanket, it was a useful weapon in the War against Islamic Terror.
But dems demonized it, John Ashcroft and Bush, because Dems aren't serious
about fighting terrorism.
Post by Gooserider
They are also not making any moves toward addressing the illegal
immigration issue, which is dumb. The people who are affected most by
illegal immigration are the ones who vote Democratic.
Here's the dirty little secret, the dems know that ILLEGALS will vote for
the candidate who will give them more stuff. In a San Deigo race a few
months ago the sitting congress woman screamed that people should help
register illegals voters. She lost.
Post by Gooserider
Lots of poor working class people are having to compete with cheap
illegal immigrant labor, and they could surely be motivated to vote for a
Democrat who had a plan to solve the problem. Unfortunately, neither
party wants to risk offending Hispanic voters.
Dems don't care about working class, they want power.
Post by Gooserider
I'm afraid the presidency will remain in the hands of the Republicans,
because the losers the Democrats want to run have no chance.
We agree, all the dems have is 'we hate bush' and as of this november,
that dog just won't hunt any more. Bush will not run for a third term.
And they can't find a new boogeyman!
Post by Gooserider
Does anybody think Hilary Clinton has a snowball's chance in Hell of
winning the south, midwest, and Rocky Mountain states?Al Gore? John
Kerry? John Edwards?
No, No, No, No!
But it will be fun to watch these four attack each other for a few months
in the primary season.
Cisco Kid
2006-09-04 23:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gooserider
Liberalism conceded middle America to the Republicans when they embraced
several divisive issues.
1) GUN CONTROL. The Democratic Party really screwed up when they made this
an integral part of their party platform. This is an issue which motivates
voters almost like no other. To be fair, there are Democrats who do not
support that issue. Those Democrats also usually get the endorsement of
the NRA. However, those Democrats are few and far between. It's a loser of
an issue, and the Democrats would be well advised to ditch it.
Colorado (a red state) defeated NRA sponsored legislation and candidates in
2004. Many candidates the NRA supports would win election anyway. There
are also many pro gun control candidates who will win regardless of what the
NRA does.
Post by Gooserider
2) ABORTION. There are huge numbers of people who find the practice
abhorrent. I understand the politics on both sides, but supporting a
"right to choose" will always be viewed by some people as wanting to kill
babies. I don't see it that way, but it's an issue which turns off lots of
voters.
The prospect of having the government legislate a woman's womb is even more
reprehensible to voters.
Post by Gooserider
3) GAY RIGHTS. The Democratic party cannot afford to be seen as the
anti-normalcy party. As shown by voting trends, most Americans, given a
choice, do not support gay marriage.
But they reject a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw it.
Post by Gooserider
The Democratic party has issues they can win on. The Bush administration
is weak on the war, the economy, and illegal immigration. If they play
their cards right they can pick up some house seats on those issues.
Gooserider
2006-09-04 23:59:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cisco Kid
Post by Gooserider
Liberalism conceded middle America to the Republicans when they embraced
several divisive issues.
1) GUN CONTROL. The Democratic Party really screwed up when they made
this an integral part of their party platform. This is an issue which
motivates voters almost like no other. To be fair, there are Democrats
who do not support that issue. Those Democrats also usually get the
endorsement of the NRA. However, those Democrats are few and far between.
It's a loser of an issue, and the Democrats would be well advised to
ditch it.
Colorado (a red state) defeated NRA sponsored legislation and candidates
in 2004. Many candidates the NRA supports would win election anyway.
There are also many pro gun control candidates who will win regardless of
what the NRA does.
Post by Gooserider
2) ABORTION. There are huge numbers of people who find the practice
abhorrent. I understand the politics on both sides, but supporting a
"right to choose" will always be viewed by some people as wanting to kill
babies. I don't see it that way, but it's an issue which turns off lots
of voters.
The prospect of having the government legislate a woman's womb is even
more reprehensible to voters.
Post by Gooserider
3) GAY RIGHTS. The Democratic party cannot afford to be seen as the
anti-normalcy party. As shown by voting trends, most Americans, given a
choice, do not support gay marriage.
But they reject a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw it.
Post by Gooserider
The Democratic party has issues they can win on. The Bush administration
is weak on the war, the economy, and illegal immigration. If they play
their cards right they can pick up some house seats on those issues.
Thanks for snipping the portion of my post that outlined how the
Democrats could win. You attempted to paint me into a corner. The reasons
the Democratic party has been hurt for so long are precisely the ones I
outlined. Especially the gun control issue. Colorado isn't exactly a "red
state", in the truest sense. Colorado is filled with hippies and exiled
Californians. You have to look at the South and the Southwest, and states
like Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, North and South Dakota. Those states are
solidly in the NRA's sphere of influence. Al Gore didn't carry Tennessee,
for crying out loud---and don't think his support for gun control wasn't
instrumental in that defeat. Howard Dean has said the Democrats need to drop
that issue. It only serves to further demonize the Democrats as the party of
big city liberals who are removed from the average person.
I don't think voters have as much problem voting to make abortion
illegal as you think. The anti-abortion crowd is very vocal, and the act of
abortion turns a LOT of people off.
However, if the Democrats would drop their outside the mainstream
social causes and focus on important issues---war, economy, illegal
immigration---they could win and win big.
Don Klipstein
2006-09-05 04:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cisco Kid
Post by Gooserider
Liberalism conceded middle America to the Republicans when they embraced
several divisive issues.
1) GUN CONTROL. The Democratic Party really screwed up when they made this
an integral part of their party platform. This is an issue which motivates
voters almost like no other. To be fair, there are Democrats who do not
support that issue. Those Democrats also usually get the endorsement of
the NRA. However, those Democrats are few and far between. It's a loser of
an issue, and the Democrats would be well advised to ditch it.
Colorado (a red state) defeated NRA sponsored legislation and candidates in
2004. Many candidates the NRA supports would win election anyway. There
are also many pro gun control candidates who will win regardless of what the
NRA does.
Post by Gooserider
2) ABORTION. There are huge numbers of people who find the practice
abhorrent. I understand the politics on both sides, but supporting a
"right to choose" will always be viewed by some people as wanting to kill
babies. I don't see it that way, but it's an issue which turns off lots of
voters.
The prospect of having the government legislate a woman's womb is even more
reprehensible to voters.
Post by Gooserider
3) GAY RIGHTS. The Democratic party cannot afford to be seen as the
anti-normalcy party. As shown by voting trends, most Americans, given a
choice, do not support gay marriage.
But they reject a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw it.
Sadly, not the case in quite a few "Red States" as of now! And the
in-recent-years-gaining (mainly in "Red States") "Wrong Side" appears to
me to be taking on a sense of urgency - as in get $#!+ passed before "too
many" Americans see that Canada, Spain, Denmark and Holland are not going
to #e!! in a handbasket!

<SNIP following previously quoted material>

- Don Klipstein (***@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
2006-09-05 03:39:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gooserider
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Liberalism conceded middle America to the Republicans when they embraced
several divisive issues.
1) GUN CONTROL. The Democratic Party really screwed up when they made this
an integral part of their party platform. This is an issue which motivates
voters almost like no other. To be fair, there are Democrats who do not
support that issue. Those Democrats also usually get the endorsement of the
NRA. However, those Democrats are few and far between. It's a loser of an
issue, and the Democrats would be well advised to ditch it.
I advise Democrats to concentrate towards gun control laws that the
courts will uphold as constitutional.
I also advise Democrats to note that failure of 28,000 of 29,000 gun
control laws or whatever this is to be due to their not being nationwide.
Heck, there is debate in Philadelphia on a 1-gun-per-month purchase
limit proposed mostly to be citywide? While gunrunners enjoying profits
of reselling guns to criminals enjoyed before a recent
specific-dealer-related-crackdown purchase point close to 4.5 or 5 miles
(7 or 8 Km) roughly straight west of Philadelphia's City Hall in a
different municipality in a different county in the same state?
And should both Philadelphia and Upper Darby tighten gun control, how
does that affect gunrunners buying guns in Darby Township, Darby
Borough, Folcroft, Tinicum Township or Yeadon?
Should gun control get tightened to both Philadelphia and entirety of
Delaware County, how does that affect gunrunners buying guns in either of
the Merion townships or Cheltenham or a few other municipalities in
Montgomery County or for that matter Bucks County or by merely a few miles
separated from Philadelphia Chester County?
And in the unlikely event the entire state of Pennsylvania goes against
its high NRA membership and enacts somewhat adequate gun control laws
statewaide, how does that stop gunrunners from buying guns in Maryland,
West Virginia, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, or Texas?
Yes, the assassination attempt on Reagan was done in a strictly
gun-controlled mere-city with a gun purchased in Texas when and where all
one needed to get a gun was to pay for it!
Post by Gooserider
2) ABORTION. There are huge numbers of people who find the practice
abhorrent. I understand the politics on both sides, but supporting a "right
to choose" will always be viewed by some people as wanting to kill babies. I
don't see it that way, but it's an issue which turns off lots of voters.
Most voters dislike abortion but want to keep that matter only among the
undesirably pregnant and any God.
USA gets split close to 50-50 on that one!

Many anti-abortion politicians also oppose contraceptives! How does
opposing contraceptives reduce abortions?
Post by Gooserider
3) GAY RIGHTS. The Democratic party cannot afford to be seen as the
anti-normalcy party. As shown by voting trends, most Americans, given a
choice, do not support gay marriage.
The last "Gay Issue" - full inclusion to extent of marriage!

Hurry - vote in as best as possible state constitutional amendments and
try to get in a national amendment against that final frontier before
enough Americans realize that Canada, Spain, Denmark and Holland are not
going to hell in a handbasket!

Oh, in recent years there has been a big downturn in success in
referendums against antidiscrimination laws regarding sexual orientation!
Yes, there has been a recent-year splurge on voter approval of statewide
"gay marriage bans" in the "red states", but let the "red states" see if
Canada went to hell in a handbasket by 2020 or 2030!
Post by Gooserider
The Democratic party has issues they can win on. The Bush administration is
weak on the war, the economy, and illegal immigration. If they play their
cards right they can pick up some house seats on those issues.
Unfortunately, lots of Democrats just marched along with Bush and voted for
the war in Iraq, and voted for the Patriot Act. They are also not making any
moves toward addressing the illegal immigration issue, which is dumb. The
people who are affected most by illegal immigration are the ones who vote
Democratic. Lots of poor working class people are having to compete with
cheap illegal immigrant labor, and they could surely be motivated to vote
for a Democrat who had a plan to solve the problem. Unfortunately, neither
party wants to risk offending Hispanic voters.
I'm afraid the presidency will remain in the hands of the Republicans,
because the losers the Democrats want to run have no chance. Does anybody
think Hilary Clinton has a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the south,
midwest, and Rocky Mountain states?Al Gore? John Kerry? John Edwards?
I have noted the Democrats favoring Presidential candidates not good for
winning in November starting in 1984. I proudly say that I voted
in every Presidential primary as a Democrat against the eventually-winning
Democrat party nominee in every year that I was of an age allowed to vote
- starting with 1980!

If Hillary wins the 2008 nomination or to be leading the polls in late
July 2008, expect the Republicans to be able to be able to win the
following November with Cheyney or even Satan, as well as to gain seats in
both houses of Congress!!!

Forget about all big-name old blood - find new blood! Discard one or
two widely-hated interest groups that Democrat politicians like to side
with - like maybe "trial lawyers"! Trial lawyers will be better off if
the party historically more favorable to them can win!

Better still - I think Democrats can win by newly advertize themselves
as "Fiscal Conservative" that they have been closer to than Republicans
have been since sometime in the Reagan Administration!
I think ability to tell bad news and to have courage notably to say
something voters would rather not hear (pork results in bills to be paid
and there has been plenty in the past) can nowadays outright gain votes!
Unlike Kerry in 2004, who appeared to me to delay taking stands until
after reading polls in prime voting season! Better to take stands that
appear to be based on conscience rather than on poll reading!
A Presidential chellenger to whatever is in power will not win by
agreeing with 51% of voters! The challenger has burden to present itself
as not merely reading polls, plus burden of adequately explaining why the
"new devil" is an improvement upon the "known devil"!

- Don Klipstein (***@misty.com)
n***@junk.min.net
2006-09-04 22:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
Whatever one's politics, one can't argue with the fact that conservatives
have done an excellent job of that.


Alan
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Please use address alanh77[at]comcast.net to reply via e-mail. **

Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564 and eComStation 1.21

BBS - The Nerve Center Telnet FidoNet 261/1000 tncbbs.no-ip.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
o***@aol.com
2006-09-04 22:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Probably because liberals today are complete and utter jokes. Better
luck lying next time :)
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Morton Davis
2006-09-04 22:47:24 UTC
Permalink
"w.h.y." <***@doweallow.it> wrote in message news:***@127.0.0.1...

Since the term was hijacked by assholes.
S***@aol.com
2006-09-04 22:50:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Liberal is another word for government control and censorship. If
liberals had their way Religion would be outlawed except of course for
Islam. That religion would be allowed. Liberal is a catchphrase for
humanism where like in Hollywood, humans are elevated to Christ like
status. Liberal is a religion of nothing but self. What pleases
thyself. If it feels good just do it and not worry about your
neighbor. As for all your little sayings about liberals keep dreaming.
Liberalism is dying. It's not that conservatism is the be all to end
all because it isn't. In fact todays conservatives aren't what I would
call true blue conservatives. And to throw out that old scare tactic
about Christianity is too darn funny. This country is so diverse that
one religion could never take over. If I had to fear any religion it
would be islam which believes that non believers deserve to be
eliminated. I never heard anyone in my Christian church preaching
this. If Teddy K. or Hillary are liberals I want to be as far to the
opposite of them I can get.
FDR
2006-09-04 23:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@aol.com
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Liberal is another word for government control and censorship.
I'd say the FCC would be contary to your argument.
Post by S***@aol.com
If
liberals had their way Religion would be outlawed except of course for
Islam. That religion would be allowed.
Maybe you could tell me what law was proposed by Democrats to outlaw
Christianity and endorse Islam?
Post by S***@aol.com
Liberal is a catchphrase for
humanism where like in Hollywood, humans are elevated to Christ like
status. Liberal is a religion of nothing but self.
I looked around here. there are no churcehs named Liberal.
Post by S***@aol.com
What pleases
thyself. If it feels good just do it and not worry about your
neighbor.
I'd say the founding fathers were all for freedom, justice and the pursuit
of happiness. You of course find the basic tenants of the founding of this
country abhorent. Why don't you move to Iran where they believe your way of
anti-Americanism.
Post by S***@aol.com
As for all your little sayings about liberals keep dreaming.
Liberalism is dying. It's not that conservatism is the be all to end
all because it isn't. In fact todays conservatives aren't what I would
call true blue conservatives. And to throw out that old scare tactic
about Christianity is too darn funny. This country is so diverse that
one religion could never take over.
Unless of course it was state sanctioned and taught in schools. Like
teaching that God made humans and such like your preacher would at Sunday
mass. Why are we sanctioning one religion in school? There are plenty of
other religions that have differing views. Why don't they get that captive
audience at school?
Post by S***@aol.com
If I had to fear any religion it
would be islam which believes that non believers deserve to be
eliminated.
Similar to god Bush "You are either with us or against us." Bush sounds
similar to Islam? You really should go to Iran.
Post by S***@aol.com
I never heard anyone in my Christian church preaching
this.
And yet Catholics did do that during the inquisitions.
Post by S***@aol.com
If Teddy K. or Hillary are liberals I want to be as far to the
opposite of them I can get.
Julian D.
2006-09-05 00:43:52 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 23:13:11 GMT, "FDR"
Post by FDR
Post by S***@aol.com
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Liberal is another word for government control and censorship.
I'd say the FCC would be contary to your argument.
Post by S***@aol.com
If
liberals had their way Religion would be outlawed except of course for
Islam. That religion would be allowed.
Maybe you could tell me what law was proposed by Democrats to outlaw
Christianity and endorse Islam?
Post by S***@aol.com
Liberal is a catchphrase for
humanism where like in Hollywood, humans are elevated to Christ like
status. Liberal is a religion of nothing but self.
I looked around here. there are no churcehs named Liberal.
Liberalism is a religion. A Godless religion.
Read the fanatastic Ann Coulter's new book. She explains it much
better than I could.
Post by FDR
Post by S***@aol.com
What pleases
thyself. If it feels good just do it and not worry about your
neighbor.
I'd say the founding fathers were all for freedom, justice and the pursuit
of happiness. You of course find the basic tenants of the founding of this
country abhorent. Why don't you move to Iran where they believe your way of
anti-Americanism.
Post by S***@aol.com
As for all your little sayings about liberals keep dreaming.
Liberalism is dying. It's not that conservatism is the be all to end
all because it isn't. In fact todays conservatives aren't what I would
call true blue conservatives. And to throw out that old scare tactic
about Christianity is too darn funny. This country is so diverse that
one religion could never take over.
Unless of course it was state sanctioned and taught in schools. Like
teaching that God made humans and such like your preacher would at Sunday
mass. Why are we sanctioning one religion in school? There are plenty of
other religions that have differing views. Why don't they get that captive
audience at school?
Post by S***@aol.com
If I had to fear any religion it
would be islam which believes that non believers deserve to be
eliminated.
Similar to god Bush "You are either with us or against us." Bush sounds
similar to Islam? You really should go to Iran.
Post by S***@aol.com
I never heard anyone in my Christian church preaching
this.
And yet Catholics did do that during the inquisitions.
Post by S***@aol.com
If Teddy K. or Hillary are liberals I want to be as far to the
opposite of them I can get.
JD





Kerry: Iraq Is Part Of The War On Terror
CNN
Wolf Blitzer Reports
http://snipurl.com/8x9e


KERRY: "Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq. More
than 1,000 of America's sons and daughters have now given their
lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom in the
war on terror. I think that the first thing that every American
wants to say today is how deeply we each feel the loss."


"Critics of the war on terrorism don?t seem to understand: someone
is trying to kill them."
-Jonathan Alter
NEWSWEEK

"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness,
of being together,"
-Cindy Sheehan Describing Her Meeting With President Bush


"I now know he?s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting.
"I know he?s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he?s a man of faith."
-Cindy Sheehan Describing Her Meeting With President Bush


"I say we create a new airline, called the ACLA, the American Civil Liberties Airline where
you don?t check anybody, you don?t ask any questions, and let those morons fly on that one."
-Dennis Miller


"It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House --
that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson
-- is untrue.
-The Washington Post
Friday, September 1, 2006; A20
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2E613DAD
cloud dreamer
2006-09-05 00:49:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian D.
Liberalism is a religion. A Godless religion.
No. Liberalism says it doesn't matter what religion you practice. You're
free to choose to practice one or not practice at all. Your choice.

..


MMVIII
OrionCA
2006-09-05 14:36:23 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 22:19:09 -0230, cloud dreamer
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by Julian D.
Liberalism is a religion. A Godless religion.
No. Liberalism says it doesn't matter what religion you practice. You're
free to choose to practice one or not practice at all. Your choice.
So if my child stands in a hallway in school and prays quietly with a
"JESUS SAVES" tee shirt on, you have no problem with that? Talk to
the ACLU: You obviously haven't gotten the memo.
--
Following hubby’s lead, the newly retired Plame wallowed out
of the funk her lack of professional opportunities inspired
to accept a $2.5 million book deal with Crown Publishing. When
this deal fell through, she settled on an unspecified contract
with Simon & Schuster.

This new contract was announced the same day as the lawsuit.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23377
Mitchell Holman
2006-09-05 02:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian D.
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 23:13:11 GMT, "FDR"
Post by FDR
Post by S***@aol.com
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Liberal is another word for government control and censorship.
I'd say the FCC would be contary to your argument.
Post by S***@aol.com
If
liberals had their way Religion would be outlawed except of course for
Islam. That religion would be allowed.
Maybe you could tell me what law was proposed by Democrats to outlaw
Christianity and endorse Islam?
Post by S***@aol.com
Liberal is a catchphrase for
humanism where like in Hollywood, humans are elevated to Christ like
status. Liberal is a religion of nothing but self.
I looked around here. there are no churcehs named Liberal.
Liberalism is a religion. A Godless religion.
Cool. So when do we get our religious tax exemption?
Post by Julian D.
Read the fanatastic Ann Coulter's new book. She explains it much
better than I could.
Gads - another braindead dittobot who worships
at the feet of serial liar Ann Coulter.




"Which "Survivor" do you think has the biggest cock?"
Steven D. Litvintchouk, Dec 28, 2004


"Sheehan's just another anti-American cocksucker,
willing to suck Osama's cock and Saddam's cock and
al-Zarqawi's cock."
Steven Litvintchouk, Aug 13, 2005


"Sucking enemy cock is standard operating procedure for liberals."
Steven Litvintchouk, Feb 15, 2005

"We right-wingers have no reason we shouldn't call
Ms. Sheehan the "Mom Who Sucks Muslim Cock."
Steven D. Litvintchouk, Aug 29, 2005

"Cindy Sheehan sucks Muslim cock. And so do you."
Steven D. Litvintchouk, Aug 11, 2005


"How would you left-wingers react if I painted a picture
of Martin Luther King Jr. on his knees sucking a Communist's
cock?"
Steven Litvintchouk, July 28, 2005


"Now go suck some more Islamist cock."
Steven D. Litvintchouk, July 29, 2005


"Jesse Jackson is absolutely furious that we've had
a President since 2001 who won't suck his cock."
Steven Litvintchouk, Sept. 5, 2005
FDR
2006-09-05 17:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian D.
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 23:13:11 GMT, "FDR"
Post by FDR
Post by S***@aol.com
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Liberal is another word for government control and censorship.
I'd say the FCC would be contary to your argument.
Post by S***@aol.com
If
liberals had their way Religion would be outlawed except of course for
Islam. That religion would be allowed.
Maybe you could tell me what law was proposed by Democrats to outlaw
Christianity and endorse Islam?
Post by S***@aol.com
Liberal is a catchphrase for
humanism where like in Hollywood, humans are elevated to Christ like
status. Liberal is a religion of nothing but self.
I looked around here. there are no churcehs named Liberal.
Liberalism is a religion. A Godless religion.
Read the fanatastic Ann Coulter's new book. She explains it much
better than I could.
Well that explains it all. You can't explain it but you know it. The
brainwashing has worked well on you. Go buy more Osama Bin coulter books.
Al Queda loves her.
S***@aol.com
2006-09-05 10:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by FDR
Post by S***@aol.com
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Liberal is another word for government control and censorship.
I'd say the FCC would be contary to your argument.
Post by S***@aol.com
If
liberals had their way Religion would be outlawed except of course for
Islam. That religion would be allowed.
Maybe you could tell me what law was proposed by Democrats to outlaw
Christianity and endorse Islam?
Post by S***@aol.com
Liberal is a catchphrase for
humanism where like in Hollywood, humans are elevated to Christ like
status. Liberal is a religion of nothing but self.
I looked around here. there are no churcehs named Liberal.
Post by S***@aol.com
What pleases
thyself. If it feels good just do it and not worry about your
neighbor.
I'd say the founding fathers were all for freedom, justice and the pursuit
of happiness. You of course find the basic tenants of the founding of this
country abhorent. Why don't you move to Iran where they believe your way of
anti-Americanism.
Post by S***@aol.com
As for all your little sayings about liberals keep dreaming.
Liberalism is dying. It's not that conservatism is the be all to end
all because it isn't. In fact todays conservatives aren't what I would
call true blue conservatives. And to throw out that old scare tactic
about Christianity is too darn funny. This country is so diverse that
one religion could never take over.
Unless of course it was state sanctioned and taught in schools. Like
teaching that God made humans and such like your preacher would at Sunday
mass. Why are we sanctioning one religion in school? There are plenty of
other religions that have differing views. Why don't they get that captive
audience at school?
Post by S***@aol.com
If I had to fear any religion it
would be islam which believes that non believers deserve to be
eliminated.
Similar to god Bush "You are either with us or against us." Bush sounds
similar to Islam? You really should go to Iran.
Post by S***@aol.com
I never heard anyone in my Christian church preaching
this.
And yet Catholics did do that during the inquisitions.
Post by S***@aol.com
If Teddy K. or Hillary are liberals I want to be as far to the
opposite of them I can get.
You're a idiot for twisting around everything I said. This is what
liberals do and why the majority of Americans don't consider themselves
liberal. Thanks for proving my point.
FDR
2006-09-05 17:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@aol.com
Post by FDR
Post by S***@aol.com
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Liberal is another word for government control and censorship.
I'd say the FCC would be contary to your argument.
Post by S***@aol.com
If
liberals had their way Religion would be outlawed except of course for
Islam. That religion would be allowed.
Maybe you could tell me what law was proposed by Democrats to outlaw
Christianity and endorse Islam?
Post by S***@aol.com
Liberal is a catchphrase for
humanism where like in Hollywood, humans are elevated to Christ like
status. Liberal is a religion of nothing but self.
I looked around here. there are no churcehs named Liberal.
Post by S***@aol.com
What pleases
thyself. If it feels good just do it and not worry about your
neighbor.
I'd say the founding fathers were all for freedom, justice and the pursuit
of happiness. You of course find the basic tenants of the founding of this
country abhorent. Why don't you move to Iran where they believe your way of
anti-Americanism.
Post by S***@aol.com
As for all your little sayings about liberals keep dreaming.
Liberalism is dying. It's not that conservatism is the be all to end
all because it isn't. In fact todays conservatives aren't what I would
call true blue conservatives. And to throw out that old scare tactic
about Christianity is too darn funny. This country is so diverse that
one religion could never take over.
Unless of course it was state sanctioned and taught in schools. Like
teaching that God made humans and such like your preacher would at Sunday
mass. Why are we sanctioning one religion in school? There are plenty of
other religions that have differing views. Why don't they get that captive
audience at school?
Post by S***@aol.com
If I had to fear any religion it
would be islam which believes that non believers deserve to be
eliminated.
Similar to god Bush "You are either with us or against us." Bush sounds
similar to Islam? You really should go to Iran.
Post by S***@aol.com
I never heard anyone in my Christian church preaching
this.
And yet Catholics did do that during the inquisitions.
Post by S***@aol.com
If Teddy K. or Hillary are liberals I want to be as far to the
opposite of them I can get.
You're a idiot for twisting around everything I said. This is what
liberals do and why the majority of Americans don't consider themselves
liberal. Thanks for proving my point.
Twisting? You are free to refute my counterpoints. But you can't.
Don Klipstein
2006-09-05 04:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@aol.com
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Liberal is another word for government control and censorship.
I snip everything since that, because the most recently above quoted
complaint is more a rightwing ideal than a leftwing one!
Can anyone say and quote definition and explanation of "Fascism"?

- Don Klipstein (***@misty.com)
nevermore
2006-09-04 22:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
No respectable person wants to be called a "liberal."
Incidently, the fact that the Constitution specifies that people have
a right to vote in a presidential election pretty much takes the
choice of having [a presidential election] out of the hands of the states.
Zepp Jamieson Sun, Sep 3 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/efb4fcac7b1561cb?hl=en&


Today, Electors are chosen by popular election, but the Constitution
does not mandate a popular election. The 14th Amendment does mention
the choosing of Electors, but is relevant only when Electors are
elected by popular vote. There is similar mention in the 24th
Amendment. In other words, Electors could be appointed by a state's
legislature, or the legislature could empower the governor to choose
electors. In some cases, state law allows for such appointments if the
popular vote cannot be used to determine a winner, such as if election
results are contested up to federally-mandated deadlines.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html
FDR
2006-09-05 17:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by nevermore
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
No respectable person wants to be called a "liberal."
Really? Why is it that 70% of the country doesn't like the conservative
whitehouse then?
Post by nevermore
Incidently, the fact that the Constitution specifies that people have
a right to vote in a presidential election pretty much takes the
choice of having [a presidential election] out of the hands of the states.
Zepp Jamieson Sun, Sep 3 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/efb4fcac7b1561cb?hl=en&
Today, Electors are chosen by popular election, but the Constitution
does not mandate a popular election. The 14th Amendment does mention
the choosing of Electors, but is relevant only when Electors are
elected by popular vote. There is similar mention in the 24th
Amendment. In other words, Electors could be appointed by a state's
legislature, or the legislature could empower the governor to choose
electors. In some cases, state law allows for such appointments if the
popular vote cannot be used to determine a winner, such as if election
results are contested up to federally-mandated deadlines.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html
nevermore
2006-09-05 20:30:50 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:15:59 GMT, "FDR"
Post by FDR
Post by nevermore
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
No respectable person wants to be called a "liberal."
Really? Why is it that 70% of the country doesn't like the conservative
whitehouse then?
Not conservative enough...
Post by FDR
Post by nevermore
Incidently, the fact that the Constitution specifies that people have
a right to vote in a presidential election pretty much takes the
choice of having [a presidential election] out of the hands of the states.
Zepp Jamieson Sun, Sep 3 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/efb4fcac7b1561cb?hl=en&
Today, Electors are chosen by popular election, but the Constitution
does not mandate a popular election. The 14th Amendment does mention
the choosing of Electors, but is relevant only when Electors are
elected by popular vote. There is similar mention in the 24th
Amendment. In other words, Electors could be appointed by a state's
legislature, or the legislature could empower the governor to choose
electors. In some cases, state law allows for such appointments if the
popular vote cannot be used to determine a winner, such as if election
results are contested up to federally-mandated deadlines.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html
--
Here's another stupid claim from Zepp

"Incidently, the fact that the Constitution specifies that people have
a right to vote in a presidential election pretty much takes the
choice of having [a presidential election] out of the hands of the states."
Zepp Jamieson Sun, Sep 3 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/efb4fcac7b1561cb?hl=en&


"Today, Electors are chosen by popular election, but the Constitution
does not mandate a popular election. The 14th Amendment does mention
the choosing of Electors, but is relevant only when Electors are
elected by popular vote. There is similar mention in the 24th
Amendment. In other words, Electors could be appointed by a state's
legislature, or the legislature could empower the governor to choose
electors. In some cases, state law allows for such appointments if the
popular vote cannot be used to determine a winner, such as if election
results are contested up to federally-mandated deadlines."
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html

f***@yahoo.com
2006-09-04 23:16:27 UTC
Permalink
Not to omit Social Security, and the fact that we'd still be in Vietnam
preventing communism from taking over the entire east!. Have you ever
heard of Christine Lavin, a singer songwriter? On her latest CD
"Zinger", she has a marvelous song, "I'm a card carrying, bleeding
heart L I B E R A L" It's great.
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
jdoe
2006-09-04 23:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Not to omit Social Security, and the fact that we'd still be in Vietnam
That's something, and all this time I thought it was nixon who got us
out of viet nam
unknown
2006-09-05 07:05:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by jdoe
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Not to omit Social Security, and the fact that we'd still be in Vietnam
That's something, and all this time I thought it was nixon who got us
out of viet nam
Only when he was finally forced to by the anti-war movement. Nixon
was elected based on his promise to end the war, his 'secret plan'.
But he kept it going for 4 more years because he was afraid an early
end to the war would cause a recession and threaten his re-election.
SyVyN11
2006-09-04 23:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
yeah right!

A better question is why is conservative is a dirty word. If it weren't
for conservatives, in this day and age, wars would not be fought!
Christopher Helms
2006-09-04 23:45:53 UTC
Permalink
A better question is why is conservative is a dirty word. If it weren't
for conservatives, in this day and age, wars would not be fought!
You might want to clarify that just a tad.
troy
2006-09-05 00:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by SyVyN11
A better question is why is conservative is a dirty word. If it
weren't for conservatives, in this day and age, wars would not be fought!
And that is a good thing? How is that?

I think the original intent of the posting was that Liberalism has brought a
lot of great ideas to this country. In fact, I think the arguement could be
made that Liberals founded this country.

Many of the ideas of the Founding Fathers were very "progressive" for there
time. Free speech, free of the press, and freedom to assemble and petition
the government are liberal ideas.

These are not ideas that sit well with conservatives, and yet, they tend to
embrace those very values as their own. Liberals brought us many of the
changes in civil rights during the 60s, do we now think it was wrong to give
people rights during the 60s?

I think we should be proud of what liberal ideaology has brought to this
country.

The neo-cons say that liberals produced a welfare state, but aren't there
are worse things in this world than welfare states? Europe seems to be the
model of a welfare state that is doing just fine. Has anyone been to Europe
lately? It would seem that a version of the welfare state can do just
fine - and it doesn't necessarily lead to communism.
SyVyN11
2006-09-05 02:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by troy
Post by SyVyN11
A better question is why is conservative is a dirty word. If it
weren't for conservatives, in this day and age, wars would not be fought!
And that is a good thing? How is that?
I think the original intent of the posting was that Liberalism has brought
a lot of great ideas to this country. In fact, I think the arguement
could be made that Liberals founded this country.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM! The OP said only liberals helped this country.
While during the infancy of this nation, liberals and conservatives worked
together. Many times they put differences aside to get things done.

It's not that way anymore! Liberals will trash anything to get their
birthright power back.
Post by troy
Many of the ideas of the Founding Fathers were very "progressive" for
there time. Free speech, free of the press, and freedom to assemble and
petition the government are liberal ideas.
These are not ideas that sit well with conservatives, and yet, they tend
to embrace those very values as their own. Liberals brought us many of
the changes in civil rights during the 60s, do we now think it was wrong
to give people rights during the 60s?
I think we should be proud of what liberal ideaology has brought to this
country.
The neo-cons say that liberals produced a welfare state, but aren't there
are worse things in this world than welfare states? Europe seems to be
the model of a welfare state that is doing just fine. Has anyone been to
Europe lately? It would seem that a version of the welfare state can do
just fine - and it doesn't necessarily lead to communism.
g***@1upandup.com
2006-09-05 00:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
When people in the political sphere sold out every one of their
principles (and no longer stand for anything), and only have a token
few laws they can suggest, the only thing they have to unite people is
hate of something. Don't stand for anything, just oppose something.
In this case, to hold their ever crumbling support structure together,
they decide to make "liberal" a dirty word that is wrong for
everything, rather than something you can debate against as being
inferior, or relative.

Anyhow, after communism entered the political philosophical realm,
liberal and conservative really no longer mean what they used to.
Liberal used to ,eam less government, and more freedom, while
conservative meant support of the state and the social conventions the
state protected. When Communism popped up and became THE form of
statism and collectivism politically, people who opposed it ended up on
the right, or conservative to protect what used to be political
liberalism.

With accelerated globalization going on, the terms left and right once
more jumble up what they stand for. All this means left and right to
to villify the other side in order to get into power.

At this point and time, liberalism in America typical means
collectivism of material goods while minimal restrictions on person
conduct (the government bails everyone out no matter how much they
screw up). Conservativism at this point and time means liberty in the
area of material possessions, while intervention of the government into
personal conduct and accountability. Of course you have the big
government Bushism conservatism which means the meddling, plus the
government ends up writing laws to favor business at the expense of
everyone else. Some would say it is fascist, but I am not going to go
there.

- Richard Hutnik
Ed Stasiak
2006-09-05 00:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
lib-er-al

favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual
freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by
governmental protection of civil liberties.

favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to
matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward
dissident artists and writers.

free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward
foreigners.

open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional
or conventional ideas, values, etc.

not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of
a rule.

of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.


Sure doesn't sound like modern day Liberals to me, especially
when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, environmentalism, education,
affirmative action, freedom of religion, political correctness, etc.
c***@gmail.com
2006-09-05 01:13:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
If you thought liberal was bad, how about "intellectual"?

I kid you not. I heard it many times, those right-wingers on TV, using
it as if it were a slur or an insult.
unknown
2006-09-05 07:08:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
If you thought liberal was bad, how about "intellectual"?
I kid you not. I heard it many times, those right-wingers on TV, using
it as if it were a slur or an insult.
The American culture has a very strong anti-intellectual streak. The
Repubs have been very successful in capitalizing on this. Every Dem
who's run for president since I can remember (since at least Adlai
Stevenson) has been bashed by the Repubs for being too intelligent,
knowing too much, therefore somehow not trustworthy.

GW Bush's whole campaign in 2000 was 'I'm just a simple dummy, I don't
know nuthin'. I'm completely ignorant, JUST LIKE YOU! So vote for
me!'
S***@aol.com
2006-09-05 10:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by c***@gmail.com
If you thought liberal was bad, how about "intellectual"?
I kid you not. I heard it many times, those right-wingers on TV, using
it as if it were a slur or an insult.
The American culture has a very strong anti-intellectual streak. The
Repubs have been very successful in capitalizing on this. Every Dem
who's run for president since I can remember (since at least Adlai
Stevenson) has been bashed by the Repubs for being too intelligent,
knowing too much, therefore somehow not trustworthy.
GW Bush's whole campaign in 2000 was 'I'm just a simple dummy, I don't
know nuthin'. I'm completely ignorant, JUST LIKE YOU! So vote for
me!'
What? It was proven AFTER the 04 election that Bush's grades were
better than Kerry's. Another Move on trick which is keep spreading lies
until everyone buys into it. Nice try. No wonder liberalism is dying.
unknown
2006-09-05 16:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@aol.com
Post by unknown
GW Bush's whole campaign in 2000 was 'I'm just a simple dummy, I don't
know nuthin'. I'm completely ignorant, JUST LIKE YOU! So vote for
me!'
What? It was proven AFTER the 04 election that Bush's grades were
better than Kerry's. Another Move on trick which is keep spreading lies
until everyone buys into it. Nice try. No wonder liberalism is dying.
Bush's actual IQ is is irrelevant. The problem is not that he's
stupid but that he's intellectually lazy, and that he doesn't care,
he's incurious. He doesn't know what he's doing, but he has complete
confidence even in his wrongest ideas. They're not even really -his-
ideas because he's too lazy to think about things for himself.

But he pretends to be dumber than he really is. I really think he
mispronounced words on purpose during the 2000 election. He laid on a
Texas accent during the election that almost disappeared afterwards,
except when he speaks to crowds of southerners it comes back.

Before Bush ran for gov. of Texas he ran for a seat in Congress. The
story is told (and I'm not sure how true it is because I wasn't living
in Texas) that he was very smart in this campaign, his first. He had
all the facts and numbers at his fingertips, and answered questions
authoritatively. And he lost because Texans don't trust smart people.
It was then that he 'reinvented' himself as the easy-going,
not-too-bright 'man of the people'.

As for his grades being
Post by S***@aol.com
No wonder liberalism is dying.
Yeah, you just keep thinking that. 8^D
me
2006-09-05 16:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
But he pretends to be dumber than he really is. I really think he
mispronounced words on purpose during the 2000 election. He laid on a
Texas accent during the election that almost disappeared afterwards,
except when he speaks to crowds of southerners it comes back.
....Bush ran for a seat in Congress. He had
all the facts and numbers at his fingertips, and answered questions
authoritatively. And he lost because Texans don't trust smart people.
It was then that he 'reinvented' himself as the easy-going,
not-too-bright 'man of the people'.
.

So what you're saying is that Bush is actually very intelligent &
politically-saavy. Just like Slick Willy.

.
Ubiquitous
2006-09-05 01:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
They did it to themselves, actually.
Post by w.h.y.
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Are you deluded or just making a weak attempt at revisionist history?
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Don Klipstein
2006-09-05 04:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by w.h.y.
Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
They did it to themselves, actually.
Post by w.h.y.
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Are you deluded or just making a weak attempt at revisionist history?
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Biggest point of yours being a "signature" taking quite a few lines,
posted apparently mainly one individual that has changed handle while
notably making a hero of Ann Coulter?

Sometimes alternatively spewing a Coulterism of American lefter side
supposedly opposing a modern "rightside" American effort against
fundamentilism, while recent-years American efforts in Iraq have had *what
net effect* on significance of American-enemy religious fundamentalism?
Should America not have put more effort against Osama bin Laden and less
into a sideshow that led to formation of "Al Quaeda in Iraq"?

- Don Klipstein (***@misty.com)
v***@yahoo.com
2006-09-05 10:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by w.h.y.
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
.

It's true. The OLD liberals supported individual freedom & liberty.

But the NEW liberals support government control & taking away those
freedoms... a step backwards to authoritarianism.

.
Big Easy
2006-09-05 11:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@yahoo.com
Post by w.h.y.
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
.
It's true. The OLD liberals supported individual freedom & liberty.
But the NEW liberals support government control & taking away those
freedoms... a step backwards to authoritarianism.
.
As if the current administration is NOT taking away your liberties?
Another two years and we'll be a police state.
SyVyN11
2006-09-05 11:52:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Easy
Post by v***@yahoo.com
Post by w.h.y.
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
.
It's true. The OLD liberals supported individual freedom & liberty.
But the NEW liberals support government control & taking away those
freedoms... a step backwards to authoritarianism.
.
As if the current administration is NOT taking away your liberties?
Another two years and we'll be a police state.
That's what they said in 2001, 2002, 2004 and now, this is the last chance
for the scare tactic of 'bush boogeyman' will work.
jdoe
2006-09-05 12:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Easy
Post by v***@yahoo.com
Post by w.h.y.
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
.
It's true. The OLD liberals supported individual freedom & liberty.
But the NEW liberals support government control & taking away those
freedoms... a step backwards to authoritarianism.
.
As if the current administration is NOT taking away your liberties?
Another two years and we'll be a police state.
please elaborate, tell us exactly which liberties have been taken
away?
Big Easy
2006-09-05 12:56:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by jdoe
Post by Big Easy
Post by v***@yahoo.com
Post by w.h.y.
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
.
It's true. The OLD liberals supported individual freedom & liberty.
But the NEW liberals support government control & taking away those
freedoms... a step backwards to authoritarianism.
.
As if the current administration is NOT taking away your liberties?
Another two years and we'll be a police state.
please elaborate, tell us exactly which liberties have been taken
away?
Just google civil liberties as a starting point. Here's a link to the
ACLU site:

"Nationally, documents obtained by the ACLU through FOIA requests have
revealed that the FBI is using its Joint Terrorism Task Forces to gather
extensive information about peaceful organizations. The targeted groups
include advocates for the environment, animal rights, labor, religion,
Native American rights, fair trade, grassroots politics, peace, social
justice, nuclear disarmament, human rights and civil liberties."

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/26610prs20060830.html

The Patriot Act is providing the cover for Bush's imperial presidency to
trample on our rights. It is eerily reminiscent of the way that Hitler
used the pretext of the Reichstag fire to consolidate Nazi control of
the German government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
S***@aol.com
2006-09-05 13:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Easy
Post by jdoe
Post by Big Easy
Post by v***@yahoo.com
Post by w.h.y.
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
.
It's true. The OLD liberals supported individual freedom & liberty.
But the NEW liberals support government control & taking away those
freedoms... a step backwards to authoritarianism.
.
As if the current administration is NOT taking away your liberties?
Another two years and we'll be a police state.
please elaborate, tell us exactly which liberties have been taken
away?
Just google civil liberties as a starting point. Here's a link to the
"Nationally, documents obtained by the ACLU through FOIA requests have
revealed that the FBI is using its Joint Terrorism Task Forces to gather
extensive information about peaceful organizations. The targeted groups
include advocates for the environment, animal rights, labor, religion,
Native American rights, fair trade, grassroots politics, peace, social
justice, nuclear disarmament, human rights and civil liberties."
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/26610prs20060830.html
The Patriot Act is providing the cover for Bush's imperial presidency to
trample on our rights. It is eerily reminiscent of the way that Hitler
used the pretext of the Reichstag fire to consolidate Nazi control of
the German government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
I get it. You're doing material here like Jon Stewart. Okay you're
funny!
SyVyN11
2006-09-05 16:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Easy
Post by jdoe
Post by Big Easy
Post by v***@yahoo.com
Post by w.h.y.
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
.
It's true. The OLD liberals supported individual freedom & liberty.
But the NEW liberals support government control & taking away those
freedoms... a step backwards to authoritarianism.
.
As if the current administration is NOT taking away your liberties?
Another two years and we'll be a police state.
please elaborate, tell us exactly which liberties have been taken
away?
Just google civil liberties as a starting point. Here's a link to the
"Nationally, documents obtained by the ACLU through FOIA requests have
revealed that the FBI is using its Joint Terrorism Task Forces to gather
extensive information about peaceful organizations. The targeted groups
include advocates for the environment, animal rights, labor, religion,
Native American rights, fair trade, grassroots politics, peace, social
justice, nuclear disarmament, human rights and civil liberties."
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/26610prs20060830.html
The Patriot Act is providing the cover for Bush's imperial presidency to
trample on our rights. It is eerily reminiscent of the way that Hitler
used the pretext of the Reichstag fire to consolidate Nazi control of the
German government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
You note that they don't say what 'peaceful organizations' are being talked
about, like CAIR (council on American Islamic Relations), which is a off
shoot of Hamaz!
jdoe
2006-09-05 18:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Easy
Post by jdoe
Post by Big Easy
Post by v***@yahoo.com
Post by w.h.y.
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
.
It's true. The OLD liberals supported individual freedom & liberty.
But the NEW liberals support government control & taking away those
freedoms... a step backwards to authoritarianism.
.
As if the current administration is NOT taking away your liberties?
Another two years and we'll be a police state.
please elaborate, tell us exactly which liberties have been taken
away?
Just google civil liberties as a starting point. Here's a link to the
"Nationally, documents obtained by the ACLU through FOIA requests have
revealed that the FBI is using its Joint Terrorism Task Forces to gather
extensive information about peaceful organizations. The targeted groups
include advocates for the environment, animal rights, labor, religion,
Native American rights, fair trade, grassroots politics, peace, social
justice, nuclear disarmament, human rights and civil liberties."
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/26610prs20060830.html
The Patriot Act is providing the cover for Bush's imperial presidency to
trample on our rights. It is eerily reminiscent of the way that Hitler
used the pretext of the Reichstag fire to consolidate Nazi control of
the German government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
you still haven't answered the question, which of your rights have
been taken away?
Big Easy
2006-09-05 20:29:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by jdoe
Post by Big Easy
Post by jdoe
Post by Big Easy
Post by v***@yahoo.com
Post by w.h.y.
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
.
It's true. The OLD liberals supported individual freedom & liberty.
But the NEW liberals support government control & taking away those
freedoms... a step backwards to authoritarianism.
.
As if the current administration is NOT taking away your liberties?
Another two years and we'll be a police state.
please elaborate, tell us exactly which liberties have been taken
away?
Just google civil liberties as a starting point. Here's a link to the
"Nationally, documents obtained by the ACLU through FOIA requests have
revealed that the FBI is using its Joint Terrorism Task Forces to gather
extensive information about peaceful organizations. The targeted groups
include advocates for the environment, animal rights, labor, religion,
Native American rights, fair trade, grassroots politics, peace, social
justice, nuclear disarmament, human rights and civil liberties."
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/26610prs20060830.html
The Patriot Act is providing the cover for Bush's imperial presidency to
trample on our rights. It is eerily reminiscent of the way that Hitler
used the pretext of the Reichstag fire to consolidate Nazi control of
the German government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
you still haven't answered the question, which of your rights have
been taken away?
The right to privacy, first of all, meaning the right to be free of
warrantless surveillance. The right to habeas corpus, which this
administration thinks it can ignore with impunity. The right to expect
my government not to practice torture and illegal detention as a matter
of public policy.

How's that for starters?
Greg
2006-09-05 13:01:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by jdoe
Post by Big Easy
As if the current administration is NOT taking away your liberties?
Another two years and we'll be a police state.
please elaborate, tell us exactly which liberties have been taken
away?
The right to check out "The Anarchist's Cookbook" from the library
without THE MAN tagging your name in a file! The right to dial Ossama
direct, overseas, without that annoying clicking sound that you know is
THE MAN! The right to give marines the finger without them beating
you head in on direct orders from THE MAN! THE MAN kept me outta my
first choice of grad school, man. It's THE MAN's fault we gotta drink
Red Bull made with corn syrup and why Kanye's new album is late and why
Robot Chicken is only allowed on at Sunday nights. THE MAN IS KEEPIN'
US DOWN!
SyVyN11
2006-09-05 16:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg
Post by jdoe
Post by Big Easy
As if the current administration is NOT taking away your liberties?
Another two years and we'll be a police state.
please elaborate, tell us exactly which liberties have been taken
away?
The right to check out "The Anarchist's Cookbook" from the library
without THE MAN tagging your name in a file! The right to dial Ossama
direct, overseas, without that annoying clicking sound that you know is
THE MAN! The right to give marines the finger without them beating
you head in on direct orders from THE MAN! THE MAN kept me outta my
first choice of grad school, man. It's THE MAN's fault we gotta drink
Red Bull made with corn syrup and why Kanye's new album is late and why
Robot Chicken is only allowed on at Sunday nights. THE MAN IS KEEPIN'
US DOWN!
I didn't know that Samual Jackson was keeping us all down!
S***@aol.com
2006-09-05 13:31:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Easy
Post by v***@yahoo.com
Post by w.h.y.
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
.
It's true. The OLD liberals supported individual freedom & liberty.
But the NEW liberals support government control & taking away those
freedoms... a step backwards to authoritarianism.
.
As if the current administration is NOT taking away your liberties?
Another two years and we'll be a police state.
A police state? You gotta be kidding me. You people are just too
unreal.
v***@yahoo.com
2006-09-05 13:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@yahoo.com
Post by w.h.y.
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
.
It's true. The OLD liberals supported individual freedom & liberty.
But the NEW liberals support government control & taking away those
freedoms... a step backwards to authoritarianism.
.
As if the current administration ........
.

Off-topic. We are discussing the LIBERALS and why they are disliked by
people like me. Because the NEW version of liberalism is working
overtime to take away my individual rights. (Not just recently... but
dating all the way back to the 1930s.)

If the New liberals had their way, we'd have a 100% tax rate, so the
Liberals could redistribute the wealth to their inner-city supporters
(free housing/ cable tv/ cell phones/ et cetera). And we'd be forced
to live where THEY (environmentalists) tell us to live, rather than
have freedom to buy up empty land outside the city and build a house

New liberalism = an off-shoot of Old authoritarianism = a step
backwards

.
m***@gmail.com
2006-09-05 14:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@yahoo.com
Post by w.h.y.
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
.
It's true. The OLD liberals supported individual freedom & liberty.
But the NEW liberals support government control & taking away those
freedoms... a step backwards to authoritarianism.
.
Go to "http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberalism" and you see that
America's Liberals no longer stand for liberalism. Liberals want
personal liberty, but want to take away economic freedom.

Conservatives are no better. Conservatives want economic liberty, but
want to take away personal liberty.

A new category is being created called "Classical Liberal" for the
group of people who embrace the Liberty that the original Liberals gave
their lives for.
Green Clogs
2006-09-05 19:36:54 UTC
Permalink
Because every good liberal minded idea that was once important has
deteriorated into political special interest bullshit.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...