But that's the point... your complaint isn't with liberalism, it's with the actions of people that you are defining as liberals because they are doing things you don't agree with. They probably don't consider themselves liberals, but it's become the curse word of the new millenium. If it's a socialist issue, call it what it is... don't allow someone to make a blanket statement that everyone they don't agree with is a liberal and liberals are bad people.
Toddster took the words out of my mouth - we're splitting hairs and dealing with definitions, not actions. You said it yourself - it's the actions of the people I'm objecting to. Does it really matter what someone calls themselves? Liberalism these days is about something very close to, if not completely, socialism. When I see liberal Democrats create new taxes for some social program, and it only is placed on the rich "because they can afford it", then I call it what it is - socialism.
IP: Logged
01:20 PM
Scott-Wa Member
Posts: 5392 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Registered: Mar 2002
extremists are SPECIALISTS is hijacking words in order to win over those too naive to see that the word itself does not mean squat if the actions you practice are inconsistent with that word. When Liberals allowed the line between Communism and Liberalism to become blurred they lost ALL credibility. I DO remember the days when a Liberal was just left of center. Those days are long gone now.
Don't blame me for it, you have yourselves to blame for letting it happen.
Interesting comment and I find it illustrates my point. My arguement was that the extremists hijacked a word, you agree they they specialize in that, but then go on to say it's the victims fault.
How could the Liberals have stopped the right wingers from blurring the line between communism and liberalism? By changing the philosophy? If I start saying "Boy Scouts are godless people" and get other people to say the same... does it make it true because they don't stop me? Even though one of the definitions of a boy scout is a belief in god? If I then call atheists boyscouts have I made them synonyms? I went the extreme route, an easier example would be calling them a religous cult, since you are indoctrinated through ceremonies into scouting and must affirm a belief in god... so therefore there is no difference between a boy scout and a islamic jihadist. Hey no difference between Saddam Hussien's regime and The Roman Catholic church... they both build schools and hospitals! They've both killed a lot of people too in their history so what is the difference? Would I actually call Saddam Hussien a Catholic? No... but under your premise they are the same thing.
You pick and choose some percieved similarity between groups and then lump them use names to indicate anyone you've identified as evil. Oh... and it's their fault for allowing you to call them that and it's my fault for not being able to stop you... doh!
Let's see... this thread seems to be all about that with Jews being the example (sneaky untrustworthy after world domination, the root of all evil!) , in another thread someone (who was that now...?) did that same thing with union members (filthy drug using drunk lazy theives!), and your favorite one that no one can defend against apparently... A liberal! (communists/democrats/socialists/UN trying to take my rights, kill my god, steal my land, trying to tax the rich!!, those ungrateful poor people!).. ignore that the people making those broad statements are the ones doing most of that... and are just diverting your attention from their own crimes.
Editted because I could read my own bad grammar...
[This message has been edited by Scott-Wa (edited 03-05-2006).]
IP: Logged
01:52 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Interesting comment and I find it illustrates my point. My arguement was that the extremists hijacked a word, you agree they they specialize in that, but then go on to say it's the victims fault.
Interesting choice of words. Are you saying that you are a "victim" of the Howard Deans and Michael Moores of the world?
quote
How could the Liberals have stopped the right wingers from blurring the line between communism and liberalism? By changing the philosophy?
Again, it wasn't the right wingers who did it. Let's start from the beginning...if YOU (as a moderate left of center voter) allow the extreme left fringe of your party to take over your party and represent themselves as lef tof center when in fact they are fanatical extremists paying America lip service in an effort to seize power, then YOU have blurred the line. Tell me Scott, what distinguishes your politics from Howard Dean or Michael Moore? You se, I CAN tell you what distignuishes my politics from the extreme right like Pat Buchanan or Rush Limbaugh. The Republican Presidential candididates are mostly moderates like McCain. But you can't distinguish yourself from men like Dean and Kerry for one simple reason, YOU CHOSE THOSE GUYS TO REPRESNT YOU AT THE POLLS! When you start nominating moderate candidates you will have taken back the term "liberal" as one of moderation. But as long as you elect communists in the primaries then Liberal is gonig to remain a synonym for communism.
Remember, your ACTIONS (who you nominate) determines your position, not your words.
quote
If I start saying "Boy Scouts are godless people" and get other people to say the same... does it make it true because they don't stop me? Even though one of the definitions of a boy scout is a belief in god? If I then call atheists boyscouts have I made them synonyms? I went the extreme route, an easier example would be calling them a religous cult, since you are indoctrinated through ceremonies into scouting and must affirm a belief in god... so therefore there is no difference between a boy scout and a islamic jihadist. Hey no difference between Saddam Hussien's regime and The Roman Catholic church... they both build schools and hospitals! They've both killed a lot of people too in their history so what is the difference? Would I actually call Saddam Hussien a Catholic? No... but under your premise they are the same thing.
This is more of an epistomological point that one of reality. Let's stick to my example of Dean and Kerry, a real world disparity between the spoken word and the act.
quote
You pick and choose some percieved similarity between groups and then lump them use names to indicate anyone you've identified as evil. Oh... and it's their fault for allowing you to call them that and it's my fault for not being able to stop you... doh!
I can only go by what you do. Your Actions do not concur with your words.
quote
Let's see... this thread seems to be all about that with Jews being the example (sneaky untrustworthy after world domination, the root of all evil!) , in another thread someone (who was that now...?) did that same thing with union members (filthy drug using drunk lazy theives!), and your favorite one that no one can defend against apparently... A liberal! (communists/democrats/socialists/UN trying to take my rights, kill my god, steal my land, trying to tax the rich!!, those ungrateful poor people!).. ignore that the people making those broad statements are the ones doing most of that... and are just diverting your attention from their own crimes.
Editted because I could read my own bad grammar...
I don't recall calling Union members "filthy drug using drunk lazy thieves" but please provide a link and if I did I will apologize profoundly. I DO recall saying that Unions have exploited the colective bargaining process for political and personal gain and that as a result COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) in America has risen to an "uncompetitive" point in the world market.....and that is a view shared by every respected economist I know.
And as for "ungrateful poor people", etc. you are once again putting words in my mouth and failing to make a point. I'd hate to have read teh UNEDITED version!
Fools Like Stiffler are ignorant morons for one simple reason, they choose to be. They have pitiful lives with no love and they need people to blame for it. The ONE common denominator in Communism, Socialism, Facsim, the KKK, The Rainbow/PUSH coalition, PTL, and other extreme religous and political groups is that they ALL have lousy lives and it is SOME ONE ELSE'S FAULT!!!! The Jews are to blame, Blacks are to blame, Whitey is to blame, Republicans are to blame...I can't stand it any more. When the Hell do people stand up and say, "You know what, the system isn't perfect, but I have no one to blame for my situtation but me! My success or my failure is my responsibility."
When you can say that, I'll have a little more respect for liberals. But as long as your life sucks and you want to blame "shrub", or me, or ANYONE other than yourself, your "message" (for lack of a better word) will continue to fall on def ears and the working people of this country will continue to vote Republican. It's not a perfect party by any stretch, but it's better than any alternative.
Toddster took the words out of my mouth - we're splitting hairs and dealing with definitions, not actions. You said it yourself - it's the actions of the people I'm objecting to. Does it really matter what someone calls themselves? Liberalism these days is about something very close to, if not completely, socialism. When I see liberal Democrats create new taxes for some social program, and it only is placed on the rich "because they can afford it", then I call it what it is - socialism.
socialism is state ownership of the CORP taxes for social programs is NOT socialism
you DO NOT LIKE social programs that doesnot make them socialism
there are some things in the USA that are state owned and run police and fire depts, the armed forces, the public schools national parks, most airports, CIA , DEA, FBI
NAZIs had very little real socialism other then the name M-B BMW Krupp ect were all privately own and run every serious student of the nazis knows they were extream rightwing
an other nazi trick was the big lie many NEO-CONNs also love the big lie calling things what they arenot is a form of the big lie
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
Can't get the formatting to reply to your breakdown point by point, but I'll try to make a coherent reply as I just got up to let the dog in and take garbage down.
You've done it again... put me in with the Howard Dean's and Michael Moore's, nice lumping.
Who says they represent me? You?
Are they any different than Karl Rove and his ilk? Only difference I see is Moore uses reality to pound his points home a bit more.
My party? I was a Republican until I realised they don't represent me or the majority of their members anymore. I'm a Libertarian... stated that before. I am not a Democrat, never have been, rarely have voted for one. Between the two parties I used to think it was slow road to hell with Republicans and fast road with Democrats... boy has that ever flipflopped.
Am I a victim? Not in the sense that I'm whining rather than acting... I don't see myself as a powerless victim who must wait for a handout. You've said I don't act... what is that based on?
I speak out, I've been printed in local papers on issues, attend and testify at county council meetings, take on positions on multiple boards, work with local police on others, I'm a commissioner for a special district, work for a local college as well as run my own business. What sort of victim am I acting like? I actively work towards making my community a better place for myself and others. I constantly seek to improve myself, I've taken 5 classes at college in the last month, 2 were 4 hour seminars, 1 online 8 hour class, one 30 hour course and one 40 hour course. All while raising a son with my wife... and I find time to interact with these threads.
Apparently because I don't think union members are commies, I defend the actions of the bad apples in them. BTW it wasn't you that said all those nasty things about union members... it was someone else in that JD Powers thread. Unions by definition aren't bad, if there are corrupt members or leaders, they are bad people, unions as a whole aren't corrupt. Having someone that you pay to look out for your interests is a pretty common concept, I think the phone book is full of them. Unions use the power of volume.
IP: Logged
08:25 AM
larryemory Member
Posts: 838 From: Greensboro, NC USA Registered: Jan 2003
[quote]equate them with 'communist' dictatorships, and taking away peoples freedom but that's the exact opposite of the definition.
You can make all the definitions you want but actions are what count. Socialism (which is what you're talking about), redistribution fo wealth. is what you're about. Every one of your schemes involves taking wealth away from people who earn it and giving it people who don't. What is the constituancy of the Democrat Party? Labor unions, government employees, welfare recipients, lawyers, etc. Why is this? Because all these groups exist to leech wealth off the rest of the people.
quote
politics has centred on religious toleration, government by consent, personal and, especially, economic freedom.
I'm sorry economic freedom is incompatable with socialism. In the U S of A a shining example is social Security. If we were really free why do I have to participate in this monstrous fruad?
quote
tolerance, personal and economic freedom, government by consent.
Sorry Liberals are some of the most intolerant people I know. When you start giving government control of your economic decisions, you no longer have government by consent.
quote
Doesn't sound much like a fascist society to me, and sure doesn't sound like the sort of society that rounds up and kills members it doesn't agree with.
It's only a marrer of time.
quote
That may be the result in socialist countries where freedoms have been given up for 'security' and the "good of the whole".
That is a condition of socialism.
quote
Liberalism is more about the good of the individual even when it clashes with the wants of the majority.
The only thing I've seen Liberals want is are things like welfare, abortion, promotion of Gay lifestile, and other things which are harmeful to society in general.
quote
when Capitalism turns into Fascism.
Capitalism cannot turn into fascism because it requires total freedom to work properly. Capitalism in collusion with government is a frightening thing. It is what we've got now.
quote
It will also clash with Socialism when that turns into Totalitarism.
What about Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Viet Nam?
quote
Start taking away property, freedom, consent and your not in a liberal society.
I'm sorry your words do not match your actions.
quote
Liberals are the ones against abortion laws Invasion of personal decision.
I'm sorry killing a baby in the womb is not a privacy issue.
quote
Gun laws? Liberals are on both sides.
I have never heard of a liberal in favor of the Second |Amendment.
quote
if you are a Libertarian like myself your against most gun laws also.
I also a Liberteran; i'm against ALL gun laws; you sure don't sound like omne to me?
quote
I'm anti-stupid wars where we stick our noses into other country's business for the sake of corporate profits
You cannot possibly believe that?
quote
because we feel a case of manifest destiny and think we can run their country better than they can
I tend to agree with you there but is that really the situation here? Would you deny that war was an imperitive on December 8, 1942? September 11, 2001?
quote
Liberalism is where you do what you want to do until it adversely impacts others.
You seem to have confused liberalism with libertarianism. They are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
quote
It's all about balance and the consent of the people. Once you tell a person they can't do something because the government says so, because it would be bad for business, because it would be bad for them, you've moved outside liberalism. That's why liberals can't agree... there is no perfect example, they can't agree with each other. Some will want guns outlawed because they feel everyone will be safer, others will feel that's a false belief (me!). Freedom as a basic tenent is hard to corral. The average person will be willing to give up rights, freedom, privacy etc for a sense of safety/justice/whatever the person taking it uses as the boogieman of the day. A liberal may want to take away the drug companies ability to charge us up the woohoo because as a country we can afford it, but it's that balancing point... have the capitalist companies turned our government fascist? (ie. is the government being run for their benefit rather than the people). When we can be taken to wars that only benefit companies, when people are being thrust into insurmountable debt by legalized loansharking with banks making the rules and enforcing them to their own benefit, are we a republic by and for the people or are we a fascist republic (by and for the corporations)?
There is so much there I can't comment on all of it. I have to go back to work now.
quote
If you think we are still a representative democracy by and for the people... try and do something about the agricorps or mining corporations poisoning the land we live on and the water we drink. Is it socialism to want the land and water NOT polluted for corporate profit? That's the line where someone is doing something that effects everyone else. If you sit in a house reading **** and eating cheetos... does that effect the rest of us? Doesn't effect me, shouldn't be agencies worrying about it
I agree with you mostly here but there is one fact most paople are not aware of. Environmental polllution is much worse in socialist countries. Simply because there is no one to hold responsible for the problems. If things work correctly the government will hold companies responsible for their actions. It's not perfect but pollution is proportionally less in the US than socialist countries.
[This message has been edited by larryemory (edited 03-06-2006).]
IP: Logged
09:02 AM
Scott-Wa Member
Posts: 5392 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Registered: Mar 2002
A reply that says I can make any definition I want then instantly labels ME with a socialist agenda because "That's what I'm really talking about".
My point made again... it's the right relabeling anyone that isn't them a liberal that is having even a libertarian calling everything liberal.
Yes I said most gun laws, and I meant MOST. As a libertarian do you want felons who commit murders and robberies at gun point to continue to have the right to carry? I don't... that about covers my acceptance of gun laws, voilent criminals shouldn't continue to have the right to bear arms after conviction. Guns in schools, on planes, automatic weapons... go for it.
There is a problem with your idea that totalitarian governments have worse environmental problems than us... The reason we have less (or appear to have less) is that we have regulations restricting the corporation legal ability to pollute. In a completely hands off capitalism, those regulations wouldn't exist and they could do what they do in other countries. What would you call that? Where the needs of the society outweigh the needs of a few?
Rants editted out... the problems are so complex yet the viewpoints are so simplified for public consumption it's sickening. Part of the problem is that as a nation we don't want to respond to complex issues with well researched answers, we want a soundbite that makes us feela ) warm and secure, b) it's the other guys fault, c) my party is going to take care of it if we just let them. The idea that history shows that to be false doesn't matter. The idea that nothing presently supports that happening now or in the future also doesn't matter. We can always blame the liberals
IP: Logged
10:53 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by ray b: socialism is state ownership of the CORP taxes for social programs is NOT socialism
Forced redistribution is.
quote
you DO NOT LIKE social programs that doesnot make them socialism
I didn't say that. I said I objected to forced redistribution, ie, any time you need money for a social program, just take it from the wealthy in the form of a new/additional tax. Forced redistribution, which is socialism.
quote
there are some things in the USA that are state owned and run police and fire depts, the armed forces, the public schools national parks, most airports, CIA , DEA, FBI
Those are government services, as it should be. Would you prefer they be privately owned?
quote
NAZIs had very little real socialism other then the name M-B BMW Krupp ect were all privately own and run every serious student of the nazis knows they were extream rightwing
I wasn't debating which wing the Nazis are.
quote
an other nazi trick was the big lie many NEO-CONNs also love the big lie calling things what they arenot is a form of the big lie
Kinda like the way liberals like to say they aren't communist? If so, I see your point.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 03-06-2006).]
IP: Logged
11:24 AM
PFF
System Bot
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
You've done it again... put me in with the Howard Dean's and Michael Moore's, nice lumping.
Who says they represent me? You?
Calm down Scott. You are one of the few liberals on this forum wtih brains enough to express yourself intelligently. Don't lose your cool now.
I am not saying that you share the same values as Moore and Dean. Quite the opposite, I accept your slightly left of center stance. BUT...they do represent you whether you like it or not. As long as you endorse the same idealogoy of Liberalism that the Democratic Party endorses, then you will be linked to their message adn thier Party. Call yourself a Libertarian if you like but you are once again getting into word-smithing and not ACTION!
I don't agree with Bush on everything and that pains me to no end. BUT..as long as he is my best option, I endorse and support him. He IS my President and he is the leader of the Party I endorse.
quote
Are they any different than Karl Rove and his ilk? Only difference I see is Moore uses reality to pound his points home a bit more.
Now you are just being ridiculous. To use "Reality" and Michael Moore" in the same sentence is to believe gum drops grow on trees. He is Leni Riffestahl (sp?) revisted.
quote
My party? I was a Republican until I realised they don't represent me or the majority of their members anymore. I'm a Libertarian... stated that before. I am not a Democrat, never have been, rarely have voted for one. Between the two parties I used to think it was slow road to hell with Republicans and fast road with Democrats... boy has that ever flipflopped.
Am I a victim? Not in the sense that I'm whining rather than acting... I don't see myself as a powerless victim who must wait for a handout. You've said I don't act... what is that based on?
It's based on the results Scott, What else?
In WWII the citizens of Germany were marched through the concentration camps to see the murder machines and claimed, "We had no idea". BULLSHIT! I'm not interested in excuses. If the party fails to represent you then change it or leave it. NEVER accept acquiescence. IF you do, you are just as guilty and the perps.
When I say "You" I do not necessarily mean you Scott, I mean it in a general sense. The point being, when a liberal feels that the party he is associated with has left him behind he must act. Ronald Reagan was a Democrat. He once said of his change to the Republican Party, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, they left me".
quote
I speak out, I've been printed in local papers on issues, attend and testify at county council meetings, take on positions on multiple boards, work with local police on others, I'm a commissioner for a special district, work for a local college as well as run my own business. What sort of victim am I acting like? I actively work towards making my community a better place for myself and others. I constantly seek to improve myself, I've taken 5 classes at college in the last month, 2 were 4 hour seminars, 1 online 8 hour class, one 30 hour course and one 40 hour course. All while raising a son with my wife... and I find time to interact with these threads.
Then I applaud you for the non-liberal that you are. Be proud to say you are not a liberal. These are the actions of a conservative, or at least a libertarian. SAY SO! But stop associating yourself with a lost concept of the "pascifist liberal", that is an extinct animal.
quote
Apparently because I don't think union members are commies, I defend the actions of the bad apples in them. BTW it wasn't you that said all those nasty things about union members... it was someone else in that JD Powers thread. Unions by definition aren't bad, if there are corrupt members or leaders, they are bad people, unions as a whole aren't corrupt. Having someone that you pay to look out for your interests is a pretty common concept, I think the phone book is full of them. Unions use the power of volume.
Unions MIS-USE the power of volume!
Unions had their place in history and their time has past. At the turn of the century workers needed to unite against the greed of business owners and the complacence of the Government. They won. They earned better working conditions, fair wages, and eliminated exploitation. Now what do we need them for? Remember PATCO? Unions were not satisfied with bring the workers up to an equal footing they had to turn the tables. Now it is the UNIONS who are holding American business up for ransom and I won't tolerate it! For too long it was in vogue to create laws that made life easier for the worker, now look at the mess we are in. Business struggles to stay alive in a competitive world and how is closing a business good for the workers? Unions have become their own worst enemy. When they start seeing themselves as the gatekeepers for the status quo, then we will be fine. But until legislation comes into effect to protect business from greedy Union Mob Bosses then it's all out WAR!
IP: Logged
11:45 AM
Tigger Member
Posts: 4368 From: Flint, MI USA Registered: Sep 2000
The only thing I've seen Liberals want is are things like welfare, abortion, promotion of Gay lifestile, and other things which are harmeful to society in general.
Now thats a quote right there. And not one that makes me particularly proud of the human race either.
Kinda like the way liberals like to say they aren't communist? If so, I see your point.
even the dumbest NEO-CONNed knows this just ain't so but repeats it over and over and somehow thinks doing so will make it true
communists want the state to own the means of production and everyone works for the state that has nothing to do with liberalism or the democratic party
as a hippie based liberal the last thing I want is a communist state or even a more powerfull state that trys in anyway to effect personal freedoms
the NEO-CONNed want more state power in the lives of people they want laws about SEX , DRUGs, and ROCK&ROLL they support the state killing people, how can the state have anymore power over people then that they also support the war on a we-say-so reasoning without any evidence demanding blind faith of their followers in goverment exactly like their religion the NEO-CONN religion and goverment agenda is very similar to the tali-ban's
BTW what ever happened to the idea that goverment should balance budgets and tax enuff to pay as they go with a little extra to pay down the debts O wait that was clinton
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
IP: Logged
03:41 PM
Patrick Member
Posts: 36524 From: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Registered: Apr 99
but repeats it over and over and somehow thinks doing so will make it true
My girlfriend's kids are guilty of this as well, but they're only 8 and 10 years old. I always figured they'd grow out of it, but I see the same thing occurring here in this thread with some of the "adult" participants. Now I'm worried...
IP: Logged
04:04 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
It's no lie. I see this stuff happening with many laws passed by the Democrats, especially here in California.
quote
even the dumbest NEO-CONNed knows this just ain't so but repeats it over and over and somehow thinks doing so will make it true
Why not repeat it, if it's true and it's happening. Communist principles are what they are acting on, whether they know it or not (but I suspect they do).
quote
communists want the state to own the means of production and everyone works for the state that has nothing to do with liberalism or the democratic party
Hell, Ray, even those in this country with communist sympathies know that they can't be OVERT about it. They know they can't try to take over production outright.
quote
as a hippie based liberal the last thing I want is a communist state or even a more powerfull state that trys in anyway to effect personal freedoms
What, they won't let you smoke pot, or are opposed to abortion on demand, so you think they're just jackbooted Nazis? Dude, did you do too many 60s back in the drugs?
quote
the NEO-CONNed want more state power in the lives of people they want laws about SEX , DRUGs, and ROCK&ROLL they support the state killing people, how can the state have anymore power over people then that they also support the war on a we-say-so reasoning without any evidence demanding blind faith of their followers in goverment exactly like their religion the NEO-CONN religion and goverment agenda is very similar to the tali-ban's
That's a load of hyped-up bullshit. The Republicans have been in power in congress since 95, and have held the white house since 2000. If they really wanted to, they could have done all those things by now, but haven't.
And I still marvel at the unbelieveable irony of the liberals opposition of the death penalty and support of abortion. Don't rid society of convicted killers, but allow unborn humans to be unceremoniously killed on demand. What an incredible load of illogic.
quote
BTW what ever happened to the idea that goverment should balance budgets and tax enuff to pay as they go with a little extra to pay down the debts O wait that was clinton
Well, I've said it 50 times, so why not once more? Clinton had a balanced budget because of the economic boom (which, by the way, ended before he left office, so you can't blame Republicans). Tax revenue went bust at the same time the bubble burst. End of story.
IP: Logged
05:47 PM
Mar 7th, 2006
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
even the dumbest NEO-CONNed knows this just ain't so but repeats it over and over
Then what you are saying is that Americans are universally stupid? 53 Million voted for Bush in '04. And Republicans have landslided their way to victory in every major election for the past 12 years.
So tell us oh wise sage, since we are all so dense, if everyone doesn't believe our "lie" then why does everybody vote Republican?
This is gonna be good!
IP: Logged
04:29 PM
Fastback 86 Member
Posts: 7849 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Sep 2003
Then what you are saying is that Americans are universally stupid? 53 Million voted for Bush in '04. And Republicans have landslided their way to victory in every major election for the past 12 years.
So tell us oh wise sage, since we are all so dense, if everyone doesn't believe our "lie" then why does everybody vote Republican?
This is gonna be good!
Everybody? '04 wasn't exactly a landslide, it came down to Ohio. Plenty of people voted against Bush, just not quite as many. All those pretty pictures of the Red/Blue breakdown make the country look more red, but they don't illustrate as nicely that there are more people living in San Jose alone than in the entire state of Wyoming.
why the newly conned think the far-rightwing republicans are worth voting for
part belife in the BIG LIE based on unrational fear and hate of the underclass that all started with nixon's southern stratigy to rope in the kkk and rednecks that has worked very well for them part belife in religion based on fairytales so they blindly vote the way the tel-evang's tell them part greed, hate of taxes and feds
the super rich I can understand supporting these clowns who at leasted save them taxes the sheep in the churches who let the preachers think for them follow blindly
why more of the normal workers can't see past the smoke and mirrors I donot understand
interesting that the better educated do not support the GOP by a wide margin while the eazyly fooled dropouts and rural hicks do in mass
I guess it just proves hitler right the BIG LIE WORKS
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
IP: Logged
01:54 AM
PFF
System Bot
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
there are many forms of the BIG LIE basicly you tell a lie over and over hopeing the people will come to belive it for no other reason then they hear it over and over most of hitlers BIG LIES were about the jews in the USA they were about the blacks back in the 50-60's
funny how the times change but the lies donot most of the current rightwing BIG LIES replace the jews with liberals I guess they are not very original to reuse most of hitler's BS with only a few changes as in the liberals are realy commies liberals control the media liberals are not loyal all unions are bad
there are new ones added like iraq has WMDs iraq planned or paid for the 9-11 attacks saudi arabs are our freinds
latest one is selling the ports to the arabs is a good idea
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
IP: Logged
02:54 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
why the newly conned think the far-rightwing republicans are worth voting for
part belife in the BIG LIE based on unrational fear and hate of the underclass that all started with nixon's southern stratigy to rope in the kkk and rednecks that has worked very well for them part belife in religion based on fairytales so they blindly vote the way the tel-evang's tell them part greed, hate of taxes and feds
the super rich I can understand supporting these clowns who at leasted save them taxes the sheep in the churches who let the preachers think for them follow blindly
why more of the normal workers can't see past the smoke and mirrors I donot understand
interesting that the better educated do not support the GOP by a wide margin while the eazyly fooled dropouts and rural hicks do in mass
I guess it just proves hitler right the BIG LIE WORKS
You were saying something about the better educated not supporting the GOP....
IP: Logged
09:58 PM
pokeyfiero Member
Posts: 16189 From: Free America! Registered: Dec 2003
[quote]A reply that says I can make any definition I want then instantly labels ME with a socialist agenda because "That's what I'm really talking about".
If you believe in distribution of wealth you're a socialist. As i said It's your actions not your words. It doesn't make a damn what "right wingers" call you
quote
Yes I said most gun laws, and I meant MOST. As a libertarian do you want felons who commit murders and robberies at gun point to continue to have the right to carry? I don't... that about covers my acceptance of gun laws, voilent criminals shouldn't continue to have the right to bear arms after conviction. Guns in schools, on planes, automatic weapons... go for it.
. I will. The right to possess a gun is guranteed in the Constitution. It doesn't say except machine guns, etc. As far as criminals go when they commited the robbery, etc they commited the crime. It has nothing to do with the gun. Liberals have managed to associate guns with evil. Gun possession ONLY becomes a crime when the gun is used in a crime. Removing a criminal's right to possess a weapon is not a gun law. It is punishment for a criminal act. It makes no difference if it's in a school or somewhere else. As citizens we have a right to "bear arms" whether we have a "permit" or not. Rights can of course be taken away for the commission of a crime. Frankly I think more should be taken away from violent criminals. They certainly should be denied the right to breed; or other things they are allowed to do in prison.
quote
There is a problem with your idea that totalitarian governments have worse environmental problems than us... The reason we have less (or appear to have less) is that we have regulations restricting the corporation legal ability to pollute. In a completely hands off capitalism, those regulations wouldn't exist and they could do what they do in other countries. What would you call that? Where the needs of the society outweigh the needs of a few?
I think I said that or most of that. To a point government does exert some control on these things. That's why government should be free of special interest whether it be pro business or anti business. We DO NOT have that now. The fact is the former Soviet Republic is some of the most polluted land on the planet. This is because state run industries had no control on them whatsoever. Remember Chernoble. Most of Russia's nuclear fleet is sunk at anchor with their reactors in tact.
quote
Rants editted out... the problems are so complex yet the viewpoints are so simplified for public consumption it's sickening. Part of the problem is that as a nation we don't want to respond to complex issues with well researched answers, we want a soundbite that makes us feela ) warm and secure, b) it's the other guys fault, c) my party is going to take care of it if we just let them. The idea that history shows that to be false doesn't matter. The idea that nothing presently supports that happening now or in the future also doesn't matter. We can always blame the liberals
I agree with most of that. Most people are so ignorant of the real issues they can't make an informed decision at the polls. If they could neither party would be elected. I still take the position that ALL SOCIALISM should be purged from our government. Neutral government controls on busineess is not socialism, although it tends to turn into that.
IP: Logged
04:57 PM
Mar 10th, 2006
larryemory Member
Posts: 838 From: Greensboro, NC USA Registered: Jan 2003
Well, I've said it 50 times, so why not once more? Clinton had a balanced budget because of the economic boom (which, by the way, ended before he left office, so you can't blame Republicans). Tax revenue went bust at the same time the bubble burst. End of story.
Not! This is correct as far as it goes, but as usual there is more to it. Clinton had a balanced budget PARTLY because he had a Republican congress. They restrained his spending, not for noble reasons, but because he is a Democrat. Look at the irresponsible spending that we now have with a Republican congress and President. If Clinton had a Democrat congress federal spending would be too high. I can't see how they would match the Republicans, and I voted for Bush and the Republicans. I thought when we had all of it we would be able to cut Federal spending. Boy did we get betrayed. I think we would be better with a Democrat President. This might persuade congress to be more responsible with the budget. We are beyond good government. The best we can expect now is a stalemated government.
IP: Logged
02:34 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
You should have seen me in action during the old "George Miller" days of the Fiero Club.
I decided long ago that I can either let people walk around in their dream world dancing in the meadows with flowers in their hair oblivious to the reality of the world they live in until it came crashing down around their heads by bad people bent on doing bad things, OR I could ***** slap them with the reality hammer in the hope that they would begin to contribute to the solution.
I'm only batting about .190 but I'll take it!
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 03-10-2006).]
IP: Logged
05:13 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
You should have seen me in action during the old "George Miller" days of the Fiero Club.
I decided long ago that I can either let people walk around in their dream world dancing in the meadows with flowers in their hair oblivious to the reality of the world they live in until it came crashing down around their heads by bad people bent on doing bad things, OR I could ***** slap them with the reality hammer in the hope that they would begin to contribute to the solution.
I'm only batting about .190 but I'll take it!
Well, you have mellowed!
Signed, "Dancing in the meadows with flowers in my hair"
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 03-10-2006).]
