| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
14 Jan 2005 03:53:57 PM |
| Object: |
Perspective on the Democrat Party |
This was passed along to me by a friend.
It was a letter to the editor.
It hits the nail right on the head.
_________________________
According to The New York Times, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, reflecting
on her party's recent losses in the presidential, Senate and House
elections, asked: "How did a party that is filled with people with values
-- and I am a person with values -- get tagged as the party without
values?" As one who was raised a Democrat and became a Republican only 10
years ago, I would like to answer Gov. Napolitano's question as honestly as
she posed it.
Gov. Napolitano, your party does indeed have very many people with values
in it. But the Democratic Party is no more representative of the average
Democrat's values than the National Council of Churches is of the average
Protestant's values. Both are far to the left of their membership. Here is
the Democratic Party as most Americans, including this John F. Kennedy
liberal -- a New York City born and raised Jewish, Ivy League-educated
intellectual who lives in Los Angeles -- see it.
1. To most Americans, Michael Moore is a Marxist who has utter contempt for
most of his fellow Americans, who goes abroad and tells huge audiences how
stupid and venal his country is, and in his dishonest propaganda film,
portrays the American military as callous buffoons. Yet, this radical was
given the most honored seat at the Democratic Party convention in Boston,
next to former President Jimmy Carter.
2. To most Americans, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are race-baiting
demagogues. Yet they are heroes to the Democratic Party. Most Americans do
not see their country as the bigoted and racist nation regularly depicted
by both black and white Democratic leaders.
3. To most Americans, a man who wears women's clothing to work is a
pathetic person in need of psychotherapy. To the Democratic Party, he is a
man whose cross-dressing is merely another expression of multiculturalism.
The California legislature, which is entirely controlled by Democrats,
passed a law prohibiting any employer from firing a man who shows up to
work wearing women's clothing.
4. To most Americans, Eminem is a vulgar nihilist who poisons young
Americans' minds. To John Kerry he was a man whose anti-Bush hate video was
worthy of endorsement.
5. To most Americans, obscenity-filled evenings should be restricted to R-
rated films or a Las Vegas comedy act, not a major party's fund raiser
attended by its candidates for president of the United States. To
Democrats, those who object to such evenings are regarded as judgmental,
hypocritical and narrow minded.
6. To most Americans, Hollywood stars are regarded as terrific to watch in
films but also as narcissistic ingrates when, between private jet trips to
Cuba and Cannes, they express their contempt for traditional America. That
the Democrats have a veritable monopoly on support from folks like Sean
Penn and Robert "Castro-is-a-great-leader" Redford may give Democrats a
heady feeling, but for tens of millions of Americans it merely reinforces
their belief that the Democratic Party shares Hollywood's values. Even The
New York Times, in a post-election analysis, wrote of "the possibility that
activist entertainers' fervent endorsements might have cost Mr. Kerry the
election."
7. To most Americans, the American military is not only heroic; it is
regarded as more important to safeguarding freedom than any other human
institution, including the ACLU, the United Nations or the university, to
cite three major Democratic Party affiliates. To virtually the entire Left,
which includes the Democratic Party, the military is, at best, a necessary
evil. Otherwise, the overriding doctrine is "Make love, not war." That is
why Harvard still refuses to allow ROTC training -- and it is unlikely that
either of the Massachusetts senators even finds that wrong, let alone as
reprehensible as most Americans do.
8. To most Americans, gays are fellow Americans who happen to be homosexual
and who should be accorded the same respect any fellow American is
accorded. But most Americans also believe that America should retain the
millennia-old definition of marriage as man-woman. They regard liberal
judges who take it upon themselves to redefine marriage with contempt. And
these judges are identified with the Democrats.
9. Whatever their views on abortion and abortion rights, the vast majority
of Americans view the abortion of a viable fetus (a baby capable of
sustaining life, called 'partial-birth abortion', or 'late term abortion'),
as immoral. The Democratic candidate and his fellow Democrats repeatedly
voted against a ban on this practice.
Gov. Napolitano, I hope that this short list answers your question about
how it is that your party has gotten tagged as "the party without values."
Indeed, the real question, as this observer sees it, is how has this party
retained so many people who have traditional American values?"
--
"It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that
isn't so." -Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
| User: "Dan" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
14 Jan 2005 08:11:46 PM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
Gov. Napolitano, I hope that this short list answers your question about
how it is that your party has gotten tagged as "the party without values."
Hmmm. Seems like core American values to me. Perhaps we could
look at the OTHER Party, and see how well THEY align with
American values sometime...
Most people, in fact, believe:
The value of individual liberty,
The value of freedom of expression without fear of reprisals,
People are allowed to tell the truth about their government without
fear of being jailed by same government,
Respect for the military as a necessary evil to be employed only in
time of national need, and not employed frivolously, after an
extensive propaganda campaign of blatant lies, to distract people
from failed domestic policies and failure to protect the country from
known dangers,
Religion is a personal affair rather than a government mandate by a
bizarre sect that cannot even read its own religious tracts
In fact, most Americans do not hold the views purported for them by
the proffered tact, and just wish the wacky extremist right-wingers,
both secular and religious, would just leave them alone to live
their lives in peace. Well, all except the so-called "Libertarians," who
consistently vote for the biggest possible government, with the highest
taxes, that wants to intrude on their lives the absolute maximum it
can get away with.
Oh, and did you realize that Arnold Schwatzenegger,
Ronald Reagan, and Charles Heston are "narcissistic ingrates when,
between private jet trips to Cuba and Cannes, they express their
contempt for traditional America."? And here I thought the
neocons held these people in high esteem - learn something new
every day!
Of course, traditions, per se, are not necessarily to be honored.
Seems to me there was a persistent American tradition having to
do with exterminating bothersome groups of humans peacefully
inhabiting valuable land, and of personal ownership of additional
peaceful humans who did not cause anyone any harm... Then
there are those pesky traditions elsewhere that exclude almost
half the human population from participation in decision-making,
which are making inroads in countries "liberated" by our
illustrious military decision-makers (another two hugely popular,
yet not exactly moral, old-time American traditions, it turns out).
I have no idea what you mean by #5, but assume you don't thereby
think too harshly of the Republicans for it...
And funny how only "liberal" judges legislate from the bench,
whereas "conservative" judges who cannot even read, let alone
interpret, laws are 'upholding the morality of the country' for
pointedly abrogating the Constitution and the Amendments thereto.
And most people believe religion (including the right to an abortion
guaranteed by the Constitution and its amendments) is a PERSONAL
right, not something to be legislated by people who can never make
the decision in person...
But, then, you know all that. If only you wouldn't keep forgetting
it all. Perhaps you should seek medical help for that forgetfulness
problem.
Dan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
15 Jan 2005 08:21:31 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:11:46 -0800, "Dan" <dnadan56@hotmail.com>
thought hard and said:
Well, all except the so-called "Libertarians," who
consistently vote for the biggest possible government, with the highest
taxes, that wants to intrude on their lives the absolute maximum it
can get away with.
What the hell are you blabbling on about?
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gunner" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
15 Jan 2005 08:48:48 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:21:31 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:11:46 -0800, "Dan" <dnadan56@hotmail.com>
thought hard and said:
Well, all except the so-called "Libertarians," who
consistently vote for the biggest possible government, with the highest
taxes, that wants to intrude on their lives the absolute maximum it
can get away with.
What the hell are you blabbling on about?
With Dandan the Wonderman, it helps if you take a large dosage of LSD
to wash down the peyote buttons, before you can understand his twists
and turns. The clod has more bends and curves to his thinking than a
mutilated Slinky. I kill filed him years ago.
Btw..he claims to be a teacher. Which bodes ill and may explain the
status of the school system that can produce kids that think Pearl
Harbor was bombed in retaliation for the nuking of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. Or do not know who the Vice President is.
Gunner
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
16 Jan 2005 08:07:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:48:48 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
thought hard and said:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:21:31 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:11:46 -0800, "Dan" <dnadan56@hotmail.com>
thought hard and said:
Well, all except the so-called "Libertarians," who
consistently vote for the biggest possible government, with the highest
taxes, that wants to intrude on their lives the absolute maximum it
can get away with.
What the hell are you blabbling on about?
With Dandan the Wonderman, it helps if you take a large dosage of LSD
to wash down the peyote buttons, before you can understand his twists
and turns. The clod has more bends and curves to his thinking than a
mutilated Slinky. I kill filed him years ago.
Btw..he claims to be a teacher.
That explains it all.
Which bodes ill and may explain the
status of the school system that can produce kids that think Pearl
Harbor was bombed in retaliation for the nuking of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. Or do not know who the Vice President is.
Gunner
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ed Huntress" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
16 Jan 2005 11:59:34 PM |
|
|
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kbilu0d8sb5cmkgd7kfb1bnikkpk1gd6eq@4ax.com...
The clod has more bends and curves to his thinking than a
mutilated Slinky.
Hahaha! I have no idea who you're talking about, but can I use that line?
It's a classic. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
18 Jan 2005 02:17:29 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:59:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
<huntres23@optonline.net> thought hard and said:
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kbilu0d8sb5cmkgd7kfb1bnikkpk1gd6eq@4ax.com...
The clod has more bends and curves to his thinking than a
mutilated Slinky.
Hahaha! I have no idea who you're talking about, but can I use that line?
It's a classic. <g>
You would have to take it up with the man who wrote it, and he ain't
me.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gunner" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
17 Jan 2005 02:21:07 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:59:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
<huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kbilu0d8sb5cmkgd7kfb1bnikkpk1gd6eq@4ax.com...
The clod has more bends and curves to his thinking than a
mutilated Slinky.
Hahaha! I have no idea who you're talking about, but can I use that line?
It's a classic. <g>
Feel free. Ive been particularly creative recently when trashing
Liberals.
<G>
Gunner
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cliff" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
17 Jan 2005 01:51:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 02:21:07 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:59:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
<huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kbilu0d8sb5cmkgd7kfb1bnikkpk1gd6eq@4ax.com...
The clod has more bends and curves to his thinking than a
mutilated Slinky.
Hahaha! I have no idea who you're talking about, but can I use that line?
It's a classic. <g>
Feel free. Ive been particularly creative recently when trashing
Liberals.
Due to a lack of facts or logic to use .......
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cliff" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
16 Jan 2005 05:23:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:48:48 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
wrote:
Or do not know who the Vice President is.
But can probably at least spell the word.
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
14 Jan 2005 04:16:39 PM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:pWRFd.18092$ph.15615@okepread01...
This was passed along to me by a friend.
It was a letter to the editor.
It hits the nail right on the head.
_________________________
According to The New York Times, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, reflecting
on her party's recent losses in the presidential, Senate and House
elections, asked: "How did a party that is filled with people with values
-- and I am a person with values -- get tagged as the party without
values?" As one who was raised a Democrat and became a Republican only 10
years ago, I would like to answer Gov. Napolitano's question as honestly
as
she posed it.
Gov. Napolitano, your party does indeed have very many people with values
in it. But the Democratic Party is no more representative of the average
Democrat's values than the National Council of Churches is of the average
Protestant's values.
rofl
Both are far to the left of their membership. Here is
the Democratic Party as most Americans, including this John F. Kennedy
liberal -- a New York City born and raised Jewish, Ivy League-educated
intellectual who lives in Los Angeles -- see it.
1. To most Americans, Michael Moore is a Marxist who has utter contempt
for
most of his fellow Americans, who goes abroad and tells huge audiences how
stupid and venal his country is, and in his dishonest propaganda film,
portrays the American military as callous buffoons.
lie
Yet, this radical was
given the most honored seat at the Democratic Party convention in Boston,
next to former President Jimmy Carter.
lie
2. To most Americans, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are race-baiting
demagogues.
lie
Yet they are heroes to the Democratic Party. Most Americans do
not see their country as the bigoted and racist nation regularly depicted
by both black and white Democratic leaders.
lie
3. To most Americans, a man who wears women's clothing to work is a
pathetic person in need of psychotherapy. To the Democratic Party, he is a
man whose cross-dressing is merely another expression of multiculturalism.
cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo
The California legislature, which is entirely controlled by Democrats,
passed a law prohibiting any employer from firing a man who shows up to
work wearing women's clothing.
lol
4. To most Americans, Eminem is a vulgar nihilist who poisons young
Americans' minds.
lie
To John Kerry he was a man whose anti-Bush hate video
lie
was
worthy of endorsement.
5. To most Americans, obscenity-filled evenings should be restricted to R-
rated films or a Las Vegas comedy act, not a major party's fund raiser
lie
attended by its candidates for president of the United States. To
Democrats, those who object to such evenings are regarded as judgmental,
hypocritical and narrow minded.
lol
6. To most Americans, Hollywood stars are regarded as terrific to watch in
films but also as narcissistic ingrates when, between private jet trips to
Cuba and Cannes, they express their contempt for traditional America.
lie
That
the Democrats have a veritable monopoly on support from folks like Sean
Penn and Robert "Castro-is-a-great-leader" Redford may give Democrats a
heady feeling, but for tens of millions of Americans it merely reinforces
their belief that the Democratic Party shares Hollywood's values.
roflmao
Even The
New York Times, in a post-election analysis, wrote of "the possibility
that
activist entertainers' fervent endorsements might have cost Mr. Kerry the
election."
7. To most Americans, the American military is not only heroic; it is
regarded as more important to safeguarding freedom than any other human
institution, including the ACLU, the United Nations or the university, to
cite three major Democratic Party affiliates.
rofl
To virtually the entire Left,
which includes the Democratic Party, the military is, at best, a necessary
evil.
Same with real Christians everywhere.
Otherwise, the overriding doctrine is "Make love, not war."
rofl
That is
why Harvard still refuses to allow ROTC training -- and it is unlikely
that
either of the Massachusetts senators even finds that wrong, let alone as
reprehensible as most Americans do.
lie
8. To most Americans, gays are fellow Americans who happen to be
homosexual
and who should be accorded the same respect any fellow American is
accorded. But most Americans also believe that America should retain the
millennia-old definition of marriage as man-woman.
cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo
They regard liberal
judges who take it upon themselves to redefine marriage with contempt.
lie
And
these judges are identified with the Democrats.
By morons. lol
9. Whatever their views on abortion and abortion rights, the vast majority
of Americans view the abortion of a viable fetus (a baby capable of
sustaining life, called 'partial-birth abortion',
lie
or 'late term abortion'),
as immoral. The Democratic candidate and his fellow Democrats repeatedly
voted against a ban on this practice.
Thank God.
Gov. Napolitano, I hope that this short list answers your question about
how it is that your party has gotten tagged as "the party without values."
Sure does - it's just one more lie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
14 Jan 2005 04:34:54 PM |
|
|
"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in
news:cs8r97$99o$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:pWRFd.18092$ph.15615@okepread01...
This was passed along to me by a friend.
It was a letter to the editor.
It hits the nail right on the head.
_________________________
According to The New York Times, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano,
reflecting on her party's recent losses in the presidential, Senate and
House elections, asked: "How did a party that is filled with people
with values -- and I am a person with values -- get tagged as the party
without values?" As one who was raised a Democrat and became a
Republican only 10 years ago, I would like to answer Gov. Napolitano's
question as honestly as
she posed it.
Gov. Napolitano, your party does indeed have very many people with
values in it. But the Democratic Party is no more representative of the
average Democrat's values than the National Council of Churches is of
the average Protestant's values.
rofl
The extent of your rebuttal, I see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
14 Jan 2005 05:01:08 PM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:OwSFd.18096$ph.516@okepread01...
"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in
news:cs8r97$99o$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:pWRFd.18092$ph.15615@okepread01...
This was passed along to me by a friend.
It was a letter to the editor.
It hits the nail right on the head.
_________________________
According to The New York Times, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano,
reflecting on her party's recent losses in the presidential, Senate and
House elections, asked: "How did a party that is filled with people
with values -- and I am a person with values -- get tagged as the party
without values?" As one who was raised a Democrat and became a
Republican only 10 years ago, I would like to answer Gov. Napolitano's
question as honestly as
she posed it.
Gov. Napolitano, your party does indeed have very many people with
values in it. But the Democratic Party is no more representative of the
average Democrat's values than the National Council of Churches is of
the average Protestant's values.
rofl
The extent of your rebuttal, I see.
After being snipped by a craven intenet coward like you, yep. roflmao
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Strider" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
15 Jan 2005 10:10:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:34:54 GMT, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in
news:cs8r97$99o$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:pWRFd.18092$ph.15615@okepread01...
This was passed along to me by a friend.
It was a letter to the editor.
It hits the nail right on the head.
_________________________
According to The New York Times, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano,
reflecting on her party's recent losses in the presidential, Senate and
House elections, asked: "How did a party that is filled with people
with values -- and I am a person with values -- get tagged as the party
without values?" As one who was raised a Democrat and became a
Republican only 10 years ago, I would like to answer Gov. Napolitano's
question as honestly as
she posed it.
Gov. Napolitano, your party does indeed have very many people with
values in it. But the Democratic Party is no more representative of the
average Democrat's values than the National Council of Churches is of
the average Protestant's values.
rofl
The extent of your rebuttal, I see.
His "rebuttal" is akin to the "rebuttal" a small child gives when
instructed by his parents.
Fingers in ears, eyes squeezed shut, screeching "no,no,no,no,no,no" at
the top of his lungs.
All in all, both are a pitiful example of a temper tantrum.
Strider
.
|
|
|
| User: "Guido" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
16 Jan 2005 04:40:07 PM |
|
|
Strider wrote:
Fingers in ears, eyes squeezed shut, screeching "no,no,no,no,no,no" at
the top of his lungs.
All in all, both are a pitiful example of a temper tantrum.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/9c9930d82c7ca23a
HTH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gunner" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
15 Jan 2005 07:53:53 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:16:39 -0600, "ouroboros rex"
<c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:
<snip long list of denials of reality>
Gov. Napolitano, I hope that this short list answers your question about
how it is that your party has gotten tagged as "the party without values."
Sure does - it's just one more lie.
Seems to me the Worm needs to be getting out among the hoi poli a bit
more. Or else work on that serious denial issue he has.
Gunner
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Ascher" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
16 Jan 2005 05:00:11 AM |
|
|
Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:16:39 -0600, "ouroboros rex"
<c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:
<snip long list of denials of reality>
Gov. Napolitano, I hope that this short list answers your question about
how it is that your party has gotten tagged as "the party without values."
Sure does - it's just one more lie.
Seems to me the Worm needs to be getting out among the hoi poli a bit
more. Or else work on that serious denial issue he has.
Gunner
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
"There is no liberty without liberalism, and no conservatism without
consequences." - Me
James
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim May" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
16 Jan 2005 06:33:38 AM |
|
|
Gunner wrote:
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
Is Gunner referring to his son, who he tells us was healthy enough to
get married and father a child, but who hates working out in the sun,
so instead he got hisself declared "bipolar" and now collects a monthly
check while the suckers work?
Or is Gunner referring to his wife, who slept around with various men
just after she and Gunner were married, who had a child out of wedlock,
who never saved any money, never bought any insurance, and who consumed
about $400,000 in taxpayer funds when she took sick and Gunner, ever
the cuckold, took care of her?
Or is Gunner referrring to his own heart attack, where he also had no
money invested, no insurance, but a large collection of machine tools
and firearms he had instead elected to put his money into?
Gunner says that what his son has consumed is not his business, that
what his wife has consumed is not his business, and that what he has
"negotiated" with the hospital for his bills is his business alone. (My
guess: once again, we are paying. This is how things work when people
don't pay their bills. Look around.)
Meanwhile, Gunner the Indigent lectures US on how at the heart of
liberalism is the spoiled child.
I happen to agree, but I don't give free passes to people like Gunner
just because he's a right winger.
People are stealing from me. Stealing from me to pay for their children
to sit at home watching cartoons in their double-wide and claiming "I
gots bipoplar!" Stealing from me to pay for their triple bypasses
because they smoked and drank and hung out in pool halls and had heart
attacks. Steaking from me to pay for their lack of buying health
insurance, while denying _ME_, who has been taxed so heavily by Brown,
Dukakis, Wilson, Gray, and Schwarzen ***** to pay for the health care
of all of these layabouts, whores, and goof-offs.
It's time to take out the trash.
It's time to say that just because a white ***** claims he's a right
winger he's exempt from being sent up the chimneys.
--Tim May
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Russell" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
16 Jan 2005 07:46:16 AM |
|
|
Tim May wrote:
People are stealing from me. Stealing from me to pay for their children
to sit at home watching cartoons in their double-wide and claiming "I
gots bipoplar!" Stealing from me to pay for their triple bypasses
because they smoked and drank and hung out in pool halls and had heart
attacks. Steaking from me to pay for their lack of buying health
insurance, while denying _ME_, who has been taxed so heavily by Brown,
Dukakis, Wilson, Gray, and Schwarzen ***** to pay for the health care
of all of these layabouts, whores, and goof-offs.
It's time to take out the trash.
That's quite a mood swing you've got going on there Tim - are you sure
you haven't "gots bipolar" yourself ?
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gunner" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
16 Jan 2005 07:49:07 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 05:00:11 GMT, James Ascher <jwa1968@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:16:39 -0600, "ouroboros rex"
<c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:
<snip long list of denials of reality>
Gov. Napolitano, I hope that this short list answers your question about
how it is that your party has gotten tagged as "the party without values."
Sure does - it's just one more lie.
Seems to me the Worm needs to be getting out among the hoi poli a bit
more. Or else work on that serious denial issue he has.
Gunner
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
"There is no liberty without liberalism, and no conservatism without
consequences." - Me
James
Too bad the quote is fatally flawed in application. Sounds nice
though.
Gunner
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Ascher" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
17 Jan 2005 04:34:53 PM |
|
|
Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 05:00:11 GMT, James Ascher <jwa1968@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:16:39 -0600, "ouroboros rex"
<c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:
<snip long list of denials of reality>
Gov. Napolitano, I hope that this short list answers your question about
how it is that your party has gotten tagged as "the party without values."
Sure does - it's just one more lie.
Seems to me the Worm needs to be getting out among the hoi poli a bit
more. Or else work on that serious denial issue he has.
Gunner
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
"There is no liberty without liberalism, and no conservatism without
consequences." - Me
James
Too bad the quote is fatally flawed in application. Sounds nice
though.
Care to comment specifically on how it's flawed - or are you out of
ammo, gunner?
James
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gunner" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
17 Jan 2005 07:00:18 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:34:53 GMT, James Ascher <jwa1968@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 05:00:11 GMT, James Ascher <jwa1968@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:16:39 -0600, "ouroboros rex"
<c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:
<snip long list of denials of reality>
Gov. Napolitano, I hope that this short list answers your question about
how it is that your party has gotten tagged as "the party without values."
Sure does - it's just one more lie.
Seems to me the Worm needs to be getting out among the hoi poli a bit
more. Or else work on that serious denial issue he has.
Gunner
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
"There is no liberty without liberalism, and no conservatism without
consequences." - Me
James
Too bad the quote is fatally flawed in application. Sounds nice
though.
Care to comment specifically on how it's flawed - or are you out of
ammo, gunner?
James
Care to comment specifically on how its accurate? Or are you simply a
weasel?
Gunner
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Ascher" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
18 Jan 2005 05:46:50 AM |
|
|
Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:34:53 GMT, James Ascher <jwa1968@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 05:00:11 GMT, James Ascher <jwa1968@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:16:39 -0600, "ouroboros rex"
<c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:
<snip long list of denials of reality>
Gov. Napolitano, I hope that this short list answers your question about
how it is that your party has gotten tagged as "the party without values."
Sure does - it's just one more lie.
Seems to me the Worm needs to be getting out among the hoi poli a bit
more. Or else work on that serious denial issue he has.
Gunner
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
"There is no liberty without liberalism, and no conservatism without
consequences." - Me
James
Too bad the quote is fatally flawed in application. Sounds nice
though.
Care to comment specifically on how it's flawed - or are you out of
ammo, gunner?
James
Care to comment specifically on how its accurate? Or are you simply a
weasel?
You made the accusation of my quote's flawed nature. It's up to you to
answer my question - if you can!
James
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gunner" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
18 Jan 2005 07:59:38 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:46:50 GMT, James Ascher <jwa1968@earthlink.net>
wrote:
"There is no liberty without liberalism, and no conservatism without
consequences." - Me
James
Too bad the quote is fatally flawed in application. Sounds nice
though.
Care to comment specifically on how it's flawed - or are you out of
ammo, gunner?
James
Care to comment specifically on how its accurate? Or are you simply a
weasel?
You made the accusation of my quote's flawed nature. It's up to you to
answer my question - if you can!
James
Liberalism, as practiced in the United States (where Im posting from)
is Socialism Lite. Its credo is that Government is required to make
you free. Which of course as we all know, is horseshit. Liberal
controled Government makes regulations to not only attempt to "level
the playing field", but to remove freedoms from individuals unpopular
with Liberals, to protect society, and government itself. To pay for
this happy horseshit, it taxes and fines individuals and groups,
depriving those individuals and groups of moneys in order to give to
other individuals and groups, moneys it skims right off the top.
Liberalism as practiced in the US demands that all individuals conform
to the "group norm" as defined by Liberals. It demands that it cannot
be critisized, argued with, or rebutted. It censors and limits free
speech under the guise of Hate Speech, Political Correctness and along
Liberal party lines.
Liberalsim is Nanny Stateism, where the government controls the owners
of the means of production. Witness the myrid regulations and laws
that interfer with the rights of not only the workers, but the owners
of businesses. Regulations that not only interfer with capitalism, but
stifle and attempt to destroy it.
The best government, is limited government, and Liberalism as
practiced demands that the government be part and parcel of every
portion of our lives, controlling and directing it, either directly or
indirectly.
Liberalism fears and opposes freedom of religion, freedom of thought,
freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom From
government.
Hardly a promoter of Liberty and Freedom, dontcha think?
Ive not a clue what you were attempting to communicate with your
comment about conservatism and consequences. With EVERY action there
are consequences, so whats your point?
One would assume you were not talking about Classical Liberalism, but
modern Liberalism or New Liberals. Correct? If so you were discussing
Classical Liberalism, than you would have said that Conservatism is
the bastion of liberty and freedom.
Now...answer the question.
Gunner
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
19 Jan 2005 03:13:37 AM |
|
|
Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:
James Ascher <jwa1968@earthlink.net>
Care to comment specifically on how its accurate? Or are you simply a
weasel?
You made the accusation of my quote's flawed nature. It's up to you to
answer my question - if you can!
Liberalism, as practiced in the United States (where Im posting from)
is Socialism Lite.
Conservatism, as practiced in the United States, is Fascism Lite.
Its credo is that Government is required to make
you free. Which of course as we all know, is horseshit.
It also doesn't make sense, which would indicate that the horse is
you.
Liberal
controled Government makes regulations to not only attempt to "level
the playing field", but to remove freedoms from individuals unpopular
with Liberals, to protect society, and government itself.
Which is exactly what the conservatives are doing.
To pay for
this happy horseshit, it taxes and fines individuals and groups,
depriving those individuals and groups of moneys in order to give to
other individuals and groups, moneys it skims right off the top.
Which is also what conservatives are doing. The only difference is
that with liberals, money comes from the rich and goes to the poor,
while with conservatives it comes from the poor and goes to the rich.
Liberalism as practiced in the US demands that all individuals conform
to the "group norm" as defined by Liberals.
That's a lie. It's the conservatives who demand conformity. Liberals
argue for the freedom to do as you like.
It demands that it cannot
be critisized,
How many screeching neocons accused people of being traitors for
daring to criticize Bush?
Liberalsim is Nanny Stateism,
Which is why it's the conservatives using the government to force
women to give birth and decide who may marry whom.
The best government, is limited government,
And it's been conservatives who have greatly expanded the size and
power of the federal government.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Ascher" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
18 Jan 2005 01:40:43 PM |
|
|
Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:46:50 GMT, James Ascher <jwa1968@earthlink.net>
wrote:
"There is no liberty without liberalism, and no conservatism without
consequences." - Me
James
Too bad the quote is fatally flawed in application. Sounds nice
though.
Care to comment specifically on how it's flawed - or are you out of
ammo, gunner?
James
Care to comment specifically on how its accurate? Or are you simply a
weasel?
You made the accusation of my quote's flawed nature. It's up to you to
answer my question - if you can!
James
Liberalism, as practiced in the United States (where Im posting from)
is Socialism Lite. Its credo is that Government is required to make
you free. Which of course as we all know, is horseshit. Liberal
controled Government makes regulations to not only attempt to "level
the playing field", but to remove freedoms from individuals unpopular
with Liberals, to protect society, and government itself. To pay for
this happy horseshit, it taxes and fines individuals and groups,
depriving those individuals and groups of moneys in order to give to
other individuals and groups, moneys it skims right off the top.
Liberalism as practiced in the US demands that all individuals conform
to the "group norm" as defined by Liberals. It demands that it cannot
be critisized, argued with, or rebutted. It censors and limits free
speech under the guise of Hate Speech, Political Correctness and along
Liberal party lines.
Liberalsim is Nanny Stateism, where the government controls the owners
of the means of production. Witness the myrid regulations and laws
that interfer with the rights of not only the workers, but the owners
of businesses. Regulations that not only interfer with capitalism, but
stifle and attempt to destroy it.
The best government, is limited government, and Liberalism as
practiced demands that the government be part and parcel of every
portion of our lives, controlling and directing it, either directly or
indirectly.
Liberalism fears and opposes freedom of religion, freedom of thought,
freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom From
government.
Hardly a promoter of Liberty and Freedom, dontcha think?
Ive not a clue what you were attempting to communicate with your
comment about conservatism and consequences. With EVERY action there
are consequences, so whats your point?
One would assume you were not talking about Classical Liberalism, but
modern Liberalism or New Liberals. Correct? If so you were discussing
Classical Liberalism, than you would have said that Conservatism is
the bastion of liberty and freedom.
Now...answer the question.
Once more unto the fray do I fling myself, and then not to comment more:
all you've done is present a screed against liberalism. You've done
nothing to suggest in any way that my statement was flawed.
Not that I need to answer your question because the response will likely
go over your head. Nonetheless, I proceed: you ask: "Care to comment on
how it's accurate? or are you simply a weasel?"
To the first point: Liberalism defends the freedom of individuals
against the State and the Church. Liberalism delivered slaves from
bondage, yes, even Republicans can have liberal tendencies. Presidents
Lincoln and T. Roosevelt are two examples. Liberalism gave women and
minorities the voting franchise when Establishment types, typically
conservative, would have forbade it. Liberalism keeps the government
and clergy out of your personal affairs while conservatism favors the
State, Business, and Religion over individual freedom and liberty.
Conservatism is tradition-oriented and hence not open to change, even to
preserve rights and freedom when they don't serve the conservative
agenda. Liberalism promotes and expands liberty and freedom to
under-represented and oppressed groups. Liberalism brings to life the
American ideals of "All Men are created Equal." and "Equal Justice under
the Law." Conservatism, on the other hand, will use the law to the its
and its benefactors favor - even when the law is clearly on the
individual's side. Plessy V Furguson to name one example.
To the second point: no, I'm not a weasel, I'm a mammal of the order
homo sapiens, genus, homo sapiens sapiens. I'm a highly rational person
who has no need of external validation from invisible, unproven entities
that claim to have created the universe and everything in it.
Sine die
James
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gunner" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
18 Jan 2005 04:51:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:40:43 GMT, James Ascher <jwa1968@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:46:50 GMT, James Ascher <jwa1968@earthlink.net>
wrote:
"There is no liberty without liberalism, and no conservatism without
consequences." - Me
James
Too bad the quote is fatally flawed in application. Sounds nice
though.
Care to comment specifically on how it's flawed - or are you out of
ammo, gunner?
James
Care to comment specifically on how its accurate? Or are you simply a
weasel?
You made the accusation of my quote's flawed nature. It's up to you to
answer my question - if you can!
James
Liberalism, as practiced in the United States (where Im posting from)
is Socialism Lite. Its credo is that Government is required to make
you free. Which of course as we all know, is horseshit. Liberal
controled Government makes regulations to not only attempt to "level
the playing field", but to remove freedoms from individuals unpopular
with Liberals, to protect society, and government itself. To pay for
this happy horseshit, it taxes and fines individuals and groups,
depriving those individuals and groups of moneys in order to give to
other individuals and groups, moneys it skims right off the top.
Liberalism as practiced in the US demands that all individuals conform
to the "group norm" as defined by Liberals. It demands that it cannot
be critisized, argued with, or rebutted. It censors and limits free
speech under the guise of Hate Speech, Political Correctness and along
Liberal party lines.
Liberalsim is Nanny Stateism, where the government controls the owners
of the means of production. Witness the myrid regulations and laws
that interfer with the rights of not only the workers, but the owners
of businesses. Regulations that not only interfer with capitalism, but
stifle and attempt to destroy it.
The best government, is limited government, and Liberalism as
practiced demands that the government be part and parcel of every
portion of our lives, controlling and directing it, either directly or
indirectly.
Liberalism fears and opposes freedom of religion, freedom of thought,
freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom From
government.
Hardly a promoter of Liberty and Freedom, dontcha think?
Ive not a clue what you were attempting to communicate with your
comment about conservatism and consequences. With EVERY action there
are consequences, so whats your point?
One would assume you were not talking about Classical Liberalism, but
modern Liberalism or New Liberals. Correct? If so you were discussing
Classical Liberalism, than you would have said that Conservatism is
the bastion of liberty and freedom.
Now...answer the question.
Once more unto the fray do I fling myself, and then not to comment more:
all you've done is present a screed against liberalism. You've done
nothing to suggest in any way that my statement was flawed.
Actually, I refuted the first half of your statement completely. You
didnt notice?
Not that I need to answer your question because the response will likely
go over your head. Nonetheless, I proceed: you ask: "Care to comment on
how it's accurate? or are you simply a weasel?"
To the first point: Liberalism defends the freedom of individuals
against the State and the Church. Liberalism delivered slaves from
bondage, yes, even Republicans can have liberal tendencies. Presidents
Lincoln and T. Roosevelt are two examples. Liberalism gave women and
minorities the voting franchise when Establishment types, typically
conservative, would have forbade it. Liberalism keeps the government
and clergy out of your personal affairs while conservatism favors the
State, Business, and Religion over individual freedom and liberty.
Conservatism is tradition-oriented and hence not open to change, even to
preserve rights and freedom when they don't serve the conservative
agenda. Liberalism promotes and expands liberty and freedom to
under-represented and oppressed groups. Liberalism brings to life the
American ideals of "All Men are created Equal." and "Equal Justice under
the Law." Conservatism, on the other hand, will use the law to the its
and its benefactors favor - even when the law is clearly on the
individual's side. Plessy V Furguson to name one example.
So, you are talking Classical Liberalism. Im glad we got that
straightened out. Since it was apparent that you were not familiar in
the slightest with the definitions, or the total reversal of the
meanings of the terms in the early 1900s- 1930s.
As has been noted many times before, the Civil Rights movements
biggest supporter was the Republican party, its biggest opponent the
Democrats..(the party of the KKK). As to which party uses the law to
remove freedoms from individuals, its most accurately said that its
been the Democrats..the party of New Liberalism (not classical
Liberalism) that have removed the most individual freedoms. 2nd
Amendment freedoms, religious freedoms, freedoms of association and so
forth. The party most likely to use litigation and governmental
correcion to further its socialist goals. Shrug.
To the second point: no, I'm not a weasel, I'm a mammal of the order
homo sapiens, genus, homo sapiens sapiens. I'm a highly rational person
who has no need of external validation from invisible, unproven entities
that claim to have created the universe and everything in it.
Too bad you are a Leftist apologist and your rational outlook colored
by partisan bias and blindness. As to what your mention and rally
against some religious creed has got to do with anything, (insert
diety of your choice) only knows.
Sine die
Du Ma
James
Gunner
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
19 Jan 2005 02:00:18 AM |
|
|
"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net>
As has been noted many times before, the Civil Rights movements
biggest supporter was the Republican party, its biggest opponent the
Democrats..(the party of the KKK).
Partly true. CR was opposed by Southern Democrats (for all I know,
some of which were KKK), all of whom have since left the Democratic
Party to join with their ideological kin in the Republican Party.
As to which party uses the law to
remove freedoms from individuals, its most accurately said that its
been the Democrats..
Only by the ignorant, or the purposeful prevaricators.
But I'll give you a chance to provide some examples.
Dan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russ" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
19 Jan 2005 02:50:43 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:00:18 -0800, "Dan" <dnadan56@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net>
As has been noted many times before, the Civil Rights movements
biggest supporter was the Republican party, its biggest opponent the
Democrats..(the party of the KKK).
Partly true. CR was opposed by Southern Democrats (for all I know,
some of which were KKK), all of whom have since left the Democratic
Party to join with their ideological kin in the Republican Party.
As to which party uses the law to
remove freedoms from individuals, its most accurately said that its
been the Democrats..
Only by the ignorant, or the purposeful prevaricators.
But I'll give you a chance to provide some examples.
Dan
Every draft law passed during the 20th century.
The Volstead Act.
The national Firearms Act of 1934
The Gun Control Act of 1968.
The Patriot Act (I will grant that it was a bi-partisan effort but the
left made NO attempt to stop it).
The War Powers Act (The then-Democratic Congress self-abrogated its
constitutional power to declare war to the Executive brance, thus
denying the power to the people).
Just to name a few.
Russ
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cliff" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
19 Jan 2005 12:07:04 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:51:00 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
wrote:
To the first point: Liberalism defends the freedom of individuals
against the State and the Church. Liberalism delivered slaves from
bondage, yes, even Republicans can have liberal tendencies. Presidents
Lincoln and T. Roosevelt are two examples. Liberalism gave women and
minorities the voting franchise when Establishment types, typically
conservative, would have forbade it. Liberalism keeps the government
and clergy out of your personal affairs while conservatism favors the
State, Business, and Religion over individual freedom and liberty.
Conservatism is tradition-oriented and hence not open to change, even to
preserve rights and freedom when they don't serve the conservative
agenda. Liberalism promotes and expands liberty and freedom to
under-represented and oppressed groups. Liberalism brings to life the
American ideals of "All Men are created Equal." and "Equal Justice under
the Law." Conservatism, on the other hand, will use the law to the its
and its benefactors favor - even when the law is clearly on the
individual's side. Plessy V Furguson to name one example.
So, you are talking Classical Liberalism. Im glad we got that
straightened out. Since it was apparent that you were not familiar in
the slightest with the definitions, or the total reversal of the
meanings of the terms in the early 1900s- 1930s.
As has been noted many times before, the Civil Rights movements
biggest supporter was the Republican party, its biggest opponent the
Democrats..(the party of the KKK). As to which party uses the law to
remove freedoms from individuals, its most accurately said that its
been the Democrats..the party of New Liberalism (not classical
Liberalism) that have removed the most individual freedoms. 2nd
Amendment freedoms, religious freedoms, freedoms of association and so
forth. The party most likely to use litigation and governmental
correcion to further its socialist goals. Shrug.
Any other idiots?
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cliff" |
|
| Title: Re: Perspective on the Democrat Party |
18 Jan 2005 10:07:18 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:59:38 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
wrote:
Liberalism, as practiced in the United States (where Im posting from)
is Socialism Lite. Its credo is that Government is required to make
you free. Which of course as we all know, is horseshit. Liberal
controled Government makes regulations to not only attempt to "level
the playing field", but to remove freedoms from individuals unpopular
with Liberals, to protect society, and government itself. To pay for
this happy horseshit, it taxes and fines individuals and groups,
depriving those individuals and groups of moneys in order to give to
other individuals and groups, moneys it skims right off the top.
Liberalism as practiced in the US demands that all individuals conform
to the "group norm" as defined by Liberals. It demands that it cannot
be critisized, argued with, or rebutted. It censors and limits free
speech under the guise of Hate Speech, Political Correctness and along
Liberal party lines.
Liberalsim is Nanny Stateism, where the government controls the owners
of the means of production. Witness the myrid regulations and laws
that interfer with the rights of not only the workers, but the owners
of businesses. Regulations that not only interfer with capitalism, but
stifle and attempt to destroy it.
The best government, is limited government, and Liberalism as
practiced demands that the government be part and parcel of every
portion of our lives, controlling and directing it, either directly or
indirectly.
Liberalism fears and opposes freedom of religion, freedom of thought,
freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom From
government.
Hardly a promoter of Liberty and Freedom, dontcha think?
Ive not a clue what you were attempting to communicate with your
comment about conservatism and consequences. With EVERY action there
are consequences, so whats your point?
One would assume you were not talking about Classical Liberalism, but
modern Liberalism or New Liberals. Correct? If so you were discussing
Classical Liberalism, than you would have said that Conservatism is
the bastion of liberty and freedom.
Always fun to watch a winger gibber.
--
Cliff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
