| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Unpleasant Truth" |
| Date: |
24 May 2004 01:05:41 AM |
| Object: |
CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
Conserva-Clods do NOT believe that all human beings have
the same god-given rights to life and liberty. The concept
is too *abstract* for those Neanderthalish Conservatives.
Cons perceive human beings in terms of social STRUCTURE.
If Cons feel threatened, they believe themselves justified
in unreasonably constraining other human beings or otherwise
interfering with others' rights--in other words, Cons think
nothing of taking the law into their own hands. They also
don't hesitate to try to interfere with the rights of others
for the sake of SOCIAL STABILITY--all because they have an
innate psychological pattern of being obsessed with security.
Don't believe it if they tell you they chose to be that way.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Saturday. "There may have been
some kind of celebration. Bad people have celebrations, too."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040524/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_attack_9
-----------------------------------------------------------
Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party
b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability,
stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual
development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to
change
www.m-w.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conservative Columnist Cal Thomas obviously believes that some
men (KINGS) are in some way created more equal than others:
"The Old Testament Book of Judges - part of a wisdom and truth
long discarded by the "In Dow Jones we trust" crowd - said it
best: "In those days there were no kings and everyone did what
was right in his own eyes."... --Cal Thomas
//www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20040519.shtml
.
|
|
| User: "Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
24 May 2004 10:46:44 AM |
|
|
"Unpleasant Truth" <unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2083fd5d.0405232205.54b3f28a@posting.google.com...
Conserva-Clods do NOT believe that all human beings have
the same god-given rights to life and liberty. The concept
is too *abstract* for those Neanderthalish Conservatives.
Interesting. Yet the idea of liberating Iraq, and giving the people there a
representative government, would seem to argue against that since it was for
the most part favored on the right, and fought against by the left. With the
new interim government to assume sovereignty on June 30th and elections
following in January, are you saying the Iraqis will be less free than they
would have been under Hussein?
Cons perceive human beings in terms of social STRUCTURE.
If Cons feel threatened, they believe themselves justified
in unreasonably constraining other human beings or otherwise
interfering with others' rights--in other words, Cons think
nothing of taking the law into their own hands. They also
I presume you're talking about the fact that the invasion wasn't sanctioned
by the UN. It's apparent that Saddam bribed UN officials and members of the
administration of key UN security council nations in his struggle to remain
in power in Iraq. Paul Volcker is looking into all this as we speak. Tell
me, if a murderous despot remains in power because he's bribing the powerful
to remain in power himself, who is breaking international law? Does it cover
that? I'm only asking for information.
Harvey
don't hesitate to try to interfere with the rights of others
for the sake of SOCIAL STABILITY--all because they have an
innate psychological pattern of being obsessed with security.
Don't believe it if they tell you they chose to be that way.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Saturday. "There may have been
some kind of celebration. Bad people have celebrations, too."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040524/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_attack_9
-----------------------------------------------------------
Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party
b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability,
stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual
development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to
change
www.m-w.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conservative Columnist Cal Thomas obviously believes that some
men (KINGS) are in some way created more equal than others:
"The Old Testament Book of Judges - part of a wisdom and truth
long discarded by the "In Dow Jones we trust" crowd - said it
best: "In those days there were no kings and everyone did what
was right in his own eyes."... --Cal Thomas
//www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20040519.shtml
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
24 May 2004 08:07:24 PM |
|
|
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<vNosc.21965$PU5.17767@fed1read06>...
Interesting. Yet the idea of liberating Iraq, and giving the people there a
representative government,
I've yet to read one nitwit Con that promotes the idea of
'liberating' Iraq who previously knew anything about that
country's ethnic/social climate. It is highly likely that
it will splinter into several different countries, and to
forcefully prevent it from doing so is not freedom at all.
would seem to argue against that since it was for
the most part favored on the right, and fought against by the left. With the
new interim government to assume sovereignty on June 30th and elections
following in January, are you saying the Iraqis will be less free than they
would have been under Hussein?
How many of the thousands who have already died would
have been willing to die for freedom from Hussein? What
right have the likes of you to make that choice for them?
If 10,000 Iraqis had been willing to risk their lives for
the cause, then why the hell didn't they revolt? Saddam had
very few people he trusted any longer. Had Iraqis wanted to,
they might have been able to overthrow him, with fewer deaths.
Do you know what a god-given right to life is? what "unalienable"
means??? You have no right to sacrifice another's life for him.
"In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved."
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945), Speech, September 22, 1936
Besides, the lying ***** Bush administration has yet
to say precisely why we invaded that country--not that
they can be believed now anyway...excuse after excuse
is all they give.
I presume you're talking about the fact that the invasion wasn't sanctioned
by the UN. It's apparent that Saddam bribed UN officials and members of the
administration of key UN security council nations in his struggle to remain
in power in Iraq. Paul Volcker is looking into all this as we speak. Tell
me, if a murderous despot remains in power because he's bribing the powerful
to remain in power himself, who is breaking international law? Does it cover
that? I'm only asking for information.
If it's okay to take the law into our own hands, then it
should have been okay for Bill Clinton to lie about a *****.
There is no reason any of us should NOW give a ***** about the law.
Idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
24 May 2004 10:26:48 PM |
|
|
"Unpleasant Truth" <unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2083fd5d.0405241707.7a6388b0@posting.google.com...
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:<vNosc.21965$PU5.17767@fed1read06>...
Interesting. Yet the idea of liberating Iraq, and giving the people
there a
representative government,
I've yet to read one nitwit Con that promotes the idea of
'liberating' Iraq who previously knew anything about that
country's ethnic/social climate. It is highly likely that
it will splinter into several different countries, and to
forcefully prevent it from doing so is not freedom at all.
would seem to argue against that since it was for
the most part favored on the right, and fought against by the left. With
the
new interim government to assume sovereignty on June 30th and elections
following in January, are you saying the Iraqis will be less free than
they
would have been under Hussein?
How many of the thousands who have already died would
have been willing to die for freedom from Hussein? What
right have the likes of you to make that choice for them?
If 10,000 Iraqis had been willing to risk their lives for
the cause, then why the hell didn't they revolt? Saddam had
very few people he trusted any longer. Had Iraqis wanted to,
they might have been able to overthrow him, with fewer deaths.
Do you know what a god-given right to life is? what "unalienable"
means??? You have no right to sacrifice another's life for him.
"In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved."
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945), Speech, September 22, 1936
Besides, the lying ***** Bush administration has yet
to say precisely why we invaded that country--not that
they can be believed now anyway...excuse after excuse
is all they give.
I presume you're talking about the fact that the invasion wasn't
sanctioned
by the UN. It's apparent that Saddam bribed UN officials and members of
the
administration of key UN security council nations in his struggle to
remain
in power in Iraq. Paul Volcker is looking into all this as we speak.
Tell
me, if a murderous despot remains in power because he's bribing the
powerful
to remain in power himself, who is breaking international law? Does it
cover
that? I'm only asking for information.
If it's okay to take the law into our own hands, then it
should have been okay for Bill Clinton to lie about a *****.
There is no reason any of us should NOW give a ***** about the law.
Idiot.
Apt signature line. "Lefty Idiot" would be more descriptive, but that's
nitpicking.
I asked you a couple of simple questions that were based on your own
original post. In your wanderings above we get to blowjobs and a lot of
other blither, but you don't answer either question... not that I'm really
surprised, but I did want an answer to the second one from someone who might
know.
Harvey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
25 May 2004 04:51:44 AM |
|
|
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<P1zsc.25621$PU5.25277@fed1read06>...
"Unpleasant Truth" <unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2083fd5d.0405241707.7a6388b0@posting.google.com...
Idiot.
Apt signature line.
One doesn't add punctuation after a signature. My,
you're desperate, aren't you.
"Lefty Idiot" would be more descriptive, but that's
nitpicking.
I asked you a couple of simple questions that were based on your own
original post. In your wanderings above we get to blowjobs and a lot of
other blither, but you don't answer either question... not that I'm really
surprised, but I did want an answer to the second one from someone who might
know.
Liberals have choice. I comment on whatever I
choose to comment on, and no amount of bitching
and moaning on your part will ever change that fact.
We might be able to talk money, though.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
25 May 2004 11:54:43 AM |
|
|
"Unpleasant Truth" <unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2083fd5d.0405250151.20985fa9@posting.google.com...
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:<P1zsc.25621$PU5.25277@fed1read06>...
"Unpleasant Truth" <unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2083fd5d.0405241707.7a6388b0@posting.google.com...
Idiot.
Apt signature line.
One doesn't add punctuation after a signature. My,
you're desperate, aren't you.
Oh, yes. Sparring with the likes of you certainly gets my pulse pounding.
"Lefty Idiot" would be more descriptive, but that's
nitpicking.
I asked you a couple of simple questions that were based on your own
original post. In your wanderings above we get to blowjobs and a lot of
other blither, but you don't answer either question... not that I'm
really
surprised, but I did want an answer to the second one from someone who
might
know.
Liberals have choice. I comment on whatever I
choose to comment on, and no amount of bitching
and moaning on your part will ever change that fact.
We might be able to talk money, though.
I have doubts, but if you offer enough to make it worth my while, I might be
persuaded to try and follow what I guess you're calling your line of thought
a bit further. How much money are we talking about here?
Harvey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
25 May 2004 09:04:11 AM |
|
|
"Unpleasant Truth" <unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2083fd5d.0405250151.20985fa9@posting.google.com...
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:<P1zsc.25621$PU5.25277@fed1read06>...
"Unpleasant Truth" <unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2083fd5d.0405241707.7a6388b0@posting.google.com...
I asked you a couple of simple questions that were based on your own
original post. In your wanderings above we get to blowjobs and a lot of
other blither, but you don't answer either question... not that I'm really
surprised, but I did want an answer to the second one from someone who might
know.
Liberals have choice. I comment on whatever I
choose to comment on, and no amount of bitching
and moaning on your part will ever change that fact.
I understand. Some questions are just
too hard to answer, especially when they
don't fit one's agenda.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
25 May 2004 03:21:24 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message news:<glIsc.2665$ff2.2332@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
I understand. Some questions are just
too hard to answer, especially when they
don't fit one's agenda.
I understand. It's just so frustrating when one
can't coerce another to do one's bidding. It's
enough at times to give one emotional problems.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TBone" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
25 May 2004 10:01:21 PM |
|
|
(Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message news:<2083fd5d.0405251221.7549ea62@posting.google.com>...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message news:<glIsc.2665$ff2.2332@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
I understand. Some questions are just
too hard to answer, especially when they
don't fit one's agenda.
I understand. It's just so frustrating when one
can't coerce another to do one's bidding. It's
enough at times to give one emotional problems.
Don't flatter yourself. You know you are backed in a corner and
proven incompetent once again. And you simply refuse to answer and
call it choice and refer to the debate you are losing as an attempt to
control.
In other words... you are dead wrong as usual.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
26 May 2004 04:19:22 AM |
|
|
(TBone) wrote in message news:<90282bc8.0405251901.68c1fc82@posting.google.com>...
unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com (Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message news:<2083fd5d.0405251221.7549ea62@posting.google.com>...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message news:<glIsc.2665$ff2.2332@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
I understand. Some questions are just
too hard to answer, especially when they
don't fit one's agenda.
I understand. It's just so frustrating when one
can't coerce another to do one's bidding. It's
enough at times to give one emotional problems.
Don't flatter yourself. You know you are backed in a corner and
proven incompetent once again. And you simply refuse to answer and
call it choice and refer to the debate you are losing as an attempt to
control.
In other words... you are dead wrong as usual.
Wrong at what? His questions were hypothetical. Here they are:
[With the new interim government to assume sovereignty on June
30th and elections following in January, are you saying the
Iraqis will be less free than they would have been under Hussein?]
[Tell me, if a murderous despot remains in power because he's bribing
the powerful to remain in power himself, who is breaking international
law? Does it cover that? I'm only asking for information.]
If you have time to waste tossing hypothetical questions back
and forth--be my guest, whiny titty-baby. He *says* he wants
"information"...so go ahead and help him some more, dipshit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TBone" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
26 May 2004 01:36:29 PM |
|
|
(Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message news:<2083fd5d.0405260119.16d42fed@posting.google.com>...
mrtim5700@yahoo.com (TBone) wrote in message news:<90282bc8.0405251901.68c1fc82@posting.google.com>...
(Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message news:<2083fd5d.0405251221.7549ea62@posting.google.com>...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message news:<glIsc.2665$ff2.2332@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
I understand. Some questions are just
too hard to answer, especially when they
don't fit one's agenda.
I understand. It's just so frustrating when one
can't coerce another to do one's bidding. It's
enough at times to give one emotional problems.
Don't flatter yourself. You know you are backed in a corner and
proven incompetent once again. And you simply refuse to answer and
call it choice and refer to the debate you are losing as an attempt to
control.
In other words... you are dead wrong as usual.
Wrong at what? His questions were hypothetical. Here they are:
[With the new interim government to assume sovereignty on June
30th and elections following in January, are you saying the
Iraqis will be less free than they would have been under Hussein?]
[Tell me, if a murderous despot remains in power because he's bribing
the powerful to remain in power himself, who is breaking international
law? Does it cover that? I'm only asking for information.]
If you have time to waste tossing hypothetical questions back
and forth--be my guest, whiny titty-baby. He *says* he wants
"information"...so go ahead and help him some more, dipshit.
Like I've been saying... you've go nothing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
29 May 2004 05:16:07 AM |
|
|
(TBone) wrote in message news:<90282bc8.0405261036.5075065a@posting.google.com>...
Like I've been saying... you've go nothing.
WTF?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ram Firestone" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
24 May 2004 08:07:45 PM |
|
|
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<vNosc.21965$PU5.17767@fed1read06>...
I presume you're talking about the fact that the invasion wasn't sanctioned
by the UN. It's apparent that Saddam bribed UN officials and members of the
administration of key UN security council nations in his struggle to remain
in power in Iraq. Paul Volcker is looking into all this as we speak.
Give me a break! You seriously expect anyone to believe that Saddam
could exert more control over the UN security council than the US
could? I'm sure all countries vote some combination of their morality
and their self interests.
Ram
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
25 May 2004 12:26:50 AM |
|
|
"Ram Firestone" <bichir@covad.net> wrote in message
news:693c5df1.0405241707.53ef088f@posting.google.com...
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:<vNosc.21965$PU5.17767@fed1read06>...
I presume you're talking about the fact that the invasion wasn't
sanctioned
by the UN. It's apparent that Saddam bribed UN officials and members of
the
administration of key UN security council nations in his struggle to
remain
in power in Iraq. Paul Volcker is looking into all this as we speak.
Give me a break! You seriously expect anyone to believe that Saddam
could exert more control over the UN security council than the US
could? I'm sure all countries vote some combination of their morality
and their self interests.
Ram
Well, sure. About the self interests, certainly. The moral question I'm
certainly already settled on, and it's pointless to argue about it.
But Saddam didn't need to exert *more* control over the security council
than the US to achieve his ends, all he needed was the same amount. He only
needed one permanent member with a veto, and he found it in France. Seems
like he had Russia, too, but the French were happiest with it because they
had their idiotic "hyperpower" American world conquest theory all cranked up
and ready for sale to lefty morons worldwide, and anyone else who didn't
know where our imported oil came from, and couldn't read a map. All in a bid
to somehow become important again, this time on the cheap through the UN
rather than, say, trying to invade Russia... I'm doubting at this point he
even had to pay them, but I don't think Saddam was ever interested in thrift
unless it came to his own people.
I was more interested in the legality question, though, in not too technical
detail. Is it illegal to bribe UN officials and key ambassadors for stuff
like this? I'm *not* saying that stuff like this it isn't done all the time,
but AFAIK we tend to do it with foreign aid rather than tons of money to
specific individuals. Not that I'm really serious about international law,
either... if a zoo like the UN came up with it, it has to be screwed up in a
number of ways. I'm just curious if it covers anything like this.
Harvey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
25 May 2004 04:53:37 AM |
|
|
There are corrupt officials in U.S. law enforcement
agencies so we should all say to hell with the law.
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<kOAsc.27005$PU5.18366@fed1read06>...
Well, sure. About the self interests, certainly. The moral question I'm
certainly already settled on, and it's pointless to argue about it.
But Saddam didn't need to exert *more* control over the security council
than the US to achieve his ends, all he needed was the same amount. He only
needed one permanent member with a veto, and he found it in France. Seems
like he had Russia, too, but the French were happiest with it because they
had their idiotic "hyperpower" American world conquest theory all cranked up
and ready for sale to lefty morons worldwide, and anyone else who didn't
know where our imported oil came from, and couldn't read a map. All in a bid
to somehow become important again, this time on the cheap through the UN
rather than, say, trying to invade Russia... I'm doubting at this point he
even had to pay them, but I don't think Saddam was ever interested in thrift
unless it came to his own people.
I was more interested in the legality question, though, in not too technical
detail. Is it illegal to bribe UN officials and key ambassadors for stuff
like this? I'm *not* saying that stuff like this it isn't done all the time,
but AFAIK we tend to do it with foreign aid rather than tons of money to
specific individuals. Not that I'm really serious about international law,
either... if a zoo like the UN came up with it, it has to be screwed up in a
number of ways. I'm just curious if it covers anything like this.
Harvey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cLIeNUX user" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
24 May 2004 01:08:14 AM |
|
|
Conserva-Clods do NOT believe that all human beings have
the same god-given rights to life and liberty. The concept
is too *abstract* for those Neanderthalish Conservatives.
Not at all. People like Bush live in mortal terror of human equality, as
well they should.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
.
|
|
|
| User: "Polish Prince \Not Bobby Vinton" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
24 May 2004 01:50:21 AM |
|
|
All people are born Equal, it is what decisions they
make in living their life, if they are Truly Equal.
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10b34aeauffg67e@corp.supernews.com...
humbubba@smart.net
Conserva-Clods do NOT believe that all human beings have
the same god-given rights to life and liberty. The concept
is too *abstract* for those Neanderthalish Conservatives.
Not at all. People like Bush live in mortal terror of human equality, as
well they should.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
24 May 2004 12:31:23 PM |
|
|
"Polish Prince \(Not Bobby Vinton\)" <wawrzekski@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<NWgsc.57031$hH.1056094@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
All people are born Equal, it is what decisions they
make in living their life, if they are Truly Equal.
Being born more insecure and more obsessed with one's
image doesn't make one more human. It really only makes
one more likely to seek security and to manage that image.
Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party
b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability,
stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual
development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to
change
www.m-w.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Grendel" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
24 May 2004 07:43:10 PM |
|
|
"Polish Prince \(Not Bobby Vinton\)" <wawrzekski@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<NWgsc.57031$hH.1056094@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
All people are born Equal, it is what decisions they
make in living their life, if they are Truly Equal.
All people are not born Equal.
Some are born Healthy, some are not.
Some are born Intelligent, some are not.
Some are born Attractive, some are not.
Some are born into Wealth, some are not.
The reality is that all people are not Equal. The only place where
all people are considered Equal is in the Eyes of the Law (and even
there it's been proven to be just propaganda).
But, in this country more than most, all people are equal in the
opportunity to succeed. Some people will be unable to do so, as they
are not up to the challenge. Some will never even try. Many will
strive, work hard and succeed. Every person has this chance. Many
take it, many more refuse to and would rather ***** about how they are
denied the opportunities that they, in reality, had but were to lazy
to take.
A few Facts of Life:
All people are not equal.
Life is not/never has been/never will be either Fair, Cheap or Easy.
The World/Society doesn't owe you anything.
It's up to YOU to make it.
You are responsible for you own happiness, misery, safety and success.
These things have always been constants, and always will be.
Yol Bolsum,
Grendel.
"Jesus only told us half of it. The Truth WILL set you free, but it's
going to ***** you off, first."-Solomon Short.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
26 May 2004 01:51:56 PM |
|
|
(Grendel) wrote in message news:<695b34f9.0405241643.49a3fd55@posting.google.com>...
All people are not born Equal.
Some are born Healthy, some are not.
Some are born Intelligent, some are not.
Some are born Attractive, some are not.
Some are born into Wealth, some are not.
The reality is that all people are not Equal. The only place where
all people are considered Equal is in the Eyes of the Law (and even
there it's been proven to be just propaganda).
But, in this country more than most, all people are equal in the
opportunity to succeed. Some people will be unable to do so, as they
are not up to the challenge. Some will never even try. Many will
strive, work hard and succeed. Every person has this chance. Many
take it, many more refuse to and would rather ***** about how they are
denied the opportunities that they, in reality, had but were to lazy
to take.
A few Facts of Life:
All people are not equal.
Life is not/never has been/never will be either Fair, Cheap or Easy.
The World/Society doesn't owe you anything.
It's up to YOU to make it.
You are responsible for you own happiness, misery, safety and success.
These things have always been constants, and always will be.
Are you just playing dumb or are abstract concepts too
difficult for you? All men are created equal in terms
of their god-given rights to life and liberty. No man
has any more right to life than another. No man has the
right to unreasonably constrain another. This is the
fundamental idea behind the abolition of slavery. It is
the reason we do not have kings and queens in the USA.
Monarchies were once established on the principle that
certain people were in some way "more equal" than other
people, which is bullcrap; the blood of royalty bleeds
the same as anyone's. They are human and nothing more.
I know it's difficult for Conserva-Clowns to grasp. How
else could you justify sacrificing lives of Iraqis in the
name of "their" freedom if you didn't perceive them as less
human than you? You would object to another human choosing
FOR you whether or not to die for a given cause. Others'
lives are not yours to give, for any cause. All the backlash
we have/will suffer(ed) from the Iraqi war is your fault.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TBone" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
26 May 2004 05:23:45 PM |
|
|
I know it's difficult for Conserva-Clowns to grasp. How
else could you justify sacrificing lives of Iraqis in the
name of "their" freedom if you didn't perceive them as less
human than you? You would object to another human choosing
FOR you whether or not to die for a given cause. Others'
lives are not yours to give, for any cause. All the backlash
we have/will suffer(ed) from the Iraqi war is your fault.
I know it's difficult for Liberals (nope no childish little play on
words here) to grasp. How else can YOU justify sacrificing lives of
Iraqis (how many millions murdered under Saddam?) in the name of YOUR
"peace" if YOU did not perceive them as less human than YOU?
That is where you are pretending. You pretend that Iraqis were happy
people living in a free society, exercising the freedoms that you take
for granted. When in reality millions were being murdered by Saddam
Hussein and his sons. Millions were being tortured. Millions were
being starved while he built palaces and stuffed the pockets of the
French.
And why do you PRETEND that these conditions did not exist? Because
you did not want to deal with it. In fact, you, the generous Liberal,
have stated many times that you were more concerned with your tax
dollars. Well aren't you the greedy little *****?
Now dry up and blow away "deathhawk"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wheres Bushs Brain" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
27 May 2004 09:43:37 AM |
|
|
"TBone" <mrtim5700@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:90282bc8.0405261423.1b43b13e@posting.google.com...
That is where you are pretending. You pretend that Iraqis were happy
people living in a free society, exercising the freedoms that you take
for granted. When in reality millions were being murdered by Saddam
Hussein and his sons. Millions were being tortured. Millions were
being starved while he built palaces and stuffed the pockets of the
French.
That does not give us the right to impose regime change. The idea that we
are better is nothing more than hubris.
And why do you PRETEND that these conditions did not exist? Because
you did not want to deal with it. In fact, you, the generous Liberal,
have stated many times that you were more concerned with your tax
dollars. Well aren't you the greedy little *****?
The fact is, you cannot impose democracy. That has to be the will of the
people. An imposed form of government is just another form of tyranny.
As to your supposed jibe about being greedy, look at the Republicans cries
about taxes. That is greedy. It is calls for "individual" gains at the
expense of the whole of society, not withstanding the lies about
trickle-down economics. Whereas there were much better ways to spend the
200-plus billion that it's going to cost for this "adventure" (can't legally
call it a war as we never declared war). Heck, we could have offered Saddam
1/10th of that to just walk away, and he probably would have taken it. Then
we could have used the other 180 plus billion upgrading US infrastructure,
researching alternative fuels, feeding the poor, etc. Of course, if we had,
there would have been less profit for Bushney's (or is the Chenush?)
friends. Or the Republicans would have been screaming for even more tax
cuts for the richest 1 percent.
Now dry up and blow away "deathhawk"
Typical. Can't stand reasoned debate, just tell them to go away. I seem to
recal the "Love It or Leave It" crowd from 40 years ago. Even 60 years ago
there was that paragon of modern Republicans, Joseph McCarthy, was put in
his place when he tried to shut out any opposition. We had learned that
debate only makes us, real Americans, stronger. It seems that the new breed
of Republican has unlearned those lessons, again.
--
"The principles of Jefferson are the axioms of a free society." --Abraham
Lincoln
"Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth; and that, I
am sure, is the ultimate and sincere object of us both. We both value too
much the freedom of opinion sanctioned by our Constitution, not to cherish
its exercise even where in opposition to ourselves." --Thomas Jefferson to
P. H. Wendover, 1815.
"The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first
and only legitimate object of good government." --Thomas Jefferson to
Maryland Republicans, 1809.
"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those
who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into
the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the
people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most
honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public
interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where
they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call
them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and
Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by
whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the
same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one
expressing the essence of all." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
27 May 2004 10:46:46 AM |
|
|
"Where's Bush's Brain" <What@Who-me.org> wrote in message
news:1d544e78678ce5aa4f60cc5e9bf67c09@news.teranews.com...
"TBone" <mrtim5700@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:90282bc8.0405261423.1b43b13e@posting.google.com...
That is where you are pretending. You pretend that Iraqis were happy
people living in a free society, exercising the freedoms that you take
for granted. When in reality millions were being murdered by Saddam
Hussein and his sons. Millions were being tortured. Millions were
being starved while he built palaces and stuffed the pockets of the
French.
That does not give us the right to impose regime change. The idea that we
are better is nothing more than hubris.
Do you think all societies are equal?
And why do you PRETEND that these conditions did not exist? Because
you did not want to deal with it. In fact, you, the generous Liberal,
have stated many times that you were more concerned with your tax
dollars. Well aren't you the greedy little *****?
The fact is, you cannot impose democracy. That has to be the will of the
people. An imposed form of government is just another form of tyranny.
I agree you cannot impose democracy, but
you can remove an oppressive government
and see if democracy is the will of the
people. Do you agree that the people
should decide the type of society and
government under which they live? Do
you believe removing Saddam from
power in Iraq was a good thing?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wheres Bushs Brain" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
27 May 2004 11:57:08 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:dZntc.10102$3X4.2363@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"Where's Bush's Brain" <What@Who-me.org> wrote in message
news:1d544e78678ce5aa4f60cc5e9bf67c09@news.teranews.com...
"TBone" <mrtim5700@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:90282bc8.0405261423.1b43b13e@posting.google.com...
That is where you are pretending. You pretend that Iraqis were happy
people living in a free society, exercising the freedoms that you take
for granted. When in reality millions were being murdered by Saddam
Hussein and his sons. Millions were being tortured. Millions were
being starved while he built palaces and stuffed the pockets of the
French.
That does not give us the right to impose regime change. The idea that
we
are better is nothing more than hubris.
Do you think all societies are equal?
Who is to decide? Who has the moral authority? Who has the historical
outlook to know? While I am of the opinion that our society is, by and
large, one of the best, it is just an opinion. There are still Russians of
the opinion that Communism was the best form of government and, based on
their personal experiences, it would be hard to refute. My experience is
otherwise.
And why do you PRETEND that these conditions did not exist? Because
you did not want to deal with it. In fact, you, the generous Liberal,
have stated many times that you were more concerned with your tax
dollars. Well aren't you the greedy little *****?
The fact is, you cannot impose democracy. That has to be the will of
the
people. An imposed form of government is just another form of tyranny.
I agree you cannot impose democracy, but
you can remove an oppressive government
and see if democracy is the will of the
people. Do you agree that the people
should decide the type of society and
government under which they live? Do
you believe removing Saddam from
power in Iraq was a good thing?
A good thing that sets a horribly bad precident. What if it's decided by,
say, North Korea that Bush is a bad leader and doing terrible things in the
world. Do they have a right to take it upon themselves to remove him
however they can? Assume that assassination is possible. Now, who has the
right to make the decision? What if we decide Tony Blaire is no longer the
right person to lead the UK and that his occupation of the office is illegal
and causing harm to the world. Do we have the right?
The imposition of our ideals on another society, no matter what the reasons,
is just wrong. Defend others from agression, defend ourselves, OK. But
pre-emptive attacks because of that bad person is against all that this
country has stood for in the past. We have moved into the realm of
attempting to become the dictators of world policy.
Saddam was a bad man. But, prove that the Iraqis wanted to be set free the
way that it was done. The demonstartion seems to be otherwise. Most
Iraqias see us not as liberators, but as occupiers.
--
"The principles of Jefferson are the axioms of a free society." --Abraham
Lincoln
"Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth; and that, I
am sure, is the ultimate and sincere object of us both. We both value too
much the freedom of opinion sanctioned by our Constitution, not to cherish
its exercise even where in opposition to ourselves." --Thomas Jefferson to
P. H. Wendover, 1815.
"The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first
and only legitimate object of good government." --Thomas Jefferson to
Maryland Republicans, 1809.
"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those
who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into
the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the
people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most
honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public
interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where
they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call
them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and
Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by
whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the
same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one
expressing the essence of all." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
28 May 2004 03:47:28 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message news:<dZntc.10102$3X4.2363@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
Do you think all societies are equal?
One of the principles on which this country was founded is
that in the eyes of nature (or nature's god, if you wish)
all nations have equal station! A group of people who band
together and form a nation have rights equal to any nation--
such as the right to make their own laws...the right to
govern themselves as THEY SEE FIT...the right to enter into
agreements with other nations--to name a few examples.
=============================================
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the
thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them
with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the
separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
Nature's God entitle them...
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/declaration_transcript.html
I agree you cannot impose democracy, but
you can remove an oppressive government
and see if democracy is the will of the
people. Do you agree that the people
should decide the type of society and
government under which they live? Do
you believe removing Saddam from
power in Iraq was a good thing?
It was wrong to make the decision for thousands of Iraqis to
give their lives to be free of Saddam. Their lives were not
ours to give. In the eyes of nature we have now, as a nation,
murdered thousands of Iraqi people.
In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945), Speech, September 22, 1936
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TBone" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
28 May 2004 12:23:20 PM |
|
|
"Where's Bush's Brain" <What@Who-me.org> wrote in message news:<1d544e78678ce5aa4f60cc5e9bf67c09@news.teranews.com>...
"TBone" <mrtim5700@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:90282bc8.0405261423.1b43b13e@posting.google.com...
That is where you are pretending. You pretend that Iraqis were happy
people living in a free society, exercising the freedoms that you take
for granted. When in reality millions were being murdered by Saddam
Hussein and his sons. Millions were being tortured. Millions were
being starved while he built palaces and stuffed the pockets of the
French.
That does not give us the right to impose regime change. The idea that we
are better is nothing more than hubris.
Removing Saddam was more dispensing justice.
And why do you PRETEND that these conditions did not exist? Because
you did not want to deal with it. In fact, you, the generous Liberal,
have stated many times that you were more concerned with your tax
dollars. Well aren't you the greedy little *****?
The fact is, you cannot impose democracy. That has to be the will of the
people. An imposed form of government is just another form of tyranny.
Most Iraqis support the overthrow of Saddam, most Iraqis people wanted
to be free from Saddam.
I agree, and after the first Gulf War, the people did rise up and try
to overthrow the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. And we should have helped
them then, instead we failed them.
After all, would we be independent from Britain had it not been for
France's support?
As to your supposed jibe about being greedy, look at the Republicans cries
about taxes. That is greedy.
I was being a smart ***** because UT constantly goes on and on about
folks who supported tax cuts, then she turns around and bitches about
her taxes.
It is calls for "individual" gains at the
expense of the whole of society,
It calls for individual responsibility. Most people I know are
generous anyway, and they don't need Uncle Sam's hand in their pocket
forcing them to pay up.
not withstanding the lies about
trickle-down economics.
Trickle down economics is not as effective as Republicans would have
us believe but not as "evil" as Democrats would have us believe
either.
I do know that I am not a "big rich Benedict Arnold company" and I
saved about $3,000 combined on the Bush tax cuts. For me that's a
lot.
My preference is trickle-up economics. Where citizens do not pay
taxes. Most people would take the money they do not pay in taxes and
use it for something. Buying new appliances or whatever, and it goes
back in the economy quicker.
The problem is that Republicans focus on trickle-down and that's the
best we get. Democrats, don't believe in tax cuts at all. Surew they
talk about it when trying to get elected. But the first thing they do
is, raise your taxes.
I don't mind paying taxes (the less the better, or course), but my
problem is that every year I hear some Democrat talking about how we
need to raise taxes etc., and then they raise taxes, and the thing
they we said we need to raise taxes to address only gets worse.
Whereas there were much better ways to spend the
200-plus billion that it's going to cost for this "adventure" (can't legally
call it a war as we never declared war). Heck, we could have offered Saddam
1/10th of that to just walk away, and he probably would have taken it.
It's not his personality type.
Then
we could have used the other 180 plus billion upgrading US infrastructure,
researching alternative fuels, feeding the poor, etc. Of course, if we had,
there would have been less profit for Bushney's (or is the Chenush?)
friends. Or the Republicans would have been screaming for even more tax
cuts for the richest 1 percent.
Now dry up and blow away "deathhawk"
Typical. Can't stand reasoned debate, just tell them to go away. I seem to
recal the "Love It or Leave It" crowd from 40 years ago. Even 60 years ago
there was that paragon of modern Republicans, Joseph McCarthy,
For every Republican Joe McCarthy there is a Democrat George Wallace
(of "segregation today, segregation tomorrow..." fame)
was put in
his place when he tried to shut out any opposition. We had learned that
debate only makes us, real Americans, stronger.
I'm only giving as good as I get. Who is this "typical" of, if you
are going to say typical of conservatives then you must not pay
attention to the liberals on this board.
Unpleasant Truth does not debate, she attacks.
Debate is healthy, I agree.
It seems that the new breed
of Republican has unlearned those lessons, again.
Read the Liberal posts on this board and you will find it is evenly
spread across party lines my friend.
--
"The principles of Jefferson are the axioms of a free society." --Abraham
Lincoln
"Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth; and that, I
am sure, is the ultimate and sincere object of us both. We both value too
much the freedom of opinion sanctioned by our Constitution, not to cherish
its exercise even where in opposition to ourselves." --Thomas Jefferson to
P. H. Wendover, 1815.
"The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first
and only legitimate object of good government." --Thomas Jefferson to
Maryland Republicans, 1809.
"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those
who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into
the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the
people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most
honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public
interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where
they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call
them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and
Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by
whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the
same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one
expressing the essence of all." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
28 May 2004 01:03:25 PM |
|
|
"TBone" <mrtim5700@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:90282bc8.0405280923.6ae9170@posting.google.com...
"Where's Bush's Brain" <What@Who-me.org> wrote in message
news:<1d544e78678ce5aa4f60cc5e9bf67c09@news.teranews.com>...
"TBone" <mrtim5700@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:90282bc8.0405261423.1b43b13e@posting.google.com...
Trickle down economics is not as effective as Republicans would have
us believe but not as "evil" as Democrats would have us believe
either.
I love to see people complain about "Trickle Down" economics. Just what in
the hell do they think the Federal Government handouts are?
And as for all men being created equal? Where does it say it is the
governments job to keep them that way?
--
For 35 years I made a very good living in
politics. I'll probably spend the rest of my
life praying for forgivness for participating
in such a sleazy profession.
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
28 May 2004 05:59:23 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message news:<N9Ltc.16418198$Of.2736066@news.easynews.com>...
And as for all men being created equal? Where does it say it is the
governments job to keep them that way?
The laws of nature (or nature's god, if you wish) dictate that
all men are created with an EQUAL right to life and liberty.
Our government was established primarily to secure those
god-given rights.
It really IS a simple concept: No one actually has blue blood.
We have no royalty here--and no one has the right to take the
life of another; no one has the right to unreasonably constrain
another; no one has the right to dictate how another must think,
how they must dress, how they must address the elderly, whether
or not they may SWEAR on Google groups...ad infinitum.
Why must you Repukes constantly complicate things?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
28 May 2004 06:13:18 PM |
|
|
"Unpleasant Truth" <unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2083fd5d.0405281459.7c81d219@posting.google.com...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:<N9Ltc.16418198$Of.2736066@news.easynews.com>...
And as for all men being created equal? Where does it say it is the
governments job to keep them that way?
The laws of nature (or nature's god, if you wish) dictate that
all men are created with an EQUAL right to life and liberty.
Our government was established primarily to secure those
god-given rights.
It really IS a simple concept: No one actually has blue blood.
We have no royalty here--and no one has the right to take the
life of another; no one has the right to unreasonably constrain
another; no one has the right to dictate how another must think,
how they must dress, how they must address the elderly, whether
or not they may SWEAR on Google groups...ad infinitum.
Why must you Repukes constantly complicate things?
You're too stupid to even deserve an answer to anything. Do a google search.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
29 May 2004 04:55:44 AM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message news:<iIPtc.16341718$Id.2711432@news.easynews.com>...
Do a google search.
Nnnnnno.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "00:00:00Hg" |
|
| Title: Re: CONS CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL |
28 May 2004 02:13:00 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 May 2004 18:03:25 +0000, Brooks Gregory wrote:
And as for all men being created equal? Where does it say it is the
governments job to keep them that way?
Where is in the mouths of those who really don't mean it
but go that direction if the public demands it but not too
far so as to be pollitically null on any issue until the relative
indicators say it's time to change views with the riseing tide
of poll numbers.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
