| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/15/2005 10:08:18 AM · #26 |
The issue I find funny here is that there is offense taken regarding the Democrat post on the part of Pawdix. But no comment regarding the anti-Bush/Republican by paddrix.
I have to give credit where credit is due, and here Legalbeagle expressed the proper attitude. The realization that although he was irked by EddyG's post, that the other post which he found humorous probably had similar effect on those of the opposing or differing view.
And this is the truth. Perception.
I find it laughable, that there has been all this hype on Bushism's. And a desire to equate it to stupidity. Public speaking is in fact an art form. First off, I've seen enough Democrat's make blunders. Second I make quite a few speech blunders. I grew up with a speech impediment. And sometimes words come out wrong. Am I stupid? Nope... have a 144 I.Q., graduated Valedictorian with a full tuition scholarship and later enrolled in one of the 4 Federal military acaedmy's as a cadet. And yet, I can related very much to "bushism's" if we're going to call it that.
But we all make blunders. For example, John Kerry realized he made such a blunder in the debates when inquired about his wife and stating that he married up and that the words he chose and the tone he said it essentially sounded like he was saying "I married money!". Was that what he really meant to convey. Probably not, even if I'd like to say he was speaking the truth of his heart at that moment. I hope such was just miscommunication and that he married out of love and not profit and power.
But the truth is, if a joke pinpoints an apparent or perceived failing of a liberal and a Democrat you will take offense where as the conservative or Republican might nod his head with a chuckle.
Likewise, if a joke pinpoints an apparent or perceived failing of conservatives or Republicans, than a liberal or Democrat is likewise going to find it humorous.
BOTH will think the joke is right on target against their opponents. And both will think their opponent's joke is an unfair jab.
*shrug*
It's much better if we simply admit such points as fact. And not dish out, and than take offense when it's served right back.
Thanks LB for your honest statement in this regard. (I just thought I'd elaborate and expand on it.)
Human nature after all has both it's failings and successes. ;)
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 10:13:04 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by Flash:
I found myself nodding my head continuously as I read line after line. |
Maybe it's a Michigan thing because I don't know many Dems that fit the bill as it's written. The premises, twists and conclusions were dazzling. |
Actually Michigan is strongly Democratic with a Democratic Govenor, Democratic Senators and Congressmen and voted for Kerry in the last presidential election. Strong Union base, due to the auto factories.
My pressence within this large group of social minded persons (remember that unions were founded on communist principles with several founding members (AFL/CIO) spending time in communists countries learning the principle first hand), reinforces EddyG's comments. My continued exposure to world thinkers as are here on DPC further adds to my evidence.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 10:13:29 AM · #28 |
I didn't take offense at all. I just thought it was off base. Honestly, I could care less.
I don't like Democrats or Republicans...for the record. Both parties are completely full of crap. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 10:19:24 AM · #29 |
...
Message edited by author 2005-12-15 10:19:46. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 10:38:40 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Flash:
My take was the exact opposite. Dim7's post was uncomfortable due to the unfortunate truth of some of it, however EddyG's was perfectly sensible to me. |
Not sure that this is the opposite: I found no uncomfortable truths in EddyG's post. I rather wondered if others found the points in Dim7's post as misrepresenting the issues (as I do for EddyG's). If you find them uncomfortable truths, it might be worth reassessing your outlook so that you can find greater comfort.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 10:54:22 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Not sure that this is the opposite: I found no uncomfortable truths in EddyG's post. I rather wondered if others found the points in Dim7's post as misrepresenting the issues (as I do for EddyG's). If you find them uncomfortable truths, it might be worth reassessing your outlook so that you can find greater comfort. |
You have taken my words too literally again. I will attempt to provide you with some examples.(except I don't know how to go back a page and copy/paste within the quotes).
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 10:58:03 AM · #32 |
I find it amazing that Liberals' have this knack to consider themselves superior and all this attitude does is backfire. Look at the redicule they have heaved at Reagan and Bush. But look at the unfolding of events.
Here you have Sadam and the UN involved with the "Oil for Food" This league of criminals included the Russians, the French and the Germans.
Bush takes this cartel and rips it open. Liberals cry foul because we are being to unsensitive to our allies. Which side are the liberals on?
The Iraq plan is a simple one yet with many advantages. It will cost lives, but all freedom has a price. Liberals want freedom without blood. This is lofty but faulty in its very premise.
The plan is to bring democracy and then allow it to spread of its own accord. The implications here are paramount because it means that Iraq joins the free world. Look at the the spirit demostrated as people vote under threat of life. It is being embraced like water by the thirsty. Not long after another country will follow. This alone will do more to turn the minds of these countries that are breeding scum for the sole pirpose of destruction.
I see no other effective way to fight terroism. When this vision was announced Liberals said there is no way that this cowboy will achieve this silly dream. besides, they argued, not all people are geared to be free. Really?
Well, the development is making many other countries nervous. They never thought the winds of freedom would be blowing their way. It is a big picture with many changes in the horizon. A cry for freedom.
Liberals and its Liberal media continue to paint a negative picture even with the stride that is being made. The dumb Bush like the dunb Reagan are accomplishing feats that little men can not even contemplate and feats that are above and beyond the Liberal mind. believe me, you do not want a Liberal at the helm. They are so versed in the use of words that action eludes them. they talk a good game and justify all that is anti american and are masters at looking down at others. they puff up like peacocks and present arguments that in DPC parlance, we wonder if they missed the meaning of the challenge.
They are left with poking fun at the doers. Have fun from the sidelines and allow the more rational minds to lead the country.
But then, |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 11:00:13 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Flash:
My pressence within this large group of social minded persons (remember that unions were founded on communist principles with several founding members (AFL/CIO) spending time in communists countries learning the principle first hand), reinforces EddyG's comments. My continued exposure to world thinkers as are here on DPC further adds to my evidence. |
Funny - I developed a social conscience after walking the streets of Washington and seeing amazing wealth and beauty, with your nation's dying poor dirtying every doorstop. I figured that the world would be a better place if we threw a few quid on social benefits for the poor (though admittedly, then, this was selfishly motivated - so that I didn't have to deal with people who cannot afford an operation dying on the street in front of me).
Living and travelling in ex-communist states in the 90s made me realise the importance of economic liberalism, but did not stop me believing in social responsibility.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 11:04:00 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You have taken my words too literally again. I will attempt to provide you with some examples.(except I don't know how to go back a page and copy/paste within the quotes). |
Accepted. To cut and paste, file/new/window and back, then switch tabs when copying or pasting. Or create your comment in Word or notepad and then hit the quote button to copy and paste your comment in.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 11:04:06 AM · #35 |
| Does anyone else hear this: Bushisms aside, and there are many of them, whenever I hear him speak what strikes me is he always seems to sound like he is almost drunk enough to fully slur his words, but not quite that drunk yet. One more drink would do it. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 11:17:43 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The Iraq plan is a simple one yet with many advantages. It will cost lives, but all freedom has a price. Liberals want freedom without blood. This is lofty but faulty in its very premise. |
Apologies: tangential, but...
This is fundamental to the disagreement: I would give examples such as E. Germany and the Czech Republic, where democracy was established by revolution without the significant loss of life. Democracy was established peacefully throughout the USSR without any significant loss of life. Hans Blix has commented on his belief that the Hussein regime would have collapsed in Iraq within a matter of years without the interference and deaths.
There are few examples of successful intervention by one country in another where the purpose was to establish a democracy. [indeed this is contrary to international law - hence the WMD excuse, when the only chemical weapon used in the field of battle was phosphorous used by the US].
When costing up the "price" of democracy, the number killed in the imposition of democracy (!) is approaching the number estimated killed by Saddam Hussein in the preceding decade. When do the liberators become the oppressors?
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 11:18:20 AM · #37 |
Legalbeagle,
You must admit that some of these are pointed in their mark. I mean #2 has to make a republican think about their positions. #9 strikes close to home as well. #'s 13 & 15 also appear to be rather uncomfortable for a "righty".
Originally posted by Dim7:
Here is some more lefty Propaganda for you
Things you have to believe in order to be a Republican today:
1- Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him,
a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him,
a good guy when Cheney did business with him
and a bad guy when Bush couldn't find Bin Laden
2 - Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but
trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
3 - The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our
highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
4 - A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind
without regulation.
5 - Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals, Michael
Moore and Hillary Clinton.
6 - The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
7 - If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
8 - A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies,
then demand their cooperation and money.
9 - Claiming to provide health care to all Iraqis is sound policy.
Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
10 - HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the
public at heart.
11 - Giving money to the poor is called "welfare" and it is bad
because they don't need it. Giving money to the very rich is called "tax
breaks", and it is good because they do need it.
12- Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.
13 - A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable
offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which
thousands die is solid defense policy.
14 - Government should limit itself to the powers named in the
Constitution (which include banning gay marriages and censoring the
Internet).
15 - Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime for which
people should go to jail. Unless you're a wealthy conservative radio host.
Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.
16 - The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but
George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
17 - What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest.
What Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
Please don`t take this too seriously ;-) |
Key words here from Dim7 are propaganda and don't take this too seriously.
From EddyG we get: #'s 2,3 and 5 as indisputable left. #'s 9,10 and 12 are common mantras of the left. #'s 15, 16 and 17 are nearly direct quotes from leftist campain speeches. And # 19 is the real kicker.
How any liberal or conservative could not find some element of their belief system in these two posts is beyond me. They are definately in a state of denial.
How to become a good Democrat:
1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding.
2. You have to believe that the same school system that can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow the best qualified to teach those same kids all about sex.
3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law-abiding Americans, are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology, in the hands of Chinese communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by Americans driving SUVs
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.
8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists from Seattle do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe the U.S. military, not evil, tyrannical regimes, start wars.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain parts of the constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is all about "progress" and not power. She just wants to help us out of the archaic system of governing that we've been subjected to since our founding.
17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge.
18. You have to believe Republicans telling the truth belong in jail, but a cheat, liar and sex offender belongs in the White House and you would vote him back in there in a New York minute (if you could).
19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites and beastiality should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States.
21. You have to believe that the vociferous minorities who protest against prayer and saluting the flag in school, the 10 commandments in court, have far more rights than the majority who believe in God and country and want these values to be instilled in our young children.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 11:18:38 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Living and travelling in ex-communist states in the 90s made me realise the importance of economic liberalism, but did not stop me believing in social responsibility. |
Social responsibility starts in ones home, not in the halls of institutions like government, schools or labor unions.
Once people look in the mirror and realize that change starts right there instead of how you vote to force others to change....we might be on to something.
BTW....that isn't liberalism, communism, socialism or facism...so don't try to stereotype it ...thank you very much :-) |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 11:33:05 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Funny - I developed a social conscience after walking the streets of Washington and seeing amazing wealth and beauty, with your nation's dying poor dirtying every doorstop. I figured that the world would be a better place if we threw a few quid on social benefits for the poor (though admittedly, then, this was selfishly motivated - so that I didn't have to deal with people who cannot afford an operation dying on the street in front of me).
Living and travelling in ex-communist states in the 90s made me realise the importance of economic liberalism, but did not stop me believing in social responsibility. |
This example actually explains why conservatives feel the way they do. Washington DC as you so noted is a vast devide bewteen very rich and very poor. This is the result of the very social engineering that liberals preach. It is not even a state. It has the strictest gun control (yet highest crime), most people on welfare (socially dependent) and the worst corruption (city politics) od anywhere in the US. This degenerative downward spiral occurred while the Democrats were in office for 30+ years. Just don't see your example of a good reason to become a socilists society. having worked in a union enviornment for nearly 30 years, I am convinced that one main accomplishment is the reduction of the workforce to the LOWEST denominator rather than the highest. Since unions are socialistic entities, societies that adopt these principles become less empowered rather than more empowered. Tookie Williams and the streets of LA are yet another example. The results of which we have been discussing.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 12:00:26 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I didn't take offense at all. I just thought it was off base. Honestly, I could care less. |
Likewise, others felt the first post was off-base. Just where you stand and from what angle you view (photograph) the world.
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I don't like Democrats or Republicans...for the record. Both parties are completely full of crap. |
Of this we can both agree on...
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I would give examples such as E. Germany and the Czech Republic, where democracy was established by revolution without the significant loss of life. |
Yes, but it was also because there was a strong firm hand on the other side (NATO) essentially saying we'd intervene on their behalf. And the power of the USSR was in collapse and internal turmoil and unable to act. Much different scenario. Oh, BTW...it cost billions to achieve that freedom. And thankfully, very little bloodshed.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Hans Blix has commented on his belief that the Hussein regime would have collapsed in Iraq within a matter of years without the interference and deaths. |
Funny, I remember hearing the same thing years before about just applying sanctions and it'd only be a few years. Funny thing....that seldom is the case. If you look at most dictatorships they sustain for decades.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
There are few examples of successful intervention by one country in another where the purpose was to establish a democracy. |
U.S.A (intervention by France)
Germany
Japan
Korea
I wonder how many will die in Hong Kong from the exact opposite action?
Originally posted by "Flash":
2 - Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but
trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
|
Actually most Republicans I know are not too fond of fair trade agreements with China and tend to have a very negative outlook on the situation. Oh, and I don't give a damn about Cuba being communist. But it's human rights record...that I do.
But I think we should open up trade because I think immersing capitalism to Cuba would actually lead to Fidel's removal.
Originally posted by "Flash":
9 - Claiming to provide health care to all Iraqis is sound policy.
Providing health care to all Americans is socialism. |
Naw...makes perfect sense. Iraqi healthcare doesn't have the multitude of litigation and lawsuits. Thus it's quite cheap in comparison.
Originally posted by "Flash":
13 - A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable
offense. |
Actually, this one makes us realize how stupid liberals tend to be.
a) President Clinton was impeached not because he lied about an extramarital affair. But because he committed perjury in a civil "sexual harassment" court case brought against him by an government employee. He use the powers of the executive branch to interfere in the judicial branch thus preventing a U.S. citizen her right to due recourse. Sorry if you're too ignorant to know the facts. The media, made it about sex. The government kept it about facts. That is why he was impeached. But as he was popular and had popular public support (in part due to the media's constant misportrayal of the issue), they merely gave him a slap on the wrist.
Funny, Newt Gingrich was forced to resign for merely having an affair. He did not perjury himself, nor did he impede a citizen's right, nor breach the powers of his office.
That is why Republicans find this all quite hypocritical. And why when they read that statement they think you're completely misguided, uninformed, ignorant and poorly educated.
Originally posted by "Flash":
A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy. |
a) the president did not lie, he made a decisions based on available evidence and opinion throughout world intelligence agencies.
b) quite a bit of stuff was found, but deemed to have alternative uses. Gee....how quaint.
c) still questions remained of certain elements being moved...they sure had plenty of time thanks to the Oil-for-scandal friends in France & Russia.
d) Was he wrong...quite possibly, but there is a difference between being mistaken and a blatant liar. Clinton was a blatant liar. Bush may or may not have been mistaken.
e) Memos circulated internally in the Bush Administration on what to do and how to address the possible situation of thousands of U.S. soldiers dying from chemical weapons (and the political ramifications that would resul) essentially show that there were real fears. If such fears existed, than said issue is "mistaken" and not a "lie".
Republicans think Democrats are morons because they keep representing the issue in such fashion when it is not accurate.
Originally posted by "Flash":
15 - Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime for which
people should go to jail. Unless you're a wealthy conservative radio host.
Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery. |
Yeah...there's no difference between getting addicted to legal prescription pain meds due to an injury. And the illegal narcotic drug addict stealing and killing to feed his habit. Not saying that Rush was in the right. But there is a bit of a difference. And the attitude toward excessive use of prescription drugs is a mitigating factor. Though, no it does not absolve him of the issue.
Originally posted by "Alienyst":
Bushisms aside, and there are many of them, whenever I hear him speak what strikes me is he always seems to sound like he is almost drunk enough to fully slur his words, but not quite that drunk yet. One more drink would do it. |
And this is why I like him. I do the same thing sober. Have been accused at times of not being when I am. It's annoying. So whenever I see people unilaterally point to these speech failings and label them bushism's. The first thing that comes to mind.
Here's another !@#$% hypocritical liberal prick. Who makes fun of someone who has a speech disability. But god forbid a Republican conservative ever made the same mistake they'd be demonized. Thanks to Political Correctness a liberal !@#$% can make fun of disabilities with inscrutiny and at the same time condemn anyone for doing the same if they're a conservative. This is also why if a Republican makes a comment it's assumed racial. But if a Democrat and former member of the KKK makes a racist comment - oh, that wasn't racist. He's a Democrat. They can't be racist...
Have you ever thought of the fact, that you are basicly knocking a guy for a speech pattern difficulty. One that I happen to share with and had to suffer a ton of abuse because of.
Well....thank you oh great and wise and compassionate liberals.... |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 12:01:09 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by hokie:
BTW....that isn't liberalism, communism, socialism or facism...so don't try to stereotype it ...thank you very much :-) |
Hmm...he must be a support of that blasted startathomism philosophy. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 12:05:08 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Flash:
This example actually explains why conservatives feel the way they do. Washington DC as you so noted is a vast devide bewteen very rich and very poor. This is the result of the very social engineering that liberals preach. It is not even a state. It has the strictest gun control (yet highest crime), most people on welfare (socially dependent) and the worst corruption (city politics) od anywhere in the US. This degenerative downward spiral occurred while the Democrats were in office for 30+ years. Just don't see your example of a good reason to become a socilists society. having worked in a union enviornment for nearly 30 years, I am convinced that one main accomplishment is the reduction of the workforce to the LOWEST denominator rather than the highest. Since unions are socialistic entities, societies that adopt these principles become less empowered rather than more empowered. Tookie Williams and the streets of LA are yet another example. The results of which we have been discussing. |
News flash....I agree with Flash!
(Though, I actually lean toward what I call "Libertarian Communism". And that is a Libertarian bent with a communist option but with the condition that you must "opt into" the communion and remain a contributing member (within your means) in order to remain a member and receive said benefits.)
I think this is part of the problems with unions. As you put it, the lowest denominator. When Joe NoDoesWork can't be fired and gets the same raise. Why should Sam WorkVeryHard continue to do so?
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 12:08:04 PM · #43 |
| Wasn't knocking him, just relating an observation. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 12:32:36 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by hokie:
BTW....that isn't liberalism, communism, socialism or facism...so don't try to stereotype it ...thank you very much :-) |
Hmm...he must be a support of that blasted startathomism philosophy. |
Yes....:-)
Listen....I know I am not the smartest, wisest, most sensitive human...
BUT....
I have not met anyone that impresses me enough for me to turn over my rights to them because...gasp..they are just so much smarter, wiser and more sensitive.
So....before anyone comes here and starts telling me that some social program or some political party or some religous leader has "figured it out" and I should abdicate my rights or..maybe just shave a few rights here or there...
...Save your breath.
The odds are you simply have an agenda....however well intentioned. And I don't need your agenda.
Schools? We live in the information age..If you want to learn about anything the only thing stopping you is your ability to read and your desire. Once I learned to read there was not a teacher that taught me anything I could not have learned myself by reading or attaching myself to a mentor/company that had...through experience..done something like what I wanted to do.
Government? Hmmmm..they provide roads...but I could simply walk, use a Jeep ..What in the world did we do before Eisenhower and the interstates? National Defense? Some organized army is a pretty good idea but not the empire building force some want us to have. A monetary system..Our company barters a lot of our services but...I guess a unified monetary system is useful although the printing of money is passe.
My point here? Self reliance is a difficult road but the alternative many would have us believe is reliance on a central big brother where people are more sensitive, smarter and just..well...where better people run things.
No thank you. Give me liberty or give me death...Learn it and live it.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 12:47:51 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I think this is part of the problems with unions. As you put it, the lowest denominator. When Joe NoDoesWork can't be fired and gets the same raise. Why should Sam WorkVeryHard continue to do so? |
That has been my experience. However, to be fair, there are many hard working individuals that are exemplary employees and would be an attribute to any organization. There simply are not as many as there could be due to the availability of not having to become one. Are there some upstanding hard working union individuals? Without a doubt and its has been a pleasure to work with them over the years. On the other hand, there have been too many that have cost their peers, work site, managers, and company many unnecessary dollars simply because they were defended successfully by socialistic minded representatives, and thus the entire group suffered.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "Flash":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 - Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but
trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
Actually most Republicans I know are not too fond of fair trade agreements with China and tend to have a very negative outlook on the situation. Oh, and I don't give a damn about Cuba being communist. But it's human rights record...that I do.
But I think we should open up trade because I think immersing capitalism to Cuba would actually lead to Fidel's removal.
Originally posted by "Flash":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 - Claiming to provide health care to all Iraqis is sound policy.
Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
Naw...makes perfect sense. Iraqi healthcare doesn't have the multitude of litigation and lawsuits. Thus it's quite cheap in comparison.
Originally posted by "Flash":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 - A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable
offense.
Actually, this one makes us realize how stupid liberals tend to be.
a) President Clinton was impeached not because he lied about an extramarital affair. But because he committed perjury in a civil "sexual harassment" court case brought against him by an government employee. He use the powers of the executive branch to interfere in the judicial branch thus preventing a U.S. citizen her right to due recourse. Sorry if you're too ignorant to know the facts. The media, made it about sex. The government kept it about facts. That is why he was impeached. But as he was popular and had popular public support (in part due to the media's constant misportrayal of the issue), they merely gave him a slap on the wrist.
Funny, Newt Gingrich was forced to resign for merely having an affair. He did not perjury himself, nor did he impede a citizen's right, nor breach the powers of his office.
That is why Republicans find this all quite hypocritical. And why when they read that statement they think you're completely misguided, uninformed, ignorant and poorly educated.
Originally posted by "Flash":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
a) the president did not lie, he made a decisions based on available evidence and opinion throughout world intelligence agencies.
b) quite a bit of stuff was found, but deemed to have alternative uses. Gee....how quaint.
c) still questions remained of certain elements being moved...they sure had plenty of time thanks to the Oil-for-scandal friends in France & Russia.
d) Was he wrong...quite possibly, but there is a difference between being mistaken and a blatant liar. Clinton was a blatant liar. Bush may or may not have been mistaken.
e) Memos circulated internally in the Bush Administration on what to do and how to address the possible situation of thousands of U.S. soldiers dying from chemical weapons (and the political ramifications that would resul) essentially show that there were real fears. If such fears existed, than said issue is "mistaken" and not a "lie".
Republicans think Democrats are morons because they keep representing the issue in such fashion when it is not accurate.
Originally posted by "Flash":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 - Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime for which
people should go to jail. Unless you're a wealthy conservative radio host.
Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.
Yeah...there's no difference between getting addicted to legal prescription pain meds due to an injury. And the illegal narcotic drug addict stealing and killing to feed his habit. Not saying that Rush was in the right. But there is a bit of a difference. And the attitude toward excessive use of prescription drugs is a mitigating factor. Though, no it does not absolve him of the issue.
|
I wish you would have commented on both groups. As it is written, it appears that your close minded. It would be interesting if you could defend the leftist sentences as a leftist with the same fervor. My point in the post was that each side, if sincere enough in their attempt to understand the other side, could find elements of truth in both postings.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:02:11 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by hokie:
BTW....that isn't liberalism, communism, socialism or facism...so don't try to stereotype it ...thank you very much :-) |
Not a stereotype - liberal means something different in the US, I think. Liberal (untainted by US historical connotations) means free market - no govt intervention. Opposite is conservatism (not to be tainted by the policies of the UK political party with the same name).
I believe in economic liberalism (free market capitalism), but social conservatism (protect the poor in society from starvation/illness/lack of education - socialism (again - without the US historical connotations)).
Message edited by author 2005-12-15 13:03:36.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:10:14 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by hokie:
I have not met anyone that impresses me enough for me to turn over my rights to them because...gasp..they are just so much smarter, wiser and more sensitive. |
My opinions have become better informed and I am more aware of the basis of contrary views as a consequence of these debates. The community here is pretty broadly based and good for debate. Eg There are no church going Christians in my social circle, let alone Young Earth Creationists. I know no-one who seriously supports the death penalty, and no-one who cares enough to seriously object to abortion. I know no-one who would dismiss evolution out of hand.
It is good to see some alternative views on life and challenge them and myself.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:18:36 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I believe in economic liberalism (free market capitalism), but social conservatism (protect the poor in society from starvation/illness/lack of education - socialistic responsibility (again - without the US historical connotations)). |
Social conservatism is a belief in traditional morality and social mores and the desire to preserve these in present day society, often through civil law or regulation. Social change is generally regarded as suspect, while social values based on tradition are generally regarded as tried, tested and true. Its opponents (incorrectly ) commonly associate it with conservative religious groups, militarism and nationalism.
Taking this definition and applying it to monetary policy and taxation.
Social change supported through removing money from one group to give to another at the point of a gun is considered suspect.
Socialistic responsibility falls on the individual that suffers from starvation/lack of education/illness.
Starvation.....I support local efforts like the Salvation Army or the Red Cross, supported at my discretion. I do not support government enforced support at the point of a gun (taxation).
Illness....I support, once again The Red Cross, United Way and several other organizations designed to help the indigent...by choice. I do not support government forced support (taxation) UNLESS in a state of national emergency like Katrina or the Avian Flu.
Education...I support the right of any person to have access to information that can educate them. I do not support forcing the population, at the point of a gun (taxation) to build institutions to warehouse children and try to teach them how to interact sexually, how to be good government socialists or how to rely on others to help them do what they should do for themselves.
Efforts to force me, at the point of a gun, to behave socially like your agenda says I should (minus killing or denying others their liberty) is morally reprehensible and against the very nature of free choice.
Message edited by author 2005-12-15 13:19:28. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 07:36:17 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Social conservatism is a belief in traditional morality and social mores and the desire to preserve these in present day society, often through civil law or regulation. |
Thanks - I mis-wrote. conservatism slipped in there.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:57:35 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by Flash:
. My point in the post was that each side, if sincere enough in their attempt to understand the other side, could find elements of truth in both postings. |
My point, is that in a lot of what people see, they see no truth and simply rhetoric. *shrug*
|
|
