///RonalT5 Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 Liberalism once explained is a feeble house of cards. Conservatism returns the power from the government to the people to restore balance. A conservative government is a nation of people. A liberal government is a nation of subjects. Liberals hate freedom of speech. Liberals hate freedom period. Liberalism locks up the mind and condems the soul. Liberalism is criminal. Liberalism is a mental disorder.Are you joking me?1) Conservatives don't give a sh!t about the common good, all they care about is their damn money, and if they F people in the process, who cares? A la Dick Cheney smart guy.2) Liberal nation of subjects? You have to be kidding me...3) Liberals hate freedom of speech? Ummmmm, who made the patriot act dumb@$$, was it a liberal, nooooo, it was a conservative, so our freedom of speech is not non-apparent.4) Liberals do not hate freedom. Where did you come up with that? Cause you know and talk to SOOO many of them and listen to what they have to say.5) Are you joking about locking up the mind and soul, liberals are the ones who are open minded. You are the closed soul homie. You posted about Jews being the neo-conservative? You are closed minded, not liberals.6) Starfish is a mental disorder~Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMC850T Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 Ever thought that no one wants to hear the conservative viewpoint so no one shows it?about 50% of the United States shares the viewpoint, so i think it would be inaccurate to think that nobody wants to hear it. Hell, even some liberals want to hear the conservative viewpoint so they can make up their own mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMC850T Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 3) Liberals hate freedom of speech? Ummmmm, who made the patriot act dumb@$$, was it a liberal, nooooo, it was a conservative, so our freedom of speech is not non-apparent.I was unaware the patriot act somehow limited your freedom of speech? And as far as I know it was passed without much trouble by both houses. Apparently our elected representatives felt a need for it. http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
///RonalT5 Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 I was unaware the patriot act somehow limited your freedom of speech? And as far as I know it was passed without much trouble by both houses. Apparently our elected representatives felt a need for it. http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.htmlI mean, it does limit or 'invade' your freedom of speech because it states that ANYONE can be arrested and then tried in a military court WITHOUT any representation. I mean , unless you are KNOWN to be a terrorist, it is a little sketchy, and it has been used on innocent people before. And it was passed because the liberal pussie didn't want to look soft on terrorism or they wouldn't be elected this past november. I will say that liberals don't stand up enough for what they belive is right, and it bugs the F out of me.~Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMC850T Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 I mean, it does limit or 'invade' your freedom of speech because it states that ANYONE can be arrested and then tried in a military court WITHOUT any representation.I defy you to find anywhere in that document a passage saying that anyone can be arrested and tried in a military court. Also, the military courts you are thinking of (guantanamo) are not courts at all, they are administrative hearings to determine what to do with detainees. There is no need for representation there since it is not a criminal proceeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
///RonalT5 Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 Also, the military courts you are thinking of (guantanamo) O, that place that our prez said never existed then changed his mind. That place is a disgrace and some of the people there don't deserve to be there and tortured for nothing. I don't mind the patriot act, just think it is a little sketchy.~Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMC850T Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 O, that place that our prez said never existed then changed his mind. That place is a disgrace and some of the people there don't deserve to be there and tortured for nothing. I don't mind the patriot act, just think it is a little sketchy.~MikeThat's exactly what the military hearings are about - determining whom deserves to be an esteemed guest of the United States and who doesen't. Also I would take anything you hear from a freshly released detainee with a grain of salt. read through the Al-Qaeda manual and you will see that they are instructed to lie about their conditions of captivity and their "torture". Abuse? Sure, some coersion is bound to be involved in the interrogations that take place, but I would be highly suprised if anyone was actually tortured. There is a popular belief that US interrogators are horrible humans and have developed a systemic torture institution in guantanamo and it couldn't be further from the truth. Studies have shown that torture is quite innefective, a person will say just about anything to stop the pain they indure. There are some articles on the effectiveness of torture written by german and french interrogators which i'll try and dig up, they were interesting to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starfish Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 Are you joking me?1) Conservatives don't give a sh!t about the common good, all they care about is their damn money, and if they F people in the process, who cares? A la Dick Cheney smart guy.2) Liberal nation of subjects? You have to be kidding me...When you do not take the peoples money from them and send it to Washington, the people KEEP the power. The people HAVE the control of the buying power with their full discretion in spending. THESE self-reliant people ARE the common good, NOT some government bureaucrat or lobbyist.When the people GIVE their money to Washington, THEY become subjects to politicians whims. When the people decide how they WILL spend THEIR money or WHERE they will spend their money, the results are always higher efficiency. The government is NEVER efficient nor can be.3) Liberals hate freedom of speech? Ummmmm, who made the patriot act dumb@$$, was it a liberal, nooooo, it was a conservative, so our freedom of speech is not non-apparent.4) Liberals do not hate freedom. Where did you come up with that? Cause you know and talk to SOOO many of them and listen to what they have to say.Re-read any of my prior simply put postings on this forum for your answer, its clearly put.5) Are you joking about locking up the mind and soul, liberals are the ones who are open minded. You are the closed soul homie. You posted about Jews being the neo-conservative? You are closed minded, not liberals.6) Starfish is a mental disorder~MikeMike, unfortunately for yourself you are not able to grasp raw naked truth or to understand truth in full detail or to deal with truth on any emotional or logical basis, that is your personal problem. My mind is always open to new ideas even if they are in opposite of my opinion. If my opinion is wrong I am willing to change it. So far though you haven't been doing such a good job to alter it. Try presenting facts.Case in point- I did not call neo-conservatives Jews. I explained the terms meaning in an honest context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAzOR Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 The congress was a Neo-Con congress, not a conservative congress. Bush has been acting like a Neo-Con himself. Hence the drubbing in November. The new congress is more conservative than its predeccessor. Do not associate Republicans with Conservatives and Democrats with Liberals, They are different. Look at what already happened to Pelosi (a liberal democrat), she got her ass handed to her for Majority Leader by the freshman dems.Liberalism is an ideaology that, at its roots, is morally relative. To me, and anyone else who thinks a bit more deeply, this is a road that eventually leads to chaos and oblivion.For example:the argument for gay marriage is based on "what's the harm?" and "who are we to say they can't get married". What is their position based on? History? No. Then what is their claim to credibility? None. They are experimenting.This is a dangerous tinkering with something that is strongly suspected of being a foundation of modern man. Not a tinkering with marriage per se, but a shot to break the fundamental practices of heterosexual preference, accustoming children to both a mother and a father, and the opposite sex.But this is only the beginning. Take their argument to the next step.Who should then speak against marrying a sibling? What's the harm? How about a goat or a horse? What's the harm? I am not even saying that sex would be part of the equation here. Just the audacity of developing a right to marry a pig, just because no one else should judge them No one can say no, becuase, "What's the harm?" Funny huh? Scary.Then, evidentally, this completely obfuscates the meaning, and sanctity of marriage. Further and more deeply confusing kids before they become adults.This extension to "the next step" example works for other liberal beliefs such as affirmative action.It is my personal belief that Liberalism is more of a feel good philosophy that tries to give everything to everyone because there is no identified harm in it. To me, this is a dangerous experiment, and the disregard or lack of concern for future consequences is reckless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas850Turbo Posted December 22, 2006 Report Share Posted December 22, 2006 about 50% of the United States shares the viewpoint, so i think it would be inaccurate to think that nobody wants to hear it. Hell, even some liberals want to hear the conservative viewpoint so they can make up their own mind.50% of the people who voted, yes, but we all know that's not a terribly accurate sampling of the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Posted December 26, 2006 Report Share Posted December 26, 2006 Whoa, starfish. I can't even wow, nevermind. You sound like a lunatic lol. A different view from you is a mental disorder. Ho'kay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachRat Posted December 26, 2006 Report Share Posted December 26, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starfish Posted December 27, 2006 Report Share Posted December 27, 2006 The congress was a Neo-Con congress, not a conservative congress. Bush has been acting like a Neo-Con himself. Hence the drubbing in November. The new congress is more conservative than its predeccessor. Do not associate Republicans with Conservatives and Democrats with Liberals, They are different. Look at what already happened to Pelosi (a liberal democrat), she got her jerk handed to her for Majority Leader by the freshman dems.Liberalism is an ideaology that, at its roots, is morally relative. To me, and anyone else who thinks a bit more deeply, this is a road that eventually leads to chaos and oblivion.For example:the argument for gay marriage is based on "what's the harm?" and "who are we to say they can't get married". What is their position based on? History? No. Then what is their claim to credibility? None. They are experimenting.This is a dangerous tinkering with something that is strongly suspected of being a foundation of modern man. Not a tinkering with marriage per se, but a shot to break the fundamental practices of heterosexual preference, accustoming children to both a mother and a father, and the opposite sex.But this is only the beginning. Take their argument to the next step.Who should then speak against marrying a sibling? What's the harm? How about a goat or a horse? What's the harm? I am not even saying that sex would be part of the equation here. Just the audacity of developing a right to marry a pig, just because no one else should judge them No one can say no, becuase, "What's the harm?" Funny huh? Scary.Then, evidentally, this completely obfuscates the meaning, and sanctity of marriage. Further and more deeply confusing kids before they become adults.This extension to "the next step" example works for other liberal beliefs such as affirmative action.It is my personal belief that Liberalism is more of a feel good philosophy that tries to give everything to everyone because there is no identified harm in it. To me, this is a dangerous experiment, and the disregard or lack of concern for future consequences is reckless.From this I gather is that the neocons are protecting our democracy from the liberals mob rule mentality. Seems noble and just versus the liberals alternative vision which is chaos.Mob rule mentality is dysfunctional in society.A mental dysfunction is an abnormality or a disorder.Liberals who promote this mental dysfunction of mob rule in their idealism as normal are abnormal themselves.Thus, liberalism is a mental disorder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DVolvoguy850T5 Posted December 27, 2006 Report Share Posted December 27, 2006 Sandy Buger any one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan_B Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 Edwards running for president :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts