NationStates Jolt Archive

...they're just weak (and a touch silly).

Comments?

They look at the world in idealistic terms (which isn't bad in itself), but they tend to let their emotions carry them away.

you're right, we're evil. :(

heil mein fuhrer

No word games, but we can have this? :roll:

I think they just go for the "low hanging fruit". They are well meaning but tend toward the quick fix with no exit strategy or consideration for the long term solution.

You could have fooled me.

is genius personified.

Clearly, considerable brain-power went into formulating the tenets
of modern liberalism: Tax increases will fuel an economic boom.
Reverse discrimination furthers racial harmony. Cutting defense
and a foreign policy that convinces the bin Ladens of the world
that we're a bunch of wimps is the way to keep America safe.
Handouts inculcate a work ethic. Gun control -- which disarms
potential victims -- is the best way to fight crime. Attacking
parental authority and facilitating family dissolution helps
children. Condom distribution promotes responsibility among
adolescents. Not drilling in the Artic Wildlife Refuge and
the virtual abandonment of nuclear power contributes to energy
self-sufficiency. Brilliant!... The Left sincerely believes that
ordinary Americans are imbeciles -- unfortunates who are sorely
in need of a keeper (big government) to bring us in out of the
rain and keep us from drooling all over ourselves (by Don Feder)

People who think groups of people arbitrarily think alike… are silly.

An honest question (with no malice intended):

Are the majority of posters here right-wing/conservative?

...just misguided.

i mean come on, what's with the support for capitalism?

An honest question (with no malice intended):

Are the majority of posters here right-wing/conservative?
By the average of the internet, definitely right.
By American standards, slightly left-leaning.
Most of the people commenting in this post are just too young to actually pay attention to politics. After a little while you get a sixth sense as to who'd actually commenting by their own thought and who's just making noise.
You'll have to decide on a by-poster basis, as well as I can figure, who actually bothers to read what they're posting/replying to, who takes the next step to think it through, and who can understand the concept of "thinking in context," or considering the whole arguement instead of forgetting what was said, with proper cites, two posts up. About 1/2 do the first step, maybe 1/6th do the second, and I've counted nine people who can do the third. Two of them are probably just wishful thinking/too low of standards, and three more have disappeared.

You'll also notice about half the threads started by one side or the other make up strawman positions, and only about half of those people bother to argue against them instead of saying the arguement could possibly exist, it isn't my position, thus anything that isn't my position is evil.
Those threads tend to go on for about five pages of non-sequiturs where nobody responds to anyone else before they mysteriously die all at once, likely because they run out of talking points to shamelessly rip, unattributed, from elsewhere.

While liberals are not evil, we truly are sinister politicans!!!!
Haha a Latin joke for ya!

There are two forms of liberalism/conservatism- social and economic. As far as social liberalism, look at the famous liberals- Ghandi, Kennedy, Lennon, King... look at the social conservatives- Hitler, Mussolini... Sometimes being idealistic and guided is what we need. Not all liberals are weak.

I think they just go for the "low hanging fruit". They are well meaning but tend toward the quick fix with no exit strategy or consideration for the long term solution.

Are you kidding me? Look at Iraq.

I think they just go for the "low hanging fruit". They are well meaning but tend toward the quick fix with no exit strategy or consideration for the long term solution. I never thought the Bush Administration was liberal. What an interesting concept!

its kinda hard to just lump everybody into one thing as being "silly." sure, a lot of the things that "hardcore" liberals stand for make me feel sick to my stomach, but then again there are a few (a FEW) liberal ideas that i agree with. and not all liberals are complete kooks either, there are some that arent so blinded by their desire to liberalize everything that they co-operate with conservitives, even if they dont agree.

i really just wish that left and right wing people could just get along, even if they dont agree. some sort of respect would be good, at least. even if you dont agree with their policies, they're just trying to do what they think is right and good for the country/world, no matter how messed up it may seem. :D

I think it all stems from the stereotype of "liberals" being ultra-PC. In truth, most aren't and "liberal" is a misnomer. The original liberals were actually minarcho-capitalists not unlike Ayn Rand or the Jennifer Government society.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I think they just go for the "low hanging fruit". They are well meaning but tend toward the quick fix with no exit strategy or consideration for the long term solution.kinda like Bushs war in iraq eh?

is genius personified.

Clearly, considerable brain-power went into formulating the tenets
of modern liberalism: Tax increases will fuel an economic boom.
Reverse discrimination furthers racial harmony. Cutting defense
and a foreign policy that convinces the bin Ladens of the world
that we're a bunch of wimps is the way to keep America safe.
Handouts inculcate a work ethic. Gun control -- which disarms
potential victims -- is the best way to fight crime. Attacking
parental authority and facilitating family dissolution helps
children. Condom distribution promotes responsibility among
adolescents. Not drilling in the Artic Wildlife Refuge and
the virtual abandonment of nuclear power contributes to energy
self-sufficiency. Brilliant!... The Left sincerely believes that
ordinary Americans are imbeciles -- unfortunates who are sorely
in need of a keeper (big government) to bring us in out of the
rain and keep us from drooling all over ourselves (by Don Feder)

Hahahahaha! Can I copy this for my message board? That's so true of some hardcore liberals I know, they always talk and act like they are God's (wait they don't believe in God or any thing higher than themselves) gift to everything.

Great great great!

An honest question (with no malice intended):

Are the majority of posters here right-wing/conservative?
By the average of the internet, definitely right.
By American standards, slightly left-leaning.
Most of the people commenting in this post are just too young to actually pay attention to politics. After a little while you get a sixth sense as to who'd actually commenting by their own thought and who's just making noise.
You'll have to decide on a by-poster basis, as well as I can figure, who actually bothers to read what they're posting/replying to, who takes the next step to think it through, and who can understand the concept of "thinking in context," or considering the whole arguement instead of forgetting what was said, with proper cites, two posts up. About 1/2 do the first step, maybe 1/6th do the second, and I've counted nine people who can do the third. Two of them are probably just wishful thinking/too low of standards, and three more have disappeared.

You'll also notice about half the threads started by one side or the other make up strawman positions, and only about half of those people bother to argue against them instead of saying the arguement could possibly exist, it isn't my position, thus anything that isn't my position is evil.
Those threads tend to go on for about five pages of non-sequiturs where nobody responds to anyone else before they mysteriously die all at once, likely because they run out of talking points to shamelessly rip, unattributed, from elsewhere.

Indeed, isn't it interesting that when threads with actual substance come up, dealing with real issues, there are only about 10 posters on either side argue it? On the other hand, when intellectually vacant, nonspecific "[political group X] Sucks!" threads such as this come up, people just crawl out of the woodwork in support of it. "Yeah, [political group X] sure does suck!"

Partisan politics: the Special Olympics of political debate.

is genius personified.

Clearly, considerable brain-power went into formulating the tenets
of modern liberalism: Tax increases will fuel an economic boom.
Reverse discrimination furthers racial harmony. Cutting defense
and a foreign policy that convinces the bin Ladens of the world
that we're a bunch of wimps is the way to keep America safe.
Handouts inculcate a work ethic. Gun control -- which disarms
potential victims -- is the best way to fight crime. Attacking
parental authority and facilitating family dissolution helps
children. Condom distribution promotes responsibility among
adolescents. Not drilling in the Artic Wildlife Refuge and
the virtual abandonment of nuclear power contributes to energy
self-sufficiency. Brilliant!... The Left sincerely believes that
ordinary Americans are imbeciles -- unfortunates who are sorely
in need of a keeper (big government) to bring us in out of the
rain and keep us from drooling all over ourselves (by Don Feder)

Hahahahaha! Can I copy this for my message board? That's so true of some hardcore liberals I know, they always talk and act like they are God's (wait they don't believe in God or any thing higher than themselves) gift to everything.

Great great great!

is genius personified.

Clearly, considerable brain-power went into formulating the tenets
of modern liberalism: Tax increases will fuel an economic boom.
Reverse discrimination furthers racial harmony. Cutting defense
and a foreign policy that convinces the bin Ladens of the world
that we're a bunch of wimps is the way to keep America safe.
Handouts inculcate a work ethic. Gun control -- which disarms
potential victims -- is the best way to fight crime. Attacking
parental authority and facilitating family dissolution helps
children. Condom distribution promotes responsibility among
adolescents. Not drilling in the Artic Wildlife Refuge and
the virtual abandonment of nuclear power contributes to energy
self-sufficiency. Brilliant!... The Left sincerely believes that
ordinary Americans are imbeciles -- unfortunates who are sorely
in need of a keeper (big government) to bring us in out of the
rain and keep us from drooling all over ourselves (by Don Feder)

Hahahahaha! Can I copy this for my message board? That's so true of some hardcore liberals I know, they always talk and act like they are God's (wait they don't believe in God or any thing higher than themselves) gift to everything.

Great great great!

The above sollutions work in other countries for the most part, why not here?

Don't make general statements like, 'all liberals are athiests, or consider themselves God,' thats stupid. Plenty of liberals throughout time have been very religious, its just that they see God as wanting them to help others, not impose rules on them. There are conservatives who certainly portray themselves as God's gift to humanity.

By the way, a verrry few, who are the ones liberals help, while leaving everyone else to do as they please, do need help to keep from drooling on themselves. Or shooting themselves up with heroin. Or getting AIDS, or clamydia, or pregnant. Or living a life above the poverty level. Or finding money to attend college. Or finding money to pay the medical bills.

I would really like to know what you consider a liberal to be. This word gets thrown around so much on this board, and I really doubt that very many people know what it means.
I think to many people are using personalized definitions of a demonized (at least in current culture) word.

Thank you

1.618

its kinda hard to just lump everybody into one thing as being "silly." sure, a lot of the things that "hardcore" liberals stand for make me feel sick to my stomach, but then again there are a few (a FEW) liberal ideas that i agree with. and not all liberals are complete kooks either, there are some that arent so blinded by their desire to liberalize everything that they co-operate with conservitives, even if they dont agree.

i really just wish that left and right wing people could just get along, even if they dont agree. some sort of respect would be good, at least. even if you dont agree with their policies, they're just trying to do what they think is right and good for the country/world, no matter how messed up it may seem. :D

I agree with the sentiments here...it WOULD be great if the left and right could work for a common goal. The concept of the 'loyal opposition' has, unfortunately, left us in U.S. politics. I don't think we had this kind of polarization in 1960, when many arguments centered on which party is tougher on communism, who would do a better job keeping the Soviets at bay, etc... There wasn't the tendency to take the completely opposite tack of your opponents merely because they were your opponents. Once a policy was decided on, both sides/factions more or less worked together to ensure success. We're seeing less and less of that these days.

I can't help but wonder if many of these problems didn't start with the radical leftists in the 1960's, calling their opponents racists, baby-killers (Vietnam-related, not abortion-related in this context), etc., etc. Once the right wing found its voice years later, they responed in kind. I wonder if we'll ever really be able to unite politically again. Certainly a goal worth pursuing. Each side has to come up with their own definitions as to what is reasonable cooperation and what is fatal compromise, when it comes to dealing with their political opponents who are still, when all is said and done, their fellow countrymen.

Hahahahaha! Can I copy this for my message board? That's so true of some hardcore liberals I know, they always talk and act like they are God's (wait they don't believe in God or any thing higher than themselves) gift to everything.

Great great great!

FYI. I'm very liberal and very religious. Generalizations are stupid and the last resort of small minds.

I would really like to know what you consider a liberal to be. This word gets thrown around so much on this board, and I really doubt that very many people know what it means.
I think to many people are using personalized definitions of a demonized (at least in current culture) word.

Thank you

1.618

Ah, the voice of reason. I agree - few people use the word 'liberal' with any real conception of what it actually means. Here's a starter: it does NOT mean 'socialist'.

An honest question (with no malice intended):

Are the majority of posters here right-wing/conservative?By American standards, the majority is overwhelmingly left-wing/liberal. Of which I am one.

I can't help but wonder if many of these problems didn't start with the radical leftists in the 1960's, calling their opponents racists, baby-killers (Vietnam-related, not abortion-related in this context), etc., etc.

If we're looking to start passing out blame, this same argument could be applied to the far-right and the blame placed on the McCarthy-ism of the 1950s for starting the polarized politics of today.

Liberal , communist ,socialist , democrat. Four words that mean the same thing. :D

Liberal , communist ,socialist , democrat. Four words that mean the same thing. :D

By the same token, Alphaks II = Eejit.

Apologies if your comment was tongue in cheek.

An honest question (with no malice intended):

Are the majority of posters here right-wing/conservative?
By the average of the internet, definitely right.
By American standards, slightly left-leaning.
Most of the people commenting in this post are just too young to actually pay attention to politics. After a little while you get a sixth sense as to who'd actually commenting by their own thought and who's just making noise.
You'll have to decide on a by-poster basis, as well as I can figure, who actually bothers to read what they're posting/replying to, who takes the next step to think it through, and who can understand the concept of "thinking in context," or considering the whole arguement instead of forgetting what was said, with proper cites, two posts up. About 1/2 do the first step, maybe 1/6th do the second, and I've counted nine people who can do the third. Two of them are probably just wishful thinking/too low of standards, and three more have disappeared.

You'll also notice about half the threads started by one side or the other make up strawman positions, and only about half of those people bother to argue against them instead of saying the arguement could possibly exist, it isn't my position, thus anything that isn't my position is evil.
Those threads tend to go on for about five pages of non-sequiturs where nobody responds to anyone else before they mysteriously die all at once, likely because they run out of talking points to shamelessly rip, unattributed, from elsewhere.

Indeed, isn't it interesting that when threads with actual substance come up, dealing with real issues, there are only about 10 posters on either side argue it? On the other hand, when intellectually vacant, nonspecific "[political group X] Sucks!" threads such as this come up, people just crawl out of the woodwork in support of it. "Yeah, [political group X] sure does suck!"

Partisan politics: the Special Olympics of political debate.

A tip of my hat to both Anbar and The Mycon for their excellent points! It's not just this site; you find far too much evidence of people who can only think in "thought fragments" (I started to type "sound bites," but even a sound bite usually represents a complete thought). What's more, a considerable number of those thought fragments rely on vulgar or rudimentary language for about half their content! It would be interesting to see how many posts and threads would disappear entirely if you could sort them all for the ones where the only verb is the word "suck."

One could almost imagine most people today, if they were told to draft the Declaration of Independence, writing a one (and only one) sentence document that would read:

"King George sucks! We're outta here."

That would be their entire argument.

is genius personified.

Clearly, considerable brain-power went into formulating the tenets
of modern liberalism: Tax increases will fuel an economic boom.
Reverse discrimination furthers racial harmony. Cutting defense
and a foreign policy that convinces the bin Ladens of the world
that we're a bunch of wimps is the way to keep America safe.
Handouts inculcate a work ethic. Gun control -- which disarms
potential victims -- is the best way to fight crime. Attacking
parental authority and facilitating family dissolution helps
children. Condom distribution promotes responsibility among
adolescents. Not drilling in the Artic Wildlife Refuge and
the virtual abandonment of nuclear power contributes to energy
self-sufficiency. Brilliant!... The Left sincerely believes that
ordinary Americans are imbeciles -- unfortunates who are sorely
in need of a keeper (big government) to bring us in out of the
rain and keep us from drooling all over ourselves (by Don Feder)
And conservatives think that government should be small, just small enough to fit in the bedroom. They think that causing the working classes to be afflicted by disease is the best way to get them to be productive. They think that the best way to prevent people being afflicted by crime is simply for the victims to kill the criminals. They think that "we hold these truthes to be self evident, that all men are created equal" should have the subclause "providing they aren't black, gay, poor, female or liberal". Their idea of political freedom is the freedom to buy the ballot box. A civil right is something you're free to do in polite company. The second amendment is sacrosant, but the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and fourteenth just get in the way making money and locking up people with dark skin.

For someone who extoles the virtues of hard work, you sure are willing to delegate the bother of writing a critique of liberalism to a bad Internet pudit and then copy and paste it. Yet another area where liberals like me differ from you.

"By the way, a verrry few, who are the ones liberals help, while leaving everyone else to do as they please, do need help to keep from drooling on themselves. Or shooting themselves up with heroin. Or getting AIDS, or clamydia, or pregnant. Or living a life above the poverty level. Or finding money to attend college. Or finding money to pay the medical bills."

Actually, this would be wonderful if it were true. Unfortunately, part about leaving everyone else to do as they please is never the case.

When you try to keep folks from drooling on themselves, you need my money for special medical/psychological programs. When you try to keep them from shooting up with heroin, you need my money for more police, social workers, and medical treatment. When you try to keep them from getting aids, clamydia, or pregnant, you need my money for the training programs, and you also talk to my child about anal sex while you hand him or her a condom. When you try to keep them above the poverty level, you need my money to feed, clothe, and house them. When you give them money to attend college, it comes from me. Taking care medical bills requires my money too, along with rules that require everyone to wear helmets on their bicycles and stop smoking. In the meantime, you have created a dependant class that I, my children, and grandchildren will have to continue to support.

San Francisco has dramatically increased spending on the homeless in the past 20 years. During the same period, they have seen a remarkable increase in the number of homeless. Kinda weird, huh?

Of course what is amusing is that 'Liberalism' and 'Conservatism' both have their roots in the anti Feudalism movement - the highlight being the Magna Carta and the establishment of Parlinament.

This led writers like Thomas Moore to speculate on the nature of politics that was looking at the possiblility of a Utopia on earth not heaven.

So although the two groups have roots in the past and had a similiar objective there was a split. However this split had not become as partisan until the later stages of the 20th century.

I think they just go for the "low hanging fruit". They are well meaning but tend toward the quick fix with no exit strategy or consideration for the long term solution.

Are you kidding me? Look at Iraq.

History will ultimately determine whether or not IRAQ made sense. I was actually thinking more about fiscal and social policies. But since you brought it up it may also apply to foreign policy. In my mind ignoring the problem for 12 more years would equate to the low hanging fruit. Its a cheap shot for me to say we ignored the problem, the fact is our policies (sanctions, no-fly zones, diplomacy, etc) had no effect on Saddaam and HE CHOSE not to comply with the final UN ultimatim.

"And conservatives think that government should be small, just small enough to fit in the bedroom. They think that causing the working classes to be afflicted by disease is the best way to get them to be productive. They think that the best way to prevent people being afflicted by crime is simply for the victims to kill the criminals. They think that "we hold these truthes to be self evident, that all men are created equal" should have the subclause "providing they aren't black, gay, poor, female or liberal". Their idea of political freedom is the freedom to buy the ballot box. A civil right is something you're free to do in polite company. The second amendment is sacrosant, but the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and fourteenth just get in the way making money and locking up people with dark skin. "

OK, so conservatives discriminate based on race/sex/etc....
I guess conservatives believe in the government requiring discriminatory rules based on these criteria? Oh no....actually its liberals who do this. What about putting minorities into actual positions of power rather than just talking about it? Oops...conservatives again. Of course, liberals can get around this one easily by claiming that people like Condaleezza Rice and Colin Powell don't count as really black or female, because they don't act, talk, or think like liberals believe blacks and women are supposed to. Now, who's the real racist/sexist?

repost

repost

repost

Tax increases will fuel an economic boom.

I doubt your an economist so I doubt you could criticise such a policy accurately.

Reverse discrimination furthers racial harmony.

If you are referring to affirmative action, I can only say that the advantage only exists to equalise the playing field for minorities which without such benefits would deny unnecessarily expensive education to those minorities. Of course, the solution to solving 'reverse discrimination' would be to make education cheaper and this is easier than you think.

Cutting defense and a foreign policy that convinces the bin Ladens of the world that we're a bunch of wimps is the way to keep America safe.

As I recall, the Liberal governments to this date have been just as if not more aggressive than Conservative ones.

Handouts inculcate a work ethic.

Not if the amounts are limited to a sustainence level.

Gun control -- which disarms potential victims -- is the best way to fight crime.

You will find that culture and social conditions have a greater effect on crime than gun control so you cannot really relate the two.

Attacking parental authority and facilitating family dissolution helps children.

I suppose divorce is a lot better for a child than a family environment riddled with hate.

Condom distribution promotes responsibility among adolescents.

I doubt very much that condom absence would teach adolescents responsibility either especially when you are making teenegers charged with hormones more desperate for sex as a result.

Not drilling in the Artic Wildlife Refuge and
the virtual abandonment of nuclear power contributes to energy
self-sufficiency.

I fail to see how cosying up to Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive regimes controlling much of the world's oil supply is an example of self-suffiency either.
Besides, would not you prefer to breath clean air and live in a country safe from any kind of possible Cheynobyl?

Brilliant!... The Left sincerely believes that
ordinary Americans are imbeciles

I could say the same about the right.

OK, so conservatives discriminate based on race/sex/etc....
I guess conservatives believe in the government requiring discriminatory rules based on these criteria? Oh no....actually its liberals who do this. What about putting minorities into actual positions of power rather than just talking about it? Oops...conservatives again. Of course, liberals can get around this one easily by claiming that people like Condaleezza Rice and Colin Powell don't count as really black or female, because they don't act, talk, or think like liberals believe blacks and women are supposed to. Now, who's the real racist/sexist?Yeah, Condaleezza Rice and Colin Powell, the two black people that conservatives trot out as examples of them being non-discriminatory. They also both support affirmitive action you know, quite strongly. So, if even the people you have in your administration to promote the black agenda disagree with your AA policy, what does that mean?

OK, so conservatives discriminate based on race/sex/etc....
I guess conservatives believe in the government requiring discriminatory rules based on these criteria? Oh no....actually its liberals who do this. What about putting minorities into actual positions of power rather than just talking about it? Oops...conservatives again. Of course, liberals can get around this one easily by claiming that people like Condaleezza Rice and Colin Powell don't count as really black or female, because they don't act, talk, or think like liberals believe blacks and women are supposed to. Now, who's the real racist/sexist?
You.

Yes there are those people who think that they are "good liberals", and "good white people" and they do have the best of intentions. But best of intentions don't get the job done. I believe there needs to be a complete overhaul of the entire system. But this is a white priviledge arguement.

Affirmitive Action helps white people to. Infact Affirmitive Action is needed because the American school systems are set-up to elevate white kids and push-down people of color (and don't say Well I have a BLACK friend who made it through...).

Some liberals are silly (I am looking at YOU Linden LaRouche people) and I think a lot of conservatives don't seem to care about anyone else.

The interesting thinkg is though (and I am paraphrashing from Skipping Towards Gomorrah by Dan Savage) that only conservatives feel the need to wipe out the liberal element. Like just having "liberals" around is an affront to their being. You don't find liberals going in to straight houses at night and saying, "You can't have sex in the missionary position it's just too Christian". But for some reason anal sex is an affront to all conservatives.

I know some lovely conservatives, and some lovely liberals. Both parties have signifigant faults.

You describe the nano-minority on the far, kicked out of the John Birch society for being too extreme, right. Essentially, your argument does nothing to persuade or argue, it merely squeals that I'm a hater and therefore, any position I might take is evil personified. If I'm opposed to gay "marriage", I must be a bigot. If I say that 30 years of Great Society has given us a lot of unintended and unfortunate consequences that need remedy, I'm a racist. In your world, political thought becomes banned hate speech.

If you think Don Feder is a hack, tell him not me... he puts forth a succinct indictment of policies that continue to afflict our society. Your response to it is a personal attack on lazy ol' me. Good answer. Don't respond to the quote, just brand the quote as another fulmination from the fascist. Your statements just continue the same trend of attempting to squelch meaningful discourse. Very 1st ammendment. I support them all, thanks for asking.

BTW: By definition, a victim killing a criminal is no victim...

.is genius personified.

Clearly, considerable brain-power went into formulating the tenets
of modern liberalism: Tax increases will fuel an economic boom.
Reverse discrimination furthers racial harmony. Cutting defense
and a foreign policy that convinces the bin Ladens of the world
that we're a bunch of wimps is the way to keep America safe.
Handouts inculcate a work ethic. Gun control -- which disarms
potential victims -- is the best way to fight crime. Attacking
parental authority and facilitating family dissolution helps
children. Condom distribution promotes responsibility among
adolescents. Not drilling in the Artic Wildlife Refuge and
the virtual abandonment of nuclear power contributes to energy
self-sufficiency. Brilliant!... The Left sincerely believes that
ordinary Americans are imbeciles -- unfortunates who are sorely
in need of a keeper (big government) to bring us in out of the
rain and keep us from drooling all over ourselves (by Don Feder)
And conservatives think that government should be small, just small enough to fit in the bedroom. They think that causing the working classes to be afflicted by disease is the best way to get them to be productive. They think that the best way to prevent people being afflicted by crime is simply for the victims to kill the criminals. They think that "we hold these truthes to be self evident, that all men are created equal" should have the subclause "providing they aren't black, gay, poor, female or liberal". Their idea of political freedom is the freedom to buy the ballot box. A civil right is something you're free to do in polite company. The second amendment is sacrosant, but the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and fourteenth just get in the way making money and locking up people with dark skin.

For someone who extoles the virtues of hard work, you sure are willing to delegate the bother of writing a critique of liberalism to a bad Internet pudit and then copy and paste it. Yet another area where liberals like me differ from you.

You describe the nano-minority on the far, kicked out of the John Birch society for being too extreme, right. Essentially, your argument does nothing to persuade or argue, it merely squeals that I'm a hater and therefore, any position I might take is evil personified. If I'm opposed to gay "marriage", I must be a bigot. If I say that 30 years of Great Society has given us a lot of unintended and unfortunate consequences that need remedy, I'm a racist. In your world, political thought becomes banned hate speech.

If you think Don Feder is a hack, tell him, not me... he puts forth a succinct indictment of policies that continue to afflict our society. Your response to it is a personal attack on lazy ol' me. Good answer. Don't respond to the quote, just brand the quote as another fulmination from the fascist. Your statements just continue the same trend of attempting to squelch meaningful discourse. Very 1st ammendment. I support them all, thanks for asking.

BTW: By definition, a victim killing a criminal is no victim...
.is genius personified.

Clearly, considerable brain-power went into formulating the tenets
of modern liberalism: Tax increases will fuel an economic boom.
Reverse discrimination furthers racial harmony. Cutting defense
and a foreign policy that convinces the bin Ladens of the world
that we're a bunch of wimps is the way to keep America safe.
Handouts inculcate a work ethic. Gun control -- which disarms
potential victims -- is the best way to fight crime. Attacking
parental authority and facilitating family dissolution helps
children. Condom distribution promotes responsibility among
adolescents. Not drilling in the Artic Wildlife Refuge and
the virtual abandonment of nuclear power contributes to energy
self-sufficiency. Brilliant!... The Left sincerely believes that
ordinary Americans are imbeciles -- unfortunates who are sorely
in need of a keeper (big government) to bring us in out of the
rain and keep us from drooling all over ourselves (by Don Feder)
And conservatives think that government should be small, just small enough to fit in the bedroom. They think that causing the working classes to be afflicted by disease is the best way to get them to be productive. They think that the best way to prevent people being afflicted by crime is simply for the victims to kill the criminals. They think that "we hold these truthes to be self evident, that all men are created equal" should have the subclause "providing they aren't black, gay, poor, female or liberal". Their idea of political freedom is the freedom to buy the ballot box. A civil right is something you're free to do in polite company. The second amendment is sacrosant, but the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and fourteenth just get in the way making money and locking up people with dark skin.

For someone who extoles the virtues of hard work, you sure are willing to delegate the bother of writing a critique of liberalism to a bad Internet pudit and then copy and paste it. Yet another area where liberals like me differ from you.

...

The "nasty" aclu helps out christian churches.

***********************************

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PITTSBURGH - The American Civil Liberties Union of Greater Pittsburgh today announced the settlement of a federal civil rights lawsuit charging illegal race and religious discrimination in a local town’s refusal to issue a zoning permit to a predominantly African-American church.
The ACLU had filed the lawsuit in 2002 after the Borough of West Mifflin, located about 9 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, refused to issue an occupancy permit for an abandoned church building that the Second Baptist Church of Homestead had been trying to buy.
"We are pleased that the case has worked out to the parties’ satisfaction," said ACLU cooperating attorney Jon Pushinsky. "The interests of religious freedom have been advanced and there is now nothing to prevent the church and local officials from cooperating with each other for the betterment of the entire West Mifflin community."
Reverend Donald Turner of the Second Baptist Church added: "The church is very pleased that the whole matter has settled and that we can now focus on spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ."
The case arose after the Second Baptist Church, which has operated in the town of Homestead for 98 years, outgrew its space and sought to take over Grace Christian Church, located just up the road in neighboring West Mifflin. Members, family and friends had been turned away from funeral and wedding receptions because there was not enough room. The Church had been unable to expand its Bible study program and had to curtail its plans for a teen ministry program.
Grace Christian Church had closed after the Reverend Michael William Altman was imprisoned on fraud charges and the Second Baptist Church bought the property from the court-appointed trustee. Even though West Mifflin officials had granted Grace Christian Church an occupancy permit to operate a church in 1998, the Borough demanded that Second Baptist apply for and receive a permit. The Borough then denied the permit application without saying why, despite a state law requiring an explanation for such denials.
The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of the church in October 2002, claiming that the Borough’s refusal to issue a zoning permit allowing the predominantly African-American church to use an existing, but unused church was illegal discrimination.
In the midst of a series of preliminary injunction hearings in federal court, the Borough issued, without explanation, the occupancy permit sought by the church. Second Baptist continued the lawsuit to recoup financial losses it suffered as a result of the permit denial. With this settlement, the case is now concluded.
Witold Walczak, the Pittsburgh ACLU’s legal director who served as one of the Church’s lawyers, praised the settlement: "The good people of Second Baptist Church have their new building and they have been made whole through this settlement. The ACLU thanks West Mifflin Borough for helping to resolve this dispute amicably."
The case is Second Baptist Church of Homestead v. Borough of West Mifflin, CA-02-1834 (W.D.Pa., Cercone, J.). Earlier press releases and court papers in the case can be found online at http://www.aclu.org/

The "nasty" aclu helps out christian churches.

***********************************

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PITTSBURGH - The American Civil Liberties Union of Greater Pittsburgh today announced the settlement of a federal civil rights lawsuit charging illegal race and religious discrimination in a local town’s refusal to issue a zoning permit to a predominantly African-American church.
The ACLU had filed the lawsuit in 2002 after the Borough of West Mifflin, located about 9 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, refused to issue an occupancy permit for an abandoned church building that the Second Baptist Church of Homestead had been trying to buy.
"We are pleased that the case has worked out to the parties’ satisfaction," said ACLU cooperating attorney Jon Pushinsky. "The interests of religious freedom have been advanced and there is now nothing to prevent the church and local officials from cooperating with each other for the betterment of the entire West Mifflin community."
Reverend Donald Turner of the Second Baptist Church added: "The church is very pleased that the whole matter has settled and that we can now focus on spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ."
The case arose after the Second Baptist Church, which has operated in the town of Homestead for 98 years, outgrew its space and sought to take over Grace Christian Church, located just up the road in neighboring West Mifflin. Members, family and friends had been turned away from funeral and wedding receptions because there was not enough room. The Church had been unable to expand its Bible study program and had to curtail its plans for a teen ministry program.
Grace Christian Church had closed after the Reverend Michael William Altman was imprisoned on fraud charges and the Second Baptist Church bought the property from the court-appointed trustee. Even though West Mifflin officials had granted Grace Christian Church an occupancy permit to operate a church in 1998, the Borough demanded that Second Baptist apply for and receive a permit. The Borough then denied the permit application without saying why, despite a state law requiring an explanation for such denials.
The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of the church in October 2002, claiming that the Borough’s refusal to issue a zoning permit allowing the predominantly African-American church to use an existing, but unused church was illegal discrimination.
In the midst of a series of preliminary injunction hearings in federal court, the Borough issued, without explanation, the occupancy permit sought by the church. Second Baptist continued the lawsuit to recoup financial losses it suffered as a result of the permit denial. With this settlement, the case is now concluded.
Witold Walczak, the Pittsburgh ACLU’s legal director who served as one of the Church’s lawyers, praised the settlement: "The good people of Second Baptist Church have their new building and they have been made whole through this settlement. The ACLU thanks West Mifflin Borough for helping to resolve this dispute amicably."
The case is Second Baptist Church of Homestead v. Borough of West Mifflin, CA-02-1834 (W.D.Pa., Cercone, J.). Earlier press releases and court papers in the case can be found online at http://www.aclu.org/

The "nasty" aclu helps out christian churches.

***********************************

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PITTSBURGH - The American Civil Liberties Union of Greater Pittsburgh today announced the settlement of a federal civil rights lawsuit charging illegal race and religious discrimination in a local town’s refusal to issue a zoning permit to a predominantly African-American church.
The ACLU had filed the lawsuit in 2002 after the Borough of West Mifflin, located about 9 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, refused to issue an occupancy permit for an abandoned church building that the Second Baptist Church of Homestead had been trying to buy.
"We are pleased that the case has worked out to the parties’ satisfaction," said ACLU cooperating attorney Jon Pushinsky. "The interests of religious freedom have been advanced and there is now nothing to prevent the church and local officials from cooperating with each other for the betterment of the entire West Mifflin community."
Reverend Donald Turner of the Second Baptist Church added: "The church is very pleased that the whole matter has settled and that we can now focus on spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ."
The case arose after the Second Baptist Church, which has operated in the town of Homestead for 98 years, outgrew its space and sought to take over Grace Christian Church, located just up the road in neighboring West Mifflin. Members, family and friends had been turned away from funeral and wedding receptions because there was not enough room. The Church had been unable to expand its Bible study program and had to curtail its plans for a teen ministry program.
Grace Christian Church had closed after the Reverend Michael William Altman was imprisoned on fraud charges and the Second Baptist Church bought the property from the court-appointed trustee. Even though West Mifflin officials had granted Grace Christian Church an occupancy permit to operate a church in 1998, the Borough demanded that Second Baptist apply for and receive a permit. The Borough then denied the permit application without saying why, despite a state law requiring an explanation for such denials.
The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of the church in October 2002, claiming that the Borough’s refusal to issue a zoning permit allowing the predominantly African-American church to use an existing, but unused church was illegal discrimination.
In the midst of a series of preliminary injunction hearings in federal court, the Borough issued, without explanation, the occupancy permit sought by the church. Second Baptist continued the lawsuit to recoup financial losses it suffered as a result of the permit denial. With this settlement, the case is now concluded.
Witold Walczak, the Pittsburgh ACLU’s legal director who served as one of the Church’s lawyers, praised the settlement: "The good people of Second Baptist Church have their new building and they have been made whole through this settlement. The ACLU thanks West Mifflin Borough for helping to resolve this dispute amicably."
The case is Second Baptist Church of Homestead v. Borough of West Mifflin, CA-02-1834 (W.D.Pa., Cercone, J.). Earlier press releases and court papers in the case can be found online at http://www.aclu.org/

As Quellan says, history will be the ultimate judge as to whether Iraq was the best place for the West to launch an offensive in its global war against the radical Islamacists. Wars seldom turn out exactly as you plan them, and the victories are rarely 100% (even WWII had the unfortunate and unintended side-effect of Eastern Europe coming under totalitarian domination for half a century). I don't think you could call Iraq "low-hanging fruit" any more than you could apply that term to the campaigns in Sicily and Italy during WWII. These are hard-fought battles in a very long war; so it is with Iraq.

I think they just go for the "low hanging fruit". They are well meaning but tend toward the quick fix with no exit strategy or consideration for the long term solution.

Are you kidding me? Look at Iraq.

History will ultimately determine whether or not IRAQ made sense. I was actually thinking more about fiscal and social policies. But since you brought it up it may also apply to foreign policy. In my mind ignoring the problem for 12 more years would equate to the low hanging fruit. Its a cheap shot for me to say we ignored the problem, the fact is our policies (sanctions, no-fly zones, diplomacy, etc) had no effect on Saddaam and HE CHOSE not to comply with the final UN ultimatim.

Maybe they are evil, because the more I learn about capitalism and how to rule the world, the more evil I become. I started as a Libertarian, now I'm republican. So my opinion, all liberal hearts contain good and evil. :twisted:

Liberals aren't evil but they are truly sinister politicians!!

You describe the nano-minority on the far, kicked out of the John Birch society for being too extreme, right. Yes, whereas what you said was an accurate and fair depiction of liberalism :roll

Essentially, your argument does nothing to persuade or argue, it merely squeals that I'm a hater and therefore, any position I might take is evil personified. If I'm opposed to gay "marriage", I must be a bigot. If I say that 30 years of Great Society has given us a lot of unintended and unfortunate consequences that need remedy, I'm a racist. In your world, political thought becomes banned hate speech. Yes, I'm restricting your right to express yourself politically. By saying what I believe, I am not expressing my opinion, but I am in fact trying to censor you.

Your position isn't evil personified. For a start off, a position has no physical body therefore cannot be a personification of anything, but that aside, I don't belive that you or your position are evil. However, they are certainly conductive to evil, or lead to events that would undoubtably be considered evil, such as the destruction of the environment, death of many people, the oppression of those who want to exercise their right to their own body etc etc.

If you think Don Feder is a hack, tell him, not me... he puts forth a succinct indictment of policies that continue to afflict our society. Your response to it is a personal attack on lazy ol' me. Good answer. Don't respond to the quote, just brand the quote as another fulmination from the fascist. Moronic, simply moronic. I put forward my own criticism along the same lines, a parady even of yours (Don Feder's), but you say that I haven't replied to it. Its like you don't even do more than skim read what I reply (only backing up your reputation as being lazy I suppose)

Your statements just continue the same trend of attempting to squelch meaningful discourse. Very 1st ammendment. I support them all, thanks for asking. Even assuming that I am trying to squelch meaningful discourse, I don't think that I can be described as being anti first amendment. You don't believe me? Ok, go on, quote the first amendment. Now, how can I break it? Am I a member of Congress? Can I pass laws? No and no. Now, seeing as it only perscribes how Congress shall behave to free speech etc, I don't see how I can. Can you please explain this one to me?

Liberal , communist ,socialist , democrat. Four words that mean the same thing. :D

By the same token, Alphaks II = Eejit.

Apologies if your comment was tongue in cheek.

Nope they are all different shades of red to me! Red meaning commie.

Semantics and Nitpicking. "Evil personified... a position has no etc" fine, you score a point in the close reading. I cited and credited the the "bad pundit" Feder but your microscopic tooth-combing would do Bartleby the Scrivener proud. Ho-hum. I admit to assuming that free speech and first amendment might be used interchangeably, lazy ol' me again... how quickly you wrote me down with a slashing "am I Congress?" retort. Is a paid strike breaker "Congress" when he murders a union man on the picket? Free Speech or 1st amendment, the striker is just as dead, his right to protest equally so. The rights enumerated are inalienable meaning they are not given to me by anyone. I possess them in total where ever I go. They may be repressed, infringed and squelched in many ways. First and foremost, by an oversized, bloated slag heap of federal bureaucracy, but in a corrosive way by incivil discourse. Your condescending attitude in labeling me lazy as an individual or espousing "moronic" positions or skim reading makes responding to you both a sad chore and a necessity. But since your response to Feder's quote and my lackadaisical use of it brought out the conservative dragon-slayer in you, let's take another look at it shall we.

"And conservatives think that government should be small, just small enough to fit in the bedroom."

The activist courts spend all day trying to keep the evil conservative at bay here. Gay marriage? I don't think any legislatures had this on their agenda, but not to worry, write me a law and make it snappy the Mass. Supremes ordered. Sodomy is legal says the highest court in the land. All that censorship conservatives are pushing sure got the Andy Griffith show back on the tube...it's on right after Will & Graceful Queer Ass Guy or whatever it is this week. Looks like the 700 clubbers are winning the anti-buggery fight... as a chill wind blows across the wasteland of sexual frustration. You want an example of gov't in the bedroom, try the Red Communist Chinese Rolling abortion clinic coming soon to a shack near you to enforce the will of the benevolent leadership. No outrage? They must be on the "choice" side of the argument and therefore exempt from liberal admonishment.

"They think that causing the working classes to be afflicted by disease is the best way to get them to be productive."

Thanks for the pablum there Mr Joad. Better load up the truck and head for Cuba. I think this one falls squarely in the Maxine Waters CONspiricy/CIA distributing crack expose file pretty neatly. Wrap that rascal by all means. If you aren't given a Federal condom it's not your fault when your Hoo-hah runs like Ted Kennedy from a creekside crime scene. I'm sure a trial lawyer will improve your chances for quality healthcare by sinking every doctor or hospital that dares to make a dime over cost. What will all the socialist countries do when all the medical device innovation and new drugs aren't getting produced in the good ol' USA anymore.

They think that the best way to prevent people being afflicted by crime is simply for the victims to kill the criminals.

I assume you mean self defense. I think a criminal shot dead is a good start. I don't care what color he is either. Dead knows no discrimination. It's just dead and good riddance. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn't mean you have to be afficted by people crazy enough to enter your home intent on evil. Have you actually had a criminal over to the house lately? They're the best sort of people. They drop in anytime and never, ever forget to close the window on the way out. Face it. The cops show up to write the report. Crime goes down if the bad guy (perjoritive, I admit), doesn't know that his victim has been relieved of any means of self defense. Death penalty? A vindinctive waste of money on lawyers and all that. Life sentence works for me.

They think that "we hold these truthes to be self evident, that all men are created equal" should have the subclause "providing they aren't black, gay, poor, female or liberal".

Bollocks. Sorry it just slipped out. Certainly you could agree that this country isn't perfect but it's heading that way a little faster than say, North Korea. This country has made monumental strides in the last 50 years alone. Slavery exists in the Sudan today. Try saying something about that in Khartoum. Bill Cosby's dad was a welder. Mr Cosby Sr's son is a millionaire. Oprah could run for Prez and win. Token? No, America. Women's rights? Burkah is my answer. We don't have them. Stop acting like we do. The partisan venom on both sides prevents an appreciative look at equality and possibility in this country.

Their idea of political freedom is the freedom to buy the ballot box.

Breathe deep and say it slowly. Al Gore lost. And you lost me here. If the right buys, I want a refund. I should be able to buy a Senate that could get a Presidential judicial nomination voted on in less than 2 years. And what about Tip Oneill and 30 years in the minority of Congress? Surely, the right wing led Junta of our banana republic could have found a retirement home for Robert "Grand Dragon" Byrd and Co across a span that long.

The second amendment is sacrosant, but the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and fourteenth just get in the way making money and locking up people with dark skin.

Oh, I see. Evil coroporate raider/robber barons. I like how that sounds. The left NEVER infringes the rights, human and inalienable. In a foot race to destroy man Joe Stalin and Mao combined left the right in the dust. It's a record to be proud of I'm sure.

You describe the nano-minority on the far, kicked out of the John Birch society for being too extreme, right.

And you describe the nano-minority on the far, far left. What's your point here?

If I'm opposed to gay "marriage", I must be a bigot.

You may or may not be. But opposed or not, anyone with any sense has to realize that actually banning it is blatantly unconstitutional.

If I say that 30 years of Great Society has given us a lot of unintended and unfortunate consequences that need remedy, I'm a racist.

If you are referring to Affirmative Action, I agree with you here. And no, that doesn't make you a racist.

In your world, political thought becomes banned hate speech.

You weren't talking to me here, so I won't worry too much about this.

If you think Don Feder is a hack, tell him not me... he puts forth a succinct indictment of policies that continue to afflict our society.

Except that very few, if any, people hold all of these views at once. For instance, I don't know whether or not tax increases cause the economy to improve, but I do know that if the government is going to increase spending, they need to increase taxes. If I want to buy something worth a lot of money, I am not going to change jobs to a lower paying job, I'm going to try and do the opposite.

I think reverse discrimination further lowers the minority while also pissing off the majority.

I don't think we need to cut defense, but I also don't think it's our place to go around forcing countries into our form of government. I also don't think we should start getting rid of poor dictators unless we're going to do it everywhere (in which case, where do we get all that money?)

Gun control does not disarm anyone who should be armed in the first place. All it does is keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons (many of whom have already shown irresponsibility with weapons). Gun control doesn't tell you you can't have a gun, it just asks that you prove yourself responsible enough to have one. Why is that so bad?

Attacking parental authority and facilitating family dissolution helps children.

Not sure exactly what this means here. I am certainly not for attacking parental authority, but I know from personal experience that if a family is already disfunctional, divorce can be the best possible thing for the children.

Instructions on condom use *does* promote responsibility among adolescents. Truth is, those that don't want to have sex won't and those that do want to, will. I think condoms should be next to the bubble gum in the grocery store line (as long as nobody gets the two mixed up).

I am against drilling in the Artic Wildlife Refuge and think we should have a whole lot more nuclear power plants.

The (Right) sincerely believes that ordinary Americans are (immoral) imbeciles -- unfortunates who are sorely in need of a (father) (government) to (spank us when we are not harming anyone and shield our eyes from anything he doesn't like).

Well said, Dragon Pirates... :wink:

Semantics and Nitpicking. "Evil personified... a position has no etc" fine, you score a point in the close reading. I cited and credited the the "bad pundit" Feder but your microscopic tooth-combing would do Bartleby the Scrivener proud. Ho-hum. I admit to assuming that free speech and first amendment might be used interchangeably, lazy ol' me again... how quickly you wrote me down with a slashing "am I Congress?" retort. Is a paid strike breaker "Congress" when he murders a union man on the picket? Free Speech or 1st amendment, the striker is just as dead, his right to protest equally so. The rights enumerated are inalienable meaning they are not given to me by anyone. I possess them in total where ever I go. They may be repressed, infringed and squelched in many ways. First and foremost, by an oversized, bloated slag heap of federal bureaucracy, but in a corrosive way by incivil discourse. Your condescending attitude in labeling me lazy as an individual or espousing "moronic" positions or skim reading makes responding to you both a sad chore and a necessity. But since your response to Feder's quote and my lackadaisical use of it brought out the conservative dragon-slayer in you, let's take another look at it shall we.

"And conservatives think that government should be small, just small enough to fit in the bedroom."

The activist courts spend all day trying to keep the evil conservative at bay here. Gay marriage? I don't think any legislatures had this on their agenda, but not to worry, write me a law and make it snappy the Mass. Supremes ordered. Sodomy is legal says the highest court in the land. All that censorship conservatives are pushing sure got the Andy Griffith show back on the tube...it's on right after Will & Graceful Queer Ass Guy or whatever it is this week. Looks like the 700 clubbers are winning the anti-buggery fight... as a chill wind blows across the wasteland of sexual frustration. You want an example of gov't in the bedroom, try the Red Communist Chinese Rolling abortion clinic coming soon to a shack near you to enforce the will of the benevolent leadership. No outrage? They must be on the "choice" side of the argument and therefore exempt from liberal admonishment.

"They think that causing the working classes to be afflicted by disease is the best way to get them to be productive."

Thanks for the pablum there Mr Joad. Better load up the truck and head for Cuba. I think this one falls squarely in the Maxine Waters CONspiricy/CIA distributing crack expose file pretty neatly. Wrap that rascal by all means. If you aren't given a Federal condom it's not your fault when your Hoo-hah runs like Ted Kennedy from a creekside crime scene. I'm sure a trial lawyer will improve your chances for quality healthcare by sinking every doctor or hospital that dares to make a dime over cost. What will all the socialist countries do when all the medical device innovation and new drugs aren't getting produced in the good ol' USA anymore.

They think that the best way to prevent people being afflicted by crime is simply for the victims to kill the criminals.

I assume you mean self defense. I think a criminal shot dead is a good start. I don't care what color he is either. Dead knows no discrimination. It's just dead and good riddance. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn't mean you have to be afficted by people crazy enough to enter your home intent on evil. Have you actually had a criminal over to the house lately? They're the best sort of people. They drop in anytime and never, ever forget to close the window on the way out. Face it. The cops show up to write the report. Crime goes down if the bad guy (perjoritive, I admit), doesn't know that his victim has been relieved of any means of self defense. Death penalty? A vindinctive waste of money on lawyers and all that. Life sentence works for me.

They think that "we hold these truthes to be self evident, that all men are created equal" should have the subclause "providing they aren't black, gay, poor, female or liberal".

Bollocks. Sorry it just slipped out. Certainly you could agree that this country isn't perfect but it's heading that way a little faster than say, North Korea. This country has made monumental strides in the last 50 years alone. Slavery exists in the Sudan today. Try saying something about that in Khartoum. Bill Cosby's dad was a welder. Mr Cosby Sr's son is a millionaire. Oprah could run for Prez and win. Token? No, America. Women's rights? Burkah is my answer. We don't have them. Stop acting like we do. The partisan venom on both sides prevents an appreciative look at equality and possibility in this country.

Their idea of political freedom is the freedom to buy the ballot box.

Breathe deep and say it slowly. Al Gore lost. And you lost me here. If the right buys, I want a refund. I should be able to buy a Senate that could get a Presidential judicial nomination voted on in less than 2 years. And what about Tip Oneill and 30 years in the minority of Congress? Surely, the right wing led Junta of our banana republic could have found a retirement home for Robert "Grand Dragon" Byrd and Co across a span that long.

The second amendment is sacrosant, but the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and fourteenth just get in the way making money and locking up people with dark skin.

Oh, I see. Evil coroporate raider/robber barons. I like how that sounds. The left NEVER infringes the rights, human and inalienable. In a foot race to destroy man Joe Stalin and Mao combined left the right in the dust. It's a record to be proud of I'm sure.