NationStates Jolt Archive

It is important to note that most of my statements are generalizations of the liberal agenda, I'm not saying that all liberals stand for all of these things.

Where to start is really the question.

I guess I could start with national sovereignty. It seems that liberals would have us give all of our rights as a nation over to the United Nations, that wonderful group of dictators and thugs that hate us. The group that replaced the United States on the human rights commission with a current perpetrator of genocide, Sudan. The group whose leader denounced the United States that we were not doing enough for AIDs in Africa and the world even though we just authorized hundreds of billions of dollars in combating AIDs.

It seems liberals would elevate the rights of an insect over the rights of their fellow man to make a living.

It seems liberals would rather have everyone dependent on the government so that we would vote them into power just so we could keep our jobs and the free money coming in.

It seems liberals would rather have something bad happen, like the economy tanking, so that they could blame Bush and they could be elected.

It seems liberals would rather restrict investment, savings, and work by taxing it to death.

A great line from Reagan using humor to describe the liberal position on taxes. "If it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it, if it stops moving subsidize it."

It seems like liberals would rather not have a military at all, therefore freeing up more money to spend on their utopian dreams.

It seems like liberals are huge supporters of infanticide, killing babies inches away from being born by sucking out their brains with vacuums.

It seems like liberals acting through the ACLU would have absolutely no mention of God in the public square even though this country was founded on Christian principles. They would rewrite history to make it seem like this nation was secular from the beginning. Heaven forbid that we actually teach that it was Christians who first landed on this continent, they would rather skip right to the Revolutionary war.

The "tolerant" wing of the Democratic party is really quite intolerant of anything remotely related to Christianity.

Liberals tend to be great believers in political correctness, that great system in which you are entitled not to be offended unless you are a part of the following groups: Christians, "rednecks", members of the NRA, or anyone with a conservative bone in their bodies.

There I'm finished with my rant.

WB ... I hope the storm passed harmlessly for you.

Are you a genuine conservatist or a liberal making a sarcastic post? The sad thing about the right is that it is hard to tell the difference between genuine and sarcastic anymore..

No, most of that post is quite serious, some of the statements have a sarcastic tone but that was not the intent.

It is important to note that most of my statements are generalizations of the liberal agenda, I'm not saying that all liberals stand for all of these things.

Where to start is really the question.

I guess I could start with national sovereignty. It seems that liberals would have us give all of our rights as a nation over to the United Nations, that wonderful group of dictators and thugs that hate us. The group that replaced the United States on the human rights commission with a current perpetrator of genocide, Sudan. The group whose leader denounced the United States that we were not doing enough for AIDs in Africa and the world even though we just authorized hundreds of billions of dollars in combating AIDs.

It seems liberals would elevate the rights of an insect over the rights of their fellow man to make a living.

It seems liberals would rather have everyone dependent on the government so that we would vote them into power just so we could keep our jobs and the free money coming in.

It seems liberals would rather have something bad happen, like the economy tanking, so that they could blame Bush and they could be elected.

It seems liberals would rather restrict investment, savings, and work by taxing it to death.

A great line from Reagan using humor to describe the liberal position on taxes. "If it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it, if it stops moving subsidize it."

It seems like liberals would rather not have a military at all, therefore freeing up more money to spend on their utopian dreams.

It seems like liberals are huge supporters of infanticide, killing babies inches away from being born by sucking out their brains with vacuums.

It seems like liberals acting through the ACLU would have absolutely no mention of God in the public square even though this country was founded on Christian principles. They would rewrite history to make it seem like this nation was secular from the beginning. Heaven forbid that we actually teach that it was Christians who first landed on this continent, they would rather skip right to the Revolutionary war.

The "tolerant" wing of the Democratic party is really quite intolerant of anything remotely related to Christianity.

Liberals tend to be great believers in political correctness, that great system in which you are entitled not to be offended unless you are a part of the following groups: Christians, "rednecks", members of the NRA, or anyone with a conservative bone in their bodies.

There I'm finished with my rant.


A great line from Reagan using humor to describe the liberal position on taxes. "If it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it, if it stops moving subsidize it."

And lo and behold Reagon raised taxs on the economy too after cutting taxes
Does that make himn a Liberal :)


The "tolerant" wing of the Democratic party is really quite intolerant of anything remotely related to Christianity.
And so they are intolerant to themselves? Many Democrats are Christians mind you.


Heaven forbid that we actually teach that it was Christians who first landed on this continent, they would rather skip right to the Revolutionary war.
Actually it was the Native Americans who first landed in America (many studies proof many came from ship). Second the Norse visited, and Columbus was a Catholic not the kind of Christian you mean.


It seems like liberals would rather not have a military at all, therefore freeing up more money to spend on their utopian dreams. [quote]

And yet you forget that Republicans were Liberals back long ago, and Democrats were republicans. I'm not sure the exact date when they switched to be like they are now but they were.
Jefferson Republicans aren't the republicans you think of now aday, they were democrats in ideas and actions.

[quote] It seems liberals would elevate the rights of an insect over the rights of their fellow man to make a living.

And yet Democrats raise minimum wage so fellow men make more than insects? Geex, and people except corparations are earning less than before Bush?

It is important to note that most of my statements are generalizations of the liberal agenda, I'm not saying that all liberals stand for all of these things.

Noted


I guess I could start with national sovereignty. It seems that liberals would have us give all of our rights as a nation over to the United Nations, that wonderful group of dictators and thugs that hate us. The group that replaced the United States on the human rights commission with a current perpetrator of genocide, Sudan. The group whose leader denounced the United States that we were not doing enough for AIDs in Africa and the world even though we just authorized hundreds of billions of dollars in combating AIDs.

Granted there are plenty of problems with the UN, after all, it is fairly new at this whole World responsability stuff, they've only been around since '45. But, the United States could at least help them along. Just about every conservative President and even a bunch of democratic ones have been intent on moving away from the UN. With the one world superpower doing pretty much everything it can to ignore the UN, it stands to reason why they would be having problems. If the US would actually help the UN along, maybe we could get somewhere.

It seems liberals would elevate the rights of an insect over the rights of their fellow man to make a living.

I don't even know how you arrived there.

It seems liberals would rather have everyone dependent on the government so that we would vote them into power just so we could keep our jobs and the free money coming in.

Again, not true. Liberals would rather have a government that has complete social programs. Say, like those of Sweden. Liberals don't want everyone dependent upon the government for everything, they would rather have a government that actually looks out for people rather than ignores them with the exception of taxes. Free healthcare, free education through college, Liberals want that sort of thing.

It seems liberals would rather have something bad happen, like the economy tanking, so that they could blame Bush and they could be elected.

No, Liberals would rather have the country doing well. A poor country really helps no one. Its just when someone screws up that country, like Bush, that the liberals can blame him and get re-elected. You think we want to country to go to crap so we can save it through re-election. No, we want the country to do well, its when it goes to crap that we go for re-election. Everything else is politics.

It seems liberals would rather restrict investment, savings, and work by taxing it to death.

Two things. Taxes are how you run a government, they are there for a purpose. Secondly, unregulated business is not a good thing. Thats why its regulated.

It seems like liberals would rather not have a military at all, therefore freeing up more money to spend on their utopian dreams.

We would rather have a small army to serve in a defensive capacity only. We don't need a massive army because that can only be used to attack people. If we have a defensive army, we take care of our national defense concerns. Once that is done, we have plenty of money to take care of our domestic programs, without jeopardizing the defensive army.

It seems like liberals are huge supporters of infanticide, killing babies inches away from being born by sucking out their brains with vacuums.

That's the abortion debate. That all depends on where you think life begins and what you consider the baby while it is in the mother. Personally, I supprot abortion, but I know many liberals who oppose it.

It seems like liberals acting through the ACLU would have absolutely no mention of God in the public square even though this country was founded on Christian principles. They would rewrite history to make it seem like this nation was secular from the beginning. Heaven forbid that we actually teach that it was Christians who first landed on this continent, they would rather skip right to the Revolutionary war.

I thought we already disproved you on this. Twice. Get over the thought that the US is a Christian nation, its not. Christians may have been the first Europeans here, but the nation's principles are not christian.


Liberals tend to be great believers in political correctness, that great system in which you are entitled not to be offended unless you are a part of the following groups: Christians, "rednecks", members of the NRA, or anyone with a conservative bone in their bodies.

This I'm just going to ignore because republicans in politics, except for the governator, are just as concerned about political correctness. If republicans ran around yelling out slurs, they would be out of office, so you can't make that a partisan issue.

mmmmm .... beef.

No, most of that post is quite serious, some of the statements have a sarcastic tone but that was not the intent.

Yes I made it through Alex just fine, it ended up that the storm passed within 80 miles of the coast where I'm at, it would have been great if I was a surfer, but I'm not.

This country was founded on christian principles if you count genocide as one of them.

We stole it from the Native Americans, and killed off just about all of 'em in the process. We came here, killed off the native inhabitants in the name of god, destroyed their culture and put ours in its place. And as far as I have known, that is quite thoroughly against christian principles.

Regan let genocide happen in Iraq, because the Iraqis were fighting Iran and, oh my god even the thought of letting morals interfere with foreign policy sends shivers down my spine. Now this has happened, however, in just about every US presidential term. What's happening in Sudan is clearly genocide, but the US government yet again makes the mistake of calling it 'ethnic cleansing' and therefore avoids the international pressure to act that would come with a genocide declaration. In fact, the United States, in all our glory, only adopted the genocide convention in the 1980's, and have never even once dared to use it. That would be doing good. People might actually respect the united states. Nope, can't let that happen.

Conservatives seem to dismiss efforts for social progress as "Communism" and "Utopian Dreams." I mean, is England really doing that badly?

No, most of that post is quite serious, some of the statements have a sarcastic tone but that was not the intent.


So what I hear you saying is that the way you believe America should be is the correct way and that your beliefs even if not shared by others should be forced unto people because after all it is what you believe. That as the faithful Christian you are people shouldn't help other people. That if a woman is raped or victim of incest or is 14 years old she should except the fact of her life being ruined by an unwanted and un-chosen pregnancy. That we should not as women have a say in what we do with our bodies but rather it should be up to the government to decide what people do with their bodies, because again your religious beliefs tell you that and therefore you feel you should force your views onto every one else because that's what freedom is all about.

Here is a thought, believe in your beliefs, all the power to you, but never except and think you should have a right to impose those beliefs on others unless you'd like to live in a theocracy which I believe there are a few in the world any time freedom is starting to get to you.

The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion.

-- George Washington & John Adams

great post Steph

I see the same thing coming from the majority of teh right

As your statements are, as you've already put it, generalizations, there is no need to dispute what you've said. I'm sure you can find some liberals who would agree with your generalizations about them. However, I suppose that means that we can now start using those same type of generalizations to describe the Republicans and their conservative agenda:

1. Conservatives value business over people and have even gone so far as to establish that businesses have the same rights that a human being does.

2. Conservatives preach tolerance about Christianity because they believe the rest of the world is ignorant about who God is and feel it is their path into heaven to educate them by beating them over the head with their Bible.

2a. Of course, not all Christians are the right kind of Christians to Conservatives. Lutherans, for example, are considered evil. Episcopalians are just plain dirty. Catholics are only useful when its time for the election. Before and after that, they are a cult intent on destroying the world with their statues. The only true Christian to a conservative is a southern Baptist.

3. Conservatives seem to want to destroy 70 years of working to bring the world together by undermining everything that the United Nations stands for...unless the United Nations serves a purpose to them. At that point, the UN is to follow the United States' example and not have any independent thought whatsoever.

4. Conservatives preach about a smaller government and want to eliminate all types of welfare, except for corporate welfare, which is ok because it helps out businesses and those that don't need the help to begin with. However, while preaching about small government, they neglect to actually follow through, instead expanding government every time they have the chance to.

5. Seems that Conservatives will go to the ends of the earth screaming that a fetus has more rights than its mother. They scream about how we shouldn't play God with life and that life must respected at all costs. Of course, they then advocate whole-heartedly for the death penalty, which is also placing man into a position to play God as well.

5a. Don't forget that the fetus is only important to Conservatives until it is actually born. At that point, Conservatives like to tell the child that they are responsible for being dirt poor and they are just lazy and ignorant and don't deserve government assistance. Hey, they should just go out and get a job.

6. Conservatives seem to feel that the military is more important than all other aspects of life. Having enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world a hundred times over isn't good enough. More is needed. All government money should go directly into the military for weapons, but not actually for the troops or their families. After all, they are just good for photo opportunities. If they could cite a reference for it, they would refer to Jesus as a General and his Apostles were his private militia.

7. Conservatives seem to want to re-write history about the fact that the founding fathers made every effort to ensure that the nation would not become a religious state. They tend to re-write history, speaking only of those people of Christian ancestry who came here and neglecting all others. Never mind the fact that those early settlers would not be accepted by today's conservatives, because they aren't the right kind of Christians.

8. It seems that Conservatives can't accept responsibility for anything bad that happens, preferring instead to blame their predecessors. However, anything good that happens is directly resulting from their astute leadership. When something happens that they can't shift the blame to their predecessors, they fall upon each other like a hungry pack of wolves to see who will get the blame.

9. It seems that Conservatives want to take everyone's retirement, investments, and pensions and move it into the hands of their frends so they can make a few dollars off of it. However, should those investments fail, it is the fault of the person who now is left penniless. But they can't have assistance from the government as a result because that would mean they are lazy and ignorant.

Are these generalizations equivalent to what the everyday Conservative believes, or are they just the same type of stereotypes?

So what I hear you saying is that the way you believe America should be is the correct way and that your beliefs even if not shared by others should be forced unto people because after all it is what you believe. That as the faithful Christian you are people shouldn't help other people. That if a woman is raped or victim of incest or is 14 years old she should except the fact of her life being ruined by an unwanted and un-chosen pregnancy. That we should not as women have a say in what we do with our bodies but rather it should be up to the government to decide what people do with their bodies, because again your religious beliefs tell you that and therefore you feel you should force your views onto every one else because that's what freedom is all about.

Christians should be the first to step up and offer to help this woman through her tough times. But just because she was the victim of a rape does not justify killing an innocent. It absolutely does not and never will. We could argue back and forth over whether or not life begins at conception, but it doesn't matter. What will the fetus be? A fish or a wooly mammoth? No; one hundred percent of the time it will be a human being. Religious beliefs play into this, but the belief that an innocent should not be murdered is a universal belief.

Here is a thought, believe in your beliefs, all the power to you, but never except and think you should have a right to impose those beliefs on others unless you'd like to live in a theocracy which I believe there are a few in the world any time freedom is starting to get to you.

Religious beliefs should not be imposed on others, which is why I don't believe in school prayer or teaching the creation theory. But, morality does not have to be derived from religious beliefs. Freedom is great. It's what makes this country. But certain freedoms we don't have. Like the freedom to murder. Or the freedom to snort cocaine. We may have the free will to do so, but not the freedom.

Hrm...if a 2 day old fetus is a potential human and it is a crime to kill one, then where is the limit? When is masturbation going to be illegal due to the murder of thousands of potential humans (sperm)?

Concerning the UN, it should be noted that while many (even, God forbid now, most) Americans see the United Nations as a forum for the world to trash the United States, much of the rest of the world sees the UN as simply "America's bitch," because we are powerful enough to do damn well whatever we want without them, and tend to use our veto power extremely extravagantly.

You complain that the UN tried to stop us from invading Iraq. Except the UN was right, Iraq had no WMDs. But it still isn't fair! The Dems want to sell us out, and make our foreign policy dependant on "them."

But the rest of the world resents the fact that we have intervened more than 100 times to prevent Israel from being sanctioned for their actions against the Palestinians, when pretty much 95% of the world belives Israel should be punished. But the US vetos it down, every time. Both sides are not happy with the arrangement.

Basically, liberals support an agenda that benefits the WORLD. Fair trade, helping Africa fix itself, environmental treaties, defense pacts. Conservatives seem to support a global agenda as long as it only benefits us: "free" trade, outsourcing, crop subsidies, ignoring weapon treaties.

Liberals believe it is better to run a budget with plenty of money to ensure a full education for all who seek one, where someone down on their luck can receive aid, and those who had to put up with centuries of discrimination are helped to undue the still-lasting damage, than to have a huge honkin' military that can beat any other military's ass down. I strangely do not find that wrong, seeing that the only democratic nation who spend anywhere near us on the military as a percentage of GDP is Israel, who have been on "terrorist warning red" for the past 50 years.

And may I direct you to the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

That means that if any one religion becomes a part of any government program, ALL religions must then become a part of that program. That means that if schools were to teach your Christian doctrine, they would also have to cover every other religion there is, because in the eyes of the Constitution and our government, all have equal validity and weight. Anyone can worship in any way they choose, at any time they choose, HOWEVER, except they cannot do it as part of a government insitution.

Isn't unlimited freedom to do whatever you pretty much want as long as you don't do it on the government's turf enough for you religious folks? Why could you possibly want more?

As for liberal "utopia dreams"? You imply then, that a liberal's perfect world would be one of happiness, equality, and fairness. What's so bad about that? IMHO conservatives dream of a world where corporations ARE the government and everyone is happy, as long as you believe exactly what they say.

Hrm...if a 2 day old fetus is a potential human and it is a crime to kill one, then where is the limit? When is masturbation going to be illegal due to the murder of thousands of potential humans (sperm)?

You worried about going to jail?

OK, sorry, I had to say it.....

It seems like liberals acting through the ACLU would have absolutely no mention of God in the public square even though this country was founded on Christian principles. They would rewrite history to make it seem like this nation was secular from the beginning. Heaven forbid that we actually teach that it was Christians who first landed on this continent, they would rather skip right to the Revolutionary war.

Totally false. The constitution has no mention of Christianity being the official religion.

There I'm finished with my rant.

Too bad the world is not simply black and white. You might be happier! ;)

Christians should be the first to step up and offer to help this woman through her tough times. But just because she was the victim of a rape does not justify killing an innocent.

Well, if you want to call a couple of cells life, I suppose, I mean life is a rather broad term, don't ever cut a flower, don't ever cut a tree down. Stop eating meat. Because who could argue that a cow isn't innocent? I mean what harm has a cow ever done to you? Or is life only important how you define it? Oh, what? A cow isn't as intelligent as us? Well either are people with mental retardation, shall we kill them to? Who exactly decides these things any way? Religion? No, they don't, thank gosh for separation of Church and State. You don't have to like it and you may believe it's wrong, but the law says it's not wrong. We who live in "free" countries live according to laws, not according to biblical scripture. That would make us a theocracy. If it's not right for you, don't do it. You have no right to force your beliefs onto other people who don't share your views.

In India for example cows are treated better then humans. If you kill a cow you can actually go to jail. The people starve while the cow eats. This is part of Hindu religion. Do you also believe this? Or does only your religion matter? The Hindu religion is also much older then the Christian one, so is that the correct one? Pick a religion any religion. No one says you can't believe what you do. If it works for you, great. You can't expect your religious beliefs to be accepted by every one. I for one could personally never have an abortion, but that is my choice. I have two beautiful children. However, it's certainly not my place to tell another women what to do with her body.

For the record, I'm not a Hindu and I love a good steak. However, the point remains the same.

if a cow had a chance it wouldnt take another glance it would EAT YOU UP

:P

Seriously Unashamed... can you please get over this America was Based on Christian principles nonsense?

It seems like liberals acting through the ACLU would have absolutely no mention of God in the public square even though this country was founded on Christian principles.

sorry dude but most of the founding fathers weren't christians they were diests and you sir are a douche bag so umm it was founded on diest principles hey i wonder do u think that the 'in god we trust' is actually the diest god?

As your statements are, as you've already put it, generalizations, there is no need to dispute what you've said. I'm sure you can find some liberals who would agree with your generalizations about them. However, I suppose that means that we can now start using those same type of generalizations to describe the Republicans and their conservative agenda:

1. Conservatives value business over people and have even gone so far as to establish that businesses have the same rights that a human being does.

2. Conservatives preach tolerance about Christianity because they believe the rest of the world is ignorant about who God is and feel it is their path into heaven to educate them by beating them over the head with their Bible.

2a. Of course, not all Christians are the right kind of Christians to Conservatives. Lutherans, for example, are considered evil. Episcopalians are just plain dirty. Catholics are only useful when its time for the election. Before and after that, they are a cult intent on destroying the world with their statues. The only true Christian to a conservative is a southern Baptist.

3. Conservatives seem to want to destroy 70 years of working to bring the world together by undermining everything that the United Nations stands for...unless the United Nations serves a purpose to them. At that point, the UN is to follow the United States' example and not have any independent thought whatsoever.

4. Conservatives preach about a smaller government and want to eliminate all types of welfare, except for corporate welfare, which is ok because it helps out businesses and those that don't need the help to begin with. However, while preaching about small government, they neglect to actually follow through, instead expanding government every time they have the chance to.

5. Seems that Conservatives will go to the ends of the earth screaming that a fetus has more rights than its mother. They scream about how we shouldn't play God with life and that life must respected at all costs. Of course, they then advocate whole-heartedly for the death penalty, which is also placing man into a position to play God as well.

5a. Don't forget that the fetus is only important to Conservatives until it is actually born. At that point, Conservatives like to tell the child that they are responsible for being dirt poor and they are just lazy and ignorant and don't deserve government assistance. Hey, they should just go out and get a job.

6. Conservatives seem to feel that the military is more important than all other aspects of life. Having enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world a hundred times over isn't good enough. More is needed. All government money should go directly into the military for weapons, but not actually for the troops or their families. After all, they are just good for photo opportunities. If they could cite a reference for it, they would refer to Jesus as a General and his Apostles were his private militia.

7. Conservatives seem to want to re-write history about the fact that the founding fathers made every effort to ensure that the nation would not become a religious state. They tend to re-write history, speaking only of those people of Christian ancestry who came here and neglecting all others. Never mind the fact that those early settlers would not be accepted by today's conservatives, because they aren't the right kind of Christians.

8. It seems that Conservatives can't accept responsibility for anything bad that happens, preferring instead to blame their predecessors. However, anything good that happens is directly resulting from their astute leadership. When something happens that they can't shift the blame to their predecessors, they fall upon each other like a hungry pack of wolves to see who will get the blame.

9. It seems that Conservatives want to take everyone's retirement, investments, and pensions and move it into the hands of their frends so they can make a few dollars off of it. However, should those investments fail, it is the fault of the person who now is left penniless. But they can't have assistance from the government as a result because that would mean they are lazy and ignorant.

Are these generalizations equivalent to what the everyday Conservative believes, or are they just the same type of stereotypes?
Excelent Post. :)

This is as far as I see it.
Democrats-Centrist/Slightly Lefwinged and mostly liberal, Which would be John Kerry, Yes I am Democrat
GreenParty-Very Leftinwiged Liberals
Republicans-Ultra Rightwing Physco's, Expect for Bush Sr. Who was more moderate.

if a cow had a chance it wouldnt take another glance it would EAT YOU UP

:P

You ever get the feeling cows are stalking you? LOL.. j/k :)

Cows don't actually eat meat. Cows kill nothing but grass..lol :P

It seems like liberals are huge supporters of infanticide, killing babies inches away from being born by sucking out their brains with vacuums.

The "tolerant" wing of the Democratic party is really quite intolerant of anything remotely related to Christianity.

Nice piece of a violent picture you paint in the first part, but you do realize its more propaganda than actual fact, do you? Abortion is never done "inches away" from birth and can also be done by various methods that dont fit the evil image you try to give it. Whatever your opinion on a certain topic may be, trying to swing moods instead of calm examination of what is at hand does not make you look like the superiour communicator.

On the second part, every politician should be intolerant of religion mixing up with his work. While judeo-christianity may be the cultural background he comes from it does in no way mean he has to include any religious morality in his work. The various churches are protected and hindered by the same principle, seperation of church and state.

Yeah, it's the babies we have to watch out for.

lol, I know and i AM a vegetarian.

Anyone ever wonder why some of the earths hugest creatures are vegetarian? Like elephants and Giraffes and what? hippos? Cows.... what else? how in the hell do they get so much material for growth from grass and leaves?

lol, I know and i AM a vegetarian.

Anyone ever wonder why some of the earths hugest creatures are vegetarian? Like elephants and Giraffes and what? hippos? Cows.... what else? how in the hell do they get so much material for growth from grass and leaves?

Perhaps because humans are so self involved they've never stop to think for a second that these animals are more advanced then us. Perhaps what is important in life isn't what we think it is. When was the last time you seen an animal that wasn't human kill each other for no reason, or try to destroy the planet?

Deep Thougts - By Stephanie.. :D

It seems like liberals are huge supporters of infanticide, killing babies inches away from being born by sucking out their brains with vacuums.


you do know that dilation and extraction procedures are done when the fetus is either dead or malformed in such a way that it would be hazardous to the mother to deliver it and/or it would not survive to gain consciousness after delivery.

it's not an elective procedure.

and yes, i do value the life of a woman over the potential life (the fetus)

It is important to note that most of my statements are generalizations of the liberal agenda, I'm not saying that all liberals stand for all of these things.

Where to start is really the question.

I guess I could start with national sovereignty. It seems that liberals would have us give all of our rights as a nation over to the United Nations, that wonderful group of dictators and thugs that hate us. The group that replaced the United States on the human rights commission with a current perpetrator of genocide, Sudan. The group whose leader denounced the United States that we were not doing enough for AIDs in Africa and the world even though we just authorized hundreds of billions of dollars in combating AIDs.

It seems liberals would elevate the rights of an insect over the rights of their fellow man to make a living.

It seems liberals would rather have everyone dependent on the government so that we would vote them into power just so we could keep our jobs and the free money coming in.

It seems liberals would rather have something bad happen, like the economy tanking, so that they could blame Bush and they could be elected.

It seems liberals would rather restrict investment, savings, and work by taxing it to death.

A great line from Reagan using humor to describe the liberal position on taxes. "If it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it, if it stops moving subsidize it."

It seems like liberals would rather not have a military at all, therefore freeing up more money to spend on their utopian dreams.

It seems like liberals are huge supporters of infanticide, killing babies inches away from being born by sucking out their brains with vacuums.

It seems like liberals acting through the ACLU would have absolutely no mention of God in the public square even though this country was founded on Christian principles. They would rewrite history to make it seem like this nation was secular from the beginning. Heaven forbid that we actually teach that it was Christians who first landed on this continent, they would rather skip right to the Revolutionary war.

The "tolerant" wing of the Democratic party is really quite intolerant of anything remotely related to Christianity.

Liberals tend to be great believers in political correctness, that great system in which you are entitled not to be offended unless you are a part of the following groups: Christians, "rednecks", members of the NRA, or anyone with a conservative bone in their bodies.

There I'm finished with my rant.

it would seem that your problem is that other people do not have the same views that you do. that's why we live in a democracy. we protect the rights of all. besides. many of the people who were originally involved in the government were deists... not christians. but that is immaterial. the point of our constitution is to protect the liberties of all citizens... not just christians.

btw. you are exaggerating these principles. to take one point. no one wants to kill babies. but some liberal-minded people think that it is better to allow a person who's life has not begun (issue of contention i know) to not be brought into the world in order to prevent another person's life from being ruined (remember. some people will literally kill their children if they screw up and get pregnant. and all pregnancy inherantly endangers the mother's life. it's part of the process. it is a great risk.)

While I am pro-choice this sort of things bothers me

and yes, i do value the life of a woman over the potential life (the fetus)


You value the QUALITY of life over life itself?
Same broad generalizations that I hear for pro choice can be applied here “so all poor people should be killed” … seem to remember a LOT of arguments like this all over the place
(now I am excluding situations where the mother is at SERIOUS risk)


Come-on people this whole post is complete bs on both sides!

There are SO many points that are so false on each side … or can be applied to everyone! (or at least any politician)


You have democrats yellin about how conservatives want to leave everyone out in the cold and be completely dependent on corporations while forcing babies to be borne and therefore killing the mother because conservatives obviously don’t care about her at all

And you have conservatives yelling that all democrats are godless and that they are baby killers. And that liberals want to disband the army.

You people really should be more mature then this and quit trying to shove people into boxes MOST of us don’t fit any of those titles

And yet you all manage to flame yourselves into corners and across every single topic on the forums

People just understand one and other! Understand that people are just getting more and more defensive… it starts small but everyone is working their way into an entrenched position … striking out at everything that is not them (even the “tolerance preaching” people are striking out at other people)

People just settle! Both sides have VERY valid points.

(sometimes I hate bein an independent /fence straddler) feel like I am the only one that can see valid points all over the place … surrounded by flames bs and myths

sheesh I feel like a preacher

While I am pro-choice this sort of things bothers me


You value the QUALITY of life over life itself?
Same broad generalizations that I hear for pro choice can be applied here “so all poor people should be killed” … seem to remember a LOT of arguments like this all over the place
(now I am excluding situations where the mother is at SERIOUS risk)


Come-on people this whole post is complete bs on both sides!

There are SO many points that are so false on each side … or can be applied to everyone! (or at least any politician)


You have democrats yellin about how conservatives want to leave everyone out in the cold and be completely dependent on corporations while forcing babies to be borne and therefore killing the mother because conservatives obviously don’t care about her at all

And you have conservatives yelling that all democrats are godless and that they are baby killers. And that liberals want to disband the army.

You people really should be more mature then this and quit trying to shove people into boxes MOST of us don’t fit any of those titles

And yet you all manage to flame yourselves into corners and across every single topic on the forums

People just understand one and other! Understand that people are just getting more and more defensive… it starts small but everyone is working their way into an entrenched position … striking out at everything that is not them (even the “tolerance preaching” people are striking out at other people)

People just settle! Both sides have VERY valid points.

(sometimes I hate bein an independent /fence straddler) feel like I am the only one that can see valid points all over the place … surrounded by flames bs and myths

sheesh I feel like a preacher

people absolutely refuse to listen to the other side ever. they are convinced that the other side must be inherently evil and thus does not deserve to be listened to. my personal stance on abortion is that any regulation will inherently compromise a woman's right to medical privacy... but then on the other side, men contribute to children too and should have some part in the decision, but then abrtion is all about giving women the power to say "no, i don't want to have a child and it is no longer your right to force me." it is a complicated battle and you really mustn't bring in the "murder" issue to make it contentious. besides. most abortions occur within the first two months and so the arguments of sucking out the brains of a child grasping for air who could survive are mute.

All in all, liberals' have an increasingly destructive influence on America's most cherished institutions and leftist propaganda threatens our way of life and invades peoples' minds especially younger people...in the words of Churchill, "Any man who is under 30, and is not liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." Call me heartless, but atleast I have a brain!

I'd like to offer a bit of an different perspective.
I am a Christian, and I am also considering attending seminary after I finish college. I'm very orthodox, and take the Bible more literally than most others I know.
I am also a member of the ACLU and NORML, 2 quite liberal organizations. I am a moderate and populist liberal. I am CONSISTENTLY pro-life (anti-abortion, anti-war, anti-death penalty, etc).

"It seems like liberals would rather not have a military at all, therefore freeing up more money to spend on their utopian dreams.

It seems like liberals are huge supporters of infanticide, killing babies inches away from being born by sucking out their brains with vacuums."
You contradicted yourself here. So paying to kill adults is OK, but not killing babies?

"this country was founded on Christian principles"
No, it wasn't. And even if it was, look at it today!

"The "tolerant" wing of the Democratic party is really quite intolerant of anything remotely related to Christianity"
This statement is unbelievable. The Democratic party at least acts far more Christian than the republican party. Democrats are usually for protecting the oppressed, tolerance, keeping our government from adulterating our religion, helping the poor and needy, preventing war at all costs, ending the death penalty....the list goes on. What do republicans have going for them? Oh, only ONE thing...stopping abortion.
I'm not saying the democratic party is more Christian; they're not. But they act it. The Bible says good works alone aren't good enough, one needs faith to enter Paradise. Nor will faith alone work. So Democrats have the good works and true soul of Christianity, while the republicans declare Jesus and God their master and do nothing to show it.

All in all, liberals' have an increasingly destructive influence on America's most cherished institutions and leftist propaganda threatens our way of life and invades peoples' minds especially younger people...in the words of Churchill, "Any man who is under 30, and is not liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." Call me heartless, but atleast I have a brain!

you are entitled to your opinion.

I'd like to offer a bit of an different perspective.
I am a Christian, and I am also considering attending seminary after I finish college. I'm very orthodox, and take the Bible more literally than most others I know.
I am also a member of the ACLU and NORML, 2 quite liberal organizations. I am a moderate and populist liberal. I am CONSISTENTLY pro-life (anti-abortion, anti-war, anti-death penalty, etc).

"It seems like liberals would rather not have a military at all, therefore freeing up more money to spend on their utopian dreams.

It seems like liberals are huge supporters of infanticide, killing babies inches away from being born by sucking out their brains with vacuums."
You contradicteyourself here. So paying to kill adults is OK, but not killing babies?

"this country was founded on Christian principles"
No, it wasn't. And even if it was, look at it today!

"The "tolerant" wing of the Democratic party is really quite intolerant of anything remotely related to Christianity"
This statement is unbelievable. The Democratic party at least acts far more Christian than the republican party. Democrats are usually for protecting the oppressed, tolerance, keeping our government from adulterating our religion, helping the poor and needy, preventing war at all costs, ending the death penalty....the list goes on. What do republicans have going for them? Oh, only ONE thing...stopping abortion.
I'm not saying the democratic party is more Christian; they're not. But they act it. The Bible says good works alone aren't good enough, one needs faith to enter Paradise. Nor will faith alone work. So Democrats have the good works and true soul of Christianity, while the republicans declare Jesus and God their master and do nothing to show it.

amen.
you are sober-minded and consistent. thus i respect you even though we disagree on some things.

All in all, liberals' have an increasingly destructive influence on America's most cherished institutions and leftist propaganda threatens our way of life and invades peoples' minds especially younger people...in the words of Churchill, "Any man who is under 30, and is not liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." Call me heartless, but atleast I have a brain!

Yes, those damn liberals who paved the way for civil rights, women's rights, equal protection under the law. I could go on about all these terrible things they did, like the clean air act, damn that Rosa Parks for not sitting in the back of the bus. Damn them for wanting to move ahead instead staying in the dark ages. Damn them for the clean water act. Damn them for believing that freedom includes protest. Damn them for wanting the American dream to include every one not just the rich. Damn them for wanting to help those that some would rather ignore. If a free society can not help the many who are poor, they can not save the few who are rich..Damn them for caring about the environment, because really, who cares what type of lives our children have as long as we can line our pockets now. Those damn liberals! :rolleyes:

;)

So what I hear you saying is that the way you believe America should be is the correct way and that your beliefs even if not shared by others should be forced unto people because after all it is what you believe. That as the faithful Christian you are people shouldn't help other people. That if a woman is raped or victim of incest or is 14 years old she should except the fact of her life being ruined by an unwanted and un-chosen pregnancy. That we should not as women have a say in what we do with our bodies but rather it should be up to the government to decide what people do with their bodies, because again your religious beliefs tell you that and therefore you feel you should force your views onto every one else because that's what freedom is all about.

Here is a thought, believe in your beliefs, all the power to you, but never except and think you should have a right to impose those beliefs on others unless you'd like to live in a theocracy which I believe there are a few in the world any time freedom is starting to get to you.

I'd say "right on" but you need to remember that we are not a democracy in the United States, we are a democratic republic. We elect people who share our views based on their own views, and as such, you should expect one governer to impose his/her views on an entire state. That's what the purpose of an election is. This is supposed to be held in check by the seperation of powers and the formation of a seperate legislative body that has the power to tangle with an executor (like a governer) and a judicial branch that isn't subject to political manipulation (because they aren't elected).

Things like abortion are tricky because you WANT to protect unborn babies, you want there to be a penalty for criminally causing an unborn baby to die. When someone get's drunk and kicks his wife until she miscarries, you want there to be a recourse. To do that, you have to ascribe the status of human at some point in time to an unborn baby that may not be, in the strictest sense of the word, human.

For the record, I'm moderate in almost every sense of the word, I'm Christian, and I hate GW Bush's policy making.

Also for the record, even when abortions were totally illegal, we made exceptions for cases of rape, incest, a danger to the mother, psychological reasons, and various other things.

Most of the time, the right answer lies somewhere to the immediate right or left of the center. In my opinion, the extreme point of view fits right in with that sixth sigma on the bell curve...it's right about .0003% of the time. The only reason it's so popular in American politics is because we have a two party system and our parties choose opposing extremes to polarize themselves.

Yes, those damn liberals who paved the way for civil rights, women's rights, equal protection under the law. I could go on about all these terrible things they did, like the clean air act, damn that Rosa Parks for not sitting in the back of the bus. Damn them for wanting to move ahead instead staying in the dark ages. Damn them for the clean water act. Damn them for believing that freedom includes protest. Damn them for wanting the American dream to include every one not just the rich. Damn them for wanting to help those that some would rather ignore. If a free society can not help the many who are poor, they can not save the few who are rich..Damn them for caring about the environment, because really, who cares what type of lives our children have as long as we can line our pockets now. Those damn liberals! :rolleyes:

Lol like everything that has been posted lately it is almost just flaimbait again

Let me see if I can find the other side of the argument

“Damn the conservatives … damn them for wanting independence with strong culture … damn them for wanting individuals to have control and states who are closer to their people to decide what is right for them. Damn the conservatives for wanting to preserve innocent babies damn them for not wanting the American dream to be funded by tax payers. Damn them for wanting to keep some of the money that they earned by working hours and hours … rather then giving it all up to the government to decide ‘what is best’ damn them for being strong and trying to make things better”
(just seeing it from the opposing side … not personally but when ya think about it in terms that are more becoming … just about anything on either side can sound good)

Bet you can see as many arguing points in that statement as I see in yours :)
(and BOTH of us are probably going to be quoted a lot :-P)

You people really should be more mature then this and quit trying to shove people into boxes MOST of us don’t fit any of those titles

And yet you all manage to flame yourselves into corners and across every single topic on the forums

This thread was never meant to turn into a flame war, maybe you didn't read my disclaimer before you replied?

It is important to note that most of my statements are generalizations of the liberal agenda, I'm not saying that all liberals stand for all of these things.

I'm wondering when people will start to accept responsiblity for the actions they take. I mean when you have sex, there is reasonable possiblity that you might have a baby come out nine months later. If you don't want to have a baby, then don't have sex, that is the only true form of birth control that is 100% effective. The problem is that most people want to have it both ways, have the fun (sex), but not the consequence (having the baby). The convenient way out is to have an abortion. Punishing the innocent life, or if you want the potential life for the actions that you took.

This thread was never meant to turn into a flame war, maybe you didn't read my disclaimer before you replied?

Yes I did ... every single bit of every post too

BUT I wasn’t specifically talking about you (and sorry if sounded a bit extreme … but I must have reached my breaking point) lol

Didn't read the first posting here, as Unashamed Christians is on my ignore list, and with good reason, too!!

MY beef with conservatives and ReTHUGnicans is that, firstly, they have a different set of rules for themselves than everyone else. Notice how Martha Stewart is doing time for doing essentially the same thing Dubya did with Harken??

Second, conservative ReTHUGnicans are rubing elbows with fundamentalist whacko so-called "christians" and they are against equal rights for ALL people...especially when the people in question are part of some despised minority group.

Third, they target tax cuts to the wealthiest people...people who do not need them, and who will NOT use them to create a better economy by creating jobs IN AMERICA...FOR AMERICANS.

Fourth, they care only about the ultra-rich...everyone else, basically, can go fuck themselves.

There, I think that covers it basically.

This thread was never meant to turn into a flame war, maybe you didn't read my disclaimer before you replied?



I'm wondering when people will start to accept responsiblity for the actions they take. I mean when you have sex, there is reasonable possiblity that you might have a baby come out nine months later. If you don't want to have a baby, then don't have sex, that is the only true form of birth control that is 100% effective. The problem is that most people want to have it both ways, have the fun (sex), but not the consequence (having the baby). The convenient way out is to have an abortion. Punishing the innocent life, or if you want the potential life for the actions that you took.


what about married people who don't want any more children? should they cease to have sex? doesn't the bible say that married couples should and must continue the marriage bed? no one that i know of who has an abortion failed to use some other means to try to avoid pregnancy. it's not like these women don't agonize over this decision... it's not like they don't feel horrible for the rest of their lives... but still. sometimes it is better. sometimes that child is likely to die of starvation or failure to thrive because that woman can hardly support herself. no one wants that poor little baby. if you wanna bitch about abortion, you should go out and adopt a child. better yet, you should go adopt a handicapped child. then and only then will i respect your views.

[QUOTE=UpwardThrust]Let me see if I can find the other side of the argument

“Damn the conservatives … Damn them for wanting to keep some of the money that they earned by working hours and hours … rather then giving it all up to the government to decide ‘what is best’
(just seeing it from the opposing side … not personally but when ya think about it in terms that are more becoming … just about anything on either side can sound good)QUOTE]

Just me complaining, but thanks to this "conservative" administration, all that money I've earned by working for hours and hours (yes, I could take a couple days off from the overtime i've put in) is going straight into my rising energy bills and gas. Not to mention no raises this year for any of the professionals I work with. With rising costs of everything and no increase in my income, I'm essentially getting paid less this year. Thanks conservatives!

Didn't read the first posting here, as Unashamed Christians is on my ignore list, and with good reason, too!!

MY beef with conservatives and ReTHUGnicans is that, firstly, they have a different set of rules for themselves than everyone else. Notice how Martha Stewart is doing time for doing essentially the same thing Dubya did with Harken??

Second, conservative ReTHUGnicans are rubing elbows with fundamentalist whacko so-called "christians" and they are against equal rights for ALL people...especially when the people in question are part of some despised minority group.

Third, they target tax cuts to the wealthiest people...people who do not need them, and who will NOT use them to create a better economy by creating jobs IN AMERICA...FOR AMERICANS.

Fourth, they care only about the ultra-rich...everyone else, basically, can go fuck themselves.

There, I think that covers it basically.

Wow what a way to generalize everyone under one umbrella

Might as well say “and liberals are rubbing elbows with atheist communists …”
Really sheesh


And we might as well tax EVERYONE down to lets say 40 k a year … that way everyone can be the same because who ever needs that … I mean no one really NEEDS more then that anyways …

Sheesh both sides sound like such idiots

Just me complaining, but thanks to this "conservative" administration, all that money I've earned by working for hours and hours (yes, I could take a couple days off from the overtime i've put in) is going straight into my rising energy bills and gas. Not to mention no raises this year for any of the professionals I work with. With rising costs of everything and no increase in my income, I'm essentially getting paid less this year. Thanks conservatives!


yo can you tell I was being SARCASTIC sheesh was trying to point out how idiotic it all REALLY sounds
Im not even conservitive :)

Hey, im from denmark, and i guess i would be ultra liberal if you were to use US terms to describe me.
The term liberal utopia is quite exagerated i feel, since utopia often ivolves something that is unattainable.
Well, let me tell you about denmark.
We are a small democratic country in northern europe.
Our average tax is at around 45%, and varies accordingly to your wealth, so that if you are rich you pay more tax.
We got a great free healthcare system and our welfare system is outstanding. If you are a danish citicen (sp?) you will never be in a position where you are unable to live. Our support programs is able to support everyone, no matter their situation. We have absolutely free education (except books in our universities) to the highest level.
Since we are a small country (around 5 million inhabitants), our army is not amazing. It is focused on defense and then a small portion is used to support UN and NATO or even US as we saw in the war against Iraq (we have a pretty conservative government right now that supports the US. Unfourtunately (IMO) the same government has made our immigration laws so tight that we are under investigation by the EU for violating the human rights)
And we have free abortion (offcourse to a degree. At some point its to late, dunno when)
A recent survey showed that the richest 5% owns only 3 times as much as the poorest 5%
This seems to be what the convservatives call an utopia, but believe me. It is not. I live in it. And i love it.

While I am pro-choice this sort of things bothers me


You value the QUALITY of life over life itself?
Same broad generalizations that I hear for pro choice can be applied here “so all poor people should be killed” … seem to remember a LOT of arguments like this all over the place
(now I am excluding situations where the mother is at SERIOUS risk)


Come-on people this whole post is complete bs on both sides!

There are SO many points that are so false on each side … or can be applied to everyone! (or at least any politician)


You have democrats yellin about how conservatives want to leave everyone out in the cold and be completely dependent on corporations while forcing babies to be borne and therefore killing the mother because conservatives obviously don’t care about her at all

And you have conservatives yelling that all democrats are godless and that they are baby killers. And that liberals want to disband the army.

You people really should be more mature then this and quit trying to shove people into boxes MOST of us don’t fit any of those titles

And yet you all manage to flame yourselves into corners and across every single topic on the forums

People just understand one and other! Understand that people are just getting more and more defensive… it starts small but everyone is working their way into an entrenched position … striking out at everything that is not them (even the “tolerance preaching” people are striking out at other people)

People just settle! Both sides have VERY valid points.

(sometimes I hate bein an independent /fence straddler) feel like I am the only one that can see valid points all over the place … surrounded by flames bs and myths

sheesh I feel like a preacher


to clear the record: i was referring to abortion as a procedure for saving the life of a woman. if you'll notice, i mentioned how dilation and extraction procedures are not done electively, but for medical purposes... i.e. either the fetus is dead, or delivery would either kill or cripple the woman and the fetus wouldn't survive to gain consciousness in the majority of instances.
i value the life of a woman more than the potential life of a fetus. the woman is more than just potential life.

I got these quotes from what seems like a pretty fair and unbiased site at first look. It is from an FAQ on partial birth abortion. To look at the whole site, www.abortionfacts.com


ARE THE BABIES ALIVE DURING THE ABORTION?

Yes! On July 11, 1995, American Medical News (AMA’s official journal) submitted the transcript of a tape-recorded interview with abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell to the House Judiciary Committee in which he admitted: “...the majority of fetuses aborted this way (partial birth abortion) are alive until the end of the procedure.”

IS THIS TYPE OF ABORTION RARE?

When this type of procedure first became public knowledge, those defending it said it was only done a few hundred times a year. Then Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers admitted on ABC’s “Nightline” (11/95) that he had lied when he asserted the procedure was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger. The reality is, this gruesome method of killing partially born babies is done many thousands of times a year. Abortionist, Dr. McMahon, admitted in 1995 to performing over 2000 partial birth abortions.

ARE THEY PERFORMED ONLY ON SEVERELY DEFORMED BABIES?

That is what the abortion industry would like you to believe. But Dr. Haskell said in a tape recorded interview with the AMA’s American Medical News: “...and I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective (not medically necessary) in that 20-24 week range ... In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.” An article in the L.A. Times (8/28/96) listed some of the medical reasons for this type of abortion. They included cleft palates, cystic hygroma, (both easily corrected problems) and cystic fibrosis. The medical conditions present in the mother that warranted this type of abortion were, “depression, chicken pox, diabetes, vomiting ...” In other words, even those partial birth abortions that are done for the “health of the mother” or because of a “defective fetus” are often performed for minor, easily correctable conditions. Dr. C. Everett Coop, former U.S. Surgeon General, stated, “... in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly can’t be a necessity for the baby.”

IS THIS TYPE OF ABORTION EVER DONE ON THIRD TRIMESTER BABIES?

Yes. While most babies are in their 20th to 24th week when aborted in this manner, babies are aborted as late as the ninth month! This was admitted to by abortionist Dr. McMahon who, in 1995, submitted to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee a graph and explanation that showed he aborted healthy babies even in the third trimester!

As disturbing as this sounds, these are the facts. In this country medical doctors are partially delivering babies and then killing them. These babies are inches from being born. Many could be born and placed directly in the loving arms of childless couples for adoption. Instead, they are cruelly killed. Some call this abortion. No matter what you call it, you cannot alter the reality - 4 more inches out of the womb and this act would be called murder.

feel like I am the only one that can see valid points all over the place … surrounded by flames bs and myths

You of course know every one feels this way right? People believe in what they say as much as you believe in what you say. What you may see as valid some one else may not. What some one else may feel is vaild you may not. Does this make you the only one who can see valid points? Of course not, it just means you believe you are able to, the same as every one else. ;)

Hey, im from denmark, and i guess i would be ultra liberal if you were to use US terms to describe me.
The term liberal utopia is quite exagerated i feel, since utopia often ivolves something that is unattainable.
Well, let me tell you about denmark.
We are a small democratic country in northern europe.
Our average tax is at around 45%, and varies accordingly to your wealth, so that if you are rich you pay more tax.
We got a great free healthcare system and our welfare system is outstanding. If you are a danish citicen (sp?) you will never be in a position where you are unable to live. Our support programs is able to support everyone, no matter their situation. We have absolutely free education (except books in our universities) to the highest level.
Since we are a small country (around 5 million inhabitants), our army is not amazing. It is focused on defense and then a small portion is used to support UN and NATO or even US as we saw in the war against Iraq (we have a pretty conservative government right now that supports the US. Unfourtunately (IMO) the same government has made our immigration laws so tight that we are under investigation by the EU for violating the human rights)
And we have free abortion (offcourse to a degree. At some point its to late, dunno when)
A recent survey showed that the richest 5% owns only 3 times as much as the poorest 5%
This seems to be what the convservatives call an utopia, but believe me. It is not. I live in it. And i love it.

Damn, I wish I lived in it!!
Fuckin' America sucks!!

Unbiased? You have got to be kidding me.
"Which is better to remember, "I gave my baby life. And because I loved him, I gave him into the arms of a loving couple" - or to remember, "I selfishly ended my baby's life?""

Or how about

"Which is better to remember, "I gave my baby a handicapped life. And because i couldnt handle it I gave him to a trailer park fammily that lives of his support" or to remember "I wisely judged that i was unable to support my handicapped child, and decided not to give birth"

Take a freaking look at the wording! Selfishly!

or what about: "Many could be born and placed directly in the loving arms of childless couples for adoption. Instead, they are cruelly killed. Some call this abortion. No matter what you call it, you cannot alter the reality - 4 more inches out of the womb and this act would be called murder"

Well if they are unpartial then let me ask you why do they come to a pro-life (as they like to be called) conclusion and tells us that this is the right one?
Maybe you have got your definition of unbiased wrong

Hrm...if a 2 day old fetus is a potential human and it is a crime to kill one, then where is the limit? When is masturbation going to be illegal due to the murder of thousands of potential humans (sperm)?

Maybe I missed something, but I could have sworn he said that life began at conception. Masturbation, which is pre-conception, thus is not included.

Unbiased? You have got to be kidding me.


Maybe you didn't see the home page, the site's mission statement :

"Our mission is simple. We have brought together quality information on the abortion debate from many different sources and made it available to the world in one abortion megasite. We believe these facts point to an obvious conclusion. You are free to accept or reject this conclusion. We simply ask that whatever you do, do it on the basis of fact.

We believe that this information is valuable to all members of society no matter which side of the abortion issue they find themselves. We ask nothing more than the opportunity to present factual information on abortion in an honest manner to thinking people.

It is also our purpose to promote the full works of the individuals and groups who have contributed information on abortion to help make this site possible. To them we owe not only its considerable volume, but also the ultimate success of this site."

At the bottom of this mission statement, they have two links, one for those who are Pro-Choice, and one for those who are Pro-Life to look over the arguments for both.

Well...
I cant see how your post, but further strengthens my post.
They are opnely declaring that they are biased.

I got these quotes from what seems like a pretty fair and unbiased site at first look. It is from an FAQ on partial birth abortion. To look at the whole site, www.abortionfacts.com


ARE THE BABIES ALIVE DURING THE ABORTION?

Yes! On July 11, 1995, American Medical News (AMA’s official journal) submitted the transcript of a tape-recorded interview with abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell to the House Judiciary Committee in which he admitted: “...the majority of fetuses aborted this way (partial birth abortion) are alive until the end of the procedure.”

IS THIS TYPE OF ABORTION RARE?

When this type of procedure first became public knowledge, those defending it said it was only done a few hundred times a year. Then Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers admitted on ABC’s “Nightline” (11/95) that he had lied when he asserted the procedure was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger. The reality is, this gruesome method of killing partially born babies is done many thousands of times a year. Abortionist, Dr. McMahon, admitted in 1995 to performing over 2000 partial birth abortions.

ARE THEY PERFORMED ONLY ON SEVERELY DEFORMED BABIES?

That is what the abortion industry would like you to believe. But Dr. Haskell said in a tape recorded interview with the AMA’s American Medical News: “...and I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective (not medically necessary) in that 20-24 week range ... In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.” An article in the L.A. Times (8/28/96) listed some of the medical reasons for this type of abortion. They included cleft palates, cystic hygroma, (both easily corrected problems) and cystic fibrosis. The medical conditions present in the mother that warranted this type of abortion were, “depression, chicken pox, diabetes, vomiting ...” In other words, even those partial birth abortions that are done for the “health of the mother” or because of a “defective fetus” are often performed for minor, easily correctable conditions. Dr. C. Everett Coop, former U.S. Surgeon General, stated, “... in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly can’t be a necessity for the baby.”

IS THIS TYPE OF ABORTION EVER DONE ON THIRD TRIMESTER BABIES?

Yes. While most babies are in their 20th to 24th week when aborted in this manner, babies are aborted as late as the ninth month! This was admitted to by abortionist Dr. McMahon who, in 1995, submitted to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee a graph and explanation that showed he aborted healthy babies even in the third trimester!

As disturbing as this sounds, these are the facts. In this country medical doctors are partially delivering babies and then killing them. These babies are inches from being born. Many could be born and placed directly in the loving arms of childless couples for adoption. Instead, they are cruelly killed. Some call this abortion. No matter what you call it, you cannot alter the reality - 4 more inches out of the womb and this act would be called murder.


obviously your site is biased. there is at least one, very good medical reason for partial birth abortions: hydrocephalus. it's when the fetal skull takes on fluid. it can expand to 50 cm in diameter. the vagina dialtes to 10 cm for delivery... a fetus like this would not survive to gain consciousness, nor would the woman survive the delivery.
it is also preformed on dead fetuses. rather than open the woman up (an invasive procedure) the head is collapsed and the fetus is removed so that it does not rot in her womb, killing her.
for a site to overlook such things points clearly to bias.

Christians should be the first to step up and offer to help this woman through her tough times. But just because she was the victim of a rape does not justify killing an innocent.

There seems to be an unspoken assumption among those that oppose the restricting or outlawing of abortions that abortion would automatically be better for a victim of rape (whether statuatory or otherwise) than allowing the pregnancy to come to term.
On the other hand, there seems to be an unspoken assumption from those who oppose abortion that the best way to do this is by outlawing it.

Maybe I missed something, but I could have sworn he said that life began at conception. Masturbation, which is pre-conception, thus is not included.

pregnancy doesn't even begin at conception.

identical twins can divide up to 5 weeks after conception.
not to mention the 50% of fertilized ovum that don't even implant themselves naturally.

oh, and also, the website that is so unbiased says the following:

Contraceptives and Agendas: A major thrust of pro-abortion rhetoric has been the assumption that if young people had access to contraceptives and were educated in their use, abortion would cease to be a problem.

if this deal was so free of bias, then they wouldn't be calling it pro-abortion... or saying that it's rhetoric...
nor would they be preaching abstinance.

If you wish to read a far more unbiased site that shows women all of their legal choices, perhaps some may try this site (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/) instead!

Oh you have to be kidding me, like Planned Parenthood is unbiased. I'm sorry let me take a break while I keep laughing, rolling on the floor laughing...

Ok, I'm back, you mean the same Planned Parenthood that hardly ever gives women the option of adoption?

Oh, and not to mention they are actively involved in the court cases to repeal the partial birth abortion ban.

You have yet to respond to the fact that the US was never, and will never be a christian nation :p

Unashamed Christians really got pwned.

In India for example cows are treated better then humans. If you kill a cow you can actually go to jail.
Are you sure this is true? India is not a Hindu theocracy.

Oh you have to be kidding me, like Planned Parenthood is unbiased. I'm sorry let me take a break while I keep laughing, rolling on the floor laughing...

Ok, I'm back, you mean the same Planned Parenthood that hardly ever gives women the option of adoption?

Oh, and not to mention they are actively involved in the court cases to repeal the partial birth abortion ban.

Are you even a woman? I am! Planned Parenthood gives women choices they explain all of their choices. Before a woman can opt for abortion they explain adoption, birth control, sex education. They certainly don't call these woman who are dealing with a very difficult and personal choice, legal choice I might add, baby killers! Unlike the fanatical religious right, they don't try to make women choose based on guilt but instead on information. The only reason they want to repeal the partial birth abortion which so far the court has sided with them is because no safety guards were put in to protect woman's lives. Are you really this uninformed?

Are you even a woman? I am! Planned Parenthood gives women choices they explain all of their choices. Before a woman can opt for abortion they explain adoption, birth control, sex education. They certainly don't call these woman who are dealing with a very difficult and personal choice, legal choice I might add, baby killers! Unlike the fanatical religious right, they don't try to make women choose based on guilt but instead on information. The only reason they want to repeal the partial birth abortion which so far the court has sided with them is because no safety guards were put in to protect woman's lives. Are you really this uninformed?

Oooh, five bucks says he is!

Unashamed Christians really got pwned.


Are you sure this is true? India is not a Hindu theocracy.

Yes it's true, while agreed only in certain parts of India, in fact people are told while driving if they lose control of the car and there is a cow in the road way and a person in the road way they are to avoid hitting the cow at all cost!

Oh, and not to mention they are actively involved in the court cases to repeal the partial birth abortion ban.

because despite what your site says, partial birth abortions are generally used to save a woman's life.

All fine and dandy, but to say that Planned Parenthood is unbiased is simply ludicrous, especially when they have a stake in keeping the abortion business alive because they perform some of them.

You lost your bet Goed.

because despite what your site says, partial birth abortions are generally used to save a woman's life.

"Dr. Haskell said in a tape recorded interview with the AMA’s American Medical News: “...and I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective (not medically necessary) in that 20-24 week range ... In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.” An article in the L.A. Times (8/28/96) listed some of the medical reasons for this type of abortion. They included cleft palates, cystic hygroma, (both easily corrected problems) and cystic fibrosis. The medical conditions present in the mother that warranted this type of abortion were, “depression, chicken pox, diabetes, vomiting ...” In other words, even those partial birth abortions that are done for the “health of the mother” or because of a “defective fetus” are often performed for minor, easily correctable conditions."

If you don't want to have a baby, then don't have sex

Yes, because when a woman becomes pregnant when she is raped, it's totally her fault. She shouldn't have been wearing that short skirt, she tempted the man by being a cock tease. Or she should have screamed. Since she didn't scream for help, she obviously wanted it, and therefor she wasn't really raped.

Yes, I see the light now!

Yes, because when a woman becomes pregnant when she is raped, it's totally her fault. She shouldn't have been wearing that short skirt, she tempted the man by being a cock tease. Or she should have screamed. Since she didn't scream for help, she obviously wanted it, and therefor she wasn't really raped.

Yes, I see the light now!

I happen to believe, and these are my personal religious beliefs, that all life is created for a reason. I see no reason to punish the baby because of the sins of the man in the case of rape. If you do not want the baby, then give it up for adoption after its born.

"Dr. Haskell said in a tape recorded interview with the AMA’s American Medical News: “...and I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective (not medically necessary) in that 20-24 week range ... In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.” An article in the L.A. Times (8/28/96) listed some of the medical reasons for this type of abortion. They included cleft palates, cystic hygroma, (both easily corrected problems) and cystic fibrosis. The medical conditions present in the mother that warranted this type of abortion were, “depression, chicken pox, diabetes, vomiting ...” In other words, even those partial birth abortions that are done for the “health of the mother” or because of a “defective fetus” are often performed for minor, easily correctable conditions."

this is from your site.

Why Are D&X Procedures Performed?

This is a topic that is rarely discussed during public debates:

...

3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:
-The fetus is dead.
-The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
-The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
-The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

from www.religioustolerance.com

I happen to believe, and these are my personal religious beliefs, that all life is created for a reason. I see no reason to punish the baby because of the sins of the man in the case of rape. If you do not want the baby, then give it up for adoption after its born.

it's not a baby before it's born.

it's not a baby before it's born.
Maybe in your opinion, but not mine.

Maybe in your opinion, but not mine.
it's not just my opinion. the stages of development dictate that it's not a baby/infant until it has left the womb alive. therefore it is not a baby until it is born. it's the definition, not a matter of opinion.

now i must go, don't slander me for being a pro-choice agnostic while i'm gone. but hey, your religion doesn't give women any credit, so who cares what one thinks.

It is important to note that most of my statements are generalizations of the liberal agenda, I'm not saying that all liberals stand for all of these things.

Where to start is really the question.

I guess I could start with national sovereignty. It seems that liberals would have us give all of our rights as a nation over to the United Nations, that wonderful group of dictators and thugs that hate us. The group that replaced the United States on the human rights commission with a current perpetrator of genocide, Sudan. The group whose leader denounced the United States that we were not doing enough for AIDs in Africa and the world even though we just authorized hundreds of billions of dollars in combating AIDs.

It seems liberals would elevate the rights of an insect over the rights of their fellow man to make a living.

It seems liberals would rather have everyone dependent on the government so that we would vote them into power just so we could keep our jobs and the free money coming in.

It seems liberals would rather have something bad happen, like the economy tanking, so that they could blame Bush and they could be elected.

It seems liberals would rather restrict investment, savings, and work by taxing it to death.

A great line from Reagan using humor to describe the liberal position on taxes. "If it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it, if it stops moving subsidize it."

It seems like liberals would rather not have a military at all, therefore freeing up more money to spend on their utopian dreams.

It seems like liberals are huge supporters of infanticide, killing babies inches away from being born by sucking out their brains with vacuums.

It seems like liberals acting through the ACLU would have absolutely no mention of God in the public square even though this country was founded on Christian principles. They would rewrite history to make it seem like this nation was secular from the beginning. Heaven forbid that we actually teach that it was Christians who first landed on this continent, they would rather skip right to the Revolutionary war.

The "tolerant" wing of the Democratic party is really quite intolerant of anything remotely related to Christianity.

Liberals tend to be great believers in political correctness, that great system in which you are entitled not to be offended unless you are a part of the following groups: Christians, "rednecks", members of the NRA, or anyone with a conservative bone in their bodies.

There I'm finished with my rant.
And you have the nerve to call yourself an Unashamed CHRISTIAN?

There is no need to extrapolate, your post says it all.

As your statements are, as you've already put it, generalizations, there is no need to dispute what you've said. I'm sure you can find some liberals who would agree with your generalizations about them. However, I suppose that means that we can now start using those same type of generalizations to describe the Republicans and their conservative agenda:

1. Conservatives value business over people and have even gone so far as to establish that businesses have the same rights that a human being does.

2. Conservatives preach tolerance about Christianity because they believe the rest of the world is ignorant about who God is and feel it is their path into heaven to educate them by beating them over the head with their Bible.

2a. Of course, not all Christians are the right kind of Christians to Conservatives. Lutherans, for example, are considered evil. Episcopalians are just plain dirty. Catholics are only useful when its time for the election. Before and after that, they are a cult intent on destroying the world with their statues. The only true Christian to a conservative is a southern Baptist.

3. Conservatives seem to want to destroy 70 years of working to bring the world together by undermining everything that the United Nations stands for...unless the United Nations serves a purpose to them. At that point, the UN is to follow the United States' example and not have any independent thought whatsoever.

4. Conservatives preach about a smaller government and want to eliminate all types of welfare, except for corporate welfare, which is ok because it helps out businesses and those that don't need the help to begin with. However, while preaching about small government, they neglect to actually follow through, instead expanding government every time they have the chance to.

5. Seems that Conservatives will go to the ends of the earth screaming that a fetus has more rights than its mother. They scream about how we shouldn't play God with life and that life must respected at all costs. Of course, they then advocate whole-heartedly for the death penalty, which is also placing man into a position to play God as well.

5a. Don't forget that the fetus is only important to Conservatives until it is actually born. At that point, Conservatives like to tell the child that they are responsible for being dirt poor and they are just lazy and ignorant and don't deserve government assistance. Hey, they should just go out and get a job.

6. Conservatives seem to feel that the military is more important than all other aspects of life. Having enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world a hundred times over isn't good enough. More is needed. All government money should go directly into the military for weapons, but not actually for the troops or their families. After all, they are just good for photo opportunities. If they could cite a reference for it, they would refer to Jesus as a General and his Apostles were his private militia.

7. Conservatives seem to want to re-write history about the fact that the founding fathers made every effort to ensure that the nation would not become a religious state. They tend to re-write history, speaking only of those people of Christian ancestry who came here and neglecting all others. Never mind the fact that those early settlers would not be accepted by today's conservatives, because they aren't the right kind of Christians.

8. It seems that Conservatives can't accept responsibility for anything bad that happens, preferring instead to blame their predecessors. However, anything good that happens is directly resulting from their astute leadership. When something happens that they can't shift the blame to their predecessors, they fall upon each other like a hungry pack of wolves to see who will get the blame.

9. It seems that Conservatives want to take everyone's retirement, investments, and pensions and move it into the hands of their frends so they can make a few dollars off of it. However, should those investments fail, it is the fault of the person who now is left penniless. But they can't have assistance from the government as a result because that would mean they are lazy and ignorant.

Are these generalizations equivalent to what the everyday Conservative believes, or are they just the same type of stereotypes?Excellent post Thunderland!!

It is important to note that most of my statements are generalizations of the liberal agenda, I'm not saying that all liberals stand for all of these things.

Where to start is really the question.

I guess I could start with national sovereignty. It seems that liberals would have us give all of our rights as a nation over to the United Nations, that wonderful group of dictators and thugs that hate us. The group that replaced the United States on the human rights commission with a current perpetrator of genocide, Sudan. The group whose leader denounced the United States that we were not doing enough for AIDs in Africa and the world even though we just authorized hundreds of billions of dollars in combating AIDs.

It seems liberals would elevate the rights of an insect over the rights of their fellow man to make a living.

It seems liberals would rather have everyone dependent on the government so that we would vote them into power just so we could keep our jobs and the free money coming in.

It seems liberals would rather have something bad happen, like the economy tanking, so that they could blame Bush and they could be elected.

It seems liberals would rather restrict investment, savings, and work by taxing it to death.

A great line from Reagan using humor to describe the liberal position on taxes. "If it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it, if it stops moving subsidize it."

It seems like liberals would rather not have a military at all, therefore freeing up more money to spend on their utopian dreams.

It seems like liberals are huge supporters of infanticide, killing babies inches away from being born by sucking out their brains with vacuums.

It seems like liberals acting through the ACLU would have absolutely no mention of God in the public square even though this country was founded on Christian principles. They would rewrite history to make it seem like this nation was secular from the beginning. Heaven forbid that we actually teach that it was Christians who first landed on this continent, they would rather skip right to the Revolutionary war.

The "tolerant" wing of the Democratic party is really quite intolerant of anything remotely related to Christianity.

Liberals tend to be great believers in political correctness, that great system in which you are entitled not to be offended unless you are a part of the following groups: Christians, "rednecks", members of the NRA, or anyone with a conservative bone in their bodies.

There I'm finished with my rant.
Bravo, Bravo! It seems your beef and my beef are remarkably alike.

Bravo, Bravo! It seems your beef and my beef are remarkably alike.

Maybe because they were both created through the same "information" (propaganda is such a harsh word)

These aren't GENERALIZATIONS, they are exaggerations. The title to the post should read, "What Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh think the democrats stand for."

If you have spent any time AT ALL looking at what Dems stand for, you will realize that most of your statements are greatly exxagerrated.

In response, I could say "All Republicans:"

Wish to kill everyone convicted of a violent crime, whether or not they had decent representation, or whether or not they are actually innocent.

Wish to let all the poor, disenfranchised, and persecuted pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, or die trying.

Wish to wage war against any country, for any reason, as long as we can see some profit in it.

Wish to isolate ourselves from anyone in the world, unless they agree with us completely.

Wish the populace to have rights, until they iunfringe upon what the government wants.

Wish for corporations to make public policy, after all, they didn't get where they are by chance.

Wish to end all free speech that isn't tied directly to loyalty oaths to the president.

Wish women would stay in their proper place, the kitchen.

Wish that we could force "ethical and moral codes and conduct unto the masses." Moral and ethical being determined by government decree (definately outlawing homosexuality with forced retraining programs) Forcing women to have babies, no matter how they got pregnant (after all, a man got you pregnant, why should you have the right to say anything about it)

Wish freedom of religion, as long as it is one of several Christian ones.

Do I have to go on? Now I don't for a moment think that any but the looniest repubs feel this way any more than I do believe your original exaggeration, but do you see the point? Stop listening to republican spin and do your research to find out what dems REALLY think. Republicans thrive on fear, and it appears you have bought the entire stinkload of it.

That as the faithful Christian you are people shouldn't help other people. That if a woman is raped or victim of incest or is 14 years old she should except the fact of her life being ruined by an unwanted and un-chosen pregnancy. That we should not as women have a say in what we do with our bodies but rather it should be up to the government to decide what people do with their bodies, because again your religious beliefs tell you that and therefore you feel you should force your views onto every one else because that's what freedom is all about.


Well, how about the 25 year old woman who had sex with her boyfriend, did not use protection, is pregnant, and wants an abortion? I agree with you about rape, incest, and age, but how about the majority of abortions, where the woman wants just because.

The women had a choice with their bodys when they decided to have sex and not use protection, then wants an abortion. It is a choice, but I believe killing is a crime. A murderer choses to kill another man, a man choses to use his body to kill his wife, this is their choice, but it is still illegal. Or, do you believe that a growing baby is not human, and therefore cannot be killed? Is that still not murder? Is the baby human, or not?

The people in Waco, it was their religion to let their leader sleep with young girls and try to kill US Agents, but isnt that still illegal? The religion of the 9/11 hijackers told them to fly planes into buildings to kill innocent Americans, isnt that still illegal?

You have no argument. I know that abortion is legal now, but I hope in the future it is not.

And when the supporters of abortion call themselves "pro-choice", what about the baby's choice? Did the baby want to be killed?

Well, how about the 25 year old woman who had sex with her boyfriend, did not use protection, is pregnant, and wants an abortion? I agree with you about rape, incest, and age, but how about the majority of abortions, where the woman wants just because.

How do you know that? Can you cite a source or statistic for this assertion? Or is this just your impression?

The women had a choice with their bodys when they decided to have sex and not use protection, then wants an abortion. It is a choice, but I believe killing is a crime.

And you are entitled to this belief. However, it has obviously not been the position of the American government for the past 200-plus years. Rather, it- and many Americans- have preferred to take the position of "no killing except for mitigating circumstances"- hence the legality of killing in war, or self-defence.

A murderer choses to kill another man, a man choses to use his body to kill his wife, this is their choice, but it is still illegal.

Murder is indeed illegal, but mere killing does not itself constitute murder.

Or, do you believe that a growing baby is not human, and therefore cannot be killed? Is that still not murder? Is the baby human, or not?

My feeling is that a baby becomes human when it is born. Until then it is not. That said, the issue of whether something is human is not necessarily determininant on whether killing it constitutes "murder". Why don't you offer your definition of murder?

You have no argument. I know that abortion is legal now, but I hope in the future it is not.

And you're entitled to that belief. As are others who disagree with you.

And when the supporters of abortion call themselves "pro-choice", what about the baby's choice? Did the baby want to be killed?

And your "what about the baby's choice" is an absurd tangent. Babies have no choice in anything, nor do young children. The baby does not get a choice as to whether it is born or not, just as a baby who is born premature does not get a choice as to whether or not it wants to be assisted with medical technology. It's all completely irrelevant.

Also, if we're going to talk about misleading names, how about "pro-life"? I hear a lot of conservatives preaching about the sanctity of fetuses' lives, but very little about the awful state of the United States' adoption system infrastructure.

1. Why is it that the majority of pro lifers also suport the death penalty? Isn't that just a tad hypocritical of our politicos? Espescially since so many of death row inmates have been shown to be represented poorly or ar just plain innocent?

2. Slight humor here, but I believe we celebrate the birth of Christ. That is the accepted holiday as to when his LIFE began. Ummmm, maybe we should change the Holiday nine months to the conception thereof?

I happen to believe, and these are my personal religious beliefs, that all life is created for a reason. I see no reason to punish the baby because of the sins of the man in the case of rape. If you do not want the baby, then give it up for adoption after its born.

Liar!

Your religion preaches that all humans are born in sin, hence, abortion cannot be the murder of an innocent.

Your own religion counters your "pro-life" stance.

Slight humor here, but I believe we celebrate the birth of Christ. That is the accepted holiday as to when his LIFE began. Ummmm, maybe we should change the Holiday nine months to the conception thereof?

It is of interest to note that according to Torah - the Jewish holy book and the book Christians use to "prove" Jesus is the Messiah - very clearly states that a person does not become a person until they are entered into the covenant - this happens at 8 days old for boys and at presentation for girls.

So these Christian "life begins at conception" nuts don't even realize that their own religious text proves them wrong.

Someday I'd love to meet a Christian who actually reads the bible. (Chick tracts don't count!)

It is of interest to note that according to Torah - the Jewish holy book and the book Christians use to "prove" Jesus is the Messiah - very clearly states that a person does not become a person until they are entered into the covenant - this happens at 8 days old for boys and at presentation for girls.

So these Christian "life begins at conception" nuts don't even realize that their own religious text proves them wrong.

Someday I'd love to meet a Christian who actually reads the bible. (Chick tracts don't count!)


Does that mean that post-birth abortions should be legal according to Christian doctrine? Ouch. Hate to see that political firestorm! lmao

Does that mean that post-birth abortions should be legal according to Christian doctrine? Ouch. Hate to see that political firestorm! lmao

Well, I still maintain that a parent should be able to abort their kids until the kid is 18.

:eek: :sniper: :D

Yes, because when a woman becomes pregnant when she is raped, it's totally her fault. She shouldn't have been wearing that short skirt, she tempted the man by being a cock tease. Or she should have screamed. Since she didn't scream for help, she obviously wanted it, and therefor she wasn't really raped.



Yes, I see the light now!
I can only assume you are being sarcastic here. Please tell me you are...

You know, how much validity does the bible have over, say, the Hitch-hiker's Guide To The Galaxy?

What's to say that all gods came into being a good three millionths of a second after the beginning of a universe, and not a week before as they usually claim, is any less valid than god created the world in a week, created man in his image etc. etc. etc.

And I have no problem with any religion, just the people who claim to belong to it yet tread upon its principles and think nothing of it.

As your statements are, as you've already put it, generalizations, there is no need to dispute what you've said. I'm sure you can find some liberals who would agree with your generalizations about them. However, I suppose that means that we can now start using those same type of generalizations to describe the Republicans and their conservative agenda:

1. Conservatives value business over people and have even gone so far as to establish that businesses have the same rights that a human being does.

2. Conservatives preach tolerance about Christianity because they believe the rest of the world is ignorant about who God is and feel it is their path into heaven to educate them by beating them over the head with their Bible.

2a. Of course, not all Christians are the right kind of Christians to Conservatives. Lutherans, for example, are considered evil. Episcopalians are just plain dirty. Catholics are only useful when its time for the election. Before and after that, they are a cult intent on destroying the world with their statues. The only true Christian to a conservative is a southern Baptist.

3. Conservatives seem to want to destroy 70 years of working to bring the world together by undermining everything that the United Nations stands for...unless the United Nations serves a purpose to them. At that point, the UN is to follow the United States' example and not have any independent thought whatsoever.

4. Conservatives preach about a smaller government and want to eliminate all types of welfare, except for corporate welfare, which is ok because it helps out businesses and those that don't need the help to begin with. However, while preaching about small government, they neglect to actually follow through, instead expanding government every time they have the chance to.

5. Seems that Conservatives will go to the ends of the earth screaming that a fetus has more rights than its mother. They scream about how we shouldn't play God with life and that life must respected at all costs. Of course, they then advocate whole-heartedly for the death penalty, which is also placing man into a position to play God as well.

5a. Don't forget that the fetus is only important to Conservatives until it is actually born. At that point, Conservatives like to tell the child that they are responsible for being dirt poor and they are just lazy and ignorant and don't deserve government assistance. Hey, they should just go out and get a job.

6. Conservatives seem to feel that the military is more important than all other aspects of life. Having enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world a hundred times over isn't good enough. More is needed. All government money should go directly into the military for weapons, but not actually for the troops or their families. After all, they are just good for photo opportunities. If they could cite a reference for it, they would refer to Jesus as a General and his Apostles were his private militia.

7. Conservatives seem to want to re-write history about the fact that the founding fathers made every effort to ensure that the nation would not become a religious state. They tend to re-write history, speaking only of those people of Christian ancestry who came here and neglecting all others. Never mind the fact that those early settlers would not be accepted by today's conservatives, because they aren't the right kind of Christians.

8. It seems that Conservatives can't accept responsibility for anything bad that happens, preferring instead to blame their predecessors. However, anything good that happens is directly resulting from their astute leadership. When something happens that they can't shift the blame to their predecessors, they fall upon each other like a hungry pack of wolves to see who will get the blame.

9. It seems that Conservatives want to take everyone's retirement, investments, and pensions and move it into the hands of their frends so they can make a few dollars off of it. However, should those investments fail, it is the fault of the person who now is left penniless. But they can't have assistance from the government as a result because that would mean they are lazy and ignorant.

Are these generalizations equivalent to what the everyday Conservative believes, or are they just the same type of stereotypes?

Actually, Thuderland...neither!
They are the uncomfortable TRUTHS that conservatives refuse to face up to and answer for, when confronted with it.
Lemme go point by point...

1. Completely!! To conservatives, businesses are DEFINITELY more important than WORKERS!! Workers rights get screwed in favor of business all the time on Republicans' watch.

2. I'm not even going to add anything, you summed this up beautifully.

3. See number 2 above.

4. See numbers 1 and 2 above. No further comment necessary.

5 & 5a - It's worse. They love life that is in the womb, and give that same life a giant middle finger as soon as it is out of the womb. Truth be known, THEY DON'T LOVE THE LIFE IN THE WOMB, EITHER...THEY JUST WANT TO CONTROL WOMEN'S CHOICES AND BODIES!!

6. If Republicans wouldn't SCREW EVERYONE OVER...we wouldn't NEED such a huge military...duhhhhhh

7. Summed up beautifully, no further comment needed.

8. Witness the current Bush Administration, and the fall of George Tenet. 'Nuff said!!

9. True. Witness Ken Lay. And while we're on that subject...had anyone else noticed Martha Stewart got jail time for doing EXACTLY WHAT BUSH DID WITH HIS HARKEN STOCK???
Ahh, then again, Martha's Daddy wasn't President when she did it...besides, all HER political contributions go to (gasp) DEMOCRATS!! That is why Ken Lay will get off scot-free while Martha does time.
Mark my words, Ken Lay will make Bush's pardon list in December!

yo can you tell I was being SARCASTIC sheesh was trying to point out how idiotic it all REALLY sounds
Im not even conservitive :)

I know, I was just using your sarcasm as an excuse to moan about this great conservative administrations effects on my financial situation.

How do you know that? Can you cite a source or statistic for this assertion? Or is this just your impression?



And you are entitled to this belief. However, it has obviously not been the position of the American government for the past 200-plus years. Rather, it- and many Americans- have preferred to take the position of "no killing except for mitigating circumstances"- hence the legality of killing in war, or self-defence.



Murder is indeed illegal, but mere killing does not itself constitute murder.



My feeling is that a baby becomes human when it is born. Until then it is not. That said, the issue of whether something is human is not necessarily determininant on whether killing it constitutes "murder". Why don't you offer your definition of murder?



And you're entitled to that belief. As are others who disagree with you.



And your "what about the baby's choice" is an absurd tangent. Babies have no choice in anything, nor do young children. The baby does not get a choice as to whether it is born or not, just as a baby who is born premature does not get a choice as to whether or not it wants to be assisted with medical technology. It's all completely irrelevant.

Also, if we're going to talk about misleading names, how about "pro-life"? I hear a lot of conservatives preaching about the sanctity of fetuses' lives, but very little about the awful state of the United States' adoption system infrastructure.

Yeah, they are "pro-life" until IT COSTS THEM SOMETHING!!
Welfare, anyone?
Children going without health insurance, anyone?
children going without food...or heat in the winter, anyone?

Yeah, real "pro-life!!":mad:

Yeah, they are "pro-life" until IT COSTS THEM SOMETHING!!
Welfare, anyone?
Children going without health insurance, anyone?
children going without food...or heat in the winter, anyone?

Yeah, real "pro-life!!":mad:And whose fault is that besides the parents? Mine? Yours? There has to be some accountability for the parents, and those of you on the left need to understand that accountabilty starts in the home. It is not the states responsabilty to raise the child, it is the parents. And it is not the states responsability to provide for the child, it is the parents.

What pisses me off about liberals is their lack of loyalty.

Reasonable people can disagree on tax policy, or gun control, or SUVs, or affirmative action, or fags, or even abortion. I'll argue that stuff over dinner any day, and then have a beer together and talk about something else.

But when someone like Michael Moore comes out on September 12th and says essentially that we deserved what we got, thats not reasonable disagreement. It's spitting in the face of everyone in this country, and it's moral support for our enemies. Hard labor is too good for these people.

Ditto for disagreeing with the war at this point. The time for dissent is before the war starts. That's when you argue over whether it's justified.

When our troops are fighting and dying, that is no longer the time for dissent. That is the time to swallow your objections, and come together behind our guys. Not call them baby killers, and spew wild conspiracy theories about how they're dying to enrich their commander's oil buddies.

George Bush is a pretty bad president as they go. Frankly, if liberals tried running against him without running against their country at the same time, we'd hardly need to have an election.

I happen to think we'd have been better off if we never left England.

And whose fault is that besides the parents? Mine? Yours? There has to be some accountability for the parents, and those of you on the left need to understand that accountabilty starts in the home. It is not the states responsabilty to raise the child, it is the parents. And it is not the states responsability to provide for the child, it is the parents.

Uh huh ... and you folks on the right need to realize that life is not made up of absolutes. Accountability for the parents is just fine, but what happens if the mother dies during the birth because you wouldn't allow her to have an abortion after her lover ran off when he found out she was pregnant?

Who takes on the mantle of responsibility? The state killed her, so should the state be responsible for the child? How about letting it jump from foster home to foster home and begin a life of crime? Once the child is a criminal, then it becomes a ward of the state in prison, right?

So, if we want to look at life in terms of right-wing absolutes, then we can only assume that less abortions = more prisons.

Strange world in which ya'll live.

For those of you in the US, I'd like to point something out. Roe v Wade clearly suggests (and most states either follow this suggestion or are even more strict) that:

1. During the first trimester, a woman's right to her body is complete and she should be able to have an abortion, period.

2. During the second trimester, a woman can only have an abortion if continuing the pregnancy would be unhealthy for her. (If there are doctors willing to give an abortion because the woman is nauseous, complain about them.)

3. During the third trimester, a woman can have an abortion only if her life is in danger.

So the website posted is clearly biased and is either reporting completely illegal acts, or making stuff up to sound important.

Uh huh ... and you folks on the right need to realize that life is not made up of absolutes. Accountability for the parents is just fine, but what happens if the mother dies during the birth because you wouldn't allow her to have an abortion after her lover ran off when he found out she was pregnant?

Who takes on the mantle of responsibility? The state killed her, so should the state be responsible for the child? How about letting it jump from foster home to foster home and begin a life of crime? Once the child is a criminal, then it becomes a ward of the state in prison, right?

So, if we want to look at life in terms of right-wing absolutes, then we can only assume that less abortions = more prisons.

Strange world in which ya'll live.
Nice try, but the responsabilty of raising a child is in the hands of the parent.

Plus, you don't know a damn thing about my stance on abortion, so you don't know what I will "allow".

What pisses me off about liberals is their lack of loyalty.

Reasonable people can disagree on tax policy, or gun control, or SUVs, or affirmative action, or fags, or even abortion. I'll argue that stuff over dinner any day, and then have a beer together and talk about something else.

But when someone like Michael Moore comes out on September 12th and says essentially that we deserved what we got, thats not reasonable disagreement. It's spitting in the face of everyone in this country, and it's moral support for our enemies. Hard labor is too good for these people.

Ditto for disagreeing with the war at this point. The time for dissent is before the war starts. That's when you argue over whether it's justified.

When our troops are fighting and dying, that is no longer the time for dissent. That is the time to swallow your objections, and come together behind our guys. Not call them baby killers, and spew wild conspiracy theories about how they're dying to enrich their commander's oil buddies.

George Bush is a pretty bad president as they go. Frankly, if liberals tried running against him without running against their country at the same time, we'd hardly need to have an election.

I take issue with your use of the word "fags." Retract it. Or face my ignore cannon for obvious flamebaiting.

And whose fault is that besides the parents? Mine? Yours? There has to be some accountability for the parents, and those of you on the left need to understand that accountabilty starts in the home. It is not the states responsabilty to raise the child, it is the parents. And it is not the states responsability to provide for the child, it is the parents.
Over 1 in 5 children born in the US, is born into poverty. Which I find shocking to say the least. The world's richest country, with the world's worst record of OECD countries (17th out of 17) in resolving this problem.

In certain parts of Washington, D.C., the conditions seem to be more in tune with the third world. It is nothing short of embarrassing that, in the capital of the richest country in the world, 39 percent of children live below the poverty line.

Meanwhile:
It is perhaps just as shocking that as of 2000, the average CEO made 531times more than the average factory worker while in 1980, the ratio was only 42:1

Meanwhile:
Today, the U.S. accounts for nearly 40 percent of global defense spending while it houses only five percent of the world’s population.

Meanwhile:

With a record-setting 2 million people now locked up in American jails and prisons, the United States has overtaken Russia and has a higher percentage of its citizens behind bars than any other country............

.......On a per capita basis, according to the best available figures, the United States has three times more prisoners than Iran, four times more than Poland, five times more than Tanzania and seven times more than Germany.

Meanwhile:
Statistics show that the richest 1 percent of the US citizens own 40 percent of the total property of the country, while 80 percent of US citizens own just 16 percent.

Since the 1990s, 40 percent of the increased wealth went into the pockets of the rich minority, while only 1 percent went to the poor majority.


Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) recently called for the return of the draft, declaring that this would guarantee that all people in the U.S. "pay some price." Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), who has actually introduced a bill in Congress for the return of the draft, correctly points out that at the time Congress authorized the war against Iraq, it had only one member with a child in the enlisted ranks.

Hagel and Rangel’s claim that conscription would "share the sacrifice" of military service underlines an important fact--that the ranks of today’s "volunteer" army are filled with poor and working people who sign up because the military offers a steady paycheck and promises to help with job training and financial aid for college. Antiwar activists call this the "poverty draft."

It is ok for the poor to fight for their country, but it is not ok for the rich to support the poor?

What will happen to these numbers if abortion is outlawed?

What is the mindset in the US?

Until conservatives stop advocating for the death penalty, I'll never respect their anti-abortion stance. If you want to shroud yourself in the light of being "pro-life," then you can't pick and chose which life you are for. It is the ultimate of hypocrisy...not to mention that it rocks the very foundation for anti-abortioners: that its against God's will.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't there stern warnings in Christian theology about mankind usurping God's place? I seem to recall my priest saying quite a few things about it.....

I take issue with your use of the word "fags." Retract it. Or face my ignore cannon for obvious flamebaiting.

I take issue with your being a fag, simmer down there.

And whose fault is that besides the parents? Mine? Yours? There has to be some accountability for the parents, and those of you on the left need to understand that accountabilty starts in the home. It is not the states responsabilty to raise the child, it is the parents. And it is not the states responsability to provide for the child, it is the parents.

Except that you're suggesting it's the state's responsibility to legislate if the parent can HAVE a child or not. Kind of a contradictory logic.

Also, if someone is going to proclaim themselves as being "pro-life", it shouldn't be an issue of whose FAULT a certain thing is. Rather, I would think that someone who sees themselves as being an advocate for unborn babies would similarly want to ensure that those babies are protected and helped AFTER their births. To cause a huge stink about abortion but to be silent about the sad state of adoption- and, to a larger extent, welfare- seems nothing short of inconsistent, verging on dishonest.

I take issue with your being a fag, simmer down there.

What a douchebaggy thing to say.

What pisses me off about liberals is their lack of loyalty.

Reasonable people can disagree on tax policy, or gun control, or SUVs, or affirmative action, or fags, or even abortion. I'll argue that stuff over dinner any day, and then have a beer together and talk about something else.

But when someone like Michael Moore comes out on September 12th and says essentially that we deserved what we got, thats not reasonable disagreement. It's spitting in the face of everyone in this country, and it's moral support for our enemies. Hard labor is too good for these people.

Ditto for disagreeing with the war at this point. The time for dissent is before the war starts. That's when you argue over whether it's justified.

When our troops are fighting and dying, that is no longer the time for dissent. That is the time to swallow your objections, and come together behind our guys. Not call them baby killers, and spew wild conspiracy theories about how they're dying to enrich their commander's oil buddies.

George Bush is a pretty bad president as they go. Frankly, if liberals tried running against him without running against their country at the same time, we'd hardly need to have an election.


A question. If you view all dissent during time of war as being against the country - how the hell do you run against the President without - as you put it - running against he country?

Are they just supposed to pretend that the war isn't happening?


Your notion that the moment a war is declared that the government can do no wrong and that people can't continue to voice their dissent (Or worse yet, that the government can do wrong, but are supposed to pretend like it's not happening) is against the very principles that your country is founded on.

Patriotism = Dissent!

(In a free country any way)

Patriotism = Dissent!

(In a free country any way)

Hrm...

According to the Oxford University Press:

patriot >noun a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it

dissent >verb express disagreement with a prevailing or official view

So, it seems the two are mutually exclusive and simply don't equal each other.

Ditto for disagreeing with the war at this point. The time for dissent is before the war starts. That's when you argue over whether it's justified.

OVER 11,000,000 PEOPLE WORLDWIDE DID PROTEST!!!!

http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Iraq/102702_pictures_of_anti.htm


George Bush is a pretty bad president as they go.

Can't argue with you about that statement!!

Hrm...

According to the Oxford University Press:

patriot >noun a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it

dissent >verb express disagreement with a prevailing or official view

So, it seems the two are mutually exclusive and simply don't equal each other.


One doesn't support or defend one's country by dissenting with bad decisions?

Dissent for dissent's sake is not patriotism, however it certainly has it's place in the lexicon of activities that make up love of country. Otherswise all the Republican's around here would have to keep saying that Clinton was a great President in order to deem themselves patriotic! :D

Hrm...

According to the Oxford University Press:

patriot >noun a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it

dissent >verb express disagreement with a prevailing or official view

So, it seems the two are mutually exclusive and simply don't equal each other.

Don't muddy the waters with literal definitions and the spirit of what freedom is suppose to entail.. ya know..

Liberals just can't learn. It's like their brains refuse to switch on or something. They didn't learn from Reagan's aggressive stance towards the Russians that resulted in the downfall of communism there without a shot ever being fired. They didn't learn from Jimmy Carter's weak-spining the Iranians that resulted in a regime change there that was far worse than the government asking him for support. They didn't learn from Clinton ass-raping the military that resulted in the emboldened terrorists that orchestrated the attacks of 11 September. We don't need a big military so that we can use it to whip everyone's ass. We need a big military so that people are aware of the fact that we can come and whip their ass any time we get the itch. That's what deters them from attacking us, not dumping money on them like Clinton did. He dumped money on North Korea, what happened? They fired a test nuke up the ass of one of our allies. They basically took our tax dollars, said thank you, and then spat in our face. They don't understand that evil does exist, and that it can't be reasoned with, or hand-held, or coddled, or bought. It must be confronted, exposed, and destroyed. They like to call us butchers for using the bomb on Japan. Let's think for a moment, it was either kill 140,000 of our ENEMIES, or kill nearly a million of them, plus likely a few hundred thousand of OUR OWN to try and invade them, or just stand around with our finger up our ass and let them conquer the Pacific. Evil only responds to swift and blinding violence, history has proven that time and again. We pussy-footed with Vietnam because of all the protesting hippies, and communists took over. Man I bet the dirt poor oppressed people of Vietnam are so thankful for that.
They can't learn from other countries' mistakes either. Look what communism did for Russia. Collapsed it. Massive social welfare programs remove people's accountability and responsibility (oh no, those are the bad juju words to a democrat). These programs encourage people to sit at home and not try rather than take control of their own lives and better themselves. But that's what they want, mindless little uneducated animals that are easy to control (wait, isn't that a democratic voter already?). Some of you people should look at a map that shows the results of the 2000 election by district and not just by state. If you do, you'll see that even in states that ended up communist, almost all districts (with the exclusions of those that encompass huge masses of poor minorities like New York City and Los Angeles) were blue. That begs the question, is the nation really split, or is the conservative majority just not voting? I'll let you decide that. Just chew on this little tidbit, only 44% of the population voted during both Clinton elections. Each time, he won with only about 43% of the popular vote. That means that only around 15-16% of the population actually voted for that draft-dodging idiot.
As for the military being comprised of poor people who can't find jobs anywhere else. Fuck you. I serve because I choose to. I have a BS in Mathematics from University of Maryland College Park (go Terps), and a masters in Electrical Engineering from Clemson University. I refused the officer's commission because I didn't want to be a bureaucrat with no respect from his men (which is pretty much what all officers are now). My term of service ends in about 18 months, and I already have 5 job offers sitting on the table with salaries ranging from 70k to 120k a year. Man I'm really doing bad, huh?

Liberals just can't learn. It's like their brains refuse to switch on or something. They didn't learn from Reagan's aggressive stance towards the Russians that resulted in the downfall of communism there without a shot ever being fired

So what you're really saying is radical neo-cons such as the lot that run the White House right now didn't learn from Reagan's "not a shot fired" Or is it that the right wing didn't learn from Reagan almost bankrupting the USA? Clinton sure as hell did!

Liberals just can't learn. It's like their brains refuse to switch on or something. They didn't learn from Reagan's aggressive stance towards the Russians that resulted in the downfall of communism there without a shot ever being fired. They didn't learn from Jimmy Carter's weak-spining the Iranians that resulted in a regime change there that was far worse than the government asking him for support. They didn't learn from Clinton ass-raping the military that resulted in the emboldened terrorists that orchestrated the attacks of 11 September. We don't need a big military so that we can use it to whip everyone's ass. We need a big military so that people are aware of the fact that we can come and whip their ass any time we get the itch. That's what deters them from attacking us, not dumping money on them like Clinton did. He dumped money on North Korea, what happened? They fired a test nuke up the ass of one of our allies. They basically took our tax dollars, said thank you, and then spat in our face. They don't understand that evil does exist, and that it can't be reasoned with, or hand-held, or coddled, or bought. It must be confronted, exposed, and destroyed. They like to call us butchers for using the bomb on Japan. Let's think for a moment, it was either kill 140,000 of our ENEMIES, or kill nearly a million of them, plus likely a few hundred thousand of OUR OWN to try and invade them, or just stand around with our finger up our ass and let them conquer the Pacific. Evil only responds to swift and blinding violence, history has proven that time and again. We pussy-footed with Vietnam because of all the protesting hippies, and communists took over. Man I bet the dirt poor oppressed people of Vietnam are so thankful for that.
They can't learn from other countries' mistakes either. Look what communism did for Russia. Collapsed it. Massive social welfare programs remove people's accountability and responsibility (oh no, those are the bad juju words to a democrat). These programs encourage people to sit at home and not try rather than take control of their own lives and better themselves. But that's what they want, mindless little uneducated animals that are easy to control (wait, isn't that a democratic voter already?). Some of you people should look at a map that shows the results of the 2000 election by district and not just by state. If you do, you'll see that even in states that ended up communist, almost all districts (with the exclusions of those that encompass huge masses of poor minorities like New York City and Los Angeles) were blue. That begs the question, is the nation really split, or is the conservative majority just not voting? I'll let you decide that. Just chew on this little tidbit, only 44% of the population voted during both Clinton elections. Each time, he won with only about 43% of the popular vote. That means that only around 15-16% of the population actually voted for that draft-dodging idiot.
As for the military being comprised of poor people who can't find jobs anywhere else. Fuck you. I serve because I choose to. I have a BS in Mathematics from University of Maryland College Park (go Terps), and a masters in Electrical Engineering from Clemson University. I refused the officer's commission because I didn't want to be a bureaucrat with no respect from his men (which is pretty much what all officers are now). My term of service ends in about 18 months, and I already have 5 job offers sitting on the table with salaries ranging from 70k to 120k a year. Man I'm really doing bad, huh?


In the end, it is all about money? Nice summary!!

Protest is patriotism.

That's why we're a free country-we rebelled against our government. And that's why we continue to be a free country-because we have the RIGHT to say "you're wrong" to the government at any time.

Calling liberals is "un-loyal" because they differ on opinion is one of the most un-patriotic things you can do.

In the end, it is all about money? Nice summary!!
Please tell me you can read better than that, or would you rather ignore the rest of the post.

So far as contradiction of death penalty and abortion, to me there is no contradiction. There is a crime and there is a punishment for that crime. When done right, by which I mean that the death penalty is administered to the right person, justice is carried out as it should be.

Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man."

errr... I never understood why everyone is so afraid of Communism. They act like it's the end of the world, you damn capitalist pigs.

Man, I'd love for someone to call me a neo-con to my face. I'd get a good opportunity to exercise a little swift and blinding violence right on the spot. I find that labeling (which all you hippies claim to oppose) as offensive as a black man finds the n-bomb. And let's see, Reagan didn't have to fire a shot because Russia knew that such an outcome would lead to global destruction. That was a far more powerful enemy. Shots being fired would have never been necessary if Clinton had coddled the enemy for 8 years and emboldened them against us. Force was the only option left. We'd sanctioned Iraq for 10 years and still Hussein refused to change (and let's honestly ask ourselves whether he had WMDs or not, and if he did, how long do you think it could have taken him to smuggle them into Syria, I'll tell you, about 14 days, much less time than we spent trying to argue the morality of our invasion to the corrupt and pathetic U.N.), and therefore we had no choice but to depose him with our military.
You obviously never sat through freshman economics either. If you had you'd know full well that the economic policies Reagan pushed hurt the treasury in the short term but caused our economy to thrive in the big picture. You'd also know that his reforms took a little over 6 years to take effect. Hmmm... right about the time that Clinton took office and miraculously our economy was fixed without him having to do anything. Economics is chess, not checkers, it doesn't happen overnight it happens over years. You're obviously not mentally equipped to understand that.
I also think you and every other liberal are conveniently excluding a very significant point from your little economy rants. We can't go bankrupt. If we did the entire global economy would collapse. If we paid off all of our debt it would break the economy. If we collected on all the debts that are owed to us, we'd bankrupt the entire planet. It's a carefully balanced little system we have, and it works. Learn to see further than the end of your nose.

Obviously Conan-Utopia is an idiot who's never visited the communist regimes of North Korea, Vietnam, or pre-Berlin Wall Russia. Maybe he'd like to go live in communist China, where they eat human fetuses, sterilize people without consent, and run over protestors with tanks.

Man, I'd love for someone to call me a neo-con to my face. I'd get a good opportunity to exercise a little swift and blinding violence right on the spot.

I'm a woman and mother of two small children, but whatever makes you feel like a man!

Man, I'd love for someone to call me a neo-con to my face. I'd get a good opportunity to exercise a little swift and blinding violence right on the spot. I find that labeling (which all you hippies claim to oppose) as offensive as a black man finds the n-bomb. And let's see, Reagan didn't have to fire a shot because Russia knew that such an outcome would lead to global destruction. That was a far more powerful enemy. Shots being fired would have never been necessary if Clinton had coddled the enemy for 8 years and emboldened them against us. Force was the only option left. We'd sanctioned Iraq for 10 years and still Hussein refused to change (and let's honestly ask ourselves whether he had WMDs or not, and if he did, how long do you think it could have taken him to smuggle them into Syria, I'll tell you, about 14 days, much less time than we spent trying to argue the morality of our invasion to the corrupt and pathetic U.N.), and therefore we had no choice but to depose him with our military.
You obviously never sat through freshman economics either. If you had you'd know full well that the economic policies Reagan pushed hurt the treasury in the short term but caused our economy to thrive in the big picture. You'd also know that his reforms took a little over 6 years to take effect. Hmmm... right about the time that Clinton took office and miraculously our economy was fixed without him having to do anything. Economics is chess, not checkers, it doesn't happen overnight it happens over years. You're obviously not mentally equipped to understand that.
I also think you and every other liberal are conveniently excluding a very significant point from your little economy rants. We can't go bankrupt. If we did the entire global economy would collapse. If we paid off all of our debt it would break the economy. If we collected on all the debts that are owed to us, we'd bankrupt the entire planet. It's a carefully balanced little system we have, and it works. Learn to see further than the end of your nose.


So, you object to the label "neo-con" at the same time you label eveyone else hippies, and your prefered tactic is to threaten women?

Besides being a hypocrite, you are beneath contempt.

Obviously Conan-Utopia is an idiot who's never visited the communist regimes of North Korea, Vietnam, or pre-Berlin Wall Russia. Maybe he'd like to go live in communist China, where they eat human fetuses, sterilize people without consent, and run over protestors with tanks.
Well, obviously.


Touche'

This country was founded on christian principles if you count genocide as one of them.

We stole it from the Native Americans, and killed off just about all of 'em in the process. We came here, killed off the native inhabitants in the name of god, destroyed their culture and put ours in its place. And as far as I have known, that is quite thoroughly against christian principles.

Regan let genocide happen in Iraq, because the Iraqis were fighting Iran and, oh my god even the thought of letting morals interfere with foreign policy sends shivers down my spine. Now this has happened, however, in just about every US presidential term. What's happening in Sudan is clearly genocide, but the US government yet again makes the mistake of calling it 'ethnic cleansing' and therefore avoids the international pressure to act that would come with a genocide declaration. In fact, the United States, in all our glory, only adopted the genocide convention in the 1980's, and have never even once dared to use it. That would be doing good. People might actually respect the united states. Nope, can't let that happen.

Conservatives seem to dismiss efforts for social progress as "Communism" and "Utopian Dreams." I mean, is England really doing that badly?

We can't go around attacking every country that commits genocide,
Our military is too small. We are already maxed out in iraq and a afghanistan so if anything actually big happened now we'd be to put it frankly, screwed.

cr

Please tell me you can read better than that, or would you rather ignore the rest of the post.

Well the post wasn't exactly brimming with any kind of intelligence, so ignore is a great option. :rolleyes:

Man, I'd love for someone to call me a neo-con to my face. I'd get a good opportunity to exercise a little swift and blinding violence right on the spot. I find that labeling (which all you hippies claim to oppose) as offensive as a black man finds the n-bomb. And let's see, Reagan didn't have to fire a shot because Russia knew that such an outcome would lead to global destruction. That was a far more powerful enemy. Shots being fired would have never been necessary if Clinton had coddled the enemy for 8 years and emboldened them against us. Force was the only option left. We'd sanctioned Iraq for 10 years and still Hussein refused to change (and let's honestly ask ourselves whether he had WMDs or not, and if he did, how long do you think it could have taken him to smuggle them into Syria, I'll tell you, about 14 days, much less time than we spent trying to argue the morality of our invasion to the corrupt and pathetic U.N.), and therefore we had no choice but to depose him with our military.
You obviously never sat through freshman economics either. If you had you'd know full well that the economic policies Reagan pushed hurt the treasury in the short term but caused our economy to thrive in the big picture. You'd also know that his reforms took a little over 6 years to take effect. Hmmm... right about the time that Clinton took office and miraculously our economy was fixed without him having to do anything. Economics is chess, not checkers, it doesn't happen overnight it happens over years. You're obviously not mentally equipped to understand that.
I also think you and every other liberal are conveniently excluding a very significant point from your little economy rants. We can't go bankrupt. If we did the entire global economy would collapse. If we paid off all of our debt it would break the economy. If we collected on all the debts that are owed to us, we'd bankrupt the entire planet. It's a carefully balanced little system we have, and it works. Learn to see further than the end of your nose.

1. You're not equipped to understand short and long term economic measures or else you'd stop with the dreadfully stale "6 year economic impact" argument. That's not the case and its sad to hear people continue to spout it.

1a. If you still chose to believe that mularkey, remember who controlled Congress at that time.....and since you hate Clinton so much and blame him for today's woes, remember who controlled Congress as of 1994. Or does your nose go too far for you to see over it?

2. Can't go bankrupt? What an idiotic thing to say. There are far worse things than bankruptcy, or haven't you paid attention to what happens to a country when its money is worth no more than the paper its printed on? Have you ever looked at Germany in the 30s? Argentina today? When your money isn't worth anything because your country's debt is so astronomical, everything in that country collapses. Racking up debt like Bush is doing is dangerous and foolhardy.

3. Reagan never fired a shot....he just sold weapons to the evildoers we now are fighting to rid the world of. What a stupid, stupid thing to do. But don't connect the dots....apparently you missed that part of kindergarden.

4. The Syria argument again? Are you daft or just blind? With every satellite aiming at Iraq for the year leading up to the war, you still hold to the absurd and baseless argument that Syria now has all these wonderful weapons? Good grief, if you can't understand military intelligence, then don't speak of such conspiracy theories. Its childish.

5. You seem to believe the US economy is a key part of the world economy. That's the only thing I'd agree with you. Therefore, it makes sense to be a part of the world community instead of snubbing the world. Makes perfect sense, considering these are our buyers and sellers. Doesn't take that many neurons firing to figure this one out.

6. You are a neo-con. I'm pretty sure that a face to face meeting wouldn't worry me in the least. :)

Uh huh ... and you folks on the right need to realize that life is not made up of absolutes. Accountability for the parents is just fine, but what happens if the mother dies during the birth because you wouldn't allow her to have an abortion after her lover ran off when he found out she was pregnant?

Who takes on the mantle of responsibility? The state killed her, so should the state be responsible for the child? How about letting it jump from foster home to foster home and begin a life of crime? Once the child is a criminal, then it becomes a ward of the state in prison, right?

So, if we want to look at life in terms of right-wing absolutes, then we can only assume that less abortions = more prisons.

Strange world in which ya'll live.

I'm a republican but in favor of abortion.
I don't care about a woman's right to choose or whatever.
But the fact is think about how much better we are without the offspring of people that would want to kill their own child.
I think people in the inner city's/trailer park's etc. who can't afford the baby between their cig's and crack should be strongly persuaded to have one.
Think how much better our society would be, we could keep low taxes(very little wellfare) have strong government programs and a strong defence.

Man, I'd love for someone to call me a neo-con to my face. I'd get a good opportunity to exercise a little swift and blinding violence right on the spot. I find that labeling (which all you hippies claim to oppose) as offensive as a black man finds the n-bomb.

Look, don't stoop to their level, it's what they want. Neo-Con is just a way for simple minded people to label conservatives something nasty. They are petty people who think they have to label everyone. Neo-Con is a way of saying zionist without sounding like a crackpot. Anyone who calls another a neo-con is just petty and pathetic.

Look, don't stoop to their level, it's what they want. Neo-Con is just a way for simple minded people to label conservatives something nasty. They are petty people who think they have to label everyone. Neo-Con is a way of saying zionist without sounding like a crackpot. Anyone who calls another a neo-con is just petty and pathetic.

Ah yes.... all liberals are petty people who label and generalize...and anti-semitic to boot!

:rolleyes:

Look, don't stoop to their level, it's what they want. Neo-Con is just a way for simple minded people to label conservatives something nasty. They are petty people who think they have to label everyone. Neo-Con is a way of saying zionist without sounding like a crackpot. Anyone who calls another a neo-con is just petty and pathetic.

So, if I understand you correctly Bill, stooping to our level is some dude threatening a women and mother of two.. mmmk! I thought you were pretty far right, but I didn't take you for some one who would support violence against women.. I guess you never know huh..

Ah yes.... all liberals are petty people who label and generalize...and anti-semitic to boot!

:rolleyes:
Does this mean I have to change tags again???? :rolleyes:

So, if I understand you correctly Bill, stooping to our level is some dude threatening a women and mother of two.. mmmk! I thought you were pretty far right, but I didn't take you for some one who would support violence against women.. I guess you never know huh..
He didn't threaten you, and you know it. He like all of us conservatives, are sick and tired of you liberals calling us racists and neo-cons.

He didn't threaten you, and you know it. He like all of us conservatives, are sick and tired of you liberals calling us racists and neo-cons.

Actually yes he did, in two different threads. I'm the one who called him a neo-con..I guess the rest of us are tired of being called "hippies"

Does this mean I have to change tags again???? :rolleyes:

Only if you agree with Bill's generalization that all Liberals are the ones that generalize!

All Liberals are also anti-American, unpatriotic, terrorists, and I hear they eat babies.

Look, don't stoop to their level, it's what they want. Neo-Con is just a way for simple minded people to label conservatives something nasty. They are petty people who think they have to label everyone. Neo-Con is a way of saying zionist without sounding like a crackpot. Anyone who calls another a neo-con is just petty and pathetic.
Wow, the word Liberal appears, ummmmm, zero times in this paragraph. Tracking like a bloodhound, I see.

Why is it ok for neo-cons to brand all Democrats as liberals, communists, hippies, unpatriotic, peaceniks, and the like but in return can't stand being labelled themselves? Is it fragile ego or just the fact that the truth hurts?

All Liberals are also anti-American, unpatriotic, terrorists, and I hear they eat babies.
It could be worse, we could be reptillian kitten eaters from outer space?

It is important to note that most of my statements are generalizations of the liberal agenda, I'm not saying that all liberals stand for all of these things.

Yes you are, your title insinuates you are talking about all democrats.


Where to start is really the question.

You shouldn't have started it, you sound ignorant.


I guess I could start with national sovereignty. It seems that liberals would have us give all of our rights as a nation over to the United Nations, that wonderful group of dictators and thugs that hate us. The group that replaced the United States on the human rights commission with a current perpetrator of genocide, Sudan. The group whose leader denounced the United States that we were not doing enough for AIDs in Africa and the world even though we just authorized hundreds of billions of dollars in combating AIDs.

No, not your internal rights, just your right to declare War, was strangely enough DOESN'T ONLY AFFECT YOU! Liberals want to see the UN work as a body, not just say: "We pay the most for the UN, so please go along with everything we say." It's not going to happen.


It seems liberals would elevate the rights of an insect over the rights of their fellow man to make a living.

Hahahaha, your humour is FUNNY! But it's just not true - Unemployment has increased under Bush and people are earning less. Except of course, the mega rich.


It seems liberals would rather have everyone dependent on the government so that we would vote them into power just so we could keep our jobs and the free money coming in.

Dependant on The Government? Oh right you mean Healthcare! Well - If you honestly believe that the only people that deserve basic healthcare are those that can afford it then i honestly pity you.


It seems liberals would rather have something bad happen, like the economy tanking, so that they could blame Bush and they could be elected.

n00b


It seems liberals would rather restrict investment, savings, and work by taxing it to death.

Oh shut up, your not taxed highly at all in America compared to Europe. And look at the returns higher taxation gets you.


A great line from Reagan using humor to describe the liberal position on taxes. "If it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it, if it stops moving subsidize it."

Yeh but Reagan's in hell now.


It seems like liberals would rather not have a military at all, therefore freeing up more money to spend on their utopian dreams.

A Utopia simply isn't feasible, though its nice to think that through more public spending, we can achieve alot more than we could under less. If it were up to you and Bush we would be living in a military state.


It seems like liberals are huge supporters of infanticide, killing babies inches away from being born by sucking out their brains with vacuums.

Not true again.


It seems like liberals acting through the ACLU would have absolutely no mention of God in the public square even though this country was founded on Christian principles. They would rewrite history to make it seem like this nation was secular from the beginning. Heaven forbid that we actually teach that it was Christians who first landed on this continent, they would rather skip right to the Revolutionary war.

Christian Principles - Love, Compassion, Tolerance and Understanding. They kind of completely contradict what you right wing Christians think they are eh? I sure hope there IS a second coming, because I can guarantee you - you people will be the first to go to hell.


The "tolerant" wing of the Democratic party is really quite intolerant of anything remotely related to Christianity.

Nope they are intolerant of the Christian Right - who are not Christian at all.


Liberals tend to be great believers in political correctness, that great system in which you are entitled not to be offended unless you are a part of the following groups: Christians, "rednecks", members of the NRA, or anyone with a conservative bone in their bodies.

Yep - Redknecks are racist scum, The NRA are scum and Right Wing 'Christians' are scum. You hit the nail right on the head.

It could be worse, we could be reptillian kitten eaters from outer space?

Here I always thought Dalton was the only one..lol :D

Wow, the word Liberal appears, ummmmm, zero times in this paragraph. Tracking like a bloodhound, I see.

Ah yes - the "they're" you were refering to was actually left-handed immigrant bagpipe repairmen.... silly me.

:rolleyes:

Of course you didn't mean liberals... that's why your next reply was:

He like all of us conservatives, are sick and tired of you liberals calling us racists and neo-cons.

:rolleyes:

Here I always thought Dalton was the only one..lol :D
We are all over the place LOL!!

I did a google search for "liberal hippy", and there it was, a picture of our hero himself.....George W. Bush LOL

But I also found our other hero:

http://www.mackaycartoons.com/gal2003-04-08.jpg

Thats it...it is settled....I am a hippy liberal!!!

Hrm...

According to the Oxford University Press:

patriot >noun a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it

dissent >verb express disagreement with a prevailing or official view

So, it seems the two are mutually exclusive and simply don't equal each other.

Although I am sure that this little piece of work has been dealt with by now, I just have to say it: they are only mutually exclusive in a dictatorship.

It could be worse, we could be reptillian kitten eaters from outer space?
I'd rather be known as reptillian kitten eater than a baby eater, I suppose. Damn this negative Liberal stigman, damn it to hell.

In response to Nazi Weaponized Virus' obviously intelligent responses to comments made by Unashamed Christians:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unashamed Christians
It seems liberals would rather have something bad happen, like the economy tanking, so that they could blame Bush and they could be elected.

n00b

You didn't actually respond intelligently to the point made here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Unashamed Christians
It seems liberals would rather restrict investment, savings, and work by taxing it to death.

Oh shut up, your not taxed highly at all in America compared to Europe. And look at the returns higher taxation gets you.

Just because he's not as highly taxed as those in Europe doesn't mean he still isn't highly taxed. And yes, look at those returns. Failed social programs. Amazing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Unashamed Christians
A great line from Reagan using humor to describe the liberal position on taxes. "If it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it, if it stops moving subsidize it."

Yeh but Reagan's in hell now.

If you honestly believe this, then you truly are a demented person.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Unashamed Christians
It seems like liberals are huge supporters of infanticide, killing babies inches away from being born by sucking out their brains with vacuums.



Not true again.

An explanation why would be helpful. Without one, it doesn't really add to the discussion at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Unashamed Christians
It seems like liberals acting through the ACLU would have absolutely no mention of God in the public square even though this country was founded on Christian principles. They would rewrite history to make it seem like this nation was secular from the beginning. Heaven forbid that we actually teach that it was Christians who first landed on this continent, they would rather skip right to the Revolutionary war.



Christian Principles - Love, Compassion, Tolerance and Understanding. They kind of completely contradict what you right wing Christians think they are eh? I sure hope there IS a second coming, because I can guarantee you - you people will be the first to go to hell.

Nice generalization there. "You right-wing Christians." Actually, most Christians do believe in love, compassion, tolerance, and understanding. Just because someone identifies themself as a conservative doesn't mean they are completely void of these beliefs or preach them hypocritically.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Unashamed Christians
The "tolerant" wing of the Democratic party is really quite intolerant of anything remotely related to Christianity.



Nope they are intolerant of the Christian Right - who are not Christian at all.

And, as you've shown above, you're an expert on Christian living and doctrine, so you obviously get to decide who's Christian and who's not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Unashamed Christians
Liberals tend to be great believers in political correctness, that great system in which you are entitled not to be offended unless you are a part of the following groups: Christians, "rednecks", members of the NRA, or anyone with a conservative bone in their bodies.



Yep - Redknecks are racist scum, The NRA are scum and Right Wing 'Christians' are scum. You hit the nail right on the head.

And you're an immature, divisive idiot. I guess I hit the nail on the head there.

Look, don't stoop to their level, it's what they want. Neo-Con is just a way for simple minded people to label conservatives something nasty. They are petty people who think they have to label everyone. Neo-Con is a way of saying zionist without sounding like a crackpot. Anyone who calls another a neo-con is just petty and pathetic.

And this, folks, from the people who try every day to turn "liberal" into a dirty word, on a par with with "communist" "satanist" and "terrorist".

Has it ever occured to you that liberals (and others) use such a term because they actually care about defining even their opponents on a more individual basis than lumping them all together under one stereotypic word? That they can perhaps see the existence of a more sane, stable and less easily brainwashed conservative movement behind the hordes of the coup leader's fanboyz?

You people would need a ladder to stoop to the level of folks like Stephi.

You people would need a ladder to stoop to the level of folks like Stephi.

Thank You :)

He didn't threaten you, and you know it. He like all of us conservatives, are sick and tired of you liberals calling us racists and neo-cons.

Then stop being a racist neocon ...

After all ... if the shoe fits ...

In response to Nazi Weaponized Virus' obviously intelligent responses to comments made by Unashamed Christians:



You didn't actually respond intelligently to the point made here.




Just because he's not as highly taxed as those in Europe doesn't mean he still isn't highly taxed. And yes, look at those returns. Failed social programs. Amazing.




If you honestly believe this, then you truly are a demented person.




An explanation why would be helpful. Without one, it doesn't really add to the discussion at all.




Nice generalization there. "You right-wing Christians." Actually, most Christians do believe in love, compassion, tolerance, and understanding. Just because someone identifies themself as a conservative doesn't mean they are completely void of these beliefs or preach them hypocritically.




And, as you've shown above, you're an expert on Christian living and doctrine, so you obviously get to decide who's Christian and who's not.




And you're an immature, divisive idiot. I guess I hit the nail on the head there.

www.n00bstories.com

He didn't threaten you, and you know it. He like all of us conservatives, are sick and tired of you liberals calling us racists and neo-cons.


When I read of how Imperiamus had chosen to serve his country for purposes that did not include monetary renumeration at all, I felt great respect for him. It all vanished when he stated that he hoped that someone would call him a "neocon" to his face, so he could hurt them. This is NOT the kind of American we need representing us to the troubled and war-torn nations of the world. I hope his temper gets him a DD very very soon.

It is important to note that most of my statements are generalizations of the liberal agenda, I'm not saying that all liberals stand for all of these things.

Where to start is really the question.

I guess I could start with national sovereignty. It seems that liberals would have us give all of our rights as a nation over to the United Nations, that wonderful group of dictators and thugs that hate us. The group that replaced the United States on the human rights commission with a current perpetrator of genocide, Sudan. The group whose leader denounced the United States that we were not doing enough for AIDs in Africa and the world even though we just authorized hundreds of billions of dollars in combating AIDs.

It seems liberals would elevate the rights of an insect over the rights of their fellow man to make a living.

It seems liberals would rather have everyone dependent on the government so that we would vote them into power just so we could keep our jobs and the free money coming in.

It seems liberals would rather have something bad happen, like the economy tanking, so that they could blame Bush and they could be elected.

It seems liberals would rather restrict investment, savings, and work by taxing it to death.

A great line from Reagan using humor to describe the liberal position on taxes. "If it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it, if it stops moving subsidize it."

It seems like liberals would rather not have a military at all, therefore freeing up more money to spend on their utopian dreams.

It seems like liberals are huge supporters of infanticide, killing babies inches away from being born by sucking out their brains with vacuums.

It seems like liberals acting through the ACLU would have absolutely no mention of God in the public square even though this country was founded on Christian principles. They would rewrite history to make it seem like this nation was secular from the beginning. Heaven forbid that we actually teach that it was Christians who first landed on this continent, they would rather skip right to the Revolutionary war.

The "tolerant" wing of the Democratic party is really quite intolerant of anything remotely related to Christianity.

Liberals tend to be great believers in political correctness, that great system in which you are entitled not to be offended unless you are a part of the following groups: Christians, "rednecks", members of the NRA, or anyone with a conservative bone in their bodies.

There I'm finished with my rant.

What I'm intolerant of is the federal government blatently favoring one religion over the others. And Christians weren't the first to land on this continent, pull your head out of your ass. The native americans weren't christians. The Vikings landed on this continent while they were still pagans, so that makes your statement utter BS. I'm tired of Christians trying to apply the rules of their religion to those who do not believe in it. If Christians really are right, and everyone else is a blasphemer, we'll just get punished in the afterlife. George Washington was a Deist. Thomas Paine was an atheist. Get your facts straight before you go ranting.

I'd personally not get reamed up the ass on the whims of the rich. That's why those regulations are there. To anyone who says capitalism regulates itself, I say... enron. If you think capitalism regulates itself, read The Jungle
If screwing the workers and consumers will make them money, that's what the rich will do.

Look, don't stoop to their level, it's what they want. Neo-Con is just a way for simple minded people to label conservatives something nasty. They are petty people who think they have to label everyone. Neo-Con is a way of saying zionist without sounding like a crackpot. Anyone who calls another a neo-con is just petty and pathetic.


Actually FoB a Neo-Con is just a branch of conservatism. Ever hear of the Neo-Libs?

A nasty label? Well its interesting you use the claim when you seem to use liberal like it was a four-letter word.

Zionist? Do you even know what one is? Have you ever met one? I have.....

Finally, stoop to their level?

Sorry lad, but you have to take an elevator up a few dozen floors to match Stephs character.

Obviously Conan-Utopia is an idiot who's never visited the communist regimes of North Korea, Vietnam, or pre-Berlin Wall Russia. Maybe he'd like to go live in communist China, where they eat human fetuses, sterilize people without consent, and run over protestors with tanks.

Um... no. Try again.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa080601b.htm

He didn't threaten you, and you know it. He like all of us conservatives, are sick and tired of you liberals calling us racists and neo-cons.


Well FoB the racisim charge is rather hard to dodge.

When was the last time you hear a Liberal scream ******?

It's rather interesting to hear you talk about being picked on and yet the Neo-Cons say rather nasty things about liberals, feminists, muslims, etc.

Sorry lad, but you have to take an elevator up a few dozen floors to match Stephs character.

Awww, thanks Black Forrest, very nice of you to say.. I think the same of you :)

Look, don't stoop to their level, it's what they want. Neo-Con is just a way for simple minded people to label conservatives something nasty. They are petty people who think they have to label everyone. Neo-Con is a way of saying zionist without sounding like a crackpot. Anyone who calls another a neo-con is just petty and pathetic.

Um, wrong. I consider myself a Zionist, and yet I think I'd shoot myself before I ever became a "neo-con".

Incidentally, Imperiamus, would you mind explaining why you take offence at being labelled a neo-Con? Do you feel it's an inaccurate description of your political beliefs? Or rather that it carries a particular stigma with it you don't wish to be associated with? Do you see it as a "dirty word"?

Just wondering.

I take issue with your being a fag, simmer down there.
IGNORE AND MOD ALERT - FLAMEBAIT!!

You use a slur on me, and then tell ME to simmer down?? You wouldn't go around using the N-word on African-Americans...well, using the "fag" word on homosexuals is ever bit as offensive!! And, no, I am NOT a "fag." If you bothered to read, you'd know that. I'm transgendered. There is a HUGE difference.

If you don't want to have a baby, then don't have sex, that is the only true form of birth control that is 100% effective.

Sorry, I have to do this.

Abstinance doesn't work - look at the virgin Mary.

Okay, now I'm done.

He didn't threaten you, and you know it. He like all of us conservatives, are sick and tired of you liberals calling us racists and neo-cons.
And WE liberals are sick and tired of you neo-cons calling us "librals" as if it was a bad thing, and calling us commies pinkos and hippies.

And WE liberals are sick and tired of you neo-cons calling us "librals" as if it was a bad thing, and calling us commies pinkos and hippies.

Damn right!

If you don't want to have a baby, then don't have sex, that is the only true form of birth control that is 100% effective.


What a load of bollocks. Its not a case of not having sex its a case of educating people at a young age and encouragin them to use birth control methods rather than having the catholics dismiss it as evil.

And WE liberals are sick and tired of you neo-cons calling us "librals" as if it was a bad thing, and calling us commies pinkos and hippies.

Oooh, I don't mind being called a commie pinko. I find it amusing, and it gives me a great way to pick out the idiot right-wing nutjobs from the intelligent right-wing NON-nut-jobs.

Sure, if you want to parse words and be like the lawyer you're not then fine,

American Indians
The Norse
Columbus in the Carribean
Sir Walter Raleigh
Settlement of Jamestown
Pilgrims in the northeast

Now that we have the correct order of settlement, lets move on to my point.

Who are the people from Europe that actually settled in present day America?

Survey says....Christians! Thank you for your time. Tell 'em Johnny what they've won!

Today we have a very nice bun warmer for you.

Christians who first landed on this continentWell, the first people to really land in the continent were the Asian people to cross Beringia during an ice age 12,000 years ago? Tell me if I'm wrong here, but weren't the first archaeologically documented Europeans to come here Norse, anyway? What I take is that you say that we should follow the values of the people that came here first, but then why aren't we following Native American principles? Oh wait, because people from the west destroyed and humiliated their entire race.

Sure, if you want to parse words and be like the lawyer you're not then fine,

American Indians
The Norse
Columbus in the Carribean
Sir Walter Raleigh
Settlement of Jamestown
Pilgrims in the northeast

Now that we have the correct order of settlement, lets move on to my point.

Who are the people from Europe that actually settled in present day America?

Survey says....Christians! Thank you for your time. Tell 'em Johnny what they've won!

Today we have a very nice bun warmer for you.
im sorry, do you have a point?
is it something inane like "this country was founded on christianity"
if it is there were more outposts founded than the christiantowns and they were founded much earlier. AND the country was not created by those people

Liberals just can't learn. It's like their brains refuse to switch on or something. They didn't learn from Reagan's aggressive stance towards the Russians that resulted in the downfall of communism there without a shot ever being fired.

Surely you must mean without a shot ever offically being fired against the Soviet Union. There were several shots fired by proxy. Many of them fired by Iraq- fed arms and intelligence by the Regan administration against Iran, who the Soviets were supporting.


They didn't learn from Clinton ass-raping the military that resulted in the emboldened terrorists that orchestrated the attacks of 11 September. We don't need a big military so that we can use it to whip everyone's ass. We need a big military so that people are aware of the fact that we can come and whip their ass any time we get the itch. That's what deters them from attacking us, not dumping money on them like Clinton did.

Just like the great military might at the end of Reagan's term stopped the bombing of Pan-Am flight 103 on Dec. 21, 1988?

Seriously, even "ass-raped" as you claim the U.S. Military was under the Clinton Administration (with the Republican Legislature during the last 4 years) it is still one of the biggest out there. There are other capitalists, "Christian" nations out there that would have been much easier pickings.

He dumped money on North Korea, what happened? They fired a test nuke up the ass of one of our allies. They basically took our tax dollars, said thank you, and then spat in our face. They don't understand that evil does exist, and that it can't be reasoned with, or hand-held, or coddled, or bought. It must be confronted, exposed, and destroyed.

Wow, a nation with human rights abuses! WMD's! A known track record of selling WMD making technology to terrorists! Team Bush must be bombing the fuck out them!

Oh wait - Team Bush is only issuing a few economic sanctions. Goddamn Commie Loving Bastards.


They like to call us butchers for using the bomb on Japan. Let's think for a moment, it was either kill 140,000 of our ENEMIES, or kill nearly a million of them, plus likely a few hundred thousand of OUR OWN to try and invade them, or just stand around with our finger up our ass and let them conquer the Pacific. Evil only responds to swift and blinding violence, history has proven that time and again. We pussy-footed with Vietnam because of all the protesting hippies, and communists took over. Man I bet the dirt poor oppressed people of Vietnam are so thankful for that.


Like the swift and blinding violence that caused the Soviet Union (aka The Evil Empire) to fall. Wait - weren't you the one who stated:

"Reagan's aggressive stance towards the Russians that resulted in the downfall of communism there without a shot ever being fired."

Fuck. Reagan musta been a commie lovin bastard hippy too!


They can't learn from other countries' mistakes either. Look what communism did for Russia. Collapsed it. Massive social welfare programs remove people's accountability and responsibility (oh no, those are the bad juju words to a democrat). These programs encourage people to sit at home and not try rather than take control of their own lives and better themselves. But that's what they want, mindless little uneducated animals that are easy to control (wait, isn't that a democratic voter already?).

Lack of resources and a corrupt government had nothing, nothing to do with it I suppose. I know - let's ask all the uneducated people from places like Norway or Finland. Ah, but uneducated people in those socialists nations are so much harder to find than in they are in the U.S. But surely all the cuts that the Republicans are making in education spending will help remedy that situation. Then you can look forward to liberals being free enough from the shackles of easy contrability to actually argue with your immaculately reasoned neo-con arguements in spite of your useless and unlawful threats of inflicing bodily harm.


Some of you people should look at a map that shows the results of the 2000 election by district and not just by state. If you do, you'll see that even in states that ended up communist, almost all districts (with the exclusions of those that encompass huge masses of poor minorities like New York City and Los Angeles) were blue.


I apologize that those education cuts did not come quickly enough to do you much good. Perhaps if they had, you would be able to correctly define communism, at least enough to realize that there are no communist states in the U.S.

That begs the question, is the nation really split, or is the conservative majority just not voting? I'll let you decide that. Just chew on this little tidbit, only 44% of the population voted during both Clinton elections. Each time, he won with only about 43% of the popular vote. That means that only around 15-16% of the population actually voted for that draft-dodging idiot.

You called Democratic voters "mindless little uneducated animals that are easy to control?" From the arguement you presented above that terminology would seem to better fit all of your theoretical Republican non-voters. Damn, as much as they hated Clinton they couldn't even figure out the easiest way to get him office?

Well, with the great improvement in education that this nation has witnessed in the past four years, including proper usages of the word "freedom" maybe some of those super-patriotic people, always up to doing their civic duty will now actually bother to get off their asses for once and do their civic duty and go vote for the military shirker of their choice.

As for the military being comprised of poor people who can't find jobs anywhere else. Fuck you. I serve because I choose to. I have a BS in Mathematics from University of Maryland College Park (go Terps), and a masters in Electrical Engineering from Clemson University. I refused the officer's commission because I didn't want to be a bureaucrat with no respect from his men (which is pretty much what all officers are now). My term of service ends in about 18 months, and I already have 5 job offers sitting on the table with salaries ranging from 70k to 120k a year. Man I'm really doing bad, huh?

What percentage of the military is comprised of people in a simlar position to yours? What percentage of the military is comprised of poor people who can't find jobs anywhere else? I bet the latter number is much greater.

Good post Violets. Seems that everyone has taken the time to break down his arguments one by one to show him the lack of wisdom in his postings and yet he continues to ignore the valid reasoning, choosing instead to keep believing the tripe that's in the trough.

The only thing I would expand upon with your post is this: He talks about dropping the bomb on Japan as if that were the key factor in Japan's surrender. Obviously, he's not learned in history or else he would know that this isn't exactly the truth.

While the bombs were a devastating new weapon, most Japanese people weren't aware that it had happened, and of those who did know, they weren't even sure what the cause was. The Japanese high military command were pushed a little closer to surrender as a result of this but it wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back. For months leading up to this, the American government had pressured Stalin to declare war on the Japanese Empire. Stalin had refused these approaches, especially after their losses in the battle for Berlin. However, the mounting pressure from the Americans finally got their wishes and Russia declared war, sending a massive flood of troops into Japanese occupied China.

In historical interviews with the high commanders of the Japanese military, they have said that the atomic bomb was a weapon they could ignore since so few understood where and who it came from. But the blunt reality of the American navy combined with the Russian army was key factor in forcing a surrender.

So why he mentions the bomb (and I imagine him saying it with the same type of smirk that Bush has when he talks about the born again Christian he executed in Texas) is questionable in a post such as this.

Well, with the great improvement in education that this nation has witnessed in the past four years, including proper usages of the word "freedom" maybe some of those super-patriotic people, always up to doing their civic duty will now actually bother to get off their asses for once and do their civic duty and go vote for the military shirker of their choice.

You mean like "Freedom Fries??"
LOL

Well, the first people to really land in the continent were the Asian people to cross Beringia during an ice age 12,000 years ago? Tell me if I'm wrong here, but weren't the first archaeologically documented Europeans to come here Norse, anyway? What I take is that you say that we should follow the values of the people that came here first, but then why aren't we following Native American principles? Oh wait, because people from the west destroyed and humiliated their entire race.

Yep.

This country was founded on a very basic double standard...we were founded by a group of slave-owners who wanted to be free! A group of slave-owners who wanted to be free! So they killed a lot of white English people, in order to continue owning their black African people, so they could wipe out the rest of the red Indian people, and move west to steal the rest of the land from the brown Mexican people...giving them a place to take off and drop their nuclear weapons on the yellow Japanese people!!
You know what the motto...you know what the motto of this country oughta be?? You give us a color, we'll wipe it out!!

Man, I'd love for someone to call me a neo-con to my face. I'd get a good opportunity to exercise a little swift and blinding violence right on the spot. I find that labeling (which all you hippies claim to oppose) as offensive as a black man finds the n-bomb. And let's see, Reagan didn't have to fire a shot because Russia knew that such an outcome would lead to global destruction. That was a far more powerful enemy. Shots being fired would have never been necessary if Clinton had coddled the enemy for 8 years and emboldened them against us. Force was the only option left. We'd sanctioned Iraq for 10 years and still Hussein refused to change (and let's honestly ask ourselves whether he had WMDs or not, and if he did, how long do you think it could have taken him to smuggle them into Syria, I'll tell you, about 14 days, much less time than we spent trying to argue the morality of our invasion to the corrupt and pathetic U.N.), and therefore we had no choice but to depose him with our military.
You obviously never sat through freshman economics either. If you had you'd know full well that the economic policies Reagan pushed hurt the treasury in the short term but caused our economy to thrive in the big picture. You'd also know that his reforms took a little over 6 years to take effect. Hmmm... right about the time that Clinton took office and miraculously our economy was fixed without him having to do anything. Economics is chess, not checkers, it doesn't happen overnight it happens over years. You're obviously not mentally equipped to understand that.
I also think you and every other liberal are conveniently excluding a very significant point from your little economy rants. We can't go bankrupt. If we did the entire global economy would collapse. If we paid off all of our debt it would break the economy. If we collected on all the debts that are owed to us, we'd bankrupt the entire planet. It's a carefully balanced little system we have, and it works. Learn to see further than the end of your nose.


I took Economics that isn't proven, its just a theory some economist have. I forget the name of those types.
Economic people are split into different groups just to let you people know.

Oh and its the Democrats in office who agreed to do Reagons taxes so Democrats should be thanked for that. However, one should note Reagon both raised and cut taxes. Flip flopper?

Originally Posted by Brachphilia
What pisses me off about liberals is their lack of loyalty.

Reasonable people can disagree on tax policy, or gun control, or SUVs, or affirmative action, or fags, or even abortion. I'll argue that stuff over dinner any day, and then have a beer together and talk about something else.

But when someone like Michael Moore comes out on September 12th and says essentially that we deserved what we got, thats not reasonable disagreement. It's spitting in the face of everyone in this country, and it's moral support for our enemies. Hard labor is too good for these people.

Ditto for disagreeing with the war at this point. The time for dissent is before the war starts. That's when you argue over whether it's justified.

When our troops are fighting and dying, that is no longer the time for dissent. That is the time to swallow your objections, and come together behind our guys. Not call them baby killers, and spew wild conspiracy theories about how they're dying to enrich their commander's oil buddies.

George Bush is a pretty bad president as they go. Frankly, if liberals tried running against him without running against their country at the same time, we'd hardly need to have an election.

What pisses me is Republicans lack of loyalty when Clinton is president. Loyalty goes both ways dude. You can't be loyal only when a republican is running if you think that you need to be loyal to commander in chief.

Micheal Moore is'nt a liberal he's a independent, difference. He's a nader guy before Nader lost election for Gore. He is now against Bush and Nader since Nadar is reason Gore lost (not countng Florida's Jeb Bush)

But then lets say I trick you into thinking someting is good and later you find out its not. Shouldn't you dissent with doing it now that you know its wrong?

George Bush said no Nation Building, he's lied to the country before and during the Presidency. He's also a flipflopper and the worst part: His flipflops cost lives.




(Getting religious-like but you can ignore last part of you want lol)
And Actually Native Americans were the first Christians, well their desendants were. You see it happened along time ago, a prophet of the lord was told that Jerusalem was to be destroyed so Lehi(this prophet) led his people(family and one freindly family) out of the city to the sea. There they built a ship and God gave them a Compass like object called Liahona(powered by faith).
They rode across the water for a long time till finally landing in America. Now Lehi had two rebellious sons who eventually decided to live on their own. They became the Lamonites after Lamon. The Nephites after Nephi, a son who wasn't rebellious, other side came to called fought with them because the Lemonites hated their breathen the Nephites. After many many years, they built strong cities for defense.
Many more years, there is a revolution in a city that is properous. This is many years before Christ, God told them of him though the prophets.

A secret society decides they want power and convinces people to follow them, they have ties to the galdianian robbers (who exist today but different name).The revolters are also atheist and against religion. The people are having conflict till Moroni, another prophet,
rallies people to defend their religion.
"And it came to pass that he rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it- In the memory of out God, our religion, and our freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children -- and he fastened it upon the end of a pole. ... And he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his breathen, so long as a band of Christians remain to posses the land." For thus were all the true believers in Christ, who belonged to the church of God, called by those who did not belong to the church.

Anyway, that is the best paraprhased story of it.

And, as you've shown above, you're an expert on Christian living and doctrine, so you obviously get to decide who's Christian and who's not.
On the other hand, considering that Jesus said very clearly that his kingdom was of the next world, not this one, isn't the attempt to bring Christianity into secular politics heretical?
I find that labeling (which all you hippies claim to oppose) as offensive as a black man finds the n-bomb. Please list the times you've been denied jobs or housing, abused in the street, been stopped by the police while driving an expensive car or had hooded anti "neo-con" groups threaten to kill you because of your politics. You are aware that "neo-con" merely means "new conservative"?

But when someone like Michael Moore comes out on September 12th and says essentially that we deserved what we got, thats not reasonable disagreement. It's spitting in the face of everyone in this country, and it's moral support for our enemies. Hard labor is too good for these people.

Ditto for disagreeing with the war at this point. The time for dissent is before the war starts. That's when you argue over whether it's justified.

When our troops are fighting and dying, that is no longer the time for dissent. That is the time to swallow your objections, and come together behind our guys. Not call them baby killers, and spew wild conspiracy theories about how they're dying to enrich their commander's oil buddies.

George Bush is a pretty bad president as they go. Frankly, if liberals tried running against him without running against their country at the same time, we'd hardly need to have an election.
When did Michael Moore ever say that the 9//11 attacks were good?

So free speech has time limits? The idea that free speech halts during war is what makes the idea of permanent war so attractive to authoritarian governments. Have you ever read 1984 by George Orwell?

I'm pretty sure that being anti-war is not the same thing as anti-soldiers. Many soldiers disagree with the Iraq war, but they have to go and fight it anyway. If you visit www.michaelmoore.com there is even a section on supporting the troops.

The idea that the war in Iraq was cooked up by politicians to satisfy their oily lobbyists is not a wild conspiracy theory. From the vast corporate welfare, direct involvement of Bush cabinet members in favouring particular oil companies (like the ones they used to work for) to benefit from Iraq's oil, to the free protection provided to oil workers by US soldiers (and it's not like the oil companies can't afford their own security/mercenaries) - this reeks of an oil war.

Liberals just can't learn.......Man I'm really doing bad, huh?
I think this guy would come under the "right-wing nut job" bracket. Why, you ask? Here's some titbits:

9/11 = all Clinton's fault

Democrats = mindless communists

no paragraphing

poor, oppressed Vietnamese - not the 2 million of them you Americans killed?

huge oversimplification of atomic bomb issue

evil exists

democrats = anti-accountability and anti-responsibility

assumption that people who don't vote are conservative

fuck you!!!!

-----------------

Man, I'd love for someone to call me a neo-con to my face. I'd get a good opportunity to exercise a little swift and blinding violence right on the spot. .........Learn to see further than the end of your nose.

more wisdom:

swift and blinding violence is always the answer

Iraq had WMDs.... because Imperiamus says they did!

the UN didn't agree, so it's corrupt and pathetic!

once again, non-republicans = idiots

--------------------------

People, this guy is obviously a rage-filled, hopeless case.

(Getting religious-like but you can ignore last part of you want lol)
And Actually Native Americans were the first Christians, well their desendants were. You see it happened along time ago, a prophet of the lord was told that Jerusalem was to be destroyed so Lehi(this prophet) led his people(family and one freindly family) out of the city to the sea. There they built a ship and God gave them a Compass like object called Liahona(powered by faith).
They rode across the water for a long time till finally landing in America. Now Lehi had two rebellious sons who eventually decided to live on their own. They became the Lamonites after Lamon. The Nephites after Nephi, a son who wasn't rebellious, other side came to called fought with them because the Lemonites hated their breathen the Nephites. After many many years, they built strong cities for defense.
Many more years, there is a revolution in a city that is properous. This is many years before Christ, God told them of him though the prophets.

A secret society decides they want power and convinces people to follow them, they have ties to the galdianian robbers (who exist today but different name).The revolters are also atheist and against religion. The people are having conflict till Moroni, another prophet,
rallies people to defend their religion.
"And it came to pass that he rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it- In the memory of out God, our religion, and our freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children -- and he fastened it upon the end of a pole. ... And he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his breathen, so long as a band of Christians remain to posses the land." For thus were all the true believers in Christ, who belonged to the church of God, called by those who did not belong to the church.

Anyway, that is the best paraprhased story of it.

the best part about mormonism is i dont recall there being any accounts of any mormon antive americans ever being encountered by settlers

Nadar is reason Gore lost.
No, he's just being used a scape goat. People who'd vote Green or Nader wouldn't ever vote Democrat! A Green voter and a Democrat voter are two different types of voters.

About that time Native Americans had lost all written history and so they used Oral tradition.
Check the last chapter of the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites won. Not the most civilized bunch at that time.

Many South American indians do remember Quazacoatl (Jesus) who became a man on earth, was crucified, and died for their sins. surprising he sounds like Jesus. Final Fantasy 8 has jesus :)

You didn't ignore the last part, guess you didn't understand my exact wording

About that time Native Americans had lost all written history and so they used Oral tradition.
Check the last chapter of the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites won. Not the most civilized bunch at that time.

Many South American indians do remember Quazacoatl (Jesus) who became a man on earth, was crucified, and died for their sins. surprising he sounds like Jesus. Final Fantasy 8 has jesus :)

You didn't ignore the last part, guess you didn't understand my exact wording
your explanation still does not explain why no mormon indians were encountered, you would think they would be practicing mormons you know sicne they wre all important jews over here in america

They are only called Mormon because of the Book of Mormon which they didn't have because they had no written record with them. Seems like they can't be mormon indians :) This is a nickname some christians called them, that is not the religions name.
If you had the name right and stopped calling them the nickname maybe you could be more acurate,

No, he's just being used a scape goat. People who'd vote Green or Nader wouldn't ever vote Democrat! A Green voter and a Democrat voter are two different types of voters.


In my experience, Greens and extreme Democrats are exactly the same.

And in MY experience, conservatives are the same as nazist.


No really, I am serious.

The only ones where I live who supports Bush or the Conservatives are the Nazists because Bush put colored people in prison, says all that isn't a part of the Conservative party Communists and imprison them as well for being a part of the big Communistic-Müslim conspiricy*, and kill Müslims like they were fly that was stopping their oil-flow. And what I mean with 'where I live' is practically all Swedes that support the current goverment.


Yeah, conservatism is REALLY great.


No, I am not a democrat, I am a Syndicalist, one of those some conservatives burn crosses on my backyard for being a "******-lover."

And yes, I am implying that all KKK is conservatives, but not the other way around.

Also, I am a christian. Please, in no way, associate me with Unashamed Christians, please don't. If you do it, I will n00k ur a$$!!

If Bush wins the next election, I can't understand how he will be able to survive it. I mean, the man have more enemies than Hitler had.**

*They usually add Jews here as well, but I don't understand how, looking at the whole Palestina/Israél thing.

**Remember, Time voted Adolf Hitler as the man of the year in 1938. The two of them are very alike, just that Hitler at least was a good military commander, managed to fool people outside his country with his lies, knew his own language, and was CHARISMATIC!!


Could someone please send me that kink that compares Bush and Hitler? It would be greatly appreciated.

In my experience, Greens and extreme Democrats are exactly the same.In my experience, I've never come across an "extreme Democrat" that had a similar voting mindset as a Green.

The group whose leader denounced the United States that we were not doing enough for AIDs in Africa and the world even though we just authorized hundreds of billions of dollars in combating AIDs.
Do you mean the group whose leader denounced the US for not doing enough for AIDS in Africa and the world because despite authorising hundreds of billions of dollars for combating AIDS, there has been little sign of the money?

It seems liberals would elevate the rights of an insect over the rights of their fellow man to make a living.

It seems liberals would rather have everyone dependent on the government so that we would vote them into power just so we could keep our jobs and the free money coming in.

It seems liberals would rather restrict investment, savings, and work by taxing it to death.

"The term "neo-liberalism" denotes new forms of political-economic governance permised on the extension of market relationships. In critical science literatures, the term has usupred labels referring to specific politial projects (Thatcherims, Regeanomics, Robernomics), and is more widely used than its counterparts including, for example, economic rationalism, monetarism, neo-conservatism, managerialism and contractualism. Indeed Jane Jenson recently used "neo-liberalism" as a general descriptor for post-welfare state citizenship regimes."
Wendy Larner
New-Liberalism: Policy, Ideology, Governementality
Studies in Political Economy 63, Autumn 2000
I think most Americans dont even know what liberal means, if they did they would realise that liberal is a term better used to describe Republicans.

In my experience, I've never come across an "extreme Democrat" that had a similar voting mindset as a Green.

People must be weird where you are then. Because here, they're exactly the same. I consider myself an democrat extremist. My uncle is a green. We have the exact same political views. That's just one example. The Greens I know are basically exactly the same as the most rabid democrats I know, except maybe with a little more emphasis on enviromental issues. I like Greens and all, but to me, voting for a Green as opposed to a democrat when a strong republican is running is the same as if a man had a heart attack and fell down and broke his leg, and someone tried to fix the broken leg before treating for the heart attack. It's not that the broken leg isn't serious, it's just that it's not going to matter if you don't treat the heart attack.