Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    progunr's Avatar
    progunr Posts: 1,971, Reputation: 288
    Ultra Member
     
    #21

    Jun 11, 2008, 11:55 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Choux
    You two angry white guys better go back and read Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment if you want to see what the Fascist Bush did to the National Government. :)

    p, you are too ignorant to talk to....first of all, AMERICA WAS FOUNDED BY LIBERALS. The founding fathers were **LIBERALS**of their time. So, come back in a couple of years after you *learn something* besides propaganda and lies.

    See ya, places to go people to see. :)
    As I re-read through this thread, and examine the words used in each post, I see far more attacks and harsh words coming from everyone except "the angry white guys".

    Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment huh?

    If all else fails, attack, attack, attack.

    If attack, attack, attack fails, change the subject.

    It's OK, I understand.
    squeaks77's Avatar
    squeaks77 Posts: 113, Reputation: 19
    -
     
    #22

    Jun 11, 2008, 12:30 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by progunr
    Who said anything about hating anyone?

    I sure didn't!

    I hate the ideals, yes indeed I do, but hate towards the individuals who lack the knowledge to realize how wrong the socialistic liberal ideals are, in me, does not exist.

    Actually, I tend to feel sorry for them, unless they are running for public office that is.
    Actually I didn't mean you, but how can you hate ideals but not the people?
    Meaning, like how some religions say, "We don't hate homosexuals, we hate sin" or "We hate homosexuality", but can those two really be separated? I don't mean to bring up a completely different topic, just using the analogy.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #23

    Jun 11, 2008, 12:32 PM
    Hello:

    I hate everybody.

    excon
    squeaks77's Avatar
    squeaks77 Posts: 113, Reputation: 19
    -
     
    #24

    Jun 11, 2008, 12:37 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by progunr
    Because that is what socialism/liberalism is all about.

    It's about making everyone equal.

    It is about making sure that no one in the liberal society has more than any other. It is about how the government exists to take care of every need that each individual may have, and has gone from need, to "want" or feeling "entitled" to this "Nanny State of Government".
    Wow, that's some serous exaggeration there. Most liberals just don't want 10 people to own 90% of the money and more Summer homes than they can count on their fingers and toes, while children die in the streets because they have no shelter, no food and no one to give a frak.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #25

    Jun 11, 2008, 12:55 PM
    For those who have not read them... wait... no one has read them... but I did post a summary of the Articles here

    https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...re-225299.html

    No one except kooky Kucinich and Congressman Wexler (from the land of the hanging chad) is paying any attention to them. As Keith Olberman said yesterday "crickets chirping ".
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #26

    Jun 11, 2008, 01:00 PM
    Since it's joke time...
    One day, in the future, OJ Simpson has a heart attack and dies. He immediately goes to hell where the devil is waiting for him"I don't know what to do with you here," says the devil. "You are on my list but I have no room for you. You definitely have to stay here so I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll let one of the others go, but you have to take their place.. I'll even let you decide who leaves." OJ thought that sounded pretty good, so the devil opened the door to the first room. In it was Ted Kennedy and a large pool of water. Ted kept diving in and surfacing, empty handed. Over and over he dove in and surfaced with nothing. Such was his fate in hell. "No," said OJ. "I don't think so. I"m not a good swimmer, and I don't think I could do that all day long," so the devil took him to the next door. In the second room was Osama Bin-Laden with a sledge hammer and a room full of rocks. All he did was swing the hammer, time after time. "No, this is no good. I've got this problem with my shoulder. I would be in constant agony if all I could do was break rocks all day," commented OJ. And so they moved on. The devil opened a third door. Through it they saw Bill Clinton lying on a bed, his arms over his head restrained in a spread eagle pose. Bent over him was Monica Lewinski, doing what she does best. OJ looked at this in shocked disbelief and finally said, "Yeah man, I can handle this." The devil smiled and said, "Okay Monica, you're free to go."
    progunr's Avatar
    progunr Posts: 1,971, Reputation: 288
    Ultra Member
     
    #27

    Jun 11, 2008, 01:48 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by squeaks77
    Wow, that's some serous exaggeration there. Most liberals just don't want 10 people to own 90% of the money and more Summer homes than they can count on their fingers and toes, while children die in the streets because they have no shelter, no food and no one to give a frak.
    OK. Using that "exaggeration" what is the allowable percent, of people who have worked harder, to be better off than, the people who chose to do nothing?

    Is it 20%, or perhaps 40%, acceptable?

    Of course, it has nothing to do with the "personal responsibility" of those who choose to bring children into this world, while they are unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to care for them.

    They have no motivation to better themselves.

    Why should they make any sacrifices, and actually work 10 to 14 hours a day, when they can just rely on those who do work, and the government, who will gladly take some of the money these workers have earned, and just hand it over to them?

    I don't blame the people standing there with their hand out, I blame the policies and beliefs that have put them in that position to begin with.

    When any government creates a class of people who depend totally on that government for there very existence, it has destroyed the human soul, taking away any chance for that person, dependent upon "someone else" for their "position" in life, to have any sense of self worth, or accomplishment.

    Tomder55, that one made me laugh out loud!
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #28

    Jun 11, 2008, 02:46 PM
    Show me a country run by your type of conservatives that doesn't have any unemployed people.
    progunr's Avatar
    progunr Posts: 1,971, Reputation: 288
    Ultra Member
     
    #29

    Jun 11, 2008, 03:22 PM
    There is no such thing, there will always be unemployment, everywhere, you can't have 100% of the people who want to work, employed at all times.

    That is why there is unemployment insurance. If they loose their job, due to no fault of their own, then they have some supplemental income, while they actively search for a new job.

    I'm not saying that there won't ever be unfortunate people, who for some reason, need some help. Before welfare, there were many groups and avenues for these people. The churches helped out a lot, the salvation army, soup kitchens, shelters, and in many cases, the hard working neighbors of such an individual came forward on their own to help. This also gave them some "personal responsibility" and something to be proud of, helping their neighbor during a hard time.

    Much of this type of help has diminished, over the years, since food stamps, welfare and other government entitlements have become so prevalent in the US. Many churches now will just suggest that the person needing help, go to the government to get it.

    So the good neighbor, the good churches and the good civic groups, have been replaced by the compassionate Uncle Sam who will gladly take from the hard workers, and give to the less fortunate. Not out of kindness by any means, but out of the need to create a population that DEPENDS on the government for every need or want that they have.

    Now that is what I call creating job security.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #30

    Jun 11, 2008, 04:08 PM
    NK that is laughable .When the Clintonoids ran the country the unemployment rate we have today was boasted that they had achieved "full employment " .
    Full employment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    Don't forget... everyone wants illegals to come here to do the jobs Americans won't do.
    George_1950's Avatar
    George_1950 Posts: 3,099, Reputation: 236
    Ultra Member
     
    #31

    Jun 11, 2008, 04:14 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by NeedKarma
    Show me a country run by your type of conservatives that doesn't have any unemployed people.
    Wasn't going to respond to this; it is so laughable. In the U.S. you are free to be unemployed. How about that?
    progunr's Avatar
    progunr Posts: 1,971, Reputation: 288
    Ultra Member
     
    #32

    Jun 11, 2008, 04:50 PM
    It would appear that the Libs have run out of ways to attack me.

    Just once, I wish they would at least try to argue that conservative principals are totally wrong, that personal responsibility is a stupid concept, that being taken care of by the government actually helps an individual to be able to take pride in themselves and or, their accomplishments, that is it the right thing to do, to take money away from people who have earned it, so they can give it to those who have not.

    Liberalism, socialism, what ever you want to call it, destroys the very people that they believe they are helping. It gives them no hope for a good life, just an existence. It does not allow them to set or obtain personal goals. It takes away the very things that most human beings strive for, pride in ones self, just reward for hard work, the ability to get ahead, based upon your own ability and determination.

    Instead of presenting evidence that Liberalism or Socialism are better ideals than conservative ideals, they call me names, accuse me of being a hater, and make crazy statements like the founding fathers were Liberals?

    Yeah, they were so happy with the taxation by the English, that they risked their very lives to escape from it.

    Unless there are further challenges to actual conservative ideals, I'll just let the name calling and insults pass without further comment. It really is useless to argue with this mentality.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #33

    Jun 11, 2008, 05:34 PM
    make crazy statements like the founding fathers were Liberals?
    Well of course the big distortion here is to equate liberalism as it is referred to today as the Liberalism that the Founders believed in
    Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Disputes over whether modern liberalism is derived from classical liberalism
    Whether modern liberalism is founded upon the philosophy of classical liberalism is a subject of dispute. Scholar Leonard Liggio (a self-described classical liberal) holds that modern liberalism does not share the same intellectual foundations as classical liberalism. He says,

    "Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. Happily they did not capture it in Europe, and were glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are."

    "Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after 1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom. The nineteenth century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and equality, the twentieth-century liberal has come to favor a revival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism against which classical liberalism fought. In the very act of turning the clock back to seventeenth-century mercantilism, he is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!
    magprob's Avatar
    magprob Posts: 1,877, Reputation: 300
    Ultra Member
     
    #34

    Jun 11, 2008, 11:05 PM
    I guess we will just have to wait and see if Obama can clean up G.W. Bush's poop. There is a lot of it all over the world.
    Then again, if McSame is elected, he will just step in it and track it farther and wider... for 100 years.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

The liberal/fascists are confused. [ 9 Answers ]

This is presidential primary election day in Ohio and Texas. The once juggernaut party of FDR is split whether to nominate Obama or Hillary. It is depressing to consider that the nation of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and other founding luminaries must choose between these two candidates. I...

At the present time does liberal vs. Conservative equate to Democrats vs. Republicans [ 29 Answers ]

In American politics? I don't believe so but... what do you think?:)

Define Liberal [ 14 Answers ]

What exactly is a liberal?

Just hang out and kiss? A conservative gets frustrated. [ 9 Answers ]

Hello all, I am experiencing a situation which makes me very frustrated. I have hanged out with this guy that I really like. We have a lot in common, profession, values, character traits and we really have fun talking to each other, plus the chemistry is really amazing. At first it seemed like...


View more questions Search