RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Dauric -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/17/2006 5:25:19 PM)

Possible answers:

"Time to have his picture taken."

"He's not actually checking the time, It's a micro-television set."

$0.02,

Dauric.



Arpig -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/17/2006 5:35:38 PM)

quote:

"He's not actually checking the time, It's a micro-television set."


That was supposed to be a secret, now we have to kill you. So sorry.



CrappyDom -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/17/2006 11:22:14 PM)

quote:

I see liberal intolerance as the worst case for the future of US politics. 


Pray tell how much worse anyone could make the ME?  If Bush had Condi paint a picture of Mohammad on his ass and he mooned the ME from a C130 I don't think it could get worse or more idiotic.

quote:

  As much as I looked for a reason NOT to vote for George Bush on the second term I was offered no choice.


You were, you just couldn't see it through the lies

quote:

   I supported our efforts after 9/11 to kill the source of that attack.


Newsflash, the source was the same as the prince Bush holds hands with, oh that and our other ally Pakistan, you know the place that sells nuclear technology to the highest bidder.

quote:

  It’s a good thing that David Souter didn’t turn out to be the conservative that President Bush the first thought he would be or the situation would be worse.


Don't whine, you voted for him remember?

quote:

  Based upon observation of behavior current liberal satisfaction comes from name calling and finger pointing at the opposing views. It speaks to me of having no substantive argument.


No it doesn't.  I comes from being called traitors for saying there were no WMD, Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq, putting Iraq back together would bankrupt us, creating a democracy takes years and would only result in creating a radical Muslim state allied with Iran,  and worse, demanding to see Bush's plan for dealing with all the above.  We are hoarse because all we hear from the other side is "stay the course" when it is clear it was a stupid fucking course to begin with and hasn't gotten any better.

quote:

  All that’s needed is to show their founding property of being willing to fight for a freedom that they don’t need or want


Of all your bits, this one pissed me the fuck off.  Why not check how many combat vets have been appointed by the coward in chief you voted for.  Compare it to the long list of combat vets the Democrats have already elected.  You want an even bigger shock, check out how many new combat vets are running as Democrats and how almost none are running as Republicans.

So yes, we ARE fucking pissed and until I see Bush and his cronies tried for treason, I will continue to be fucking pissed and the damage this moron you voted for has done to our country, our military, and the world at large.

Oh yeah and screw that dumb ass Republican cocksucker lieberman.  I have a tiny sympathy for people who fell for the shallow lies Bush spread in the run up to the war but to continue to support Bush despite the clear evidence of complete failure at all levels deserves far more punishment that simply being voted out of office.



philosophy -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/18/2006 4:01:44 AM)

"*See's philosophy carrying a container of worms, hides can opener.* "

...i can't help it.....living in the UK makes me an official can-o-worms carrier every time i go to the doctors, when my mother got her treatment for breast cancer and everytime some child of a poor person gets a heart transplant.



Chaingang -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/18/2006 4:27:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
I have a tiny sympathy for people who fell for the shallow lies Bush spread in the run up to the war but to continue to support Bush despite the clear evidence of complete failure at all levels deserves far more punishment that simply being voted out of office.


After those fiery sentiments I think the name CrappyDom is something of a misnomer now - you are too badass for that user name now. I dub thee "Darth Macaca."

Now excuse me while I go run some water through mapeepee...

[:D]

BTW, I pretty much agree with everything, CD said.



Level -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/18/2006 5:21:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom


quote:

  All that’s needed is to show their founding property of being willing to fight for a freedom that they don’t need or want


Of all your bits, this one pissed me the fuck off.  Why not check how many combat vets have been appointed by the coward in chief you voted for.  Compare it to the long list of combat vets the Democrats have already elected.  You want an even bigger shock, check out how many new combat vets are running as Democrats and how almost none are running as Republicans.

So yes, we ARE fucking pissed and until I see Bush and his cronies tried for treason, I will continue to be fucking pissed and the damage this moron you voted for has done to our country, our military, and the world at large.

Oh yeah and screw that dumb ass Republican cocksucker lieberman.  I have a tiny sympathy for people who fell for the shallow lies Bush spread in the run up to the war but to continue to support Bush despite the clear evidence of complete failure at all levels deserves far more punishment that simply being voted out of office.


from the senate.gov site:
 
"There are 153 members of the 108th Congress who have had some form of military service, some 14 fewer than the 107th Congress. The House has 117 veterans: 69 Republicans and 48 Democrats, including one woman, who is a Republican. They have served in World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and Kosovo, and during times of peace, as well as in the reserves and the National Guard. One senator is a former Secretary of the Navy."
 
And let's not forget that John McCain's son just joined the military, one of the few offspring of our governement reps to do so.



CrappyDom -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/18/2006 8:14:24 AM)

Level,

Since joining the guard was the politically connected (or  pro-sports) way  of avoiding going to Vietnam,

quote:

  some form of military service


is meaningless.  You either are a combat vet or you aren't which is what I wrote in my post.




cloudboy -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/19/2006 5:38:10 AM)

In discussing the "intolerance" of "liberalism" all you can come up with is motorcycle helmets, smoking issues, and Senator Joe Lieberman from Ct?

Next, you go on to say, "I supported our efforts after 9/11 to kill the source of that attack. I even believed and still believe that Saddam had intent to use WMD’s even if he was lied to by his advisors about actually having them."

Psssst, regardless of what you "believed" the factual record is NO CONNECTION between SH and 9/11 and no WMD or program of WMD or concrete plan to acquire WMD in IRAQ. You are confusing IRAQ with IRAN and N. Korea --- which now want to nuclearize quickly given the US's bungled policy of preemption.

Seems to me if you are going to go on a rant, you need to make a case first.

For instance, you would point a finger at urban public education as as a failure. This has a bit more import than cigarettes and motorcycle helmets. Of course if you muck around in the urban public education, you'll have a hard time fingering a solution to improving it.

As for Democrats and Republicans, I think its safe to say that the Democrats are a little closer to reality than the Republicans. This element of greater truthiness on their part makes me support them.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/19/2006 6:10:36 AM)

quote:

In discussing the "intolerance" of "liberalism" all you can come up with is motorcycle helmets, smoking issues, and Senator Joe Lieberman from Ct?

Cloudboy,
Maybe that identifies the difference in us. I don't believe there are any small or unimportant freedoms. Any attack or infringement on personal rights should be seen as a bad thing, even if I personal wear a helmet and don't smoke. Identifying all Republicans as Nazis is a bad even if I don't have a RNC membership card.

Joe Lieberman is a very good current example of how one issue or intolerance of a person, in this case George Bush, is a great way to make the Democratic party irrelevant in a national election. It points out locally, or in a small sampling such as a primary, the single issue campaign can work. A 20% margin for Lieberman's independent campaign shows the result of the impact of the "silent majority". Of course public school illiteracy is more important than MC helmets. It the relationship that I see in the small issues relating to it that you don't. Liberal intolerance for allowing people to fail in the public schools is a major factor in the fact that in some schools all the students fail. Take LA for example. The fact that 30% of the graduating students achieved acceptable standards in English is seen as an improvement and success! I can't wait to have to hire some of them - NOT.

What you also missed is that I see this as a BAD thing.

The WMD issue regarding Iraq is not important in 2006. If anything Saddam funded and supported those who initiated the 9/11 attack. I don't believe in assigning stupidity to people who have risen to a position of power. If he didn't hid or export his WMD prior to our very un-secret invasion he would have just be stupid. 

If you wanted to attack anything regarding my stance it should have been applying the prejudicial attitude I apparently have regarding Muslims as an example of intolerance. In answering my own attack I could have used the old "some of my best friends are Muslims" reply, but lying isn't my forte. Instead I'd say it's the representation that the international Muslim leadership portrays that I hate. I blame them for their radical interpretation of the Koran's words which influence a very frustrated and angry membership. If their was a counterpart in the Muslim world that was as adamant for peace as the Iranian president and religious leaders are adamant for destruction, the balanced view would quickly change my position. But now, when every person who took part in 9/11 was Muslim, when the bombing in Spain was proudly acknowledged by Muslims, when the London bombing was bragged about as being the start of a European front to the Muslim ambition of it become the worlds only religion; I feel my prejudice is based upon in representation of how the Muslim community is comfortable being portrayed.

It wasn't a rant, it was a question with some factual issues pointed out to make the point. There was no counterpoint claiming I was wrong only pointing out how the other side was just as bad. Well, that's great! It looks like our votes will be determined once again by NOT voting for someone else. That is disappointing. I really want to vote FOR someone.

For the record, I don't see one party, Republican or Democrat, any closer to reality.



Manawyddan -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/19/2006 6:13:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Comming from an Irish Catholic working class neighborhood in the Boston area I used to consider myself a "Liberal" too a few decades ago.
If my parents were alive today they'd never vote for the Democratic party candidates!
What a bunch of anal-retentive assholes!
The way they're going very soon there'll be more people in the libertarian, Constitution, and Green Partys than Democrats!
They're dying out and I'm glad!


I used to be a card-carrying (or would be, if they had cards) member of the Libertarian party. My interest strayed as I grew slightly left and the party grew slightly right., but nevertheless I always voted a mixed ticket of (primarily) Libertarian, Republican, and Democrat with the Reps being slightly ahead of the Dems.

The current leadership of the Libertarian party has no intellectual quality to my mind. And the Republicans have become so absolutely abhorrent, a party of religious fanatics who no longer care about sound economic policy or rule of law or personal freedom, that they have driven me to voting a nearly straight Democratic ticket (something which, years ago, I would have considered impossible; note that I don't like the Dems -more- now than I used to, but I like the other two parties that much less).



caitlyn -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/19/2006 6:28:58 AM)

If you think schools are supposed to "force teach" kids, then public schools are a failure. If you think kids are supposed to work hard to learn and parents are responsible to motivate the kids to learn, then the schools are just fine.
 
I went to a public High School with a reputation as a "football factory." My parents had very simple rules. Get a B and you are grounded until it's an A ... and believe me, I'm just as dumb as anyone else in this world. [;)] 



caitlyn -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/19/2006 6:41:44 AM)

Mercnbeth ... do you just dismiss the notion that voters just got tired of Joe Lierberman, not unlike a "grass is greener" scenario?
 
Frankly, I just don't see your point in bringing up Lieberman, as an example of your "question that really wasn't a question."
 
You come from a state that elected a man with no experience that called opponents, "girlymen." Am I supposed to think that everyone in the Republican party is an intolerant sexist pig, because they elected someone that made an intolerant sexist pig statement?
 
(Just for the record, I don't think Gov. Arnold is a sexist or a pig. I actually like him a lot. Clearly it was just a play on a skit from a TV show I have never even seen.)



Level -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/19/2006 6:47:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

Level,

Since joining the guard was the politically connected (or  pro-sports) way  of avoiding going to Vietnam,

quote:

  some form of military service


is meaningless.  You either are a combat vet or you aren't which is what I wrote in my post.




Yeah, I noticed that "combat vet" part lol, I debated whether to post what I did, but figured it was an interesting tidbit of information.
 
Combat vets from the Republican side... off the top of my head I come up with Colin Powell, John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Bush the first, and Bob Dole.
 
Crappy, I think you made the point about the large number of Iraq war vets running as Democrats, here's a good link talking about that.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1172182,00.html

PS- I have to agree with Merc on your statement about linking Republicans with the SS. Over the fence on that one, pal. There's too many good men and women on both sides for a statement like that to fly.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/19/2006 7:11:39 AM)

quote:

do you just dismiss the notion that voters just got tired of Joe Lieberman, not unlike a "grass is greener" scenario?

 
caitlyn,
It still needs to bear out in the general election, but based upon current polls the only voters that "got tired of Joe Lieberman" were those on the radical anti-was camp of the Democratic party. I'm not even arguing that anti-war is a good/bad issue. I use the situation to point out how polarizing a one issue campaign of intolerance is, and how self defeating it is based on current polling.

If the "grass is greener" was accurate, Lieberman wouldn't be leading, he'd be inconsequential.

But worse look at the bottom line. Now the Democrats have a one-issue candidate in Connecticut. People who voted for him represent only 10% of the total voters in November. Connecticut it too close to NYC and too many people who live in Connecticut work in NYC. As much as they hate Bush, and may hate his handling of Iraq, they see a strong military and defense as essential. Lieberman represents pragmatic defensive position, his opponent represents surrender to many of them and they won't vote for him.



Amaros -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/19/2006 7:14:51 AM)

quote:

If you think schools are supposed to "force teach" kids, then public schools are a failure. If you think kids are supposed to work hard to learn and parents are responsible to motivate the kids to learn, then the schools are just fine.


I've heard the argument agains public education, which emprically, is based on statistical evidence that a certian percentage of high school graduates are unable to read adequately, according to test results - not can't read, but can't read adequately - everytime I hear this, I've gotta mention: couldn't none of 'em read when they started...



caitlyn -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/19/2006 7:28:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
But worse look at the bottom line. Now the Democrats have a one-issue candidate in Connecticut. People who voted for him represent only 10% of the total voters in November. Connecticut it too close to NYC and too many people who live in Connecticut work in NYC. As much as they hate Bush, and may hate his handling of Iraq, they see a strong military and defense as essential. Lieberman represents pragmatic defensive position, his opponent represents surrender to many of them and they won't vote for him.


No they don't have a one issue candidate. They have a Democratic candidate that won in a Democratic primary, that differs with Mr. Lieberman, the other Democratic candidate, on one major issue. That they agree on other issues, doesn't make Mr. Lamont a one issue candidate. To think that is foolish, and there is little doubt why you see the Democratic party the way you do ... through fog colored glasses.
 
The campaign revolved around the differences between the two men, like every campaign does. There was little point in Mr. Lamont campaigning on the similarities.



Amaros -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/19/2006 7:29:27 AM)

I have to suspect all "free thinking" conservatives who simply reguritate Rush Limbaugh sophilisms - anytime you want to try and drop the limbaughtomized rhetoric and make a clear argument, backed by empirical evidence, by all means, feel free to do so, it would be so refreshing.

I know, I know, you "don't even listen to Rush Limbaugh" - you don't have to since all the neo-cons, so called conservatives, repeat him for you.

Rhetorically spewing hate and discontent, ad hominem and unsubtantiated allegations isn't "logic", it is what it is - propaganda.

Logic is making a clear case, and backing it up with  evidence and example - what you are offering are well defined propaganda techniques, glittering generalities combined with ad hominem.

It isn't worth the effort of trying to refute your argument, because there isn't any argument there: you're just luring a bunch of people into expending energy chasing their own tails.

OK, move on to the next canned strategy, I'm waiting...



caitlyn -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/19/2006 7:40:14 AM)

The bulk of my graduating class didn't get into college ... the same bulk that thought school was a place to come to get dates and attend parties. The same bulk that thought it was "cool" to disrespect teachers. The same bulk that thought being a gangsta' was the thing to be. We all took the same classes.



juliaoceania -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/19/2006 8:03:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Mercnbeth ... do you just dismiss the notion that voters just got tired of Joe Lierberman, not unlike a "grass is greener" scenario?
 
Frankly, I just don't see your point in bringing up Lieberman, as an example of your "question that really wasn't a question."
 
You come from a state that elected a man with no experience that called opponents, "girlymen." Am I supposed to think that everyone in the Republican party is an intolerant sexist pig, because they elected someone that made an intolerant sexist pig statement?
 
(Just for the record, I don't think Gov. Arnold is a sexist or a pig. I actually like him a lot. Clearly it was just a play on a skit from a TV show I have never even seen.)


Arnie got less votes than Davis, but because of the recall laws Davis had to win 51% of the vote to stay in office, because there were over 100 candidates on the ballot it was almost impossible for him to win that threshold. I could rant and rave about this for hours as someone that voted for Davis twice because he did things to improve our secondary educational system and was on the way to doing something about our air pollution, but suffice to say that Arnie was not elected by a majority.



leatherorlace -> RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? (8/19/2006 8:09:17 AM)

H  E  X  Z  A  C  T  L  Y   !!!!
Gentry



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.445313E-02