Fred On Everything gives us his nine-point breakdown of what's wrong with our system in an essay that originally appeared in The American Conservative. Fred calls himself America's leading expatriate curmudgeon. A choice bit from his essay:
First, we have two identical parties which, when elected, do very much the same things. Thus the election determines not policy but only the division of spoils. Nothing really changes. The Democrats will never seriously reduce military spending, nor the Republicans, entitlements.Not a lot of feel-good stuff here:
Just as trial lawyers don’t want intelligent jurors, as they are harder to manipulate, so political parties don’t want educated voters. The existence of a puzzled mass gawping at Oprah reduces elections to popularity contests modulated by the state of the economy. [emphasis mine]Maybe I'm feeling grumpy today, but I'm having a tough time disagreeing substantively with most of his points.
Link to the article
49 comments:
Good Post, Jay. Since Gary is now spending all his time playing golf and internally exploring how we can all just get along, this is needed.
The problem with the article is its focus on dems and Republicans.
The real battle for the future of America is libs vs Normal American Conservatives; a future of freedom or as a member of the hive. A future defined by the actions of individuals or by the boot of the collective. A future of despair and deprivation or a future run by people who understand the simple fact that drilling our own oil is a good thing. God, these libs are dumb as stumps.
Sorry to mention God, libs. I know it's like a cross to Dracula. But, hey, get over it.
Oh yes, it's a choice between a future dominated by Americans with the values of John Adams, and libs with the values of the Borg.
Letting the libs take over would be an Obamanation.
Trenton,
"the boot of the collective", not a big fan of democracy? You do know that John Adams suggested that the world would be better off without organized religion. Hope that fits in with your values. I'm not familar with Borg's values, I know he preferred grass to hard court though.
Annoymous,
Glad to help you with the reference. The Borg are a fictional people who surrender - willingly or not - their individuality in order to become a part of a single evil entity known as the collective.
Libs are real people who surrender, willingly or not, their individuality in order to become a part of a single evil entity known as the progressive collective.
Like the Borg, their goal is to assimilate as many new drones as possible, but unlike the Borg, libs are spineless and scared of their own shadows, so must concentrate their efforts on those who are weak, young and uneducated as to the value of freedom.
Also unlike the Borg, resistance is not futile and normal Americans so scare the Bor. . ., I mean the libs, that they must hide their true anti-Americanism - sometimes even from themselves. Some of them can also recover and leave the hive and return to normalcy.
Glad to help with your education anytime. I hope this is of value to you.
BTW, how about all those dems, who so love the little people, going to the slammer for stealing tax money paid in by those same little people? Of course, it may not make any difference in Harrisburg as mindless dems will do as the collective orders and still vote for them even if they are sitting in jail.
trenton,
A liberal is someone who favors government action to promote or improve democracy.
"A liberal is someone who favors government action to promote or improve democracy."
Oh boy. What's next, a deep post on the real meaning of the word liberal?
It always amazes me how lib droids are unable to engage in any real thought other than mindless slogans.
OK, genius, please tell me all the great liberal goals that will "improve" democracy.
How about a refusal to drill? Is that the kind of improvement you desire? Come on, fill us in.
OMG,
Gary is doing this normal Rodney King act as he cries "our problem are not Right and Left, they are Right and Wrong". Boo Hoo.
Whew. Isn't it great to hear that if we'd just stop fighting and let the Borg have their way, things would be so much more tidy.
Gary, how does it feel to want to surrender?
Ok, back to the original topic post:
As I have referenced many times before, our idealized view of federal and state government is quite different from reality.
I see them as "country clubs", with the one in Washington being the ultimate prize for some members of the lesser influential state-run clubs. I'm not being sarcastic or cynical, either. If you examine:
1. The dynamics of how a country club works,
2. how the members view themselves,
3. how the screening committee (aka the RNC and DNC) evaluates potential members,
4. and finally how they view 'outsiders' trying to get into the club,
you will see many similarities.
To understand how governments work, all one has to do is examine how country clubs operate. The system used (in our case, democracy) might differ from one place to another, but the results are quite similar.
Bottomline: Power does what it wants, club members take care of eachother, and watch what happens to those brave souls that try to change the system.
Gary,
More more point. Our biggest problem is not, as you think, that there's too much fighting going on.
Instead our biggest problem is that there is no where near enough fighting against liberal anti-Americanism. Lib socialism is the root of most of our worst problems and it's easy for people to give up and fail to resist.
It's even easier to just roll over and take it from the libs if a well known talk show host won't fight and instead denigrates those who do.
Why not join those who fight the cancer that is liberalism.
Or at least get out of the way of those who will.
It always amazes me how lib droids are unable to engage in any real thought other than mindless slogans.
Very true. Of course, I'm equally amazed by the mindless sloganeering propagated by some conservatives.
This is probably at the heart of the reason why some people aren't interested in such labels.
While those people don't mind the labels -- and probably self-identify as one or the other -- the problem is with other people who like to use the labels as a quick short-hand to avoid any thought.
You know, like "This is a dumb idea because it came from a liberal." Or "I won't respond substantively to your position because you're a conservative and stupid."
I guess ad hominem attacks and sweeping generalizations are easier than formulating a cohesive argument based on logic and facts.
Justie Fred,
Top 'o the morning to you!
I'm trying to understand your analogy somehow comparing the parties to country clubs. Other than your dislike of both, I can't really see why your analogy makes any sense. Can you think it through and offer a few specifics or did it just feel good? For example, "The dynamics of how a country club works" is uniquely similar to a political party in what way?
Please don't make an exclusivity argument - all organizations have some requirements for membership - or are you also against Rotary, the Girl Scouts or the National Mime Society?
And there is a pretty well known difference between the two parties and a country club.
Only one party - and no country club - has scheduled bus service from their headquarters to the prison.
And a group of unthinking drones that will still vote for them.
That's a good post, Jay.
Liberal has a specific definition. The tendency is for some to use it as an adjective to anything they dont like. The liberal politican or the liberal media. I cant remember the last time anybody in the media said anything remotely liberal.
Jayeeee,
Glad I'm off today and can participate in the Partay!
I really don't know your political leanings, but you appear to be trying to be in the middle. Are you sure you aren't Gary?
As to labeling, my experience is that 100% of the people I have met who say they don't like labels are libs, confused or both. Maybe you'll convince me that it should be 99.9%.
As to your suggestion that I should be "formulating a cohesive argument based on logic and facts." I thought I was doing just that.
But perhaps I don't really have the wit to argue logically. I'm sure you do since you imply you are better than others at it, so what better way to know that the two of us have a nice discussion on some topic?
How about this one - If he were able to convince people to do it, would Gary's constant entreaty to stop the lib vs. conservative political argument help or hurt America?
I await a hopefully incisive posting on this.
I only hope I can keep up.
AnnoyMouse,
BWAhahaha,
I write this earlier today as a prediction, "Oh boy. What's next, a deep post on the real meaning of the word liberal?"
And some lib posts about the real meaning of the word liberal!!!!
Members of the hive are soooooo predictable. And shallow.
Jay, was this the kind of deep thought you were referring to?
trenton,
What's the problem with correctly defining a liberal? How is that shallow?
But perhaps I don't really have the wit to argue logically. I'm sure you do since you imply you are better than others at it
Of course I'm better at it. I'm pretty awesome. ;)
What I'm saying is, I see an awful lot of "libs are horrible people," but you seem to justify this, er, position by saying that they are horrible people. Seems circular to me.
For example, you've implied that liberals hate America in your Fourth of July post.
I wonder how that jives with all the liberals serving honorably in our military? Fifth column?
As far as where I am politically, it's no secret. I believe in the Constitution, limited government and checks and balances. I find that this puts me at odds with both liberals and conservatives.
"What's the problem with correctly defining a liberal? How is that shallow?"
I actually think you are asking this is a spirit of truly wanting and answer, so I'll offer one.
The reason is that normal American conservatives have heard libs make this reflexive and unthinking pseudo-argument for years.
Let's think it through for a minute. Suppose I say, "libs are responsible for high gas prices due to their blockage of new drilling and new power plants and new refineries ".
Normal folks, if they disagree with a position, may make logical points but a lib will, sooner or later, always respond with, "but that's not what a lib really is". Just like you did on this blog where were were discussing a variety of subjects. What was funny is that I predicted it would happen in this very blog.
So, it's shallow because it requires no thought, makes no argument and advances nothing - and is perfectly predictable lib behavior when confronted with a real argument. It's the verbal and mental equivalent of dropping your weapon and running away.
That's why it simply causes laughter from conservatives.
And that's laughter at you, not with you.
trenton,
If you get a speeding ticket, is the police officer a "lib"? If someone cuts in front of you at checkout in the grocery store, is that person a "lib"? If a dog does his business in your front yard, is that dog a "lib"?
The problem with the liberal / conservative thing is that most people are not die-hards to either side.
Some like Trenton fall into the right wing "Borg" just as others fall into the left wing "Borg". Both are part of pathetic groups.
Yeh, the real left winger "Libs" are a bunch of nuts, but not any nuttier than the right wing "Cons" who are forever proclaiming what they believe in but once in charge show their true colors.
Too bad a good third party cannot come to the forefront, but that takes a lot of money and that is a story for anoter day.
So back to your collectives, all of you !!
So if the Libs are the Borg, then isn't the obvious solution to just go back in time and dispatch of their queen? I mean, really, it worked in Star Trek so it HAS to work in reality. Everyone knows that.
Ah Jay,
Now I remember. This is the second time you've been moved to come to the aid of the libs.
And this from a person interested in limited government? What is it, some type of proto-maternal instinct that leads to a desire to shield the hapless liberals from having to define and defend their core beliefs? I'll bet you can do that, so why not them?
Coming to their aid doesn't help them any more than does buying a drink for an alcoholic. Many of them still have a kernel of normal Americanism somewhere deep inside and if they can be required to examine their beliefs intellectually, the rusty engine that is their thought process may cough to life.
I would hope that you would join me in trying to help these fellow Americans. Lord knows they need it.
And as to liberals serving in our military - I sincerely doubt there are many given that we have a volunteer force and that every member of the collective believes that "Bush Lied and People Died". How could you join if you believed that and how can you be a lib if you don't?
How many libs do you think there are on active duty - and who haven't run away to Canada? 10%, 5%, .001%?
Anyway, the military is pretty good at getting you to do your duty regardless of your personal beliefs, so any libs that happen to be in will likely be valued members of their units.
Hopefully, they will have matured into normal conservatives by the time they get out or will at least not act like John Kerry or Jack Murtha or many other libs who have disgraced their country and themselves.
And as to liberals serving in our military - I sincerely doubt there are many ...
Wow, that's pretty much at odds with my experiences, but I'll bow to your knowledge.
So that I'm clear on this, your answer to what about liberals in the military is:
1. There aren't many.
2. Apparently, not many are active duty, because some ran away to Canada.
3. Those that are there only serve honorably because the system forces them to.
What is it, some type of proto-maternal instinct that leads to a desire to shield the hapless liberals from having to define and defend their core beliefs?
Hardly. I just couldn't help but notice that your arguments usually boil down to wild-eyed accusations about how stupid and evil anyone is who doesn't agree with you.
I was just curious to see if there was anything more to it than that and believe I have my answer.
Oh my stars. This is rational argument? Or are you just pretending to be a witling?
Either way:
If you get a speeding ticket, is the police officer a "lib"? - NO
If someone cuts in front of you at checkout in the grocery store, is that person a "lib"? - NO
If a dog does his business in your front yard, is that dog a "lib"? - NO
If a member of congress calls our soldier "murderers" is he a "lib"? - YES
If another member of the same party suggests that Al Qaeda murder an American official is he a "lib"? - Yep, yep and yep
If a US Senator of a certain party referred to our American soldiers as Nazis, Soviet Guards and compared them to Pol Pot, is he a "lib" - Absolutely
If a former President warned all Americans to be wary of former soldiers that were captured because they might snap at any time, would he be a "lib" - totally dude.
So to help you - dogs are not libs. They are too smart for that.
Doug,
You are so right. A quick trip in time back to the start of liberalism would would save us all a lot of trouble and a few million fellow Americans their families.
Let's see- we'd have to go back to sometime before Oct 1917 to get at the "queen".
Well, apparantely Michael Weiner was only HALF right saying "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder", as trenton has proven that definitely "Consevatism is Mental Disorder" as well.
Power to the BORGS !
Thanks, Mr T.
Hey Obamabots,
I thought you might like to read about how our soldiers all love him. You'd think all those lib soldiers would give him a warm welcome.
But I guess a lack of guts is standard issue for libs.
BTW, you don't have to get the vapors, this is from your favorite source, the New York Times - the paper of record for Moonbats.
http://tinyurl.com/65rgn5
Sorry, but your reading of the NYT article draws a conclusion not indicated by the article itself.
Still, why let mere facts get in the way of shrill insults?
"And organizers say many Fort Hood residents — the base serves about 218,000 people, including service members, retirees and military families — have grown tired of the war and agree with Mr. Obama’s declaration that it must end."
Comprehend, much?
Still, you missed an opportunity here. Why not take the opportunity to call military families tired of the war cowards, gutless, stupid and smelly?
JayJay,
I just say I'm disappointed. I had hoped that someone capable of independent thought might swerve onto this board and engage is a spirited discussion.
Instead all I get is a series of drones, incapable of defending themselves even in a snowball fight, and a confused soul who acts like a chihuahua, yipping around the ankles of the libs and begging them to notice you.
What led to this sorry state? If I had to guess, it would be Bush Derangement Syndrome. Be honest now - I'm right aren't I?
And oh yes, I did read that paragraph in the article and had the wit to realize it was just opinion and lib wishful thinking.
As you now have shown, it's the only kind of thinking they can do.
You can run off and sulk now.
Another meaningless piece of Mr-T drivvel.
It would be a miracle if he ever said anything.
What led to this sorry state? If I had to guess, it would be Bush Derangement Syndrome. Be honest now - I'm right aren't I?
Want me to be honest? Okay.
I'm pretty familiar with Bush Derangement Syndrome. In fact, I probably noticed its existence and complained about it well before Sean Hannity or whoever told you what it meant.
Also, in the interest of honesty, I'll come clean with the "how did we get here" question.
We're at this point because you seem to be laboring under the assumption that you possess an amazing argument and all tremble before it.
Allow me to disabuse you of that notion. So far, you have not been able to articulate even the crudest of arguments.
I wanted to use examples here to rebut your attempts at reasoning, but I was stymied. I couldn't find any. Really. I found a lot of insults, but that's it.
So how did we get here? We got here because there's nothing to say. You want to pretend that lame insults somehow amount to a reasoned position or "spirited discussion." Since no one else is playing your pretending game, there isn't anything to say.
Now, the funny thing, the truly funny thing, is that as a general proposition, you probably wouldn't disagree with a lot of our readers opinions.
But notice that none of them (including me) chime in to support you? That's because no one wants to be around an angry nut.
I'm printing out the part you wrote about the New York Times being my favorite paper and the part where you seem to think I'm a liberal. They'll get a kick out of that.
By the way, which branch did you serve in? I'm just surprised that you never ran across any "libs" in the military.
JayBee,
I never offer info on my service unless asked since it is not extraordinary and libs assume that most folks are like them and won't serve. You asked however.
I was US Army volunteer active duty 1975-1979, MOS 35L at Fort Jackson, Fort Gorgon, Fort Meade and Fliegerhorst Kaserne. Honor Graduate twice and holder of Arcom medal. As I said, nothing beyond the normal for normal Americans.
Et vous, monsieur?
As to your confused message; so who is this "they" that are going to share a laugh that you might come to the rescue of libs?
Please make sure you print out the rest of the thread so that can wonder why you really do come to the rescue of libs. Perhaps they will wonder, as I do, if the approval of libs is more important to you than your stated desire for limited government.
As to my arguments, I'd be glad to engage in any based on logic, but have yet to find one here. When I suggest Obama might be too cowardly to appear in front of real American soldiers - no wait - the New York Times made that suggestion - you point out the most obvious example of lib bias; a reporter claiming to know the thoughts of American soldiers. And oh yes, the American soldiers, according to the moonbat reporter, can't wait to vote for a liberal. Are you kidding me or are you just a total fool to make that the centerpiece of your argument? Please sir or madam, I hope you can do better than that.
Come on now - I don't think you are so far gone that you can't see that this is not a subject of debate but rather an invitation to ridicule. That's why you get made fun of.
Here's an order for you - argue things that are not obviously false and you won't be made to look bad.
No thinking person could possibly argue that, if soldiers elected the President, ala Arthur C. Clarke, Obmana would have any chance at all.
Your attempting to make this point told me that you sympathize with libs they same way I may feel compassion for heroin addicts.
The main difference is that I realize that their actions are self destructive and will help them return to normalcy.
Trenton,
Thanks for your service.
You still basically have not said anything, although I exeect you feel you are saying loads.
I have never read such disjointed thinking. There is never anyhing that really addresses the issues or quesitons others ask and even worse you really do not add anything to address your positions in any real regard either.
It is just an endless, meanlingless tyrade.
BTW, a lot of us have served and don't have your warped sense of perception.
Navy. Not that I really care about prior service as a requirement to have any thoughts on the matter. I was genuinely surprised with your there-aren't-many-liberals-in-the-military theory.
I had assumed that you either had some experience ages ago or were the sort of person who slaps a support our troops magnet on your car, watches Discovery Wings and all of a sudden has deep insight into the modern military.
You continue to equate wild-eyed rants to making a point. Why won't I defend Obama against your claims of cowardice? Because I don't care. He doesn't interest me as a candidate and his slimy capitulation on the FISA issue would've clinched it if I hadn't already made my mind up.
You see what I did there? I used a specific example about Obama's deeds to justify my point that he isn't worthy of my vote. I didn't say he's "he's a jerky lib" and leave it at that.
I could go on and explain why I believe he did the wrong thing and why it's a bad thing for our country. Others might disagree and offer up their reasons why I'm wrong.
That's called discussion. It's what you don't do. You're happy to casually sling robotic insults to anyone who disagrees. You hate the people you hate, because you hate them.
So you see, I'm not rushing to the defense of "libs." I'm rushing to distance myself from people like you. I want people to know that things like the Constitution, limited government, and fiscal responsibility are good things for good reasons. Not just catchphrases thrown about before getting on to slinging insults.
I'm capable of presenting rational arguments, so I take that approach. I guess if I couldn't do that, then I would just rely on the volume of venom of my own voice, too.
I'm going to bed now. I work for a living and really ought to spend my meager free time talking to people I like.
Jaybien,
I can see that someone is experiencing a bit of pique. I know most libs and lib lapdogs aren't used to being spoken to in a way that pricks their pride, but I don't want libs feeling comfortable; I want them to start to think for themselves.
Now, as far as not being willing to engage in debate - did you read this thread? I'm the only one who has, again and again, asked people to discuss real issues. For example, I started this thread with a posit that libs tend to all say and think the same things.
I was prepared to debate this point should anyone disagree with it with a number of examples, but what did I get?
The mental equivalent of "and you're a poopie head".
As far as I can see, I responded to each specific thing that folks brought up - like "liberalism improves our democracy" or "political parties are like country clubs". But once questioned at all, the normal lib reaction set in - the overwhelming desire to run away. After a quick, "you're a poopie head", of course.
And then you chimed in to disagree with me and I thought that at least here was someone capable of writing more than 4 words. I suspected you were not a lib, but here you were holding them up - even to attempting to say that the same ideology whose adherents are defacing recruiting centers on campus are also enlisting in a big way in the military.
So I thought about that and about the two statements you let slip out about wanting a constituional government - with the clear implication that ours was not - and your single statement expressing disappointment about Obama because he voted for the Fisa bill. Hmmm. . . this is a lib position and here you are taking it, but you aren't a lib.
This and the strange obsession with coming to the aid of libs led me to the conclusion that you were not a member of either the lib or conservative ideology, but rather the Alex Jones party; an unnatural confluence of both libs and conservatives who are joined together only in their overwhelming fear of the U.S. government and their belief in ludicrous government conspiracies. Oh, and yes, I almost forgot, the crushing and paralyzing hatred for our President, George W. Bush. Watch out for those chemtrails!
So now I get it, I think. The good news is that the followers of Mr. Jones are so few as to be of no consequence and therefore may be dismissed. For those of you not familiar with this brand of lunacy, here's headquarters: www.infowars.com. Jay, if you aren't a follower of Mr. Jones, check it out, it'll be like coming home.
So libs and lib lapdogs, let me try again. I would very much like to have a nice discussion on some important issue. Come on - give it a try.
But just remember, "You're a poopie head" may work with your fellow libs, but not with me.
Trenton,
I knew a guy like you once. He could talk his way out of anything by subtly changing the subject any time I almost had him pinned down. He used neat tricks like metaphors, sarcasm, foreign languages, and really fancy words to confuse people. He would type until he had enough words on the paper that it would just make your eyes glaze over and he could sneak in his little attacks without you knowing it.
You're not quite as talented as him, but practice makes perfect. You know what the funny thing is? He was a raging liberal.
Hi Doug,
Is there no one who wants to discuss an issue?
Could you invite your lib friend to join the discussion? Thanks!
Trenton,
Give me some examples of how conservatives shrink governement and make it less intrusive.
May I make a suggestion? When posting, it might be a good idea to use a name other than Anonymous. There are likely a number of folks using that name and it's hard to have a discussion if you don't know who you are talking to.
You don't have to register - just click the Name/URL button right above Anonymous and type in any old name that we may know you by.
Now, as to your excellent suggestion - "Give me some examples of how conservatives shrink government and make it less intrusive.", I must say I know of few.
I remember Ronald Reagan trying to cut funds to the dept of Education only to have every lib scream at the top of their lungs, hold their breath and stomp their feet. Conservatives didn't have the numbers to perform this service and so millions of kids are doomed to an ever worsening lib run education system.
I know that most conservatives have attempted to stop government funding of radio stations. However, libs and rinos have combined to keep even these small cuts from happening.
I know our President, George W. Bush, proposed changes to Social Security that would have made this outdated and destructive program obsolete in just a few years. Libs went crazy here too.
I know that libs were totally against cutting welfare saying that it would destroy the lives of millions of people. It had, of course, the opposite effect.
I remember many times under Republican presidents when libs complained of "draconian cuts" that would hurt the children, or the homeless or those with mismatched socks. I also remember that each of these "cuts" were just reductions in growth and not even true cuts.
I guess I could name many more examples, but the unholy alliance of libs, dems, the media along with a general gutlessness on the part of Republicans and rinos has made it impossible to really make government smaller. So far.
Conservatives have made at least a start by voting out a number of lib rinos with more to come.
I'm still waiting for all those small government libs to vote out a few on their side - like say Mr. Obama?
So many words, so little information.
trenton,
The 2 presidents you mentioned are 1 and 2 all time in spending, both republicans. Welfare reform was actually carried out by Clinton and in my opinion was a huge failure since it increased the unskilled labor pool and drove down wages- very bad for America's economy.
Privatizing Social Security doesn't make any sense financially for the American people. It really only benefits private investment firms, they would profit enormously at the expense of the public. It's also fascist to combine State and Corporate power.
Mr. Borg,
Well, well, well - a lib with the guts to actually engage with some points and not just run crying away like a member of the French army. My congratulations to you, sir!
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree with your points, but that's the way we learn.
First, Reagan, if you read his diaries, was very disappointed in the amount of spending demanded by the libs. Their deal was that he would hold back a bit on the tax reductions and they would hold back on the spending. He kept his word - they did not.
Next, welfare reform was pushed and passed by conservatives. Very few dems went along. Clinton only signed because he was told by the toe sucker that he might lose re-election if he didn't. What's even more amazing is that Clinton vetoed this twice and warned how it would be devastating to poor people. However, when his own sorry butt was on the line, he didn't worry too much about their devastation. How lib! Of course, when all the libs were proven wrong, Clinton tried to take credit. How Clinton!
Finally, please note that I have little good to say about Republicans today. When they purge out the libs, hopefully we'll all be more happy with them.
One more thing please - a word of advice. Normal folks, when they hear people talk about fascism and corporate power politely tune you out as this is a dead giveaway that they are dealing with a particularly embarrassing bit of lib pathology - kind of like someone who talks to people that aren't there. Try to hide it better. There, I said it.
Now I'd like to ask you a question that we can discuss.
If modern day libs knew that their program of welfare would destroy the families of millions of Americans and result in the jailing of over 1,000,000 of their fellow citizens, would they still be in favor of it?
Everyone, feel free to chime in.
Trenton
"If modern day libs knew that their program of welfare would destroy the families of millions of Americans and result in the jailing of over 1,000,000 of their fellow citizens, would they still be in favor of it?"
Really? So it's the Libs that have been destroying families all around the world? And they're responsible for putting over 1,000,000 citizens in jail?
Couldn't we say the same thing about so many other groups all around the world?
Take, for example, heterosexuals. They've been destroying families for thousands of years. You know what...I've got a great idea. Because heterosexuals are the #1 cause of all divorces in America, let's ban heterosexuality! Are you heterosexual Trenton? You should be ashamed of yourself. You're part of one of the worst groups of people ever to walk the planet. You're just going to have to turn homosexual now, aren't you?
Blaming this group and that group for all of life's problems won't get you anywhere. It's so much easier to blame a whole group of people than to do the work and figure out how you, yes YOU Trenton, can take accountability for your own actions to help other people along. Not happy about the current agenda that your local Congresspeople have? Do something about it, but don't resort to labels and ridiculous allegations.
Trenton,
Your rhetorical 'skills' are kind of entertaining in a morbid kind of way.
You managed to not really address anything BB actually said.
Okay...you can give conservatives credit for passing welfare reform. They can be responsible for passing a bill that "increased the unskilled labor pool and drove down wages- very bad for America's economy."
You win!
Douglas,
DMY my man.
You obviously have no idea to what I am referring. And yes, the libs, in their normal way, have been worse than any plague of locusts on our country.
It may not be obvious to many libs, but our country has a significant percentage of fellow citizens who are of African American heritage. These fellow American have suffered through three great wrongs in their time here.
The first is, of course, slavery. I hope I don't have to explain that to you.
The next was segregation. This was led, in large part, by the democrat party as I'm sure you are aware. If you aren't, it was.
The third great wrong was the Great Society and the creation of the welfare state. There is no doubt which ideology perpetrated this evil on our fellow citizens - it was liberalism. Black families were a source of strength from the times of slavery, through the civil war and all the way into the 1950s.
Since then, millions of these families of our fellow Americans have been destroyed with no males at home and great stresses on the family units.
What ideology held sway during this time? Which one took over the schools, moved people en masse to hell hole public housing units, ran the social agencies, ran the dem controlled cities and demanded that welfare remain as it was even with the obvious carnage it brought about.
So that's one reason I accuse liberalism of being not only wrong - but deadly.
There are others - we could ask which idealogy led to the deaths of so many in the aftermath of the Vietnam war, for example.
One more thing - I must admit that I can't understand this whole reference to being Gay. I can sense it's important to you so I tried. Perhaps you can try again and be a bit more clear this time.
Come on Doug - we need Americans who will tell the truth to libs that aren't too far gone. Not ones who will jump in in their laps and mew for milk.
trenton,
Mussolini actually suggested that fascism be called corporatism since its the merger of State and Corporate Power. So I guess the Godfather of fascism was really a 'Lib'?
Reagan spent like a drunken sailor, he had too. He needed money to fund his "War on Terror" down in Central America, which essentially amounted to a war against the Catholic Church. Surely not something a God fearing conservitive would do.
So to recap: We have Mussolini talkin' like a lib and Reagan behaving like a lib.
As far as welfare reform goes, I see it as more of an elitist issue. The boys in DC and on Wall St. sticking to the American people.
Mr. Locutus:
He he. A little learning can be a dangerous thing. Mussolini, was, for most of his life, a self-proclaimed socialist and therefore a lib. His programs would be fully popular with the current crop of members of the liberal hive. Libs would vote fo the guy is an Obama second.
Later, he did decide that business was the key to creating wealth, but he didn't "partner" with it, he used the power of the state to take it over. In 1935 he claimed that 75% of Italian businesses were under state control - not the other way around as tin foil wearing libs like to believe.
You see, that's the lib way of doing things. You use the power of the state to force people to do things, to force businesses to submit to your will and to force your population to accept the liberal boot on their neck.
Free people will almost never do what liberals want, so liberals have to force them to bend to their will. Since they are whimps and cowards and all have carpal tunnel syndrome, the only way they achieve this power is through the use of the power of government.
That's fascism - it's the liberal way.
As to your claim about Reagan going to war against the Catholic Church; let's try to keep the discussion to things that happened or might happen on Planet Earth, OK?
Trenton,
It's difficult to discuss anything with you because you dont really acknowledge anys facts.
Who was the major opposition to Mussolini's power grab? It was the Communist and Socialist Parties.
Who was the major opposition to the Reagan funded status quo dictatorships and death squads in Latin America? The Catholic Church.
Your history is really quite confused, I'm sorry for that.
A Borg:
I have never understood the lib fascination with Mussolini. I guess it's because Hitler did most of his dirty work under the socialist banner and that leaves El Duce.
Nonetheless, here's a quote from Goliers for you on your buddy:
"Expelled by the Austrians, he became the editor at Forli of a socialist newspaper, La Lotta di Classe (The Class Struggle ). . . . In 1910, Mussolini became secretary of the local Socialist party at Forli.
At this stage in his life his political views were almost the opposite of what they later became. He boasted of being an "antipatriot. When Italy declared war on Turkey in 1911, he was imprisoned for his pacifist propaganda. Appointed editor of the official Socialist newspaper Avanti, he moved to Milan, where he established himself as the most forceful of all labor leaders of Italian socialism. He believed that the proletariat should unite "in one formidable fascio (bundle), preparatory to seizing power. Some see this as the start of the Fascist movement.
When World War I broke out in 1914, Mussolini agreed with the other Socialists that Italy should not join it. Only a class war was acceptable to him, and he threatened to lead a proletarian revolution if the government decided to fight.
Sounds like your kind of guy, right? Confused, but with a hankering to impose his will on the unwilling.
And, oh yes, he did defeat the libs and socialist when he came to power. The thing is that the libs and socialists ran the whole government. They were, like all libs, afraid of him and caved in - even initially supporting him openly due to their fear.
I know you think that these socialists were the good guys here, but one of them simply took their philosophy from government control of the masses to individual control of the masses.
To the masses, it makes little difference. That's why we don't want libs to continue to destroy things in our country.
And though you must be getting a bit punch drunk by now, you keep bringing up this utter lib fantasy about South American and some ludicrous lunacy about Reagan declaring war on the catholic church.
Facts are interesting things. Here are a few for you:
"During the Reagan administration, all this changed. No more nations fell into the clutches of the Soviet bear. Capitalism and democracy began to advance around the world. On Reagan's watch, dictatorships collapsed in Chile, Haiti, and Panama, and nine more countries moved toward democracy: Bolivia (1982), Honduras (1982), Argentina (1983), Grenada (1983), El Salvador (1984), Uruguay (1984), Brazil (1985), Guatemala (1985), and the Philippines (1986). Fewer than one-third of the countries in Latin America were democratic in 1981; more than 90 percent of the region was democratic by 1989. In Nicaragua, shortly after Reagan's second term ended, free elections were held, and the Sandinista government was ousted from power. Apartheid ended in South Africa, and a black-majority government was elected. All these changes occurred relatively peacefully."
This is a quote from a great thinker, Dinesh D'Souza. If you continue to refuse to learn from me due to hurt pride, then read his books.
They will help you.
to all:
This thread has been a hoot, but it's getting to be rather long.
May I suggest future posts be made under the more current thread?
I'll make a nice little one to get the ball rolling.
Post a Comment