posted on April 8, 2007 09:10:14 AM
Yes, it's hard to believe some of these lib beliefs.
By Edward L. Daley |
There are some people in the United States of America who think that George W. Bush orchestrated the atrocities of 09/11/01...
and that Democrats are more responsible with our tax dollars than Republicans...
and that Rosie O'Donnell is a patriot...
and that suspected terrorists captured during armed conflict in a foreign country deserve the same habeas corpus rights as domestic criminal suspects...
and that tax increases actually promote economic growth...
and that spanking a child equates to abuse, but having sex with one doesn't...
and that the "mainstream" media is politically unbiased...
and that our country is an imperialist nation...
and that public education is generally superior to private education...
and that Israel is an aggressor nation, but Saddam Hussein's regime was completely innocent...
and that Islamic terrorists are really freedom fighters...
and that the United Nations is genuinely concerned with world peace...
and that racial intolerance is more common in this country today than it has ever been before...
and that Al Gore's movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' is an accurate, scientific depiction of global climatological trends...
and that worshiping God is a more objectionable practice than sodomy...
and that Marxism is a viable sociopolitical--and even economic--ideology...
and that Bill Clinton was impeached for having an affair...
and that the federal government is the benefactor of our individual rights...
and that calling a wealthy, left-wing, Hollywood actor a 'Limousine Liberal' is hateful, but calling a conservative black person an 'Uncle Tom' isn't...
and that cutting down trees is more egregious than piercing the heart or brain of an unborn baby with a sharp metal object.
Considering the wholly preposterous nature of these opinions, one has to wonder how many of the folks who've adopted them watch ABC's ''The View'' on a regular basis.
by Edward L. Daley
Owner of the Daley Times-Post
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on April 8, 2007 11:22:31 AM
Nope.....each and every ONE of those on the list are something a liberal HAS approved of/defended or taken that position.
Want to discuss which ones you don't believe represent the liberal mind set, coincoach?
I'm willing to prove you wrong.
Truth hurts....and I can imagine it must hurt a liberal to see many of their 'positions' listing in one place.
posted on April 8, 2007 07:45:35 PM new
As a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, I don't believe any of that nonsense, nor do I know anyone who does. What a load. You people are left with nothing to do but mischaracterize and taunt your opposition. Still haven't figured out how to dump those forwards have you bear?
posted on April 8, 2007 08:30:51 PM new
They aren't emailed necessarily. The author is a well known right wing ideolog nut case with a blog site full of crap like the above.
posted on April 8, 2007 08:57:35 PM new
"""Truth hurts....and I can imagine it must hurt a liberal to see many of their 'positions' listing in one place.""
Ya the truth hurts dosen't it, linduh, (see banana thread )
"""But there's NOT ONE of them that isn't true."""
posted on April 8, 2007 09:43:45 PM new
"Nope.....each and every ONE of those on the list are something a liberal HAS approved of/defended or taken that position."
What a ridiculous statement. I can probably find someone in New York who thinks the earth is flat. Does that mean that all New Yorkers believe the earth is flat? There is absolutely no basis factual or theoretical, to that list or your post.
George Bush said all of the following. Does that mean all American Presidents are idiots?
"I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound largemouth bass in my lake." --on his best moment in office, interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag, May 7, 2006 (Read more)
9) "You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006
8) "Anybody who is in a position to serve this country ought to understand the consequences of words." --interview with Rush Limbaugh, Nov. 1, 2006
7) "I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?" --asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006
posted on April 8, 2007 10:16:19 PM new
LOL coincoach uses the typical 'let's change the subject totally' when we can't address the TRUTH of a topic.
typical liberal.
Many on the list were stated by LIBERAL/dem LEADERS lol lol lol
But the other individual wacko liberals....yep...they pretty much follow the liberal mind think. Just that they take it to a new level....like old rosey odonnel has done recently on her show.
I sure don't read ANY liberals here calling her or any other 'radical' liberal a nutcase. Nope....total silence.
Your denial of the liberal party platform is funny though. lol lol lol
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 8, 2007 10:25:07 PM new
I did not change the subject. I gave my opinion of that spurious and ridiculous list. It makes as much sense to equate all liberals/democrats with that list as it does to equate all American Presidents with the moronic musings of our current President. As for Rosie O'Donnell, why should I give a crap what she says? She is on a show called The View and gives her view regularly, as is her right. She is entitled to her opinions and they do not influence mine one iota. She does not speak for me, liberals or the Democratic party.
posted on April 8, 2007 10:36:42 PM new
Yes, cc, you changed the subject to some quotes from Bush.
Deny away....those wackos ARE liberals. And everything they say....just as everything the dem leaders and all dems/liberals here say REPRESENT the liberal views. ALL.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 8, 2007 10:42:53 PM new
Linda. You are just showing how you can't or won't read an entire post. In case you are not familiar with the technique, I was using those quotes as an example of why you cannot condemn a whole body of people (liberals or American presidents) for one person's actions/words. Sorry if you can't GRASP that.
posted on April 8, 2007 10:46:13 PM new
By the way, I meant to ask which liberal leader thinks "that spanking a child equates to abuse, but having sex with one doesn't..."??
posted on April 8, 2007 10:48:15 PM new
Oh...but you're so WRONG, CC.
I grasp that you and other liberals here use EVERY excuse to BASH this President. This is no different. lol
And sure....when someone says they're a liberal/or shows it in their speech/comments.....it reflects on ALL liberals.
You as an individual might not agree....but on the whole the party takes the 'credit/blame' for their positions.
JUST as on these threads when the liberals here bring up something an extreme far rightie has said....and blame it on the WHOLE republican party.
No different. Just the liberals want to use different standards here.
NO DOUBLE STANDARDS allowed. What works for one side is OKAY for the other side too.
Goose/Gander LOL
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 8, 2007 10:50:25 PM new
The California liberals who have worked to pass anti-spanking leglislation.
And the aclu...who defended NAMBLA.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 9, 2007 06:27:10 AM new
ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today."
This does not mean the ACLU or anyone condones sex with children, although some people promote that for their own agenda.
The statement on that ridiculous list "and that spanking a child equates to abuse, but having sex with one doesn't..." strongly implies that all liberals approve of sex with children and don't approve of spanking. Show me anyone working to pass the anti-spanking law in Cal. who also approves of sex with children. Show me any citizen who disapproves of spanking who also approves of sex with children (except members of NAMBLA.) By the way, anti-spanking is not a political platform. There are Republicans, Democrats, liberals and conservatives who are anti-spanking and vice versa. I do not believe in spanking children. My conservative friend does not approve of spanking. Another liberal friend will spank her child on occasion. Whether it should/can be legislated is another story.
posted on April 9, 2007 07:14:42 AM new
LOL.....Oh I know what they say they do. And I know most liberals and a ton of lefties think they're wonderful.
It makes me SICK that anyone or group would DEFEND a group whose aim is to MOLEST our young children.
It's MY ethics, my VALUES....my morals that don't accept that. Let them pay to defend themselves and their OWN sickness.
Sure....they do a TINY bit of defending the right....but most of what they do is to restrict religious rights....and defend the UNDEFENDABLE.
posted on April 9, 2007 07:46:51 AM new
linduh has shown approval of sex with children in the Mark Foley thread....implying that if a child has reached puberty they are fair game.
"""It makes me SICK that anyone or group would DEFEND a group whose aim is to MOLEST our young children."""
And that group would be the Republicans who protected Mark Foley ???
posted on April 9, 2007 07:54:34 AM new
sybil obviously needs my attention again today. <sigh>
That's why she starts with all her lies again.....so I'll respond.
Please just consider that she doesn't speak FOR me....in any way, shape or form.
==================
I believe most are aware that the aclu put out the above press release cc mentions WHEN the good people in America were OUTRAGED about the aclu supporting MOLESTERS of our children.
And imo, anyone to donates one dime to that organization IS supporting each and every case they decided to DEFEND.....including that whole group of child molestors.
That the also work against anything GOOD about America....is also their goal.
It's sad....pathetic...but that's why groups like the ACLJ have been formed ......to keep them from changing our society to favor the perverts against all that has ever been good.
posted on April 9, 2007 07:59:51 AM new
Sorry, Linda. That is the American way. Freedom of speech is one of the tenents on which we base our democracy, even if you abhor the speech. If you are as patriotic as you say, that shouldn't be a problem for you. However, the issue of my post is that the OP's list is inaccurate unless anyone can prove to me that the Liberal/Democratic platform supports sex with children while it condemns spanking.
posted on April 9, 2007 09:57:39 AM new
Nope.....this is where I really see liberals and their positions as being destructive to our whole society.
There is right and there is wrong.
It is WRONG for these NAMBLA adults to want to legalize sex with children. It is WRONG for them to actually have sex with children. They are preditors. Period...preditors.
It's not a matter of 'free speech'. It's a matter of approving of and defending a group that molests children - having the right to ADVOCATE THAT BEHAVIOR....rather than letting them defend themselves and their own actions.
It's a matter that some 'free speech' is not free. And advocating the molestation of our children should NEVER be allowed.
But as in this case and many, many more including, but not limited to, the support of the 'rights' that the liberals want our enemies to have, those who have pledged to destroy us....is nothing short of insane.
Suicidal.
And yet the liberals support these platforms.
Nope....free speech IS already regulated. There is some speech that CAN'T be said.
And here the liberals get so upset and want to legally regulate 'hate speech' against those THEY want to protect. Yep....but let it apply to our young children...and they take the other side of the debate.
tsk tsk tsk
And just because you don't want to accept that there are those who want to continue taking AWAY parental RIGHTS from us all, LIBERALS AGAIN, and want to pretend it's a MORAL thing to defend molesters.....doesn't make it good for our society nor our children.
I pity those who encourage the support of defending such perverted behavior.
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 9, 2007 11:44 AM ]
posted on April 9, 2007 10:11:46 AM newThere is right and there is wrong. It is WRONG for these NAMBLA adults to want to legalize sex with children. It is WRONG for them to actually have sex with children. They are preditors. Period...preditors.
Just like with the KKK, this group has a right to be heard. That is what the ACLU was defending - their right to free speach. The ACLU was not defending the group's intentions nor does it support the group's "goals". There is a difference.
Based on Linda's arguments above, even the most despicable of serial killers should not have the right to a defense. The defense lawyers may not agree with the what the defendant did, but the lawyer still has the right to defend his client to the best of his ability.
It amazes me that Linda wants to give away the basic right of free speech. But then again she support giving up basic rights all in the name of freedom and protecting herself from terrorists.
It's a matter that some 'free speech' is not free.
Yes and it was validated by the US Supreme Court.
Yes and your vile speech was not free speech when you were booted from the OTWA despite what you may think.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 9, 2007 10:12:23 AM new
Please refer to the "" House Approves Page Program Reforms"" thread to read linduh's support of child molesting/stalking.
posted on April 9, 2007 10:28:54 AM new
ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 9, 2007 11:19:46 AM new
LOL...now we have two MORE supporters of legally banning 'hate speech'. lol
Come to defend free speech? How funny. Guess it depends on who's doing the speaking to them. shame shame
We don't allow people to scream FIRE in theatres.
We don't allow groups of people to post the names and addresses of abortion doctors on the internet....WHY would THAT be?
lol To protect them from the wackos that wound want to hunt them down and kill them.
Then we also would NEVER allow any group or individual to stand anywhere in public and call for/solicit the murder of anyone else. NEVER would be allowed. Nor would someone calling for all blacks to be shot.
etc etc etc. Those issues and thousands more are NOT legal free speech....no matter how many liberals want to pretend ALL speech is free speech, it is NOT>
posted on April 9, 2007 11:24:32 AM new
Just this morning I half-heard some report about Don Imus apologizing to Sharpton because he referred to a black persons HAIR in a way that wasn't PC. lol lol
So much for free speech being allowed.
We read about those stories everyday. Where someone slips and says something that others believe they shouldn't have said....then someone else makes a FEDERAL case out of what was said....and they are FORCED to apologize.
Is THAT not unallowed free speech to liberals??? lol
And imo, it's certainly NOT on the perverted level of allowing speech that ENCOURAGES other freaks to molest our children.
I understand though....there are way too many liberals who don't know 'right from wrong'. And these small slips of the tongue they are HUNG for while the same nutcases will defend the rights of free speech of child molesters.
It's just part of the liberal mind set I will NEVER understand....nor EVER agree with.
It's immoral to support them.
edited to correct who was upset about what Imus said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 9, 2007 03:36 PM ]
posted on April 9, 2007 11:27:37 AM new
And I have NO doubt in my mind that IF there was some gay basher standing on the public square....calling for gays to be beaten everytime anyone sees one....then old LD and every liberal in the US would be screaming their heads off..... would want to stop his 'free speech' position quicker than lightning.
NO DOUBT.
But encouraging the molestion of our children on the internet should be?
NEVER
AND I have no doubt the aclu would NEVER be DEFENDING the actions of the gay basher who is calling for the gays to be beaten.
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 9, 2007 11:34 AM ]
posted on April 9, 2007 11:39:45 AM new
While I've stated this before when we've had similar discussions.....
I'm going to point it out again.
The aclu does NOT support religious groups or individual on religious issues as so many of their supporters will tell you.
According to the aclj and others, which I've posted before....these same people/individuals were being defended by the aclu for something OTHER than their religious stand.
When each case is looked at individually....more often than not....the case wasn't related to religious freedoms.
The MAJORITY are not for religious protection. They just happen to be religious people/organizations that had OTHER legal/civil rights issues.
But the tiny few they have supported are only to fool those who don't READ the facts. And because in different areas of the US different aclu groups DO support some religious freedoms. But won't be seeing those in your liberals cities/states. lol Bible belt areas maybe.
Those who refuse to acknowledge that it's the aclu who works to eliminate anything God related....and hurt groups that do support our motto on coins, CROSSES or the Boy Scouts or being allowed to meet in public schools, pray in public schools, wear Christian symbols...clothing or allowing public funds to help the poor and needy, BECAUSE they do a better job at it and they're not paid to do it....
etc etc etc.
They didn't start out being a communist group because they're religious. LOL LOL LOL
posted on April 9, 2007 12:45:19 PM new
Off topic and for CC.
Everyone is human....even liberals.
Edwards: Assad Yes, Ahmadinejad Yes, Ailes No
"I think that what America should be doing on the issue of Iraq is dealing directly with both the Syrians and the Iranians, and I don't know precisely what Speaker Pelosi is going to do in Syria, but we as a nation should be engaged with both the Iranians and the Syrians directly in helping stabilize Iraq. Both countries have an interest in a stabilized Iraq. They don't want refugees coming across their border, they don't want economic instability, and they don't want to see a broader Middle East conflict. And I think it makes sense to not on some ideological basis not deal with them, but to engage with both of them directly."--John Edwards, CNN, April 3
and
"We just called the CBC [Congressional Black Caucus] to let them know that we're looking forward to their debate with CNN but we're not going to participate in the proposed debate with Fox [News Channel]. There's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending to be objective."--Edwards campaign statement, April 6
=====
credit to the WSJ
So....should edwards be elected [LOL big time] maybe we'll have a long list of his edwardisms in 6 years too.
==========
Oh and MRS. edwards seem to be upset with her new neighbors too:
There Goes the Neighborhood
"Elizabeth Edwards says she is scared of the 'rabid, rabid Republican' who owns property across the street from her Orange County [N.C.] home--and she doesn't want her kids going near the gun-toting neighbor,"
the Associated Press reports:
Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, particularly recalls the time neighbor Monty Johnson brought out a gun while chasing workers investigating a right of way near his property. The Edwards family has yet to meet Johnson in person.
"I wouldn't be nice to him, anyway," Edwards said in an interview. "I don't want my kids anywhere near some guy who, when he doesn't like somebody, the first thing he does is pull a gun out. It scares the business out of me."
==
Johnson says he appropriately brandished the gun to protect himself from trespassers.
==
Mrs. Edwards has more grievances against her neighbor:
Edwards views Johnson as a "rabid, rabid Republican" who refuses to clean up his "slummy" property just to spite her family, whose lavish 28,000-square-foot estate is nearby on 102 wooded acres.
lol
Johnson, 55, acknowledges his Republican roots. But he takes offense to the suggestion he has purposefully left his property, including an old garage he leases for use as a car shop, in dilapidated condition.
Johnson said he has lived his entire life on the property, which he said his family purchased before the Great Depression. He said he's spent a lot of money to try and fix up the 42-acre tract.
"I have to budget. I have to live within my means," Johnson said. "I don't have millions of dollars to fix the place."
===
There are two Americas, and Elizabeth Edwards would just as soon not have to look at the other one. Maybe that's why she is so eager to live in the White House, the ultimate gated community
Ya the truth hurts dosen't it, linduh, (see banana thread 
Are YOU a Bunghole?