posted on December 22, 2000 11:56:13 PM
That's not meant to be a joke - it's true!
Conservatives used to be for America, for the US Constitution that they held dear and sacred, and were always ready to lay down their lives to protect our freedoms.
Today's Conservatives would rather be TOLD what to think than to think, they APPLAUD[/v] when the US Constitution is used as a mere toy, a political ploy. They [b]CHEER when their party uses all of its power, money, and legal might to prevent democratic elections in this country (votes in Fl.).
Liberals, in contrast, believe in the US Constitution 100%. They believe that it applies to every citizen, not just the wealthy. And they have fought side-by-side in wars with old-time Conservatives to keep this nation free of tyranny. Not so with these new conservatives.
Conservatives of today are more concerned with whether or not the President got a blowjob than watching how their political party dismantles the US Constitution IN PLAIN SIGHT! They worship political criminals, like Nixon who gave us the No-Knock laws and suspended the protections of the Fourth Amendment. They HOWL AND PRAISE Ronald Reagan for lying to Congress during the Iran-Contra hearing, a Federal Felony (R.R. admitted that he lied to Congress back then). These new Conservatives wish Bush, SR. was still in power, even though he murdered 23 US Navy Seals. Conservatives of today are not what they used to be.
These new Conservatives have STOLEN THE NAME OF CONSERVATIVES! Liberals are the REAL Conservatives left in this nation!
posted on December 24, 2000 07:34:19 AM
Are we talking about the same liberals that want to take away our second amendment rights, the same liberals that think criminals have more rights then victims, the same liberals that want to strip the military of any effectivness, and the same liberals that think they know what is best for everyone and if you don't agree with them you must be a right wing fanatic? Right. ROFLMAO.
Greg - A libertarian, who thinks the government should get their nose out of my business and their hand out of my pocket.
posted on December 24, 2000 11:35:44 AM
Hiya Greg!
My very best and oldest friend is a die-hard Libertarian. No matter what facts I pass through his eyes and ears, he refuses to change from his litany of the Libertarian Platform. I went to a couple of their web sites and read over their planks and, quite honestly, I think that their stance comes from smoking too much of that funny green stuff.
For instance, this thing about reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government back to constitutional limits has no merit. Sorry, but 220+ years have passed and we no longer live in the world that they did, nor were the Founders able to see the technological advances of science and transportation. Such an idea does not apply to reality, where we live in an industrial age, a nuclear age, an information age, a space age, a cloning human beings age. If you can turn the clock back to 1776 for us, then I'll accept such a notion, but not until then.
Then, there's this crazy notion that if we legalize all drugs, societies problems will be over. This is the thinking of drug addicts - nothing else. As if the only thing wrong with taking these drugs was being caught! Oh, sure! I know! The thought that everyone is to be held 100% responsible means that everyone has to act 100% responsibly and rationally at all times. Hah! Fat chance! Now that's a drug-induced hallucination!
Speaking of Hallucinations, your complaints about Liberals are nothing more than old Republican campaign slogans. They were lies then and they are lies now. How about this one: "Tax and Spend Democrats" . . . remember that one? Well, it worked fine as a campaign slogan for a long time until about 1990, when someone decided that they were going to print up the facts, the proof. Hehehehe!!!! Guess what he found out? He found out that every REPUBLICAN administration since Truman has increased taxes more than democratic administrations do! Worse, they spent it all on Special Interest Projects; e.g. making their rich buddies even richer!
Truth also is that except for Ronald Reagan's massive military build-up, Democratic administrations vote to spend more than republicans do on the military and military wages!
Oh, Lordy! I could go on and on! Greg, your political beliefs are typical of what I find most repulsive in the American Voter: a complete lack of desire to go get the real facts and instead let the political machines tell you what to think!
C'mon Greg -- do a little research before you start recycling more of those old discarded republican slogans!
posted on December 24, 2000 01:19:37 PMBorillar, and what I hate are views that are so one sided, people wouldn't see the other side if it ran over them with a Mac Truck.
I never said I agreed with all of the libertarian platform (I said "the government should get their nose out of my business and their hand out of my pocket". I don't believe in legalizing drugs, if fact given all of the un-needed laws, why don't we pass one to criminalize alcohol, it is just as bad as most of the illegal drugs.
I am a firm believer in the constitution (as it was written by the founding fathers, not as it has been changed by lawyers and government flunkies).
I believe it is not only my right, but my duty to be prepared to protect myself, my family and my property, not only from criminals, but also from our current over the top government. This is why I strongly support the right to own and carry a weapon. Unfortunately, in CA where I live the constitutional right seems to have been repealed some time ago.
I also believe it is a woman's right to control her body. I have never understood why men (other then the father of the child) are involved in the discussion. Also, when was the last time you saw any of the Pro-Life people willing to adopt and support all of the children that they "saved". Not Often!
On the other side of the coin it is everyone's responsibility to take precautions to make sure unwanted results don't occur.
I don't believe in welfare, except for the very young and the very old. The elderly in this country are treated like S**T. They are given very little respect and many times just thrown out.
And I definitely don't believe in the socialist wealth distribution the far left is trying to implement in this country. I had help from my family getting through school, but everything else my wife and I have we have worked for. No one has a right to any of it then I am will to give, not even the government. (10% flat tax is the only way to go).
I am a strong believer in animal rights, especially pets, but don't have a problem with "real" hunters (unfortunately, there are fewer and fewer "real" hunters every year), as hunters support a majority of the wildlife management programs for which human ignorance has caused a need. I have not hunted in years, simply because I do NOT need the meat.
As you can see, none of the parties really represent all of my views (or, I would guess, all of ANYONE's views).
I get sick and tired of fanatics from either end of the political spectrum ranting and raving. They are unlikely to change very many opinions so why bother? Is it just to here themselves?
Greg
P.S. If you want to know some of the best political philosophy I have every read, then try reading the "Ashes" series of books by William W. Johnstone. I would love to see the tri-states socity set up here in the US.
[ edited by gjsi on Dec 24, 2000 01:20 PM ]
posted on December 24, 2000 02:12:16 PM
Well, Greg - I see that we are the same! I am not a Democrat nor a Liberal, although I too pick and choose what appeals to me and what I see as simple common sense.
"Do What Ye Will, but Harm None!"
That's the basis of the old English law. But both governement and religion conspire to try to tell me what to do and how to live even though I disagree with them. I contribute to society, I obey the laws, I pay my taxes, I harm no one -- yet, these two groups are trying to interfer with my life and tell me what to do and how to live! Now it's even worse: the worst offenders of the far-right Christian movement have teamed up with the Fascist Republican party of America and they are going to change our country into what THEY want: which is to control everyone and everyting! Hell! No one represents the majority of Americans! If we only had our own party, we could keep these other criminal political parties at bay.
posted on December 24, 2000 03:02:42 PM
Actually in my opinion it is the far right Christian movement teamed up with the socialistic Democratic Party of America and they are going to change our country into what THEY want: which is to control everyone and everything!
I fear the Socialistic Democrats far more then the so called Fascist Republican.
Sorry, wasn't intentional. I have seen threads here I thought were way past this discussion. I thought it was staying rather civilized for a political discussion.
posted on December 25, 2000 12:07:48 AM
I personally did not think of Greg's remark as referring to me, but rather to those that fit the pattern. Nor, I had hoped, that referring to my feelings about the political views of another person was merely an extention of our discussion at hand.
However, I shall do my utmost to keep a greater distance in future discussions. My apologies, Greg, if you thought that I was attacking you personally.
posted on December 25, 2000 12:28:27 AM"I get sick and tired of fanatics from either end of the political spectrum ranting and raving. They are unlikely to change very many opinions so why bother? Is it just to here themselves?"
You asked this question and as far as it concerns me, here is my answer:
I beleive that what transpired in Florida was illegal tampering and outright criminal behaviour on the part of the Reepublican party to stop Democracy and OUR election, not any politician's election.
This election was for the people, of the people, and by the people. I see Bush as an illegal President, no better than having pulled off a military coup'.
I abide by the saying that for evil to flourish, good men stand by and do nothing. Now I am not rich, I don't own any TV or cable networks: Republicans own them. I am not in a position in life to be able to get out there and be a leader of the resistance. So I do what I can.
I will not sit by and accept this criminal act. I feel it is my patriotic duty as well as knowing that Prescedence has been established for future elections. That our elections can be halted or subverted at anytime from now on. We the People no longer have our own voice -- the Republicans took that away from us. Therefore, I rail at them from the only platform that is available to me.
I try to reach as wide an audience as possible. Too many good citizens feel that they are alone, that these voters who did vote for Bush are the Majority of Americans and can make you feel isolated and alone in your fustration. I want them to know that they are not alone. While conservatives have Rush Limbaugh and the garbage that he spins as their Faith, I refuse to take it any longer and will have my say as well.
And I refuse to be polite about it anymore than is necessary to be allowed to stay on here and rant. I refuse to respect voters whose idea of deciding whom to vote for is a political party bent on passing legislation against them and only paying them attention each election cycle and just so much as to lie some more to get their votes again. I have utter contempt for people so stupid.
I feel that any political party that is so willing to hire thugs to thawrt our nation's political process in order to win by any means including the ballot-boxing stuffing that they did is no better than the Nazi party of 1920-1945 Germany -- since they did the same thing.
I do not want to live in a Fascist state. I believe that the purpose of government is defend our coutry, regulate commerce, and provide for the common good of each and every citizen. To see this "by any means" political party ask me to accept what I know is clearly wrong is just too much for me to keep quiet about.
posted on December 25, 2000 05:51:35 AM
"I get sick and tired of fanatics from either end of the political spectrum ranting and raving. They are unlikely to change very many opinions so why bother? Is it just to here themselves?"
I disagree; I think change often comes from fanatics. Think about how much fun this country was 25 years ago. Then the Religious Right started ranting and look now what we have: hollowed eye'd followers who think it's ok to bomb/shoot doctors who perform abortions, who think global warming is a rumor and totally false "cuz it's been this hot in the summer before," a higher per capita prison population than almost any other country, but we "gotta get them druggies by god!", etc.
I consider myself a liberal and am proud to be one. It means I'm tolerant of others' beliefs - at the same time, I don't want others shoving those beliefs down my throat. I don't have a problem with people owning guns, but also don't see the problem with a waiting period to buy one - if it saves one life because someone cooled down, or because a felon was kept from buying a gun, what's wrong with a waiting period? I would also believe in the death penalty IF it weren't only applied to the poor.
The self avowed conservatives I know keep talking about smaller government. Smaller schools? Less mass transit? Prisons instead of welfare? None of this makes any sense to me. They talk about the right to bear arms, and how registration intrudes on their privacy, but at the same time, they have no problem with wanting to legislate the decisions I make with my doctor. Or to legislate what two adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. Apparently they want government just small enough to fit through a peep-hole.
posted on December 25, 2000 06:21:13 PM
I guess my biggest gripe about the far side of either party would be that notion that anyone who does not agree with their narrow views of the world is obviously wrong. Period. They seem to want to decide what is right for everyone. If you do not agree with everything they espouse, then you are labeled as being a kook, wacko, fanatic, or idiot (fortunately I have NOT seen that here).
Next question, why are laws that are right for a large city, right for a small town or a rural area? Why are laws for the east coast, always right for the west coast? (welfare and health care come to mind as two issues that are widely different in these areas.) I would prefer to see a less centralized government. I think local people should play a big part in passing the laws locally. Yes, there are a few things the federal government should get involved in (the military and mail delivery are the two that come to mind at the moment).
As a long time resident of Northern California, I get sick and tired of LA, San Diego and San Francisco dictating policies and representatives for the entire state. For those of you unfamiliar with CA, those three population areas (less then 5% of the land area and more then 50% of the population) are primarily democratic and the rest of the state is primarily republican. Yet, most of what you here about CA, is we are all left of center democrats. If you dropped these three areas during the presidential election, then Bush would have taking the state overwhelmingly. All of CA electors went to Gore. I think we need something in the presidential election process that takes these kind of things into account.
Borillar, the thing that I found so bad about the election, was the political and legal maneuvering by BOTH sides. My first thought, was to have a nationwide runoff, but that is unconstitutional. My second thought was just do recount the entire state. This was really the only fair way, since there were uncounted votes all over the state. The only "chad" ballots that should have been counted were those with two or more corners detached. There is not other way to objectively determine a voters intent.
The only (semi-)honorably act in this fiasco was Jeb Bush staying out of the whole deal.
posted on December 25, 2000 06:28:04 PM
Greg, land mass doesn't vote, people do. If dropping 50% of a state's population is what it would take for Bush to win that state - well that doesn't speak very well for him.
posted on December 25, 2000 07:02:26 PM
The point was not really land mass, it was more a point of how we divide the population up and count their votes. Why are a large minority of the voters in CA ignored in the presidential election?
For years there has been a movement to have the northern part of California break off and create a new state (This does not include the SF Bay Area, as this is central CA). The large population centers do not want to loose control of the natural resources (i.e., water, timber, power) and refuse to allow this to happen. They do NOT represent this portion of the population, but will not let them represent themselves.
Doesn't seem real fair, but as I have been told a number of times, life is not fair.
. I don't believe in legalizing drugs, if fact given all of the un-needed laws, why don't we pass one to criminalize alcohol, it is just as bad as most of the illegal drugs.
