$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'T')he neocons and liberals are two different things. In fact, it was Thomas Jefferson himself who was a liberal. Not in the modern sense, of course, but even modern liberals are lacking in this nation's congress. What we have are neoconservatives in BOTH parties. As to the media being liberal, hardly. The media more or less is biased towards what will make them the most money, sensationalism. With this particular administration, they've been shoving the neoconservative viewpoint down people's throats.
A real liberal in the classical sense would protect your right to bear arms and defend the constitution. Said liberal could be either left or right as far as their economic views are concerned, but classic liberals were mostly right wing.
Modern liberals, however, are too damn afraid to do anything. They have no balls, even if I may agree with a substantial number of their views. The ones that do have balls? The government ridicules them. Plus you have the extremist fruitcakes in this group as well, but those aren't present in the highest echelons of our government thankfully(Imagine if one of those more extreme PETA fucks were a Senator)...
When I talk about modern liberals, the democrats still don't fall into that category, except for maybe Maxine Waters or Dennis Kucinich. Hitlery Klinton is pretty much a neocon, so is John Forbes Koward. The neocons tend to take two faces, but keep the same goals. They want the illusion that there is still a choice in this country, and are only in reality seperated by a few wedge issues that should really be left up to the states as prescribed in the Xth amendment.
PeakOil is You
Civil war possibility?
Re: Civil war possibility?
by k_semler » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 02:38:36
Classial liberals I have no beef with. The modern panzy asses such as Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstien, Barbara Boxor, Hitlery Clintoon, Ruth Bater Ginsberg are the pain in my ass that just won't go away no matter how much aspirin I take. The modern liberals need to be run out of town, and expatriatied. They are the enemy within our own country. And yes, Thomas Jefferson was a flaming liberal in his day.
Compared to modern liberals though, he was a "Neo Nazi extremist millitant". I would sooner choose that than the party of the girly-men, defenseless, panzy asses! Given the choice between the policies of Hitler or Ho Chi Mihn, I choose Hitler! They should pass a law outlawing extreme liberals from running for office, (or at least appropriating federal funds).
Also, I never thought I would agree with a "liberal" on what you seem to support, but I guess I was wrong. Either I am not too far off of the right cliff, or you are not too far off of the left cliff. Or we both are off of the cliff thinking we are in the center. Hmm, did you take the "New Political Test", that gives you X,Y co-ordinates? I don't renember what the site was, but there was a thread on it on this forum. The last time I took it I was about a +3 on both the X and Y axis. (Somewhat authoritarian, somewhat conservitive). I wonder what my results would be now? Oh well, If somebody manages to refind the site, I will take it again and post my results.
Here Lies the United States Of America.
July 04, 1776 - June 23 2005
Epitaph: "The Experiment Is Over."
Rest In Peace.
Eminent Domain Was The Murderer.
July 04, 1776 - June 23 2005
Epitaph: "The Experiment Is Over."
Rest In Peace.
Eminent Domain Was The Murderer.
- k_semler
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1797
- Joined: Mon 17 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington
Re: Civil war possibility?
by The_Toecutter » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 04:21:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')lassial liberals I have no beef with. The modern panzy asses such as Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstien, Barbara Boxor, Hitlery Clintoon, Ruth Bater Ginsberg are the pain in my ass that just won't go away no matter how much aspirin I take.
In my opinion, they're just as bad as Tom DeLay, Tom Coburn, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Antonin Scalia...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he modern liberals need to be run out of town, and expatriatied. They are the enemy within our own country.
Unfortunately, those 'modern liberals' are not Hitlery Klinton or John Edwards and their ilk. Those you mention are hardly liberals by any stretch of the imagination, classic or modern, given that:
1) They mostly supported intrusions on personal privacy via the PATRIOT Act
2) They mostly supported the formation of the Homeland Security Department
3) They mostly supported this unconstitutional war in Iraq
They're neocons. Modern liberals really are very uncommon in our congress, and aside from a few representatives, they don't exist in government at the moment. Doesn't keep the far right neocons from painting the moderate right and those rare centrists as flaming liberals, however. One of the reasons half the population does not vote is because America's congress has no left wing, when approxamately 1/3 of the population is left, 1/3 right, and 1/3 center.
What concerns me is not whether one is left or right, but whether they are willing to adhere to the constitution and protect it as they swore to do so in the oath of affirmation. So far the 'left'(aka moderate right) and the right(neocons) have both forsaken the republic in favor of a dictatorship run by special interests.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd yes, Thomas Jefferson was a flaming liberal in his day.
And by today's standards where Hitlery Klinton is called a 'flaming liberal' as she advocates censorship and votes for legislation that strips the bill of rights in favor of granting authority to the state, Jefferson would be a flaming liberal even more so, even if still in the classical sense.
Modern liberals can be found within the green party. Many of them are reasonable, some aren't. No greens are in any branches of the federal government. This party, fringe it may be, supports the constitution much more than anyone in our congress, but that's not saying that much. Although they also seek to erode it in ways with their lust for taxes and many absolutely hate guns. Otherwise, they leave the other 9 amendments of the bill of rights alone, unlike the Democrats or the Republicans.
Libertarians tend to match classic liberals to an extent, but the libertarian party has been hijacked by the far right. Aside from their negligence to demand accountability on part of big business and their blatant compliance with bureaucratic negligence when a corporation is responsible, they are quite ok, but need a little balance from the left. In general, they tend to support the entire bill of rights and are against taxes and welfare, which is a good thing. It's all a matter of keeping the corporations from eroding those rights as well.
Real, genuine conservatives are as lacking as real, genuine liberals in this country's federal government. It's more or less a choice between two groups of Neocons that throw liberal or conservative labels on themselves when they are neither.
If anything, real liberals and conservatives have MUCH more in common with each other than the neocons, whether they call themselves democrats or republicans, would like them to believe.
Banning guns for example is not a liberal action by any stretch of the imagination; it is just plain authoritarian. Yet some modern liberals may agree with such a proposal believing it would be a good thing for society, while classical liberals will most likely be outraged. The group of neoconservatives that call themselves liberal, like your Hitlery Klintons, simply want to expand their power base; those aren't really liberal, but authoritarian. The group of neoconservatives that call themselves conservatives aren't really conservative, as they embrace the idea of an intrusive government and also seek to expand their power base.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')iven the choice between the policies of Hitler or Ho Chi Mihn, I choose Hitler!
I'd rather they just both be shot. Too bad Herr Bushkin is getting ever more similar to them.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hey should pass a law outlawing extreme liberals from running for office, (or at least appropriating federal funds).
The constitution does not grant such powers to Congress, as the powers delegated to them are listed in Article II.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lso, I never thought I would agree with a "liberal" on what you seem to support, but I guess I was wrong. Either I am not too far off of the right cliff, or you are not too far off of the left cliff. Or we both are off of the cliff thinking we are in the center. Hmm, did you take the "New Political Test", that gives you X,Y co-ordinates? I don't renember what the site was, but there was a thread on it on this forum. The last time I took it I was about a +3 on both the X and Y axis. (Somewhat authoritarian, somewhat conservitive). I wonder what my results would be now? Oh well, If somebody manages to refind the site, I will take it again and post my results.
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic4595.html
Here was my score:
Economic Left/Right: -0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.36
Centrist on economic issues, very liberal on social issues. I prefer that the government stay out of people's personal lives, am a strong supporter of reduced taxes and limited government, agree to an adherence of seperation between religion and government, and the right to bear arms should never be compromised under any circumstances. Seeing that the constitution has something called the 10th amendment, I am also a supporter of states rights so long as the state it question does not infringe upon the rights garunteed in the constitution.
One thing to take note of:
It seems that with the passage of time, I just get further and further into the authoritarian conservitive side. Now I wonder where I will be in 10 years? Maybe a 10,10? 
Go figure, I think Bush is a panzy ass, and Peroutka would make an excellent president. 
