|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
From: gwhite
Why? Why stay in this country and defy its constitutional foundations of limited government, individual rights/freedom/liberty, and separation of church and state? Let me put it to you this way: Because you just got yourself elected President, and you've got some political capital to spend, and you mean to spend it? You really should emigrate to a country more in tune with you ideals. It is no joke. Me ideals? Agreed, not a joke. But seriously, gwhite: not much chance of either Dubbya or me moving anytime soon. "Get over it"? --TP |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
gwhite wrote: And of course, the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" aren't either liberal or progressive. These "liberals" and "progressives" are in fact reactionary barbarians simply trying to acquire political control. Heh. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/...20041108db.htm ----------------------- The administration terms its expansion of government as a form of "empowerment." But this is just another name for nanny-state regulation. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card admitted that Bush "sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child," requiring Washington's benevolent guidance. In international affairs Bush most dramatically diverged from traditional conservatism, advancing an international agenda breath-taking in its arrogance. First, he launched a preventive war based on bad intelligence, but offered no apologies for his mistake. ----------------------- -- tanx, Howard "It looks like the squirrel's been showing everybody where he keeps his nuts." remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
gwhite wrote: And of course, the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" aren't either liberal or progressive. These "liberals" and "progressives" are in fact reactionary barbarians simply trying to acquire political control. Heh. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/...20041108db.htm ----------------------- The administration terms its expansion of government as a form of "empowerment." But this is just another name for nanny-state regulation. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card admitted that Bush "sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child," requiring Washington's benevolent guidance. In international affairs Bush most dramatically diverged from traditional conservatism, advancing an international agenda breath-taking in its arrogance. First, he launched a preventive war based on bad intelligence, but offered no apologies for his mistake. ----------------------- -- tanx, Howard "It looks like the squirrel's been showing everybody where he keeps his nuts." remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
gwhite Wrote: And of course, the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" aren't either liberal or progressive. These "liberals" and "progressives" are in fact reactionary barbarians simply trying to acquire political control. The so-called "progressives" are intent on imposing their religious beliefs upon the country. For example, today I saw a democrat congressman critiquing the proposed privitization of social security. He called it "immoral" and "stingy" and within the same sentence quoted the *bible* as justification for government sponsored social security!!! You are a ridiculous liar. You spew the same kind of hate-filled bull**** that many of your ilk spew, smelly vomit over the public discourse, knowing full well that some of it will stick. Your lies will not survive in the fullness of time. gwhite Wrote: Of course, primitive villagers and clans-people require collectivisation to survive. This primitive instinctive need has been long obsoleted by the extended market order. The "american left" proposes we live like primitive savages, while calling themselves "progressive." LOL. What worse doublespeak could there possibly be?You're equating a conscience, humility, generosity, and a concern for those less well off than you with savagery. You are a ****ing moron. You and Tom Kunich should start a mutual fan club. -- antoineg |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
gwhite Wrote: And of course, the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" aren't either liberal or progressive. These "liberals" and "progressives" are in fact reactionary barbarians simply trying to acquire political control. The so-called "progressives" are intent on imposing their religious beliefs upon the country. For example, today I saw a democrat congressman critiquing the proposed privitization of social security. He called it "immoral" and "stingy" and within the same sentence quoted the *bible* as justification for government sponsored social security!!! You are a ridiculous liar. You spew the same kind of hate-filled bull**** that many of your ilk spew, smelly vomit over the public discourse, knowing full well that some of it will stick. Your lies will not survive in the fullness of time. gwhite Wrote: Of course, primitive villagers and clans-people require collectivisation to survive. This primitive instinctive need has been long obsoleted by the extended market order. The "american left" proposes we live like primitive savages, while calling themselves "progressive." LOL. What worse doublespeak could there possibly be?You're equating a conscience, humility, generosity, and a concern for those less well off than you with savagery. You are a ****ing moron. You and Tom Kunich should start a mutual fan club. -- antoineg |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Kveck wrote: In article , gwhite wrote: And of course, the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" aren't either liberal or progressive. These "liberals" and "progressives" are in fact reactionary barbarians simply trying to acquire political control. Heh. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/...20041108db.htm ----------------------- The administration terms its expansion of government as a form of "empowerment." But this is just another name for nanny-state regulation. I agree. That is why I finally decided my choice of neither Bush nor Kerry was right on the mark, even though it was difficult for me to finally arrive at that decision. I'll see how things go, but I expect I won't vote republican or democrat for president for at least the next 12-16 years, given how fast things change on party platforms and more importantly party practice. Maybe *never* again. I do believe Bush was the slightly less worse choice, and I know you disagree. It's not like I have a deterministic calculator that tells me the answer with undoubted certainty. No one else does either, despite the claims of alleged pundits. As I've pointed out before, we can hope for gridlock to buffer a given politician's whackiness to some degree. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card admitted that Bush "sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child," requiring Washington's benevolent guidance. Yep. In international affairs Bush most dramatically diverged from traditional conservatism, advancing an international agenda breath-taking in its arrogance. Oh, I think the nationalistic sentiment is often associated with "conservatism," so on this I am not so sure he was all that divergent. Wrong maybe, but not necessarily divergent. First, he launched a preventive war based on bad intelligence, but offered no apologies for his mistake. Well of course he didn't admit any mistakes. How could anyone *expect* him to admit a mistake of that magnitude? That would be waving the big "don't vote for me" flag. I've always thought the "he doesn't admit mistakes" critique to be wholly ridiculous. No politician admits mistakes on anything other than trivial matters (unless they get caught with their pants down like Clinton did). They can admit trivial mistakes, because by definition "trivial" doesn't matter. It is up to voters to determine the fact and magnitude of a politicians errors. Expecting politicians to do so is akin to expecting hell to freeze over. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Kveck wrote: In article , gwhite wrote: And of course, the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" aren't either liberal or progressive. These "liberals" and "progressives" are in fact reactionary barbarians simply trying to acquire political control. Heh. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/...20041108db.htm ----------------------- The administration terms its expansion of government as a form of "empowerment." But this is just another name for nanny-state regulation. I agree. That is why I finally decided my choice of neither Bush nor Kerry was right on the mark, even though it was difficult for me to finally arrive at that decision. I'll see how things go, but I expect I won't vote republican or democrat for president for at least the next 12-16 years, given how fast things change on party platforms and more importantly party practice. Maybe *never* again. I do believe Bush was the slightly less worse choice, and I know you disagree. It's not like I have a deterministic calculator that tells me the answer with undoubted certainty. No one else does either, despite the claims of alleged pundits. As I've pointed out before, we can hope for gridlock to buffer a given politician's whackiness to some degree. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card admitted that Bush "sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child," requiring Washington's benevolent guidance. Yep. In international affairs Bush most dramatically diverged from traditional conservatism, advancing an international agenda breath-taking in its arrogance. Oh, I think the nationalistic sentiment is often associated with "conservatism," so on this I am not so sure he was all that divergent. Wrong maybe, but not necessarily divergent. First, he launched a preventive war based on bad intelligence, but offered no apologies for his mistake. Well of course he didn't admit any mistakes. How could anyone *expect* him to admit a mistake of that magnitude? That would be waving the big "don't vote for me" flag. I've always thought the "he doesn't admit mistakes" critique to be wholly ridiculous. No politician admits mistakes on anything other than trivial matters (unless they get caught with their pants down like Clinton did). They can admit trivial mistakes, because by definition "trivial" doesn't matter. It is up to voters to determine the fact and magnitude of a politicians errors. Expecting politicians to do so is akin to expecting hell to freeze over. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
antoineg wrote: gwhite Wrote: And of course, the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" aren't either liberal or progressive. These "liberals" and "progressives" are in fact reactionary barbarians simply trying to acquire political control. The so-called "progressives" are intent on imposing their religious beliefs upon the country. For example, today I saw a democrat congressman critiquing the proposed privitization of social security. He called it "immoral" and "stingy" and within the same sentence quoted the *bible* as justification for government sponsored social security!!! You are a ridiculous liar. You spew the same kind of hate-filled bull**** that many of your ilk spew, smelly vomit over the public discourse, knowing full well that some of it will stick. Your lies will not survive in the fullness of time. Dumbass, Bernie Ward was saying the same religious moralistic crap as justification for government intervention on KGO last night. You don't need to consider my "lies" as evidence. Just open your dumbass ears up. It happens every day. Bernie Ward: "...he's a former Franciscan priest..." http://www.kgoam810.com/complexshowdj.asp?DJID=3284 gwhite Wrote: Of course, primitive villagers and clans-people require collectivisation to survive. This primitive instinctive need has been long obsoleted by the extended market order. The "american left" proposes we live like primitive savages, while calling themselves "progressive." LOL. What worse doublespeak could there possibly be? You're equating a conscience, humility, generosity, and a concern for those less well off than you with savagery. Dumbass, You and I can be as generous as we want with our own efforts and money. Socialism is anti-constitution in the US. The point is that it is a collectivist, and thus primitive instinct (reactionary, not progressive; that of the primitive savage, not that of the modern civilised individual living in the extended market order). That is not the proper role of *government* in the US, although it is entirely appropriate as a sentiment of an individual or a collection of faith-based givers practicing their convictions. The primitive savage was collectivist (loyalty to the clan) out of survival necessity. The extended market order has obsoleted this need particularly with regard to the ideal of minimalist government. The collectivist tradition is dead as an effective large scale *political entity* and has been supplanted by newer traditions that support far greater numbers of humans through trade and division of labor. None of this says you shouldn't help someone out from the pull of your own conscience. You do not have a right to force your conscience upon someone else. That is coercion/tyranny. Within the mind of every collectivist is a petty dictator. You are a ****ing moron. You and Tom Kunich should start a mutual fan club. No dumbass, now I'm your #1 fan. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
antoineg wrote: gwhite Wrote: And of course, the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" aren't either liberal or progressive. These "liberals" and "progressives" are in fact reactionary barbarians simply trying to acquire political control. The so-called "progressives" are intent on imposing their religious beliefs upon the country. For example, today I saw a democrat congressman critiquing the proposed privitization of social security. He called it "immoral" and "stingy" and within the same sentence quoted the *bible* as justification for government sponsored social security!!! You are a ridiculous liar. You spew the same kind of hate-filled bull**** that many of your ilk spew, smelly vomit over the public discourse, knowing full well that some of it will stick. Your lies will not survive in the fullness of time. Dumbass, Bernie Ward was saying the same religious moralistic crap as justification for government intervention on KGO last night. You don't need to consider my "lies" as evidence. Just open your dumbass ears up. It happens every day. Bernie Ward: "...he's a former Franciscan priest..." http://www.kgoam810.com/complexshowdj.asp?DJID=3284 gwhite Wrote: Of course, primitive villagers and clans-people require collectivisation to survive. This primitive instinctive need has been long obsoleted by the extended market order. The "american left" proposes we live like primitive savages, while calling themselves "progressive." LOL. What worse doublespeak could there possibly be? You're equating a conscience, humility, generosity, and a concern for those less well off than you with savagery. Dumbass, You and I can be as generous as we want with our own efforts and money. Socialism is anti-constitution in the US. The point is that it is a collectivist, and thus primitive instinct (reactionary, not progressive; that of the primitive savage, not that of the modern civilised individual living in the extended market order). That is not the proper role of *government* in the US, although it is entirely appropriate as a sentiment of an individual or a collection of faith-based givers practicing their convictions. The primitive savage was collectivist (loyalty to the clan) out of survival necessity. The extended market order has obsoleted this need particularly with regard to the ideal of minimalist government. The collectivist tradition is dead as an effective large scale *political entity* and has been supplanted by newer traditions that support far greater numbers of humans through trade and division of labor. None of this says you shouldn't help someone out from the pull of your own conscience. You do not have a right to force your conscience upon someone else. That is coercion/tyranny. Within the mind of every collectivist is a petty dictator. You are a ****ing moron. You and Tom Kunich should start a mutual fan club. No dumbass, now I'm your #1 fan. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
robet wrote:
I hope the Democrats put pressure on Bush like the Republicans did with Clinton. I like to see how it feels to harass a President. It will not happen for 2 reasons: 1. The Republicans control both the Senate and the House. 2. President Bush is a eunuch. -- -------------------- Remove CLOTHES to reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
TdF final stage | MD | UK | 10 | August 5th 03 10:21 AM |