Just another reason why I cant stand Liberal lefties

[Vader]

PositiveOutlook, you must really like to hear yourself talk. Let's see how many paragraphs you can write about this time. Go for it.

[PositiveOutlook]

That was a very weak way to avoid it Vader... BTW, one paragraph... 

[Vader]

No long winded response? You disappoint me.

[PositiveOutlook]

It's hard to respond to a non-response, Vader...  clarity of thought is routinely mistaken for being "long-winded"... I, however, wasn't disappointed...  Thank for making my point with your non-response...

[justin0419]

One lined bickering could be better handled in PMs...

[phlegmaticjay]

What if we had just waited on our benevolent citizenry in the South to let African-Americans share in the schools, jobs, hotel rooms, lunch counter seats? It took the government to enforce Civil Rights

Though signed by a Dem (LBJ), legislation was led by the Republicans of the time.  Something that the libs like to conveniently leave out.  Or the fact, that the KKK was created right after the Civil War by pissed off Southern Democrat governors.

I have always felt that the democrat mascot was a fitting one.....

The socialists started this movement in America right around the late 30's early 40's, and knew then that to transform the US into their "utopia" was going to require decades.  And they got their biggest boost from none other than Mr.  FDR himself, and the mistake called the "Great Society". 

How does a true Conservative fight moral relativism when any time you try to point out the hypocrisy, lies, half-truths, character assassinations,etc.  the immediate response from the media and socialists and (RINOs ) is to say that we are name calling!?!

As a conservative and son of a career Marine and former sailor myslf, I will to this day die defending your right to freedom of speech.
The typical Liberal Democrat's answer to this is "I don't like what you are saying, so I must ridicule you, demonize you and take any other measures necessary to shut you up."

Then we get to the 2nd Amendment.  And the Liberals basic argument of you don't need an assault rifle (which is a term in and of itself that is a joke) to hunt.  Or a semi-auto shotgun. Or a handgun.  Hunting isn't necessary for survival anymore.  Well we will let you keep your black powder rifles and single shot rifle and shotguns......GIVE ME A BREAK!  Reality check and yes I am going to say it.  The dirty little unspoken secret that everybody already knows and if you don't then, well, you really don't understand your American History.

Ready...The 2nd Amendment is meant to protect OUR ability to take back control of OUR country by force IF the government gets too powerful.  Do you really think when our Founding Fathers wer writing our Bill of Rights, they got done with Freedom of Speech and Right to Assemble and then suddenly realized Oh my God... we need to put in an amendment to allow the citizens to hunt!!  No, I just don't think so.

Ok, I apologize for the tangent, but this is a topic that is very near and dear to the heart, as I hope it is for all of you.  Yes, I have that antiquated, ridiculous, soooo-yesterday, feeling of true deep down burns in th soul patriotism and true love for my COUNTRY and our Constitution as it was written and how our Founding Fathers meant for it to be interpreted.  And I despise, DESPISE, socialists, liberals, progressives, communists, fascists or any other oppressive, life-sucking persons that want to change her into.  So yes, until I meet you, if you fall into this category I despise you.  Once I meet you , I may like you on a personal level, but I will still despise your beliefs.  And the real kicker... I will still give my life for you freedom to express them, even as you attempt to put people into power to silence me.......

[rookieNYC]

And I despise, DESPISE, socialists, liberals, progressives, communists, fascists or any other oppressive, life-sucking persons that want to change her into.  So yes, until I meet you, if you fall into this category I despise you.  Once I meet you , I may like you on a personal level, but I will still despise your beliefs


Well said ....I agree %100...Excellent post...

[furnishedowner]

phlegmaticjay...You need a new handle for sure. I disagree, of course, with most of your very eloquent and impassioned political statement. But phlegmatic you are not.

I, too, sometimes find myself with tears upon hearing the national anthem. That is so hokey but true. I remember vividly my parent's naturalization ceremony where the judge then welcomed "The New Americans" and everyone stood up in the courtroom and clapped. I was eleven years old and so worried that my parents would not be able to answer the question correctly:  "Who is the president of the United States today?" Of course they knew, what a relief!

Also PositiveOutlook, another misnomer. I have only heard "NegativeOutlook" for a while. How about some positive vibes?

The fact that we are so varied in out viewpoints and yet love our country equally says a lot for the healthy functioning of this democracy, doesn't it?

Furnishedowner

[Funder]

I am very scared especially of religious fanaticism mixed with politics. When I choose someone to vote for, I lean towards the guy who does NOT start his resume with "Member of such-and-such church".  The person who can think and work things through rather than spout dogma.

Oh don't worry.  I'm sure every shred of anything having to do with God will be eradicated from all aspects of our government very soon. 

I can't wait.

Kudos, furnishedowner, the truth is in the dialogue.
We have lost the ability to think.  We have lost control of our country.
Look at your financial statements throughout your life.  Who received the lion’s share of your money?  The government and the banks.  Now they need more?  It’s pathetic.
George Bush should be admired for waging a war on a willful act of evil.  He should be admired for attacking one form of theocracy, a practice which should be abolished in all governments.
But our liberal media could not drag his name thorough the mud enough. 
Lee Kuan Yew turned Singapore from a poor third world country to one of the wealthiest nations in the world.  His savvy political position allied itself with America, kept China form territorial occupation, and kept Japan and Russia as alliances, not foes.  Here are a couple of  quotes from him:

“nobody has ever sued me for libel because I do not defame my enemies.”

“If you keep on mocking your leader, and poking fun at him every day and he has no right of reply, it is very difficult for him to command your respect.”

This becomes like a blood feud between families.  Disrespect begets disrespect, hostility begets hostility, and we end up with people in power who don’t have any answers, just the ability to ridicule other people.  Nancy Pelosi is an excellent example:


Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction
technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
Nancy Pelosi

Protecting America from terrorism requires more than just resolve, it requires a plan. As we have seen in Iraq, planning is not the Bush Administration's strong suit.
Nancy Pelosi

I believe that the president's leadership and the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience.
Nancy Pelosi

The president led us into the Iraq war on the basis of unproven assertions without evidence; he embraced a radical doctrine of pre-emptive war unprecedented in our history; and he failed to build a true international coalition.
Nancy Pelosi

I pride myself in being called a liberal.
Nancy Pelosi

It’s strange how this person is admired for admitting that Saddam Hussein was “engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction” and yet “the president led us into the Iraq war on the basis of unproven assertions”  Again I feel compelled to ask what value she brings to our government.

The argument between socialism and capitalism is as old as politics and economics themselves.  If people believe in left wing economic policies, they ought to be offered the opportunity to become civil servants and have their ideas employed, if mandated by a free democracy.

Having said all of that, I have absolutely no faith in socialist economic policies.  It would be a refreshing change to see a conservative in the White House, since I don’t believe I have EVER seen a conservative in the administration.  Politicians cannot continue to spend, simply because it is expedient or popular, and expect to be recognized as fiscal conservatives.  Furthermore, Ayn Rand was one of the most intelligent conservative minds *ever*, and she was an atheist.  We need to separate church from government, or we are no better than the misogynistic, hateful, sponsors of terrorism who allow Muslim Mullahs to run their governments.

I would like to quote a few more people:

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
Barry Goldwater

Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them.  Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value.  Money is not the tool for the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take t form you by force.  Money is make possible only by the men who produce.
Ayn Rand

If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.
Thomas Jefferson

[phlegmaticjay]

Furnishedowner,

I have a feeling, though it appears you lean left, it is not to the liberal left.  I may be wrong but I think maybe you may be more of a conservative democrat, which I can respect.  You are not ridiculing us conservatives on this post.  At least not publicly......   If you ever are in SW Michigan for some reason, get hold of me and if you a drinker I'll buy the beer and I'll give you a shot at converting me   

As far as me being phlegmatic, it just so happens that the current subject is one of the few subjects that I get heated about.  BTW,  I think you are the only person that has commented on my handle, on any website forum and NOT think it has to do with spit.      

Yes I am actually pretty phlegmatic, which is probably part of the reason I have trouble in selling a concept or product.    I sucked at selling cars.   Anyway, this is off topic and I don't want to hijack this VERY important string.   

[furnishedowner]

Phlegmaticjay,

The beer sounds great. Who knows, I may get up there sometimes.  I get mental pictures of people from their writing, but I know that I am probably WAY off.  It would be actually fun to meet you, rookienyc, propertymanager, and you other raving conservatives in a dark little bar and hash this all out!  But I'm gonna need someone on my side, Vader?, too.

I still have problems with the "I HATE LIBERALS" shtick.  I don't hate conservatives, or anyone (well, ok, Rush Limbaugh-- his non-productive negative vitriol nauseates me).  But I feel just as strongly in my viewpoint as you all do. You do not have the market on patriotism.

My proud, self-reliant lifetime Democrat Dad would NEVER have considered taking a handout from the government or anyone else.  Even to suggest that is an affront to that hard-working man.

All this has made me ponder what DO I really believe? So here it is, whether you are interested or not:

NO to the death sentence. It demeans the sentencing society.
YES to 1st Trimester Abortion.  It's between the woman and her physician.  NO to 2nd Trimester Abortion unless to save mother's life, another medico/legal decision. YES to Gay Marriage, Gays did not choose their homosexuality, it's genetic. They deserve spousal rights and responsibilities. This doesn't affect heterosexual marriage one whit. Let's keep the government out of our bedrooms! If you're in love you can get  married! And divorced.

YES to much tighter gun control. It's absolutely crazy to allow any crazy to own and use a gun! They should be regulated, taxed, and licensed to stop our home-grown killing fields. Do what Europe does.

YES to sin taxes (cigarettes, alcohol, gambling) to fund national health programs, and the huge cost to society for the misuse. YES to National Health Care of one kind or another so that people stay healthy and do not get bankrupted by unexpected pancreatic cancer, or a premature baby.

YES to getting our military in there to mop up the 9-11 masterminds at long last, in the right country please.
YES to voucher to put your kid in private school if your local school sucks.

That's it for now. You can gnash your teeth over this liberal mindset while I am off to the big city-- dinner, and the Opera! A once or twice a year treat.

Furnishedowner

 

[brockovich]

Our founding fathers would be rolling(if not cartwheeling) in their graves if they even had a hint of some of the things going on in this country right now. Our government is so out of control I'm not sure it can ever be fixed short of hitting a reset button. Until the government is held to a standard and complies to a break even budget operation things will never get better. Big government does not work. Period, no matter what the political philosphies. The two party system is corrupt on both sides and nobody is interesting in fixing problems. They are simply interested in re-election and serving their own self interests.

[PositiveOutlook]

Furnishedowner,

Positveoutlook is a personal philosophy, not a one-sided monicker.  As with most things, including politics, I call it as I see it, and Obama and his administration, along with their Dem allies in Congress are causing more damage to this country in their current pursuits, I don't know how you could frame it in a positive light.

If liberals hate the banks, and the AIG's so much, why are you allowing Obama to continue to lend/give them OUR money only to have them loan it BACK TO US at more interest, and have our children foot the bill to boot?  We were told GM/Chrysler COULDN'T be allowed to go to bankruptcy, and yet, they will, AFTER we lost MORE BILLIONS!  If you think this is ludicruous, just wait until Nationalized Healthcare or when Cap and Trade adds $150-$300 PER MONTH to your electric bill.  Bet those ELECTRIC CARS will be just dandy to have then...

As far as you being a conservative democrat, I have to break with Phlegmaticjay as I have yet to see the evidence of it...  this is nothing personal, mind you, but an observation.  You've yet to even provide the five examples of where you disagree with Obama/Dem's, and I think that would shed light on where your potential conservative dem credentials may lie...  There is no doubt that Obama is ultra-liberal, just as his RECORD indicated, and just as everyone who exhorted people who got suckered into voting for him being portrayed otherwise tried to warn them...

You remember the accountant and her mechanic husband, right?...  Here was a classic example of how liberals think.  You had someone who works for you complaining that they had to make  choice between food/electric and healtcare that month ($500 I believe), and despite recommendations for you to put your money where your mouth was and either loan it to her, gift it to her, etc.  it just went on they then she told you that she was able to cover it. In the void of you offering her financial help, I stepped in offered multiple times to provide her help in the form of hooking her up with local services for her electric, food, etc.  and ways to decrease their costs.  But it turned out not to be as bad as portrayed (which is what liberals do - create a crises), and I never heard from anyone.  Your solution was "free" healthcare so she could pay her food and electric bill, while her husband's business was slow.  But that "free" healthcare (which is false anyway) falls on the back of someone else.  You just didn't want it to be "your" back that month...

Funder...

Religous people in government is not a bad thing... just ask our Founding Fathers... A state/government sponsored religion IS a bad thing as it dichotomous to the "free exercise thereof" of religion...  you cannot "establish a religion" in government if people are "free to exercise" their own religion...

On balance, I would rather have someone in office who's belief is that they will answer to a Higher-Authority one day vs. someone who doesn't believe they ultimately answer to anyone, and ultimately make up their "own moral code" because they came from ooze and after all, who are you to then deny them of whatever erotic desire they want, EVEN IF it conflicts with yours...

“I want this world not to have meaning because it frees me for my own erotic pursuits”. - Famous Atheist - Aldous Huxley -  “A brave New World”

"We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Virginia Baptists, 1808

"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819

[Funder]

First, I apologize to Rookie for the semi-hijack of this thread, this is something which ignites my passion.

Religous people in government is not a bad thing... just ask our Founding Fathers...

Good idea
“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.”
George Washington
“Some volumes against Deism fell into my hands. They were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s Lecture. It happened that they produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be refuted, appealed to me much more forcibly than the refutation itself. In a word, I soon became a thorough Deist.”
Benjamin Franklin
“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.”
Thomas Jefferson
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”
James Madison
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
John Adams
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."
Abraham Lincoln

On balance, I would rather have someone in office who's belief is that they will answer to a Higher-Authority one day vs. someone who doesn't believe they ultimately answer to anyone, and ultimately make up their "own moral code" because they came from ooze

I would rather have someone in office who did not believe that whatever sins they decided to commit would be forgiven by God.

I would rather have someone in office who did not belong to a religion that is responsible for The Crusades, literally a thousand years of war and murder in the name of God.

Why did radical Islamic jihad terrorists fly jet planes into buildings?  Because they thought a higher authority or, more precisely an unknowable higher authority, wanted them to.

I would rather have someone in office who believed in science, collecting data, analyzing data and drawing conclusions based upon the data, than someone who believes in magic.

I would rather have someone in office who would hold themselves personally accountable for their ethical behavior, than someone who believes in eternal damnation for anyone who doesn’t happen to agree with their unknowable, improvable religion.

who are you to then deny them of whatever erotic desire they want, EVEN IF it conflicts with yours...

Right.  Thank God the Mormon church has the strength of moral conviction to deny the Gays of their ability to get married.  Since that conflicts with their moral code of fascism.

I’m sure I’ll never personally see my wish, but I would rather have someone who admits to being an atheist in the White House, but that would compromise the evangelical Christian vote.

[PositiveOutlook]

Funder,

Your post is exemplory of the dumbing down of the American populace with regards to it's heritage and history. It also shows that your problem is with Christianity not necessarily religious leaders....

As far as government without religion...

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 - Jonh Adams

“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” - John Adams

“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech - Benjamin Franklin

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." - [1787 after the Constitutional Convention] - Alexamder Hamilton

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”   - Patrick Henry

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393. - John Jay

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” - [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia] - james Madison

"Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government." - June 20, 1785 - James Madison

• In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.


"At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22"

“The Bible was America’s basic textbook in all fields.” - [Noah Webster. Our Christian Heritage p.5]

"...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..." - George Washington, Farewell Address

“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.” - George Washington

George Washington took his inaugural oath as prescribed by the Constitution but ADDED religious components to the ceremony.  He ordered a Bible on which to take the oath, and added "So help me God!" at the end.... this practice has continued throughout our country's existense, including our current President.

Liberty Bell Inscription:
“ Proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof” [Leviticus 25:10]

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." - Patrick Henry

Funder,

The point of all these quotes are that America was founded on Christian principles, and our society is replete with many examples... from the Declaration of Independence, to inscriptions on our national buildings and monuments, the Ten Commandments hanging in the Supreme Court, the inscription on our money, our Presidents swearing on a Bible, our Pledge of Allegiance, etc...

Is America excusively a Christian nation... no, but to deny it's heritage and history does noone any justice... By definition, it certainly isn't an atheist country, but you are certainly free to your non-exercise of religion...  Just don't pretend that, like America, Christianity hasn't done much more good than bad... the same can't be said of atheism...

Consider that over 170 million people died at the hands of atheists like Lenin, Stalin, and others over the last century alone and more peope died in Cambodia during the rule of Pol Pot, the atheist, in just a few short years than Christians who harmed each other in over 2,000 years.

As an atheist, what do you base your rights in America on?  Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are inscribed as inalienable rights by the "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence.  If you do not recognize God, what do you base your rights on?  If you are going to say the laws of the land, they are grounded in the former.

The problem with atheism, is that it is a religion, but with YOU as god, with YOU being the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong... If you believe this is the case, you can ultimately do whatever you want (if not, why not?), including the removal of rights of another. Hungry, and don't have any food, TAKE it from someone else... why not? Without God, there is no ultimate accountability to anything, right?

You have to ignore the many miracles that exist in this universe and all around you on a daily basis to be an atheist...

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." - Psalm 14:1

So, I don't withhold from you the right to not believe in God and I would simply ask that you not deny anyone else the right TO believe and feel free to exercise their beliefs...