Absolutely THE Best Description Of Dems You'll Ever Read

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A marriage license IS a civil union license you moron.

Is that why they say "Marriage Certificate" on them you stupid fucking bitch?

dimocraps really are some stupid motherfuckers

Given your posting history and that of other conservatives, you're in no position to call anyone 'stupid.'

 

[NYcarbineer]

A marriage license IS a civil union license you moron.

Is that why they say "Marriage Certificate" on them you stupid fucking bitch?

dimocraps really are some stupid motherfuckers

You're the one who said a marriage was no different than a civil union.

Answer your own question.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Your admission is that gays deserve marriage equality in every aspect except using the word.

Yes. That is EXACTLY what I am saying.

Let me run this by you for the 50th fucking time........

If someone can't or won't form a lasting relationship with a member of the opposite sex for WHATEVER REASON.......

And the only relationship they CAN form is with a member of the same sex, I'm okay with that.

I am FOR people being happy in a relationship with someone. Someone that cares about them, someone to help them, someone to take care of them when they're sick, someone they can count on.

I'm good with all that.

BUT DON'T CALL IT A MARRIAGE!!!

Because it isn't. It just isn't

You're as ignorant as you are stupid.

Separate but equal is just as un-Constitutional as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

There is only one marriage law in each of the 50 states that can accommodate two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a union recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, with marriage neither altered nor 'redefined.' The union that results in concert with marriage law is in fact marriage, it should be called marriage, whether the married couple is same- or opposite-sex.

Indeed, the effort by some states, and advocated by you, to make married same-sex couples different from everyone else is what was ruled to be in violation of the 14th Amendment by the Obergefell Court.

If you'd bother to read and comprehend the ruling you'd understand that, and would not have started this ridiculous failure of a thread.

 

[Clementine]

Hillary won't do a damn thing for people, either. She is no different than Obama. Who is really better off for all the promises? We've lost a lot of liberty and are still under attack, but it's all about the people ceding power because of false promises to do things for the good of all. Their careers are the only things that are better off.

 

[amrchaos]

Your admission is that gays deserve marriage equality in every aspect except using the word.

Yes. That is EXACTLY what I am saying.

Let me run this by you for the 50th fucking time........

If someone can't or won't form a lasting relationship with a member of the opposite sex for WHATEVER REASON.......

And the only relationship they CAN form is with a member of the same sex, I'm okay with that.

I am FOR people being happy in a relationship with someone. Someone that cares about them, someone to help them, someone to take care of them when they're sick, someone they can count on.

I'm good with all that.

BUT DON'T CALL IT A MARRIAGE!!!

Because it isn't. It just isn't

I call it a marriage.
I do. Because that is what it is...

 

[bripat9643]

But, you claim you are a liberal...

No, I am liberal by classic definition, as were the Founders. I am not "a liberal" in the modern sense by any standard.

So you're a Ford like the Model T is a Ford.

You're a liberal like Joseph Stalin was a liberal.

Au contraire! I am not now, nor have I ever been a Democrat.

Stalin was the leader of the right wing of the communist party. Leon Trotsky was the leader of the left.

That's like saying one side of Pluto is closer to the earth than the other. It's utterly meaningless in terms of their attitude towards market economies and private property.

 

[bripat9643]

Precisely.

But, you claim you are a liberal...

No, I am liberal by classic definition, as were the Founders. I am not "a liberal" in the modern sense by any standard.

So you're a Ford like the Model T is a Ford.

You're a liberal like Joseph Stalin was a liberal.

You're an asshole without compare.

ROFL! Thanks. I take that as a supreme compliment coming from you. The Romans thought Attila the Hun was an asshole. That's because he whipped them at every encounter.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Projection

Deflection.

 

[Bfgrn]

Not true. Not true at all.

We can grant all the legal perquisites to a Civil Union that Married People have without calling it a Marriage and everybody's happy.

We could make special law for special circumstance so that same sex people would feel special and not thrown in with all us 'Married' breeders.

Which is what they call us. you know. Breeders

They have no respect for us, in case you're stupid and didn't know that. They don't want to be like us, they just want to spit in your face.

They are FAR more interested in breaking your toy simply because it's yours than they are in mending their own. They want to shit in your sandbox, not create one of their own.

dimocraps are some sick bitches. They seriously are.

You can NOT........... EVER judge dimocraps like you would normal humans.

They are neither. You do NOT want to understand them so -- Don't even try.

I do and, let me tell you. It's a dark place they live in. Very dark

This is not a window into anyone's mind except your mind. You are the one who lacks respect, wants to spit in people's faces and break not mend.

Granting fellow Americans the same right you and I enjoy costs you absolutely NOTHING.

 

[Bfgrn]

That's like saying one side of Pluto is closer to the earth than the other. It's utterly meaningless in terms of their attitude towards market economies and private property.

And you are saying that there is only one definition of conservatism. That conservatism only exists in America.

Your parochial indoctrination has you believing that YOU are the center of the universe.

Stalin was an ultra-conservative who would make even right wing turds like you blush. And the USSR was the ultimate failure of a conservative society that remained largely a nation of landlords and peasants. Its middle class was diminutive in comparison with the West. Liberalism, the dominant ideology in the West, had little following, and Russia had almost no experience with parliamentary government.

Key characteristics of the USSR that would fit right in with today's conservatives in America:

• autocratic leadership

• governmental bureaucracy unresponsive to the popular will

• little respect for civil rights or political liberties

Policy under Stalin:

Economic

• Increase military strength of the country to resist foreign intervention.

• Heavy industrialization. from 1928-41 there was a 400% increase in steel and 600% in coal.

• No worker rights, no unions or workplace safety measures

• Labor discipline; Very harsh laws were introduced that punished workers who were late or absent and also made it a crime to break machinery, in some extreme cases these crimes were punished with execution. Managers were responsible for meeting targets and it they failed to do so they could be punished with death sentence.

Irony- the Koch brother empire who finance today's tea party was built on the pile of money the family made working for the Bolsheviks in the late 1920s and early 1930s, building refineries, training Communist engineers and laying down the foundation of Soviet oil infrastructure.

Social

Communism tended to be socially conservative throughout much of the 20th century. Stalinist social policies included restrictions on divorce and the banning of legal abortion.

Stalin wanted to restore more conservative values of women and family.

• 1936, abortion made illegal

• Perversion was not tolerated in the Soviet Union. Be it lethargy, sloth or lust, all were decreed as subhuman. Hard work was heralded as a great virtue. Of course when hard work was not rewarded monetary, the call to work hard fell on deaf ears.

• Homosexuality was not tolerated and treated as a mental illness

 

[bripat9643]

That's like saying one side of Pluto is closer to the earth than the other. It's utterly meaningless in terms of their attitude towards market economies and private property.

And you are saying that there is only one definition of conservatism. That conservatism only exists in America.

Your parochial indoctrination has you believing that YOU are the center of the universe.

Stalin was an ultra-conservative who would make even right wing turds like you blush. And the USSR was the ultimate failure of a conservative society that remained largely a nation of landlords and peasants. Its middle class was diminutive in comparison with the West. Liberalism, the dominant ideology in the West, had little following, and Russia had almost no experience with parliamentary government.

Key characteristics of the USSR that would fit right in with today's conservatives in America:

• autocratic leadership

• governmental bureaucracy unresponsive to the popular will

• little respect for civil rights or political liberties

Policy under Stalin:

Economic

• Increase military strength of the country to resist foreign intervention.

• Heavy industrialization. from 1928-41 there was a 400% increase in steel and 600% in coal.

• No worker rights, no unions or workplace safety measures

• Labor discipline; Very harsh laws were introduced that punished workers who were late or absent and also made it a crime to break machinery, in some extreme cases these crimes were punished with execution. Managers were responsible for meeting targets and it they failed to do so they could be punished with death sentence.

Irony- the Koch brother empire who finance today's tea party was built on the pile of money the family made working for the Bolsheviks in the late 1920s and early 1930s, building refineries, training Communist engineers and laying down the foundation of Soviet oil infrastructure.

Social

Communism tended to be socially conservative throughout much of the 20th century. Stalinist social policies included restrictions on divorce and the banning of legal abortion.

Stalin wanted to restore more conservative values of women and family.

• 1936, abortion made illegal

• Perversion was not tolerated in the Soviet Union. Be it lethargy, sloth or lust, all were decreed as subhuman. Hard work was heralded as a great virtue. Of course when hard work was not rewarded monetary, the call to work hard fell on deaf ears.

• Homosexuality was not tolerated and treated as a mental illness

There is only one definition of "conservatism" among rational people. Libturds have multiple definitions only so they can group people they don't like with other people who are unpopular. It's just a propaganda technique. It has no basis in logic or reality.

 

[Bfgrn]

That's like saying one side of Pluto is closer to the earth than the other. It's utterly meaningless in terms of their attitude towards market economies and private property.

And you are saying that there is only one definition of conservatism. That conservatism only exists in America.

Your parochial indoctrination has you believing that YOU are the center of the universe.

Stalin was an ultra-conservative who would make even right wing turds like you blush. And the USSR was the ultimate failure of a conservative society that remained largely a nation of landlords and peasants. Its middle class was diminutive in comparison with the West. Liberalism, the dominant ideology in the West, had little following, and Russia had almost no experience with parliamentary government.

Key characteristics of the USSR that would fit right in with today's conservatives in America:

• autocratic leadership

• governmental bureaucracy unresponsive to the popular will

• little respect for civil rights or political liberties

Policy under Stalin:

Economic

• Increase military strength of the country to resist foreign intervention.

• Heavy industrialization. from 1928-41 there was a 400% increase in steel and 600% in coal.

• No worker rights, no unions or workplace safety measures

• Labor discipline; Very harsh laws were introduced that punished workers who were late or absent and also made it a crime to break machinery, in some extreme cases these crimes were punished with execution. Managers were responsible for meeting targets and it they failed to do so they could be punished with death sentence.

Irony- the Koch brother empire who finance today's tea party was built on the pile of money the family made working for the Bolsheviks in the late 1920s and early 1930s, building refineries, training Communist engineers and laying down the foundation of Soviet oil infrastructure.

Social

Communism tended to be socially conservative throughout much of the 20th century. Stalinist social policies included restrictions on divorce and the banning of legal abortion.

Stalin wanted to restore more conservative values of women and family.

• 1936, abortion made illegal

• Perversion was not tolerated in the Soviet Union. Be it lethargy, sloth or lust, all were decreed as subhuman. Hard work was heralded as a great virtue. Of course when hard work was not rewarded monetary, the call to work hard fell on deaf ears.

• Homosexuality was not tolerated and treated as a mental illness

There is only one definition of "conservatism" among rational people. Libturds have multiple definitions only so they can group people they don't like with other people who are unpopular. It's just a propaganda technique. It has no basis in logic or reality.

It is amazing how you right wing turds turn a blind eye to what conservatism looks like over history. Did you even read what Stalin's policies were? We really don't have to go back to Stalin...you and your ilk would vote for a former KGB agent (Putin) over a Democrat for President...

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone (1809 – 1898)

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative



Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

The Main Arguments of Conservatism

From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy. In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.

Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. The deceptions of conservatism today are especially sophisticated, simply because culture today is sufficiently democratic that the myths of earlier times will no longer suffice.