Exhaustion and secular faith

[Avatar4321]

Ive been studying the left, especially the far left lately. And its so totally sad. Its like they are brainwashed with their secular religion called socialism and they have a warped view of anyone who opposes them. I was reading some posts at another forum and some guy posted this list of why Conservatives are so evil. This is the list:

Warmongers - Like to kill people
*Like saddling future generations with debt so they can enjoy the "good life"
*Support Fascist President & Mass graves/Bombings
*Blindfold themselves with American Flag
*Hate US Forces - Want to put them in harms way unnecessarily - US Forces hate these chickenhawks
*Support the Death penalty for shoplifters
*Homophobic
*Not tolerant of other religions
*Build up debt Conservatives
*Support big Government (ie. Pentagon)
*Arm chair warriors/all talk - Historic Fact
*Fascists = Anti-American
*Soft on Crime want criminal to have guns too
*Soft terrorists - don't care about Osama
*Hate Freedom - Patriot Act
*Shove Ideas on Family Values down others throats, see above
*Anti-Jesus - don't like giving to poor, selfish
*Religous Zealots
*Myopic narrow minded views
*Anti-progress, prefer status quo

And its sick. This guy along with a bunch of other liberals actually believe what they are saying about conservatives. They hate us so much because we dont believe in their secular faith that they come up with BS crap about us which is a distorted version of the facts and some of it a downright fantasy.

I dont even know why I am posting it. Im just getting tired of the slander and libel of me and my fellow conservatives. Do you really hate us that much? Arent you the guys telling everyone to listen to each other and work something ought? Do you mean it or do you just mean "listen to us and then do what we say and things will be alright"

i mean here we have a President who was willing to work with you guys. He let Ted Kennedy write the Education bill. Has followed through the Medicare you guys have been promising for ages. Even signed your unconstitutional CFR you tricked McCain into sponsors despite the fact that he really shouldnt have. Yet rather than work with a President who is willing to compromise with you, you guys have attacked him every step of the way. You block his judge choices because they are practicing christians or minorities that could one day be appointed to the Supreme Court. You attack him when he tries to defend our nations from terrorists. You attack him for the education bill your guys wrote. You attack him for letting people keep their money. Dont you guys ever get tired of the attacks? You attack him for everything he does because his existance reminds you that the American people didnt vote for you, that your secular faith is not coming to pass and that freedom exists without it.

If you keep this up. I can foresee our nation coming to the brink of destruction. It makes me want to throw up thinking about the death and destruction that awaits us as long as the radicals control the Democrat party. Trust me when i say 911 will be the tip of the iceberg.

 

[CrazyLiberal]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Ive been studying the left, especially the far left lately. And its so totally sad. Its like they are brainwashed with their secular religion called socialism and they have a warped view of anyone who opposes them. I was reading some posts at another forum and some guy posted this list of why Conservatives are so evil. This is the list:

1Warmongers - Like to kill people
2Like saddling future generations with debt so they can enjoy the "good life"
3Support Fascist President & Mass graves/Bombings
4Blindfold themselves with American Flag
5Hate US Forces - Want to put them in harms way unnecessarily - US Forces hate these chickenhawks
6Support the Death penalty for shoplifters
7Homophobic
8Not tolerant of other religions
9Build up debt Conservatives
10Support big Government (ie. Pentagon)
11Arm chair warriors/all talk - Historic Fact
12Fascists = Anti-American
13Soft on Crime want criminal to have guns too
14Soft terrorists - don't care about Osama
15Hate Freedom - Patriot Act
16Shove Ideas on Family Values down others throats, see above
17Anti-Jesus - don't like giving to poor, selfish
18Religous Zealots
19Myopic narrow minded views
20Anti-progress, prefer status quo

And its sick. This guy along with a bunch of other liberals actually believe what they are saying about conservatives. They hate us so much because we dont believe in their secular faith that they come up with BS crap about us which is a distorted version of the facts and some of it a downright fantasy.

I dont even know why I am posting it. Im just getting tired of the slander and libel of me and my fellow conservatives. Do you really hate us that much? Arent you the guys telling everyone to listen to each other and work something ought? Do you mean it or do you just mean "listen to us and then do what we say and things will be alright"

Avatar I think of myself as very liberal, and I'm sure from the extreme leaning towards conservatism and in some cases neo-conservatism and blatant racism I'm very liberal on this board

Most of the things on that list are liberal propaganda, both spew progaganda right and left. It usually has been more progaganda coming from Republicans but since Bush was elected the Democrats have really been trying to catch up.

I agree with these points:
2-I don't think they are putting trillions of debt on my generation so they can live the good life, but they are spending needlessly.
4-I wouldn't say blindfold but as President Bush has done so much, whenever Conservatives get flack they don their flag toga and call anyone unpatriotic who disagrees with them.
7-Some are homophobic (dmp..) some are not, but they should be more tolerant of these so called "deviant" lifestyles.
10-They do support big government, military spending is at it's most bloated state in history.
15-They don't hate freedom but the Patriot Act certaintly cuts down on a lot, an American citizen can get arrested, sent to Guatemela Bay and held without a lawyer or any phone calls for any time that they deem necesarry with just a signature from John Ashcroft. Yes I know Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, one of the reasons he was not my first choice for nominee..

Many of the things on that list are just terrible BS, and I'm ashmamed of members of my party for saying them:

1
3
5
6 (some neo cons do)
11
12
13(some neo con gun nuts wants everyone to have guns, including 4 year old children, less than .001% minority..)
14
17(some are)
18(some are)
20

Here is a small list of things that I know some Conservatives would spew about Liberals:

1-Everything that is good for America is bad for Democrats
2-Democrats want to take all of your money and spend it for you
3-Liberals want to destroy the military
4-Liberals want to ban Christianity

These are not true! Just as some of the things in the reasons why that Liberal hates Conservative list, maybe .01% of Liberals would want my list to happen!

(Conservatives: Omg look a reasonable liberal who admits his party is wrong sometimes! Does not compute Does not compute Does not compute



)

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm just wondering crazy lib, how would you characterize generally the difference between a neocon and and a regular old conservative?

 

[Avatar4321]

From what Ive seen neocons exist only in the head of liberals.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
From what Ive seen neocons exist only in the head of liberals.

Ahhh...But they do exist! Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrahms, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and William Bennet are amongst the most influential rpoponents of the movement.

As to the philosophical differences between neo-cons and conservatives, let's look at a few of their differences. There is a gulf between neo-cons and libertarian conservatives, whose long standing distrust of a large, intrusive government leads them to view the neo-con foreign policy agenda with a great deal of distrust.

With regard to business conservatives, the neo-cons have a far greater distrust of foreign institutions. They regard China as a threat to the world rather than as a tremendous opportunity for foreign investment. This, interestingly, pute them in political bed with Democrats.

There are many other sharp differences, I leave you with this link to examine them at your leisure:

<center><a href=http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/usneocon.htm>LINK</a></center>

 

[Avatar4321]

Ahhh...But they do exist! Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrahms, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and William Bennet are amongst the most influential rpoponents of the movement.

And what makes them Neocons? How do you know they are neocons? from what Ive seen youve created the term. lumped these people in with them and really have shown no reason why.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by CrazyLiberal
2-I don't think they are putting trillions of debt on my generation so they can live the good life, but they are spending needlessly.

Why then does Kerry want to raise taxes?

4-I wouldn't say blindfold but as President Bush has done so much, whenever Conservatives get flack they don their flag toga and call anyone unpatriotic who disagrees with them.

I have never heard Bush and any other conservative say anything of the sort. In fact the only time I have heard that phrase used is acussatorily from liberals.

10-They do support big government, military spending is at it's most bloated state in history.

Military spending has nothing to do with big gov't. When people use the term big gov't they are not referring to how mcuh the gov't spends. They are referring to the creation of an endless amount of social programs generally on the part of Dems historically speaking. They seem to come from people who propose some individuals or group is entitled to something that they really aren't.

We spent a lot on miltary because Clinton left it in shambles

2-Democrats want to take all of your money and spend it for you

It is true actually. It is veiled in terms of "wealth redistribution" or any time liberals complain about tax cuts for the rich. Kerry has practically said the above. Stating he will raise taxes and will start by taking it form those who make over $200,000 so he can spend it on his $900 million health care plan.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by Bern80
It is true actually. It is veiled in terms of "wealth redistribution" or any time liberals complain about tax cuts for the rich. Kerry has practically said the above. Stating he will raise taxes and will start by taking it form those who make over $200,000 so he can spend it on his $900 million health care plan.

You said it all. In a 1992 Clinton campaign ad, the announcer said,"The rich will be asked to pay their fair share of taxes. The rest of us get a break".

What a rude shock it was for America to learn that a family of four earning $28,000 a year was, "rich". Clinton's 1993 tax increase was the largest in American history.

Liberal complaints about, "tax breaks for the rich" is Democrat-speak for, "We know better than you how to spend your money".

 

[Avatar4321]

Im wondering when someone is going to challenge the tax code on the basis of equal protection. I mean it really isnt fair that a person making a certain ammount gets penalized. And it doesnt help business and job creation. Who is going to be creating job if they get taxed to death for it?

 

[MtnBiker]

The government of course. They are great at creating jobs. Ever see a road construction crew. Tax dollars being spent a optimum effeciency.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Im wondering when someone is going to challenge the tax code on the basis of equal protection. I mean it really isnt fair that a person making a certain ammount gets penalized. And it doesnt help business and job creation. Who is going to be creating job if they get taxed to death for it?

Challenging the tax code on the basis of equal protection would only be fair. Never happen, though. Liberals are about punishing achievement. If you're not going to your betters (Liberal elites) with your hat in your hand, you're part of the problem. You are one of the evil proponents of what that intellectual giant, Barbra Striesand, calls "Selfish individualism".

We're such bastards!

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
The government of course. They are great at creating jobs. Ever see a road construction crew. Tax dollars being spent a optimum effeciency.

LOL

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
And what makes them Neocons? How do you know they are neocons? from what Ive seen youve created the term. lumped these people in with them and really have shown no reason why.

Follow the link.

 

[5stringJeff]

Bully,

I agree with you, there is a difference between neo-conservatives and "regular" conservatives (libertarian-conservatives, Reagan conservatives, etc.). I think that "neo-conservative" is used, by liberals at least, as a broad label, though, ignoring other aspects of conservatism. Not everyone who agrees with the war in Iraq, for example, is a neo-con. Nor is everyone who views China as a threat.
When you get to the root of it, neo-conservatism is primarily a label for those conservatives who have an activist different foreign policy stance, versus the isolationist conservatives (a la Pat Buchanan). One can still primarily be a free-market conservative (as I am) and still agree with neo-conservative policies. One could also primarily be a neo-conservative but still have free-market conservative or social conservative beliefs.

(edit: hit the button before I was finished.)

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by CrazyLiberal
7-Some are homophobic (dmp..)

WHA??????

Do you know me? You know nothing about me, except your misinterpretations of what I post here. I have (a) homosexual relatives. I have served my country side-by-side homosexual men; Men I KNEW felt the way they did. If you consider me 'afraid' of homosexuals - I love people. I don't agree with how people CHOOSE to live their lives...if you can't see that one of the two options apply - choose one:

1) you are an idiot - I tried to find a loving way to say that, but I'm not finding any
2) you never read what I post here.


As if to a child with a learning disability:

Sometimes people don't agree on how others live their lives; the choices they make. That doesn't mean they HATE the other person, or are afraid of them...it simply means they aren't in agreement.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Bully,

I agree with you, there is a difference between neo-conservatives and "regular" conservatives (libertarian-conservatives, Reagan conservatives, etc.). I think that "neo-conservative" is used, by liberals at least, as a broad label, though, ignoring other aspects of conservatism. Not everyone who agrees with the war in Iraq, for example, is a neo-con. Nor is everyone who views China as a threat.
When you get to the root of it, neo-conservatism is primarily a label for those conservatives who have an activist different foreign policy stance, versus the isolationist conservatives (a la Pat Buchanan). One can still primarily be a free-market conservative (as I am) and still agree with neo-conservative policies. One could also primarily be a neo-conservative but still have free-market conservative or social conservative beliefs.

(edit: hit the button before I was finished.)

I think you're understating their foreign policy stance by calling "activist" though. It is downright aggressive. You can have an activist foreign policy, but when that policy leads to a war of pre-emption against a foreign power of no proven imminent or immediate threat to the US, it is no longe activist...It is aggression.

 

[Bern80]

I have said before it does not matter to me how imminent a threat Saddam was to the U.S. One of the few times Bush has spoken well, he asked when have terrorists ever openly announced their targets. The same holds true for Saddam It does not change the fact that Saddam was a threat either in the future to us or immediatley to the region. I don't see the problem in taking an aggressive approach in removing these types of leaders from power.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
I think you're understating their foreign policy stance by calling "activist" though. It is downright aggressive. You can have an activist foreign policy, but when that policy leads to a war of pre-emption against a foreign power of no proven imminent or immediate threat to the US, it is no longe activist...It is aggression.

Activist, aggressive... po-tay-to, po-tah-to, let's call the whole thing off!

 

[Avatar4321]

And whats wrong with agression when its used for defend ourselves and our interests?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
And whats wrong with agression when its used for defend ourselves and our interests?

We weren't attacked. But that's not really been an issue for either party for decades, since both are nothing more than opposite sides of the same debased coin.