Liberals: Where You Went Wrong

[Ravi]

The problem with Conservatives is that they are always on the wrong side of history

They opposed the American Revolution
They opposed abolition
They opposed the womens vote
They opposed worker protections
They opposed Civil Rights
They opposed environmental protections

Today, they continue the proud legacy of conservatism.....blocking gay rights, access to healthcare, immigration reform

bingo

 

[mjollnir]

Liberalism is a failure:

1) It is anti-Christian...to be 100% liberal, one must deny God, well the Christian God but can support other groups like islam to get back at those Christians.

That's rich, seeing as you piss in the face of Christ with practically every post you make here.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Liberalism is a failure:

1) It is anti-Christian...to be 100% liberal, one must deny God, well the Christian God but can support other groups like islam to get back at those Christians.

Absolutely fascinating.

On this thread, on 12/09/2012, when I asked you "so, you're a proud Christian, right?", you responded "I wouldn't claim anything." - http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/266693-moral-values-and-democrats-5.html

Yet here, when it's politically expedient, you chastise others for not being Christian.

WOW.

And people wonder why so many are leaving the religion. If there is indeed a God, I certainly wouldn't want to be standing next to you during a lightning storm.

.

Actually. He qualified his position that you are dog sh__ and that he would not subject his personal beliefs to your judgments. I can't blame him. You seem to have an agenda.

 

[Mac1958]

Liberalism is a failure:

1) It is anti-Christian...to be 100% liberal, one must deny God, well the Christian God but can support other groups like islam to get back at those Christians.

Absolutely fascinating.

On this thread, on 12/09/2012, when I asked you "so, you're a proud Christian, right?", you responded "I wouldn't claim anything." - http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/266693-moral-values-and-democrats-5.html

Yet here, when it's politically expedient, you chastise others for not being Christian.

WOW.

And people wonder why so many are leaving the religion. If there is indeed a God, I certainly wouldn't want to be standing next to you during a lightning storm.

.

Actually. He qualified his position that you are dog sh__ and that he would not subject his personal beliefs to your judgments. I can't blame him. You seem to have an agenda.

I'm dog shit, got it.

Let me guess, you claim to be a Christian too?

.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I love when the losing side tells the winning side what they did wrong...

You're ALSO on the losing side, you just haven't realized it yet.

If this is losing....

...we'll settle for it.​

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Absolutely fascinating.

On this thread, on 12/09/2012, when I asked you "so, you're a proud Christian, right?", you responded "I wouldn't claim anything." - http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/266693-moral-values-and-democrats-5.html

Yet here, when it's politically expedient, you chastise others for not being Christian.

WOW.

And people wonder why so many are leaving the religion. If there is indeed a God, I certainly wouldn't want to be standing next to you during a lightning storm.

.

Actually. He qualified his position that you are dog sh__ and that he would not subject his personal beliefs to your judgments. I can't blame him. You seem to have an agenda.

I'm dog shit, got it.

Let me guess, you claim to be a Christian too?

.

Would that somehow support some sort of position for yourself if I was Christian? I don't see the relevancy of your inquiery.

BTW, I'm not calling you that. But if that's how I saw you; I wouldn't want to delve into my personal beliefs with you either. I was explaining that context b/c you were erroneously calling him a hypocrite.

 

[Mac1958]

Actually. He qualified his position that you are dog sh__ and that he would not subject his personal beliefs to your judgments. I can't blame him. You seem to have an agenda.

I'm dog shit, got it.

Let me guess, you claim to be a Christian too?

.

Would that somehow support some sort of position for yourself if I was Christian? I don't see the relevancy of your inquiery.

BTW, I'm not calling you that. But if that's how I saw you; I wouldn't want to delve into my personal beliefs with you either. I was explaining that context b/c you were erroneously calling him a hypocrite.

No, I'm pretty sure he's a hypocrite.

I do wonder why so many who claim to be Christian can be so hateful and vulgar, but I admit that's just me.

Sure is tough to get people to admit to being Christian, not so tough to have them hurl insults.

.

 

[Dick Tuck]

PC- In later years, natural law was coupled with utility. At least from an economic standpoiint. Classical liberals, were staunch supporters of economic freedom. And still are today. Though there are a lot less of us than the social/special interest group LOLberals of the day.

Then why did the founders put so many limits on corporations? Why did the Constitution enable the regulation of interstate commerce?

And I answered your question with sound logic, that you chose to ignore. It's typical of dogmatic extremists like yourself to avoid clear wording and intent, when you prefer the Constitution and founders intent means what you wish it meant.

So you say dogs are great, I ask you to prove why, you post about cats and then claim sound logic.

Alright, you win. Nice work.

The founders did not put controls over coporations in the constitution. They granted congress the enumerated power to regulate the commerce between states, foreign entities and the Natives. It says nothing about "create charters for corporations and limit their abilities." That was initiatives taken up in state legislation. And the supreme court made case laws either favorably or agains the states rights to do so.

But like all LOLberals, you obfuscate fromt eh original assertion, then claim something else. Then turn around and attack because you can not come up with the evidence for your assertion.

To top it all off, you have a problem with the supreme courts decisions when they go against what you wish, but love them when they go for your wish. That is so shocking.

Wow, you're one ignorant Libershitheadtarian. The founders did give the legislature and executive the right to regulate corporations, under several clauses, including "General Welfare", "Interstate Commerce", "Weights and Measures". The first congress, after the ratification of the Constitution clearly exercised these rights in Federally chartering several corporations, including banking and infrastructure. They granted "LIMITED LIABILITY", which can be argued to be an afront to individual rights. They also limited both term and activities.

And yes, I do have problems with some Supreme Court rulings. Some are total bullshit, like Dred Scott and Citizens United. When agreggious enough, the Court will either overturn them or an Amendment process will make them moot.

What do you make of Citizens United, in light of Dodge v. Woolsey? Does a state, or the United States, have the right to regulate what the court claimed as "artificial bodies"?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I'm dog shit, got it.

Let me guess, you claim to be a Christian too?

.

Would that somehow support some sort of position for yourself if I was Christian? I don't see the relevancy of your inquiery.

BTW, I'm not calling you that. But if that's how I saw you; I wouldn't want to delve into my personal beliefs with you either. I was explaining that context b/c you were erroneously calling him a hypocrite.

No, I'm pretty sure he's a hypocrite.

I do wonder why so many who claim to be Christian can be so hateful and vulgar, but I admit that's just me.

Sure is tough to get people to admit to being Christian, not so tough to have them hurl insults.

.

Oh boo hoo. You're not getting enough people to share their innermost personal beliefs with you while you seek to ridicule them. Let me shed a tear.

And why should I care that you've come across "hateful and vulgar" Christians. I've come across plenty of atheist a-holes, Muslim a-holes or whatever else. You think b/c you've come across some Christians you don't like that that is somehow going to justify your shameless contempt for them?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Roflmao

 

[Mac1958]

Would that somehow support some sort of position for yourself if I was Christian? I don't see the relevancy of your inquiery.

BTW, I'm not calling you that. But if that's how I saw you; I wouldn't want to delve into my personal beliefs with you either. I was explaining that context b/c you were erroneously calling him a hypocrite.

No, I'm pretty sure he's a hypocrite.

I do wonder why so many who claim to be Christian can be so hateful and vulgar, but I admit that's just me.

Sure is tough to get people to admit to being Christian, not so tough to have them hurl insults.

.

Oh boo hoo. You're not getting enough people to share their innermost personal beliefs with you while you seek to ridicule them. Let me shed a tear.

And why should I care that you've come across "hateful and vulgar" Christians. I've come across plenty of atheist a-holes, Muslim a-holes or whatever else. You think b/c you've come across some Christians you don't like that that is somehow going to justify your shameless contempt for them?

Hey, you brought it up. Not my problem.

.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

No, I'm pretty sure he's a hypocrite.

I do wonder why so many who claim to be Christian can be so hateful and vulgar, but I admit that's just me.

Sure is tough to get people to admit to being Christian, not so tough to have them hurl insults.

.

Oh boo hoo. You're not getting enough people to share their innermost personal beliefs with you while you seek to ridicule them. Let me shed a tear.

And why should I care that you've come across "hateful and vulgar" Christians. I've come across plenty of atheist a-holes, Muslim a-holes or whatever else. You think b/c you've come across some Christians you don't like that that is somehow going to justify your shameless contempt for them?

Hey, you brought it up. Not my problem.

.

I wonder how I did that when I was responding to you. Actually, I don't wonder. I know this is your way of confusing the issue. I'll call the game then. Better luck next time brah.

 

[Mac1958]

Oh boo hoo. You're not getting enough people to share their innermost personal beliefs with you while you seek to ridicule them. Let me shed a tear.

And why should I care that you've come across "hateful and vulgar" Christians. I've come across plenty of atheist a-holes, Muslim a-holes or whatever else. You think b/c you've come across some Christians you don't like that that is somehow going to justify your shameless contempt for them?

Hey, you brought it up. Not my problem.

.

I wonder how I did that when I was responding to you. Actually, I don't wonder. I know this is your way of confusing the issue. I'll call the game then. Better luck next time brah.

Oh boo hoo.

As you would say.

.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I love when the losing side tells the winning side what they did wrong...

....Especially when they've already backed themselves into a corner!!​

December 12, 2012

RATS;
Caught In Their Own Trap​

"For Republicans, entitlement cuts are a long-sought-after prize, but one that’s difficult to openly acknowledge. Over the years, Democrats have reliably pursued a strategy known as “Mediscare”—frightening seniors by dramatizing how such cuts would affect them. Last year, a television ad attacking supporters of the Republican House budget famously depicted a prominent congressman shoving a wheelchair-bound granny off a cliff.

Those ads work. So when Republicans want to talk about cutting entitlements, they tend to speak in code, declaring that we need to “get our spending under control” or “shrink government,” rather than specify what programs would be cut or shrunk. In fact, they’re so frightened of a backlash that during the presidential campaign, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan attacked Obama from the left on Medicare, decrying the $716 billion in cuts enshrined in the health-care law and vowing to restore them, despite the fact that Ryan’s own budget, passed by the House, would have imposed precisely the same cuts."

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem with Conservatives is that they are always on the wrong side of history

They opposed the American Revolution
They opposed abolition
They opposed the womens vote
They opposed worker protections
They opposed Civil Rights
They opposed environmental protections

Today, they continue the proud legacy of conservatism.....blocking gay rights, access to healthcare, immigration reform

What a silly post.
But...exactly what I have come to expect of you.


1. The conservatives were the makers of the American Revolution.
Possibly your confusion is due to the fact that it was the Russian Revolution, and Liberal support for same that you mis-recall.
“The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

So, classical liberals are today's conservatives: individualism, private property, and limits on power.


2. Women's suffrage?
Republicans.
Is that close enough to 'conservative'?

a. It was a Republican who introduced what became the 19th Amendment, women’s suffrage. On May 21, 1919, U.S. Representative James R. Mann (1856-1922), a Republican from Illinois and chairman of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the Susan Anthony Amendment granting women the right to vote. The measure passed the House 304-89—a full 42 votes above the required two-thirds majority. 19th Amendment — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

b. The 1919 vote in the House of Representatives was possible because Republicans had retaken control of the House. Attempts to get it passed through Democrat-controlled Congresses had failed.

c. The Senate vote was approved only after a Democrat filibuster; and 82% of the Republican Senators voted for it….and 54% of the Democrats.

c. 26 of the 36 states that ratified the 19th Amendment had Republican legislatures.


Gee, you really don't know anything, do you?



3. They opposed worker protections.
Well....Liberals sure were in favor of "The Worker's Paradise," weren't they?



4. "Conservatives...blocking access to healthcare"
You mean you didn't know that prior to ObamaCare every single citizen...even illegals...
had access to healthcare?
Really?

How do you find your way home each day?

Breadcrumbs?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Then why did the founders put so many limits on corporations? Why did the Constitution enable the regulation of interstate commerce?

So you say dogs are great, I ask you to prove why, you post about cats and then claim sound logic.

Alright, you win. Nice work.

The founders did not put controls over coporations in the constitution. They granted congress the enumerated power to regulate the commerce between states, foreign entities and the Natives. It says nothing about "create charters for corporations and limit their abilities." That was initiatives taken up in state legislation. And the supreme court made case laws either favorably or agains the states rights to do so.

But like all LOLberals, you obfuscate fromt eh original assertion, then claim something else. Then turn around and attack because you can not come up with the evidence for your assertion.

To top it all off, you have a problem with the supreme courts decisions when they go against what you wish, but love them when they go for your wish. That is so shocking.

Wow, you're one ignorant Libershitheadtarian. The founders did give the legislature and executive the right to regulate corporations, under several clauses, including "General Welfare", "Interstate Commerce", "Weights and Measures". The first congress, after the ratification of the Constitution clearly exercised these rights in Federally chartering several corporations, including banking and infrastructure. They granted "LIMITED LIABILITY", which can be argued to be an afront to individual rights. They also limited both term and activities.

And yes, I do have problems with some Supreme Court rulings. Some are total bullshit, like Dred Scott and Citizens United. When agreggious enough, the Court will either overturn them or an Amendment process will make them moot.

What do you make of Citizens United, in light of Dodge v. Woolsey? Does a state, or the United States, have the right to regulate what the court claimed as "artificial bodies"?

Federal chartering of corporations that were suppose to be the works of congress authority. Banking, railraods. The constitution didn't give these powers to regulate all corporations, which is what you asserted by saying "the founders put so many limits on corporations."

As for citiznes United, I agree with you. Corporations aren't people adn do not have individual rights. How can a group have individual rights together? they can not. It's unconstitutional. the same way many, many interpretations of the constitution have undermined its authority.

That wasn't the point. I asked for specific constitutional passsage that gave the congress the right to limit corporations. You failed at that and instead came back with a state legislation.

Jeebus.

 

[007]

I don't see any way back from this ineluctable march of totalitarianism.

I do... Civil/Revolutionary War II.

Do it, hike up your balls, get your pals and storm the fucking gates already you pussy.
Shut the computer off, grab your gear and go be a hero for these fuckstains.

No...I don't think you would. I bet you would start stroming with your buddies and duck out fast. Welching on that as well.

Don't worry pissball, it won't be "just me and my buddies" if and when it ever happens, and you fucking POS little commie loud mouth trolls better hope and pray it doesn't. But if you and your thug union goon types want to keep up your violent ways, you're going to run into a crowd that doesn't back up with their arms in the air. Instead you'll get your mosquito ass kicked up around your fucking loud alligator mouth. So keep it up jack off, and you'll get your wish sooner or later.

 

[mjollnir]

I do... Civil/Revolutionary War II.

Do it, hike up your balls, get your pals and storm the fucking gates already you pussy.
Shut the computer off, grab your gear and go be a hero for these fuckstains.

No...I don't think you would. I bet you would start stroming with your buddies and duck out fast. Welching on that as well.

Don't worry pissball, it won't be "just me and my buddies" if and when it ever happens, and you fucking POS little commie loud mouth trolls better hope and pray it doesn't. But if you and your thug union goon types want to keep up your violent ways, you're going to run into a crowd that doesn't back up with their arms in the air. Instead you'll get your mosquito ass kicked up around your fucking loud alligator mouth. So keep it up jack off, and you'll get your wish sooner or later.

You whine like a little bitch really, really well.

Your type is the first to run when the talking ends, Cindy.

 

[freedombecki]

Do it, hike up your balls, get your pals and storm the fucking gates already you pussy.
Shut the computer off, grab your gear and go be a hero for these fuckstains.

No...I don't think you would. I bet you would start stroming with your buddies and duck out fast. Welching on that as well.

Don't worry pissball, it won't be "just me and my buddies" if and when it ever happens, and you fucking POS little commie loud mouth trolls better hope and pray it doesn't. But if you and your thug union goon types want to keep up your violent ways, you're going to run into a crowd that doesn't back up with their arms in the air. Instead you'll get your mosquito ass kicked up around your fucking loud alligator mouth. So keep it up jack off, and you'll get your wish sooner or later.

You whine like a little bitch really, really well.

Your type is the first to run when the talking ends, Cindy.

lol. Full of wind, eh? That could wind up not working in your favor, Windy One.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I do... Civil/Revolutionary War II.

Do it, hike up your balls, get your pals and storm the fucking gates already you pussy.
Shut the computer off, grab your gear and go be a hero for these fuckstains.

No...I don't think you would. I bet you would start stroming with your buddies and duck out fast. Welching on that as well.

Don't worry pissball, it won't be "just me and my buddies" if and when it ever happens......

ooooooooooooooooooooooooo.....pissball!!!

You must be quite the lil' combat-vet.