Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Really? How so. Please explain.Damn, that's a pot-kettle statement if ever i saw one.
Is this really all you have is some dopey one liner response?. Big dogs in the yard. You on the porch. C'mon. Get with it. You're in the main chamber here. Trying to be clever and 35 cents gets you a phone call.
You said this...
There is no irony in that "Liberal" and "Loser" start with the same letter.
...and Shintao says something similar back and you call what he said "juvenile". What more needs to be explained?
correction. We are proud to announce our conservatism.Conservatives try no harder to get away from their term than Liberals try to get away from their term.
Any "rebranding" of the parties are attempts by one party to make the other party look stupid.
Those who engage in these silly acts are simply stupid.
It is not "party" re-branding liberals are attempting. It is an attempt to escape from the term "liberal".
Even Obama stated he was not a liberal and demanded he not be referred to as such.
The liberals are as proud of their terms as you of your terms. Democrats and Republicans feel the same way. Neither side is trying to escape from their terms, but both sides are trying to "rebrand" the other side in negative terms. It's called propaganda. Obama, by liberal standards, is not a liberal, although by conservative standards is he is a liberal.
Ahh, there is nothing like "medium", "plain vanilla", "sitting on the fence". Or Just "right down the middle." It's very safe there, isn't it?The liberals and conservatives, thereisnospoon, are not afraid of their names or their connotations. Both sides try to delegitimize the other side through propaganda making their opponent's name a term of contempt. To the great majority of Americans in the 1960s the term 'conservative' was a foul word. Today, a solid minority of Americans believe "liberal" is a foul word. In my opinion, both sides are wrong.
Ahh, there is nothing like "medium", "plain vanilla", "sitting on the fence". Or Just "right down the middle." It's very safe there, isn't it? Propaganda......Please. Umm, you're wrong the term liberal today. Ask John Kerry and Barack Obama. That's a reality you'll have to live with.
There is no irony in that "Liberal" and "Loser" start with the same letter.Liberalism is so great Obama has to ask Spielberg to rebrand the Dem Party. The only thing that will save Liberalism is if Obama shuts the Internet so the truth about you lying fucking losers stops getting out
1. " there has been a slow but steady decline of which liberals have been steadfastly oblivious. The heirs of the New Deal are down to around 20% of the electorate, according to recent Gallup polls. Conservatives account for 42% of the vote, and in the recent election the independents, the second most numerous group at 29% of the electorate, broke the conservatives' way. They were alarmed by the deficit.
2. Liberalism's decline might appear, at first glance, to have begun with the 1961 inauguration of President John F. Kennedywhen historians noted the first glimmerings of what was to become liberalism's distinctive trait, overreach. On the domestic side, the oratory set in motion President Lyndon Johnson's catastrophic War on Poverty.
a. JFK's stirring language represented a break with the Burkean understanding of President Dwight Eisenhower. Ike, whether he articulated it or not, wanted to put the Great Depression and the dangerous confrontations of the early Cold War period behind us. He wanted to return to normalcy.
3. Still, in tracing liberalism's decline, one cannot ignore an earlier event: the civil war that broke out in the aftermath of World War II. The conflict pitted what we might call the radicals led by Henry Wallace against the advocates of what Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. would call in his book, "The Vital Center," more practical liberals like Hubert Humphrey, Joseph L. Rauh and Walter Reuther. They were hard-headed and patriotic, and their desiderata were reasonable by comparison with the radicals' utopian ideas about the Soviet Union.
4. The practical liberals won in the late 1940s, but in 1972 civil war broke out anew. This time the radicals won. In the meantime, LBJ's Great Society caused even some liberals to warn against the "unintended consequences" of government programs. These were to be the first new recruits to modern conservatism. Jeane Kirkpatrick, Irving Kristol and, for a time, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, were in Kristol's words liberals "who were mugged by reality."
5. Conservatives have had Edmund Burke and the Founding Fathers as their cynosures. Sometimes they have provided discipline; sometimes conservatives have followed their own star. The problem for liberals is they have been denied a cynosure. Some had looked to the British Fabian Socialists and some to Karl Marx, but since the late 1940s liberals became coy about their intellectual mentors.
6. Conservatism has steadily spread through the country since its larval days in the 1950s, and the reason is that the vast majority of Americans favor free enterprise and personal liberty. Note the tea party movement. The Republicans just took the House of Representatives by over 60 seats and gained six seats in the Senate. The social democrat in the White House has been routed.
7. Over the past two years the Democrats showed their true colors. Faced with an entitlement crisis, they rang up trillion dollar deficits. We now face an entitlement crisis and a budget crisisand liberals have no answer for it beyond tax and spend. They still have support in the media, but even here they are faced with opposition from Fox News, talk radio and the Internet.
a. As a political movement liberalism is dead. They do not have the numbers. They do not have the policies. They have 23 seats in the Senate to defend in 2012 (against the Republicans' 10) and Republican control of state houses and legislatures will give them even more seats in the future. Liberalism R.I.P. "
R. Emmett Tyrell Jr.: LiberalismAn Autopsy - WSJ.com
(emphasis mine)
There is no irony in that "Liberal" and "Loser" start with the same letter.Liberalism is so great Obama has to ask Spielberg to rebrand the Dem Party. The only thing that will save Liberalism is if Obama shuts the Internet so the truth about you lying fucking losers stops getting out
Are you two childish people ever going to grow up??? Better luck in 2011.
Ahh, there is nothing like "medium", "plain vanilla", "sitting on the fence". Or Just "right down the middle." It's very safe there, isn't it? Propaganda......Please. Umm, you're wrong the term liberal today. Ask John Kerry and Barack Obama. That's a reality you'll have to live with.
Post #383 is propelled by falsehood and liquor, so I will ignore it. Your propaganda in the next post is a fail, kiddo. Here: read this again slowly and think ~ "The liberals and conservatives, thereisnospoon, are not afraid of their names or their connotations. Both sides try to delegitimize the other side through propaganda making their opponent's name a term of contempt. To the great majority of Americans in the 1960s the term 'conservative' was a foul word. Today, a solid minority of Americans believe "liberal" is a foul word. In my opinion, both sides are wrong."
Cons laugh at libs, and libs laugh at cons. The only rebranding is when bozos like you call the libs "nazis" or "socialists" or the bozos on the left call the cons "fascists" and so forth.
You need to grow up and join the world of adults.
1. " there has been a slow but steady decline of which liberals have been steadfastly oblivious. The heirs of the New Deal are down to around 20% of the electorate, according to recent Gallup polls. Conservatives account for 42% of the vote, and in the recent election the independents, the second most numerous group at 29% of the electorate, broke the conservatives' way. They were alarmed by the deficit.
2. Liberalism's decline might appear, at first glance, to have begun with the 1961 inauguration of President John F. Kennedywhen historians noted the first glimmerings of what was to become liberalism's distinctive trait, overreach. On the domestic side, the oratory set in motion President Lyndon Johnson's catastrophic War on Poverty.
a. JFK's stirring language represented a break with the Burkean understanding of President Dwight Eisenhower. Ike, whether he articulated it or not, wanted to put the Great Depression and the dangerous confrontations of the early Cold War period behind us. He wanted to return to normalcy.
3. Still, in tracing liberalism's decline, one cannot ignore an earlier event: the civil war that broke out in the aftermath of World War II. The conflict pitted what we might call the radicals led by Henry Wallace against the advocates of what Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. would call in his book, "The Vital Center," more practical liberals like Hubert Humphrey, Joseph L. Rauh and Walter Reuther. They were hard-headed and patriotic, and their desiderata were reasonable by comparison with the radicals' utopian ideas about the Soviet Union.
4. The practical liberals won in the late 1940s, but in 1972 civil war broke out anew. This time the radicals won. In the meantime, LBJ's Great Society caused even some liberals to warn against the "unintended consequences" of government programs. These were to be the first new recruits to modern conservatism. Jeane Kirkpatrick, Irving Kristol and, for a time, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, were in Kristol's words liberals "who were mugged by reality."
5. Conservatives have had Edmund Burke and the Founding Fathers as their cynosures. Sometimes they have provided discipline; sometimes conservatives have followed their own star. The problem for liberals is they have been denied a cynosure. Some had looked to the British Fabian Socialists and some to Karl Marx, but since the late 1940s liberals became coy about their intellectual mentors.
6. Conservatism has steadily spread through the country since its larval days in the 1950s, and the reason is that the vast majority of Americans favor free enterprise and personal liberty. Note the tea party movement. The Republicans just took the House of Representatives by over 60 seats and gained six seats in the Senate. The social democrat in the White House has been routed.
7. Over the past two years the Democrats showed their true colors. Faced with an entitlement crisis, they rang up trillion dollar deficits. We now face an entitlement crisis and a budget crisisand liberals have no answer for it beyond tax and spend. They still have support in the media, but even here they are faced with opposition from Fox News, talk radio and the Internet.
a. As a political movement liberalism is dead. They do not have the numbers. They do not have the policies. They have 23 seats in the Senate to defend in 2012 (against the Republicans' 10) and Republican control of state houses and legislatures will give them even more seats in the future. Liberalism R.I.P. "
R. Emmett Tyrell Jr.: LiberalismAn Autopsy - WSJ.com
(emphasis mine)
I think that this person who wrote this has a VERY distorted lens through which he is seeing past events with respect to 'right' and 'left.' I don't believe there is no way to dispute what he wrote here. It would be like trying to debate fundamentalist Christians who argue for creationism with scientific facts- they see things the way they want to, and nothing will change that. This guy is just very deluded in his interpretation of events, and it is apparent. It is a perception problem, which, of course is subjective, but to say that Liberalism is dead, is ridiculous, considering that Obama, just two years ago won an election, as a liberal, because people showed up to vote, as liberals, more so than did conservatives.
*rolls eyes* Whatever, neocon. If this is true, you might as well just declare this a corporate oligarchy and pave the entire country over to be a Wal-Mart parking lot.
*rolls eyes* Whatever, neocon. If this is true, you might as well just declare this a corporate oligarchy and pave the entire country over to be a Wal-Mart parking lot.
Just so you know. WalMart is a well managed corporation which is making a nice profit.
The US government has been bankrupt since 1935. so it wouldn't be a bad idea for WalMart to take over and fire bureaucrats from BOTH parties.
.
The point of government, once again, knotheads, is to not make a profit but to provide service.
Reagan did not get that, Bush did not get that, and Halliburton has made a boodle of cash despite nearly losing the war for us.
The point of government, once again, knotheads, is to not make a profit but to provide service.
Reagan did not get that, Bush did not get that, and Halliburton has made a boodle of cash despite nearly losing the war for us.
Yes, evil Halliburton, so who should the contracts of gone to. Government is not here to provide a service, your thinking of extended warranties and getting confused, are you a dope smoker cause that would explain a lot.
