Why liberals hate values

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr

Exactly! you and your ilk make no distinction between naked aggression and valid preemptive defense, and this is a grave moral failing.

where, in any moral type codes or laws, does it make the distinction regarding 'pre-emption'?

as well as your 'ilk' using pre-emption based on faulty intelligence, when does 'pre-emption' become a liability?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
where, in any moral type codes or laws, does it make the distinction regarding 'pre-emption'?

The distinction comes in evaluation of extenuating circumstances. Saddam had stated intentions of destroying America. He staged many hate america rallies (goes to inent), he had kicked out inspectors there to enforce cease fire agreement, He DID have demonstrable and documented connections to alquaeda, according to the 9/11 commission, though the report was widely blatantly misreported in the left wing media. The libs refuse to acknowledge or consider any extenuating circumstances, instead preferring to simplify things down to basic verbs and then claiming moral equivalency. Truly, this kind of thinking wil lead to the fall of the civilized world.
What would any responsible administration have done? Would you have just trusted Saddam even though he actively defied U.N. resolutions regarding WMD? That's just blindness and naivete.

as well as your 'ilk' using pre-emption based on faulty intelligence, when does 'pre-emption' become a liability?

When politicized libs get so ideologically fastidiously mired into the assumed intellectual superiority of moral relativism they'd rather destroy the nation through irresponsible voting decisions than admit their outlook is a death wish, a suicide meme.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Why, you wouldn't understand anyways.

Come on, Bully - humor me. I happen to think that RWA summed up the human condition pretty nicely. Enlighten me, Witless for the Prosecution. Show me the error of my ways.

P.S. - " Anyways"???!!! WTF is that??!!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
The distinction comes in evaluation of extenuating circumstances. Saddam had stated intentions of destroying America. He staged many hate america rallies (goes to inent), he had kicked out inspectors there to enforce cease fire agreement, He DID have demonstrable and documented connections to alquaeda, according to the 9/11 commission, though the report was widely blatantly misreported in the left wing media. The libs refuse to acknowledge or consider any extenuating circumstances, instead preferring to simplify things down to basic verbs and then claiming moral equivalency. Truly, this kind of thinking wil lead to the fall of the civilized world.

in other words, you have no sources other than your preferred examples.

What would any responsible administration have done? Would you have just trusted Saddam even though he actively defied U.N. resolutions regarding WMD? That's just blindness and naivete.

nice try at a curveball to deflect the fact that you have no historical records of 'pre-emption' being a moral act.

When politicized libs get so ideologically fastidiously mired into the assumed intellectual superiority of moral relativism they'd rather destroy the nation through irresponsible voting decisions than admit their outlook is a death wish, a suicide meme.

stop looking up words in the dictionary and typing them on the screen. It would be better for all to say that you hate libs because you don't agree with them.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
in other words, you have no sources other than your preferred examples.

I do not feel the the other words you have chosen bear much resemblence to my actual point. My point is that extenuating circumstances matter in determining whether an act is moral or reasonable.

nice try at a curveball to deflect the fact that you have no historical records of 'pre-emption' being a moral act.

I'm not appealing to history to justify preemptive self defense. I'm asking you to use combinatorial, creative thinking, combining the right of a nation to defend itself, the knowledge that modern nuclear devices can do irreparable damage in the blink of an eye, and the knowledge of the zealous, self-destructive, ethnophobic jihadist armies of islam. 1+1+1=3, unless you just want to die.

stop looking up words in the dictionary and typing them on the screen. It would be better for all to say that you hate libs because you don't agree with them.

But I'm explaining my reasons for disagreement. That's what debate is about. Always just agreeing to disagree yields no net progress in human understanding.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I do not feel the the other words you have chosen bear much resemblence to my actual point. My point is that extenuating circumstances matter in determining whether an act is moral or reasonable.

which goes 180 degrees in reverse about your other arguments that morality is strictly defined. There are no extenuating circumstances when it comes to morality. It is either right or wrong. Is that not what you have said in the past?

I'm not appealing to history to justify preemptive self defense. I'm asking you to use combinatorial, creative thinking, combining the right of a nation to defend itself, the knowledge that modern nuclear devices can do irreparable damage in the blink of an eye, and the knowledge of the zealous, self-destructive, ethnophobic jihadist armies of islam. 1+1+1=3, unless you just want to die.

other nations have used 'pre-emption' as a means of self defense and have been vehemently opposed and villified for doing such. have they not? If Russia were to invade chechnya and anhillate the population in 'pre-emption' for their national security, would it be justified? or should they just die?

But I'm explaining my reasons for disagreement. That's what debate is about. Always just agreeing to disagree yields no net progress in human understanding.

brevity is the key to good communication.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
which goes 180 degrees in reverse about your other arguments that morality is strictly defined. There are no extenuating circumstances when it comes to morality. It is either right or wrong. Is that not what you have said in the past?

I'm saying context always matters. Killing is killing, is it always wrong? It depends on the context, it's murder if the reason is deemed "not good enough". this pursuit of the answer to the question "what is a good a enough reason?" is the very essence of human moral studies.

other nations have used 'pre-emption' as a means of self defense and have been vehemently opposed and villified for doing such. have they not? If Russia were to invade chechnya and anhillate the population in 'pre-emption' for their national security, would it be justified? or should they just die?




brevity is the key to good communication.

DK. There is an ongoing struggle for world domination. Always has been always will be, the question we must answer is whose side are we on and why.

So which is it: Is there no global war for world domination, or are you just not on the side of civilization?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
DK. There is an ongoing struggle for world domination. Always has been always will be, the question we must answer is whose side are we on and why.

then cheney is lying when he said we're not being empirical or pursuing imperialism?

So which is it: Is there no global war for world domination, or are you just not on the side of civilization?

that depends on the resulting civilization. If the result would be that there are a group of people, whether by nationality, race, religion, or culture that would be held in a lower status simply because of who or what they are (except catholics, maybe : ) then I would not be on the side of civilization. Thats if there were a world domination war going on.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
then cheney is lying when he said we're not being empirical or pursuing imperialism?

Imperialism is such an ugly world. Let's use "projection of power" instead please. Thanks for you cooperation in this matter. Are the backstabbing eurcommies pursuing global dominance when they align with terrorist nations for short term gain against the U.S.? Is the very existence of the U.N. and it's efforts to erode the sovereignty of nations for the purpose of empowering the centralized bureacracy a form of Imperialism? When they give themselves the right to control human population, is this overstepping their bounds?

that depends on the resulting civilization. If the result would be that there are a group of people, whether by nationality, race, religion, or culture that would be held in a lower status simply because of who or what they are (except catholics, maybe : ) then I would not be on the side of civilization. Thats if there were a world domination war going on.

Have you studied shariah law? It's not a good system in the very aspects your discussing. Our system is better in terms of it's orientation toward individual rights, free speech, and religious pluralism.

 

[MrMarbles]

No, Japan attacked Pearl Harbour long before an American attack was even reasonable. We refused to ship them any more oil and resources which they required to continue their war on China and expand their "Greater Asian Co-prosperity sphere of influence", but get this straight... they were the ones who wanted an empire.

Japan knew that there would have been an eventual war between them and the States, so they attack first and aimed for the balls. Pre-emptive. ya they wanted the empire, so does the states (more or less), but they attacked first so that they wouldn't gewt their asses kicked, it just didn't work as well as they hoped.

 

[softwaremama]

"Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes."

This part of the definition of liberalism is what always troubles me. Liberals always seem to be about entitlement programs, so they pander to people who want 'free stuff.' Many people are selfish and greedy, so they think liberal "generosity" is great and the same thing as compassion. What they are saying is "Vote for me: I'll give you free stuff, more than the next guy."

Ultimately, they're pandering to people who are greedy or stupid enough to believe this depressing line. They actually belive that something can be "free" or that the government "creates jobs" (HA, what a laugh).

How sick is this political pandering? It's pathetic, and it makes the world seem like such a pitiful place, sad, without hope, because it's saying that people can't help themselves and they all need Uncle Sugar to take care of them.

This is why liberalism is so sad and desperate--it makes people seem weak and helpless, dependent on Uncle Sugar, which they are not.

...Not unless they give their power to the liberals, that is.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by softwaremama
"Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes."

This part of the definition of liberalism is what always troubles me. Liberals always seem to be about entitlement programs, so they pander to people who want 'free stuff.' Many people are selfish and greedy, so they think liberal "generosity" is great and the same thing as compassion. What they are saying is "Vote for me: I'll give you free stuff, more than the next guy."

Ultimately, they're pandering to people who are greedy or stupid enough to believe this depressing line. They actually belive that something can be "free" or that the government "creates jobs" (HA, what a laugh).

How sick is this political pandering? It's pathetic, and it makes the world seem like such a pitiful place, sad, without hope, because it's saying that people can't help themselves and they all need Uncle Sugar to take care of them.

This is why liberalism is so sad and desperate--it makes people seem weak and helpless, dependent on Uncle Sugar, which they are not.

...Not unless they give their power to the liberals, that is.

:clap1: :clap1:

Great post, SoftwareMama! Welcome to the board. You're home now.

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by softwaremama
Ultimately, they're pandering to people who are greedy or stupid enough to believe this depressing line. They actually belive that something can be "free" or that the government "creates jobs" (HA, what a laugh).

The US government creates more jobs than anybody but Wal-Mart, maybe. Think about the armed forces and all the numerous federal offices throughout the land from DC to all our national parks and wilderness reserves. Or what about government grants to researchers? Or even pork barrel projects that are so often criticized. This pork barrel money creates real jobs in communites across the nation. Granted, there are many stupid pork barrel projects as well, but many do stimulate job growth.

Or go back to FDR and his citizen corps. When many a private business went bankrupt, old sugar daddy big govt. helped out a lot of poor people by giving them good, hard work that improved their communities at the same time.

Or what about AmeriCorp. This is a great program that gives discipline and guidance and some money for college to a lot of young people.

What's really scary is people like Grover Norquist, the diabolical mastermind behind Bush's tax cuts. Norquist was recently on C-Span's Washington Post and his vision for the future of America was to cut the size of it's government workforce by 50 percent in the coming decades. At another time, on an NPR talk show, he compared rich Americans being taxed to Jewish persecution in Nazi Germany. Truth is, gutting the government in this manner sucks power from the people by weakening our government and it's regulations and turns over more and more responsibility to corporations who don't give a shit about you and me except as consumers of their lousy, meaningless, polluting products. And these corporations will create new jobs, only those jobs will be in India and China.

Don't sell your government so short.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by menewa
Don't sell your government so short.

why not? They would sell us, as any individual, short in an instant and just call it 'for the greater good'.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by menewa

What's really scary is people like Grover Norquist, the diabolical mastermind behind Bush's tax cuts. Norquist was recently on C-Span's Washington Post and his vision for the future of America was to cut the size of it's government workforce by 50 percent in the coming decades.

Ih my Gawd, such an evil and diabolical man! :dev1:

Originally posted by menewa

At another time, on an NPR talk show, he compared rich Americans being taxed to Jewish persecution in Nazi Germany.

Granted, that is going to extreme. But hey, you guys call Bush "Hitler" all the time.

Originally posted by menewa

Truth is, gutting the government in this manner sucks power from the people by weakening our government and it's regulations and turns over more and more responsibility to corporations who don't give a shit about you and me except as consumers of their lousy, meaningless, polluting products. And these corporations will create new jobs, only those jobs will be in India and China.

The government should not be doing most of the jobs it is doing. There are a LOT of jobs that could be outsourced to civilian contrctors. You make it clear that you are a communist with this statement, so please stop trying to cloke your desires in the mask of concern for the American worker.

Originally posted by menewa

Don't sell your government so short.

Yep. And don't give you credit for having any brains.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by menewa
The US government creates more jobs than anybody but Wal-Mart, maybe. Think about the armed forces and all the numerous federal offices throughout the land from DC to all our national parks and wilderness reserves. Or what about government grants to researchers? Or even pork barrel projects that are so often criticized. This pork barrel money creates real jobs in communites across the nation. Granted, there are many stupid pork barrel projects as well, but many do stimulate job growth.

These "post confiscation" uses of other people's money are fundamentally disconnected from market forces. These programs are done whimsically by those with power, with little or no consideration for their actual effectiveness. Private sector profit is actually related to servicing a direct human need in an efficient way, not a political agenda or a vote buying/ dependance creating scheme.

 

[MrMarbles]

The problem is that you guys think liberals will take stuff away from you in order to give to people less deserveing. Your wrong. American gov't already makes plent of money to help people. How many billions are going into Iraq? In to killing people. Why not use that money for the good of your country men and women. Why not start a health system to help people whoi can't afford. Not lazy asses wasting timn and money, but single parents working 2 jobs to put food on the table, theyneed health care to, will you deny them that?

Or how about opening more community centres and allow a place for kids to play and participate in sports, and away from gangs. They deserve a life to, one away from violence.

Or homeless shelters for places poeple can go when the giant coporation they use to work at closed and outsourced the work because it was, and always will be cheaper in other parts of the world. Don't those hard working Americans deserve a hand when life pushes them down?

Corporations and ultra capitalism does not work, it just gives out false hope. In a economy that is bent on winning, onmly those born rich will truly win. And for every winner, there is a 1000 losers, people who don't get a chance to even try.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by MrMarbles
The problem is that you guys think liberals will take stuff away from you in order to give to people less deserveing. Your wrong. American gov't already makes plent of money to help people. How many billions are going into Iraq? In to killing people. Why not use that money for the good of your country men and women.

Many of us consider ensuring the survival of our nation and civilization in general a valid expenditure, but thanks for your input.

Why not start a health system to help people whoi can't afford. Not lazy asses wasting timn and money, but single parents working 2 jobs to put food on the table, theyneed health care to, will you deny them that?

Because socialized medicine results in shitty care for most people, and a flourishing black market health care system that the priveleged of society (politburo members) use

Or how about opening more community centres and allow a place for kids to play and participate in sports, and away from gangs. They deserve a life to, one away from violence.

No thanks. We should go back to system where one person takes care of kids. Trusting the rearing of children between 0-5 to disinterested third parties, borders on neglect.

Or homeless shelters for places poeple can go when the giant coporation they use to work at closed and outsourced the work because it was, and always will be cheaper in other parts of the world.

It will not always be cheaper. Eventually global wages will stabilize, but it may take a while. Cutting the third world out of modernity, for our own comfort, is evil incarnate

Don't those hard working Americans deserve a hand when life pushes them down?

Corporations and ultra capitalism does not work, it just gives out false hope. In a economy that is bent on winning, onmly those born rich will truly win. And for every winner, there is a 1000 losers, people who don't get a chance to even try.

you have a negative view of life. I thought libs were supposed to be positive. You need people to be afraid to control them with your promises of income redistribution. It's sick.

 

[softwaremama]

Quote from menewa:
"The US government creates more jobs than anybody but Wal-Mart, maybe. Think about the armed forces and all the numerous federal offices throughout the land from DC to all our national parks and wilderness reserves. Or what about government grants to researchers? Or even pork barrel projects that are so often criticized. This pork barrel money creates real jobs in communites across the nation. Granted, there are many stupid pork barrel projects as well, but many do stimulate job growth."


You still don't get it. Of course the gov't needs to have some officials, parks folks, national defense, research, and other necessary personnel. And we should thank these people for their service. But the gov't should not be an economy in and of itself, a labyrinthine bureaucracy that sucks the life out of the real economy that's based on competition. C'mon, admit it.

The fact is: real jobs are ONLY and always created by businesses--investments, profits!Gov't jobs are just tax and spend. Anything else is just plain silly economics. Jolly numbers.

If the gov't were a real part of the economy, BTW, the folks who work for it would pay into SS, which they don't! And if gov't officials were really public servants and not pork producers, they wouldn't have jobs for life--there would be serious term limits.

Also, if Uncle Sugar would quit taxing people to death to promote social engineering and pass out goodies to every pitiful, self-centered hand that's outstretched, there would be more jobs for all--created by business. Yes, biz needs real regulation--huge fines for polluters, for example, and no grandfathering-in of offenders.

The economy would no doubt change if Uncle Sam got his thumb (or butt) off the scale, but for the better. Yes, civilian contractors! Public bidding, stiff fines for jerks! Fewer gov't jobs and pork.

Let's fry this piggy up, roast him and be done with him, a big Bah Bee Que. No pork, ever! Democratic social engineering programs: the new white meat!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

RWA loves Software MAMA!