Are liberals more like animals or American Indians?

[konradv]

Probably more like animals.

There weren't any gay Indians.

were there?

Confused, eh? Just remember, there's nothing wrong with that. Thank a liberal that we're moving past that crap and be your true self.

Yeah, Thanks a lot! Oh well, you liberals haven't perfected the art of mind reading though, have you?

That's right, it's more like a feeling.

 

[UpAndAbout]

You're wrong. If liberals look to animals and native-Americans, it's because of their lesser effect on the land than modern society, NOT because of some strawman argument about Communism.

Let's see, perhaps you should bone up on early Indians' culture. to name but a few: it was survival of the fittest, a baby born deformed was killed, somebody didn't pull their weight, they were banished. Old people were banished to some yonder outpost of the village to die. They were impressed with bravery and strength. They were NOT vegetarians. they hunted animals and ate them. Used every bit of the animal for tools, dishes, clothes. They didn't blame anybody when they had a unproductive hunt, that was life. They had taboos and they stuck to them, woe be to the one who broke them.

What does that have to do with natural rights? If they had taboos with woe attached to those who broke them, where was this woe coming from? They may not have had our system, but they had chiefs and elders, i.e. government. I certainly never said anything about them being communistic. You seem to have totally ignored the mesage you quoted!!!

the Indians in many cases HAD an effect on the land. That's why they were nomadic. After they depleted one plot of land of animals and had gathered all the roots and berries, they moved on. They are changing the land a lot nowadays with their casinos and from the looks of some of their homes, they are having a profound effect on the land. Junk cars, trash, you name it. The "woe" was coming from everyone. Nobody in the tribe would have anything to do with them. It wasn't the chief's ruling. These people were shunned, all but having it tattooed on their forehead what they had done.

 

[konradv]

As BO would communistically say, "we're all in this together."

I swear, I'm going to smite the next evil fool that says something parasitic like THAT.

I prefer "it takes a village", at least that's what the native-Americans would say.

 

[konradv]

Let's see, perhaps you should bone up on early Indians' culture. to name but a few: it was survival of the fittest, a baby born deformed was killed, somebody didn't pull their weight, they were banished. Old people were banished to some yonder outpost of the village to die. They were impressed with bravery and strength. They were NOT vegetarians. they hunted animals and ate them. Used every bit of the animal for tools, dishes, clothes. They didn't blame anybody when they had a unproductive hunt, that was life. They had taboos and they stuck to them, woe be to the one who broke them.

What does that have to do with natural rights? If they had taboos with woe attached to those who broke them, where was this woe coming from? They may not have had our system, but they had chiefs and elders, i.e. government. I certainly never said anything about them being communistic. You seem to have totally ignored the mesage you quoted!!!

the Indians in many cases HAD an effect on the land. That's why they were nomadic. After they depleted one plot of land of animals and had gathered all the roots and berries, they moved on. They are changing the land a lot nowadays with their casinos and from the looks of some of their homes, they are having a profound effect on the land. Junk cars, trash, you name it. The "woe" was coming from everyone. Nobody in the tribe would have anything to do with them. It wasn't the chief's ruling. These people were shunned, all but having it tattooed on their forehead what they had done.

You're still missing the point. Where do you show we have "natural rights"?

 

[UpAndAbout]

Liberals speak favorably of animals and Indians because animals and Indians share the wealth and minimize the importance of personal land and property. Society matters, not the individual. As BO would communistically say, "we're all in this together."

In reality animals and Indians are very very territorial or possessive. If another tries to invade their property war will usually result because they know personal property is necessary for survival.

So much for another important aspect of liberalism.

You know what Edward, I think you're pretty thick headed. Why? Because you seem to hold this idea that everyone on the left falls on the extreme end of the spectrum and wants the US to be this communist nation where the government controls every aspect of our lives.

Simply not the case. Most Democrats you will come across fall just left of center; we are a country of moderates, not extremists. Those on the left generally believe in the wondrous virtues of the free market, and want to keep most industries private, however hold the belief that the government should have a hand in some of the more unique sectors such as healthcare.

Want to know what the real problem facing America? It's you, and everyone else who's only goal in life is to muddy up the political conversation with baseless, simplistic accusations that everything in life must either be communism or anarchy.

Stop dividing people, it works to no one's benefit.

You know, believe it or not, I agree with you. That's why I don't watch any of the TV news programs. Listen to anything on MSNBC and this is EXACtLY what they want. Visit any liberal message board and the vast majority of posters WANT government control over their lives. Why, I have no idea, but they do. I don't think they know what they are getting themselves into if that happens but.

And to keep with your idea -- Republicans or conservatives are NOT a bunch of frothing at the mouth racists. They don't want to keep women from birth control and a great number of Republicans DO believe in abortion. Basically what I believe Republicans believe in is freedom, the freedom to pursue your dreams, the right to fail, to pick yourself up and then succeed, to not be the equivalent of "micromanaged" throughout life. When I hear somebody on either MSNBC OR Fox rant on about something, I just say, "That is NOT true." Because it's not -- unfortunately the media is being given full reign to say whatever they want about Republicans and too many people believe it. The same goes for what is said about the liberals.

The bolded area of your post is exactly right. My God I would not totally LACK of government, but I don't want to be micromanaged either.

 

[Full-Auto]

Are liberals more like animals

In a lower form..........................

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You know what Edward, I think you're pretty thick headed. Why? Because you seem to hold this idea that everyone on the left falls on the extreme end of the spectrum and wants the US to be this communist nation where the government controls every aspect of our lives.

you lack the IQ to know you are being used. BO had two Communist parents!

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.


This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
"Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy’s camp."[4]

C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium


Buckley endorsed Chambers’ analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but “revolutionary” in its nature and intentions, seeking “a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.”

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As BO would communistically say, "we're all in this together."

I swear, I'm going to smite the next evil fool that says something parasitic like THAT.

I prefer "it takes a village", at least that's what the native-Americans would say.

yes until they have kill and eat the neighboring village for encroaching on their property

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Oh yeah! Jeff did it all by himself, .

too stupid did not mean it literally!!!OBVIOUSLY!!!

 

[KevinWestern]

Liberals speak favorably of animals and Indians because animals and Indians share the wealth and minimize the importance of personal land and property. Society matters, not the individual. As BO would communistically say, "we're all in this together."

In reality animals and Indians are very very territorial or possessive. If another tries to invade their property war will usually result because they know personal property is necessary for survival.

So much for another important aspect of liberalism.

You know what Edward, I think you're pretty thick headed. Why? Because you seem to hold this idea that everyone on the left falls on the extreme end of the spectrum and wants the US to be this communist nation where the government controls every aspect of our lives.

Simply not the case. Most Democrats you will come across fall just left of center; we are a country of moderates, not extremists. Those on the left generally believe in the wondrous virtues of the free market, and want to keep most industries private, however hold the belief that the government should have a hand in some of the more unique sectors such as healthcare.

Want to know what the real problem facing America? It's you, and everyone else who's only goal in life is to muddy up the political conversation with baseless, simplistic accusations that everything in life must either be communism or anarchy.

Stop dividing people, it works to no one's benefit.

You know, believe it or not, I agree with you. That's why I don't watch any of the TV news programs. Listen to anything on MSNBC and this is EXACtLY what they want. Visit any liberal message board and the vast majority of posters WANT government control over their lives. Why, I have no idea, but they do. I don't think they know what they are getting themselves into if that happens but.

And to keep with your idea -- Republicans or conservatives are NOT a bunch of frothing at the mouth racists. They don't want to keep women from birth control and a great number of Republicans DO believe in abortion. Basically what I believe Republicans believe in is freedom, the freedom to pursue your dreams, the right to fail, to pick yourself up and then succeed, to not be the equivalent of "micromanaged" throughout life. When I hear somebody on either MSNBC OR Fox rant on about something, I just say, "That is NOT true." Because it's not -- unfortunately the media is being given full reign to say whatever they want about Republicans and too many people believe it. The same goes for what is said about the liberals.

The bolded area of your post is exactly right. My God I would not totally LACK of government, but I don't want to be micromanaged either.

Conservatives and Liberals are both unfairly portrayed - I agree - and it's all thanks to folks like Edward (in my opinion) in these types of simplistic baiting posts.

Like you said, Republicans don't hate women (that makes no sense). And just because they want to limit welfare is not evidence that they 'hate' or can care less about poor people. The reason they want to limit welfare is because they believe it doesn't really address the root cause of any societal issues, and is a waste of money that just keeps people trapped in a bad situation by removing the factor of motivation. Liberals tend to agree less, and think that welfare can actually be used to better a person's situation, and some simply feel it's the government's duty to prevent its population from living under a certain poverty standard.

I think there's valid arguments on both sides.

 

[Moonglow]

Oh yeah! Jeff did it all by himself, .

too stupid did not mean it literally!!!OBVIOUSLY!!!

then stop making stupid statements.
but you can't, your only here to troll.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's not natural in any way that I'm aware. .

as a liberal you lack the IQ to understand. Its 100% natural to claim property to sleep on each night and 100% natural to institute government to protect that natural right.


Simply enough for a liberal ?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Oh yeah! Jeff did it all by himself, .

too stupid did not mean it literally!!!OBVIOUSLY!!!

then stop making stupid statements.
but you can't, your only here to troll.

too stupid, it was a figurative statement, not a literal statement, obviously . You made a point of it because as a liberal you lack to IQ to know the difference

 

[Moonglow]

too stupid did not mean it literally!!!OBVIOUSLY!!!

then stop making stupid statements.
but you can't, your only here to troll.

too stupid, it was a figurative statement, not a literal statement, obviously . You made a point of it because as a liberal you lack to IQ to know the difference

my knowledge allows me to see how you are trying to tell people that you think and therefore smell

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I think there's valid arguments on both sides.

sadly if you're independent it means you're independent of the brains to make a decision. Hope you don't go crazy in the voting booth flip flopping in a small space like that?

Also, you say you're confused about welfare? How stupid is that when its been growing for 50 years and 50% of black men are in jail? If it grows and fails for another 50 years will you still be confused??

See why we say liberals are slow? If you had lived in 1930's Germany you would have been confused between Nazis and Communists! Please pass on this great lesson I have shared with you, liberal. Thanks

 

[Moonglow]

the cause of blacks in jail is not from welfare, but you are here to troll and try to make yourself look good. Now, in reality you are making yourself look bad.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

my knowledge allows me to see how you are trying to tell people that you think and therefore smell

and as a liberal you're sure that means something??? Why not tell us what exactly

 

[KevinWestern]

You know what Edward, I think you're pretty thick headed. Why? Because you seem to hold this idea that everyone on the left falls on the extreme end of the spectrum and wants the US to be this communist nation where the government controls every aspect of our lives.

you lack the IQ to know you are being used. BO had two Communist parents!

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

Socialism? You mean where every industry within a society is shared and collectively owned? Give me a break; the United States is nowhere close to any sort of a setup like that, and Obama's never suggested one. Not once. And you're right, most people don't want socialism or communism because again - we're a country of moderates, and a mix of both worlds (free market and limited gov't intervention).

You're being a drama queen here.

You live in the world of baseless assumptions (well, if President's dad believed X, then the President definitely now believes in X without a doubt!), and the fairytale and extreme idea that we're somehow headed towards the apocalypse if Barack Obama were to serve an additional term. You sound like a paranoid grandma. Time to get real.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the cause of blacks in jail is not from welfare, .

so then why is the liberal so afraid to tell us why they went to jail exactly when LBJ subjected them to liberal welfare??? what does your fear tell you??

"We could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism"- Walter Williams

 

[UpAndAbout]

I think there's valid arguments on both sides.

sadly if you're independent it means you're independent of the brains to make a decision. Hope you don't go crazy in the voting booth flip flopping in a small space like that?

Also, you say you're confused about welfare? How stupid is that when its been growing for 50 years and 50% of black men are in jail? If it grows and fails for another 50 years will you still be confused??

See why we say liberals are slow? If you had lived in 1930's Germany you would have been confused between Nazis and Communists! Please pass on this great lesson I have shared with you, liberal. Thanks

I believe what is meant is that welfare was not or at least should not be seen as a way of life. It is a temporary, last resort kind of thing. When my cousin years ago faced divorce and had a small child to raise, she did the math. She made more working at JC Penney even minimum wage than she would have receiving welfare. In order to get welfare, you can have NO assets, none. With no assets going in and a mere pittance doled out as payments, how are you supposed to get ahead? And if you become convinced that you deserve it and the rest of us got where we are because of luck, from our parents (that's a laugh in MY case), on the backs of somebody else, etc., then that's it, you're on the government dole forever and of course you are going to vote Democrat because you believe people like Chris Matthews who tell you the mean old Republicans want you to finish high school and eventually become self-sufficient. So since you are gullible and have no pride you stay on welfare.