Liberal Myth: Conservatives Are Outside The Mainstream

[Cecilie1200]

Liberals never thought conservatives weren't part of the Mainstream in the USA- we thought much of the mainstream was ignorant (racist?) hater numbskulls. And with the Pub Propaganda machine since the 1980's, now ignorant (racist?) hater BRAINWASHED numbskulls who think they're experts...the world is aghast...hoping for your recovery- it IS the INFORMATION Age, not the misinformation age, dittoheads.

See, Mud? Hello just proved my point.

 

[tonystewart1]

This is how the left marginalizes the right and claims the right is full of radicals:

Conservatives can’t be mainstream because it is liberals who speak for the American people. The fact that 41 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservative and only 21 percent as liberal doesn’t matter—liberals are the guardians of the genuine interests of the American people. In the liberal imagination, the political spectrum consists of left, center, right, and far right. Liberals simply define the center as somewhere near where they are and consign vast swaths of the electorate to a place outside polite society called the far right.

What do they site as their proof? The left says they stand for the working man. They support higher wages by supporting increases in the minimum wage and by supporting minorities through government mandates. They pander to their special interests. The latest is through diversity hiring inside the Department of Defense and other agencies. Thousands of employees are being retired and let go, enough so that the gains in the private sector has been cancelled out to obtain a net gain in jobs of zero.

Obama has also decided to go around Congress and essentially grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

The fact is Liberals don't speak for mainstream America. They speak for a very large group of special interests. They speak for unions, illegal aliens, Gays, , La Raza, the New Black Panthers, the NAACP, The Congressional Black Caucus, radical environmentalists, the ACLU, SEIU, ACORN, the Communist Party, every special interest you can think of they support. They only control a small portion of the land-mass of the united states but they think they run the place. So how can they say they're mainstream and conservatives are radical???

Tell me I'm wrong.

When did the left ever start speaking for the working man. If you ask most working men you would find that they think the left wants them to stop working. The left is opposed to a man making a living by the sweat of his brow.

I have never been able to understand where the left ever got the idea they speak for the majority of Americans. They really must be that arrogant.

O hai. By the left - do you mean the Democratic Farmer Labor party? THAT left??

The DFL strongly supports labor unions and I believe that unions are bad for workers not good for them.

 

[BDBoop]

Okay, and having read a great deal about how things were before unions existed, I'd say we really shouldn't be going back there. ESPECIALLY since corporate America has made it abundantly clear that they will **** over every last one of us, in the name of padding their bottom line.

 

[Shellback]

Different teachers.

Notice he didn't answer the question.

I love it when people who couldn't make a specific argument to SAVE THEIR LIVES criticize the arguments of others for being too generic.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

I'm wiping a tear here. Thank you for the laugh.

but i did....
Not my fault you have dumbass logic.

I'm highlighting this particular reply, because this is the substance (or lack of), to your argument. It doesn't matter what (correct) logic anyone brings to the argument... you're just going to stick your fingers in your ears and keep chanting, "I know you are, but what am I!?"

You've yet to provide, nor validate a single coherent argument. You're like the Monty Python pay-to-argue guy, that then does nothing, but offer up hollow contradictions. Typical Plasma. All bluster, no bite.

 

[BDBoop]

Different teachers.

Notice he didn't answer the question.

I love it when people who couldn't make a specific argument to SAVE THEIR LIVES criticize the arguments of others for being too generic.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

I'm wiping a tear here. Thank you for the laugh.

but i did....
Not my fault you have dumbass logic.

I'm highlighting this particular reply, because this is the substance (or lack of), to your argument. It doesn't matter what (correct) logic anyone brings to the argument... you're just going to stick your fingers in your ears and keep chanting, "I know you are, but what am I!?"

You've yet to provide, nor validate a single coherent argument. You're like the Monty Python pay-to-argue guy, that then does nothing, but offer up hollow contradictions. Typical Plasma. All bluster, no bite.

Typical Plasma? You've been here for eight posts and five minutes.

Whose sock are you.

 

[Shellback]

Okay, and having read a great deal about how things were before unions existed, I'd say we really shouldn't be going back there.

I highly doubt, you've read much of anything. I've found it typical of people that engage in being Post Count Police, to validate anothers' opinion... are generally lacking any education (traditionally schooled or self-taught).

Liberals crack me up. You talk all the time about how the world has changed, the Constitution is a "living, breathing document", we Conservatives are living in the dark ages. So, if you're correct (which I don't disagree with the we've changed part)... then abolishing unions, wouldn't have the same outcome as prior to their birth, correct? Today we live in an instant on, news cycle. Companies operating before unions came on the scene, when they actually did serve a purpose/need... can't get away with the same things now. Just the threat of dealing with the Selective Argument ACLU, is enough to keep most companies in line.

So... you were saying?

 

[Shellback]

but i did....
Not my fault you have dumbass logic.

I'm highlighting this particular reply, because this is the substance (or lack of), to your argument. It doesn't matter what (correct) logic anyone brings to the argument... you're just going to stick your fingers in your ears and keep chanting, "I know you are, but what am I!?"

You've yet to provide, nor validate a single coherent argument. You're like the Monty Python pay-to-argue guy, that then does nothing, but offer up hollow contradictions. Typical Plasma. All bluster, no bite.

Typical Plasma? You've been here for eight posts and five minutes.

Whose sock are you.

I'm no one's "sock", Einstein. Here's another tip for you. This isn't the only forum on the WWW, nor is it the only forum Plasma, or myself... post on.

EDIT: Oh yeah... thanks, for once again validating my thoughts on Post Count Police.

 

[BDBoop]

Okay, and having read a great deal about how things were before unions existed, I'd say we really shouldn't be going back there.

I highly doubt, you've read much of anything. I've found it typical of people that engage in being Post Count Police, to validate anothers' opinion... are generally lacking any education (traditionally schooled or self-taught).

Liberals crack me up. You talk all the time about how the world has changed, the Constitution is a "living, breathing document", we Conservatives are living in the dark ages. So, if you're correct (which I don't disagree with the we've changed part)... then abolishing unions, wouldn't have the same outcome as prior to their birth, correct? Today we live in an instant on, news cycle. Companies operating before unions came on the scene, when they actually did serve a purpose/need... can't get away with the same things now. Just the threat of dealing with the Selective Argument ACLU, is enough to keep most companies in line.

So... you were saying?

Oh, how quaint. Another mouthbreather.

Buh-bye.

 

[Shellback]

Okay, and having read a great deal about how things were before unions existed, I'd say we really shouldn't be going back there.

I highly doubt, you've read much of anything. I've found it typical of people that engage in being Post Count Police, to validate anothers' opinion... are generally lacking any education (traditionally schooled or self-taught).

Liberals crack me up. You talk all the time about how the world has changed, the Constitution is a "living, breathing document", we Conservatives are living in the dark ages. So, if you're correct (which I don't disagree with the we've changed part)... then abolishing unions, wouldn't have the same outcome as prior to their birth, correct? Today we live in an instant on, news cycle. Companies operating before unions came on the scene, when they actually did serve a purpose/need... can't get away with the same things now. Just the threat of dealing with the Selective Argument ACLU, is enough to keep most companies in line.

So... you were saying?

Oh, how quaint. Another mouthbreather.

Buh-bye.

Oh, how quaint. Another lackluster, substance-void, hit and miss, by a libtard.

Buh-bye.

 

[tonystewart1]

Okay, and having read a great deal about how things were before unions existed, I'd say we really shouldn't be going back there. ESPECIALLY since corporate America has made it abundantly clear that they will **** over every last one of us, in the name of padding their bottom line.

A little reactionary dont you think.

Big bad business learned a long time ago that keeping workers safe keeps them productive, paying a fair wage keeps workers around longer, and lawsuits suck.

 

[WillowTree]

This is how the left marginalizes the right and claims the right is full of radicals:

Conservatives can’t be mainstream because it is liberals who speak for the American people. The fact that 41 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservative and only 21 percent as liberal doesn’t matter—liberals are the guardians of the genuine interests of the American people. In the liberal imagination, the political spectrum consists of left, center, right, and far right. Liberals simply define the center as somewhere near where they are and consign vast swaths of the electorate to a place outside polite society called the far right.

What do they site as their proof? The left says they stand for the working man. They support higher wages by supporting increases in the minimum wage and by supporting minorities through government mandates. They pander to their special interests. The latest is through diversity hiring inside the Department of Defense and other agencies. Thousands of employees are being retired and let go, enough so that the gains in the private sector has been cancelled out to obtain a net gain in jobs of zero.

Obama has also decided to go around Congress and essentially grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

The fact is Liberals don't speak for mainstream America. They speak for a very large group of special interests. They speak for unions, illegal aliens, Gays, , La Raza, the New Black Panthers, the NAACP, The Congressional Black Caucus, radical environmentalists, the ACLU, SEIU, ACORN, the Communist Party, every special interest you can think of they support. They only control a small portion of the land-mass of the united states but they think they run the place. So how can they say they're mainstream and conservatives are radical???

Tell me I'm wrong.

Pretty Pathetic, yet Iron Clad control over Media and Perception, with few exceptions..

You know what's pathetic to me? The ***** cowards cover their faces up just like al quaida does. wassamatter with them,, they shamed?

 

[BDBoop]

Okay, and having read a great deal about how things were before unions existed, I'd say we really shouldn't be going back there. ESPECIALLY since corporate America has made it abundantly clear that they will **** over every last one of us, in the name of padding their bottom line.

A little reactionary dont you think.

Big bad business learned a long time ago that keeping workers safe keeps them productive, paying a fair wage keeps workers around longer, and lawsuits suck.

Bullshit. They always hire on new people, because people who have been there longer cost more.

Job longevity, she ain't what she used to be.

 

[tonystewart1]

Okay, and having read a great deal about how things were before unions existed, I'd say we really shouldn't be going back there. ESPECIALLY since corporate America has made it abundantly clear that they will **** over every last one of us, in the name of padding their bottom line.

A little reactionary dont you think.

Big bad business learned a long time ago that keeping workers safe keeps them productive, paying a fair wage keeps workers around longer, and lawsuits suck.

Bullshit. They always hire on new people, because people who have been there longer cost more.

Job longevity, she ain't what she used to be.

No one works for one company their entire lives anymore. You pick and industry and expect to work for several different companies as time goes on.

 

[Shellback]

so who are you with 12 posts to say typical. Need to hide under a new name huh.

OMG! Another of the Post Count Police!

How many are there? Do they get badges? Do they have to reveal themselves? Can they serve warrants?

Really? Are you two, really this ******* stupid? Let this sink in, dipshit. There are such things as new members. I've never posted anything on this message board, than the current sum of my posts, listed for this moniker. I'm not someone else. I'm me. Google is a wonderful tool. Sometimes, I'll follow links for a good amount of time, just enjoying what I stumble onto. Sometimes, I'll even stick around new places. Sometimes, I'll see some ******* tool, from another forum.

Shocking, I know. Terribly difficult for your pea-brain to work-thru? Obvious.

 

[Big Fitz]

This is how the left marginalizes the right and claims the right is full of radicals:

Conservatives can’t be mainstream because it is liberals who speak for the American people. The fact that 41 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservative and only 21 percent as liberal doesn’t matter—liberals are the guardians of the genuine interests of the American people. In the liberal imagination, the political spectrum consists of left, center, right, and far right. Liberals simply define the center as somewhere near where they are and consign vast swaths of the electorate to a place outside polite society called the far right.

What do they site as their proof? The left says they stand for the working man. They support higher wages by supporting increases in the minimum wage and by supporting minorities through government mandates. They pander to their special interests. The latest is through diversity hiring inside the Department of Defense and other agencies. Thousands of employees are being retired and let go, enough so that the gains in the private sector has been cancelled out to obtain a net gain in jobs of zero.

Obama has also decided to go around Congress and essentially grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

The fact is Liberals don't speak for mainstream America. They speak for a very large group of special interests. They speak for unions, illegal aliens, Gays, , La Raza, the New Black Panthers, the NAACP, The Congressional Black Caucus, radical environmentalists, the ACLU, SEIU, ACORN, the Communist Party, every special interest you can think of they support. They only control a small portion of the land-mass of the united states but they think they run the place. So how can they say they're mainstream and conservatives are radical???

Tell me I'm wrong.

ok your wrong, there i said it. I've already seen this argument before by Rabbi. It was stupid then and is stupid now.

Yep.

The majority of people in this country do not identify themselves as conservatives.

And you can see conservatives acknowledging that at every turn by their denigration of Democracy and efforts to squelch or completely squash the popular vote.

And a larger majority of Americans don't identify themselves as Liberal.

Nice example of how the left lies. By selective omission and outright distortion based on faulty premise and selective editing of events and data.

 

[IndependntLogic]

This is how the left marginalizes the right and claims the right is full of radicals:

Conservatives can’t be mainstream because it is liberals who speak for the American people. The fact that 41 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservative and only 21 percent as liberal doesn’t matter—liberals are the guardians of the genuine interests of the American people. In the liberal imagination, the political spectrum consists of left, center, right, and far right. Liberals simply define the center as somewhere near where they are and consign vast swaths of the electorate to a place outside polite society called the far right.

What do they site as their proof? The left says they stand for the working man. They support higher wages by supporting increases in the minimum wage and by supporting minorities through government mandates. They pander to their special interests. The latest is through diversity hiring inside the Department of Defense and other agencies. Thousands of employees are being retired and let go, enough so that the gains in the private sector has been cancelled out to obtain a net gain in jobs of zero.

Obama has also decided to go around Congress and essentially grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

The fact is Liberals don't speak for mainstream America. They speak for a very large group of special interests. They speak for unions, illegal aliens, Gays, , La Raza, the New Black Panthers, the NAACP, The Congressional Black Caucus, radical environmentalists, the ACLU, SEIU, ACORN, the Communist Party, every special interest you can think of they support. They only control a small portion of the land-mass of the united states but they think they run the place. So how can they say they're mainstream and conservatives are radical???

Tell me I'm wrong.

Pretty Pathetic, yet Iron Clad control over Media and Perception, with few exceptions..

You know what's pathetic to me? The ***** cowards cover their faces up just like al quaida does. wassamatter with them,, they shamed?

Well not one to nitpick but the chasm between Liberals and Anarchists is about as wide as the difference between Conservatives and Theocrats...

 

[edjax1952]

Tell me I'm wrong.

You’re wrong.

Liberals support the rule of law, as a majority of voters – via referendum or elected representatives – do not determine who may or many not have his Constitutional rights.

Consequently liberals support gays being allowed access to their 14th Amendment right to equal protection (Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas), and of undocumented immigrants their right to due process (Plyler v. Doe). They support the right of African Americans to equal treatment (Brown v. Board of Education) and Hispanics’ right to be free from discrimination (Hernandez v. Texas). They follow the law with regard to Congress’ authorization of the EPA (American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut).

The Administration’s decision to prioritize deportations based on severity of offense has nothing to do with ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ and comports to Constitutional case law with regard to undocumented immigrants and education (Plyler v. Doe). It is appropriate and desirable for an administration to allocate its agencies’ resources to best serve the people. And for one to say that the Administration’s policy with regard to deportation ‘circumvents the will of the people’ is only exhibiting his ignorance.

With regard to working class Americans and the middle class, Liberals obey laws established to protect workers’ rights, to be paid a fair wage, and work in a safe working conditions (West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, US v. Darby).

As Justice Jackson noted in West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, writing for the majority:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

They only control a small portion of the land-mass of the united states but they think they run the place. So how can they say they're mainstream and conservatives are radical???

As we see in Barnette, it’s of no matter how much ‘land mass’ a given political ideology occupies, all that matters is the acknowledgement of the rule of law and obeying the laws as interpreted by the courts in the context of the Constitution.

No, his point is that liberals lie when they portray conservatism as a "far right extremist" platform.

What we see, rather, is conservatives outside of the legal mainstream; with regard to equal protection (same sex marriage), due process (immigration, ‘1070,’ undocumented students, etc), and privacy rights (abortion).

Conservatives have become so frustrated with this fact that many have started to reject the legal edifice of the rule of law and judicial review (interpretation) altogether – in violation of the original intent of the Framers, of course.

Indeed, a conservative should be posting something along those lines soon, how the Court ‘always gets it wrong,’ or ‘goes against the will of the people,’ or similar ignorant nonsense.

So social justice wins out over equal justice anytime a supreme court decision favors a special group? What is so wrong about taking issues to congress when an injustice seems to be at hand? Could it be because it is percieved that congress will not sway to the social justice being petitioned for? Therefore is is safer to petition the courts to decide because the congress will not make those decisions out of a proper fear that the voters who put them into office would remove them if they decided as the courts do, while the Supreme Court Justices do not have that worry?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd like to think that the vast majority dont align themselves with any party.
Here is the reality of today from what i see. Yes some are hardcore liberals and conservatives. You will always have that, but in todays day and age of instant media. People tend to be a little of everything.

It really depends on the issue. I've seen "conservatives" become liberal on one subject while Liberals become conservative on other issues.

Blanket statements dont really work that well anymore when you are talking in the context of the OP.

The best thing i have seen is people tend to be fiscally conservative, but socially liberal on issues. The people like their entitlements but what them run better. That right there proves they want it both ways.

What the OP is trying to do is take the hardcore 20-30% of either party and apply it to the whole of the nation.

Thats why the OP is a fail, and why they argument is quite stupid.

Conservative and liberal aren't parties, moron. No one said anything about parties except YOU.

That's why your posts are always fails, and why your arguments are quite stupid: because you have no idea what you're talking about, and can't stick to a topic.

ah so to have a point you needed to be literal....Parties/groups/gatherings.......

**** off stupid

I realize that liberals treasure the sloppy use of words, with little regard for their meaning, precisely so that they can slip-slide their way around ever actually being called to account for what they say, but you should realize that it IS still mainstream in this country for words to mean things, and be interpreted on that basis.

"Parties, groups, and gatherings" are NOT synonyms for each other, whatever you would like to believe in order to talk about Republicans rather than conservatives. Just being a large number of people is not enough to make them the same thing; otherwise, you would be embracing the phrase "Democrat Mob" as a synonym for "Democrat Party", and I really doubt that's gonna happen.

The Boy Scouts of America are not the ACLU or the NOW, regardless of the fact that all three are "groups", and conservatives as a grouping are not the Republican Party, nor are liberals as a grouping the Democrat Party. You don't get to blur lines however you want and then criticize OTHER people for being "literal", as though that's a bad thing.

Go ahead. Show us all some more how little credibility you have for calling others "stupid", Noah Webster. English is supposed to be your mother tongue, so why are you so proud of being unable to communicate in it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, and having read a great deal about how things were before unions existed, I'd say we really shouldn't be going back there. ESPECIALLY since corporate America has made it abundantly clear that they will **** over every last one of us, in the name of padding their bottom line.

A little reactionary dont you think.

Big bad business learned a long time ago that keeping workers safe keeps them productive, paying a fair wage keeps workers around longer, and lawsuits suck.

Bullshit. They always hire on new people, because people who have been there longer cost more.

Job longevity, she ain't what she used to be.

Only a complete dumbass runs his business that way . . . which is why YOU think it's the way it's done.

 

[mudwhistle]

Pretty Pathetic, yet Iron Clad control over Media and Perception, with few exceptions..

You know what's pathetic to me? The ***** cowards cover their faces up just like al quaida does. wassamatter with them,, they shamed?

Well not one to nitpick but the chasm between Liberals and Anarchists is about as wide as the difference between Conservatives and Theocrats...

Actually the chasm is smaller between Libs and Anarchists then you think. Some of them are in the White House as we speak.