The Left Really Just Hates freedom

[LibocalypseNow]

Freedom really does feel good. We should try giving our people more of it here in this country. Let the people eat their salt and hamburgers. I assure you Socialists/Progressives that Anarchy & Chaos will not ensue.

 

[Political Junky]

I give liberals a hard time, but to be honest, I don't really mind people having liberal ideas. It's just that it seems like there's a heaping dose of hippy-dippy, do-your-own-thing narcissism that comes along with modern-day liberals that's off-putting.

Cons hate any kind of regulation that might deny them the right to do whatever they want.

 

[editec]

Once upon a time, people had more ******* manners.

Ya' got that right.


But ya know...when you propagandize people into thinking that their neighbors are the problem, instead of their leaders who are making ALL the decisions, basic human civility eventually flies out the window.


Let me give you one example...Illegal immigrants.


We're blaming the MEXICANS for coming here, but NOT the leadership (of both parties) who have enccouraged they're coming here?

The party partians blame it, depending on their particular POV, on the OTHER party when BOTH parties signed onto this policy?

If you partisans spent half as much time reading about what really going on, instead of listening to hate mongering partisan talking heads, this nation would have a decent government because you'd elect people who were not lying scumbags.

But you get off on hate, you partisans. Plus most of you are cowards, which means even if you know the guy in charge is nuts, you'll still go after whatever scapegoat you're ordered to go after, too.

This board, and every other one like it I've ever posted on, proves to me that the concept of original sin is essentially correct.

We are, generally speaking, bad monkeys.

And VERY SMART SOCIOPATHIC monkeys are in charge of the troop.

Shoot! Now I'm craving a banana

 

[Amanda]

Once upon a time, people had more ******* manners.

Ya' got that right.


But ya know...when you propagandize people into thinking that their neighbors are the problem, instead of their leaders who are making ALL the decisions, basic human civility eventually flies out the window.


Let me give you one example...Illegal immigrants.


We're blaming the MEXICANS for coming here, but NOT the leadership (of both parties) who have enccouraged they're coming here?

The party partians blame it, depending on their particular POV, on the OTHER party when BOTH parties signed onto this policy?

If you partisans spent half as much time reading about what really going on, instead of listening to hate mongering partisan talking heads, this nation would have a decent government because you'd elect people who were not lying scumbags.

But you get off on hate, you partisans. Plus most of you are cowards, which means even if you know the guy in charge is nuts, you'll still go after whatever scapegoat you're ordered to go after, too.

This board, and every other one like it I've ever posted on, proves to me that the concept of original sin is essentially correct.

We are, generally speaking, bad monkeys.

And VERY SMART SOCIOPATHIC monkeys are in charge of the troop.

Shoot! Now I'm craving a banana

When do we begin to hold individuals responsible for their actions? I can encourage you to take more cookies from the jar than are your fair share, but if you actually do it, aren't you the 1 to blame? Aren't the individuals that commit crimes responsible for their own actions? How does culpability get transferred? I would agree that politicians can be and are assholes, serving their own agendas, but when do we stop and hold individuals responsible for what they've done? Is there no personal responsibility in liberal-land? It doesn't seem like it, but maybe you can set me straight.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Hey some Liberal beliefs are good & wise beliefs just as some Conservative beliefs are. The problem is that many of today's so-called "Liberals" are not real Liberals. They are Socialists/Progressives instead. There is a difference. A real Liberal would not support Fat Police Gestapos and stuff like that. Real Liberals also believe in Free Speech and that's just not something i see in today's Socialists/Progressives. Most of today's Democrats are no longer real Liberals. They have become militant Socialists/Progressives at this point. Hey that's just how i see it anyway. Freedom & Liberty are always the right way to go. More people just need to stand up for this before it's too late.

 

[georgephillip]

"The men screamed terrible insults at the women and sometimes beat them.

"By fall, ordinary aspects of Fatin's life had become punishable by death. The 'misery gangs' as Fatin calls them, were routinely killing women for wearing pants, appearing in public without a headscarf, or shaking hands and socializing with men."

Are you asserting that the men in question were American Republicans? Or could it be that they were just garden variety Islamic Fundamentalists doing what they've been doing to women since long before this country existed?

You're as bad as Jake for using these women's plight to serve a political agenda. Seriously, what are you doing to make it better besides blaming the US? We didn't invent Islam and we don't hold guns to anyone's head to make them behave the way they do. If you want to blame someone for the situation these women find themselves in why not look to the men that are actually hurting them?

American Republicans (mostly) launched the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq that put the guns in the hands of Fatin's misery gangs.

By International law, not that most American Republicans care, the US military was obligated to protect Fatin and her sisters. Instead some of the misery gangs obtained their weapons from the same political parties the US brought to power.

"While the Pentagon was arming militias bent on brutally ousting Iraqi women from public life, the US State Department was busy brokering the new Iraqi Constitution.

"Hailed as 'progressive' and 'democratic' in Washington, the new constitution designates religious law, which discriminates against women, as the basis for all legislation.

"It also restricts women's rights by upending one of the most progressive family status laws in the Middle East--a law Iraqi women fought for and won in 1959, before Saddam Hussein took power.

"For Fatin, the bitter irony is that her new constitution, courtesy of the USA, destroyed women's rights that were once guaranteed in Iraq, even under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein."

 

[Amanda]

"The men screamed terrible insults at the women and sometimes beat them.

"By fall, ordinary aspects of Fatin's life had become punishable by death. The 'misery gangs' as Fatin calls them, were routinely killing women for wearing pants, appearing in public without a headscarf, or shaking hands and socializing with men."

Are you asserting that the men in question were American Republicans? Or could it be that they were just garden variety Islamic Fundamentalists doing what they've been doing to women since long before this country existed?

You're as bad as Jake for using these women's plight to serve a political agenda. Seriously, what are you doing to make it better besides blaming the US? We didn't invent Islam and we don't hold guns to anyone's head to make them behave the way they do. If you want to blame someone for the situation these women find themselves in why not look to the men that are actually hurting them?

American Republicans (mostly) launched the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq that put the guns in the hands of Fatin's misery gangs.

By International law, not that most American Republicans care, the US military was obligated to protect Fatin and her sisters. Instead some of the misery gangs obtained their weapons from the same political parties the US brought to power.

"While the Pentagon was arming militias bent on brutally ousting Iraqi women from public life, the US State Department was busy brokering the new Iraqi Constitution.

"Hailed as 'progressive' and 'democratic' in Washington, the new constitution designates religious law, which discriminates against women, as the basis for all legislation.

"It also restricts women's rights by upending one of the most progressive family status laws in the Middle East--a law Iraqi women fought for and won in 1959, before Saddam Hussein took power.

"For Fatin, the bitter irony is that her new constitution, courtesy of the USA, destroyed women's rights that were once guaranteed in Iraq, even under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein."

So you're citing a politically biased commentary site as a news source?

Nice try, but... FAIL.

Why not address that REAL source of these women's plight - Fundamentalist Islam. Oh no, you can't do that. People being responsible for their actions is just too much.

 

[georgephillip]

Are you asserting that the men in question were American Republicans? Or could it be that they were just garden variety Islamic Fundamentalists doing what they've been doing to women since long before this country existed?

You're as bad as Jake for using these women's plight to serve a political agenda. Seriously, what are you doing to make it better besides blaming the US? We didn't invent Islam and we don't hold guns to anyone's head to make them behave the way they do. If you want to blame someone for the situation these women find themselves in why not look to the men that are actually hurting them?

American Republicans (mostly) launched the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq that put the guns in the hands of Fatin's misery gangs.

By International law, not that most American Republicans care, the US military was obligated to protect Fatin and her sisters. Instead some of the misery gangs obtained their weapons from the same political parties the US brought to power.

"While the Pentagon was arming militias bent on brutally ousting Iraqi women from public life, the US State Department was busy brokering the new Iraqi Constitution.

"Hailed as 'progressive' and 'democratic' in Washington, the new constitution designates religious law, which discriminates against women, as the basis for all legislation.

"It also restricts women's rights by upending one of the most progressive family status laws in the Middle East--a law Iraqi women fought for and won in 1959, before Saddam Hussein took power.

"For Fatin, the bitter irony is that her new constitution, courtesy of the USA, destroyed women's rights that were once guaranteed in Iraq, even under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein."

So you're citing a politically biased commentary site as a news source?

Nice try, but... FAIL.

Why not address that REAL source of these women's plight - Fundamentalist Islam. Oh no, you can't do that. People being responsible for their actions is just too much.

A "politically biased commentary site" whose founder has been reporting from Iraq since the 1970s.

If your brother becomes one of the 126 veterans every week who commits suicide, to what extent will you hold him personally responsible?

War is a Racket.

 

[JakeStarkey]

American Republicans (mostly) launched the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq that put the guns in the hands of Fatin's misery gangs.

By International law, not that most American Republicans care, the US military was obligated to protect Fatin and her sisters. Instead some of the misery gangs obtained their weapons from the same political parties the US brought to power.

"While the Pentagon was arming militias bent on brutally ousting Iraqi women from public life, the US State Department was busy brokering the new Iraqi Constitution.

"Hailed as 'progressive' and 'democratic' in Washington, the new constitution designates religious law, which discriminates against women, as the basis for all legislation.

"It also restricts women's rights by upending one of the most progressive family status laws in the Middle East--a law Iraqi women fought for and won in 1959, before Saddam Hussein took power.

"For Fatin, the bitter irony is that her new constitution, courtesy of the USA, destroyed women's rights that were once guaranteed in Iraq, even under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein."

So you're citing a politically biased commentary site as a news source?

Nice try, but... FAIL.

Why not address that REAL source of these women's plight - Fundamentalist Islam. Oh no, you can't do that. People being responsible for their actions is just too much.

A "politically biased commentary site" whose founder has been reporting from Iraq since the 1970s.

If your brother becomes one of the 126 veterans every week who commits suicide, to what extent will you hold him personally responsible?

War is a Racket.

Out of bounds, georgephillip, family is out of bounds. Go read the rules of engagement for the board.

 

[Amanda]

A "politically biased commentary site" whose founder has been reporting from Iraq since the 1970s.

So what?

If your brother becomes one of the 126 veterans every week who commits suicide, to what extent will you hold him personally responsible?

I don't worry very much about my brother. I pray for the Iraqi's he may come in contact with.

 

[georgephillip]

Amanda:

Why do you pray for your brother's victims?

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Give historic examples.


Heres some on the left.

Revolution to be free from England

labor laws

ending slavery

Womens sufferage

louisaina purchase

Cumberland road

Deplomacy which Franklin used to get the frenchs help in the revolution

higher education


just off the top of my head

Asinine. The Republicans freed the slaves, and a Republican Congress passed the 19th Amendment. Republicans also overwhelmingly passed the Civil Rights legislation, but apparently you don't consider that a 'step forward?'

"higher education?" seriously? Please, I don't think that was quite vague enough....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Give historic examples.


Heres some on the left.

Revolution to be free from England

labor laws

ending slavery

Womens sufferage

louisaina purchase

Cumberland road

Deplomacy which Franklin used to get the frenchs help in the revolution

higher education


just off the top of my head

Asinine. The Republicans freed the slaves, and a Republican Congress passed the 19th Amendment. Republicans also overwhelmingly passed the Civil Rights legislation, but apparently you don't consider that a 'step forward?'

"higher education?" seriously? Please, I don't think that was quite vague enough....

Without a doubt, Republicans and the party itself have been the vanguard of progessivism and appropriate economic regulation. They are not there now is the point.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

the right wing created dhs, warrantless wiretapping, the patriot act, adn free speech zones

enough said?

Again, just plain wrong. Bush initially wanted a figurehead position to oversee the data raised by the FBI, CIA, etc; it was the Democrats who cried for an actual 'department,' - all of this is easily accessible by just a few key strokes, the fact that you're not already aware is simply your own ignorance.

FactCheck.org: DNC Radio Ad on Terrorism: Accurate (Mostly)

Kerry: We must act now to create this agency and to ensure that the United States Government is doing everything in its power to better protect its borders, coasts, cities, and towns.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Everything you are talking about was when the Republican Party was the "liberal" party. During the early civil rights, liberals left the Republican Party and moved to the Democratic Party, while Conservatives moved from the Democratic party to become the modern "Confederate Republican Party". How can you not know that?

Is it "pretend ignorance" or you really didn't know?

Wow!?! Easily one of the dumbest things I have ever read on any message board ever, and that includes threads I've come across on IMDB. You literally can't refute ignorance like that, b/c it is incapable of accepting that it is wrong in any facet of its argument - or in this case, its entire argument.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

The more I think about it the more I realize that the progressive left hates freedom more than anything. I can't think of anything they have ever done that promotes freedom in any way but I can point out what they do for power and power over others. Most conservatives are pretty content with leading their lives the way they want to without being bothered by the forced collective thinking of the left. Its sad that a country born with a new idea in this world is slowly reverting back to the old world way of thinking.

Tell all this shit to the brown americans who have to show their paperz now here in Arizona....although, this dumb racist law wont pass.

Hmm, have no idea to what you are referring; unless, you're referring to the illegal immigrants - hardly "brown americans" you ignorant racist, who now have to abide by FEDERAL LAW thru state issued enforcement. You do know that the AZ law mirrors an existing FEDERAL LAW right?

 

[georgephillip]

Are Mexicans Americans?

Why should capital cross borders more freely than labor?

 

[hortysir]

Are Mexicans Americans?

Why should capital cross borders more freely than labor?

Ask the drafters of NAFTA that, btw, was implemented long after our immigration laws.
We trade a shitload more capital and goods with China than Mexico.
So by this line of reasoning we should allow free flow of illegal Chinese???

 

[georgephillip]

Were is the US - Chinese border?

 

[hortysir]

straw for straw.....draw

It's one thing to open up the Canadian border. Nobody from north of Canada will come through.
But every country from Mexico south will be able to cross freely.
Why?
Are you really willing to hand over this country to anyone that crosses with the promise that they're only coming to work?

No one is saying that labor can't come in.
Just come through the proper channels.