The Two Basic Types of Liberal

Southern Man said:
In case you didn't read the papers in 2004 little man, the Democrats ran John Kerry of Massachusetts against Bush back then. As a conservative, I would obviously vote against Kerry even though Bush had far from a perfect conservative record.

I don't think that you realize what side that I am on. I have consistently championed the Conservative cause, and only defended the GOP when they have sided with it. The Democrat sides with it so infrequently, at least at the national level, that they are largely to be ignored.
Click to expand...

So as long as you go with the lesser of two evils, you can claim to be doing good?

Your statement does not change the truth of what I said. The result is the same.
 
Solitary said:
So as long as you go with the lesser of two evils, you can claim to be doing good?

Your statement does not change the truth of what I said. The result is the same.
Click to expand...
Going with the lesser is better than the alternative, which is what we have now.
 
Southern Man said:
Going with the lesser is better than the alternative, which is what we have now.
Click to expand...

The better alternative would be to vote for a third party candidate that actually fits what you believe.

And going with the lesser evil to prevent the worse evil from getting into office is not all bad. But it galls me when someone tries to portray the democrats as socialist when the republicans are doing the same thing.
 
Solitary said:
The better alternative would be to vote for a third party candidate that actually fits what you believe.

And going with the lesser evil to prevent the worse evil from getting into office is not all bad. But it galls me when someone tries to portray the democrats as socialist when the republicans are doing the same thing.
Click to expand...

It's amazing to me how some liberals will actually run to this "all politicians are bad" rhetoric, when they can't really refute what is said about liberalism. It is a stupid alternative to vote for a third party which has absolutely no chance to win an election. I would argue, you are better off not voting at all.

Yes... I will agree, the best way to tell if a politician is lying to you, is if you see his lips moving! That said, fiscal conservatives have never embraced socialist policy... never! The last two Republicans we had as presidents, were not fiscal conservatives, they were social conservatives, and for some odd reason, the social conservatives tend to lean toward socialistic solutions to the social problems. This shouldn't be confused with "all republicans" or even a majority of them, and the response from Republicans outraged at Bush spending, is a testament to this.

One could argue, we have been a somewhat "socialist" nation since FDR, but the agenda of the modern left is pure Communist socialism. The right wants to move away from the socialist policies of FDR and LBJ, and embrace capitalism and free market solutions. It's difficult because the "smart libs" have been very successful at brainwashing the "dumb libs" and what they say, sounds good to the masses. It's easy to convince a dumb ass that cutting taxes is not good for the people, it seems to make sense to them, cut taxes = less money to spend... less money to spend = worse for us! The reality is, cutting taxes encourages growth and prosperity, and results in actually increasing tax revenues.
 
Dixie said:
It's amazing to me how some liberals will actually run to this "all politicians are bad" rhetoric, when they can't really refute what is said about liberalism. It is a stupid alternative to vote for a third party which has absolutely no chance to win an election. I would argue, you are better off not voting at all.

Yes... I will agree, the best way to tell if a politician is lying to you, is if you see his lips moving! That said, fiscal conservatives have never embraced socialist policy... never! The last two Republicans we had as presidents, were not fiscal conservatives, they were social conservatives, and for some odd reason, the social conservatives tend to lean toward socialistic solutions to the social problems. This shouldn't be confused with "all republicans" or even a majority of them, and the response from Republicans outraged at Bush spending, is a testament to this.

One could argue, we have been a somewhat "socialist" nation since FDR, but the agenda of the modern left is pure Communist socialism. The right wants to move away from the socialist policies of FDR and LBJ, and embrace capitalism and free market solutions. It's difficult because the "smart libs" have been very successful at brainwashing the "dumb libs" and what they say, sounds good to the masses. It's easy to convince a dumb ass that cutting taxes is not good for the people, it seems to make sense to them, cut taxes = less money to spend... less money to spend = worse for us! The reality is, cutting taxes encourages growth and prosperity, and results in actually increasing tax revenues.
Click to expand...

What right is it you are talking about? The right elected Bush and you supported him as recently as last May. Now he is not what you wanted? lmao Nice dance.
 
Mottleydude said:
It's all ready happened earlier this year Desh. Some wacko walked into a church and opened fired because he hates liberals. As far as I'm concern the right wing propagandist who spread this hate have blood on their hands. They should be held accountable.
Click to expand...

Not possible - conservative rhetoric would tell a psycho to stay away from a Church, as its the last place that Godless liberals are going to be found.

evince said:
Do you remember all the vitriol on the right about liberals and waco?


Now tell me how a completely R government fixed the Great Wrong of Waco?

they did nothing huh?

You know why?

because it was a load of crap right form the start.
Click to expand...

So Waco was a wonderful moment for our country. Thanks, Desh, I never knew.
 
Solitary said:
The better alternative would be to vote for a third party candidate that actually fits what you believe.

And going with the lesser evil to prevent the worse evil from getting into office is not all bad. But it galls me when someone tries to portray the democrats as socialist when the republicans are doing the same thing.
Click to expand...

That would be really dumb, making in essence a protest vote, which in effect gives the most liberal candidate your vote.

Since socialism is the end game of liberalism, this would of course get us there as quickly as possible.
 
Southern Man said:
That would be really dumb, making in essence a protest vote, which in effect gives the most liberal candidate your vote.

Since socialism is the end game of liberalism, this would of course get us there as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...

The candidate that most fits your ideological positions and has the best chance to win is who you vote for; except in the primaries where you get to vote your dream candidate.
 
Ice Dancer said:
The candidate that most fits your ideological positions and has the best chance to win is who you vote for; except in the primaries where you get to vote your dream candidate.
Click to expand...
That's been exactly my strategy, and advice, to anyone. In the NC Primary I voted for Alan Keyes. That was my protest vote and I hoped McCain got the message.
 
Solitary said:
What right is it you are talking about? The right elected Bush and you supported him as recently as last May. Now he is not what you wanted? lmao Nice dance.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not the one dancing, that would be you. And such a cute dance it is! Pretending that no right-winger ever had any problems with Bush, when the fucking internet is chock full of conservative right wing blogs to the contrary. What do you call that cute little dance, Sol? The Bullshit Won't Melt in My Mouth Shuffle?

If you want to go back and look at the FP.com archives, you will find threads I posted, outlining the things I disliked about Bush. I have reiterated those thoughts here on a number of occasions, but to surmise, my primary beefs with Bush were his liberal spending, and failure to do something about illegal immigration. I was also disappointed that we didn't get the promised "vouchers" program, instead he turned over the Education bill to Ted Kennedy and the teachers union.

Yeah, I supported Bush over the brain-dead idiots thrown up by the left... John Kerry... Al Gore... I mean, not exactly an "improvement" from the standpoint of a conservative. You somehow want to argue that conservatives should have voted for Democrats? Yep... one helluva convoluted dance you have there, Sol!
 
Dixie said:
You can also tell which are the "dumb libs" and which are the "smart libs." The "smart" ones tend to make more personal attacks, and divert the conversation... the "dumb" ones try to reverse the argument and pretend conservatives are the ones with an agenda to destroy capitalism.
Click to expand...

LMAO - I hope your feet were up when you wrote that BS, after Bush Jr managed not only to destroy capitalism, he turned to our core principles of law and wrecked them too. LOL

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.wolfe.html


"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." Proverbs 31:8-9
 
Southern Man said:
That would be really dumb, making in essence a protest vote, which in effect gives the most liberal candidate your vote.

Since socialism is the end game of liberalism, this would of course get us there as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...

The whole idea that voting for a third party candidate is wasting your vote is just bullshit started by the 2 big parties.

It is spouted every election so they can maintain their numbers despite their dismal failure to live up to their promises.

Both sides do it.




And until the population does something about it, they will continue to do so.
 
Actually, his analysis of liberals was pretty right on. But he still fails to see that the republican party is also on board with the control scheme with their internationalist fascist obsession.
 
Southern Man said:
Blah, blah, blah.

Can you name one national election where a third party candidate won?
Click to expand...

No, which does not contradict my statement. In fact, it proves the propaganda spewed by the two parties.


Can you name one administration in the last 20 years that did what it claimed it would?
 
Solitary said:
No, which does not contradict my statement. In fact, it proves the propaganda spewed by the two parties.


Can you name one administration in the last 20 years that did what it claimed it would?
Click to expand...

1. It proves the foolishness of voting for a third party.
2. Reagan cut taxes and kept us safe like he said he would. So did Bush 43.
 
Southern Man said:
1. It proves the foolishness of voting for a third party.
2. Reagan cut taxes and kept us safe like he said he would. So did Bush 43.
Click to expand...

No, it does not prove any such thing. If people would vote their beliefs instead of following the party line, we would have broken the gridlock years ago. There is a constant whining about how the party does not follow thru on promises. There is a constant whining from liberals that their candidates win and then aren't liberal enough. There is constant whining from conservatives that their candidate wins and is not conservative enough.

The cure for that is to break the stalemate. All it takes is for people to stop following blindly behind the party that has failed them time and again.

Reagan was more than 20 years ago. Bush 43 kept his promise about taxes and thats about it. He still increased the size of the government (socialism) significantly.
 
Solitary said:
The whole idea that voting for a third party candidate is wasting your vote is just bullshit started by the 2 big parties.

It is spouted every election so they can maintain their numbers despite their dismal failure to live up to their promises.

Both sides do it.




And until the population does something about it, they will continue to do so.
Click to expand...

What third party candidate has ever won a primary?
 
Solitary said:
No, it does not prove any such thing. If people would vote their beliefs instead of following the party line, we would have broken the gridlock years ago. There is a constant whining about how the party does not follow thru on promises. There is a constant whining from liberals that their candidates win and then aren't liberal enough. There is constant whining from conservatives that their candidate wins and is not conservative enough.

The cure for that is to break the stalemate. All it takes is for people to stop following blindly behind the party that has failed them time and again.

Reagan was more than 20 years ago. Bush 43 kept his promise about taxes and thats about it. He still increased the size of the government (socialism) significantly.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you what. You and your ilk can continue to vote for Ralph Nadar. Meanwhile I'll vote for the least liberal that has a chance of winning. Between these two tactics fewer Democrats will get elected, which can only be a good thing.

Your artificial deadline of 20 years is a mere blink in US history and therefore meaningless. You conveniently forgot to acknowledge that Bush 43 kept us safe. I m very doubtful that your man Obama will be able to do the same with his "talk nice" policy. When NYC goes nuclear it will be fun watching him fly above the country all safe inside Air Force One.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top