Printable View
I remember (this is at least 13 years ago) Bush senior making a statement duing one of his State of the Union addresses. He basically said that liberals were people who couldn't relax or sleep at night because they were too worried that someone, somewhere, might be having a good time.
Amazing how one's views are so distorted. I will only submit this one post because like my father always said, don't argue with a fool or you will become one yourself.
Neocons should look at themselves just a bit more closely. They have become, perhaps, the most hateful / corrupt party in our history.
They hate gays and lesbians.
They hate evolution and anything else having to do with scientific fact-like global warming, polution, etc.
They pretty much hate anyone who isn't white.
They hate anyone who isn't a religous fanatic--like themselves.
They love only the rich and powerful, thus they hate the poor, the weak.
They hate protecting the environment-money / greed is more important.
They hate the UN and any country that disagrees with them.
They are also the most hypocritical:
They believe in less government and fiscal restraint- yet they are responsible for the largest deficit in our history (now and when Reagan was Prez)
They want Amendments against:
Burning the flag.
Gay marriage.
Prayer in school (amendment for this)
How is that keeping government out of our lives and out of our bedrooms?
Corruption-ever hear of:
Halliburton.
Oil companies.
Soft corporate money.
Sorry for the rant.
Stowe
[QUOTE=One Tree Hill]Why is it that almost without exception the most hateful, venomous, unhappy, sad and resentful people are usually liberals?
Why is it that liberals almost always resort to name calling and mean spiritedness?
Why is it that liberals can not engage in political banter with out making it personal?
Why is it that liberals who detest censorship of any type are always trying to censor others?
This should be interesting.
(BTW - democrat does not always = liberal)[/QUOTE]Is it liberals that ban books because some knowledge may "corrupt" our youth or would that be conservatives.
Liberals and name calling? Would it have been a liberal that put a poll in the field during the 2000 primary's asking people in the south if they would vote for John McCain knowing he was the Father of an illegitamate black child? (Hint GW's hatchet man Carl Rove, brilliant move though totally lacking in ethics but brilliant)
The liberals I knw don't resort to name calling but if saying our President and his administration is a corrupt disgrace is name calling then I'm guilty. However I'm also prepared to defend why I think that is true if you are prepared to rebut with facts. Most of the NeoCons I know resort to sound bites when debating.
Actually though I don't think of myself as a liberal. I detest fanatasism of any kind. I think I'm pretty moderate. I believe that less government is better (don't even try to talk about tax and spend Dems it's your guys that are increasing the size of Government not ours) I believe that if Bob and Bob want to get married they should be able to. I believe if your church doesn't want to marry Bob and Bob they shouldn't have to. I believe that like me, government should balance their fucking checkbook. I believe the founders wanted us to have guns in case we ever needed to kick the bastards out. Assault weapons work best. I think it's better to keep serial killers alive in prison so they can be passed around like packs of cigaretts for the rest of their life. I think that the reason prohibition was repealed (you can't keep people from doing what they want to do) is good enough reason to stop crowding the prisons with reefer people. I believe their should be term limits in congress, that it should pay worse and that legislators should NOT be able to exempt themselves from the law. I believe that the power to call special investigative commitees should rest with the party NOT in power but if nothing comes from the investigation all costs should come from the reelection funds of whoever called it.
OTH I do like your posts about pussy but you haven't said shit about what you believe here. All you have done is repeat the tired sound bites you hear from Rush and off of Fox (choke choke) news. Tell me what you think I believe as a liberal, and then tell me in measured words that have a basis in fact not conjecture why you think I'm wrong for believing it. Honestly I don't think you have the stones for it. I think all we will see is another hate rant.
Sadly you had to throw in a personal attack for good measure.
"Honestly I don't think you have the stones for it."
That is why you get NO response."No Soup for You!"
No more mindless banter. Got a weekend visitor arrivng in mere hours.
I will busy for the next three days.
BTW - She is a republican that is very liberal in tha sack!!
[QUOTE=One Tree Hill]Sadly you had to throw in a personal attack for good measure.
"Honestly I don't think you have the stones for it."
That is why you get NO response."No Soup for You!"[/QUOTE]An attack would have been "You don't have the stones for it" and opinion is "I don't think you have the stones for it". In any event it seems I was right.
Check it out. The Bush Administration thinks Roe vs. Wade means two good ways to evacuate a flooded city.
[QUOTE=Dickhead]Check it out. The Bush Administration thinks Roe vs. Wade means two good ways to evacuate a flooded city.[/QUOTE]ROTFLMAO!
Damn it! Now I gotta clean off the coffee I spewed on the monitor!
Thanks alot DH!
This is for One Tree Hill, Moore, or anyone else willing to admit that they support the party of the religious extremists and Bush: Why are you not absolutely terrified that your ability to enjoy sex by contract (the raison d'etre of this forum) will be taken away even more severely than it has been already? Along with a host of other liberties? With "your team" on the "sup court" will you be jacking off to pictures stashed away in 5 years because this forum has been outlawed, along with sexy pictures; or there is a law making it illegal for an American to contract a prostitute anywhere in the world (similar to the underage sex law)?
One Tree, we have talked a few times, and I know from your posts that you are a young man who enjoys sex with women. You have a lot of years to worry about. I probably won't be ABLE to have sex in 5 years, but will probably just break the law if I am able, having little to lose. But you will have a serious problem if we end up with 5 Scalia types on the "sup court". How do you sleep? This is what DH was referring to about the illogic of Republicans being mongers.
Daddy Rulz, I loved your talk about becoming Libertarian. I have been thinking exactly the same way for years. I was Republican in the 70's, but started switching to the Dems because of the Reagan years. But the Dems scare me now, too. Where are the Jeffersonian democrats when we need them?
Dickhead, since you studied Guatemala, you should start following what looks like Guatemala revisited, possibly worse.
There was a lot of press in Paraguay about the US troops when I was there May-July, most of it negative. They were especially unhappy about the US forcing the legal immunity for the troops down their throats. But it appears that worse is still to come.
I have seen a few pieces that say the US is lying about building a base in Paraguay (which seems obvious, actually) and is building one in the Chaco in the gas fields, not far from Bolivia. The immediate purpose of the troops is ostensibly to support Paraguay and fight terrorism in the triple frontier. But it seems the real reason is the gas and oil in Bolivia, and probably the gas in the Chaco. It seems that the lies and bullying are incredibly brazen. Of course, the US is starting to worry a little about Brazil, and would like a base a little closer to them as well, I suspect.
Bolivia has unrest because the people want to nationalize the gas and oil, the energy companies want to steal it. It seems that the energy interests are trying to foment a secessionist movement to separate the provinces with the oil and gas, if necessary. If that happens, there will be massive unrest, possibly civil war. The US, with a base in the area, will obviously support the interests of the energy companies and help them steal the oil and gas. Always talking about the "rule of law" at the same time, of course. Interestingly, the same sort of situation could develop with the gas in Paraguay, with an attempt to split the gas containing Chaco from Paraguay. There are few people up there, and the energy companies will probably soon control the area if the gas looks viable. We could have unrest again in Paraguay as well.
This situation is developing now, so stay tuned. As this develops, we could see Americans become even more unwelcome in Brazil, Bolivia, and Paraguay. And Argentina could become very upset with the US as well.
Read NewAmericanCentury. Org. This is a 98 page manifesto written in the late 1990's but a bunch of Necons on how the US should develop a military base in the Middle East to protect our oil interests, develop a base in South America and increase our military influence in Asia.
It also advocated bankrupting the country as an excuse to force the elimination of Medicare, Social Security, welfare and all other 'government' programs (aren't the military and corporate welfare government programs?
7 of the authors were subsequently placed in the Bush administration-the most notible, Paul Wolfewitz (spelling? And based on currently trends, most, if not all, of those recommendations by the authors is exactly what is happening now.
However, Republicans don't want to know the truth. Consider the 200 billion Bush has said we may have to pay for New Orleans. Bush says fuck raising taxes or even eliminating the tax cuts on the rich. Just increase the debt more. Another push toward bankrupting this country and possbily destroying more lives than the Great Depression ever did.
I thought it was the Republicans that were fiscal conservatives.
When Reagan took office the debt was only around 500 billion-manageable. This was a debt created over 35 years. 8 years later after he left it was over 4 trillion. When Bush 2 took office we had a forecasted trillion dollar surplus. We are now projected to have a debt of close to 7-8 trillion in 10 years.
Sorry, I should blind some people with facts.
Suerte,
Stowe
Anybody interested in talking about pussy? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?
"When Reagan took office the debt was only around 500 billion-manageable. This was a debt created over 35 years. 8 years later after he left it was over 4 trillion."
1) Presidents do not make budgets nor appropriate money. Congress does. What party held the Senate and Congress during the Reagan years?
2) Reagan tax cuts resulted in a near doubling of IRS revenues in 8 Years.
3) The democratically held house / senate traded Reagans desire to rebuild our military (remember the Carter fiasco?) And accordingly appropriated funds, for their spending spree on social issues and other pork.
4) Did the trade pay off? Well we went from 22% interest rates to near 5% and had the biggest economic recovery in our history. We also gained respect militarily and quickend the end of the Soviet Empire.
Isn't it nice not to have discussions of pending nuclear destruction and global destruction? Of course we could have been nice and made friends with the soviets like the libs wanted and dismantled our weapons while allowing them to keep theirs a show of good faith). On second thought fuck that. Strength gets peace not bleeding hearts.
Total IRS tax revenues During the Reagan era:
1980 $519,375,273 Coming in to office.
1981 $606,799,103
1982 $632,240,506
1983 $627,246,793
1984 $680,475,229
1985 $742,871,541
1986 $782,251,812
1987 $886,290,590
1988 $935,106,594
1989 $1,013,322,133 Leaving office.
[url]http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04db07co.xls[/url]
Cutting taxes has NOTHING to do with creating national debt in this case. Its all about spending. Especially considering a near doubling of revenues in 8 yrs.
Bueller?
Bueller?
Bueller?