You Might Be A RINO Neo-Con If

[Classic Liberal]

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if You oppose abortion, but you promote blowing hell out of born and unborn babies and anybody else that gets in the way in the unnecessary, un-declared, un-paid-for unconstitutional foreign wars you enjoy so much.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think having American military forces in over 120 countries all over the world serving as a military police force and spending billions of American taxpayers money defending other countries who can easily afford to defend themselves is a good idea?

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that spending more on defense than all of the rest of the first world countries combined, having 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers when the rest of the world has none and China is building just “ONE,” and the American military has enough Admirals and Generals to supply the rest of the world with military leadership and still have enough left over for America, is a good idea and cutting defense spending is an atrocious insult to what is supposed to be “NATIONAL” defense.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you Think the nation should be governed by the Christian Bible instead of the Constitution.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that BIG intrusive authoritarian government was ordained by your GOD to decide what the definition of a marriage contract between agreeing adults has to be and it must conform to your religious ideas.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think it’s America’s responsibility to defend Israel against Israel’s decision to create their nation smack dab in the middle of their sworn enemies.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think Flipper Mitt Romney is a “conservative” and the Ryan Plan that balances the budget in 30 years after 15 new Congresses have their say in that matter is actually a logical policy.

[aboutime]

Thanks so much Classic Liberal. Thanks to you. None of us have any need to guess whether you are what we all know you to be.

Making typical, liberal lists like that. Only helps us understand the lack of real mentality needed by those who follow, and always pay homage to idiots like Obama.

But. Since you sound so much like Obama. Paying homage to yourself is the least of your worries.

[mundame]

Looks like you are looking for a fight ---

And that you believe:

--that promoting war and trying to prohibit abortion are logically incompatible
--you are an isolationist and want to bring all the troops home from our various forward-power-projection bases
--that it is illegitimate to have more military equipment than any other country
--you are for secularism as represented by the Constitution
--you are against government, or anyone's, interference with homosexual marriage
--you want America to let Israel sleep in the bed they made
--you don't think Romney is a conservative, whatever he says these days.


Did I get these points right?

[aboutime]

Looks like you are looking for a fight ---

And that you believe:

--that promoting war and trying to prohibit abortion are logically incompatible
--you are an isolationist and want to bring all the troops home from our various forward-power-projection bases
--that it is illegitimate to have more military equipment than any other country
--you are for secularism as represented by the Constitution
--you are against government, or anyone's, interference with homosexual marriage
--you want America to let Israel sleep in the bed they made
--you don't think Romney is a conservative, whatever he says these days.


Did I get these points right?



mundame. You'll have to ask C.L. to let you read his latest version of the DNC Talking Points Manual, or Handbook. Whatever they call it today.
Answers to your questions above WILL NOT be forthcoming. Since that Talking Points manual also instructs liberals to ALWAYS avoid answering questions with anything other than...More questions.

Just watch.

[Classic Liberal]

Thanks so much Classic Liberal. Thanks to you. None of us have any need to guess whether you are what we all know you to be.

Making typical, liberal lists like that. Only helps us understand the lack of real mentality needed by those who follow, and always pay homage to idiots like Obama.

But I’m proud to be a “TRUE” liberal and proud to promote the very, very “LIBERAL” constitutional guarantees of individual liberty enshrined in the BILL OF RIGHTS in our Constitution, aren’t you? Do you even have a clue what a “Classic Liberal” is?

Obama isn’t a “liberal,” Obama is a Leftist Socialist Communist.

[jimnyc]

You might be dumb as a rock if...

Never mind, there is no if. :lol:

[mundame]

Do you even have a clue what a “Classic Liberal” is?



Yeah, it's a political category that isn't being used anymore.

How about using the same words everyone else uses? it's less confusing for us all.

Liberal now means leftwing and conservative means rightwing. The Economist has been begging Americans to switch to that terminology for YEARS and I think they are right and I do it.

Nobody cares about "classical liberalism" because the term is out of date.

[mundame]

Besides, C.L, it's pretty obvious you are a Libertarian.

Which is fine with me.

[jimnyc]

Besides, C.L, it's pretty obvious you are a Libertarian.

Which is fine with me.

I'm confident it's fine with almost everyone. But he seems to think he must come here to insult everyone to get his point across. It's actually kind of funny watching the Ron Paul and Johnson supporters start to implode.

[gabosaurus]

You might be dumb as a rock if...

Never mind, there is no if. :lol:

You do realize where the emoticon's finger is pointing, right? :p

[Classic Liberal]

Looks like you are looking for a fight ---

And that you believe:

--that promoting war and trying to prohibit abortion are logically incompatible

Not necessarily, only when the wars are unnecessary, undeclared by the Congress, un-paid-for by the government and unconstitutional and prohibition of abortion is promoted without a constitutional amendment and contrary to the 4th amendment.


--you are an isolationist and want to bring all the troops home from our various forward-power-projection bases

Bringing the troops home isn’t isolationism, isolationism is what the RINO Neo-Cons & the DINO-Neo-Libs do when they sanction other nations. I promote the George Washington Plan of “commerce with all and entangling military alliances with none.”



--that it is illegitimate to have more military equipment than any other country

Actually I promote the idea that America should have a more and better military than anybody else in the world. I simply oppose policing the globe, building nations defending countries that can afford to defend themselves and spending taxpayer’s money on “OVERKILL” of military toys for our overstocked military brass to play with, especially when we have trillion dollar deficits and a 16 trillion dollar national debt, how about you?



--you are for secularism as represented by the Constitution

I promote the idea of separation of church and state and the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by our Constitution and thereby a nation governed by the Constitution and not the Christian Bible or any religious agenda.



--you are against government, or anyone's, interference with homosexual marriage

I oppose the idea that government or anybody has or should have the power to prohibit an “alleged” free people from making agreeable contracts among themselves of any kind. I believe in “FREEDOM” not BIG intrusive authoritarian government, how about you?



--you want America to let Israel sleep in the bed they made

Every country should have to sleep in the bed they make, don’t you think?



--you don't think Romney is a conservative, whatever he says these days.


Did I get these points right?

I don’t think Flipper Mitt Romney even has a clue what true conservatism is, do you?

[Robert A Whit]

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if You oppose abortion, but you promote blowing hell out of born and unborn babies and anybody else that gets in the way in the unnecessary, un-declared, un-paid-for unconstitutional foreign wars you enjoy so much.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think having American military forces in over 120 countries all over the world serving as a military police force and spending billions of American taxpayers money defending other countries who can easily afford to defend themselves is a good idea?

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that spending more on defense than all of the rest of the first world countries combined, having 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers when the rest of the world has none and China is building just “ONE,” and the American military has enough Admirals and Generals to supply the rest of the world with military leadership and still have enough left over for America, is a good idea and cutting defense spending is an atrocious insult to what is supposed to be “NATIONAL” defense.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you Think the nation should be governed by the Christian Bible instead of the Constitution.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that BIG intrusive authoritarian government was ordained by your GOD to decide what the definition of a marriage contract between agreeing adults has to be and it must conform to your religious ideas.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think it’s America’s responsibility to defend Israel against Israel’s decision to create their nation smack dab in the middle of their sworn enemies.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think Flipper Mitt Romney is a “conservative” and the Ryan Plan that balances the budget in 30 years after 15 new Congresses have their say in that matter is actually a logical policy.

Or, you might simply be a Democrat.

[Robert A Whit]

But I’m proud to be a “TRUE” liberal and proud to promote the very, very “LIBERAL” constitutional guarantees of individual liberty enshrined in the BILL OF RIGHTS in our Constitution, aren’t you? Do you even have a clue what a “Classic Liberal” is?

Obama isn’t a “liberal,” Obama is a Leftist Socialist Communist.

A true classic liberal would attack Obama. A true classic liberal would not write a post that makes it seem the Liberal is busy trashing Romney.

A true Liberal would have noted that almost every war this nation has been in has had Democrats as presidents.

A true classic Liberal would understand that a true neo con is much closer to being a democrat than a republican.

[mundame]

Not necessarily, only when the wars are unnecessary, undeclared by the Congress, un-paid-for by the government and unconstitutional and prohibition of abortion is promoted without a constitutional amendment and contrary to the 4th amendment.

Yes, well, there is that. I'm no fan of us losing wars for 10 years at a whack, either.




Actually I promote the idea that America should have a more and better military than anybody else in the world. I simply oppose policing the globe, building nations defending countries that can afford to defend themselves and spending taxpayer’s money on “OVERKILL” of military toys for our overstocked military brass to play with, especially when we have trillion dollar deficits and a 16 trillion dollar national debt, how about you?

I agree, of course. If the military doesn't even WANT the new toys, as it says it doesn't, well, darn. Why go deeper in debt to China to force them onto the military? Madness. I am a great fan of the new Special Forces teams and the drones. I LOVE the drones. More drones! Fewer boots on the ground!

I used to be against our being World Policeman. I have since come to think that it's a rational policy (which we may not be able to afford because of all the silly, losing, wasteful wars we indulged in) because if we don't stop WWIII, they will just drag us into it YET AGAIN -- we don't do it for them. We do it because we KNOW that everytime WWII starts up, we get dragged into it. So we stop these regional hegemons and stop the Big One. I'm sort of okay with that, but there have been problems, like the brushfire wars, especially lately when we don't bother to win anything. If we are going to have wars, I am no longer interested in losing wars. That's just so dumb.



I promote the idea of separation of church and state and the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by our Constitution and thereby a nation governed by the Constitution and not the Christian Bible or any religious agenda.

I am not as enthusiastic about the Constitution or democracy as I used to be. Before 9/11, when we all lived in the forest and no one lived anywhere else at all. However, I am also a secularist, of course.



I oppose the idea that government or anybody has or should have the power to prohibit an “alleged” free people from making agreeable contracts among themselves of any kind. I believe in “FREEDOM” not BIG intrusive authoritarian government, how about you?

There is a problem: Social security and other federal giveaways that are based on normal marriages. I don't support expanding those programs to homosexuals and man-daughter, brother-sister, Mormon polygamists, or the widow who has married her dear poodle Foo-foo.



Every country should have to sleep in the bed they make, don’t you think?

I don't know. There is an issue of alliances, and of treaties. And that Israel is the only non-evil-Muslim country in the area. They are bollixing up the situation basically forever, and should I think drive all the Palis into Syria, which richly deserves another dose of them, and make their state borders rational.



I don’t think Flipper Mitt Romney even has a clue what true conservatism is, do you?

Well, he says a conservative TODAY, but who knows what he'll be in February. Oh, you're talking about "classical liberalism," i.e., Libertarianism. Well, no, he's probably not that, whatever else he is. He doesn't seem to have any there there, that's plain. What a horrible election. One of the worst I've ever seen. Nixon/McGovern was bad; Reagan/Carter was bad; this is the worst, IMO. Repellant candidates, all of them, from the word go in the primaries and the general. I lose faith.

[jimnyc]

Hell, the majority of wars that the USA has been in since, like forever, were not declared by Congress. In fact, only 5 of them formally. So there's lots of complaining to do other than just since 2001!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

[fj1200]

Well Romney is the most conservative candidate that has a chance of winning. The rest is up to the people to demand conservatism as he was elected on and pressure Congress to pass conservative/Constitutional bills. You ultimately need to blame the people, if they don't demand Constitutionalism then they're not going to get it.

[aboutime]

But I’m proud to be a “TRUE” liberal and proud to promote the very, very “LIBERAL” constitutional guarantees of individual liberty enshrined in the BILL OF RIGHTS in our Constitution, aren’t you? Do you even have a clue what a “Classic Liberal” is?

Obama isn’t a “liberal,” Obama is a Leftist Socialist Communist.



Sure do. Are you ready? Classic (in their own minds only) Liberals are: Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank, Kennedy, Kerry,
Chris Matthews, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN. Then Joe Biden, John Edwards, Axelrod, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.....and I would be remiss if I did not include every Admitted Congressional member of the American Socialist, or Communist parties...JUST FOR STARTERS.

[fj1200]

^You reallly need to do a little more research on classic liberalism. It's far different from the liberalism of the day and its roots in progressivism.

[revelarts]

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if You oppose abortion, but you promote blowing hell out of born and unborn babies and anybody else that gets in the way in the unnecessary, un-declared, un-paid-for unconstitutional foreign wars you enjoy so much.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think having American military forces in over 120 countries all over the world serving as a military police force and spending billions of American taxpayers money defending other countries who can easily afford to defend themselves is a good idea?

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that spending more on defense than all of the rest of the first world countries combined, having 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers when the rest of the world has none and China is building just “ONE,” and the American military has enough Admirals and Generals to supply the rest of the world with military leadership and still have enough left over for America, is a good idea and cutting defense spending is an atrocious insult to what is supposed to be “NATIONAL” defense.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you Think the nation should be governed by the Christian Bible instead of the Constitution.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that BIG intrusive authoritarian government was ordained by your GOD to decide what the definition of a marriage contract between agreeing adults has to be and it must conform to your religious ideas.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think it’s America’s responsibility to defend Israel against Israel’s decision to create their nation smack dab in the middle of their sworn enemies.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think Flipper Mitt Romney is a “conservative” and the Ryan Plan that balances the budget in 30 years after 15 new Congresses have their say in that matter is actually a logical policy.



Of course I agree with most of this.
except the social convervative and Bible digs.
RHINO Neo Cons ONLY give lip service to social issues, the constitution and God.
the left gets apoplectic of any mention of God and fear a "Christian nation" like Tyr and Drummond here seem to fear the USA is going to turn Muslim any minute if we don't do something.

the RHINO Neo-cons have been talking about Abortion for 30 yrs and it's still here. Does that give a clue as to how committed they are to getting rid of it.
Compare that to the pushes to get a WARS started. They have Pushed, Promoted, fought against every left wing and constitutional obstacle, lied, cheated and stolen to get the wars going. But the Abortion and family agendas, no way, It's ... "i'm pro life but...." "I believe in the traditional family but..." " i believe the Bible but..."

They are a NEO-CON tools to get votes that's it really.


Hell, the majority of wars that the USA has been in since, like forever, were not declared by Congress. In fact, only 5 of them formally. So there's lots of complaining to do other than just since 2001!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

And Some people don't care about the Constitution or the Law as long as it's Broken consistently, and by the president, well it's OK. The President can start a war, on his own without congress, even though the constitution -which we SAY Is the law of the Land- says otherwise.
that's the bottom line.
Despite any rain of loud illegal excuses and lame personal attacks used to try to cover issue.
It's hypocrisy plain and simple. At best its selective enforcement of the doc, just like the right likes to accuse the left of.

pitiful really.
I really don't get the how folks just won't admit that they just don't like parts of the constitution and other parts they do like.

I just wish some people on the right would at least be honest and don't claim the whole doc as sacred then piss on it when it suits em and act like they did good.

[mundame]

^You reallly need to do a little more research on classic liberalism. It's far different from the liberalism of the day and its roots in progressivism.

Could we please deep-six the "classic liberalism" label? Hey, nowadays we call it Liberatarianism. Language changes. It's important to keep up.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Of course I agree with most of this.
except the social convervative and Bible digs.
RHINO Neo Cons ONLY give lip service to social issues, the constitution and God.
the left gets apoplectic of any mention of God and fear a "Christian nation" like Tyr and Drummond here seem to fear the USA is going to turn Muslim any minute if we don't do something.

the RHINO Neo-cons have been talking about Abortion for 30 yrs and it's still here. Does that give a clue as to how committed they are to getting rid of it.
Compare that to the pushes to get a WARS started. They have Pushed, Promoted, fought against every left wing and constitutional obstacle, lied, cheated and stolen to get the wars going. But the Abortion and family agendas, no way, It's ... "i'm pro life but...." "I believe in the traditional family but..." " i believe the Bible but..."

They are a NEO-CON tools to get votes that's it really.

And Some people don't care about the Constitution or the Law as long as it's Broken consistently, and by the president, well it's OK. The President can start a war, on his own without congress, even though the constitution -which we SAY Is the law of the Land- says otherwise.
that's the bottom line.
Despite any rain of loud illegal excuses and lame personal attacks used to try to cover issue.
It's hypocrisy plain and simple. At best its selective enforcement of the doc, just like the right likes to accuse the left of.

pitiful really.
I really don't get the how folks just won't admit that they just don't like parts of the constitution and other parts they do like.

I just wish some people on the right would at least be honest and don't claim the whole doc as sacred then piss on it when it suits em and act like they did good.

Rev. I am just glad that you thought of me so kindly.. Just proud to be mentioned.... -;)--Tyr

[mundame]

America will turn Muslim any minute if we don't do something...........

So will Europe.

We have a situation here.

Same as El Cid had when he -- barely-- threw the Muslims out of France.

Or Isabella of Spain (yes, the Columbus Isabella, busy woman) who threw the Moors out of Spain, finally, with great difficulty.

Or whoever threw the Muslims out of Vienna -- when I was there I saw the bronze plaque that marks the high-water mark of where the Muslim troops reached before they were defeated. Of course, now they are all over Europe, having invaded on the QT.

Why people don't take this seriously when there is so much historical record that says, Folks, we're in big hairy trouble and it's not the first time!!



As the song sez, "It's Istanbul, not Constantinople any more."

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

America will turn Muslim any minute if we don't do something...........

So will Europe.

We have a situation here.

Same as El Cid had when he -- barely-- threw the Muslims out of France.

Or Isabella of Spain (yes, the Columbus Isabella, busy woman) who threw the Moors out of Spain, finally, with great difficulty.

Or whoever threw the Muslims out of Vienna -- when I was there I saw the bronze plaque that marks the high-water mark of where the Muslim troops reached before they were defeated. Of course, now they are all over Europe, having invaded on the QT.

Why people don't take this seriously when there is so much historical record that says, Folks, we're in big hairy trouble and it's not the first time!!



As the song sez, "It's Istanbul, not Constantinople any more."

Denial soothes their fears, their egos and their conscience and they believe it scores points with the very people that would cut their heads off, rape and enslave their children all with a big happy grin on their faces and a shout of praise to Allah. It would be funny as hell if it did not represent so much death and destruction. The problem is that these deniers and appeasors can possibly help cause the deaths of hundreds of millions.

And thats some heavy duty ,serious shat!
FO' REAL!!--Tyr

[mundame]

We now let savages roam freely around our society and do crimes.

I question the wisdom of that.

[fj1200]

Could we please deep-six the "classic liberalism" label? Hey, nowadays we call it Liberatarianism. Language changes. It's important to keep up.

Agreed. Now if we all knew that having "liberal" in your name does not necessarily mean you are liberal.

[fj1200]

I just wish some people on the right would at least be honest and don't claim the whole doc as sacred then piss on it when it suits em and act like they did good.

You do know that it's pretty hard to pass a conservative agenda in this country don't you? Especially when there are Senate candidates who for some inexplicable reason have to say the stupidest things while trying to get elected.

[aboutime]

This is my contribution toward the elimination of Classic Liberals, or Classic Conservatives.

You've never heard this song played this way....

http://youtu.be/c8C7i9kdEf8

[red states rule]

But I’m proud to be a “TRUE” liberal and proud to promote the very, very “LIBERAL” constitutional guarantees of individual liberty enshrined in the BILL OF RIGHTS in our Constitution, aren’t you? Do you even have a clue what a “Classic Liberal” is?

Obama isn’t a “liberal,” Obama is a Leftist Socialist Communist.

I am so proud of you CL for fessing up

The first step on the road to recovery is to admit you have a problem

[red states rule]

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if You oppose abortion, but you promote blowing hell out of born and unborn babies and anybody else that gets in the way in the unnecessary, un-declared, un-paid-for unconstitutional foreign wars you enjoy so much.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think having American military forces in over 120 countries all over the world serving as a military police force and spending billions of American taxpayers money defending other countries who can easily afford to defend themselves is a good idea?

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that spending more on defense than all of the rest of the first world countries combined, having 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers when the rest of the world has none and China is building just “ONE,” and the American military has enough Admirals and Generals to supply the rest of the world with military leadership and still have enough left over for America, is a good idea and cutting defense spending is an atrocious insult to what is supposed to be “NATIONAL” defense.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you Think the nation should be governed by the Christian Bible instead of the Constitution.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that BIG intrusive authoritarian government was ordained by your GOD to decide what the definition of a marriage contract between agreeing adults has to be and it must conform to your religious ideas.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think it’s America’s responsibility to defend Israel against Israel’s decision to create their nation smack dab in the middle of their sworn enemies.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think Flipper Mitt Romney is a “conservative” and the Ryan Plan that balances the budget in 30 years after 15 new Congresses have their say in that matter is actually a logical policy.

and you might be a liberal if.......





you just might be a liberal if...

1) You get extremely upset about the idea of the government coming into our bedrooms unless it's to give everyone free birth control.

2) You believe that people who hold the exact same position on gay marriage that Barack Obama did last year are horrible bigots who are unfit to hold office.

3) You think that Mitt Romney, who has raked leaves for old people, helped a dying child with his will, and paid for college educations for kids who became quadriplegics in a car wreck (http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/09/25/7_incredible_personal_stories_about_mitt_romney_th at_you_may_not_know/page/full/), is less compassionate than Barack Obama who makes fun of kids in the Special Olympics (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/the-worst-of-barack-obama-in-quotes-87-quotes/) and made his own brother beg other people to get the money to pay for his child's hospital bill (http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/barack-obama-is-going-to-take-care-of-you-he-doesnt-even-take-care-of-his-own-family/).

4) You think Mitt Romney having an offshore bank account is a bigger deal than Barack Obama forgiving a billion dollars of debt owed to us by the anti-American, pro-terrorist theocrats who run Egypt.

5) You believe that Obama putting more Americans on food stamps than any other President in history is a feature, not a bug.

6) You get angry because you believe rich Americans aren't paying their "fair share," but you don't question whether the government is spending its "fair share" of the money that other people earned on the Stimulus, cash for clunkers, Solyndra, and other wasteful uses of our tax dollars.

7) You think Halliburton bidding for and winning government contracts was a scandal since Dick Cheney used to work there, but you think Barack Obama giving away 25 billion dollars in taxpayer money (http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/barack-obama-is-going-to-take-care-of-you-he-doesnt-even-take-care-of-his-own-family/) to help out his union cronies at GM and Chevrolet is honest and above reproach.

8) You believe anti-war protests, dead soldiers, and "grim milestones" ceased to be important the moment Barack Obama was elected and chose to continue many of the same practices he criticized when he ran for office in 2008.

9) You think Mitt Romney putting his dog on top of his car to take on his vacation is a big deal, but Barack Obama eating a dog to GAIN ITS POWERS isn't (http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/17/obama-bites-dog/).

10) You think the key issues of Election 2012 are whether Romney releases his old tax returns as opposed to which candidate can help get the economy back on track, create jobs, and get the debt under control.

11) You don't believe there's any voter fraud in America after watching Democrats commit voter fraud on the floor of their own convention (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=359913227417400&set=a.245230232219034.55700.174401882635203&type=1&theater) to put God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel back into their party platform.

12) You believe that most of the people who are criticizing Barack Obama are doing it because he's black, but you would be offended if someone said the only reason you criticize Mitt Romney is because you hate Mormons.

13) You think that the best way to "save Medicare" is to support Barack Obama, who took $718 billion out of the program to fund Obamacare, over Mitt Romney who would kill Obamacare and put that money back in the program.

14) You believe Bush is a war criminal for creating Gitmo and wasting terrorists with drone attacks, but Barack Obama is just doing what he has to do to keep us safe.
15) You get more upset about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Barack Obama does with our money.

16) You think that giving the SEALs permission to kill Osama Bin Laden is actually a "gutsy call" as opposed to the same call pretty much any adult American not named Louis Farrakhan or Michael Moore would have made.

17) You think Barack Obama's four years of miserable failure at creating jobs makes him better qualified to get the economy going than Mitt Romney's wildly successful career as an entrepreneur.

18) You are demanding that the GOP cease its "war on women" by agreeing to the government-funded abortions of tens of millions of unborn women.

19) You believe that guns are dangerous and should be heavily regulated, that is unless they're being given to Mexican cartels by the Department of Justice, in which case you think anything goes.

20) You accept the idea that George W. Bush is responsible for all the problems we have now because the President of the United States is so powerful, but you also believe that Barack Obama isn't responsible for anything that's going wrong because Republicans in Congress won't let him do anything he wants.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/10/02/20_reasons_you_just_might_be_a_liberal_2012_electi on_edition/page/full/

[revelarts]

Rev. I am just glad that you thought of me so kindly.. Just proud to be mentioned.... -;)--Tyr

hey Tyr!


America will turn Muslim any minute if we don't do something...........
So will Europe.
We have a situation here.
Same as El Cid had when he -- barely-- threw the Muslims out of France.
Or Isabella of Spain (yes, the Columbus Isabella, busy woman) who threw the Moors out of Spain, finally, with great difficulty.
Or whoever threw the Muslims out of Vienna -- when I was there I saw the bronze plaque that marks the high-water mark of where the Muslim troops reached before they were defeated. Of course, now they are all over Europe, having invaded on the QT.
Why people don't take this seriously when there is so much historical record that says, Folks, we're in big hairy trouble and it's not the first time!!
As the song sez, "It's Istanbul, not Constantinople any more."


Denial soothes their fears, their egos and their conscience and they believe it scores points with the very people that would cut their heads off, rape and enslave their children all with a big happy grin on their faces and a shout of praise to Allah. It would be funny as hell if it did not represent so much death and destruction. The problem is that these deniers and appeasors can possibly help cause the deaths of hundreds of millions.

And thats some heavy duty ,serious shat!
FO' REAL!!--Tyr


Have Muslims taken over the city you live tyr, yours Mundame. Any heads chopped off at the last city council meeting. Any white women and children dragged off to the Midrash, or the mosque forced to learn the Koran?
ANY churches burned down or Harassed? Any Muslim Mayors, Sheriff imposing Shria in your town? In your STATE?
how many mosques on your street?

Any minute now.
BS BS BS.

the Muslims are 3 percent of the U.S. population. MAYBE a small percentage of them are radical. They have NO control or influence in ANY political party. and I've been told lately that the parties are ALL that Count in America politically. So please help me understand all the Arm waving, Sky is Falling and Dire dread over what Muslims are doing in America.

It's Fearmongering crazy talk. Should we politically stamp out any seedlings of sharia that pop up in law in at all level yes. Should we be in a Seige El Cid mentalitalty H@LL no.

El Cid Really? REALLY?

[Classic Liberal]

You might be dumb as a rock if. file:///C:\Users\Owner\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\ clip_image001.gif

If You’re a BIG government socialist, religionist, war-hawking, militarist, drug warrior, authoritarian, bedroom window peeping RINO Neo-Con.

[Classic Liberal]

Yeah, it's a political category that isn't being used anymore.

How about using the same words everyone else uses? it's less confusing for us all.

Liberal now means leftwing and conservative means rightwing. The Economist has been begging Americans to switch to that terminology for YEARS and I think they are right and I do it.

Nobody cares about "classical liberalism" because the term is out of date.

Inaccuracy is “less confusing?”

[Classic Liberal]

[QUOTE=mundame;587627]Besides, C.L, it's pretty obvious you are a Libertarian.

Which is fine with me.[/QUOTE

A true classic liberal/true classic conservative/true constitutionalist/ true libertarian, (small l)

[cadet]

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if You oppose abortion, but you promote blowing hell out of born and unborn babies and anybody else that gets in the way in the unnecessary, un-declared, un-paid-for unconstitutional foreign wars you enjoy so much.

Who the hell promotes blowing the hell out of babies????? What the hell do you think a conservative is?????


You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think having American military forces in over 120 countries all over the world serving as a military police force and spending billions of American taxpayers money defending other countries who can easily afford to defend themselves is a good idea?

You really think we're for that? Almost everyone says "GTFO out of other countries and fix us first."


You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that spending more on defense than all of the rest of the first world countries combined, having 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers when the rest of the world has none and China is building just “ONE,” and the American military has enough Admirals and Generals to supply the rest of the world with military leadership and still have enough left over for America, is a good idea and cutting defense spending is an atrocious insult to what is supposed to be “NATIONAL” defense.

Rest of the world has no nukes. Huh, news to me. Your stupidity astounds me. (this is gonna sound contradictory to my last statement, but bear with me) My issue comes from the people that say we NEED to get out of the middle east something fierce. We're setting up their gov't and training police, and have been for quite a while. The issue is that as much as we want to get out, we can't. As soon as we leave they're gonna go "Hey... Look at this... Let's fly another fucking plane into them."


You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you Think the nation should be governed by the Christian Bible instead of the Constitution.

Well, no. We left europe because of religious pressure, and wanted to be able to make our own rules. FREEDOM OF RELIGION (not from it) That being said, the bible does have good ideas... But everyone should have the right to be whatever religion they want. And if the pres wants to be a buddist, more power to him.


You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that BIG intrusive authoritarian government was ordained by your GOD to decide what the definition of a marriage contract between agreeing adults has to be and it must conform to your religious ideas.

You mght be a total moron if you think that. Most of us (not all, sorry if i'm not representing you) believe that the Gov't needs to Back the F**k off of it. and leave it for the churches to decide. And not just the Christian church, EVERY. For themselves. MARRIAGE is a RELIGIOUS term. If you're not religious, you shouldn't care if your married or not.


You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think it’s America’s responsibility to defend Israel against Israel’s decision to create their nation smack dab in the middle of their sworn enemies.

Sorry for loving life, and wanting to protect people. Should we just up and shoot them all? Is that what you're getting at?


You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think Flipper Mitt Romney is a “conservative” and the Ryan Plan that balances the budget in 30 years after 15 new Congresses have their say in that matter is actually a logical policy.

He's a republican, that's all i care for. I just want that idiot Obama out. Alot of people say i'm trading one moron for another, but I actually agree with most of what Romney says. And from what I've seen, Ryan is a smart guy, and blunt. Which is what we need. Someone who (unlike most politicitions) but things in laymans terms so we non-politions understand exactly what's going on without all the bull crap.

Also, please expand on that last part, i've tried looking up what you're talking about, but can't quite figure it out.

Edit,
Just found out that this thread is NOT only one page long, reread through it, didn't look too closly at your name at first. Now i get it though. And any insults aren't toward you, just that general way of thinking that you're talking about.

[Classic Liberal]

I'm confident it's fine with almost everyone. But he seems to think he must come here to insult everyone to get his point across. It's actually kind of funny watching the Ron Paul and Johnson supporters start to implode.

Seems to me the only folks that are or will be “insulted” by me are the folks who fit the profiles I present. I don’t do insults, I only do truths.

How’s that old saying go? Oh yeah! “if the shoe fits, wear it!”

[Classic Liberal]

Or, you might simply be a Democrat.



The DINO Neo-Libs are even worse than that IMO

[Classic Liberal]

A true classic liberal would attack Obama. A true classic liberal would not write a post that makes it seem the Liberal is busy trashing Romney.

A true Liberal would have noted that almost every war this nation has been in has had Democrats as presidents.

A true classic Liberal would understand that a true neo con is much closer to being a democrat than a republican.

A true Classic Liberal would and will make those profiles apparent also when appropriate, but as we should notice this here place is dominated by the right who are normally fine folks until the RNC gets hold of them and corrupts their true conservative morals like “commerce with all entangling alliances with none.” Like, the good old conservative value of “minding one’s own business.” Like actually favoring smaller limited government and individual liberty instead of the RINO Neo-Con BIG government agenda, the stupid Drug War, undeclared unconstitutional wars, annual deficits, jacking up the national debt and the debt ceiling, creating new democrat like socialist programs and wanting BIG government to take over the definition of marriage contracts between free and agreeable people, and what women can and cannot do with their own bodies.

I know G. W. Bush could have passed for a Democrat easily, but he was a RINO Neo-Con Republican who started 2 unnecessary, un-paid-for, undeclared unconstitutional wars.

So, why should I torture the left with their multitude of sins, when there seems to NOT be any leftist here and with the vast majority of rightist here already bashing the Neo-commies on the left?

[Classic Liberal]

Yes, well, there is that. I'm no fan of us losing wars for 10 years at a whack, either.





I agree, of course. If the military doesn't even WANT the new toys, as it says it doesn't, well, darn. Why go deeper in debt to China to force them onto the military? Madness. I am a great fan of the new Special Forces teams and the drones. I LOVE the drones. More drones! Fewer boots on the ground!

I used to be against our being World Policeman. I have since come to think that it's a rational policy (which we may not be able to afford because of all the silly, losing, wasteful wars we indulged in) because if we don't stop WWIII, they will just drag us into it YET AGAIN -- we don't do it for them. We do it because we KNOW that everytime WWII starts up, we get dragged into it. So we stop these regional hegemons and stop the Big One. I'm sort of okay with that, but there have been problems, like the brushfire wars, especially lately when we don't bother to win anything. If we are going to have wars, I am no longer interested in losing wars. That's just so dumb.




I am not as enthusiastic about the Constitution or democracy as I used to be. Before 9/11, when we all lived in the forest and no one lived anywhere else at all. However, I am also a secularist, of course.




There is a problem: Social security and other federal giveaways that are based on normal marriages. I don't support expanding those programs to homosexuals and man-daughter, brother-sister, Mormon polygamists, or the widow who has married her dear poodle Foo-foo.




I don't know. There is an issue of alliances, and of treaties. And that Israel is the only non-evil-Muslim country in the area. They are bollixing up the situation basically forever, and should I think drive all the Palis into Syria, which richly deserves another dose of them, and make their state borders rational.




Well, he says a conservative TODAY, but who knows what he'll be in February. Oh, you're talking about "classical liberalism," i.e., Libertarianism. Well, no, he's probably not that, whatever else he is. He doesn't seem to have any there there, that's plain. What a horrible election. One of the worst I've ever seen. Nixon/McGovern was bad; Reagan/Carter was bad; this is the worst, IMO. Repellant candidates, all of them, from the word go in the primaries and the general. I lose faith.

You make some good points I’d love to argue with you, perhaps we can start other threads on them.

[Classic Liberal]

Hell, the majority of wars that the USA has been in since, like forever, were not declared by Congress. In fact, only 5 of them formally. So there's lots of complaining to do other than just since 2001!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

When will the Duopoly start complaining about the constitutional violations instead of voting for them? I don’t vote for those people, why does anybody else?

[Classic Liberal]

Who the hell promotes blowing the hell out of babies????? What the hell do you think a conservative is?????



You really think we're for that? Almost everyone says "GTFO out of other countries and fix us first."



Rest of the world has no nukes. Huh, news to me. Your stupidity astounds me. (this is gonna sound contradictory to my last statement, but bear with me) My issue comes from the people that say we NEED to get out of the middle east something fierce. We're setting up their gov't and training police, and have been for quite a while. The issue is that as much as we want to get out, we can't. As soon as we leave they're gonna go "Hey... Look at this... Let's fly another fucking plane into them."



Well, no. We left europe because of religious pressure, and wanted to be able to make our own rules. FREEDOM OF RELIGION (not from it) That being said, the bible does have good ideas... But everyone should have the right to be whatever religion they want. And if the pres wants to be a buddist, more power to him.



You mght be a total moron if you think that. Most of us (not all, sorry if i'm not representing you) believe that the Gov't needs to Back the F**k off of it. and leave it for the churches to decide. And not just the Christian church, EVERY. For themselves. MARRIAGE is a RELIGIOUS term. If you're not religious, you shouldn't care if your married or not.



Sorry for loving life, and wanting to protect people. Should we just up and shoot them all? Is that what you're getting at?



He's a republican, that's all i care for. I just want that idiot Obama out. Alot of people say i'm trading one moron for another, but I actually agree with most of what Romney says. And from what I've seen, Ryan is a smart guy, and blunt. Which is what we need. Someone who (unlike most politicitions) but things in laymans terms so we non-politions understand exactly what's going on without all the bull crap.

Also, please expand on that last part, i've tried looking up what you're talking about, but can't quite figure it out.

Edit,
Just found out that this thread is NOT only one page long, reread through it, didn't look too closly at your name at first. Now i get it though. And any insults aren't toward you, just that general way of thinking that you're talking about.

The only folks that should be offended by this thread have to be the folks who are admitting they are wearing the RINO Neo-Con shoe. This thread is even more revealing and interesting than I originally imagined.

[Classic Liberal]

Sure do. Are you ready? Classic (in their own minds only) Liberals are: Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank, Kennedy, Kerry,
Chris Matthews, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN. Then Joe Biden, John Edwards, Axelrod, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.....and I would be remiss if I did not include every Admitted Congressional member of the American Socialist, or Communist parties...JUST FOR STARTERS.

Just as I suspected, you don’t know the difference between leftist, socialist, progressives, communist, DINO Neo-Libs and “TRUE CLASSIC LIBERALISM.”

The names you mention are the former. Libertarians, true conservatives, true constitutionalist and true republicans are true “classic liberals.”

[cadet]

The only folks that should be offended by this thread have to be the folks who are admitting they are wearing the RINO Neo-Con shoe. This thread is even more revealing and interesting than I originally imagined.

For the record, i was being offended that someone could think a conservative thinks like that.
Speaking of which, off topic, just had a discussion with a socialist who thought all republicans were gun slingin rednecks who did nothin but drink moonshine and play the banjo.

[Classic Liberal]

Of course I agree with most of this.
except the social convervative and Bible digs.
RHINO Neo Cons ONLY give lip service to social issues, the constitution and God.
the left gets apoplectic of any mention of God and fear a "Christian nation" like Tyr and Drummond here seem to fear the USA is going to turn Muslim any minute if we don't do something.

the RHINO Neo-cons have been talking about Abortion for 30 yrs and it's still here. Does that give a clue as to how committed they are to getting rid of it.
Compare that to the pushes to get a WARS started. They have Pushed, Promoted, fought against every left wing and constitutional obstacle, lied, cheated and stolen to get the wars going. But the Abortion and family agendas, no way, It's ... "i'm pro life but...." "I believe in the traditional family but..." " i believe the Bible but..."

They are a NEO-CON tools to get votes that's it really.



And Some people don't care about the Constitution or the Law as long as it's Broken consistently, and by the president, well it's OK. The President can start a war, on his own without congress, even though the constitution -which we SAY Is the law of the Land- says otherwise.
that's the bottom line.
Despite any rain of loud illegal excuses and lame personal attacks used to try to cover issue.
It's hypocrisy plain and simple. At best its selective enforcement of the doc, just like the right likes to accuse the left of.

pitiful really.
I really don't get the how folks just won't admit that they just don't like parts of the constitution and other parts they do like.

I just wish some people on the right would at least be honest and don't claim the whole doc as sacred then piss on it when it suits em and act like they did good.

Good post Rev! It’s nice to see there are some politically rational folk here.

The problem with the majority of Republicans today is they’ve been hood winked and duped by the RINO Neo-Con RNC into believing that the Republican Party actually still is favorable to the Constitution and the principles of limited government and individual liberty when in reality nothing can be further from the truth as this thread shows. The Neo-Con RINO’s are simply a gang of liars and BIG government authoritarian freaks no better and no worse than the BIG government authoritarian freaks on the left.

[Classic Liberal]

Could we please deep-six the "classic liberalism" label? Hey, nowadays we call it Liberatarianism. Language changes. It's important to keep up.

But now-days we call Democrats liberals and Republicans conservatives and nothing could be further from the truth in either case! Fact is the Republicans turned the word “conservative” into a dirty word when in reality it defines “LIBERTY.” Then the RINO Neo-Cons turned the Republicans into “FRAUDULENT” conservatives and the DNC turned the Democrats into Neo-Communist, leftist socialist.

Why not call spades, spades and be accurate instead of babbling the pathetic misnomers created by biased rightist and leftist media?

Besides, it'll be educational for the masses!

[Classic Liberal]

I am so proud of you CL for fessing up

The first step on the road to recovery is to admit you have a problem

Now that you’ve admitted it, what’s your next step?

[Classic Liberal]

For the record, i was being offended that someone could think a conservative thinks like that.

Your problem being of course that you’re confusing conservatism with RINO Neo-Con-ism. I plan to do another thread defining “true conservatives.”

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

But now-days we call Democrats liberals and Republicans conservatives and nothing could be further from the truth in either case! Fact is the Republicans turned the word “conservative” into a dirty word when in reality it defines “LIBERTY.” Then the RINO Neo-Cons turned the Republicans into “FRAUDULENT” conservatives and the DNC turned the Democrats into Neo-Communist, leftist socialist.

Why not call spades, spades and be accurate instead of babbling the pathetic misnomers created by biased rightist and leftist media?

Besides, it'll be educational for the masses!

The problem is the masses dont give a damn. About 47% only care about the freebies and how to get more. While the Super rich only care about not being robbed of what they have. That basicly leaves the middle class workers most of the responsibility and most of the burden to support the lazy boughtout bums/dems..while our government seeks ways to tax us ever more. Taxation without proper representation because those supposedly representing us are favoring those that pay no taxes!!!-Tyr

[Classic Liberal]

The problem is the masses dont give a damn. About 47% only care about the freebies and how to get more. While the Super rich only care about not being robbed of what they have. That basicly leaves the middle class workers most of the responsibility and most of the burden to support the lazy boughtout bums/dems..while our government seeks ways to tax us ever more. Taxation without proper representation because those supposedly representing us are favoring those that pay no taxes!!!-Tyr

The problem with the masses is the 47% that vote are mostly ignorant of the fact that they’re being bought and sold like the slaves they are to BIG government and the fact that the Duopoly Dictatorship is their master but they’ll soon wake up after the bankruptcy. They’ll be in the streets like in Greece.

“Every now and then the tree of liberty must be fertilized with the blood of tyrants and patriots, it’s a natural manure.” (Thomas Jefferson)

[jimnyc]

Good post Rev! It’s nice to see there are some politically rational folk here.

Whouda thunk it? The 2 crying 2 sleep at night because America simply doesn't care about their candidates, are now going to be buddies! LOL Now you guys can maybe meet up in the conspiracy forum, and talk about the great things Jesse Ventura has exposed, just prior to his episode this week about time travel! :laugh2:

[KarlMarx]

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if You oppose abortion, but you promote blowing hell out of born and unborn babies and anybody else that gets in the way in the unnecessary, un-declared, un-paid-for unconstitutional foreign wars you enjoy so much.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think having American military forces in over 120 countries all over the world serving as a military police force and spending billions of American taxpayers money defending other countries who can easily afford to defend themselves is a good idea?

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that spending more on defense than all of the rest of the first world countries combined, having 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers when the rest of the world has none and China is building just “ONE,” and the American military has enough Admirals and Generals to supply the rest of the world with military leadership and still have enough left over for America, is a good idea and cutting defense spending is an atrocious insult to what is supposed to be “NATIONAL” defense.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you Think the nation should be governed by the Christian Bible instead of the Constitution.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that BIG intrusive authoritarian government was ordained by your GOD to decide what the definition of a marriage contract between agreeing adults has to be and it must conform to your religious ideas.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think it’s America’s responsibility to defend Israel against Israel’s decision to create their nation smack dab in the middle of their sworn enemies.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think Flipper Mitt Romney is a “conservative” and the Ryan Plan that balances the budget in 30 years after 15 new Congresses have their say in that matter is actually a logical policy.

A liberal tries to define what a conservative is...

That's like me, who is very overweight, telling someone what kind of exercise regimine to undertake..

[Classic Liberal]

You might be a true conservative if, you believe in minding your own business.

You might be a true conservative if you oppose all wars that are not declared by the Congress as the Constitution requires.

You might be a true Conservative if you truly do believe in limited government and maximum individual liberty and your principles to that end won’t allow you to vote for status-quo BIG government duopoly neo-cons and neo-libs.

You might be a true conservative if you believe in the strict construction of our Constitution.

You might be a true conservative if you believe in the classical liberal principles enshrined in the Bill Of Rights and wish to “CONSERVE” them.

You might be a true conservative if you oppose the preposterous unconstitutional Drug War.

You might be a true conservative if you believe your religion or your lack thereof is a personal belief and that government should only be operated within the confines of our Constitution and not by the Bible or any other religious document or belief.

You might be a true conservative if you believe that America is a constitutional republic and not a democratic mob.

You might be a true conservative if you believe government has to balance the national budget and preserve financial liberty for our future.

You might be a true conservative if you’re appalled by federal socialism and federal unconstitutional socialist programs that are created to bribe the vote.

You might be a true conservative if you’re also appalled by crony capitalism, Wall Street and special interest bribery that fill the duopoly’s campaign coffers and the political favorable legislation quid-pro-quo bribery from the corrupt politicians once they’re elected.

You might be a true conservative if you understand that the “general welfare clause” and the “necessary and proper” clause of our Constitution can only be interpreted to authorize the federal government to do “ONLY” those things enumerated in the Constitution for the federal government to do and everything else is a power delegated by the Constitution to the States.

You might be a true conservative if you’re a true libertarian, constitutionalist, classical liberal, fiscal conservative, mind your own business, just the best and biggest military, not a neo-Roman Empire military, commerce with all entangling alliances with none, kinda folk.

[jimnyc]

New thread/post merged with this one. It's of the same discussion and no need for 2 running threads to discuss "true" affiliations.

[Classic Liberal]

Whouda thunk it? The 2 crying 2 sleep at night because America simply doesn't care about their candidates, are now going to be buddies! LOL Now you guys can maybe meet up in the conspiracy forum, and talk about the great things Jesse Ventura has exposed, just prior to his episode this week about time travel! :laugh2:

Can’t say as I blame you Jimmy for being worried about having “TWO” politically sane and rational folk around here. Seems Truth, justice and the American way is making a comeback, huh?

[jimnyc]

Can’t say as I blame you Jimmy for being worried about having “TWO” politically sane and rational folk around here. Seems Truth, justice and the American way is making a comeback, huh?

Yep, sure is, I can see the stuff you speak of and the candidates you guys support making some real progress! 10% for RP in the primaries, and most certainly a lot less than that for Johnson in the general! :laugh2:

[Classic Liberal]

New thread/post merged with this one. It's of the same discussion and no need for 2 running threads to discuss "true" affiliations.

Actually its of the “opposite” discussion, but you have the power to hide it here, so whatever!

[jimnyc]

Actually its of the “opposite” discussion, but you have the power to hide it here, so whatever!

Sure, "hidden" in a thread YOU started, where "nobody" has access to it. You're as bright as the candidates you support.

[Classic Liberal]

Yep, sure is, I can see the stuff you speak of and the candidates you guys support making some real progress! 10% for RP in the primaries, and most certainly a lot less than that for Johnson in the general! :laugh2:

But nobody here is claiming that America’s bribed and duped voters are smart and informed Jimmy. If they were, we wouldn’t have a black communist occupying the White House and we’d wouldn’t have had G. W. Bush/Cheney and the rest of the RINOs and DINOs afore them and a 16 trillion dollar national debt now would we?

[Classic Liberal]

Sure, "hidden" in a thread YOU started, where "nobody" has access to it. You're as bright as the candidates you support.

I thank you for the complement!!!

[jimnyc]

But nobody here is claiming that America’s bribed and duped voters are smart and informed Jimmy. If they were, we wouldn’t have a black communist occupying the White House and we’d wouldn’t have had G. W. Bush/Cheney and the rest of the RINOs and DINOs afore them and a 16 trillion dollar national debt now would we?

Oh well, sorry to hear that you are displeased.

[jimnyc]

I thank you for the complement!!!

Thank you for proving my point with the "compliment"

[aboutime]

But nobody here is claiming that America’s bribed and duped voters are smart and informed Jimmy. If they were, we wouldn’t have a black communist occupying the White House and we’d wouldn’t have had G. W. Bush/Cheney and the rest of the RINOs and DINOs afore them and a 16 trillion dollar national debt now would we?



Nobody here considers telling the Truth as a CLAIM Classic Liberal. Everyone with the ability to think on their own, and how to read knows. Obama and company made it a huge point to announce their BRIBES for VOTES in giving away FREE Cell Phones. And we also know. It didn't stop there. Guess many didn't understand what VODKA for VOTES really means...Liberally speaking.

[glockmail]

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if You oppose abortion, but you promote blowing hell out of born and unborn babies and anybody else that gets in the way in the unnecessary, un-declared, un-paid-for unconstitutional foreign wars you enjoy so much....

This first sentence is so retarded that I can't read further. All you've done is repeat baseless allegations that you're obviously parroting from a liberal blob somewhere. In a debate, I am under no obligation to defend against attacks like this, and by simply pointing this out, destroy your argument. :slap:

[aboutime]

This first sentence is so retarded that I can't read further. All you've done is repeat baseless allegations that you're obviously parroting from a liberal blob somewhere. In a debate, I am under no obligation to defend against attacks like this, and by simply pointing this out, destroy your argument. :slap:



glockmail. Let's all agree to just stop responding to Classic Liberal here. Every time I see that name. All I remind myself to remember is. How Classic Liberal, and Obama both have so much in common. As in. They are both survivors of Partial Birth Abortions...gone bad.

[red states rule]

Now that you’ve admitted it, what’s your next step?

I simply said I was proud of you for admitting you have a problem - but being a newbie here you may not know I have been a Reagan conservative since i voted for him in 1980 (my first vote BTW)

Unlike liberalism where the core values and principals are subject to change without notice based on current poll and focus group results - I live my conservative values and beliefs

[red states rule]

The problem with the masses is the 47% that vote are mostly ignorant of the fact that they’re being bought and sold like the slaves they are to BIG government and the fact that the Duopoly Dictatorship is their master but they’ll soon wake up after the bankruptcy. They’ll be in the streets like in Greece.

“Every now and then the tree of liberty must be fertilized with the blood of tyrants and patriots, it’s a natural manure.” (Thomas Jefferson)

Still waiting for your response CL




you just might be a liberal if...

1) You get extremely upset about the idea of the government coming into our bedrooms unless it's to give everyone free birth control.

2) You believe that people who hold the exact same position on gay marriage that Barack Obama did last year are horrible bigots who are unfit to hold office.

3) You think that Mitt Romney, who has raked leaves for old people, helped a dying child with his will, and paid for college educations for kids who became quadriplegics in a car wreck (http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/09/25/7_incredible_personal_stories_about_mitt_romney_th at_you_may_not_know/page/full/), is less compassionate than Barack Obama who makes fun of kids in the Special Olympics (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/the-worst-of-barack-obama-in-quotes-87-quotes/) and made his own brother beg other people to get the money to pay for his child's hospital bill (http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/barack-obama-is-going-to-take-care-of-you-he-doesnt-even-take-care-of-his-own-family/).

4) You think Mitt Romney having an offshore bank account is a bigger deal than Barack Obama forgiving a billion dollars of debt owed to us by the anti-American, pro-terrorist theocrats who run Egypt.

5) You believe that Obama putting more Americans on food stamps than any other President in history is a feature, not a bug.

6) You get angry because you believe rich Americans aren't paying their "fair share," but you don't question whether the government is spending its "fair share" of the money that other people earned on the Stimulus, cash for clunkers, Solyndra, and other wasteful uses of our tax dollars.

7) You think Halliburton bidding for and winning government contracts was a scandal since Dick Cheney used to work there, but you think Barack Obama giving away 25 billion dollars in taxpayer money (http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/barack-obama-is-going-to-take-care-of-you-he-doesnt-even-take-care-of-his-own-family/) to help out his union cronies at GM and Chevrolet is honest and above reproach.

8) You believe anti-war protests, dead soldiers, and "grim milestones" ceased to be important the moment Barack Obama was elected and chose to continue many of the same practices he criticized when he ran for office in 2008.

9) You think Mitt Romney putting his dog on top of his car to take on his vacation is a big deal, but Barack Obama eating a dog to GAIN ITS POWERS isn't (http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/17/obama-bites-dog/).

10) You think the key issues of Election 2012 are whether Romney releases his old tax returns as opposed to which candidate can help get the economy back on track, create jobs, and get the debt under control.

11) You don't believe there's any voter fraud in America after watching Democrats commit voter fraud on the floor of their own convention (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=359913227417400&set=a.245230232219034.55700.174401882635203&type=1&theater) to put God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel back into their party platform.

12) You believe that most of the people who are criticizing Barack Obama are doing it because he's black, but you would be offended if someone said the only reason you criticize Mitt Romney is because you hate Mormons.

13) You think that the best way to "save Medicare" is to support Barack Obama, who took $718 billion out of the program to fund Obamacare, over Mitt Romney who would kill Obamacare and put that money back in the program.

14) You believe Bush is a war criminal for creating Gitmo and wasting terrorists with drone attacks, but Barack Obama is just doing what he has to do to keep us safe.
15) You get more upset about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Barack Obama does with our money.

16) You think that giving the SEALs permission to kill Osama Bin Laden is actually a "gutsy call" as opposed to the same call pretty much any adult American not named Louis Farrakhan or Michael Moore would have made.

17) You think Barack Obama's four years of miserable failure at creating jobs makes him better qualified to get the economy going than Mitt Romney's wildly successful career as an entrepreneur.

18) You are demanding that the GOP cease its "war on women" by agreeing to the government-funded abortions of tens of millions of unborn women.

19) You believe that guns are dangerous and should be heavily regulated, that is unless they're being given to Mexican cartels by the Department of Justice, in which case you think anything goes.

20) You accept the idea that George W. Bush is responsible for all the problems we have now because the President of the United States is so powerful, but you also believe that Barack Obama isn't responsible for anything that's going wrong because Republicans in Congress won't let him do anything he wants.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnh...ion/page/full/ (http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/10/02/20_reasons_you_just_might_be_a_liberal_2012_electi on_edition/page/full/)

[mundame]

Any white women and children dragged off to the Midrash, or the mosque forced to learn the Koran?
ANY churches burned down or Harassed? Any Muslim Mayors, Sheriff imposing Shria in your town? In your STATE?
how many mosques on your street?

Any minute now.
BS BS BS.

So please help me understand all the Arm waving, Sky is Falling and Dire dread over what Muslims are doing in America.

El Cid Really? REALLY?



Certainly El Cid --- he should be our hero and we shouldn't throw away his accomplishment at holding off the Muslim hordes out of France: they DID take over Spain for centuries, after all. I don't know why you minimize the terrible world conquest the Muslims have been extremely successful at for over a millennium. Here, I'll one-up El Cid: how about Richard the Lionhearted and the Crusades? The evil Muslims conquered the entire Christian and Jewish Mideast, the holy land being a well-integrated multi-religion society with Christianity in the lead since the (Christian) later Roman Empire. The Muslims conquered all of it -- Palestine, Syria, all over the area with burning and killing and then the West sent Crusades to try to get it back.

They succeeded for about 200 years, then failed. And so the Holy Land fell back into the barbarism and savage poverty and backwardness that it has continued in until the Jews came in the 30s and 40s and where they are the desert blooms and skyscrapers rise and cars instead of donkeys populate the roads.

Look around you at the world! Your PC is blinding you to the terrible violence going on everywhere in Africa, ALWAYS caused by Muslims massacres. The violence in Thailand, where Muslims blow up Buddhists to try to take over the whole country. TODAY the news is reporting the mass killings in Burma, all caused by Muslim violence. Muslim violence in Syria, Pakistan, terrorism everywhere, Yemen, Sudan, Mali --- how can you not notice Muslim violence everywhere? It's always been an incredibly aggressive religion and now it's on the rise again, and Paris banlieues regularly burn as the Muslims riot in Europe.

It's spreading everywhere. This will not end well.

[red states rule]

Certainly El Cid --- he should be our hero and we shouldn't throw away his accomplishment at holding off the Muslim hordes out of France: they DID take over Spain for centuries, after all. I don't know why you minimize the terrible world conquest the Muslims have been extremely successful at for over a millennium. Here, I'll one-up El Cid: how about Richard the Lionhearted and the Crusades? The evil Muslims conquered the entire Christian and Jewish Mideast, the holy land being a well-integrated multi-religion society with Christianity in the lead since the (Christian) later Roman Empire. The Muslims conquered all of it -- Palestine, Syria, all over the area with burning and killing and then the West sent Crusades to try to get it back.

They succeeded for about 200 years, then failed. And so the Holy Land fell back into the barbarism and savage poverty and backwardness that it has continued in until the Jews came in the 30s and 40s and where they are the desert blooms and skyscrapers rise and cars instead of donkeys populate the roads.

Look around you at the world! Your PC is blinding you to the terrible violence going on everywhere in Africa, ALWAYS caused by Muslims massacres. The violence in Thailand, where Muslims blow up Buddhists to try to take over the whole country. TODAY the news is reporting the mass killings in Burma, all caused by Muslim violence. Muslim violence in Syria, Pakistan, terrorism everywhere, Yemen, Sudan, Mali --- how can you not notice Muslim violence everywhere? It's always been an incredibly aggressive religion and now it's on the rise again, and Paris banlieues regularly burn as the Muslims riot in Europe.

It's spreading everywhere. This will not end well.

and so is racism. You are proof of that Mundame

[red states rule]

The problem with the masses is the 47% that vote are mostly ignorant of the fact that they’re being bought and sold like the slaves they are to BIG government and the fact that the Duopoly Dictatorship is their master but they’ll soon wake up after the bankruptcy. They’ll be in the streets like in Greece.

“Every now and then the tree of liberty must be fertilized with the blood of tyrants and patriots, it’s a natural manure.” (Thomas Jefferson)



http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-cat.gif

[Robert A Whit]

Sure do. Are you ready? Classic (in their own minds only) Liberals are: Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank, Kennedy, Kerry,
Chris Matthews, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN. Then Joe Biden, John Edwards, Axelrod, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.....and I would be remiss if I did not include every Admitted Congressional member of the American Socialist, or Communist parties...JUST FOR STARTERS.

Those who know quite a bit about US history understand that prior to the progressive era, what is now called a Classis Liberal today would be a Libertarian. Even republicans qualify in a lot of respects as a Classic Liberal.

His trouble stems from how he went about what he said.

[red states rule]

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/mad500.gif

[aboutime]

Those who know quite a bit about US history understand that prior to the progressive era, what is now called a Classis Liberal today would be a Libertarian. Even republicans qualify in a lot of respects as a Classic Liberal.

His trouble stems from how he went about what he said.



Robert. I have no doubt you are much more heavily read, and informed about such things than I. But. I must admit. Being here on this forum, and experiencing the challenges all of us are confronted by...almost daily, from those who exceed the real meanings of many words, such as Liberal, or Classic to make their point.

I find the combination of those two words, less than genuine...under present day circumstances, and political atmospheres that surround us.
On that note. I have little confidence that anyone who comes here to identify themself as a Classic Liberal. Isn't just being another extreme Obama wannabe supporter.

[Kathianne]

Those who know quite a bit about US history understand that prior to the progressive era, what is now called a Classis Liberal today would be a Libertarian. Even republicans qualify in a lot of respects as a Classic Liberal.

His trouble stems from how he went about what he said.

I think in the very near future, the GOP candidate that embraces many libertarian ideas, with major changes to most libertarian's views on foreign issues, will hold the winning argument.

I tend strongly libertarian, but the Libertarian Party continues to put up nutters for office, especially on the national level. If they really want to become viable, they would listen to those that agree with most of their ideas and take lessons from the Tea Party philosophy at building local to go large.

BTW, many Tea Partiers are strongly libertarian, which is why the left and right have problems with them.

[aboutime]

I think in the very near future, the GOP candidate that embraces many libertarian ideas, with major changes to most libertarian's views on foreign issues, will hold the winning argument.

I tend strongly libertarian, but the Libertarian Party continues to put up nutters for office, especially on the national level. If they really want to become viable, they would listen to those that agree with most of their ideas and take lessons from the Tea Party philosophy at building local to go large.

BTW, many Tea Partiers are strongly libertarian, which is why the left and right have problems with them.

Kathianne. I used to listen to a well known Libertarian named Neil Boortz almost every day before our grandchildren stayed here, and afterward. Neil was very much a specialized kind of Libertarian who didn't always agree with others like Dr. Paul, on the Military, Trade, and Legalized drugs.
But. He was a highly knowledgeable man whom I respected for his honesty, and knowledge.

Today. I believe the Libertarian kind of candidates CUT OFF THEIR NOSES to spite their faces in many respects. Consequently. They remain 3rd party candidates who get little recognition. If they played the game differently. That might change in the future.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne. I used to listen to a well known Libertarian named Neil Boortz almost every day before our grandchildren stayed here, and afterward. Neil was very much a specialized kind of Libertarian who didn't always agree with others like Dr. Paul, on the Military, Trade, and Legalized drugs.
But. He was a highly knowledgeable man whom I respected for his honesty, and knowledge.

Today. I believe the Libertarian kind of candidates CUT OFF THEIR NOSES to spite their faces in many respects. Consequently. They remain 3rd party candidates who get little recognition. If they played the game differently. That might change in the future.

Yep, good synopsis of what I was saying.

[KarlMarx]

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if You oppose abortion, but you promote blowing hell out of born and unborn babies and anybody else that gets in the way in the unnecessary, un-declared, un-paid-for unconstitutional foreign wars you enjoy so much.
Abortion is the deprivation of life without due process of law as guaranteed by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution. The military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan had the prior approval of the Senate, which makes them constitutional. They are also paid for because they form part of the defense budget. We don't enjoy wars, but you apparently enjoy the delusion that we do.


You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think having American military forces in over 120 countries all over the world serving as a military police force and spending billions of American taxpayers money defending other countries who can easily afford to defend themselves is a good idea?
OK, you may have a point. Let's look at another ineffective use of money, the so called war on poverty which has been waged for nearly 50 years and made little progress.


You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that spending more on defense than all of the rest of the first world countries combined, having 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers when the rest of the world has none and China is building just “ONE,” and the American military has enough Admirals and Generals to supply the rest of the world with military leadership and still have enough left over for America, is a good idea and cutting defense spending is an atrocious insult to what is supposed to be “NATIONAL” defense.
About half of the money spent on defense goes to paying soldiers, their benefits, and health care. I suppose telling a soldier who sacrificed his arms and legs to shove off is your idea of a good idea. The US spends less than 4 percent of its GDP on defense. China and Russia on the other hand are spending at far greater rates. In fact, if present trends continue, China's defense spending will surpass our own in 20 years. Hopefully, you will have learned Chinese by then.


You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you Think the nation should be governed by the Christian Bible instead of the Constitution.
Having a right to free speech does not guarantee intelligent discourse. This is a fine example of what I mean.


You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that BIG intrusive authoritarian government was ordained by your GOD to decide what the definition of a marriage contract between agreeing adults has to be and it must conform to your religious ideas.
Sounds like your side's idea. Big government is a left wing idea. Your "God" is secular humanism. You coerce people to fund your religion through taxation. Strange, the size of government has increased dramatically under this President.. I guess he's a neo-con too.


You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think it’s America’s responsibility to defend Israel against Israel’s decision to create their nation smack dab in the middle of their sworn enemies.
They didn't create their nation, the United Nations did. Of course, not defending Israel would mean war in the Middle East. One which we would be pulled into..


You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think Flipper Mitt Romney is a “conservative” and the Ryan Plan that balances the budget in 30 years after 15 new Congresses have their say in that matter is actually a logical policy.
No, he's not a conservative, but he's better than your guy who has no plan to do anything but spend this country into the poor house.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Abortion is the deprivation of life without due process of law as guaranteed by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution. The military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan had the prior approval of the Senate, which makes them constitutional. They are also paid for because they form part of the defense budget. We don't enjoy wars, but you apparently enjoy the delusion that we do.


OK, you may have a point. Let's look at another ineffective use of money, the so called war on poverty which has been waged for nearly 50 years and made little progress.


About half of the money spent on defense goes to paying soldiers, their benefits, and health care. I suppose telling a soldier who sacrificed his arms and legs to shove off is your idea of a good idea. The US spends less than 4 percent of its GDP on defense. China and Russia on the other hand are spending at far greater rates. In fact, if present trends continue, China's defense spending will surpass our own in 20 years. Hopefully, you will have learned Chinese by then.


Having a right to free speech does not guarantee intelligent discourse. This is a fine example of what I mean.


Sounds like your side's idea. Big government is a left wing idea. Your "God" is secular humanism. You coerce people to fund your religion through taxation. Strange, the size of government has increased dramatically under this President.. I guess he's a neo-con too.


They didn't create their nation, the United Nations did. Of course, not defending Israel would mean war in the Middle East. One which we would be pulled into..


No, he's not a conservative, but he's better than your guy who has no plan to do anything but spend this country into the poor house.

Freaking -A- BRAVO..--:beer: Talk about ripping the guy a new A-HOLE....

Good gravy, ya tha man!!--:clap:---Tyr

[Classic Liberal]

Abortion is the deprivation of life without due process of law as guaranteed by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution.

Except for the fact that there’s no constitutional protection in the Constitution for the “unborn” the Constitution only protects the “born” and amendment 4 protects the right of privacy. There is also controversy about when unborn life actually begins.


The military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan had the prior approval of the Senate, which makes them constitutional.

Not according to article one, section 8 of our Constitution which requires that “THE CONGRESS,” not just the Senate approve wars. Aside from that “fact,” There’s no constitutional authority for the Senate or the complete Congress to present any President with a “resolution” that hands congressional proxy, authority and duty to a President to decide for himself whether he wants to take our forces to war as was done in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Article One Section 8 of our Constitution explicitly requires that THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO “
DECLARE” WARS.


They are also paid for because they form part of the defense budget. We don't enjoy wars, but you apparently enjoy the delusion that we do.

Every economist worth their salt will tell you the Iraq & Afghanistan wars have added one trillion dollars to our national debt. Wars paid for by China with America’s “TAXPAYER” credit card.


About half of the money spent on defense goes to paying soldiers, their benefits, and health care. I suppose telling a soldier who sacrificed his arms and legs to shove off is your idea of a good idea.

Please provide my quote proving I said any such thing!


The US spends less than 4 percent of its GDP on defense. China and Russia on the other hand are spending at far greater rates. In fact, if present trends continue, China's defense spending will surpass our own in 20 years. Hopefully, you will have learned Chinese by then.

The United States spends more on national defense than the rest of the industrial first world combined, look it up! The United States taxpayers paid for the construction of 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers and are still paying for their upkeep and operations in the billions of dollars. No other country in the world has a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, (China is building “ONE”) The United States has military bases in over 120 foreign nations, no other country on planet earth has anywhere near that number.


Sounds like your side's idea. Big government is a left wing idea.

BIG government is a duopoly idea. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is “WHO” they allow to feed at the government trough first. War is a BIG government racket.


Your "God" is secular humanism.

My GOD is my personal business and nothing you know anything about!


You coerce people to fund your religion through taxation.

Classic Liberals are limited government constitutionalist and anti-taxation. If we had our way we’d repeal the 16th Amendment. You apparently know nothing about classical liberalism.


Strange, the size of government has increased dramatically under this President.. I guess he's a neo-con too.

This President is a neo-lib socialist communist. Your President G. W. Bush was and is a RINO Neo-Con, who also did a fair share of increasing government, wars and socialist programs, huh?



They didn't create their nation, the United Nations did. Of course, not defending Israel would mean war in the Middle East. One which we would be pulled into..

So in your world the United Nations fought and won the territory now claimed as “Israel,” right? Hogwash!!! Well friend, if the United Nations did what you claim, then let the United Nations defend Israel, while America pulls out of the socialist authoritarian UN body of social drinkers and bribery experts.



No, he's not a conservative, but he's better than your guy who has no plan to do anything but spend this country into the poor house.

“My guy” is Gary Johnson, do you even have a clue about who he is?

[jimnyc]

Not according to article one, section 8 of our Constitution which requires that “THE CONGRESS,” not just the Senate approve wars. Aside from that “fact,” There’s no constitutional authority for the Senate or the complete Congress to present any President with a “resolution” that hands congressional proxy, authority and duty to a President to decide for himself whether he wants to take our forces to war as was done in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Article One Section 8 of our Constitution explicitly requires that THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO “
DECLARE” WARS.

As has been the case with every battle/war the US has been in, save 5, the President has more authority than you think. And why hasn't any court, including the SCOTUS, ever declared one unconstitutional?


The Constitution divides war powers between the Congress and the President. This division was intended by the framers to ensure that wars would not be entered into easily: it takes two keys, not one, to start the engine of war.

The Constitution's division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act. Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important--in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress.

The Supreme Court has had relatively little to say about the Constitution's war powers. Many interesting legal questions--such as the constitutionality of the "police action" in Korea or the "undeclared war" in Viet Nam--were never decided by the Court. (Although the Supreme Court had three opportunities to decide the constitutionality of the war in Viet Nam, it passed on each one.)

During the Civil War, the Court issued two significant opinions interpreting the war powers. In the Prize Cases (1863), the Court on a 5 to 4 vote upheld President Lincoln's order blockading southern ports--even though the order was issued prior to a formal declaration of war on the Rebel states by Congress. The Court found Lincoln's action authorized by a 1795 Act allowing the President to call out troops to suppress an insurrection. The dissenters argued the President's action were unconstitutional, as a blockade is quite different that an action merely directed at those participating in an insurrection. Three years later, in Ex Parte Milligan, the Court found unconstitutional Lincoln's order authorizing trial by a military tribunal of Lambdin P. Milligan, an Indiana lawyer accused of stirring up support for the Confederacy. The Court ruled that civilians must be tried in civilian courts, even during time of war, so long at least as the civilian courts are open and operating. The Court also found the President lacked authority to declare martial law in Indiana. Four concurring justices argued that even though the President did not have the power to order a military trial of Milligan in the absence of congressional action, the power to authorize use of military tribunals did reside in Congress under its war power.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm

I know though, it's all part of the duopoly and the bribery which started in 1776! :laugh2:

[Robert A Whit]

Since I have also written small pieces on what a Classic Liberal is, since I pronounce this forum full of very smart posters, I believe that those of us backing Romney know very well he has flaws.

Those who have fewer flaws did not make the cut.

Don't tell me to vote for a 3rd party since I know a good way to virtually make sure my vote cast may be for principle, yet end up helping Obama, so ... NO, I won't waste my vote on a man or woman who has the same chance of becomming president as I do.

I promote being too smart to make a vote that amounts to no vote. Say I had voted for Perot. That would be me helping Clinton. My conscience is clear since I did not vote for Clinton nor Perot and voted for Bush. While Bush lost, a lot of knuckle draggers voted for Perot so they neither got Perot nor a person remotely of their views. If I have to select from the following choices, guess what my choice is.

No apple The entire apple Half the apple

If I know that voters will make sure the entire apple is not there, I am not fooled. I pick the half apple. Clinton was no apple. Obama is no apple.

Romney is my half apple this time.

[jimnyc]

Not according to article one, section 8 of our Constitution which requires that “THE CONGRESS,” not just the Senate approve wars. Aside from that “fact,” There’s no constitutional authority for the Senate or the complete Congress to present any President with a “resolution” that hands congressional proxy, authority and duty to a President to decide for himself whether he wants to take our forces to war as was done in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Article One Section 8 of our Constitution explicitly requires that THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO “
DECLARE” WARS.

I just re-read this - and it does NOT require congress to declare war, simply grants them the power. NOWHERE does it state that it is REQUIRED by Congress. If you knew what you were writing, you would know that this section grants Congress the ability to declare war. You're placing words in there that don't exist, just like the knuckleheads that don't think the constitution grants the right to bear arms.


Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[KarlMarx]

Except for the fact that there’s no constitutional protection in the Constitution for the “unborn” the Constitution only protects the “born” and amendment 4 protects the right of privacy. There is also controversy about when unborn life actually begins.
"no PERSON shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" so says the 5th amendment. So now if one wants abortion on demand, one is struck with a problem... what to do? After all, you can make abortion constitutional if it deprives a person of life without due process of law.. .answer... it's not a person! Problem solved. That's why interpreting the Constitution is such a dangerous thing. It makes it subject to the political passions of the moment... eventually, someone is going to "interpret" the constitution to take away religious freedoms, the right to vote, and human dignity in general. That's what conservatives have been trying to tell you liberals.. but you aren't listening.




Not according to article one, section 8 of our Constitution which requires that “THE CONGRESS,” not just the Senate approve wars. Aside from that “fact,” There’s no constitutional authority for the Senate or the complete Congress to present any President with a “resolution” that hands congressional proxy, authority and duty to a President to decide for himself whether he wants to take our forces to war as was done in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Article One Section 8 of our Constitution explicitly requires that THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO “
DECLARE” WARS.

Hey, I was wrong.. both houses of Congress authorized the president to initiate hostilities in Iraq... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution




Every economist worth their salt will tell you the Iraq & Afghanistan wars have added one trillion dollars to our national debt. Wars paid for by China with America’s “TAXPAYER” credit card.
OK, so if you're so concerned about the debt, then Obamacare, which will add many times more to the debt, is clearly something you can't support.. after all, China is paying for that too.


Please provide my quote proving I said any such thing!




The United States spends more on national defense than the rest of the industrial first world combined, look it up! The United States taxpayers paid for the construction of 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers and are still paying for their upkeep and operations in the billions of dollars. No other country in the world has a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, (China is building “ONE”) The United States has military bases in over 120 foreign nations, no other country on planet earth has anywhere near that number.

SO??????? We're a super power, look it up! I don't apologize for American military superiority and neither should you! That military superiority is what keeps our freedoms and keeps us and our loved ones safe. It also keeps us from becoming a vassal state of a foreign power. Thank God we have it!


BIG government is a duopoly idea. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is “WHO” they allow to feed at the government trough first. War is a BIG government racket.
Defense of the country is authorized by the Constitution, like it or not




My GOD is my personal business and nothing you know anything about!
When you go about insinuating that Christians are trying to take the country over and subjugate women and minorities and impose a theocratic dictatorship it becomes my business. Remarks such as yours reveal the profound lack of respect you have for other people's beliefs and the ignorance of the Christian faith. But of course, that's a badge of honor for people like you




Classic Liberals are limited government constitutionalist and anti-taxation. If we had our way we’d repeal the 16th Amendment. You apparently know nothing about classical liberalism.
Today's liberals are not classic liberals. TOday's conservatives are. No one is saying that the 16th amendment should not be repealed (Income Tax). The framers of the constitution believed in limited government, free markets and public virtue grounded in a knowledge of the Bible and in classical literature (i.e. Homer, Virgil, et al) and patterned our republic after the Roman Republic...Ithink I have a general idea of what classic liberalism is.




This President is a neo-lib socialist communist. Your President G. W. Bush was and is a RINO Neo-Con, who also did a fair share of increasing government, wars and socialist programs, huh?

I didn't like Bush, but I supported him when I agreed with him. Ronald Reagan, he was the last conservative president we had, IMO.





So in your world the United Nations fought and won the territory now claimed as “Israel,” right? Hogwash!!! Well friend, if the United Nations did what you claim, then let the United Nations defend Israel, while America pulls out of the socialist authoritarian UN body of social drinkers and bribery experts.

Following the adoption of a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly) on 29 November 1947, recommending the adoption and implementation of the United Nations partition plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine) of Mandatory Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine), on 14 May 1948





“My guy” is Gary Johnson, do you even have a clue about who he is?
Frankly no, and as Rhett Butler said.....

[Robert A Whit]

Marx did fine in his reply.

I would add though that we ought to take a hard look at the size of our military as to heavy arms.

If we would be willing to use our super weapons, it could save a lot of money and we would not need so many men in uniform. The cash saved could pay off the Feds debts and cut taxes for all payers.

If the 47 percent ever get ticked over the debts, they can be asked to start kicking some funds over to the Feds. Nobody of course WANTS to pay income taxes. We all realize that the sucking sound we hear is the Feds passing laws to vacuum our bank account.

I personally feel no compelling urge to play world cop. Even Obama plays world cop. And after he made all those false promises. Who would have thunk it?!?!

[mundame]

When you go about insinuating that Christians are trying to take the country over and subjugate women and minorities and impose a theocratic dictatorship it becomes my business. Remarks such as yours reveal the profound lack of respect you have for other people's beliefs ...



Your handle, KarlMarx, is a worrying one for a Christian.

Certainly some rightwing political candidates ARE trying to subjugate women, at least. It's been a constant in this election since last fall and is the big news as of today as yet another Senate campaign falls victim to foot-in-mouth disease and unwisely tells the horrified nation what he actually believes and means to do to women.

If you and such candidates really had respect for other people's beliefs, they wouldn't try to control them about major issues affecting their lives.

Libertarians (which is the modern term for "classical liberals") think people should mind their own business and not bother with other people's business if it is not directly harming them.

Does your Christian belief say to control and subjugate women or to let them do what they think they should do and mind your own business?

[aboutime]

Your handle, KarlMarx, is a worrying one for a Christian.

Certainly some rightwing political candidates ARE trying to subjugate women, at least. It's been a constant in this election since last fall and is the big news as of today as yet another Senate campaign falls victim to foot-in-mouth disease and unwisely tells the horrified nation what he actually believes and means to do to women.

If you and such candidates really had respect for other people's beliefs, they wouldn't try to control them about major issues affecting their lives.

Libertarians (which is the modern term for "classical liberals") think people should mind their own business and not bother with other people's business if it is not directly harming them.

Does your Christian belief say to control and subjugate women or to let them do what they think they should do and mind your own business?



mundame. So, when will YOU start taking Your Own Libertarian Advice above, and MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS?

[fj1200]

The problem with replying in this thread is not to argue the accuracy of the positions laid out but to decide whether CL is correct in his interpretation of presenting examples of what a "RINO Neo-Con" would support. If you think a true conservative/constitutionalist would support those positions then argue that point.

Example: Abortion is a conservative position because it protects life rather than just being a way to impose your values on one half of the population. In that case I think he is wrong.

[mundame]

The problem with replying in this thread is not to argue the accuracy of the positions laid out but to decide whether CL is correct in his interpretation of presenting examples of what a "RINO Neo-Con" would support. If you think a true conservative/constitutionalist would support those positions then argue that point.


You are so structured, fj1200! :cool: That's too hard. Does anyone care what a Republican-in-name-only Neo-Con would support? That's limited to people like William Kristol and other Jews at the Weekly Standard, isn't it? I know during the Bush administration people were constantly calling rightwing Jews Neo-Cons.

That's too hard. And there are too few of them to spend much time analyzing, aren't there?

[aboutime]

The problem with replying in this thread is not to argue the accuracy of the positions laid out but to decide whether CL is correct in his interpretation of presenting examples of what a "RINO Neo-Con" would support. If you think a true conservative/constitutionalist would support those positions then argue that point.

Example: Abortion is a conservative position because it protects life rather than just being a way to impose your values on one half of the population. In that case I think he is wrong.


FJ1200. Why should any of us place any value in the WHAT, and WHY someone else wants to use words that label other people when the definitions may, and do vary a lot...depending on the opinions, or idea's of other people?

Name calling just seems so immature, and childish. It really doesn't warrant discussion since. Doing so. Is just more ammunition for the name caller to impress themselves with.

[KarlMarx]

Your handle, KarlMarx, is a worrying one for a Christian.

It's a long story... to make a long story short, I chose KarlMarx as a joke because he's the one person whose views are diametrically opposite mine. The name stuck, and it's been over 8 years and now I just can't seem to think of a better handle for myself.


Certainly some rightwing political candidates ARE trying to subjugate women, at least. It's been a constant in this election since last fall and is the big news as of today as yet another Senate campaign falls victim to foot-in-mouth disease and unwisely tells the horrified nation what he actually believes and means to do to women.
Left wing politicians are just as guilty of subjugating women... Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, need I say more?



If you and such candidates really had respect for other people's beliefs, they wouldn't try to control them about major issues affecting their lives.

Respecting other peoples' beliefs is secondary to what God wants us to do. If we see a wrong, we should do what we can within the system to correct it. That's what our country was founded on.


Libertarians (which is the modern term for "classical liberals") think people should mind their own business and not bother with other people's business if it is not directly harming them.
"if it's not directly harming them..." is a subjective term



Does your Christian belief say to control and subjugate women or to let them do what they think they should do and mind your own business?
God gave us free will, we choose to follow His teachings or we don't. Women are told to submit to their husbands but what isn't well known is that husbands are told to submit to their wives, too.

[fj1200]

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if You oppose abortion,

One can easily be a classic liberal and support that the government is the specific entity that is entrusted with protecting life, liberty, and property. At what point do you believe one is entitled to protection of their natural rights?


...but you promote blowing hell out of born and unborn babies and anybody else that gets in the way in the unnecessary, un-declared, un-paid-for unconstitutional foreign wars you enjoy so much.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think having American military forces in over 120 countries all over the world serving as a military police force and spending billions of American taxpayers money defending other countries who can easily afford to defend themselves is a good idea?

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that spending more on defense than all of the rest of the first world countries combined, having 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers when the rest of the world has none and China is building just “ONE,” and the American military has enough Admirals and Generals to supply the rest of the world with military leadership and still have enough left over for America, is a good idea and cutting defense spending is an atrocious insult to what is supposed to be “NATIONAL” defense.

I'm pretty sure no one advocates "blowing the hell out of born and unborn" but each of your examples comes down to how we're going to define "national" defense. We hardly act as a police force given that we pick and choose our actions to take and avoid specific entanglements. We also have various treaties and allies that need our support but you're probably right that we can limit our overseas involvement. That being said I think we can roll back some of our bases.


You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you Think the nation should be governed by the Christian Bible instead of the Constitution.

Can you provide an example where Neo-Cons are advocating making adultery a crime?


You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that BIG intrusive authoritarian government was ordained by your GOD to decide what the definition of a marriage contract between agreeing adults has to be and it must conform to your religious ideas.

You won't get to much argument from me out of that one but the state does have authority to define the benefits that it wants to dole out. It doesn't take a "BIG" one to do that though.


You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think it’s America’s responsibility to defend Israel against Israel’s decision to create their nation smack dab in the middle of their sworn enemies.

I prefer to think that we would be friends to those who advocate freedom and democratic institutions.


You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think Flipper Mitt Romney is a “conservative” and the Ryan Plan that balances the budget in 30 years after 15 new Congresses have their say in that matter is actually a logical policy.

You do understand that even the POTUS can't force Congress' hands for 30 years don't you?

[aboutime]

It's a long story... to make a long story short, I chose KarlMarx as a joke because he's the one person whose views are diametrically opposite mine. The name stuck, and it's been over 8 years and now I just can't seem to think of a better handle for myself.


Left wing politicians are just as guilty of subjugating women... Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, need I say more?



Respecting other peoples' beliefs is secondary to what God wants us to do. If we see a wrong, we should do what we can within the system to correct it. That's what our country was founded on.


"if it's not directly harming them..." is a subjective term


God gave us free will, we choose to follow His teachings or we don't. Women are told to submit to their husbands but what isn't well known is that husbands are told to submit to their wives, too.



Karl. Great answers. Problem is. Despite how you attempted to explain it. mundame will now become "Peanut", better known as Jeff Dunham's little Purple puppet...and everything you tried to explain will just go......"Whooooosh" over mundame's head.

Just watch what happens now.
By the way. As someone who has been called...what I believe, as almost Every Swear, Dirty, Disgusting word in the English language for more years than I care to remember. You are about to become the recipient of such words, based on calling yourself KARLMARX.

How dare you? LOL

[mundame]

Left wing politicians are just as guilty of subjugating women... Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, need I say more?

Irrevelant. Clinton and Kennedy attacked and harmed individual women: they were indeed the very men who would rape or seduce so that the women they went after needed an abortion.

The issue is not about individual rapists or seducers. The issue is about whether women can recover from such crimes and maltreatment by getting an abortion, or whether they have to try to survive the horror of gestating a fetus implanted by such a man because other men just as bad have passed laws forcing them to carry any and all pregnancies to term.




Respecting other peoples' beliefs is secondary to what God wants us to do. If we see a wrong, we should do what we can within the system to correct it. That's what our country was founded on.



That's a very clear answer. That is exactly the position of the Spanish Inquisition as it heated up the iron pinchers --- God supposedly wanted them to do that. Uh-huh.

Also all the Catholics AND Protestants who built big fires around multiple wooden stakes during Tudor times. They tied as many as 12 "heretics" at once to these stakes and set fire to the piles of wood. Thomas More, who when young wrote "Utopia," a famous book about religious freedom and other freedoms, in later life decided God wanted him to burn people alive, so he did that.

So I guess whatever you decide God wants you to do, burning people alive, making laws to subjugate them, that's okay because you've decided God wants you to do it. Sounds like the Muslims: if anybody has a Bible, you've got to kill them because Allah says so!

I would like to see people with these terrible, coercive belief systems stop trying to control other people and work on their own way of being in the world. Your business is yourself, never other people.

[fj1200]

You are so structured, fj1200! :cool: That's too hard. Does anyone care what a Republican-in-name-only Neo-Con would support? That's limited to people like William Kristol and other Jews at the Weekly Standard, isn't it? I know during the Bush administration people were constantly calling rightwing Jews Neo-Cons.

That's too hard. And there are too few of them to spend much time analyzing, aren't there?

Thanks... I think... but :eek: I'm not concerned how others like to label people beyond the discussion possibilities. It just seems that CL is taking himself out of the running for having a say in the political process because there are just not that many who care enough to throw in with the Libertarians.


FJ1200. Why should any of us place any value in the WHAT, and WHY someone else wants to use words that label other people when the definitions may, and do vary a lot...depending on the opinions, or idea's of other people?

Name calling just seems so immature, and childish. It really doesn't warrant discussion since. Doing so. Is just more ammunition for the name caller to impress themselves with.

I don't consider him railing against "RINO Neo-Cons" as name-calling but his approach is pointless (I use that word too much) as it alienates those who he could convince. He has been called a "liberal" (in the progressive sense of the word) fairly inaccurately IMO so I don't see an issue with him using the language he has chosen.

[aboutime]

Thanks... I think... but :eek: I'm not concerned how others like to label people beyond the discussion possibilities. It just seems that CL is taking himself out of the running for having a say in the political process because there are just not that many who care enough to throw in with the Libertarians.



I don't consider him railing against "RINO Neo-Cons" as name-calling but his approach is pointless (I use that word too much) as it alienates those who he could convince. He has been called a "liberal" (in the progressive sense of the word) fairly inaccurately IMO so I don't see an issue with him using the language he has chosen.

Based on this topic, as well as his endless rantings about Mormon's. I find CL is nothing more than someone who enjoys being somewhat of a perpetual, trouble-maker. Like those bullies in school, making spit-balls in school classrooms to throw at other children, or the teacher. But always defensive, and always in a denial mode...even after being caught.
Consequently. Those who feel a need to make trouble, or add to it. Deserve little attention from others that only builds their Immature confidence to do it again, and often.

[mundame]

It just seems that CL is taking himself out of the running for having a say in the political process because there are just not that many who care enough to throw in with the Libertarians.



Well, he is, of course, and so am I. Neither he nor I nor at least one other here are voting for mainstream candidates.

Nevertheless, things may change one day. The Whigs changed to Republicans back when; the Republicans may change to Libertarians.

[fj1200]

Based on this topic, as well as his endless rantings about Mormon's. I find CL is nothing more than someone who enjoys being somewhat of a perpetual, trouble-maker. Like those bullies in school, making spit-balls in school classrooms to throw at other children, or the teacher. But always defensive, and always in a denial mode...even after being caught.
Consequently. Those who feel a need to make trouble, or add to it. Deserve little attention from others that only builds their Immature confidence to do it again, and often.

Meh, more of a typical vocal libertarian IMO and I usually don't find fault when one speaks with passion unless they won't acknowledge other viewpoints. I don't recall any of his Mormon comments.

[Classic Liberal]

I just re-read this - and it does NOT require congress to declare war, simply grants them the power. NOWHERE does it state that it is REQUIRED by Congress. If you knew what you were writing, you would know that this section grants Congress the ability to declare war. You're placing words in there that don't exist, just like the knuckleheads that don't think the constitution grants the right to bear arms.

Well Jimmy since the Constitution doesn’t give anybody except “THE CONGRESS” the power to declare war then the Constitution “REQUIRES” that only the Congress declare wars, don’t you think?

[red states rule]

Irrevelant. Clinton and Kennedy attacked and harmed individual women: they were indeed the very men who would rape or seduce so that the women they went after needed an abortion.

The issue is not about individual rapists or seducers. The issue is about whether women can recover from such crimes and maltreatment by getting an abortion, or whether they have to try to survive the horror of gestating a fetus implanted by such a man because other men just as bad have passed laws forcing them to carry any and all pregnancies to term.




That's a very clear answer. That is exactly the position of the Spanish Inquisition as it heated up the iron pinchers --- God supposedly wanted them to do that. Uh-huh.

Also all the Catholics AND Protestants who built big fires around multiple wooden stakes during Tudor times. They tied as many as 12 "heretics" at once to these stakes and set fire to the piles of wood. Thomas More, who when young wrote "Utopia," a famous book about religious freedom and other freedoms, in later life decided God wanted him to burn people alive, so he did that.

So I guess whatever you decide God wants you to do, burning people alive, making laws to subjugate them, that's okay because you've decided God wants you to do it. Sounds like the Muslims: if anybody has a Bible, you've got to kill them because Allah says so!

I would like to see people with these terrible, coercive belief systems stop trying to control other people and work on their own way of being in the world. Your business is yourself, never other people.


So itis clear you support the murder of unborn children. How is that a US Constitutional right? Is it really a right for women to have their birth control pills paid by someone else?

Is $9/month a financial hardship for women Mundame?

Like Obama you are ful of it and the polls that show women are going to Romney is proof

Most women do not care about "free" birth control - they care about jobs and their kids future

The fact libs hold up a RAPIST and SEXUAL PREDATOR like Bil Clinton shows they really do not give a damn about women except when it comes to buying their vote

[Classic Liberal]

"no PERSON shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" so says the 5th amendment. So now if one wants abortion on demand, one is struck with a problem... what to do? After all, you can make abortion constitutional if it deprives a person of life without due process of law.. .answer... it's not a person! Problem solved. That's why interpreting the Constitution is such a dangerous thing. It makes it subject to the political passions of the moment... eventually, someone is going to "interpret" the constitution to take away religious freedoms, the right to vote, and human dignity in general. That's what conservatives have been trying to tell you liberals.. but you aren't listening.

“All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States……” (Amendment 14)

According to the Constitution a person whenever they become a “person,” has to be “BORN” or naturalized to be a citizen with constitutional protection of privileges and immunities. There are no constitutional protections for the “unborn,” but there is constitutional protection for “privacy” see Amendment 4.

It would require a constitutional amendment to grant privileges and immunities to the unborn. The right-wing abortion argument is a non-starter. If you can’t get a constitutional amendment, you’re wasting your breath unless of course you can get a large enough majority in government and on the court to simply violate the Constitution which is usually what the democratic mob rule duopoly does.






Hey, I was wrong.. both houses of Congress authorized the president to initiate hostilities in Iraq... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution%5b/quote)

OK, now go find the authority in the Constitution for the Congress to create a “RESOLUTION” that gives congressional proxy to a President authorizing a President to decide for himself/herself whether he/she wants to start a war. Of course there’s no such constitutional authority for Congress to do anything of the kind. “THE CONGRESS” has the sole authority and “DUTY” to declare war, (Article One, Section Eight)


OK, so if you're so concerned about the debt, then Obamacare, which will add many times more to the debt, is clearly something you can't support.. after all, China is paying for that too.

I don’t support Democrats or Obamacare or any kind of government socialism. This thread isn’t about Obama or Obamacare it’s about “You Might Be A RINO Neo-Con if.”


SO??????? We're a super power, look it up! I don't apologize for American military superiority and neither should you! That military superiority is what keeps our freedoms and keeps us and our loved ones safe. It also keeps us from becoming a vassal state of a foreign power. Thank God we have it!

But I never said I didn’t support American military superiority. I simply said you might be a RINO Neo-Con if you support American military stupidity, overkill, world police forces, bases in over 120 other countries, 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers when the rest of the world has none, enough Admirals and Generals to supply every military on earth with military commanders and still have enough left over for America.



Defense of the country is authorized by the Constitution, like it or not

I never said it wasn’t now did I?

[red states rule]

CL I am still waiting - or are you one of those libs who set the parameters and premise of the debate and will not venture outside the box?




you just might be a liberal if...

1) You get extremely upset about the idea of the government coming into our bedrooms unless it's to give everyone free birth control.

2) You believe that people who hold the exact same position on gay marriage that Barack Obama did last year are horrible bigots who are unfit to hold office.

3) You think that Mitt Romney, who has raked leaves for old people, helped a dying child with his will, and paid for college educations for kids who became quadriplegics in a car wreck (http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/09/25/7_incredible_personal_stories_about_mitt_romney_th at_you_may_not_know/page/full/), is less compassionate than Barack Obama who makes fun of kids in the Special Olympics (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/the-worst-of-barack-obama-in-quotes-87-quotes/) and made his own brother beg other people to get the money to pay for his child's hospital bill (http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/barack-obama-is-going-to-take-care-of-you-he-doesnt-even-take-care-of-his-own-family/).

4) You think Mitt Romney having an offshore bank account is a bigger deal than Barack Obama forgiving a billion dollars of debt owed to us by the anti-American, pro-terrorist theocrats who run Egypt.

5) You believe that Obama putting more Americans on food stamps than any other President in history is a feature, not a bug.

6) You get angry because you believe rich Americans aren't paying their "fair share," but you don't question whether the government is spending its "fair share" of the money that other people earned on the Stimulus, cash for clunkers, Solyndra, and other wasteful uses of our tax dollars.

7) You think Halliburton bidding for and winning government contracts was a scandal since Dick Cheney used to work there, but you think Barack Obama giving away 25 billion dollars in taxpayer money (http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/barack-obama-is-going-to-take-care-of-you-he-doesnt-even-take-care-of-his-own-family/) to help out his union cronies at GM and Chevrolet is honest and above reproach.

8) You believe anti-war protests, dead soldiers, and "grim milestones" ceased to be important the moment Barack Obama was elected and chose to continue many of the same practices he criticized when he ran for office in 2008.

9) You think Mitt Romney putting his dog on top of his car to take on his vacation is a big deal, but Barack Obama eating a dog to GAIN ITS POWERS isn't (http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/17/obama-bites-dog/).

10) You think the key issues of Election 2012 are whether Romney releases his old tax returns as opposed to which candidate can help get the economy back on track, create jobs, and get the debt under control.

11) You don't believe there's any voter fraud in America after watching Democrats commit voter fraud on the floor of their own convention (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=359913227417400&set=a.245230232219034.55700.174401882635203&type=1&theater) to put God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel back into their party platform.

12) You believe that most of the people who are criticizing Barack Obama are doing it because he's black, but you would be offended if someone said the only reason you criticize Mitt Romney is because you hate Mormons.

13) You think that the best way to "save Medicare" is to support Barack Obama, who took $718 billion out of the program to fund Obamacare, over Mitt Romney who would kill Obamacare and put that money back in the program.

14) You believe Bush is a war criminal for creating Gitmo and wasting terrorists with drone attacks, but Barack Obama is just doing what he has to do to keep us safe.
15) You get more upset about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Barack Obama does with our money.

16) You think that giving the SEALs permission to kill Osama Bin Laden is actually a "gutsy call" as opposed to the same call pretty much any adult American not named Louis Farrakhan or Michael Moore would have made.

17) You think Barack Obama's four years of miserable failure at creating jobs makes him better qualified to get the economy going than Mitt Romney's wildly successful career as an entrepreneur.

18) You are demanding that the GOP cease its "war on women" by agreeing to the government-funded abortions of tens of millions of unborn women.

19) You believe that guns are dangerous and should be heavily regulated, that is unless they're being given to Mexican cartels by the Department of Justice, in which case you think anything goes.

20) You accept the idea that George W. Bush is responsible for all the problems we have now because the President of the United States is so powerful, but you also believe that Barack Obama isn't responsible for anything that's going wrong because Republicans in Congress won't let him do anything he wants.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnh...ion/page/full/ (http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/10/02/20_reasons_you_just_might_be_a_liberal_2012_electi on_edition/page/full/)

[Classic Liberal]

Today's liberals are not classic liberals. TOday's conservatives are.

Of course, no argument there but only the true libertarians are the true “conservatives” as well as the true “liberals.”


No one is saying that the 16th amendment should not be repealed (Income Tax). The framers of the constitution believed in limited government, free markets and public virtue grounded in a knowledge of the Bible and in classical literature (i.e. Homer, Virgil, et al) and patterned our republic after the Roman Republic...Ithink I have a general idea of what classic liberalism is.

Good for you, then why have you been accusing me and indicating that I’m a leftist Obama supporter?


I didn't like Bush, but I supported him when I agreed with him. Ronald Reagan, he was the last conservative president we had, IMO.

Reagan was a BIG government militarist and just another in a long line of RINO Neo-Cons. Reagan along with his Irish drinking buddy Tip O’Neal Democrat Speaker Of The House, damn near tripled the national debt, look it up!

[Classic Liberal]

Based on this topic, as well as his endless rantings about Mormon's. I find CL is nothing more than someone who enjoys being somewhat of a perpetual, trouble-maker. Like those bullies in school, making spit-balls in school classrooms to throw at other children, or the teacher. But always defensive, and always in a denial mode...even after being caught.
Consequently. Those who feel a need to make trouble, or add to it. Deserve little attention from others that only builds their Immature confidence to do it again, and often.


As usual, no relevant reply to the subject matter, simply assassination attempts on the messenger. How pathetic!!!

[red states rule]

Of course, no argument there but only the true libertarians are the true “conservatives” as well as the true “liberals.”



Good for you, then why have you been accusing me and indicating that I’m a leftist Obama supporter?



Reagan was a BIG government militarist and just another in a long line of RINO Neo-Cons. Reagan along with his Irish drinking buddy Tip O’Neal Democrat Speaker Of The House, damn near tripled the national debt, look it up!

CL you are very uninformed when it comes to Pres Reagan. He took America out of the Carter economy and unleashed the greatest peacetime expansion of the US economy ever

He won re-election with 49 states in 1984 and is looked upon as one of the greatest Presidents in our history

Amercia needs another Reagan right now to clean up the mess of another bumbling stumbling tax and spend liberal but alas, there is no Reagan in sight

[red states rule]

As usual, no relevant reply to the subject matter, simply assassination attempts on the messenger. How pathetic!!!

Translation: I am stuck for a response so I will play the victim card

[Classic Liberal]

As has been the case with every battle/war the US has been in, save 5, the President has more authority than you think. And why hasn't any court, including the SCOTUS, ever declared one unconstitutional?

Well Jimmy, if the President has the power to declare war and the Congress has the authority to hand “resolutions” to Presidents that proxy the sole power granted by the Constitution to the Congress to declare war, Then it must be time for you to point out those powers in the Constitution, don’t you think?

“You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think the Constitution says what you want it to say and not what it actually says.”

[red states rule]

Well Jimmy, if the President has the power to declare war and the Congress has the authority to hand “resolutions” to Presidents that proxy the sole power granted by the Constitution to the Congress to declare war, Then it must be time for you to point out those powers in the Constitution, don’t you think?

“You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think the Constitution says what you want it to say and not what it actually says.”

I do enjoy education liberals




The War Powers Act of 1973

50 USC S.1541-1548, 1973

The War Powers Resolution, generally known as the War Powers Act, was passed by Congress over President Nixon's veto to increase congressional control over the executive branch in foreign policy matters, specifically in regard to military actions short of formally declared war. Its central provision prohibited the President from engaging in military actions for more than sixty days, unless Congress voted approval.
The key Section 1541(c) reads:


(c) Presidential Executive Power as Commander-in-Chief; Limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.



http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/dye4/medialib/docs/warpower.htm

[Classic Liberal]

glockmail. Let's all agree to just stop responding to Classic Liberal here. Every time I see that name. All I remind myself to remember is. How Classic Liberal, and Obama both have so much in common. As in. They are both survivors of Partial Birth Abortions...gone bad.

Conspiring to ignore me is likely your best bet since you never have anything relevant to the subject matter of my post anyhow. Your only argument is always the same ole tired insults intended to assassinate the messenger, when in reality you simply prove your ineptitude at rational debate. How pathetic!!!

[red states rule]

Conspiring to ignore me is likely your best bet since you never have anything relevant to the subject matter of my post anyhow. Your only argument is always the same ole tired insults intended to assassinate the messenger, when in reality you simply prove your ineptitude at rational debate. How pathetic!!!

Perhaps if you were not so arrogant, smug, condescending, and snarky - you would get more respect and people would be happy to carry on a civil discussion with you

[Classic Liberal]

Meh, more of a typical vocal libertarian IMO and I usually don't find fault when one speaks with passion unless they won't acknowledge other viewpoints. I don't recall any of his Mormon comments.

My “Mormon” comments were all in the dreams ofthe dreamer that claimed I made them. How pathetic!!!

[Classic Liberal]

The problem with replying in this thread is not to argue the accuracy of the positions laid out but to decide whether CL is correct in his interpretation of presenting examples of what a "RINO Neo-Con" would support. If you think a true conservative/constitutionalist would support those positions then argue that point.

Example: Abortion is a conservative position because it protects life rather than just being a way to impose your values on one half of the population. In that case I think he is wrong.

“LIFE”, is a position of not only a true conservative but also a true liberal who are constitutionally synonymous i. e. limited government/individual liberty, they belong together like peace & tranquility, you can’t have one without the other. It’s one thing to be pro-life, and another thing to be pro-liberty. You can surely be pro-life and depend on God to take care of the abortion issue. You can be pro-life but still promote the idea that to repeal a woman’s right to privacy must be done only by constitutional amendment.

[fj1200]

“LIFE”, is a position of not only a true conservative but also a true liberal who are constitutionally synonymous i. e. limited government/individual liberty, they belong together like peace & tranquility, you can’t have one without the other. It’s one thing to be pro-life, and another thing to be pro-liberty. You can surely be pro-life and depend on God to take care of the abortion issue. You can be pro-life but still promote the idea that to repeal a woman’s right to privacy must be done only by constitutional amendment.

Not when they conflict.

[tailfins]

Isn't using lefty buzzwords like Neo-Con the same thing as waving your arms in the air and shouting "Hey everybody, I'm a leftist"?

[Classic Liberal]

CL I am still waiting - or are you one of those libs who set the parameters and premise of the debate and will not venture outside the box?

I see no need to reply to any of that, since you seemingly don’t know the difference between a leftist and a liberal.

I’m a true classic liberal/constitutionalist/libertarian/true conservative. Why would I have a disagreeable responding argument with your presentation of “leftism?” We could dismantle the left all day every day, they’re absurd mental midgets and hopeless communist dupes. However the rightist still have some hope. The first step is to expose the RINO Neo-Cons that own them now days then get them to return to true constitutional conservatism which is synonymous with true constitutional liberalism.

[Classic Liberal]

Perhaps if you were not so arrogant, smug, condescending, and snarky - you would get more respect and people would be happy to carry on a civil discussion with you

But the truth is always received as such. I shouldn’t be blamed for posting truths that some apparently have no rational arguments for.

It’s irrelevant to me whether some have or have not the will to discuss with me and if you will, show me where I’ve been un-civil in any of my post, where I’ve been arrogant, smug, condescending and snarky and then I’ll show you where I’ve been personally insulted several times and by one person in particular who has nothing but insults to post.

[Classic Liberal]

Isn't using lefty buzzwords like Neo-Con the same thing as waving your arms in the air and shouting "Hey everybody, I'm a leftist"?

The word “Neo-Con” is simply an acronym for “Neo-Conservative”i. e. “NEW” Conservative. It only seemsto denote in and of itself somethingevil and insulting to the folks that know they’re Neo-Cons but want other folksto think they’re actually real conservatives. Actually the word Neo-Con usually only inspires Neo-Cons to jump up anddown and wave their arms and shout claims that they’ve been insulted, when in realitythey’ve just been correctly identified.

[jimnyc]

Well Jimmy since the Constitution doesn’t give anybody except “THE CONGRESS” the power to declare war then the Constitution “REQUIRES” that only the Congress declare wars, don’t you think?


OK, now go find the authority in the Constitution for the Congress to create a “RESOLUTION” that gives congressional proxy to a President authorizing a President to decide for himself/herself whether he/she wants to start a war. Of course there’s no such constitutional authority for Congress to do anything of the kind. “THE CONGRESS” has the sole authority and “DUTY” to declare war, (Article One, Section Eight)



Well Jimmy, if the President has the power to declare war and the Congress has the authority to hand “resolutions” to Presidents that proxy the sole power granted by the Constitution to the Congress to declare war, Then it must be time for you to point out those powers in the Constitution, don’t you think?

So, in the COTUS, it states that it "requires" congress to declare wars? It states that Congress has a "Duty" to declare wars? It states that Congress has the authority to hand "resolutions" to Presidents to start war? And then you have the audacity to tell others to point out powers in the COTUS? You are intellectually dishonest and lacking. I disagree with you, SCOTUS disagrees with you and the COTUS disagrees with you. I won't entertain your crap anymore, it's like arguing with a child who makes up shit as he goes along and then blames others for their attitude.

[cadet]

Isn't using lefty buzzwords like Neo-Con the same thing as waving your arms in the air and shouting "Hey everybody, I'm a leftist"?

If you've gone through this whole thread, CL has been basically arguing the difference between a New type of conservative, and the old. If you realize, liberal views changed views completely, almost 180. I think CL is trying to say that Conservatism is switching the same way.

And reading through these, I think CL is further right then I am. :salute:

[jimnyc]

If you've gone through this whole thread, CL has been basically arguing the difference between a New type of conservative, and the old. If you realize, liberal views changed views completely, almost 180. I think CL is trying to say that Conservatism is switching the same way.

And reading through these, I think CL is further right then I am. :salute:

But I would like to add that you are far more intelligent than he is, much more polite and have a much better grasp of the English language. I don't think he is far right though as several of his stances completely contradict with what conservatism stands for.

[Abbey Marie]

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if You oppose abortion, but you promote blowing hell out of born and unborn babies and anybody else that gets in the way in the unnecessary, un-declared, un-paid-for unconstitutional foreign wars you enjoy so much.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think having American military forces in over 120 countries all over the world serving as a military police force and spending billions of American taxpayers money defending other countries who can easily afford to defend themselves is a good idea?

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that spending more on defense than all of the rest of the first world countries combined, having 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers when the rest of the world has none and China is building just “ONE,” and the American military has enough Admirals and Generals to supply the rest of the world with military leadership and still have enough left over for America, is a good idea and cutting defense spending is an atrocious insult to what is supposed to be “NATIONAL” defense.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you Think the nation should be governed by the Christian Bible instead of the Constitution.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that BIG intrusive authoritarian government was ordained by your GOD to decide what the definition of a marriage contract between agreeing adults has to be and it must conform to your religious ideas.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think it’s America’s responsibility to defend Israel against Israel’s decision to create their nation smack dab in the middle of their sworn enemies.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think Flipper Mitt Romney is a “conservative” and the Ryan Plan that balances the budget in 30 years after 15 new Congresses have their say in that matter is actually a logical policy.

Putting aside for the moment the arguments over who has the right to that land, Israel's ancient and staggeringly important religious history in the area makes it far, far more than a mere "decision to create their nation". If you think that, you need some extensive history lessons.

Btw, I do not see a source for the OP. Did you author it?

[cadet]

But I would like to add that you are far more intelligent than he is, much more polite and have a much better grasp of the English language. I don't think he is far right though as several of his stances completely contradict with what conservatism stands for.

I believe the further right you get, the more you start to think; Small gov, almost nonexistent. local militia. the constitution is the best thing ever, and we should take it word for word. almost nonexistent tax's, and every business should be free to do whatever they want. where you have to rely on your own word and be a good person, else friends and family (not unemployment) won't help you when you get "in a ditch" so to speak.

Honestly, i think he's just trying to point out a right wing faker and the real deal.
Now, do i think he's dumb enough to vote libertarian? no. cause we all know that's just giving a bigger chance for Obama to get back in, and we at least want that dipshit out.

If the libertarian stood a chance, i'd vote for him, but as it is, he's just making it a higher chance that Obama doesn't get out.

[Classic Liberal]

So, in the COTUS, it states that it "requires" congress to declare wars?

Yes! Congress is the only governing body with the designated constitutional power to declare war! (Article One Section Eight)


It states that Congress has a "Duty" to declare wars?

Yes! By the simple fact that “ONLY” the Congress is authorized by the Constitution to declare war, only the Congress has the “DUTY” to declare war whenever only THE CONGRESS determines a declaration of war need be.


It states that Congress has the authority to hand "resolutions" to Presidents to start war?

Absolutely Not! There is no authorization in the Constitution for the Congress to proxy their “sole” authority to any President or anybody else to declare war.


And then you have the audacity to tell others to point out powers in the COTUS? You are intellectually dishonest and lacking.

If I’m not mistaken, you are the one claiming that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are Constitutional. I’ve simply proven that they are not.


I disagree with you, SCOTUS disagrees with you and the COTUS disagrees with you.

Well Jimmy, if you disagree, prove your point and provide the constitutional article, script, verses or amendments to prove I’m wrong and you’re right. You can’t do that Jimmy, because you haven’t a constitutional leg to stand on.


I won't entertain your crap anymore, it's like arguing with a child who makes up shit as he goes along and then blames others for their attitude.

All you have to do is read the Constitution Jimmy to know I’m not making anything up.

You said you were going to ignore me before. Is your word credible this time?

[Classic Liberal]

But I would like to add that you are far more intelligent than he is, much more polite and have a much better grasp of the English language.

That’s humorous Jimmy, you write insults toward me that you cannot prove where I’ve ever been impolite to anybody, and then have the gonads to accuse me of your sins. How pathetic is that??? Actually you and one particular other on these forums are the epitome of insulting and impoliteness.

[aboutime]

That’s humorous Jimmy, you write insults toward me that you cannot prove where I’ve ever been impolite to anybody, and then have the gonads to accuse me of your sins. How pathetic is that??? Actually you and one particular other on these forums are the epitome of insulting and impoliteness.

CL. Just another case that proves to the rest of us. How intimidated, angry, and frustrated you always get whenever anyone states the truth to, or about you.

[jimnyc]

CL. Just another case that proves to the rest of us. How intimidated, angry, and frustrated you always get whenever anyone states the truth to, or about you.

He's simply a waste of time and another one feeling pissy because the candidates he likes are crappy and America wants no part of them.

[Classic Liberal]

Putting aside for the moment the arguments over who has the right to that land, Israel's ancient and staggeringly important religious history in the area makes it far, far more than a mere "decision to create their nation". If you think that, you need some extensive history lessons.

How does any of that excuse the notion that America owes its blood and treasure to defend a nation that decided for itself to recreate itself smack dab in the middle of its sworn enemies?


Btw, I do not see a source for the OP. Did you author it?

YES!

[Classic Liberal]

He's simply a waste of time and another one feeling pissy because the candidates he likes are crappy and America wants no part of them.

And that’s your best and only argument, right Jimmy? Pethetic!!!

[Classic Liberal]

CL. Just another case that proves to the rest of us. How intimidated, angry, and frustrated you always get whenever anyone states the truth to, or about you.

As usual, that’s your best and only argument. Pethetic!!!

[Classic Liberal]

I believe the further right you get, the more you start to think; Small gov, almost nonexistent. local militia. the constitution is the best thing ever, and we should take it word for word. almost nonexistent tax's, and every business should be free to do whatever they want. where you have to rely on your own word and be a good person, else friends and family (not unemployment) won't help you when you get "in a ditch" so to speak.

Honestly, i think he's just trying to point out a right wing faker and the real deal.
Now, do i think he's dumb enough to vote libertarian? no. cause we all know that's just giving a bigger chance for Obama to get back in, and we at least want that dipshit out.

If the libertarian stood a chance, i'd vote for him, but as it is, he's just making it a higher chance that Obama doesn't get out.

I already voted for Gary Johnson!

Believing that a vote for a libertarian is a vote for Obama is simply the arrogant notion that I’d ever vote for a RINO Neo-Con like Romney. Now that would be “dumb.” I’d never vote to perpetuate the status-quo rigged BIG government duopoly bribery scam.

[aboutime]

As usual, that’s your best and only argument. Pethetic!!!



I totally agree with you Classic Liberal. YOU ARE Pathetic. And it's not an argument when stating honest FACTS.

[cadet]

I already voted for Gary Johnson!

Believing that a vote for a libertarian is a vote for Obama is simply the arrogant notion that I’d ever vote for a RINO Neo-Con like Romney. Now that would be “dumb.” I’d never vote to perpetuate the status-quo rigged BIG government duopoly bribery scam.

It's not being RINO Neo-Con to vote for Romney it's being realistic. Gary has no chance. If a third party actually stood a chance, He'd have my vote, but as it is, he's just pulling votes away from Romney.

Look up the Bull moose party. Theodore just wanted Taft to not get office, so he ran. Even though technically the right side won the election, the votes were so scattered between the right side that the left won.

Be realistic, Gary CAN'T win, as much as we would like him to, but at least we can get that moron Obama out of office.

[aboutime]

I already voted for Gary Johnson!

Believing that a vote for a libertarian is a vote for Obama is simply the arrogant notion that I’d ever vote for a RINO Neo-Con like Romney. Now that would be “dumb.” I’d never vote to perpetuate the status-quo rigged BIG government duopoly bribery scam.


Classic Liberal. Your arrogance is showing. Go back and re-read what you wrote above. Let us know when you grow up.

[red states rule]

I see no need to reply to any of that, since you seemingly don’t know the difference between a leftist and a liberal.

I’m a true classic liberal/constitutionalist/libertarian/true conservative. Why would I have a disagreeable responding argument with your presentation of “leftism?” We could dismantle the left all day every day, they’re absurd mental midgets and hopeless communist dupes. However the rightist still have some hope. The first step is to expose the RINO Neo-Cons that own them now days then get them to return to true constitutional conservatism which is synonymous with true constitutional liberalism.

To bad you were not here a year ago when we had other like minded libs like you who demanded they also set the premise of the debate and only talked about what they wanted to talk about

You would have loved Virgil and OCA CL. Also there is a liberal board I use to post on until the owner demanded I expalin why Republicans passed voter ID laws to suppress the votes of minorities. When I responded how that is not the case but common sense he made it clear I was not allowed to post on the board until I answered his question the way he framed the question

You would fit in fine on that board. PM me and I will give you the web address

[red states rule]

CL. Just another case that proves to the rest of us. How intimidated, angry, and frustrated you always get whenever anyone states the truth to, or about you.


Perhaps CL writes the diatribes for Chris Matthews


file:///Users/Vespa/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_image002.png
<iframe title="MRC TV video player" height="290" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/117735" frameBorder="0" width="500" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[aboutime]

Perhaps CL writes the diatribes for Chris Matthews


file:///Users/Vespa/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_image002.png
<iframe title="MRC TV video player" height="290" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/117735" frameBorder="0" width="500" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>



red states rule. WHO REALLY KNOWS? C.T. Just might be Chris.....Tingle, Matthews. Both seem to be equally Impressed with ignorance on display to be emulated.

[Classic Liberal]

To bad you were not here a year ago when we had other like minded libs like you who demanded they also set the premise of the debate and only talked about what they wanted to talk about

Like minded? Demanded “they also” set the premise of the debate? What in hell are you talking about? Who’s DEMANDING what here?


You would have loved Virgil and OCA CL. Also there is a liberal board I use to post on until the owner demanded I expalin why Republicans passed voter ID laws to suppress the votes of minorities. When I responded how that is not the case but common sense he made it clear I was not allowed to post on the board until I answered his question the way he framed the question

You would fit in fine on that board. PM me and I will give you the web address

Apparently you’re another RINO Neo-Con that doesn’t know the difference between a liberal and a leftist.

Actually, I support voter ID. I’d go even further than that. I’d have potential voters pass a test on the Constitution before I’d allow them to register to vote. That would eliminate the RINO Neo-Cons and the DINO Neo-Libs and only constitutionalist patriots would be voting and America wouldn’t be the freggin train wreck it is today.

Further more, I’d present a constitutional amendment to prohibit any political party from having primary elections on the taxpayer’s dime. I’d make them bear the cost of printing up their own ballots, renting their own buildings to hold their primary voting, pay their own utility bills and use their own voting equipment, just like the third parties have to do.

Political forums are where political morons hang out and “YES” that includes me. I’ve been on several political forums and they’re all pretty much the same. Usually political biases take over and they become angry insulting places for damn fools “YES” like me and you. I just left a rightwing forum because the RINO Neo-Con forum Sheriff put my post all on administration review because of nothing more than political bias and his inability to rationally and honestly debate with me.

[Classic Liberal]

Perhaps CL writes the diatribes for Chris Matthews


file:///Users/Vespa/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_image002.png
<iframe title="MRC TV video player" height="290" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/117735" frameborder="0" width="500" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

And surely you write for the black communist Obama, right?

[Classic Liberal]

red states rule. WHO REALLY KNOWS? C.T. Just might be Chris.....Tingle, Matthews. Both seem to be equally Impressed with ignorance on display to be emulated.

Who the hell is C. T.???

[aboutime]

Who the hell is C. T.???


Asking about a misspelling from HELL really makes no difference. Imagine that. I made a spelling error. And...LOOK WHO pointed it out.

Doesn't really matter how I, or anyone else spells your name here. At least YOU know, it doesn't matter either, C.L. or C.T, or C.C. Should be Confused Liberal.

[Abbey Marie]

How does any of that excuse the notion that America owes its blood and treasure to defend a nation that decided for itself to recreate itself smack dab in the middle of its sworn enemies?



YES!

Two separate issues.
The fact is that you come from an incorrect premise when you frame the argument in the way you do- that Israel just decided to create a nation there. If the premise is bad, the surrounding argument must fail.

Thanks for answering on the authorship question. Though I disagree with you, it is good to have someone who has original thought-out posts.

[mundame]

If you've gone through this whole thread, CL has been basically arguing the difference between a New type of conservative, and the old. If you realize, liberal views changed views completely, almost 180. I think CL is trying to say that Conservatism is switching the same way.

And reading through these, I think CL is further right then I am. :salute:


Ummmmm..........I don't think he's rightwing on several issues. Libertarians tend to be pro-choice, since personal freedom is key to libertarianism.

Really, libertarianism is unclassifiable in terms of Republican/Democrat, and that's very frustrating for people who insist on the Procrustian bed of "you have to be one OR the other!" So as soon as they see that someone is NOT believing what they do, they instantly insist that the libertarian has to be a far-left "liberal," progressive, communist, etc.

I don't think conservatism is switching to libertarianism. Conservatism definitely wants government control of many personal issues, such as abortion, religious observances, many things. CL is correct that both parties want Big Government.

Maybe our mistake as libertarians (not CL's mistake, obviously!) is that we usually don't identify and re-identify ourselves as libertarians. Because people can't classify us liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican and that drives them crazy, so we should perhaps be clear that we're just a different kettle of fish.

[mundame]

It's not being RINO Neo-Con to vote for Romney it's being realistic. Gary has no chance. If a third party actually stood a chance, He'd have my vote, but as it is, he's just pulling votes away from Romney.

Look up the Bull moose party. Theodore just wanted Taft to not get office, so he ran. Even though technically the right side won the election, the votes were so scattered between the right side that the left won.

Be realistic, Gary CAN'T win, as much as we would like him to, but at least we can get that moron Obama out of office.


Musician Jerry Garcia said, "Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil."

I was also taught, like you, that we have to choose between the likeliest winners, have to, have to, it's an ethical public duty.

But time has passed and I don't think that now. Now I think truth is more important than societal taboos.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Like minded? Demanded “they also” set the premise of the debate? What in hell are you talking about? Who’s DEMANDING what here?



Apparently you’re another RINO Neo-Con that doesn’t know the difference between a liberal and a leftist.

Actually, I support voter ID. I’d go even further than that. I’d have potential voters pass a test on the Constitution before I’d allow them to register to vote. That would eliminate the RINO Neo-Cons and the DINO Neo-Libs and only constitutionalist patriots would be voting and America wouldn’t be the freggin train wreck it is today.

Further more, I’d present a constitutional amendment to prohibit any political party from having primary elections on the taxpayer’s dime. I’d make them bear the cost of printing up their own ballots, renting their own buildings to hold their primary voting, pay their own utility bills and use their own voting equipment, just like the third parties have to do.

Political forums are where political morons hang out and “YES” that includes me. I’ve been on several political forums and they’re all pretty much the same. Usually political biases take over and they become angry insulting places for damn fools “YES” like me and you. I just left a rightwing forum because the RINO Neo-Con forum Sheriff put my post all on administration review because of nothing more than political bias and his inability to rationally and honestly debate with me.

Thats all quite informative but in America we have a choice between two evils and so far taking the lesser evil although not great has led to this nation's greatness. Our nation became great in spite of that "necessary" limitaton and did so because of its Morality and Spirit! BOTH OF WHICH HAVE BEEN SAVAGELY ATTACKED BY THE FEDRAL GOVERNMENT IN ITS EVER GROWING QUEST FOR ULTIMATE POWER! The problem is THAT the government has gotten too big for the "lesser evil" to change or limit because the population has been dumbed down and more importantly divided into basicly these three groups by government actions those are the 1.wealthy, 2. the actual workers, 3. the freebie crowd that lives off the earnings of the workers by way of goernment taxes being distributed back to them.. I think this has gotten to a state that the normal process of change by way of voting in candidates that will effect change can not work! And that simpy because government has made sure the public is not actually educated. The average college graduate today is far less educated than the average high school graduate of 1938. I didnt say less, I said far less and that makes it a huge problem that births ever greater numbers of citizens that will take the freebie life and then complain like hell about others working for their success and their livelihood. I blame two Presidents for the most of this and thats FDR and LBJ. Yes, FDR's "New Deal" and LBJ's "War on Poverty", both of which help destroy proper citizenry and civic duty. Additionally LBJ'S 'War on Poverty" destroyed the black family unit and has cost a couple trillion dollars with nothing but negative results !
Both asshat Presidents are praised and adored by the dems/libs/leftists. That clearly points to how damn stupid they are and their ideals are.-Tyr

[Classic Liberal]

Asking about a misspelling from HELL really makes no difference. Imagine that. I made a spelling error. And...LOOK WHO pointed it out.

Doesn't really matter how I, or anyone else spells your name here. At least YOU know, it doesn't matter either, C.L. or C.T, or C.C. Should be Confused Liberal.

But you’ve already proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that you don’t even know what a “liberal” is!!! You don’t even know the difference between a liberal and a leftist!

[Classic Liberal]

Two separate issues.
The fact is that you come from an incorrect premise when you frame the argument in the way you do- that Israel just decided to create a nation there. If the premise is bad, the surrounding argument must fail.

Why should it matter at all “WHY” Israel created their homeland nation smack dab in the middle of their sworn enemies? I fail to see where their reason for doing so can possibly justify the notion that somehow America is duty bound to shed American blood and treasure for Israel.


Thanks for answering on the authorship question. Though I disagree with you, it is good to have someone who has original thought-out posts.

My pleasure! Its nice to converse with someone who even though we disagree, we can disagree without the personal insults and slanderous gibberish of “SOME” on this forum.

[Classic Liberal]

Thats all quite informative but in America we have a choice between two evils

Actually, there are several choices. There are several third parties and we can choose to vote our conscience and principles or we can simply ignore the duopoly’s rigged elections all together and make sure we’re prepared for the inevitable eventual revolution. Buy gold, silver, guns and ammo.

[Abbey Marie]

Musician Jerry Garcia said, "Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil."

I was also taught, like you, that we have to choose between the likeliest winners, have to, have to, it's an ethical public duty.

But time has passed and I don't think that now. Now I think truth is more important than societal taboos.

LOl, Mundame. As a former Deadhead myself, quoting Jerry is funny!

[Abbey Marie]

Why should it matter at all “WHY” Israel created their homeland nation smack dab in the middle of their sworn enemies? I fail to see where their reason for doing so can possibly justify the notion that somehow America is duty bound to shed American blood and treasure for Israel.



My pleasure! Its nice to converse with someone who even though we disagree, we can disagree without the personal insults and slanderous gibberish of “SOME” on this forum.

I think the "Why" is all-important, and in Israel's case, it is an exremely important reason.

I've never been a fan of insults or especially of mockery. There is simply no need for it, and I think it is a go-to for those who have no game. ETA: I have found that we are a more civil board than most.
If I missed your Intro, welcome to the board. :cool:

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/ca102612dBP20121023094530.jpg

[mundame]

Thats all quite informative but in America we have a choice between two evils




Actually, there are several choices. There are several third parties and we can choose to vote our conscience and principles or we can simply ignore the duopoly’s rigged elections all together and make sure we’re prepared for the inevitable eventual revolution. Buy gold, silver, guns and ammo.



I ain't choosing evil. Neither evil. If people want to choose an evil, hey, enjoy, but I draw the line there.

[mundame]

I've never been a fan of insults or especially of mockery. There is simply no need for it, and I think it is a go-to for those who have no game.

A go-to for those who have no game!! I love that.


I once heard a good argument for fights, insults, put-downs, and hates on forums: this woman said that is what we are SUPPOSED to do on forums, that this is what forums are FOR.

I thought that was a pretty awful thing to say at the time, but I've considered it off and on for several years and I see what she means: some venues ARE for fighting.

If you tried to find positive human relationships on the Somme during summer 1916, you would be very disappointed, because a battlefield is about mass killing. If we try to find friendship and fellowship inside a boxing ring, we'll be knocked unconscious very quickly.

We have a serious division of opinion on what forums are for. Some people think they are for destroying other people, and that's what they come here to do. Others think they are for good human relations, friendliness, good conversation and exchange of ideas. Obviously, these concepts of what a forum is FOR are diametrically opposed. So are we in a Tai Kwon Do ring, or a living room?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Actually, there are several choices. There are several third parties and we can choose to vote our conscience and principles or we can simply ignore the duopoly’s rigged elections all together and make sure we’re prepared for the inevitable eventual revolution. Buy gold, silver, guns and ammo.

You are going to find that I agree with some of your accusations about our current situation in government. However , going third party will only hurt "the lesser evil" IMHO.
FOR THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES IF THEY ARE WORTH THEIR SALT ARE NOT GOING TO DRAW FROM THE CROWD THAT SUPPORTS THE GREATE EVIL. JUST THE WAY IT IS...
I'll be damned if I ever help that party(corrupted dems) . For it is my absolute belief that party should be utterly destroyed because it is utterly corrupt and totally anti-american now.
Everyday I lean further towards the belief that only a revolution can change things. If obama wins there will be no doubt in my mind about that! For only the chance that he may be removed from office for his corruption and treason keps my hope alive that we may change course..-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A go-to for those who have no game!! I love that.


I once heard a good argument for fights, insults, put-downs, and hates on forums: this woman said that is what we are SUPPOSED to do on forums, that this is what forums are FOR.

I thought that was a pretty awful thing to say at the time, but I've considered it off and on for several years and I see what she means: some venues ARE for fighting.

If you tried to find positive human relationships on the Somme during summer 1916, you would be very disappointed, because a battlefield is about mass killing. If we try to find friendship and fellowship inside a boxing ring, we'll be knocked unconscious very quickly.

We have a serious division of opinion on what forums are for. Some people think they are for destroying other people, and that's what they come here to do. Others think they are for good human relations, friendliness, good conversation and exchange of ideas. Obviously, these concepts of what a forum is FOR are diametrically opposed. So are we in a Tai Kwon Do ring, or a living room?

I admire your stand. And would be nice if A VERY civil discourse was the call for the day. Rarely is that the case. The leftside opposition never allows for that IMHO..
Political forums are for fighting. Just as is politics in generaL. Long ago I tried the always be civil method and found it allowed for one to be overcome by those that would join in the fray to beat on the lesser opposition. That lesser opposition was always the guy that failed to hit back. For people in general will view that as weakness and appeasemnt and QUITE often thats what it is. Even when its done out of principle the members of the forum most often will still hammer the principled member to death. I've been there , done that. Now I post truth and toss back whatver is tossed at me. Wars are not won on principle , they are WON on tactics and bitter fighting.
Thats not to say that I dont admire principled members that stay the course with civility being their number one priority.. For I certainly do admire that. Its not for me because I prefer tossing back the crap and letting the other side get a damn dose of their own rotten medicine.. Lively debate is a must for a political forum to survive IMHO. Lively debate is not civil discourse. Lively debate gets heated and insults flow. Thats always been the case and history proves it so.-TYR

[Abbey Marie]

A go-to for those who have no game!! I love that.


I once heard a good argument for fights, insults, put-downs, and hates on forums: this woman said that is what we are SUPPOSED to do on forums, that this is what forums are FOR.

I thought that was a pretty awful thing to say at the time, but I've considered it off and on for several years and I see what she means: some venues ARE for fighting.

If you tried to find positive human relationships on the Somme during summer 1916, you would be very disappointed, because a battlefield is about mass killing. If we try to find friendship and fellowship inside a boxing ring, we'll be knocked unconscious very quickly.

We have a serious division of opinion on what forums are for. Some people think they are for destroying other people, and that's what they come here to do. Others think they are for good human relations, friendliness, good conversation and exchange of ideas. Obviously, these concepts of what a forum is FOR are diametrically opposed. So are we in a Tai Kwon Do ring, or a living room?

The bolded is what I really like about you, Mundame. :beer:

As for the diametrically opposed purposes, I think it is probably for all of the above reasons at various times for most of us.

At least the title of this board indicates what we are expected to do here, so no one should expect all roses and daffodils. I once belonged to a board that existed to discuss a particular TV show, with almost 100% female membership, it was the nastiest board I've seen.

[hjmick]

You might be a dumbass if you post trip like this:


You might be a RINO Neo-Con if You oppose abortion, but you promote blowing hell out of born and unborn babies and anybody else that gets in the way in the unnecessary, un-declared, un-paid-for unconstitutional foreign wars you enjoy so much.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think having American military forces in over 120 countries all over the world serving as a military police force and spending billions of American taxpayers money defending other countries who can easily afford to defend themselves is a good idea?

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that spending more on defense than all of the rest of the first world countries combined, having 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers when the rest of the world has none and China is building just “ONE,” and the American military has enough Admirals and Generals to supply the rest of the world with military leadership and still have enough left over for America, is a good idea and cutting defense spending is an atrocious insult to what is supposed to be “NATIONAL” defense.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you Think the nation should be governed by the Christian Bible instead of the Constitution.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think that BIG intrusive authoritarian government was ordained by your GOD to decide what the definition of a marriage contract between agreeing adults has to be and it must conform to your religious ideas.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think it’s America’s responsibility to defend Israel against Israel’s decision to create their nation smack dab in the middle of their sworn enemies.

You might be a RINO Neo-Con if you think Flipper Mitt Romney is a “conservative” and the Ryan Plan that balances the budget in 30 years after 15 new Congresses have their say in that matter is actually a logical policy.

[mundame]

I once belonged to a board that existed to discuss a particular TV show, with almost 100% female membership, it was the nastiest board I've seen.


Sure.....reminds me of a local poultry club I've been in that just broke up into smithereens, and a friend's church, major denomination, that is fighting and backbiting tooth and nail. Church fights are often very bad, I know. The worst I ever saw was sheep breed groups, plural --- they splintered, called each other on the phone to excommunicate others, formed several groups from each one, and how they ever maintained any presence, I don't know; I gave up. They all ended up with several breed registries per breed.....chaos.

People often bring determination to dominate, to control, to have everything their way, into inappropriate settings, like families, or workplaces.

Boy, I sure don't know the answer.

[mundame]

I admire your stand. And would be nice if A VERY civil discourse was the call for the day. Rarely is that the case. The leftside opposition never allows for that IMHO..
Political forums are for fighting. Just as is politics in generaL. Long ago I tried the always be civil method and found it allowed for one to be overcome by those that would join in the fray to beat on the lesser opposition. That lesser opposition was always the guy that failed to hit back. For people in general will view that as weakness and appeasemnt and QUITE often thats what it is. Even when its done out of principle the members of the forum most often will still hammer the principled member to death. I've been there , done that. Now I post truth and toss back whatver is tossed at me. Wars are not won on principle , they are WON on tactics and bitter fighting.
Thats not to say that I dont admire principled members that stay the course with civility being their number one priority.. For I certainly do admire that. Its not for me because I prefer tossing back the crap and letting the other side get a damn dose of their own rotten medicine.. Lively debate is a must for a political forum to survive IMHO. Lively debate is not civil discourse. Lively debate gets heated and insults flow. Thats always been the case and history proves it so.-TYR


A very substantive post, Tyr, thanx for your thoughts.

Okay, you are saying that this venue IS a battlefield, in agreement with that woman I referred to from some years ago. You are saying that politics is intrinsically combative, and also that if combat is squelched enough, everyone leaves out of boredom, that "lively debate is not civil discourse."

One problem with that is that people leave if it's just all maiming and destroying each other and hatred -- that's not very fun. So a forum can be destroyed by too much hate, too: fire as well as ice.

But most importantly you are saying that if people are civil within a forum, violent and aggressive people will take advantage of that to utterly defeat and destroy the civil person. And so you do unto others right back at 'em. Yeah, I tried that for 20 or more years, myself. Well, 25. It's not what I really want, though. There are some ways around, but this violence and destruction of each other is the human condition and isn't an easy problem to solve even on an individual basis (which is the only basis we can use to work on it: we can't solve other people).

I suppose this belongs in the ethics forum: it would be a good thread there.

[Abbey Marie]

A very substantive post, Tyr, thanx for your thoughts.

Okay, you are saying that this venue IS a battlefield, in agreement with that woman I referred to from some years ago. You are saying that politics is intrinsically combative, and also that if combat is squelched enough, everyone leaves out of boredom, that "lively debate is not civil discourse."

One problem with that is that people leave if it's just all maiming and destroying each other and hatred -- that's not very fun. So a forum can be destroyed by too much hate, too: fire as well as ice.

But most importantly you are saying that if people are civil within a forum, violent and aggressive people will take advantage of that to utterly defeat and destroy the civil person. And so you do unto others right back at 'em. Yeah, I tried that for 20 or more years, myself. Well, 25. It's not what I really want, though. There are some ways around, but this violence and destruction of each other is the human condition and isn't an easy problem to solve even on an individual basis (which is the only basis we can use to work on it: we can't solve other people).

I suppose this belongs in the ethics forum: it would be a good thread there.

From a behind-the-scenes admin POV, I'd say that it is the clash of egos that hurts a forum the most, and having theirs bruised is I would guess is the number one reason people leave.

[Kathianne]

From a behind-the-scenes admin POV, I'd say that it is the clash of egos that hurts a forum the most, and having theirs bruised is I would guess is the number one reason people leave.

Indeed. May be the biggest hurdle for this site, IMO.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A very substantive post, Tyr, thanx for your thoughts.

Okay, you are saying that this venue IS a battlefield, in agreement with that woman I referred to from some years ago. You are saying that politics is intrinsically combative, and also that if combat is squelched enough, everyone leaves out of boredom, that "lively debate is not civil discourse."

One problem with that is that people leave if it's just all maiming and destroying each other and hatred -- that's not very fun. So a forum can be destroyed by too much hate, too: fire as well as ice.

But most importantly you are saying that if people are civil within a forum, violent and aggressive people will take advantage of that to utterly defeat and destroy the civil person. And so you do unto others right back at 'em. Yeah, I tried that for 20 or more years, myself. Well, 25. It's not what I really want, though. There are some ways around, but this violence and destruction of each other is the human condition and isn't an easy problem to solve even on an individual basis (which is the only basis we can use to work on it: we can't solve other people).

I suppose this belongs in the ethics forum: it would be a good thread there.

Ego and its twin Arrogance both often backfire of those that think to be superior to their opposition simply because they disagree. What they disagree about is what truly makes the difference and usually the person that thinks they are God's gift to we lesser mortals will eventually fall on thier own sword(if not truly delusional) if hit with the truth hard enough and often enough. This most often occurs when they realise their false image has been blasted all to hell.
Feel good posts that tend to paint the author as some sort of angel and always above the fray are almost always actually scam jobs being pulled . Eventually the truth outs and the pretenders runs way. Pull the mask away and most often they simply will not stay. Dont lie and you are invincible with that tactic.
There is a huge difference between honestly being mistaken sometimes due to false information and deliberately lying. I can have some respect for those honestly mistaken about a subject but simply no respect when I know the person is deliberately lying. Because deliberately lying reveals a lack of honor. No honor , I can not and will not ignore. We all make mistakes but we all do not make it a habit to deliberately lie often. I've made mistakes here but never deliberately lied for any reason. Who does or does not believe that is not my concern. I give as good as I take, letting the results speak for themselves.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Actually, there are several choices. Buy gold, silver, guns and ammo.

As listed above I agree with...
Go heavy on the last two listed in order to be able to actually keep the first two listed!-:laugh:--Tyr

[Classic Liberal]

I think the "Why" is all-important, and in Israel's case, it is an exremely important reason.

I've never been a fan of insults or especially of mockery. There is simply no need for it, and I think it is a go-to for those who have no game. ETA: I have found that we are a more civil board than most.
If I missed your Intro, welcome to the board. :cool:

Why is the why important enough to demand or even expect that Americans owe blood and treasure to the survival of Israel?

[Classic Liberal]

You are going to find that I agree with some of your accusations about our current situation in government. However , going third party will only hurt "the lesser evil" IMHO.

Well since the “lesser” of evils is always in the eye of the beholder and controversial at best and still evil, why should anybody even worry about any kind of evil being hurt? Why hurt the constitutionalist and the patriot third party candidate to support evil? How do you measure what one third party takes away from one of the evils as compared to what another third party takes away from the other evil? How can you accurately assume that a voter that voted third party would have voted for your favorite evil if he/she hadn’t voted third party?



FOR THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES IF THEY ARE WORTH THEIR SALT ARE NOT GOING TO DRAW FROM THE CROWD THAT SUPPORTS THE GREATE EVIL. JUST THE WAY IT IS...

So the crowd and the evil that the crowd supports are “WORTH THEIR SALT?” So belonging to the crowd that supports evil makes one “WORTH THEIR SALT?”

[Classic Liberal]

I've never been a fan of insults or especially of mockery. There is simply no need for it, and I think it is a go-to for those who have no game. ETA: I have found that we are a more civil board than most.
If I missed your Intro, welcome to the board. file:///C:\Users\Owner\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\ clip_image002.png

Thanks for the welcome and I agree that individual insults are simply the stuff that the “whipped” are made of. It’s always easily apparent that when the name callers and personal insulters resort to that crap, it’s their last tactic, they have no rational response and they’re out of debate bullets. I actually enjoy it when they go there, I know then they’re intellectually finished and proven themselves fools.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well since the “lesser” of evils is always in the eye of the beholder and controversial at best and still evil, why should anybody even worry about any kind of evil being hurt? Why hurt the constitutionalist and the patriot third party candidate to support evil? How do you measure what one third party takes away from one of the evils as compared to what another third party takes away from the other evil? How can you accurately assume that a voter that voted third party would have voted for your favorite evil if he/she hadn’t voted third party?




So the crowd and the evil that the crowd supports are “WORTH THEIR SALT?” So belonging to the crowd that supports evil makes one “WORTH THEIR SALT?”

You are only fooling yourself if you believe that third party candidates will draw from the dem party like they will from the Republican party. It is simply not true. The dem supporters are by and large free-meal ticket holders and only somebody promising more of that will get their vote. If third party candidates promise more of that they are then no different than the ffing dems! What you are apparently not considering is that third party candidates overall do not themselves support dem policies and that clearly means they'd get very few dumbass dem voters swinging over to them. The Republican voters however would because third party candidates basicly support far more of the Republican platform.
Good and evil do not reside side by side. The are on opposite ends of the scale. Thus if third party candidates are better than republican then they are much farther away from the dem(evil) end of the scale. That would clearly indicate they'd draw far , far more votes from the Republican crowd. I refuse to help dems that way. FF-THAT!!!
Dems are truly enemies of this nation. Their party sold out to the communists, marxists, socialist, liberals and other corrupted elements many decade ago and now with obama we got to see its true nature! That of destruction of our nation and attempted destruction of our Constitution.
Why would I a true patriot join you in your damn folly and thus help the ffing dems win electins?
You are one crazy SOB to think any patriot would join what you are selling. Either fight with us or get he fukk out of the way! We have no time for pie in the sky bullshitters. Its getting too close to nut cutting time for that trash IMHO.
RIGHT UP THERE BY MY NAME IS THE TAGLINE," EXECUTE ALL THE TRAITORS", JUST SO YOU KNOW , I WASNT JOKING!! ---Tyr

[Classic Liberal]

You are only fooling yourself if you believe that third party candidates will draw from the dem party like they will from the Republican party. It is simply not true. The dem supporters are by and large free-meal ticket holders and only somebody promising more of that will get their vote. If third party candidates promise more of that they are then no different than the ffing dems! What you are apparently not considering is that third party candidates overall do not themselves support dem policies and that clearly means they'd get very few dumbass dem voters swinging over to them. The Republican voters however would because third party candidates basicly support far more of the Republican platform.

So you think that the Socialist Party, the Green Party and the Communist Party would be taking away otherwise Republican votes, or are you saying that those voters still wouldn’t bother voting for the Democrats if they didn’t vote third party they’d what? Just stay home? Where’s your evidence that the Constitution Party and the Libertarians would be voting for the Republicans if they didn’t vote third party? I personally wouldn’t vote for Obama or Romney no matter what, I’d simply stay home first.


Good and evil do not reside side by side. The are on opposite ends of the scale. Thus if third party candidates are better than republican then they are much farther away from the dem(evil) end of the scale. That would clearly indicate they'd draw far , far more votes from the Republican crowd

That of course is a biased assumption assuming that the Republicans are less corrupt than the Democrats. Personally I think it’s a “corruption wash.”


Dems are truly enemies of this nation. Their party sold out to the communists, marxists, socialist, liberals and other corrupted elements many decade ago and now with obama we got to see its true nature! That of destruction of our nation and attempted destruction of our Constitution.

Obama put the G. W. Bush agenda on steroids. He’s continued both unconstitutional wars, perpetuated Dick Nixon’s stupid unconstitutional Drug War, trumped G. W. Bush’s “Prescription Drugs For Seniors” with Obamacare, continued G. W. Bush’s nation building projects and expanded G. W. Bush’s Wall Street bailouts.




Why would I a true patriot join you in your damn folly and thus help the ffing dems win electins?
You are one crazy SOB to think any patriot would join what you are selling. Either fight with us or get he fukk out of the way! We have no time for pie in the sky bullshitters. Its getting too close to nut cutting time for that trash IMHO.
RIGHT UP THERE BY MY NAME IS THE TAGLINE," EXECUTE ALL THE TRAITORS", JUST SO YOU KNOW , I WASNT JOKING!! ---Tyr

So now you’re out of rational argument, and all you have left is pathetic insults, right? How amusing!!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So you think that the Socialist Party, the Green Party and the Communist Party would be taking away otherwise Republican votes, or are you saying that those voters still wouldn’t bother voting for the Democrats if they didn’t vote third party they’d what? Just stay home? Where’s your evidence that the Constitution Party and the Libertarians would be voting for the Republicans if they didn’t vote third party? I personally wouldn’t vote for Obama or Romney no matter what, I’d simply stay home first.



That of course is a biased assumption assuming that the Republicans are less corrupt than the Democrats. Personally I think it’s a “corruption wash.”



Obama put the G. W. Bush agenda on steroids. He’s continued both unconstitutional wars, perpetuated Dick Nixon’s stupid unconstitutional Drug War, trumped G. W. Bush’s “Prescription Drugs For Seniors” with Obamacare, continued G. W. Bush’s nation building projects and expanded G. W. Bush’s Wall Street bailouts.





So now you’re out of rational argument, and all you have left is pathetic insults, right? How amusing!!!

Be amused all that you like. I love it when my words make people smile.-;)
You speak of my bias then you proudly proclaim , "its a corruption wash" as if your decision has no bias. I find that a bit amusing myself, so we amuse each other, right?-:laugh:

Obama did far , far, far more than "Bush policies on steroids " amigo. Obama subverted and twisted to meet his own ends. That you fail to see that speaks volumes as does you equating thier actions as being equally wrong/corrupt. I do not agree with all of Bush's policies but I agree with NONE OF OBAMA'S AND THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE D BY HIS NAME OR WHAT DAMN RACE HE CLAIMS!
Bush wasnt perfect but when compared to obama he almost was and thats how damn bad obama is! Yet you say its a wash!! Dude, thats insanity and I now know that you need help desperately. Your heart may be in the right place but your brain damn sure isnt, IMHO..
I suggest that you study again Bush's policies and then compare the massive destruction obama and his policies have heaped upon this nation.. A proper study will reveal such a contrast that no sane man can call it a "wash".--Tyr

[jimnyc]

Kind of ironic to see someone make insult after insult and then claim how pathetic he is by stating it's "pethetic" to continually insult. This is what crying in your wheaties over politics does to the brain. :beer:

[hjmick]

Kind of ironic to see someone make insult after insult and then claim how pathetic he is by stating it's "pethetic" to continually insult. This is what crying in your wheaties over politics does to the brain. :beer:

So you're saying that someone needs to suck it up, grow a pair, and move on?

[Classic Liberal]

You speak of my bias then you proudly proclaim , "its a corruption wash" as if your decision has no bias. I find that a bit amusing myself, so we amuse each other, right?-file:///C:\Users\Owner\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\ clip_image001.gif

Since I give the Republicans & Democrats equal credit for political corruption, where are you finding my “bias” in that opinion?


Obama did far , far, far more than "Bush policies on steroids " amigo. Obama subverted and twisted to meet his own ends. That you fail to see that speaks volumes as does you equating thier actions as being equally wrong/corrupt. I do not agree with all of Bush's policies but I agree with NONE OF OBAMA'S AND THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE D BY HIS NAME OR WHAT DAMN RACE HE CLAIMS!

What has Obama done differently on the major issues? He’s prolonged both unconstitutional Bush started wars. He’s continued the Bush Wall Street bailouts and he’s created new socialist programs, raised the debt ceiling, perpetuated deficit spending sand added to the national debt, just like Bush. I already said he put the Bush agenda on steroids, thus I never claimed the actions were “equally” wrong, I’m claiming that the “agenda” was and is equally absurd and unconstitutional. And let us not forget the “Patriot Act,” that glaring example of freedom G. W. Bush style.



Bush wasnt perfect but when compared to obama he almost was and thats how damn bad obama is! Yet you say its a wash!! Dude, thats insanity and I now know that you need help desperately. Your heart may be in the right place but your brain damn sure isnt, IMHO.

But I’m not necessarily talking about particular politicians, but rather particular parties. In my opinion the Republican party is as corrupt as the Democrat party. Crony capitalism, Wall Street and special interest bribery, perpetuation of federal socialist bribery programming, perpetuating unconstitutional wars, promoting the unconstitutional Drug War, violating the Constitution, running up debt bankrupting the nation, a meddling intrusive foreign policy and absurd nation building. “The only difference between Republicans & Democrats is who they allow to feed at the government trough first.”



I suggest that you study again Bush's policies and then compare the massive destruction obama and his policies have heaped upon this nation.. A proper study will reveal such a contrast that no sane man can call it a "wash".--Tyr

I suggest that you compare the Republicans & Democrats through unbiased eyes and enlighten yourself. “Lovin eyes never see!”

[Classic Liberal]

Kind of ironic to see someone make insult after insult and then claim how pathetic he is by stating it's "pethetic" to continually insult. This is what crying in your wheaties over politics does to the brain. :beer:

You haven’t seen me personally insult anybody on these forums. I’ve simply posted truths about RINO Neo-Cons and the only folk here who are offended by that are the RINO Neo-Cons. So if you’re offended, ask yourself “WHY!”

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Since I give the Republicans & Democrats equal credit for political corruption, where are you finding my “bias” in that opinion?



What has Obama done differently on the major issues? He’s prolonged both unconstitutional Bush started wars. He’s continued the Bush Wall Street bailouts and he’s created new socialist programs, raised the debt ceiling, perpetuated deficit spending sand added to the national debt, just like Bush. I already said he put the Bush agenda on steroids, thus I never claimed the actions were “equally” wrong, I’m claiming that the “agenda” was and is equally absurd and unconstitutional. And let us not forget the “Patriot Act,” that glaring example of freedom G. W. Bush style.




But I’m not necessarily talking about particular politicians, but rather particular parties. In my opinion the Republican party is as corrupt as the Democrat party. Crony capitalism, Wall Street and special interest bribery, perpetuation of federal socialist bribery programming, perpetuating unconstitutional wars, promoting the unconstitutional Drug War, violating the Constitution, running up debt bankrupting the nation, a meddling intrusive foreign policy and absurd nation building. “The only difference between Republicans & Democrats is who they allow to feed at the government trough first.”




I suggest that you compare the Republicans & Democrats through unbiased eyes and enlighten yourself. “Lovin eyes never see!”

I predict that when you come to see the light you are going to make a fine patriot. Surely your heart is in the right place but your delusions are massive.
First , you compared the two and called it a "wash".. Thats wrong on so many levels. I will not defend things that Bush did wrong and I myself have called him a traitor because he refused to defend our nation's sovereignty by closing the Mexican border and stopping the flow of millions of illegals into our country. So part of your argument has some merit but this third party ideal isnt going to cut it because for it to ever mean anything the two party system must be abolished in one swipe not over decades of gradual growth of a third party. For that to be effective it must destroy one of the other parties .
And I know which one it would destroy= answer is --THE WRONG ONE!
The change you want can only come about by way of a revolution IMHO. The reason for that is the two party system will never allow a third party to advance enough to matter.
Reality often sucks but it is still reality.-Tyr

[aboutime]

You haven’t seen me personally insult anybody on these forums. I’ve simply posted truths about RINO Neo-Cons and the only folk here who are offended by that are the RINO Neo-Cons. So if you’re offended, ask yourself “WHY!”


We have no need to see you personally insult anyone. You are just another Obama wannabe, who practices double-speak that rarely even comes close to being honest, or sincere.
It's nothing but a somewhat masterful use of the English language that skirts actual facts, twists anything that resembles truth into falsehoods YOU ALWAYS FEEL PROUD of..while thinking You are impressing everyone with your ignorance.


Sadly for you C.L. It still doesn't work for us. But you are fully qualified to lead fellow Liberals who would follow you off a cliff. If you told them something FREE waited at the bottom.

[Robert A Whit]

Irrevelant. Clinton and Kennedy attacked and harmed individual women: they were indeed the very men who would rape or seduce so that the women they went after needed an abortion.

The issue is not about individual rapists or seducers. The issue is about whether women can recover from such crimes and maltreatment by getting an abortion, or whether they have to try to survive the horror of gestating a fetus implanted by such a man because other men just as bad have passed laws forcing them to carry any and all pregnancies to term.




That's a very clear answer. That is exactly the position of the Spanish Inquisition as it heated up the iron pinchers --- God supposedly wanted them to do that. Uh-huh.

Also all the Catholics AND Protestants who built big fires around multiple wooden stakes during Tudor times. They tied as many as 12 "heretics" at once to these stakes and set fire to the piles of wood. Thomas More, who when young wrote "Utopia," a famous book about religious freedom and other freedoms, in later life decided God wanted him to burn people alive, so he did that.

So I guess whatever you decide God wants you to do, burning people alive, making laws to subjugate them, that's okay because you've decided God wants you to do it. Sounds like the Muslims: if anybody has a Bible, you've got to kill them because Allah says so!

I would like to see people with these terrible, coercive belief systems stop trying to control other people and work on their own way of being in the world. Your business is yourself, never other people.

Would you agree to break women into two classes?

Class I are victims of sex crimes.

Class II are women who are not victims of sex crimes.

Do not kill the babies of those who are not victims

Even to kill any babies is an outrage, but at least I am trying to compromise with you.

[Classic Liberal]

I predict that when you come to see the light you are going to make a fine patriot. Surely your heart is in the right place but your delusions are massive.
First , you compared the two and called it a "wash".. Thats wrong on so many levels. I will not defend things that Bush did wrong and I myself have called him a traitor because he refused to defend our nation's sovereignty by closing the Mexican border and stopping the flow of millions of illegals into our country. So part of your argument has some merit but this third party ideal isnt going to cut it because for it to ever mean anything the two party system must be abolished in one swipe not over decades of gradual growth of a third party. For that to be effective it must destroy one of the other parties .
And I know which one it would destroy= answer is --THE WRONG ONE!

Well since both Democrats and Republicans have controlled American government since Moses parted the Red Sea, and our government has involved us in several undeclared unconstitutional wars, an unconstitutional Drug War, hundreds of unconstitutional federal socialist programs and they’ve ran up trillion $ annual deficits and created a 16 trillion $ national debt and I’m declaring that both are equally corrupt makes me “delusional” in your world, I reckon I’ll just have to live with it, huh?


The change you want can only come about by way of a revolution IMHO. The reason for that is the two party system will never allow a third party to advance enough to matter.
Reality often sucks but it is still reality.-Tyr

While all of that may well be true, it doesn’t mean I have to participate in the scam and perpetuate it. I’d much rather vote for the solution, though it won’t win, rather than vote for the problem.

If we think about it and we’re honest, G. W. Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain are the reason the black communist Obama got elected in the first place. If America is really that stupid America deserves what it gets!

[Classic Liberal]

We have no need to see you personally insult anyone. You are just another Obama wannabe, who practices double-speak that rarely even comes close to being honest, or sincere.

So you can lie about my “alleged” insults just because you don’t agree with me? Amazing!



It's nothing but a somewhat masterful use of the English language that skirts actual facts, twists anything that resembles truth into falsehoods YOU ALWAYS FEEL PROUD of..while thinking You are impressing everyone with your ignorance.

Oh! But while I’m “allegedly” doing that, I’m leaving myself wide open to rational debunking. When are you planning to attempt that? You’ve proven thus far that your debating tactic is “personal insults,” now maybe you could try some actual debunking of my post, huh?



Sadly for you C.L. It still doesn't work for us. But you are fully qualified to lead fellow Liberals who would follow you off a cliff. If you told them something FREE waited at the bottom.

Aside from you, who’s “US?” Are you authorized to speak for others? Who?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well since both Democrats and Republicans have controlled American government since Moses parted the Red Sea, and our government has involved us in several undeclared unconstitutional wars, an unconstitutional Drug War, hundreds of unconstitutional federal socialist programs and they’ve ran up trillion $ annual deficits and created a 16 trillion $ national debt and I’m declaring that both are equally corrupt makes me “delusional” in your world, I reckon I’ll just have to live with it, huh?



While all of that may well be true, it doesn’t mean I have to participate in the scam and perpetuate it. I’d much rather vote for the solution, though it won’t win, rather than vote for the problem.

If we think about it and we’re honest, G. W. Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain are the reason the black communist Obama got elected in the first place. If America is really that stupid America deserves what it gets!


Sure you do not have to participate. You should follow whatever course you decide is right. I would like a massive reformation in our two party system as well as our federal government. The problem is that we as a population are just too divided to be able to effect the necessary change. Going third party and dividing us further will only weaken us more IMHO. I see the Dem party as the enemy to this nation that it is and simply will not help it by going third party. Im sure dems would love a strong third party candidate to be involved right now and it would give obama an easy win. The time for a rise of third party came and went, I believe immediately following WW2 was the time. We as a nation had a decade in which to sort things out before the world caught up and presented its usual dangers. With China on the rise, Islamization going on and massive problems caused by obama now is the worst time to TRY TO make that play.
Obama got elected in 2008 because we have a 1.sold out media, 2.sold out dem party, 3.government welfare class ,4. American socialists/leftists and 5. a damn lot of white guilt dumbass fools gullible enough to fall for the bullshat propaganda that he spit out. We still have the first four but number 5. has wised up enough that he will not win this time.--Tyr

[aboutime]

So you can lie about my “alleged” insults just because you don’t agree with me? Amazing!




Oh! But while I’m “allegedly” doing that, I’m leaving myself wide open to rational debunking. When are you planning to attempt that? You’ve proven thus far that your debating tactic is “personal insults,” now maybe you could try some actual debunking of my post, huh?




Aside from you, who’s “US?” Are you authorized to speak for others? Who?



Just shut up, Mister Obama.