Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, baloney. I especially object to #8. Most "liberals" that I know have traditional families and are very happy with their family lives. OTOH, I know a lot of conservative single moms, unwed moms (a la Bristol Palin), etc.
There is no way you can vilify everyone of a particular political persuasion.
#8 is particularly true
1. Johnson's "Great Society" and the creation of the welfare state encouraged the breakup of families by providing financial incentives to single women with dependent children.
2. The "women's movement' created a situation in which the traditional role of women as caretakers of families was replaced with the thought that career trumps families. The result? High divorce rates.
3. The stated objectives of the fathers of modern liberalism (The Frankfurt School) who identified the family and the church as impediments to the spread of marxism. With these traditional forms of support gone, there is greater reliance on the state and acceptance of the supremecy of central power.
4. Embracing the drug culture. Libs want legalization of pot and other controlled substances. Alcohol and drugs destroy the will of people to work and undermine the family culture of work and education. One cannot work or study effectively while stoned and drunk.
5. Sexual revolution of condoning and supporting pre-marital sex and mutliple sexual partners, eroding the concept of monogomous sexual relations. This culture increases births out of wedlock, promotes the spread of disease, and creates a poor environment in which to raise children.
Lol, the closest the right ever comes to a counter revolution is when they're all out of Bacon Fatburgers at Hardees. The right is reactionary, not revolutionary. it's passive, not active. Wake up.
/sigh
It is the thoughts and actions of people like you that lead to such extreme bloodshed.
Push the reasonable too far and the result is they will tear your head off and shat down your throat. Just because someone takes a hit and walks away does not mean they are a coward, unskilled, or unable to fight. Do not mistake the rights civil means of protest for cowardice or inability.
I once knew a guy that was extremely polite. Even in very volatile situations he was calm and cool, willing to take the hit to resolve the situation. I saw him pushed too far once and he almost killed 3 guys in the process. It is arrogant to assume that because people are civil it is because they lack the ability or fortitude to stand up to something.
Push people too far and you deserve the wrath that comes from them. Laugh it up though, you keep poking, I am sure it will work out ok.
#1 is true haliburton was given the contract to build them.
#2 actually I don't know any muslims so can't say I don't like them. I don't like the ones who kill people for no apparent reason course I would expect everyone to not like that.
#3 well no kidding the left has been passing and asking for more anti gun laws forever. Eventually they will take away the 2nd amendment.
#6 I am not worried about white christians marrying just whites in general having kids.
Personally I see that stuff as things every true American should be worried about and if they aren't they are either traitors or have their head stuck where the sun don't shine.
Sorry, but if you truly believe the crap you just posted, then I think it is you who might have his head stuck somewhere the sun don't shine.
I love it when liberals try to stereotype conservatives and villify them. It makes it alot easier to "hate your enemy" when you dehumanize them. This is a common approach used in the military such that soldiers do not feel so bad about killing soldiers of opposing armies.
Kinda like when you stereotype and vilify liberals, huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
1. Liberals should fear "mooslims" also. I guess the fact that the Twin Towers went down by muslim terrorists and the fact that we have had many failed attacks since then go unnoticed by libs. Perhaps libs should wake up to the fact that europe will be a muslim continent in 20-30 years and that those very same muslims that liberals adore just hate liberals. Islam is a little rough on gays, women's rights, civil rights, and personal freedoms, yet libs just love them. Why? Becuase liberalism is a religion of self hate that seeks its own destruction. Cozying up to Islam (which would love to kill each every liberal) is just another symptom of liberal insanity.
Well, this liberal knows that it is not the entire religion of Islam that we have to fear, but the radical Muslims. And, since our Constitution does have that 1st amendment, separating religion and government, I don't think, even if we were to somehow magically become a majority Muslim nation, we would really have to worry about Sharia law becoming the law of the land. Of course, by the time we reach that majority, I would likely be in the ground for a century or so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
2. Illegal immigration. Liberals should fear this as well. The reduction in the education level of the US, the crime that accompanies them, and the tremendous cost of illegals effects everyone- even liberals. Ask the average liberal to pay 20% increased personal income taxes for these illegals they adore and perhaps thier love would end.
Where do you get the idea that 'liberals' "love illegals". Just because we understand why others, whether legal or not, might want to come to this country, does not mean we automatically side with illegals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
3. Grayinig of America. Liberals should fear this as well. Keep in mind those wonderful social programs- medicare and social security- that liberals love will not have enough working Americans to support them. Given the fact that few liberals actually save enough for retirement (live for the moment), starvation will probably not be much fun.
Oh give me an f'ing break! It's rather hard to "save for retirement" when you're trying to feed, clothe and educate three children on less than $50,000/year. I'm going to have more 'disposable income' per month after I start receiving SS in another two months than I've had per year for the last ten years!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
4. Unions- They have really done the industrial sector of this nation alot of favors, haven't they? I actually support many points of unions, but their power has eroded our manufacturing base. That, coupled with NAFTA and China as most favored nation trade status (Bill Clinton), has killed our US manufacturing. Thanks alot. Even liberals need jobs, and the ultra high wages for union workers drive jobs out of the US.
Sorry, my husband was UAW for the entire 30+ years he worked for Ford Motor. If it weren't for the UAW, I would currently have no health insurance; if it weren't for the UAW, I would have been reduced to begging since his death. Instead, I've received an admittedly small pension for the last 12 years. (small is better than nothing) And the UAW was virulently against NAFTA. Because, with the passage of that nasty thing, too many of the jobs that autoworkers depended on went south.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
5. Guns. This is the shocking thing about liberals. They really do not understand that the whole purpose of gun ownership is to protect citizens against a tyrannical federal government. The founding fathers knew this. Hitler and Stalin knew this. The first thing that tyrants advocate is gun control- they fear nothing more than a group of armed citizens who can oppose thier will. How do you think the Viet Cong would have done with gun control? Do you think that Hitler and Stalin would have been able to enslave thier nations had thier citizens been well armed? Wake up- the federal government is not your friend, but an impersonal tyrant.
This liberal has nothing against guns and gun ownership. I just don't want one in my house. (again, you seem to be stereotyping liberals, eh?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
6. States rights. Any sane individual knows that marked centralization of power contributes to tyranny. Witness the fact that Washington has neuetered the states with the election of US senators (rather than the states appointing them as representatives of their states positions) there has been a marked disconnect between the citizens and the federal government. Senators from different states in many instances no longer represent the interests of those states, but more the national interest of thier party. When control is taken away locally, worse decisions are made by a disinterested, distant ruler- the federal government.
Nothing to say to this, because, honestly, I have no idea what you're prattling on about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
7. Married Chirstian families. Great! I guess liberals love the breakdown of the family unit and the rise of unwed mothers. When the family unit is destroyed, people seek the reliance of the government, rather than thier families and God. This was one of the major goals of the Frankfurt School, which sought to expand marxism to western nations. The family and the church were major impediments. Liberalism has effectively destroyed Christianity and the family in the US, achieving these two goals. Of course, the nation has declined as a result of this, but the liberals and the Frankfurt Group wanted this all along- just another step to marxism.
More stereotyping? Because this liberal also happens to be a Christian. This liberal would love to see all marriages and families find the same strength and purpose in life that I do. But guess what? Not all people in this country believe in any god at all, much less the same one I do. And I find that to be okay because of the 1st Amendment, which not only gives me the right to believe in and worship Christ Jesus, it gives my Japanese American neighbor the right to believe in and worship his ancestral gods and it gives my atheist neighbor the right to not believe in or worship any god at all. And, since many liberals I have met, both in RL and on the internet, do believe in Christ, I simply don't see where 'liberalism' can possibly have destroyed Christianity, much less the family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
8. Global elites. That is funny. I guess Obama's boss (George Soros) does not fall under that category? Wake up. Take a look at the currency and market manipulations, as well as control of the global financial industry. These people own you and what do you do? Beg for more. Your current president (who is the worst in US history) was bought and paid for by Soros and his gang. Only a fool fails to understand that what is good for George Soros and his boys is not good for US citizens.
This paragraph is such total poppycock, I'm not even going to bother with it.
1. Free speech-They want to shut up or personally attack anyone who disagrees with them.
hmmph. Sounds more like 'conservatives' to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebelt1234
2. Conservative women and minorities-This just proves that women and minorities are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves.
As are most liberals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebelt1234
3. States Rights-This will keep us from a strong centralized government.
Which, of course, is the purpose of the 10th amendment. About the only thing I agree with most 'conservatives' on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebelt1234
4. The crisis in Greece-Proof that socialism is too expensive and doesn't work.
Uh. What?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebelt1234
5. Religion-There are actually people with a set of beliefs and values in this country that are different from their beliefs.
As I said before, this sounds more like a conservative 'fear' than a liberal one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebelt1234
6. Freedom-Liberals want control and want to control others.
This liberal doesn't want to 'control' anyone but herself and wishes that conservatives wanted the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebelt1234
7. Capitalism-I don't need to explain anything here.
Might help if you did, because I have no idea what you're prattling about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebelt1234
8. Families-It scares the crap out of them when they see children growing up in a two parent household. Maybe because children who grow up in two parent households are more likely to be taught the values of their parents. These children typically are less likely to get in trouble and end up on welfare.
Oh for Cripes sake! This is such a load of bull that it really isn't worth talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebelt1234
9. A person that manages to get off government assistance. The liberals in control seem to want everyone to rely on the government for help and seem to hate anyone successful.
Your tripe just gets more and more ridiculous all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebelt1234
10. Anyone making over $250,000 a year. Uh, these people create the jobs of this country. I guess the liberals don't want anyone to work???
I have no problem with anyone making $250,000 or $250,000,000 a year, as long as they are doing so legally and not exploiting their employees to do so.
1. Johnson's "Great Society" and the creation of the welfare state encouraged the breakup of families by providing financial incentives to single women with dependent children.
As I see it, it's not 'incentives' so much as 'protections' for those women whose men abandon them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
2. The "women's movement' created a situation in which the traditional role of women as caretakers of families was replaced with the thought that career trumps families. The result? High divorce rates.
Again, I see it differently. Of those divorced women I know, it's equally divided between those women who got fed up with their husbands' philandering and those whose husbands simply left them. I don't know even one woman who left her husband to pursue a career. And the career women I know have many times put their careers in jeopardy to take care of family matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
3. The stated objectives of the fathers of modern liberalism (The Frankfurt School) who identified the family and the church as impediments to the spread of marxism. With these traditional forms of support gone, there is greater reliance on the state and acceptance of the supremecy of central power.
Huh? What does this even mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
4. Embracing the drug culture. Libs want legalization of pot and other controlled substances. Alcohol and drugs destroy the will of people to work and undermine the family culture of work and education. One cannot work or study effectively while stoned and drunk.
This liberal woman ( as far back as I can remember I've been more on the liberal side than the conservative) has never wanted pot or any other controlled substance legalized. And I never was a drinker, nor a drug user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
5. Sexual revolution of condoning and supporting pre-marital sex and mutliple sexual partners, eroding the concept of monogomous sexual relations. This culture increases births out of wedlock, promotes the spread of disease, and creates a poor environment in which to raise children.
Excuse me? Condoning and supporting? There is a vast difference between that and vilifying, which is what most conservatives seem to be best at. Though they should most likely be looking closer to home for the subjects of their vilification.
1. Johnson's "great society" and the creation of the welfare state encouraged the breakup of families by providing financial incentives to single women with dependent children.
The "great society" programs were a response to a problem, not the other way around. It helped those with "deadbeat dads" for ex-husbands/boyfriends have a means of support.
2. The "women's movement' created a situation in which the traditional role of women as caretakers of families was replaced with the thought that career trumps families. The result? High divorce rates.
Perish the thought that a woman should use her god-given talents to do anything but bear and raise children. Perish the thought that men should help with the child-rearing. Divorce rates went up b/c for the first time in American society, women could at least support themselves.
3. The stated objectives of the fathers of modern liberalism (the frankfurt school) who identified the family and the church as impediments to the spread of marxism. With these traditional forms of support gone, there is greater reliance on the state and acceptance of the supremecy of central power.
If you need the curch to keep your family together, you have more problems than marxism.
4. Embracing the drug culture. Libs want legalization of pot and other controlled substances. Alcohol and drugs destroy the will of people to work and undermine the family culture of work and education. One cannot work or study effectively while stoned and drunk.
Yeah, prohibition worked so well in the 20s. The "drug war" has worked so well these last 40 years.
5. Sexual revolution of condoning and supporting pre-marital sex and mutliple sexual partners, eroding the concept of monogomous sexual relations. This culture increases births out of wedlock, promotes the spread of disease, and creates a poor environment in which to raise children.
bs!
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 06-12-2010 at 08:59 PM..
Reason: some typos
Among the political class a more reasonable fear is that the base’s boiling rhetoric over immigration will permanently alienate Latinos and Asian Americans, two fast-growing voting blocs that are heavily concentrated in a handful of key swing states. Rather than shaking over the prospect of a white demographic minority like Buchanan, they’re afraid the venom coming from Republicans like Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and JD Hayworth (R-AZ) will saddle them with a structural inability to win national elections for a generation. As former Republican House majority leader Dick Armey, the chairman of the corporate-funded front-group Freedomworks and a key organizer of the angry and ostensibly “grass-roots” Tea Parties, put it, “Who in the Republican Party was the genius that said that now that we have identified the fastest-growing voting demographic in America, let’s go out and alienate them?”-------------------------
The Republicans are completely oblivious as to how offensive Arizona's legislation is to the average immigrant, regardless of their national origin.
Great point. I was reading in the local Arizona rag last week how Hispanics are rushing to register to vote as Democrats in droves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
