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.
Status:
"My, my, it's cooling off out there!"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Suburban Dallas
52,217 posts, read 46,806,096 times
Reputation: 33059
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990
Have you seen videos of the teabagger rallies? Those folks look like they've got one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.
Actually, you are describing the circus currently occupying the White House. How about another cup??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Looks to me like there are twice as many conservatives as liberals. And that number seems to be rising. I would be willing to bet that it could go as high as 45% between now and 2012. From what I see from the Massachusetts senate race, I think the Democrats are destined for a world of hurt in the next several elections.
Like I've been saying, get your popcorn ready, folks. This year becomes the comeback year for the party of common sense. I see great folly with Barry just shooting down the Democratic Party with his brand of ideology. LOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus
Their whole ideology has proven ineffective time and time again. They have shown that they have no answers to the nation's problems, problems that they continually perpetuate and contribute to. They are divisive and supported by the most racist people in this country. On and on...they have no place in modern times.
People do learn from their mistakes, don't they? We do have the answers because it's common sense. Your party, on the other hand, is the example of everything you are describing thus far. Nice try, but it won't work. We've tried the Socialist Kool-Aid for the past 13 months. We're spitting it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Are you aware that the latest polls show conservatives make up over 40% of the electorate? Moderates are close behind, around 38% and liberals? They are bringing up the rear (an appropriate position) at approx 22%.
Do you also realize that the elections in VA, NJ and Mass were won by republicans?
With much pride, sanrene. Good post! The other side is still in denial, and they should be scared out of their wits. The American people are waking up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny-Days90
The sheep have mud in their eyes. THE FACTS ARE CLEAR as Sanrene pointed out.
Why wont the liberals accept this? It has been posted over and over again. Did you see it or are you ignoring it?
Obama will end liberalism in America. There is just no place for radical socialistic people in America.
Those kids who are liberal today will mature into conservative later as their hateful anti American parents can longer control their thinking for them.
I can see conservatism taking back the WH and congress soon and they will hold those places for many years to come.
If the conservatives act like conservatives and do not swing to the left to far they will have total control of America and fix the mistakes of the past.
If I'm old enough to be shipped off and die for old mens' wars over oil, I am old enough to vote those old men out of office! What a ridiculous suggestion! Or am I supposed to just bend over and take what everyone tells me because I am "too young"? I think not. I live in America.
Of course younger generations are more liberal. As they replace other generations they are seen as conservative. Kids in the 60's who held hands with blacks outside resteraunts were seen as pretty liberal, but today they're conservatives.
Our society NEEDS young liberals AND old conservatives to function properly. If we had only older people voting we'd run ourselves into a neo-corporatist theocracy, and if we had only younger people voting we'd be a bankrupt welfare state. Why doesn't anyone have any concept of balance anymore these days?
Maturity isn't marked by a hard swing to either side; it's marked by realizing both sides have valid points.
I don't know how old you are, but that is some pretty mature wisdom.
To expound on that a bit, what we see from the very beginning of our country is a blend of conservative, libertarian and liberal ideas, each there to balance idealism with reality. The constitution was built upon a foundation of conservative ideals, balanced by liberal elements. The structure and limitations of federal powers - classic conservative libertarianism, with the liberal mechanisms of a democratic process of electing representatives of the people.
The founding fathers actually abhorred democracy as societal structure, knowing that it always leads to mob rule, where the majority could, and would trample the rights of the individual. Consequently, they constructed the nation upon a constitutional republic model.
The real dichotomy in modern liberalism is that it professes to cater to the individual, and the minority, while painting conservatism as the compassionless oppressor. The exact opposite is actually true from a historical perspective. Democracy is a liberal construct ... as is socialism and communism ... all promising fairness, but delivering nothing but equal distribution of despair, and authoritarian rule by the state.
What has occurred, and where we find ourselves today is a struggle between extremes ... the extreme left versus the extreme right, combining not the best, but the worst elements of each, creating the disaster we now have.
To illustrate this, lets take an innocuous subject like a driver license as an example. A pure constitutionalist/Libertarian would argue that it's an affront to freedom to even require a driver license in that it could be used to restrict the rights of free travel, ignoring the value of ensuring that drivers are properly trained in order to protect the safety and general welfare of all travelers on the highways. On the far left, the liberals argue for the right of a Muslim to wrap their head with cloth so as to make personal identification impossible for the purpose of a driver license photo, leaving all of the objectionable elements of the requirement in place, while eliminating any particular value of it.
That's a simple example, but illustrates the nonsensical nature of extremism. A more sound approach would be a more moderate view that everyone should agree to ... have a driver license requirement for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the highways, including data necessary to properly identify the holder to ensure the integrity of the process, while preventing efforts to add more and more caveats and restrictions to securing and maintaining said license. Similarly, associated laws such as drunk driving began as a means to ensure safety by getting intoxicated drivers off the road ... a good idea turned bad as liberal extremists have now pushed the law to the point of tyrannical conduct and prosecution for having a beer with a slice of pizza, which could now land you in jail. It's no longer a safety measure ... it's now a huge money making venture for the state, law enforcement, and the court systems. And if the extremists could have their way, I'm sure they'd choose to make it a capital crime and life without parole for first offenders in absence of any actual damage done. In fact, I submit that if we ever succumb to technology that could identify thought crime, it will be a band of heavy handed liberals who will line up to promote it.
The extremist liberal mind is a diseased mind that can not be allowed to prevail in a society that values freedom and liberty. Moderate liberalism has it's place, along side moderate conservatism, while extremism on either end is nothing but separate paths to the same undesirable destination.
Since most young people today consider the ethnophobic, homophobic, and socially unaware mentality of today's conservatives "uncool" will that political philosophy be tossed onto the ash heap of American history?
Misattributed blame= misrepresentation. What hangs around the conservative neck like an albatross are the things that have nothing to do with conservativism. Similar problem happens for liberalism.
So... if we were to rid ourselves of all the misrepresentation, we'd be voting for nothing more/ nothing less than practical approaches towards solving problems. Not nasty spiteful games, not power trips, not robbing people of their rights for the sake of handing those rights to another. We'd finally BE the Americans we were claiming to be all along. Socially and politically we are hypocrites.
Thank this new generation looking at it with fresh eyes & offering honest critique, even if they don't understand the bigger picture and tend to rush to judgment for happy answers (the same thing they're criticizing from establishment, and a fresh batch of hypocrisy is birthed ).
Similarly, associated laws such as drunk driving began as a means to ensure safety by getting intoxicated drivers off the road ... a good idea turned bad as liberal extremists have now pushed the law to the point of tyrannical conduct and prosecution for having a beer with a slice of pizza, which could now land you in jail. .
I don't get what you said here. How is getting intoxicated drivers off the road a "good idea", while prosecuting them for drinking beer a "tyrannical conduct" and an example of "liberal extremism"? Isn't this the same difference? Last time I checked, you don't get prosecuted for simply drinking beer and having a slice of pizza. But drinking beer AND driving will get you a citation or worse (depending on blood alcohol levels etc).
You mean in a socialist and elitist society don't you?
Exactly. These libs really feel (and many times verbalize) that they are superior beings and should rule the masses. These people have no place in America, as thier core beliefs of subjugation and authoritarian rule by the 'enlightened" is exactly the principles citizens have fought and died to oppose throughout our history. With the firm held beliefs that one citizen has greater rights than another, the liberal is an enemy of the republic who must, and eventually will, be defeated. One cannot live among fascists and royalists in a free society, as thier interests and efforts will be directed toward the disruption of universal rights, and are thus fifth columnists among us.
What has occurred, and where we find ourselves today is a struggle between extremes ... the extreme left versus the extreme right, combining not the best, but the worst elements of each, creating the disaster we now have...
The extremist liberal mind is a diseased mind that can not be allowed to prevail in a society that values freedom and liberty. Moderate liberalism has it's place, along side moderate conservatism, while extremism on either end is nothing but separate paths to the same undesirable destination.
I wholeheartedly agree with your post, and wish to point out additional facts regarding local ---> federal policy that winds up getting off point from constitution and generally too ham handed with power. Would we speak of the grand plan, the overall objectives, we cannot deny the cumulative effects of tyranny of the minority beating the living crap out of women, who are & have always been the statistical majority of this country (and the planet). We'd also have to point out that this nation was NOT founded on the basis of providing corporations a moveable feast or media elites a joe public foie gras duck to stuff.
Statistically the majority of Americans ARE moderate, and there is no way we could function if we had our own party (like women voting lockstep- how would that work out?) because they'd be elected 100% of the time at every level of governance ostensibly shuttering out progress in service to maintaining status quo.
Present tense-- Note that Obama presented himself as radical during campaign, McCain as 'Maverick', but once the hat was on his head, his feet began to walk centrist. It's inevitable, because that's what his constituency requires him to be to balance things fairly, and he's wise to know that fact. Extremists from right bash McCain, and extremists from left bash Obama. The most straightforward candidate was Hillary, walking the centrist line the entire time. Temperance is the hallmark of true statesmanship & I applaud their efforts to maintain that level of decorum even if I disagree with a specific plan here and there.
There's a vast world of difference between radical ideas that are fresh perspectives/ new approaches to old problems vs the behavioral problems I've seen going on in politics from all extremes in the political spectrum. That is to say their constructive ideas are not intrinsically wrong, but the devil being in details; how they go about implementing these ideas, failing to recognize the limitations of any given ideology, destructive endeavors to burn down the other guys house, how they go about misinformation campaigns, has been the most horrific assault on the standard of statesmanship.
When people are willing to win at any price, we all lose. Machiavellian ideology was not embraced in the constitution, but it rules us all at every level (socially, politically, economically) as if it did.
I don't get what you said here. How is getting intoxicated drivers off the road a "good idea", while prosecuting them for drinking beer a "tyrannical conduct" and an example of "liberal extremism"? Isn't this the same difference? Last time I checked, you don't get prosecuted for simply drinking beer and having a slice of pizza. But drinking beer AND driving will get you a citation or worse (depending on blood alcohol levels etc).
No, I guess you don't get it .., perhaps I should have been more clear ..
The drinking and driving laws originated under the auspices of getting intoxicated drivers off the roads. And who could argue with that goal? Very reasonable. The framework for what constituted "intoxication" was established ... just 20 years ago, that was .15 BAL. And, in the beginning, law enforcement generally used personal discretion first to identify someone that was exhibiting the classic signs of intoxication ... slurred speech, shaky motor skills. etc., as different human beings have varying degrees of alcohol tolerance. (Personally, I know some individuals that shouldn't drive sober .. also individuals that might be impaired after a glass of wine, while another could drink a six pack of beer and you'd never be able to detect it).
What happened was the group MAD went on a witch hunt, putting tremendous pressure on courts and politicians to keep tweaking the rules and imposing harsher penalties. The state, seeing the financial boon in the process, went along, and the criteria for what constituted "intoxication" became narrower, lowering the BAL to .12, then, .10, then .08., with .08 about half of what used to be considered the legal limit. But that still wasn't restrictive enough, because there were too many people escaping the system's self serving financial heist by testing below .08 (about 3-4 beers depending on body weight, time, etc.) So what was the answer? Create another law ... DUI (driving under the influence) ...to go along with DWI (driving while intoxicated). Now, the low .08 BAL was no longer an issue with prosecution (persecution) because any detectable amount of alcohol whatsoever constitutes DUI as solely decided by the authorities, and carries the same prosecution and penalties as intoxication. Given that the penalties are the same for DWI and DUI, most charges are issued as DUI nowadays ... with the "totally impartial" authorities deciding whether or not a person was actually impaired, rather than a scientific, physical alcohol level.
Now, you can have a slice of pizza, and one beer, and go to jail if you drive. If you cautioned or warned anyone 20 years ago that this might happen, they would have laughed at you, and called you paranoid. But that is exactly what we have now ... a bounty system is in place ... police officers incentivized for having the most DUI arrests, and a system that is parasitically feeding off the people for the purpose of money and not road safety as it was originally intended.
And they support this madness and attack on the people in all sorts of fraudulent ways ... including statistics. Did you know that you could be sitting at a traffic light, have a careless motorist slam into the back of you ... injure you, while they suffered no injury whatsoever. If you've had one beer ... you will be arrested, while the negligent driver goes on their merry way ... and the accident WILL BE LABELED alcohol related accident?
It's the same deal with parking meters. They aren't there to collect quarters, they're there to issue big fines ... with most cities reaping hundreds of millions off the scam.
Of course, the liberty hating, liberal worshipers of the mommy state support this by saying ... you can have A BEER with your pizza ... you just have to take a $25 cab ride home afterward.
This is the diseased liberal mind I was referring to. It abhors common sense as well as liberty.
Unlikely, since the US, compared to Europe and even Canada, has always been much more conservative since its inception as a nation.
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.
Good post! The other side is still in denial, and they should be scared out of their wits. The American people are waking up.
).
