Jump to content
Dr. Joe B.

Liberalism Versus Conservatism

Recommended Posts

Google's Attempt To Brainwash Barack Obama.....

 

It is not clear how much of Google's spin was absorbed by Obama when he visited Google's home base in the Silicon Valley. His book Audacity of Hope left out his gut reaction to what he found out about high tech employment at Google. It is clear from the book that Obama was concerned deeply by what he found out about the nature of Google's employment practices. Here is a quote which I posted in PEOPLESFORUM.COM on April 1, 2007 just prior to the forum going defunct. It says a lot about Google's opinion of our education system.

 

BEGIN QUOTE FROM AUDACITY OF HOPE: My reverie was broken by the appearance of Sergey (one of the founders of Google), a compact man perhaps a few years younger than Larry (the other founder). He suggested that I go with them to their TGIF assembly, a tradition that they had maintained since the beginning of the company, when all of Google's employees got together over beer and food and discussed whatever they had on their minds. As we entered a large hall, throngs of young people were already seated, some drinking and laughing, others still typing into PDAs or laptops, a buzz of excitement in the air. A group of fifty or so seemed more attentive than the rest, and David (Obama's Google Guide) explained that these were the new hires, fresh from graduate school; today was their induction into the Google team. One by one, the new employees were introduced, their faces flashing on a big screen along side information about their degrees, hobbies, and interests. At least half of the group looked Asian; a large percentage of the whites had Eastern European names. As far as I could tell, not one black or latino. Later, walking back to my car, I mentioned this to David and he nodded and said. "We know it's a problem," he said and mentioned efforts Google was making to provide scholarships to expand the pool of minority and female math and science students. In the meantime, Google needed to stay competitive, which meant hiring top graduates of the top math, engineering, and computer science programs in the country-MIT, Caltech, Stanford, Berkley... You could count on two hands, David told me, the number of black and Latino kids in those programs.

 

In Fact according to David, just finding American-born engineers, whatever their race, was getting harder-which was why every company in Silicon Valley had come to rely heavily on foreign students. Lately, high tech employers had a new set of worries: Since 9/11 a lot of foreign students were having second thoughts about studying in the States due to the difficulties in obtaining visas. Top-notch engineers or software designers didn't need to come to Silicon Valley anymore to find work or get financing for a start-up. High tech firms were setting up operations in India and China at a rapid pace, and venture funds were now global; they would just as readily invest in Mumbai or Shanghai as in California. And over the long term, David explained, that could spell trouble for the U.S. economy.

 

"We'll be able to keep attracting talent, " he said, "because we're so well branded. But for the start-ups, some of the less established companies, the next Google, who knows? I just hope somebody in Washington understands how competitive things have become. Our dominance isn't inevitable."

END OF QUOTE FROM AUDACITY OF HOPE

 

QUOTE FROM THE MESSAGE IN PEOPLESFORUM WROTE BY THE AUTHOR OF THIS TOPIC on April 1, 2007: Do you get it? Where does Sergey and Larry think they came from? Mars? They were lucky to have a university system that catered to English-speaking students in the 60s and 70s. And, so was the author of this topic. The universities are now over-run with foreign professors in high-tech departments who on the average do not even like US citizens and when they get control of high-tech departments it does not take a genious to figure out who they will hire for new positions. I have personally collected a huge number of rejections for professorships over the past 30 years from department heads of colleges and universities with names that were obviously of foreign descent. In a previous message I explained how some years ago I had one interview for a teaching position at the Kettering University by a committee that was comprised of five out of six interviewors from former communist bloc nations. Needless to say, this committee was not interested in hiring some one with more qualifications than their combined committee.

 

US-born students are avoiding high-tech departments that cater mainly to noncitizens of USA at the USA taxpayer's expense. Most of the new professors speak a poor quality English guaranteed to discourage US-born students from taking their classes. US students are avoiding high-tech departments in droves. Who can blame them? Obama needs to know the whole truth. Our system of education is funded by US taxpayers and should be run by them. We have plenty of talent in the good old USA. Much of our high-tech workers and professors have been displaced by less competent foreign-born noncitizens. The time has come for the sleeping US citizen to wake up. Obama should not have allowed Google's minions to brainwash him without questioning their opinions.

 

END OF QUOTE FROM APRIL 1, 2007 MESSAGE

 

Obama's innocence about our nation's high-tech education system. It is clear that he had no idea of why smart US born students were avoiding mathematics, science, and technical departments. The reader of this message is urged to venture into the website RATEMYPROFESSORS.COM for verification of what the author writes. Go to the Oakland University section and read what the students have to say about the Chinese professors who some times do not even speak English. Oakland University is one of the Michigan Universities that did not even bother to interview the author 10 years ago after he retired from his career working with the Department of Defense. Check INTERJETIC.COM to verify the qualifications of the author, if you have doubts about the claim. Go to the page with the hyperlink ACADBIO. You will be surprised that the experience and accomplishments in high-tech profession work was not even dignified by an interview. Possibly 30 to 50 percent of Oakland University's math department is of foreign descent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Democracy is a left-wing notion. Marx and Lenin were very keen on it. Hitler, on the other hand, worked with big business to crush it--just like Stalin when he led his right-wing offensive against Lenin and Trotsky. Hitler called himself a "socialist" in order to trick people into joining his right-wing revolution. His Nazi Party, throughout the entire period of his rule, ruled in coalition with the conservative German National People's Party. And the ACLU was founded by Communist Party members and has always been a left-leaning organization.

 

Conservatives DO "tamper with human rights using government power." Look at Bush. Oh, but I guess he's not a "true" Scotsman--I mean conservative.

Democracy began in such places as Athens, Greece. Long before Marx was even born. The National Socialist German Worker's Party was at the begining a german socialist party. Just check out there 25 Points. The Nazi party later banned all other parties. Just as the Bolsheviks under Lenin did in Russia. Communists were barred from membership in the ACLU, in 1940. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#History

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Democracy began in such places as Athens, Greece. Long before Marx was even born. The National Socialist German Worker's Party was at the begining a german socialist party. Just check out there 25 Points. The Nazi party later banned all other parties. Just as the Bolsheviks under Lenin did in Russia. Communists were barred from membership in the ACLU, in 1940. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#History

 

Yes, indeed, communists were thrown out of the ACLU in the early days of their formation. The ACLU tries to attract both left and right wingers who believe in the rights of citizens. Generally, the ACLU does collective actions for the rights of a large group of citizens suffering a similar discrimination rather than one individual. I.e. They do not like to take on complaints of discrimination by one individual. Groups of individuals being discriminated against would be the major concern of the ACLU. Protecting the rights of individuals and/or groups of individuals could be accomplished by either left or right wing behavior depending on how the protection is accomplished. If big government is used to create new regulation/legislation then one could consider the by-product of ACLU action as left-wing in spirit. Frequently the Constitution and existing laws offers a conservative status quo way of addressing discrimination. Since the ACLU is a non-government agency I consider their behavior in protecting rights as mostly conservative right wing in spirit. Admittedly, there is a fine line here.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hitler and Bushjr Are Birds of A Feather But Hitler Had Better Qualifications

 

Both Hitler and Bushjr hold many common evil left wing positions. Recall that the definition used by the starter of this topic for left wing liberalism is essentially government action while right wing conservativism is equated with laissez-faire inaction. Both Hitler and Bushjr have had a penchant for using government control in evil left wing ways. There are many similarities in their behavior.

 

Following is an article written by Dr.Joe.B for the defunct PeoplesForum.com a little more than one year ago on Jun 1, 2007.

 

BEGIN MESSAGE: Hitler, like the Bushmurderer, believed in pre-emptive wars. Hitler also believed in lying to his citizenry about why he attacked neighboring sovereign nations like Poland. Hitler portrayed Poland as a threat just like the Bushbastards portrayed Iraq as a threat. Both Hitler and the Bushfiend conjured up a war against sovereign nations based on lies. The Bushcriminals made up lies about WMD, falsified evidence about aluminum tubes being used for nuclear weapons, pretended Hussein was in cahoots with Al Qaeda and generally propagandized about the danger of Iraq.

 

There is one major difference between the mentality of the Bushpsychomaniac and Hitler. Hitler was no coward. Hitler actually risked his own life by fighting for Germany in WWI. Hitler never avoided the gruesome task of going to war like the Bushchickenheartedbastard. The Bushcoward avoided Vietnam like the plague. (Cheney and his friends did the same) In fact, he even avoided doing safe military service in the Air National Guard. i.e. Hitler had more right to send his soldiers into battle than the Bushcoward who has sent young men and woman to their deaths with a trumped up oil-war that he surely would never have had the guts to fight himself according to his military record.

 

Both Hitler and the Bushcoward were miserable mass-murderers using pre-emptive war as their tool for mass murder. Hitler, at least, went to WWI himself. Bush avoided Vietnam. In a weird sense Hitler was more justified in sending his army into battle than the Bushcoward who conveniently avoided risking his own neck by avoiding battles in Vietnam unlike Kennedy, Kerry, Murtha, Gore, McClelland, Dole and many other decent politicians (mostly Democrats) who volunteered to fight for our country.

 

Have we had enough of the Bushhypocrite yet? When will the impeachment begin? It is long overdue. He must not be allowed to finish his criminally stolen presidency. He will pardon all of his criminal friends, if allowed to finish his term. Every day his illegal war goes means more young soldiers die or become maimed. Impeaching the Bushmurderer will save many lives.

 

Both parties are needed in this endeavor to impeach. They did the right thing with Nixon. It is time to repeat their performance. The evidence is overwhelming. John Dean believes that Nixon's crimes were minor compared to the Bushgang. Even Lee Iacocca a lifelong Republican who actually supported the Bushmoron in 2000 has recanted his support and did not back the Bushboob in 2004. Iacocca wrote in his last book a condemnation of the Bushjr that says it all.

 

Kudos for Iacocca, a real American, who understands when an abomination has occurred in our government.

 

END OF MESSAGE

 

Yesterday, I purchased a copy of Vincent Bugliosi's 2008 copyrighted book: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. Since early 2003 I have advocated prosecuting the Bushmurderer for treason and mass murder. Bugliosi makes the case for the prosecution of Bushjr and his cohorts in this book. As I get deeper into Bugliosi's thoughts on the matter I will try to summarize some of them in this topic.

 

Keep the faith.

 

Near as I can tell Bugliosi makes a case for convicting the Bushpsychomurderer based on the obvious lies, deceptions, and spin that his administration made up to convince the US public that we had to go to war with Iraq because of 9-11. Many democrats were fooled into going along with the pre-emptive war because they just could not believe that any one acting as a president could make up lies to justify a war that would cause the deaths of innocent soldiers and civilians.

 

The Bushfiends ignored the CIA analysts reports that said Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11. Tenet denied his analysts results despite knowing they were based on accurate field work. The Bushbunch refused to accept the conclusions of the UN inspectors that Hussein had no WMD. Bugliosi writes that Tenet simply gave in to the pressure of the Bushbunch who controlled his destiny by denying his own organization's conclusions. Tenet knew full-well that the Bushfiends were distorting truths to get their war for profit. You have to wonder how Tenet can sleep at night knowing that he knuckled under the pressure of murdering fiends by denying his own CIA agent's reports.

 

Recent studies show that close to 90 percent of the troops in Iraq think they are fighting there because Hussein had something to do with 9-11 according to Bugliosi's book. This gives a pretty good idea of how effectively the Bushfiends convinced the soldiers in the field that they were fighting to avenge 9-11. Even the Bushmurderer has admitted that Hussein's Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The soldiers still persist in their belief, possibly because the alternative is too unpleasant.... that many of them are being murdered and maimed by their own president based on his administration's lies.

 

It should be noted that murder does not have to result from direct contact with the victim according to Bugliosi. For example, suppose someone spread a rumor among criminal-types that another person carried a huge amount of money. Now suppose one of the criminal-types heard the rumor and proceeded to murder the person who was rumored to be carrying large sums of money in order to get the alleged money. Guess what the person spreading the rumor would be guilty of according to the laws of most states? MURDER. Some states would call it conspiracy to murder. So, in the least the Bushbunchofmurderingbastards are guilty of conspiracy to murder for profit. Most folks relying on their common sense would call the Bushlyingbastards murderers, too, if they really thought about it.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is easy to solve and here is the answer

 

Liberals = gay people and God haters and welfare recipients

 

Conservatives = God fearing people who defend the country and want only the best for america and are willing to fight to protect the country and dont want to pay high taxes for lazy welfare people who wont take responsibility for their own welfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too many bloggers are using the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative' without a clear definition in mind. Talking heads like Rush Limbaugh do it daily. The labels have become meaningless. Or worse they have become chameleons that can change color to mean any thing that anyone wants them to mean. No matter how you slice or dice it there can be no way a meaningful political dialogue can occur using the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative' until a precise, concise, consistent, and complete definition to the labels is established.

 

It would be the most desirable situation if everyone accepted the same definition. That is probably going to be an impossible undertaking. However, at a minimum it should be possible to force anyone using the terms to explain their interpretation of a liberal versus a conservative stance. Still there will be some who believe that they can make sense in using the labels despite not having a clear idea of what they mean. Such folks will not be worth wasting time entering into a political dialogue. Only confused nebulous illogical thoughts can come out of such a dialogue.

 

This is why I have decided to start this topic. I have created this same topic on three other forums since 1998. Two of the forums closed down. The third one was full of vile moronic out-of-control nitwits who had no desire to enter into meaningful dialogue. So, I quit that forum. This forum seems to have a much higher quality blogger. No doubt it is because of the strict editing policy. I truly believe that this topic will be a valuable addition to this forum.

 

I should point out that I have written well over 2000 messages that are really essays on the subject of Liberalism versus Conservatism since 1998. So, I am not a novice. I have probably thought of almost everything imaginable connected to this topic. But I recognize that the insight that I have gained will still need to be re-visited by new questioning minds. I am quite open to new thoughts on this subject. But I will not pull any punches, if I see folly in anyone's opinion. Thin skinned folks will have to get used to brutal honesty at times, if they wish to participate in this topic.

 

 

The meaning of Liberal and Conservative is ever evolving.

 

By today's standards things which come to mind.

 

Conservative:

 

1. Cooperate Greed

2. Individualism "more greed"

3. War Profiteering "more greed"

4. Racism

5. Religious Fundamentalism ( The world is Flat, Earth is the Center of the Universe, and we're the chosen Mammals)

 

 

Liberal:

 

1. Free thinker

2. Scientific truth over Religious Fantasy

3. Understanding and Compassion for his fellow man/woman

4. Teachers and or the Education system

5. Lower Taxes for the Majority

6. Peace B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The meaning of Liberal and Conservative is ever evolving.

 

By today's standards things which come to mind.

 

Conservative:

 

1. Work ethic

2. Individualism

3. War may be needed at times

4. A man is judged on his contributiions to society, not his race

5. Religious freedom

 

 

Liberal:

 

1. I want stuff free

2. If its on the internet, its the truth

3. I will bash anyone that disagrees with me

4. I am against teachers having control of their classrooms

5. Tax everyone senseless

6. Free dope and condoms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The meaning of Liberal and Conservative is ever evolving.

 

By today's standards things which come to mind.

 

Conservative:

 

1. Work ethic

2. Individualism

3. War may be needed at times

4. A man is judged on his contributiions to society, not his race

5. Religious freedom

Liberal:

 

1. I want stuff free

2. If its on the internet, its the truth

3. I will bash anyone that disagrees with me

4. I am against teachers having control of their classrooms

5. Tax everyone senseless

6. Free dope and condoms

 

1. The Conservative Elite don't have work ethic they feed off those less fortunate than them.

2. Individualism the Conservative Club for the self serving

3. War may be needed at times to feed the Halliburton's of the world

4. Tell that to the Redneck vote

5. Religious Freedom is a trait of the Conservative majority. Pushing Religion down the throats of others is.

 

1. Free Health Care indeed

2. Not really

3. Your post is Ironic especially by the standards of this forum

4. Actually Liberalism gives Teachers exactly what they ask for. Putting educational decisions in the hands of the Teachers.

5. Tax the hell out of the Rich

6. I always payed for my Genetically Perfected Cloned Weed B) , although I used to get Free Condoms from Planned Parent Hood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tell that to all the blacks that are voting for obama racism (cough)tell that to the the california school system making students bowing and worshiping allah. Then punishing those who wont.all people feed off those who are more stupid then them like social gradification which is what the liberal media does to the poor working class who watches tv non stop. BTW most people are conservative given there economic,domestic and foreign ideas. STICk that in your pipe and smoke it low life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if I'm conservative or liberal. I do know that I am not rich with money but have worked very hard to get where I am. I do have a comfortable life now and love my life. I have done this for MY own saisfaction to take care of me and my family. I do have compassion for other people and help when "I" want to help. I feel that no one wether it be government or another individual has any right to force me to give any portion of my income to help anyone that I personally don't know. If more people in this country would stop playing the "less fortunate" card and work like I do to better thier own situation there would be alot fewer "less fortunate" people. The idea that any human has any enforceable duty to give money to anybody they don't choose is wrong on every level and to force an indivdual to do so at thier own family expense is certainly NOT what I belive. To regulate companies or industries in similar ways is just as wrong. To be a healthy society we can't punish the achievers! We'd best reward them. As far as AMERICA'S war...I don't think things were done perfectly, they never are but the military is a volunteer force and congress voted in favor of what we are doing. We as citizens must always remember that we may not know everything about a given military decision. Such as..and this is totally hypothetical..maybe the military think tank knew that in the near future the middle eastern oil supply will begin to run dry and that those countries will begin to look beyond thier border for food and wealth.. and we might want to have a very good geographical position to ensure we as a nation aren't threatened. That's what I consider the number 1 job of the government..protect me and my family from foriegn attacks..like airplanes crashing into civilian buildings with daycare's in the bottom. I will take care of the local threats myself. My mother and father are both un-educated and dis-abled but managed to pay for thier house, land and auto's as well as put a little cash away for things like increasing gas prices. Thru cancer (mom) and MS (dad) they have went thru most of thier savings. They can of course get "help" from the government if they sign over thier assets to the hospital. As a family we made the decision not to do that and they are allowing me to help them. I encourage everyone that... wants to take more of what I make and give it to others that I don't know .... please send my mom and dad donations to help offset the costs of 6 years of off and on chemo and radiation for mom or catherters and insulin for my dad. I wouldn't be mad nor too proud to take it nor would they. However we all would stand with you till death to defend your right to take your money and buy an SUV if thats what you choose to do with your money that YOU earned.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The meaning of Liberal and Conservative is ever evolving.

 

By today's standards things which come to mind.

 

Conservative:

 

1. Trust funders, inheritance brats, corrupt CEOs with golden parachutes.

2. Individualism even at the expense of the greater society

3. War as often as possible

4. A man is judged on his contributiions to society, not his race - but being White helps.

5. Religious freedom used as a weapon of repression on the non religious

 

 

Liberal:

 

1. Loves freedom

2. If it has solid sources, it may be the truth

3. Supports the right of wingnuts to say what they want

4. Most likely an underpaid teacher who's union the reichnuts are trying to destroy

5. Tax to pay for programs that aid Americans instead of kill them, like Bush's war

6. Free dope and condoms for wingnuts to improve their disposition

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still confused most view me as conservative but I came from a very meager beggining..down here we call it po'. I do believe in individualism even at the cost of the greater society because it in itself is an impossibility and..who are you to judge another individual because you say you "love freedom"..if you do then take care of you and let others have thier freedom! Also what American was ever promised aid..life liberty and the pursuit of happiness I'll buy but America owes no one..we all owe America to do our best for ourselves and country..or as John F said..ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country...If you want to give aid to other people..be my guest but don't force me. As far as the race thing..I ain't touching that but I'd vote for Herman Cain ..JC watts..Colin Powell and a ton of other but not Obama! I do believe you support the right to speak and you are truly great for that. As for underpaid teachers and unions..if they are truly gifted educators they can get a very high paying job at a private school where achievment is rewarded on merit not by being owed because you got a degree but can't perform..funny how there's no techers unions in private schools..as for dope and condoms...well..I believe in freedom and if people choose to use either one and it doesn't incroach on others and most times it doesn't..then have at it my friend but I will choose to abstain from both..lI like my mind clear and I only have sex with my wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to address the war part. I don't believe in war unless it's to protect America. We need to get out of the middle east and let the powerful dictators kill thier people like they have for centuries..There's no need to lose an American life for thier freedom. I wish we'd never messed with Germany in WW2..After all they never attacked American soil. Think how much better Europe would be had we left Hitler alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BEGIN QUOTE: Without any clear governing philosophy, the Bush Administration and its congressional allies have responded by pushing the conservative revolution to its logical conclusion--even lower taxes, even fewer regulations, and an even smaller safety net. But in taking this approach, Republicans are fighting the last war, the war they waged and won in the eighties, while Democrats are forced to fight a rearguard action defending the New Deal programs of the thirties.

 

Neither strategy will work anymore. America can't compete with China and India simply by cutting costs and shrinking government-unless we're willing to tolerate a drastic decline in American living standards, with smog-choked cities and beggars lining the streets. Nor can America compete simply by erecting trade barriers and raising the minimum wage-unless we're willing to confiscate all the world's computers.

 

But our history should give us confidence that we don't have to choose between an oppressive, government-run economy and a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism. It tells us that we can emerge from great economic upheavals stronger, not weaker. Like those who came before us, we should be asking ourselves what mix of policies (liberal and conservative) will lead to a dynamic free market and widespread economic security, entrepreneurial innovation and upward mobility. AND WE CAN BE GUIDED THROUGHOUT BY LINCOLN'S SIMPLE MAXIM: THAT WE WILL DO COLLECTIVELY, THROUGH OUR GOVERNMENT, ONLY THOSE THINGS THAT WE CANNOT DO AS WELL OR AT ALL INDIVIDUALLY AND PRIVATELY.

 

In other words, we should be guided by what works.

 

This is a politician straddling both sides of the fence. He is saying everything that has come before me has not worked, I have the "answer" and... by the way, I'm above it all.

 

 

I hate to be cynical but this is nothing but a mix of political buzz words and vaugery. I'm amazed that so many people have been taken by this man who stands for nothing and pretends to spout "wisdom"

 

 

The reality is that with Barak, it will be business as usual in Washington.

 

 

By the way, Hitler was at heart a capitalist. Under the Third Reich the workers had no better deal than they did in the Weimar and the rich industrialists goth much richer. He used the socialist thing mainly as a way to garner votes from the working class. Of course, he also played on everyone's fear of the communists. He was a heart a typical petite Bourgeoisie.

 

 

 

Charlie

Edited by Charlie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too many bloggers are using the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative' without a clear definition in mind. Talking heads like Rush Limbaugh do it daily. The labels have become meaningless. Or worse they have become chameleons that can change color to mean any thing that anyone wants them to mean. No matter how you slice or dice it there can be no way a meaningful political dialogue can occur using the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative' until a precise, concise, consistent, and complete definition to the labels is established.

 

It would be the most desirable situation if everyone accepted the same definition. That is probably going to be an impossible undertaking. However, at a minimum it should be possible to force anyone using the terms to explain their interpretation of a liberal versus a conservative stance. Still there will be some who believe that they can make sense in using the labels despite not having a clear idea of what they mean. Such folks will not be worth wasting time entering into a political dialogue. Only confused nebulous illogical thoughts can come out of such a dialogue.

 

This is why I have decided to start this topic. I have created this same topic on three other forums since 1998. Two of the forums closed down. The third one was full of vile moronic out-of-control nitwits who had no desire to enter into meaningful dialogue. So, I quit that forum. This forum seems to have a much higher quality blogger. No doubt it is because of the strict editing policy. I truly believe that this topic will be a valuable addition to this forum.

 

I should point out that I have written well over 2000 messages that are really essays on the subject of Liberalism versus Conservatism since 1998. So, I am not a novice. I have probably thought of almost everything imaginable connected to this topic. But I recognize that the insight that I have gained will still need to be re-visited by new questioning minds. I am quite open to new thoughts on this subject. But I will not pull any punches, if I see folly in anyone's opinion. Thin skinned folks will have to get used to brutal honesty at times, if they wish to participate in this topic.

 

I agree with you and have provided the common definition of both so called liberal and conservative in many of my threads. For your benefit, I will include those definitions once again.

 

Most so called Liberals are not liberal at all. They are mostly ill-liberal, leftists, socialists and or communists. Among other things being liberal means to be open minded. Where as if you carefully examine most so called liberal posts you can clearly see that they are far from being open minded. In fact, an open minded liberal is an oxymoron. Liberals are open minded as long as you don't disagree with them.

 

Liberalism in every form is a dangerous mental sickness. Liberals think that they are never wrong about anything ever and this perceived infallibility leads to self destructive behavior. The problem is that Liberals pose a danger to all of us.

 

So called Liberals do not believe in our US Constitution or our laws and think these things need to be re-written to reflect the current day sentiments. Liberals do no believe in God based moral values and, in fact, do not believe in any long standing established moral values. Libs believe that moral values are always changing and what is good or bad today is not necessarily good or bad tomorrow. Therefore, Libs are more than willing to let homosexuals define moral values for thier children. Libs believe that they and they only define life and death matters. I.E., liberals justify Pro Choice or murder of the unborn by telling the rest of us when life begins and ends.

 

Liberals believe in telling the rest of us how to live, what car we can or cannot drive, what food we can eat, disapprove of bottled water, too much toilet paper usage, can't drive your car through a drive in windown and so forth. Libs believe in unlimited taxes and the government paying for housing, transportation, food and health care. Under the liberal plan no one works and the government just prints money to pay for these things.

 

Liberals believe that by giving away billions to other nations that they will be our friend. Of course this has been going on for years and we don't seem to be able to buy friends anymore. In fact, more people are dying of disease and starvartion than ever. Libs don't consider that they may be perpetuating the problem rather than solving the problem.

 

Conservatives believe in our US Constitution, our laws and established moral values.

 

According to Liberals, because we believe in these things, we are right wing fanatics that need to be destroyed. Remember, liberals are the party of hatred. They actually have organized HATE rally's. According to a Liberal, it is ok to hate as long as that hatred is directed against White American Christian Conservatives.

 

In a nut shell, this pretty much defines liberalism v conservatism.

Edited by libsrnuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you and have provided the common definition of both so called liberal and conservative in many of my threads. For your benefit, I will include those definitions once again.

 

Most so called Liberals are not liberal at all. They are mostly ill-liberal, leftists, socialists and or communists. Among other things being liberal means to be open minded. Where as if you carefully examine most so called liberal posts you can clearly see that they are far from being open minded. In fact, an open minded liberal is an oxymoron. Liberals are open minded as long as you don't disagree with them.

 

Liberalism in every form is a dangerous mental sickness. Liberals think that they are never wrong about anything ever and this perceived infallibility leads to self destructive behavior. The problem is that Liberals pose a danger to all of us.

 

So called Liberals do not believe in our US Constitution or our laws and think these things need to be re-written to reflect the current day sentiments. Liberals do no believe in God based moral values and, in fact, do not believe in any long standing established moral values. Libs believe that moral values are always changing and what is good or bad today is not necessarily good or bad tomorrow. Therefore, Libs are more than willing to let homosexuals define moral values for thier children. Libs believe that they and they only define life and death matters. I.E., liberals justify Pro Choice or murder of the unborn by telling the rest of us when life begins and ends.

 

Liberals believe in telling the rest of us how to live, what car we can or cannot drive, what food we can eat, disapprove of bottled water, too much toilet paper usage, can't drive your car through a drive in windown and so forth. Libs believe in unlimited taxes and the government paying for housing, transportation, food and health care. Under the liberal plan no one works and the government just prints money to pay for these things.

 

Liberals believe that by giving away billions to other nations that they will be our friend. Of course this has been going on for years and we don't seem to be able to buy friends anymore. In fact, more people are dying of disease and starvartion than ever. Libs don't consider that they may be perpetuating the problem rather than solving the problem.

 

Conservatives believe in our US Constitution, our laws and established moral values.

 

According to Liberals, because we believe in these things, we are right wing fanatics that need to be destroyed. Remember, liberals are the party of hatred. They actually have organized HATE rally's. According to a Liberal, it is ok to hate as long as that hatred is directed against White American Christian Conservatives.

 

In a nut shell, this pretty much defines liberalism v conservatism.

I subscribe to the "nut" part of your nutshell. Don't you see? No one really is liberal or conservative. Everyone is just a mixture of liberal and conservative positions. Some of their liberal positions are stupid and evil. Some of their conservative positions are stupid and evil. Some of either of their positions whether liberal or conservative are neutral. The object of the game is to have nothing but POSITIVE conservative positions and POSITIVE liberal positions with an occasional one that is neutral because the outcome is not decidable until tried. NAFTA for example was/is a neutral position. Obama is pretty much positive on most of his positions. The Bushmoron is negative on most of his positions with an isolated positive one here and there.

 

Any time one has a position whether liberal or conservative there exists 3 possible distinct outcomes : Positive, Negative, or neutral. I.e. There are 6 possible valuations. (liberal,-), (liberal,+), (liberal,neutral), (conservative,+), (conservative,-), and (conservative,neutral). No one is always (liberal,-) or always (conservative,-). Rather we are all a conglomeration of positive, negative, and neutral positions. Again, I repeat. The object of the game of political thought is to always have positive positions. It is just that simple. Don't characterize anyone as liberal minus all the time or conservative plus all the time. There is no such person on planet earth. People are not all wrong or all right. We are all a mixture of right and wrong positioning. Check political stances of politicians to see that this is so.

 

To add to the complication, however, one man's positive position is another man's negative one. There is no absolute objective valuation. Many times it is in the mind of the beholder. Most think that all of their positions are positive. For example, the Bushmoron thinks pre-emptive war is jolly good fun despite many innocent deaths and maimings. He thinks all of those people dying unnecessarily in Iraq is a positive thing because God is directing him. Most reasonable people will think that the Bushmonster's unnecessary pre-emptive war making is simply negative liberalism (I.e. negative use of government power and control).

 

If everyone can make up their own subjective way of defining a liberal position, then there is no sense in using the label. Same for conservative. Don't you think there should be a precise, concise, consistent, and accurate definition to the labels? That is what I want. I analyzed and synthesized until I distilled the very substance of what a 'liberal' and 'conservative' positions is really like. Once that was achieved then I now can make a sensible litmus test on any position whether liberal or conservative. Moreover, I focus on whether the outcome is negative, positive, or neutral not to whether it is conservative or liberal.

 

Why not have accuracy in thinking? What is the purpose in nebulousness created by millions of subjective notions as to what is a liberal and what is a conservative position? It is really quite easy to see that the definitions created by the founder of this topic are exactly what distinguishes the liberal position from the conservative one. Note that when I speak of a position I am talking about an atomic position, not a complex one. A complex of positions usually is referred to as an 'ism'. Communism, socialism, libertarianism, libertinism,...etc. are all examples of complex positions. Complex positions consist of a potpourri of both liberal and conservative positions. Communism tends to have mostly government controlled liberal positions most of which are NEGATIVE. Socialism has many good positive liberal positions. Socialism tries to eliminate poverty, for example. Socialism tries to spread the wealth of a nation more evenly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
some of you need to get a life and get off the drugs
You first, borebound.
.,....By the way, Hitler was at heart a capitalist. Under the Third Reich the workers had no better deal than they did in the Weimar and the rich industrialists goth much richer. He used the socialist thing mainly as a way to garner votes from the working class. Of course, he also played on everyone's fear of the communists. He was a heart a typical petite Bourgeoisie.
Spot on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is easy to solve and here is the answer

 

Liberals = gay people and God haters and welfare recipients

 

Conservatives = God fearing people who defend the country and want only the best for america and are willing to fight to protect the country and dont want to pay high taxes for lazy welfare people who wont take responsibility for their own welfare.

 

Priceless......................and so fuc*ing wrong. You must be in 5th grade or just an incredibly stupid adult. What silly words you choose to type.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if I'm conservative or liberal. I do know that I am not rich with money but have worked very hard to get where I am. I do have a comfortable life now and love my life. I have done this for MY own saisfaction to take care of me and my family. I do have compassion for other people and help when "I" want to help. I feel that no one wether it be government or another individual has any right to force me to give any portion of my income to help anyone that I personally don't know. If more people in this country would stop playing the "less fortunate" card and work like I do to better thier own situation there would be alot fewer "less fortunate" people. The idea that any human has any enforceable duty to give money to anybody they don't choose is wrong on every level and to force an indivdual to do so at thier own family expense is certainly NOT what I belive. To regulate companies or industries in similar ways is just as wrong. To be a healthy society we can't punish the achievers! We'd best reward them. As far as AMERICA'S war...I don't think things were done perfectly, they never are but the military is a volunteer force and congress voted in favor of what we are doing. We as citizens must always remember that we may not know everything about a given military decision. Such as..and this is totally hypothetical..maybe the military think tank knew that in the near future the middle eastern oil supply will begin to run dry and that those countries will begin to look beyond thier border for food and wealth.. and we might want to have a very good geographical position to ensure we as a nation aren't threatened. That's what I consider the number 1 job of the government..protect me and my family from foriegn attacks..like airplanes crashing into civilian buildings with daycare's in the bottom. I will take care of the local threats myself. My mother and father are both un-educated and dis-abled but managed to pay for thier house, land and auto's as well as put a little cash away for things like increasing gas prices. Thru cancer (mom) and MS (dad) they have went thru most of thier savings. They can of course get "help" from the government if they sign over thier assets to the hospital. As a family we made the decision not to do that and they are allowing me to help them. I encourage everyone that... wants to take more of what I make and give it to others that I don't know .... please send my mom and dad donations to help offset the costs of 6 years of off and on chemo and radiation for mom or catherters and insulin for my dad. I wouldn't be mad nor too proud to take it nor would they. However we all would stand with you till death to defend your right to take your money and buy an SUV if thats what you choose to do with your money that YOU earned.
You should have no need to ask for assistance to help your parents because of health care. Only US among the most industrialized nations does not have health care for all of their citizens. Something is dreadfully wrong with a nation that does not provide health care for ALL of its citizens when it is easily affordable by a rich nation such as ours. Check out France, UK, Australia, Norway, Germany,.....etc.... Even Cuba knows that it is important to tend to the health of its citizenry regardless of wealth. See Michael Moore's Sicko documentary, if you don't understand this point.

 

How can sick people without a means to afford getting better be an asset to our nation? Similarly, how can uneducated people do high-tech work? We formed a nation (a big club) because we have strength when we help one another to attain our highest level of productivey. No one is an island. No one could possibly take care of all of their needs without the help of others. This is a simple reality that lots of the blowhard whackos who think they are self-made don't seem to get. Most of them gobbled up public resources with both hands without ever thinking about it. Some how these fools think they are self-made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Message 54 I promised to give some examples of Bugliosi's thinking on the murders committed by the Bushbunchofkillers. Bugliosi has the qualifications to address the legal aspects of murder. He was the guy that prosecuted Charles Manson. Recall Manson did not have a hands-on role in the murders of Sharon Tate and others. Simply, Manson instigated and directed his followers to attack the type of folks who he hated in the entertainment business who rejected him at one time in his life.

 

Manson was a megalamaniac control-freak with no respect for human life. Does that sound a bit like our fake president? Mass murderers have no conscience. The bushbastard smiles and smurks and loves to joke about his lies that set up that resulted in over 100,000 deaths and countless maimings. Remember when he was spoofing around looking under chairs for WMD all the while smiling at his audience who were largely moronic followers appreciating his joking about the conditions under which he has caused horrible deaths and suffering? This was no accident or mistake. It is really who this MF is. He is like the BTK guy who enjoyed his mass murdering. BTK loved to taunt the public and press with his notes to the press. The Bushabominatorofourgreatnation is just like BTK but not as overtly perverted.

 

Enough said. Here is a quote from Bugliosi's book: The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder

 

BEGIN BUGLIOSI QUOTE ON P.229 OF HIS BOOK: When you see Bush and Cheney (and their right-wing supporters) still, after seven years, with all we have seen and all that we know happened, shamelessly continuing to use their 9/11 failure and their insane and disastrous war against Iraq not only as assets and weapons for political victory, but to depict innocent Democrats as dangerously weak traitors to America, the thought that comes into one's mind, even a civilized and timid one, is that only a figurative stake through the heart could ever stop these diabolically monstrous charlatans.

END QUOTE

 

Keep tuned....more of Bugliosi's and my thoughts are forthcoming.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm new to this forum and neither a liberal nor a conservative. Neither a democrat or a republican but rather an independent. I've used the following phrase most of my life with great success to determine the differences between liberals and conservatives.

 

“Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain.” Winston Churchill

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should have no need to ask for assistance to help your parents because of health care. Only US among the most industrialized nations does not have health care for all of their citizens. Something is dreadfully wrong with a nation that does not provide health care for ALL of its citizens when it is easily affordable by a rich nation such as ours. Check out France, UK, Australia, Norway, Germany,.....etc.... Even Cuba knows that it is important to tend to the health of its citizenry regardless of wealth. See Michael Moore's Sicko documentary, if you don't understand this point.

 

How can sick people without a means to afford getting better be an asset to our nation? Similarly, how can uneducated people do high-tech work? We formed a nation (a big club) because we have strength when we help one another to attain our highest level of productivey. No one is an island. No one could possibly take care of all of their needs without the help of others. This is a simple reality that lots of the blowhard whackos who think they are self-made don't seem to get. Most of them gobbled up public resources with both hands without ever thinking about it. Some how these fools think they are self-made.

 

Your point about our government officials suspecting hypothetically that we may become victims of Middle East oil nations is sheer nonsense. Based on that type of weird and warped thinking we probably can cook up a hypothetical war against every nation of the world. I.e. We could justify murdering 6 billion people because they just might attack us when food runs out!!!! Don't you see how stupid this notion is? I hope so. I hate to think that even a monstrous dullard like the Bushabominatorofallthatisdecent could come up with such a moronic justification for attacking the world. Hitler only wanted to control the whole world not kill it. However, he planned on doing lots of genocide in prelude to the 500 years of peace that he hoped his war would create.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Priceless......................and so fuc*ing wrong. You must be in 5th grade or just an incredibly stupid adult. What silly words you choose to type.

I'll second the motion on what you just wrote. This gross simplification is what one might expect from an illiterate fool who has reduced political positioning down to idiotic simplifications that can be grasped by a moron evolving into a mindless robot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...