Liberals Go To Great Lengths

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]vroom wrote:
Heh, Rainjack, my bad, but I’ve already admitted I don’t have the ability to watch FOX, so I can only go by what I’m reading here.

–

Do you somehow think its “cooler” to be a libertarian than a liberal?

I don’t know Zeb, I was told I was a libertarian by some folks on these forums, and that is the message I got when I took one of those political tests.

I’m not afraid to be a liberal, but I’m not a tree hugging, anti-war, anti-business, big government moron either. Since I equate your use of liberal with those viewpoints, I’m loathe to wear that cloak.

Sometimes I am simply trying to peel the layers off of the onion and get at the base issues and reasoning involved. I’d like to understand the thinking of others at times. You are free to draw your own conclusions, but you might not be right.

I may be liberal, I may be libertarian, but I’m not the liberal or ultra-liberal you make me out to be.

You’ve got half the folks on here judging my posts by my name instead of what I say. They generally ignore the qualifying remarks I make and simply assume what I say is biased. This prejudgement is a bit annoying, especially since it isn’t all that accurate.

I’ve even got PM’s from folks who believed your tirades before, that I had an anti-american viewpoint, which I certainly do not. If I don’t argue against your mistaken statements concerning my own viewpoint, folks, especially those new to the boards, are apt to believe what you say.

Do I have any choice but to represent my views myself, instead of letting you misrepresent them?[/quote]

I remeber the ‘anti-American’ sentiment getting thrown around last summer. Hey, at least you’ve not been called a Communist yet vroom! I’m still trying to work out how wanting society to progress in a fair, positive way, caring for the environment (which after all does sustain us) and putting life above profit makes someone bad and a Communist, or an anti-American or a tree-hugger or whatever.

See, if I point out the Iraq debarcle has killed at least 250,000 civilians according to the Red Cross and destroyed personal safety accross much of the country and thus if it is cast as a humanitarian project it is failure, I will recieve name calling. If I also point out the original reason for going in was WMD (remember UN res. 1441?) and Bush and Blair’s statements Iraq had them (and could launch within 45 seconds), yet none were turned up and the searches stopped, and the CIA had even reported to Bush when he came to office Iraq had no chance of nuclear capability therefore Bush and Blair lied, I will get more name calling. To open a real can of worms you can say that the UN Charter was ratified by the US and UK in 1944 and that under it any military action not in self defence had to be agreed by the UN members thus the war in Iraq was illegal as it was vetoed. Of course international law is flimsy because there are no internatinal police, but then law at any level is just notional. It does not exist in of itself so in many ways international law is as legitimate as any other. And now I prepare for the name calling…

82

John Gullick -

What dog do you even have in this fight to begin with? If you choose to see the negative in the Iraq war, go ahead. That seems to be the view of choice in the Euro-centric, hate America crowd - so you at least have folks in your corner.

But - while you go on about the 250,000 dead, all of which are unquestionably at the hands of the imperialist americans, please at least give some credence to the fact that within the last year over 100 million people cast votes in free and open elections for the fiorst time in their lives.

But we don’t want to mention anything good that could possibly come from our War on Terror.

What have you done to bring democracy to anyone? You are the friend of the enemies of the U.S., and it shows.

83

It was I who gave you that oh-so dreaded moniker back in the day.

You seem to be a bit of a contrarian was well. That might explain alot of the reactions to your posts.

I, for one, think you are a right fine neighbor to the north and welcome all of your posts.

Schrauper

PS I think it is beauty, eh to have a benign neighbor to the north to demonstrate the greatness of lib policies like gun control/registration and national single payer health care.

84

[quote]rainjack wrote:
John Gullick -

What dog do you even have in this fight to begin with? If you choose to see the negative in the Iraq war, go ahead. That seems to be the view of choice in the Euro-centric, hate America crowd - so you at least have folks in your corner.

But - while you go on about the 250,000 dead, all of which are unquestionably at the hands of the imperialist americans, please at least give some credence to the fact that within the last year over 100 million people cast votes in free and open elections for the fiorst time in their lives.

But we don’t want to mention anything good that could possibly come from our War on Terror.

What have you done to bring democracy to anyone? You are the friend of the enemies of the U.S., and it shows.[/quote]

Rainjack I’m not gonna lie, I like your avatar. 100 million people cast votes in free elections for a government which has no control over its own country, and returned to their homes with no power or water. And returned to no jobs because they’re given to American contractors. And returned to possible death at the hands of terrorist organisations which have been allowed to move in or which have sprung up since the coalition went in. But maybe I should sing the praises of the Iraq debarcle because pointing out what’s going ok really gives people and incentive to advance positive change.

Now please tell me how my anti-Iraq war stance is euro-centric? Because lots of people agree with me in Europe? But lots agree with me elsewhere too, like Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, Australia and (God forbid!) America itself. Surely ethno-centrism would be believeing your system of government and beliefs are the best in the world and then enforcing them on a country using violence? wait a second…

85

[quote]rainjack wrote:
So she decerves to be starved to death? yOu left-wing death mongers will use anything and everything to justify your blood lust.
[/quote]
Death Monger!HA! Poor Rainjack, you don’t see that she has the right to die do you? You’ve convinced yourself that if a person knew they weren’t going to have a brain in the future that they would still want to persist!

Do I really need to post the bill? The bill would starve someone or suffocate someone base on ability to pay. Culture of life my ass. The bill expressly codifies and legalizes the ability of doctors to stop treatment even if it goes against the explicit directive of the patient or the patient?s family.
Section 166.046, Subsection (e):
If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient ?

Ha! Hilarious how easily manipulated you are poor Rainjack, it’s no wonder your so Republican. Mother’s having a partial birth abortion DID NOT want to have their baby removed! PBA is purely a propogandized ploy to get rid of all abortions, you know that! Even the Supreme court agrees to that!

eh?

[quote]
I see - so not supporting the murder of the innocent is stupid? Whew…and the left compares Bush to Hitler? [/quote]
Nobody is supporting the murder of innocents. Except maybe Bush’s bill supports killing innocents(well maybe they are guilty of having no funds, but otherwise innocent)

86

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
The technique that drives Colmes and the other liberal guests mad is when Hannity continues to ask a question until the libs answer it.

Hannity did it last night with the gal wearing the “American Communist” t-shirt. She became totally flustered because she wouldn’t answer any questions. She would just read canned answers she had and spout positions. Reminded me of John Kerry being interviewed.

The real question is why do the liberals seemed determined to hid their true intentions.

The “shouting technique” is annoying I’ll grant you that, but that’s the whole m.o. of shows like this. It’s like the Harlem Globetrotters. But regardless of the shouting, Hannity is still lying, distorting, or quoting out of context, and Colmes can correct Hannity’s mistake every single time, but it never stops Sean from telling the exact same lie the next day. It’s really hilarious I think, the whole setup of the show, hapless no-name liberals (mostly), fake democrats (pat caddell types) and milquetoast colmes vs. faxed RNC talkingpoints from attack poodle Hannity, and slanderous bile from Mann Coulter, and Bill “Gamblin’ Man” Bennett. It’s quite addicting.

Oh, and what are liberals hidden intentions?
[/quote]

I don’t know what their intentions are? It’s like trying to figure out what Kerry stood for during the elections.

Why do you think asking a question over again until he gets an answer is lying and distorting?

87

[quote]vroom wrote:
Gee hedo, let me ask you a question…

Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no only please!

Some questions are not simply questions y’know.[/quote]

Yes.

She has developed a devestating counter punch!

Your turn. What’s the hidden agenda of the liberals?

88

[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
Rainjack I’m not gonna lie, I like your avatar. 100 million people cast votes in free elections for a government which has no control over its own country, and returned to their homes with no power or water. And returned to no jobs because they’re given to American contractors. And returned to possible death at the hands of terrorist organisations which have been allowed to move in or which have sprung up since the coalition went in. But maybe I should sing the praises of the Iraq debarcle because pointing out what’s going ok really gives people and incentive to advance positive change.[/quote]

The 100 million was three different new democracies: Iraq Afghanistan and the Ukraine.

All the things of which you speak wrt Iraq were going on before the war started. And you should also add on genocide, no human rights, and torture/rape rooms. The people in Iraq are going through the pains of change. What you see as confusion and failure, I think the Iraqi people see as progress. The government will take form - but not in a nice 60 minute reality TV show. The insurgents are running out of places to hide, and supporters to harbor them. We are winning - regardless of the peacenik protestations.

You are listed as being in England. That was the basis of my Euro-centric comment. But nonetheless, you side with the French, Germans, and the cow-towed Spaniards. Being right does not require the permission of the rest of the world. We are on the right side of history, and time will prove that.

Europe, Asia, Central America, and yes even many in the U.S. opposed Reagan when he took communism head-on, and won. I hardly think that these same folks are going to change their minds this time around either.

The only violence that the coalition forces are guilty of using is that which was required to remove a dictator from power. You must be mistaking education, vaccination programs and job creation for ‘enforcing our will onthem with violence’.

89

[quote]100meters wrote:
rainjack wrote:
So she decerves to be starved to death? yOu left-wing death mongers will use anything and everything to justify your blood lust.

Death Monger!HA! Poor Rainjack, you don’t see that she has the right to die do you? You’ve convinced yourself that if a person knew they weren’t going to have a brain in the future that they would still want to persist!

[/quote]

Right to die?
How about right to live? Death is something that happens at the end of life.
“…[E]ndowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

90

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Right to die?
How about right to live? Death is something that happens at the end of life.
“…[E]ndowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
[/quote]

The right to live, or the right to persist? She stopped living 15 years ago. Now she has the right to die with some dignity as she would have wanted, a right surely “among” our inalienable rights.

91

Oh bullshit. This is another pile of hooey that has absolutely nothing to do with me or this issue.

This is a discussion forum, not a decision making forum. I’m also not here so you can tell me your opinion on everything.

Nobody gives a shit about each others opinions. It is the reasoning behind the opinion, the thinking, that makes this stuff interesting.

If you are just here so that you can post the same opinion as other similar thinking people, what are you getting out of it? What am I getting out of it? You think everyone else doesn’t have their own opinion, they need yours (or mine)?

Lets take a mischaracterization right in this thread…

Apparently “vroom is for gun control”. Well, lets be careful here. If you investigate previous posts you’ll see that I recognize the purpose of the right to bear arms and feel it is important. I’ve also railed against laws that punish the law abiding instead of the criminal.

So, I’ve asked whether it is necessary for people to have access to all weapons. Certainly nobody would argue that civilians need nuclear weapons or anything stupid like that? Where is the line drawn? Do civilians need machine guns? I’m not sure. Hear that? I’m not sure. Maybe committing a crime with an automatic weapon is even more severly punished than committing a crime with another type of gun.

Why? I imagine there are lots of stray bullets that endanger the innocent when these are fired by criminals. Also, if fired safely on a range, why not allow people the ability to do so?

Hey, would trigger locks save childrens lives? Do they stop people from owning guns, of whatever variety they are allowed to own? Well, you know, trigger locks might be an inconvenience I’d support. I wear seatbelts for my own good and I guess it is similar.

Do more severe penalties for those that commit crimes using guns make sense? Sure, no harm in that. Doesn’t impact the law abiding negatively.

So, I’m not interested in eliminating weapons, but neither am I sure all types of weapons need to be available at all times. If we are talking personal safety and crime deterence would not a semi-automatic weapon do the job? Lets find the purpose of gun ownership and make sure that purpose is still met after whatever rules are put in place.

I’ve seen some argue that gun control is a slippery slope, and that some have the agenda to eliminate them entirely. I can respect that concern, but I can tell you without any doubt or hesitation that total elimination would not be something I would think appropriate. Those that want total elimination would be best served by changing the constitution – and good luck with that!

So, does the fact that I think reasonable limitations on personal ownership of weapons is appropriate make me a boogeyman?

Also, the fact that the slope may be slippery, does not imply that I’m for the issue being pushed too far! I do however simply think there is a limit to how much destructive firepower we need to allow normal citizens to casually posess.

There are probably reasonble impositions with respect to safety that can be imposed. Consider the fact that we have to take a test to be licensed to drive a car – I would not mind if people owning guns had to demonstrate they knew how to use and store them safely. There should also be ways to deter criminals from abusing weapons if possible, without punishing the law abiding! I wish I knew what they were.

Much like the “question” I posed to Hedo, it’s not fair to make me answer a question like “are you for gun control” with a positive or negative response and think it gives you a representation of my opinion on the topic.

None of the controls I would support will interfere with the basic right to bear arms, or the effectiveness of the weapons to support the reasons for that right. Neither would ideas that I’d support impact the ability to use guns in personal protection, wilderness, hunting or farm environments. All of these areas represent real needs!

Am I ultra-liberal? Am I stuck analyzing and unable to state my opinion on the topic? Bullshit and bullshit.

See, the interesting part is that I’m stating why I have come to the conclusions that I’ve stated.

These aren’t talking points from any organization that I’m aware of. I don’t care if some if the ideas are republican and some are democratic. If it’s a good idea and the reasoning is right, then it’s a good idea, period. If you have good ideas, then I’m apt to adopt them.

If you point out flaws in my thinking, then I’m apt to change my mind.

And by flaws I don’t mean the fact you disagree with my thinking, that isn’t a flaw. We all get our own opinions. Come up with good reasons for machine gun ownership by the masses and I’ll decide the public should own them. Hint, because you want to own one or do own one isn’t a good reason.

Anyway, lets not turn this thread into a discussion of gun control, I just wanted to go into detail about the misrepresentation that I feel is happening with respect to my political opinions or leanings.

I know for a fact many republicans can live with reasonable safegaurds and tough penalties for criminals using weapons. So can I.

I will ask, if you can’t handle any gun controls, I’d imagine you’ve already started a revolution over the fact that there are vehicle laws, alcohol consumption laws, and restrictions against childhood porn?

92

[quote]100meters wrote:
The right to live, or the right to persist? She stopped living 15 years ago. Now she has the right to die with some dignity as she would have wanted, a right surely “among” our inalienable rights.[/quote]

Who made you God to determine this stuff?

93

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Who made you God to determine this stuff?
[/quote]
You don’t have to be God to know that no cerebral cortex means no Terri. That’s just common sense Joe!

94

Holy crap, vroom. That was a lot of words. Why didn’t you just say, “It depends”?

95

[quote]100meters wrote:
You don’t have to be God to know that no cerebral cortex means no Terri. That’s just common sense Joe!
[/quote]

Life, dude.

96

Heh, don’t blame me Rainjack, there was a confluence of issues causing a perfect storm!

My views mischaracterized… so called liberal inability to answer questions and analysis without results. So, what choice did I have?

Besides, shouldn’t you be doing some of those stacked up TAX RETURNS!!! Apparently conservatives don’t procrastinate, so you’d better check your political alignment… :stuck_out_tongue:

97

100 kilometers from a clue- thanks for being the champion of all that is making more and more people vomit when they here the word liberal, which of course helps the Democratic Party win big.

Being denied food and water until you die on the orders of your spouse who has been living with and banging and having kids with another woman while paying your rehabilitation money to an absolute freakin’ loon to tie up all the legal ends and get DR. Death to medically sanitize it is dying with dignity?

Who knew that you were the only neurologist able to 100% decipher the CAT scan, and do it so well that better and newer diagnostic tests weren’t needed.

Good thing you were standing in the bushes and overheard Micheal and Terri talking about end of life issues.

So sure, so ignorant.

Too bad for you about the eighties. To be beaten and beaten and beaten again by the proverbial monkey and a dartboard in the markets could very well make one delusional. Did you sell the stocks that your mommy left under your pillow buy you a clue with the morning after the 500 point drop? That would explain lots.

BTW, look at where the Dow Jones Industrial Average was on the day the Gipper took office and the day that he left. How could it have been that bad?

Why did Michael the Caring hire Felos the Freak anyway, and how much of Terri’s rehab money has he paid here? Did he get a court order to move her to a hospice where he was on the board of directors, causing of course no conflict of interest? Why a hospice five years ago anyway?

You know the truth about everything or least who is lying, so please, please tell us.

I’ll take out the rest of your garbage latter.

98

Vroom, I’m not trying to disagree with you at all, and i’m not trying to give my opinion on anything but what your motives are. Your post illistrated perfectly, exactly what I was refering to. You denied any association with liberalism, and especially ultra-liberals, when I never said you seemed ultra liberal. You then go into the issue of gun control, stating you don’t hold a liberal viewpoint (in your mind) and then go and clearly point out all of your views on it, (which most are pretty liberal ideas) and you just don’t want them to be called liberal.

You have liberalfobia my friend, it’s time to come out of the closet, we will still accept you. I’m sure your liberal buddies are hoping someday that thier great ally would stop denying his allegience to their team, you only hurt thier cause, (while arguing for thier points at the same time).

I don’t want everyone to hold my opinion on things either, contrary to popular belief, I would hate being the same as anyone else, let alone like everyone else. I am glad you are you, and I am glad these discussions take place, it is enlightening, fun and educational. But I will stall call it as I see it, (as you always say).

One other thing that is a tad annoying, at least to me is when you jump into a debate, and offer that there are more than one possible outcomes or ideals, or right answers, yet you support none of them. Since we are all intelligent (well most of us) we obviously understand their is another side to the discussion otherwise, we would not be stating our points now would we. So I just wonder, do you have a moderation fetish? Do you like the feeling you get when you come in and state the obvious as if it weren’? Again, just a few more observations my friend, please don’t take these as personal slams or anything, I am just observing, and letting you know, perhaps you don’t even know you do this.

“I report, you decide”

99

Vegita:

You have to understand that to be a liberal is to deny being a liberal! At least that’s one of the criteria. Other indicators are having an unrealistic view of the world etc. Vroom is not going to make any of his liberal friends mad, as most deny being a liberal. Have you not noticed this?

Don’t get me wrong there are exceptions to the rule. Bit if you think about it, how many politicos that you see on TV or read about bill themselves as liberals? A few, but not many. Most are to busy running from that particular label even though it fits the majority of their political views.

Vroom, loves people to think that he posts as the “man of moderation.” What he is trying to do is disguise his liberal slant. If he is viewed as a “moderate” or “libertarian” he feels that his liberal views will be better accepted.

Actually, that’s the way most of them play the game. They sure as heck do not admit to being liberal, for the most part.

100

Veg, Zeb,

I tell you, the reason people don’t want to be labelled “liberal” is all the crap you folks put on that.

The gun control ideas I discuss are not radical left wing crazy ideas. There are radical liberal ideas associated with gun control, and I don’t have them.

On here, on the boards, you guys lump all liberals together – and surprise surprise, people don’t want to be associated with the radical fringe elements out there.

I’m so used to hearing you guys complain that liberals want to increase government, are pie in the sky bleeding hearts who want to sing kumba-ya, and so on. The shoe doesn’t fit. If that is what you mean by liberal, I’m not it.

So sure, if that isn’t what you mean, I’m liberal/libertarian, but my concerns are generally not radical concerns, and I’m extremely sensitive to issues concerning increased taxation, government participation, spending or size – which are usually considered conservative viewpoints. I also am not a “peace at any cost” person, who feels we should just appease folks. You can be tough and considerate at the same time.

Generally, on the forums, I’m trying to dig into the heart of issues and am railing against statements that show no thinking, but just a viewpoint. Often, the poster of the viewpoint isn’t even willing to entertain a discussion concerning the reasons for the viewpoint. We all have opinions, but we should be able to do more than just state our conclusions – these forums aren’t just a big voting booth are they?

It’s not about right and wrong, it’s about discovering and possibly learning. Branding people into extremely large all-encompassing categories and then not hearing what they say because of the branding applied, is not helpful.

Standard disclaimer, yes, from time to time I do stupid things around here too…