A real American campaign: Never vote Liberal

reply to post by harvib


hehehe, your attemps to be sly almost worked.

For a government to allow "sanctuary" is to say "if we find you in our country, you're fine"

if we used your definition of santcuary - then America allows sanctuary for Terrorists (though, if liberals had their way, that'd be the case)

Afghanistan denies sanctuary to known terrorists organizations.

And your argument about liberties is still up for debate, so until that can be proven, there has been no attack on u.s. soil

reply to post by ybab hsur


Careful, I didn't say the governement allowed them to have sanctuary. However the definition of santcuary is definded as a place of refuge. Regardless of how temporary if there are members of Al queda that have yet to be found then by definition they have not been deprived of sanctuary.

reply to post by harvib




i will agree with you to this extent:

They needed to reword that passage. Sanctuary is provided by a body of power. (what i mean is, you cannot grant yourself sanctuary from your oppressors...because it takes a larger body to help uphold that claim)

A terrorist in this country cannot stand up and say "I CLAIM SANCTUARY" because our govt doesnt uphold that claim from terrorist organizations. No different from Afhganistan

This cannot be said true, however, in a pre-9/11 Afghanistan. It was rampant with terrorist cells that were murdering and slaughtering thousands of innocent people

But i still say we've got them running, they arent nearly as stable as they used to be, and they're scared.




[edit on 2-6-2008 by ybab hsur]

reply to post by harvib


but back to the topic

"Why, when the liberals very own messiah, Bill Clinton, says things that Support the idea of WMD's in Iraq does it always get ignored when thrown into this argument, by all liberals themselves? "


Can you answer that? An open challange for anyoen (that was copy/pasted from the very first post of this extremely offtrack debate)

reply to post by ybab hsur


Here was my original response.

I would hope before anyone procalimed a politician as a meesiah they understood the sociopathic nature it takes to be succesful as one. It almost seems as if each and every President as of late is advancing the same agenda doesn' t it....

reply to post by harvib


Ahh, i didnt see that .. sorry Harvi.

So from the way i read your response, you agree with me that Bill Clinton is no different than George Bush on the issue of WMDs from Saddam?

reply to post by ybab hsur


I completely agree. In my humble opinion all the presidents of late have all been alligned in certain agendas. Bush is not any worse or any better then Clinton. They're all the same...

reply to post by ybab hsur


Another occurance of ignorance that has popped up in these threads is the issue of "seperation of church and state"

Firstly, that line no where exists in the constitution, and the constituions reference to the idea of "seperation" gets grossly misused every day.

"Infinitely wise Ybab, what so ever do you mean?"

Well, let me tell you.

The consitution states that no wall shall go up on the basis of religion. meaning, zero persecution of religion. The government can no better tell christians yay or nay, than thye can muslims.

So why is it that the pledge of allegience is no longe rsaid in school because of the word "God"?

It, in no way, references to who's version of God, it just says God. And as i said earlier, Atheists don't get a say here, because Atheism is not a religion.

Furthermore, if you infer that "well, the non-believers will feel left out and persecuted"

Left out of what? If they dont believe in a God of any kind, then why should they feel left out? You can only feel left out of something that you covet, yet can take no part in.

I don't feel "left out" because i dont live in Iraq. I feel fortunate.

So if they disregard the notion of God, then why should they feel left out? If you want to take part in the saying of "under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"
then you should have that right

but to have that option striped from you by the radical left, so that some pagan bigot waving his flag around isnt offended by the notion of a singel God, then you have just commited a contradiction.

For liberals who speak of 'seperation', i attest that you deny yourself that when you tell a White Christian little boy that he cannot say the word God, or pray in school, because it'll offend a brown skinned muslim kid across the hall.

Racial Indifference and ignorance is the fuel for the fire of the liberal war machine.
May God have mercy on us all.

reply to post by jamie83


"Conservative" values are also a drain. The war hasn't exactly brought in a bunch of surplus money. If we spent half the money that we waste on bi-partisan bickering on say, the infrastructure, bettering our schools, and actually investing in our own country, perhaps we would be better off.

Arguing over preferences is just a waste of resources. We need better education, roads that won't fall apart on us, water that's free of pharmaceuticals, etc. It's our government wasting money that is the problem. The people in the system are biased, but so are we all. You can elminate all the "conservatives" and "liberals" that you want, but the system will remain.

America is always playing a catch up game when it comes to the economy, regardless of the president's party. Bush and Clinton are equally bad. It's just rather simplistic to blame "liberals" when it's a human problem. Once again, the ideas of "liberal" and "conservative" are illusions. Just dividing and conquering, there are both "liberal" and "conservative" ideas amongst the power elite. The world is messed up because people don't want to let go of power. We need to start approaching the problems of the world through an objective lens, and ignore these socially created labels which objectively are meaningless.

reply to post by dragonfire2159


*sigh*

ill say this one last time

The reason for having a "liberal" movement and a conservative movement is because that is a generic term that groups A adn B can use to describe their ideals and beliefs.

Group A believes in capital punishment. If all who agree are standing with all who agree, they can call themselves "group A" (or...conservatives)

Group B believes in no capital punishment. If all who agree are standing with all who agree, they can call themselves "group B" (or..liberals)

The concept is to have an infrastructure of principals and ideas that further the progression fo our great nation.

We all want our nation to be great, but we have different ideas on how to get there, and even further more, we have different ideas on how to define "Great".

It'd be like saying "an oak tree and a spruce arent different!!!! They are TREES!!! Yahhhh lets go hug them" They have the same basis, they're tree's. but they're different because they achieve different things.


That is why there is these labels.

Maybe i should make that my sig, cause im tired of explaining it.

reply to post by ybab hsur


The problem with making a blanket statement though of "Never vote liberal" is that it doesn't take reality into context. I don't fit into either of these two. I'm for execution and pro-choice, for example. I don't really care about the environment like the typical "liberal", and am more interested in economic improvement of our country. I believe in investing in ourselves, and not sending our money abroad. I am for big business, as I see it is as inevitable, however, I feel that it can be accomplished while reducing damage to third world countries (i.e. controlling colonialist under development of cultures). I am also for same-sex marriage.

I guess my question is. At which point does one cross over to each side. Perhaps you can tell me which I am, so I know whose side I should be arguing for. Or, could I have a definition by which to label the two, which isn't full of blanket statements which one can twist around using language. The argument about trees is a bit ridiculous, if you hug a "liberal" or "conservative", you're still hugging a person. You're not hugging one that will poison you or cause damage.

I'll change my mind from the fact that we're arguing about absolutely nothing, objectively, when I can see a definitve list of traits that are supposedly "liberal" and "conservative". Until then, it's just arguing personal preferences. Because these labels exist, doesn't mean that they are a good idea, useful, or effective. They just exist, and perhaps we should elminate them as they are rather useless. I'm serious too, not trying to sound argumentative, I would like to know how you define "conservative" and "liberal". I would also like a means of measuring how one would fit into the two. Sorry if you've posted it before, I might have missed it.

reply to post by dragonfire2159


first off, i never called you a liberal

i said dont vote for anyone who calls themselves a liberal. and i gave examples to support my thinking

why is this so hard for you to grasp?

[edit on 2-6-2008 by ybab hsur]

How illiterate are you? Learn to read. You'll find out things like our LAST useless invasion of a country for no reason, and how we were defeated by rice eaters in pajamas. How Bush is now regarded as the WORST President we ever had (not to mention stupid). So my ignorant friend, do learn to read.

reply to post by ybab hsur


Read through your opening topic again. It doesn't say "someone who calls themselves a liberal". It just says don't vote liberal. Therefore, an error on my behalf, I thought you were promoting the "conservative" view point. I totally agree with your point, the don't vote for someone who calls themselves liberal. That was my main beef with the topic, thought you were saying "liberal" ideas, as are defined by our government and society, are all bad.

I think that if an individual goes out of their way to say they are "conservative" or "liberal" they are most likely hiding something, as why can't they just say their idea and have the idea speak for itself. Would you agree there? Also, would you take it the other way, saying not to vote for someone who claims to be a staunch conservative?

Originally posted by ybab hsur
I say to you, American brothers and sisters, that now is the time to stand up for your right to be an American!!!!

For too long, have we set back with our mouths shut in the interest of peace and self-preservation.
For too long, have we listened to the liberal party bash the leader of the free world, and Protest the burial of our heros

Are you Bill O'reilly? Seriously I wanna know.

First off from what I see the loudest public speakers always seem to be the Neo-cons, shouting down there opponent because they are so entrenched into their own mindset that anybody who disagrees seemingly deserves little or no respect.

As for that group you linked to, sorry to tell you but they are some extreme, VERY extreme conservatives. Way out of the park even well beyond Neo-cons.

All the rest of the junk you spew is garbage plain and simple crap Neo-con propoganda. You like to lump people that dont follow your beliefs as liberals and also think that they like or agree with all this trash. you couldn't be further from the truth as you can see in the case of Ron Paul, he is not a liberal no matter how much you might think or wish he is/was.

reply to post by dragonfire2159


Hmm, whats the difference in saying this?

Don't vote for Liberals

Don't vote for people who call themselves liberals?

Either way - liberals are liberals.

Your argument doesnt make any sense.....i am not flaming you, but i think its hilarious that, even though these two statements are teh same thing, you use the latter of the two as an escape to agree with me.

Im glad that you agree with me, as it proves that my attempts at education are working, even if only in a small degree.

I"ve never once, and never will, agree with anything that a liberal has to say. Especially the ones who protest our soldiers during their times of burial.

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by harvib

 

but back to the topic

"Why, when the liberals very own messiah, Bill Clinton, says things that Support the idea of WMD's in Iraq does it always get ignored when thrown into this argument, by all liberals themselves? "


Can you answer that? An open challange for anyoen (that was copy/pasted from the very first post of this extremely offtrack debate)

Perhaps because some "liberals" don't think Billy is the "messiah" and don't agree with everything he says or suggests. Perhaps you think that if you follow one particular belief that you have to adhere to all the rhetoric. I don't agree with anybody all the time, do you?

reply to post by ybab hsur

For too long, have we set back with our mouths shut in the interest of peace and self-preservation.
For too long, have we listened to the liberal party bash the leader of the free world, and Protest the burial of our heros

Listened? Neo-con Conservatives don’t listen to reasoning and facts. Especially chicken-hawks like yourselves. Somehow I doubt you’ll enjoy fighting in Iran if McSame wins the election. Feel a draft?

“Leader of the free world”? hahaha , If you educate yourself on current events you’ll understand why that statement is a joke.

Why haven't we stood up? Why do we continue to let ignorance flourish, and hypocrisy run rampant when the leaders of the liberal party spew filth that condones A one world government

Get your facts straight. It is a historical fact that the Republican party supported Hitler when he was in power. They let 9/11 happen (listen to the engineers, firefighters, and military). They lied to the American people to start a war in Iraq. And now they want immunity for phone companies that spied on Americans illegally.

I didn’t even mention torture cruises in international waters. If our government is not balanced by the other branches you can bet Americans will be next on the torture/terrorist list. Unfortunately, history repeats itself.

Why, when the liberals very own messiah, Bill Clinton, says things that Support the idea of WMD's in Iraq does it always get ignored when thrown into this argument, by all liberals themselves?

Bill Clinton is no Messiah, he shipped out many American jobs overseas. Did you know he likes to hang out with Bush Sr.?

Let us no longer continue to allow these people remain on a pedstal. These liberals are the very people who preach freedom of speech, but then proceed to tell you how to talk

A real liberal respects and understand the Constitution. That ability is something you neo-con conservatives have problems with.

Michael Moore says nothing but bad things about oil and defense contractors; calling them ‘war profiteers.’ He also claims to have no stock portfolio, yet he owns shares in Halliburton, Honeywell and Boeing and does his postproduction work in Canada – where he doesn’t have to pay union wages like in the United States. I’m sure his movie was 100% true.

As a shareholder he can attend meetings and stay informed on corporate events.

And then, there is the blatantly hypocritical flip flopping that goes on in every nook and crany of the ideology of the left, and radical left.

You neo-cons are the flip floppers. Here are a few examples.
Neo-cons treat our veterans like sh*t by 1.giving them dirty polluted water, 2.insufficient body armor and vehicle protection, 3. ignore PTSD 4. poisoning with depleted uranium weapons..

..All while wrapping themselves up in a flag and yellow stickers that say “Support the Troops”.

These are the people who oppose the execution of child killers, but support the idea of killing of unborn children as an expression of choice.

Woman should decide what happens to their own damn bodies. I don’t expect a neo-con chickenhawk such as yourself to understand the CONSTITUTION. Privacy is addressed in the Constitution, if you don’t like it, you are free to leave this Country.

Besides, with war there is much more permanent trauma in many forms. You can blame liberals for killing cells but neo-cons are responsible for the deaths & hell that war brings upon society.

These are the people who think trees have feelings, animals can conceptualize and the fetus is a blob of protoplasm.

Some animals are intelligent and do not just respond with reflex. Mommy and daddy never loved you did they? Never had a pet?

They think that a moment of silent prayer at the beginning of the school day constitutes government indoctrination and an intrusion on parental authority, while sex education, condom distribution and multiculturalism are values

School is for learning and gaining knowledge. Religion should be kept out. That includes all religions. Go to church if you want to pray to Yahweh or Thor.

Another Constitutional issue you neo-cons have problems comprehending. Go to Iran if you want a government ruled by religion.

They treat our law enforcement officers like filthy pigs for doing their jobs, but then condone criminal activity as a biproduct of a racially fueled law enforcement agency. (side note: Criminals came before law enforcement, if there was never a crime commited, what would be the point of policing it?)

There should always be balance where political power is concerned. The founders distributed political power among the different branches of government for this purpose. Officers should be held accountable to the public. I know you neo-cons drool over the idea of absolute authority. Unfortunately for you, we have the CONSTITUTION.

They view race riots as justifiable expressions of rage over injustice and fail to see the similarities between a black mob burning a Korean store and a white mob in the Jim Crow era lynching a black man

..And I bet the confederate flag is all about culture? I see where you are going now. Hitler would be so proud of you if he were alive.

They claim that "seperation from chuch and state" is in our constitution, but it isn't

Here it is, in plain English,

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

They scream freedom of religion, but only when it applies to muslims, jews, and all other non-christian religions.

Jesus was a liberal and the Constitution was drafted by liberals. Is that why you hate it so much? People should be free to practice any religion or none if they desire. That, my friend, is FREEDOM.

They refuse to understand all of the whining about affirmative action and
are more than willing to sacrifice someone else's employment or education opportunity to assuage their conscience

If a specific group, or race of people is highly disadvantage socially or economically what is wrong with giving a helping hand. Why do you call yourself a Christian when you can’t follow the path Jesus has laid out?

They believe that those child-abusing, religious fanatics at Waco had it
coming but the illegal immigrants - roughed up by California deputies - after leading them on a high-speed chase - are the victims of the system

Since you started on immigrants, please tell us about how you really feel.

Oh - and in case the liberal movement has forgotten - we live in the internet age, where what you say is immortalized on youtube, and can and will be used against you in a court of common sense. Dont know what i mean? Watch this

You got that right. LOL. Go ahead, wave that confederate flag proudly.

So i stay, we, as AMERICANS, stand up against such ignorance and blatant attempts at oppression. Because if history is a great teacher at of anything, it's that Countries who go liberal no longer exist.

Neo-con chickenhawks are not Americans. They seek to divide America as evident with this poster’s B.S. Your tactics are reminiscent of Hitler’s Nazi Propaganda.
Example:

“Don't Be a Sucker – 1947”
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ybab hsur


The difference is, that an individual who promotes an idea through using the term "liberal" is merely using propoganda. As opposed to a person who may be promoting an idea that some would label as "liberal", but is merely stating the points of that idea objectively. In other words, someone who says to vote for them because they are liberal, will not get my vote. As someone who provides a logical reason for their belief system/idea would get my vote, even if the idea is labeled as "liberal" by others or even "conservative".

It doesn't matter if the thing I'm voting for is "liberal" or "conservative", I only care about the objectivity of the decision. I agree with you if you think that objective analysis of an idea is what should lead to decision making, rather than falling back on our stereotypes. If you feel that the term "liberal" is the only reason to not vote for something, and that "conservative" legislation is always right, then I don't agree.

P.S.: I didn't think you were flaming me. We're just having a conversation. Thanks for the clarification, and apologizing if I was offended, I wasn't though. In fact, thanks for replying to my questions. I prefer debate/conversation over not replying/ignoring anyday, even if I don't agree with everything being said.

The only response you will get to this entire thread of political baiting.

Jesus was the FIRST liberal.

Conservatism is Dated, and Ignorant.

Wake Up America: you can't be a True Christian and Republican

A book by Dean Mitchell

While your on his page (which I'm sure you'll visit as you must be open to a civil and intelligent discussion on this topic)

you should read a few excerpts from the book (which you actually should buy so you can see how this is fact, well organized, and well structured.)

You could also take the time to listen to some of his audio from his radio show.

Let me know once you've reviewed this site, and maybe we can talk.

I'm assuming I won't be posting on this thread again.

Life long Democrat, As well as former and current employee of Multiple federal and state campaigns,
Coven