Lefties, your last chance to learn something about Conservatism:

Vitas said:
I think that you have entitled yourself to a seven day suspension.

That would again be something for a moderator to decide...which I think there are two that frequent here...neither of which has seen fit to do so.

I'm sorry you feel I'm out of line. I'll let you know when I agree.
 
Lets all just chill out on some oxycotin, or whatever pills rush can get his hands on.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
You are so misguided! FOSSTEN is the one who quoted Rush Limbaugh. A certified hypocritical RWW if I've ever seen one. Talk about credibility, ZIP, ZERO, NADA.

johnny, he's referring to another thread where raveneyes resorted to name-calling on EL ES, not my post.
 
raVeneyes said:
That was a flimsy reply.

I clearly stated that I was posting my (albeit satirical) version of the conservative viewpoint.

Please clarify or remove your comment

The Liberal philosophy

Larger government, more control, less individual freedom, more dependence upon said government, no weapons for defense, reason with enemies instead of defeating them, punish the rich, cater to special interest groups like the gay/lesbian/feminist community, higher taxes, anti-religion (ACLU), create race and class wars, government-run healthcare, no wealthy people, everyone’s equal, socialist society, pro-abortion, anti-Constitution, anti-property rights, same-sex marriage, pro-union, anti-competition, pro-European socialist views, anti-American.

These are the issues that the Democrats support, but they can’t be honest about these, because if they were truly honest with the American people about these beliefs, they would never win another election. Therefore, the Democrats must try to hide the truth while bashing the Republican Party’s agenda, including name-calling. Howard Dean called Republicans “liars”, “evil”, “corrupt,” and “brain-dead.” Harry Reid called Bush a “loser.” Rangel called Bush a modern-day Bull Connor. Paul Hackett called Bush an SOB. John Corzine compared VP Dick Cheney to Saddam Hussein. You ONLY see this level of name-calling and attacking coming from the Democrat side.

The truth is that the Democrats haven’t had a real agenda in years. They even now are holding meetings to try to figure out what they are for, and still haven’t come up with anything. Howard Dean was asked point blank by a reporter what the Democrats’ plan would be for Iraq, and he said that their only plan is to watch Bush and hold him accountable. Translation: We don’t have any ideas, so we are just going to bash you if anything goes wrong. The last election was about discrediting Bush in favor of the weak weasel Kerry, and they failed. Now they are attacking Bush from all sides in an attempt to weaken his presidency, but they are forgetting that Bush isn’t running in ’08. In their zeal to ‘get Bush’ they miss the big picture and will lose BIG in ’08. Meanwhile, Bush will finish stocking the Supreme Court with originalist judges and get a new tax plan pushed through, while the Democrats, as usual, present NOTHING as an idea for how to improve the country.

For the last forty years, while the liberals sat back fat and happy on their laurels as the elite ruling class, the conservatives went out and changed the minds of the American people by arguing issues in the arena of ideas. Because the liberals have nothing substantive to offer, their only options were to cave or to attack. Since our ideas are superior and make sense and agree with the values of most Americans, the only recourse was to spread lies and deceit about Republicans. They want to starve schoolchildren or throw elderly people onto the street, etc. THAT CRAP WON'T FLY ANYMORE.

Look at the power of the conservatives in this country. Bush nominates a liberal/moderate to the Supreme Court, and the outcry is so strong that the nominee is effectively pulled as a result. (Yeah, I know, Miers pulled herself out of the running, but the effect is the same.) Despite the media’s constant badgering and prevaricating, it’s the CONSERVATIVES who got Bush to change his mind.

You proved my point because you took every statement that articulated the Conservative philosophy and either twisted it or lied about it. Har de har har. That proves that you have no real ideas to offer the country except to try to lie about conservatives and attempt to make our beliefs out to be something they are not. The truth is that we conservatives understand you liberals better than you understand us, which is why we control the government right now. The only thing you control right now is the mainstream media, and that is fading fast as they lose credibility and viewership/readership. People just aren’t falling for liberal BS anymore.
 
Very lame David.

This is clearly your skewed perspective.
 
doesn't make sense for a conservative to write about a liberal viewpoint, or for al franken to write rush's editorial. I give fossten's thoughts very little credence.
 
fossten said:
The Liberal philosophy

Larger government, more control, less individual freedom, more dependence upon said government, no weapons for defense, reason with enemies instead of defeating them, punish the rich, cater to special interest groups like the gay/lesbian/feminist community, higher taxes, anti-religion (ACLU), create race and class wars, government-run healthcare, no wealthy people, everyone’s equal, socialist society, pro-abortion, anti-Constitution, anti-property rights, same-sex marriage, pro-union, anti-competition, pro-European socialist views, anti-American.
By your post you obviously know nothing about the liberal perspective nor anything about mine. Also, this is the most blatantly offensive post you've made in quite some time, and where you accuse me of being offensive it is always an example of me responding to ONE person's comments, where you are offensive is almost always against whole groups or sets of ideas, I had hoped you were done with that, but obviously you're not. Not everything everyone thinks or does is because of the group they belong to.

fossten said:
You proved my point because you took every statement that articulated the Conservative philosophy and either twisted it or lied about it. Har de har har. That proves that you have no real ideas to offer the country except to try to lie about conservatives and attempt to make our beliefs out to be something they are not.
I did not twist or lie about anything. Firstly you quoted Rush Limbaugh...a man even most other conservatives don't respect the viewpoints of, so I wouldn't think he qualifies to represent the conservative movement (he used to, but not since the days of Newt went away). Secondly, if you'll note my points, they are all the same points Rush made, from a non-conservative's viewpoint of them. They are how the rest of the world sees the conservative viewpoint.

fossten said:
The truth is that we conservatives understand you liberals better than you understand us, which is why we control the government right now. The only thing you control right now is the mainstream media, and that is fading fast as they lose credibility and viewership/readership. People just aren’t falling for liberal BS anymore.
And...once again...I am not a liberal. I have several conservative viewpoints. I despise gun control...I think most taxes are too high...I believe in supporting business (small business)...I want strong national security (done right)...these amongst other things are not what most of my liberal friends agree with me on. I am not politically affiliated...so every time you think I am speaking for the liberal you're just limiting yourself with your assumptions that everyone belongs to some group or another. You think you have a clear picture of how things are going in this country and the way things ought to be, but you only have an ideology. The conservative movement has always been about ideology...'the world would be best if' scenarios, and the liberal movement has always been about making the real world a better place.

I admire many conservatives for their passion and their ideology, but many conservatives when you isolate them and place them in the real world lose that ideology quickly because they find that ideology though nice, doesn't work in practice. And I say isolate them because ideology will always maintain a hold on a person's psyche when they have someone else to bolster their grandiose ideas.
 
fossten said:
johnny, he's referring to another thread where raveneyes resorted to name-calling on EL ES, not my post.

And to make this accurate:

"Johnny, Vitas is singling out raveneyes for responding in kind to eL eS' bashing him in another thread while he has not asked for a public apology from eL eS, nor publicly chastised eL eS for the ridiculous fight."

And see this post:

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=118827&postcount=9

and my correct prediction:

raVeneyes said:
I'd also like to note that while a conservative started with the personal attacks I'm sure I'll be the one to be taken to task for it by someone...I apologize in advance to those of you who have to read this, but I don't take kindly to what some people assume around here, and there's not much else those individuals seem to understand at times.
 
raVeneyes said:
...where you accuse me of being offensive it is always an example of me responding to ONE person's comments, where you are offensive is almost always against whole groups or sets of ideas, I had hoped you were done with that, but obviously you're not...

Thank you. You make a good point, which is that when I am 'offensive,' as you put it, it is against groups of people or ideas, instead of singling out a specific person and attacking him/her, which is what you do by your own admission, and which, by the way, is against the rules of this forum. I follow the rules, you break them.
raVeneyes said:
I did not twist or lie about anything. Firstly you quoted Rush Limbaugh...a man even most other conservatives don't respect the viewpoints of, so I wouldn't think he qualifies to represent the conservative movement (he used to, but not since the days of Newt went away).


You DID twist and lie about everything in that article. You 'edited' each line with your own twisted opinion, which is not what was said, but what you think should have been said which totally changes the meaning of what was said, ergo, your ideas and thoughts, not the author's.

Secondly, Rush has 20 million listeners each week, which indicates that he DOES represent the thinking of conservatives by and large. It certainly lends more credence to that line of thinking than not. Your just saying it doesn't make it so.

Interesting how you attack Rush, one person, instead of debating ideas. Typical liberal tactic.
raVeneyes said:
Secondly, if you'll note my points, they are all the same points Rush made, from a non-conservative's viewpoint of them. They are how the rest of the world sees the conservative viewpoint.

Which proves my point. Non-conservatives DON'T UNDERSTAND conservatives. We do, however, understand the liberal agenda.

raVeneyes said:
And...once again...I am not a liberal. I have several conservative viewpoints. I despise gun control...I think most taxes are too high...I believe in supporting business (small business)...I want strong national security (done right)...these amongst other things are not what most of my liberal friends agree with me on. I am not politically affiliated...so every time you think I am speaking for the liberal you're just limiting yourself with your assumptions that everyone belongs to some group or another. You think you have a clear picture of how things are going in this country and the way things ought to be, but you only have an ideology. The conservative movement has always been about ideology...'the world would be best if' scenarios, and the liberal movement has always been about making the real world a better place.

Not a liberal, huh? By who's definition? You are most certainly not a conservative. But more to the point, what's wrong with being a liberal? Is it bad to be portrayed as such? If you're not a liberal, then you certainly come across as an anti-conservative, which to me makes no difference.

raVeneyes said:
I admire many conservatives for their passion and their ideology...

Name three people that are conservative that you admire.

raVeneyes said:
...but many conservatives when you isolate them and place them in the real world lose that ideology quickly because they find that ideology though nice, doesn't work in practice....

That's usually because they are vehemently opposed by liberals who prevaricate and fabricate in order to smear them and defeat their attempts.


raVeneyes said:
And I say isolate them because ideology will always maintain a hold on a person's psyche when they have someone else to bolster their grandiose ideas.
A perfect example of a liberal attempt to squash conservatism.

And for you, captainalias, making comments about another person's mistakes, such as oxycontin addiction, is typical liberal smear and is bad form, but we expect that from you, since you have no real substance to offer in the arena of ideas.
 
And for you, captainalias, making comments about another person's mistakes, such as oxycontin addiction, is typical liberal smear and is bad form, but we expect that from you, since you have no real substance to offer in the arena of ideas.

How about I just call you a godless commie? You seem to like that tactic of name calling and smearing yourself.
 
captainalias said:
How about I just call you blah blah blah? Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

Do whatever you want. You are new to this forum, and it won't be long before Bryan or even Joey smacks you down for not understanding the rules. Personally, I don't care, since you only come off as sophomoric and mean-spirited and uneducated when you name-call.

If you can come up with a recent example of me actually saying, "You're a godless commie," I'd be very interested to see it.
 
fossten said:
Do whatever you want. You are new to this forum, and it won't be long before Bryan or even Joey smacks you down for not understanding the rules. Personally, I don't care, since you only come off as sophomoric and mean-spirited and uneducated when you name-call.

If you can come up with a recent example of me actually saying, "You're a godless commie," I'd be very interested to see it.

Is that a threat? So when you speak out of 'passion', the admins won't do anything?

Well, let me see here. You said Deville was a commie, and you said that communism was godless, so by the transitive property, you are calling him a 'godless commie'. Although, according you, you were simply calling his ideas 'commie', which as I pointed out in the other post, would have been a valid point had you said that, rather than saying 'You sound like...'
 
raVeneyes said:
And to make this accurate:

"Johnny, Vitas is singling out raveneyes for responding in kind to eL eS' bashing him in another thread while he has not asked for a public apology from eL eS, nor publicly chastised eL eS for the ridiculous fight."

And see this post:

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=118827&postcount=9

and my correct prediction:

If you r-e-a-d my post to which you replied earlier, I specifically addressed that issue.

"He told you people may not like you, so what, roughly 50% of voters do not like the other guy. There is no excuse for the language that you used. If you cannot be more clever in your response, find another place to respond."

As to your "prediction," WOW YOU ACTUALLY FORSAW THAT YOUR ENGAGING IN NAME CALLING WOULD BE CONSIDERED OFFENSIVE. wow truly "prescient"

One of the other Lincoln boards was imploded by this sort of name calling crap. They banned political discussion. If that is what you want to happen here, well, carry on.
 
You know...I actually like everyone who participates in this particular forum. I've had my heated arguments with a few people but nothing was taken personal in the end.

But quite frankly...if this whiney bs doesn't stop soon I'm gonna have to leave the political forum to the babies.

This "You broke my GI Joe so I'm gonna burn down your Lincoln Log house" crap has gotta end!
 
FreeFaller said:
...I'm gonna have to leave the political forum to the babies....

I would like to see more intelligent responses, after facts are presented that obviates the discussion, than "Your guy is stupid."


If that is the best that these kids can do, then "we" are in deep trouble.
 
I saw a cartoon the other day...I'll try to find it. But anyway, it was a picture of the elephant and the mule arguing on either sides of a teeter-totter. They were balancing on a pillar named freedom and keeping the board (called the USA) from falling into the sea of tyranny that the pillar soared over. Now if we could all respect each other for being the voice that keeps both our sides from falling into the abyss we would be in a better position to continue yelling at each other...

...did that make sense???
 
FreeFaller said:
Now if we could all respect each other for being the voice that keeps both our sides from falling into the abyss we would be in a better position to continue yelling at each other...

...did that make sense???

You would think that we were all living in the same country...

Dissent is fine, it makes our country so much better for it, but when you see comments that obviously beg for OUR downfall in these fragile times you need to examine what their agenda is. And, clearly, they have an agenda.

Bush is doing a stellar job in handling the Economy under the extremely adverse circumstances that were given to him. The Iraq war was won long ago, now we have to deal with allowing the Iraqi people the ability to make the transition to governing and protecting themselves. In the meantime we are finding massive amounts of WMD, in terrorists and insurgents. When done, this will be the biggest and most important Revolution in our generation. Dealing with the hate of Islam extremists at the core.
 
Vitas said:
In the meantime we are finding massive amounts of WMD, in terrorists and insurgents. When done, this will be the biggest and most important Revolution in our generation. Dealing with the hate of Islam extremists at the core.

Excuse me, but I must be missing something. Where are these 'massive amounts of WMD' that you speak of? Cheney's head is pretty big, but not massively big.
 
captainalias said:
Excuse me, but I must be missing something. Where are these 'massive amounts of WMD' that you speak of? Cheney's head is pretty big, but not massively big.

What attacked New York on 9/11/01?
 
Vitas said:
What attacked New York on 9/11/01?

Not a WMD. besides, those terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. I see you've been duped by Bush's strategem, where he would simultaneously mention Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence.
 
captainalias said:
Not a WMD. besides, those terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. I see you've been duped by Bush's strategem, where he would simultaneously mention Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence.

So was it terrorists that attacked NY? If I may ask, how old are you?
 
captainalias said:
So it wasn't terrorists that attacked NYC? What college did you go to, if I may ask?

See, you have learned something new today. Terrorists are the equivalent of weapons of mass destruction. BTW they "said" they were Saudi's. Would you expect criminals to identify themselves?
 
Vitas said:
See, you have learned something new today. Terrorists are the equivalent of weapons of mass destruction. BTW they "said" they were Saudi's. Would you expect criminals to identify themselves?

wmd = weapons that involve nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks.

terrorists do not equal WMD, so stop twisting it around.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top