For The "Liberals" In The Forum ...

sync0s

Well-Known Member
nothing wrong with being young...I had a hell a lot more energy 25 something years ago, but I also was not as wise...did not take the time to really pay attention to all that was around me...Wisdom comes with age ...Saw you arguing this point recently...did not say anything then for I did not want you to take it the wrong way...You speak for Ron Paul but had no clue that he ran as a Libertarian ( in which he should run that way again)...you actually said that he did not...most young people don't take the time to do the research and if you did your research on Ron Paul this you would have known..again when that quote was just made you should have known that he was mocking Bush..I bet the "old heads" did..experience is the best teacher and you only get that with time...again nothing wrong with being young, but I think its better to be wise..
Mmk.... because I didn't acknowledge the fact that RP ran as a libertarian in 88 (and was corrected, and conceded to that truth), and because I don't log the quotes of the worst president in US history, that makes me young and unwise. Good to know. Especially considering how many historical facts and research I have done in past posts, I'm proud that older people seem to think they are so bright because somebody who they THINK is under 30 years of age made a couple mistakes. Cool.

Keep in mind the logic of your era's intelligence has gotten us.

By the way, I'm glad that because you have a prejudice against younger generations that now future comments are going to be taken less seriously and refuted as a "young and unwise" perspective.

[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]Wisdom is knowing what to do next; virtue is doing it. ~David Star Jordan, The Philosophy of Despair
[/FONT]
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
see I did not want you to take that the wrong way..I love young people ( hell my kids are young)..I have done work with trouble youths...as a person synco I like you and have told you that, but you will understand what I'm saying when you get older...by the way we all never stop learning, but wisdom does come with age..
 

sync0s

Well-Known Member
see I did not want you to take that the wrong way..I love young people ( hell my kids are young)..I have done work with trouble youths...as a person synco I like you and have told you that, but you will understand what I'm saying when you get older...by the way we all never stop learning, but wisdom does come with age..
I fully understand your intent. However, in your post you said that young people do not research and if I were older I would have researched. That is a completely unfounded prejudice against young people, and the fact that you label me as not researching things is unfounded as well. I can point you to numerous posts on this forum that are contrary to that.

Of course, with your age, you cannot understand my point of view as nothing more then my not understanding because I'm young. Surely, the mere effects of patronization has left your memory, what with your years and all.
 

txpete77

Well-Known Member
The ironic thing I find about this site is how everyone here wants the government out of our lives... when it comes to the use and cultivation of a plant - then most of us here (but not all) abandon this concept when it comes to other aspects of our lives.

Fucking hypocrites. May your chains rest lightly...
 

Himself

Member
The ironic thing I find about this site is how everyone here wants the government out of our lives... when it comes to the use and cultivation of a plant - then most of us here (but not all) abandon this concept when it comes to other aspects of our lives.

Fucking hypocrites. May your chains rest lightly...
Umm, no (and I resemble that remark). In any issue there are various shades of grey. Some might say even a Touch of Grey. The role of Gov't as this progressive liberal sees it has been villified for so long by the wealthy that way too many people have a knee jerk reaction against our gov't anytime they hear it mentioned.
 

Himself

Member
But Gov't has its' uses. It can spray paraquat on plants in foriegn countries. It can make sure the water we use for our plants doesn't have TOO much heavy metal in it. It can make sure Officer Friendly doesn't stroll into your house to check your grow.

Drive a car? Like seatbealts? Like having roads to drive on? Damn Gov't.

Now to social issues. The things republicans use to get elected. Social Security? r's fought it tooth and nail. Medicare? (the single best thing LBJ got through IMHO) R's want to eviscerate it. Medicaid? Any welfare? Even the republicans that benefited from said programs like congressman paul ryan hate it. 90% of people on welfare are just there temporarily. It is used like it was intended to be used-as a safety net.

Gay marriage? It is only a matter of time. The younger you are the more likely you are to accept gay people as, well people. You don't have to fuck'm just don't discriminate agin'm. A women's right to control her own uterus? Not if you are rebuplican. Then the gov't needs to get between your doctor and you. Wtf is that?

I could go on and on. Bottom line: most tea party nitwits haven't a clue. They don't realize dick armey and the koch bros are riding them all the way to the bank. Conservatives don't really have a grasp of the facts IMHO. Nor do they understand How The World Works.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
But Gov't has its' uses. It can spray paraquat on plants in foriegn countries. It can make sure the water we use for our plants doesn't have TOO much heavy metal in it. It can make sure Officer Friendly doesn't stroll into your house to check your grow.

Drive a car? Like seatbealts? Like having roads to drive on? Damn Gov't.
LOL Government is not responsible for the introduction, use, invention of any of the things you just mentioned.

The car was invented by Karl Benz, not the US government. The Romans developed a network of road systems, not the US Government. The Seatbelt was used in cars for 9 years before the Government made them mandatory, government had jack shit to do with their development.

Why do you think its a good idea for the USA to spray a herbicide on other countries? Ever heard of Agent orange? Lots of people got fucked up from that stuff in the Nam, but to you its a great idea?

It prevents officer friendly from just walking into my home? Sorry the US Constitution does that, not government. The government does ABSOLUTELY nothing to my water, they don't treat one CC of it, I do ALL the treatment MYSELF!!!

I could go on and on. Bottom line, people like yourself worship government as your god, unwilling to use your own resources in furtherance of your goals and dreams, you are under the spell that government will make your life wonderful and it requires no effort on your part.
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
In any issue there are various shades of grey. Some might say even a Touch of Grey. The role of Gov't as this progressively liberal sees it has been vilified for so long by the wealthy that way too many people have a knee jerk reaction against our gov't anytime they hear it mentioned.
this one post contains some of the most stunning examples of the illogical and perverse nature of modern liberalism we will ever see. it starts, innocently enough, by stating the obvious, that no issue is truly a matter of black and white. it's a truism we have all come to terms with, but the liberal cause has taken this axiom to extremes. we are supposed to believe that the so-called progressive movement has the capacity to equitably decide what within this massive grey area should be considered black and what is white. something as inconsequential as our right to consume a plant should not be interfered with by the government, but our basic right to personal property is fair game for confiscation, regulation and redistribution by the same institutions that should not be allowed to tell us we can't smoke a plant. does anyone see the workings of avarice here or am i the only one?

it only gets better from there. the role of the wealthy in the destruction of the public's trust in government is the next item on the agenda. here we have a body that is comprised almost entirely of the wealthy, yet is vilified by the wealthy. we have the populist left telling us that "we the people" have been duped by the rich into mistrusting the rich and that this foolishness should be rewarded, that we deserve our cut for being idiots. of course our share is not control over our own lives, but the wealth of those only with whom we disagree. control is to be invested in government, that body of the wealthy, and perpetually expanded. "we the people" can be trusted with with the wealth of others, but not with authority over our own destiny. that is to be solely the duty of the state, the wealthy who have vilified themselves, convinced the population that we are too dumb to manage our own affairs and demanded the confiscation of their own wealth (well, not really theirs, but every other rich person's). is anyone else as confused as i am?

i understand that the lure of democracy's great lie, that the people are the government, is nearly irresistible, but that lie becomes more and more transparent as the contradictions build up. government is made up of "people", but can never be wholly under the control of "the people". the people, though gullible, are not the bumpkins that modern liberalism demands they are. our distrust of authority is grounded in centuries of historical documentation and is not merely the "knee-jerk" reaction to right wing propaganda. that this country was founded on that distrust should be evidence enough that no single group of radicals is responsible for our unwillingness to blindly follow any authority. the authority of law enforcement, the authority of the state, the authority of the majority, all are suspect in the eyes of the individual and well they should be.
 

sync0s

Well-Known Member
Himself said:
Gay marriage? It is only a matter of time. The younger you are the more likely you are to accept gay people as, well people. You don't have to fuck'm just don't discriminate agin'm. A women's right to control her own uterus? Not if you are rebuplican. Then the gov't needs to get between your doctor and you. Wtf is that?


You do not understand the conservatives at all if you think these ideals only exist in dems.
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
Bottom line, people like yourself worship government as your god.....
it seems people need something to worship. the religious worship their gods, the statists worship their governments, narcissists worship themselves and individualists worship their freedoms. i sometimes think that the reason there are as few christian liberals as there are is the first commandment.
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
this one post contains some of the most stunning examples of the illogical and perverse nature of modern liberalism we will ever see. it starts, innocently enough, by stating the obvious, that no issue is truly a matter of black and white. it's a truism we have all come to terms with, but the liberal cause has taken this axiom to extremes. we are supposed to believe that the so-called progressive movement has the capacity to equitably decide what within this massive grey area should be considered black and what is white. something as inconsequential as our right to consume a plant should not be interfered with by the government, but our basic right to personal property is fair game for confiscation, regulation and redistribution by the same institutions that should not be allowed to tell us we can't smoke a plant. does anyone see the workings of avarice here or am i the only one?

it only gets better from there. the role of the wealthy in the destruction of the public's trust in government is the next item on the agenda. here we have a body that is comprised almost entirely of the wealthy, yet is vilified by the wealthy. we have the populist left telling us that "we the people" have been duped by the rich into mistrusting the rich and that this foolishness should be rewarded, that we deserve our cut for being idiots. of course our share is not control over our own lives, but the wealth of those only with whom we disagree. control is to be invested in government, that body of the wealthy, and perpetually expanded. "we the people" can be trusted with with the wealth of others, but not with authority over our own destiny. that is to be solely the duty of the state, the wealthy who have vilified themselves, convinced the population that we are too dumb to manage our own affairs and demanded the confiscation of their own wealth (well, not really theirs, but every other rich person's). is anyone else as confused as i am?

i understand that the lure of democracy's great lie, that the people are the government, is nearly irresistible, but that lie becomes more and more transparent as the contradictions build up. government is made up of "people", but can never be wholly under the control of "the people". the people, though gullible, are not the bumpkins that modern liberalism demands they are. our distrust of authority is grounded in centuries of historical documentation and is not merely the "knee-jerk" reaction to right wing propaganda. that this country was founded on that distrust should be evidence enough that no single group of radicals is responsible for our unwillingness to blindly follow any authority. the authority of law enforcement, the authority of the state, the authority of the majority, all are suspect in the eyes of the individual and well they should be.
:clap::clap::clap:
Very well said. I like your style.
 

txpete77

Well-Known Member
Umm, no (and I resemble that remark). In any issue there are various shades of grey. Some might say even a Touch of Grey. The role of Gov't as this progeressively liberal sees it has been villified for so long by the wealthy that way too many people have a knee jerk reaction against our gov't anytime they hear it mentioned.
So when I (or anyone else for that matter) engage in actions that don't violate the rights of anyone else, how do you justify government intervention? The shades of grey argument is bullshit... it advocates mixing the good (white) with the bad (black) and coming out with an end product that isn't somehow contaminated - this is the result of a subjective thought process. An example of your 'shades of grey' system is affirmative action. An employer cannot discriminate based on race, but can be rewarded for doing so at the same time? Racism is wrong, as long as the one discriminated against isn't in the majority?

The wealthy vilified the government? Hardly... the government has done this to itself when it abandoned the concept of individual rights and adopted collectivism/progressivism. The federal government can discriminate against homosexuals (DADT), while any other private employer can be punished for doing so. The government can engage in compulsory Ponzi schemes (Social Security/Medicare) while prosecuting others for this type of fraud (i.e. - Bernie Madoff). It is a felony to lie to investigators, yet they are not only allowed, but encouraged to lie to you in the course of an investigation. It enforces unconstitutional laws against peaceable citizens when it comes to the purchase of firearms, yet actively allows thousands of firearms to land in the hands of known foreign criminals (operation Fast & Furious). It blatantly violates the Constitution, yet calls on it as a matter on convenience when it passes things such as the recent health care bill. There once was a time when most business would compete openly in a free market. Now we have created a system of taxes and regulations that practically forces businesses to engage in bribery and corruption by ignoring the equal protection clause (i.e. - ObamaCare waivers). It has been engaged in a war on market monopolies since the late 19th century, then created coercive monopolies - only held in place by its own power (AT&T until 1984). It has jailed, and in some instances killed it's citizens through the war on drugs... for nothing more than using and/or selling a substance among consenting adults (Prohibition took a constitutional amendment, why does any other substance get banned without one). We sacrifice our service members in the name of nation building... placing the Iraqi and Afghan lives over that of our own citizens. Then we fight one entity (the Muslim Brotherhood) in Iraq and Afghanistan, while helping bring that same entity into power in Libya. The government as violated the 13th amendment for over a century through the military draft, while SCOTUS in 1918 claimed that involuntary servitude is not, when the US government needs to wage war.

Our government is the villain in this system. Remove the power it holds to take claim to your life, to redistribute wealth (through taxes, bailouts, & handouts), to seize your property; then the immoral wealthy, special interest groups, etc. wouldn't have the opportunity to engage in crap that has been going on for the past century.

We have been running on a 'there ought to be a law' mentality since the beginning of the American Progressive movement in the late 1800s, and now there's a law for practically anything and everything - from how much you are to be paid, to include how much water your toilet flushes when you piss or shit. The result is men that can be prosecuted for almost anything they do in day to day life - they have made criminals out of every single one of us, as a means to control us. Why has it been done this way? How else can a government rule innocent men?

When you boil it down, a government's pure essence is that it holds a legal monopoly on the initiation of force as a means to enforce it's laws. As such, its only rightful place is the protection of the rights of its citizens from physical force and fraud. Anything more than that is statism, any less is anarchy.
 

Dislexicmidget2021

Well-Known Member
You can never know what Liberal means in the modern terminology,mostly because there are so many "Liberals" who contradict what they stand for when publically speaking, then you cant tell where they stand ethically.Sounds familiar with about 90% of the other political groups.The fact that the term Liberal means to be progressive towards political change and reform is true unto its principle notion, yet there can never be any real end game in this,for what is the ultimate reform to satisfy the people once and for all?
If you find yourself at a short for words here, dont be surprised.
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
You can never know what Liberal means in the modern terminology.....
but there is a platform that is distinctly "liberal" in nature. it may be stereotypical, but it is the loudest of the left's voices. it consists mainly of a redistributionist, statist policy. the concept is embraced that our rights flow from the state, that they are not merely protected by it, and that those rights may be infringed upon if the majority (or at least the illusion of the majority) so desires. modern liberalism has no true constant philosophy. there is no ultimate right or wrong, only what appears most compassionate and expedient at the moment. it is populism at its most blatant, catering to whatever will ease the consciences of the multitude, and, the mind of the people being as changeable as the weather, its core tenets only reflect the current mood of the herd. the liberal platform is, quite simply, whatever will ingratiate it with the mob. it is change for the sake of change and blame for the sake of our delicate sensibilities.
 

ironheadxl

Well-Known Member
first let me clear something up for you. YOu are incredibly biased to the point that an incredibly huge portion of the country just got slandered by your biased opinion. To state that "we" feel and not think reeks of the GOP meme you have been spoon fed in the echo chamber for years. Stop poisoning your mind like that, it is false, disingenuous and reflects no fore thought - no matter how deeply you 'think' it does- such massive degradation of the populace paints you as an ideologue of the worst sort and I would not like to think of you as such. Also the black inner city you mention was created by the massive population shift created by the enforcement of Jim Crow laws which is to say oppressive torture in the form of rape theft murder beatings denial of services denial of political voice and the right to live in quiet safe peace.
There are a lot of reply options but given the nature of the website let's look at the following examples. Pot is illegal due to the oppression of the plant and it's supporters due to the cabal's effort to 1) MAKE US FEAR IT AND 2) MAKE US FEAR USING IT. That cabal is composed of big Pharma, oil corps, cotton industrialists, the timber industry and the fertilizer industry. HUGE financial and political power houses that have laws written for their sake not yours. They can justify anything in their minds and get you to back them with such bon mots as "hey we are the job creators." Which is to say the heroin dealers are job creators too but they also have radically changed our legal and political and social landscape, just not as horrifically in regards to the scale that the cabal has achieved.
So the fiscal landscape would be different and the legal landscape as well ( jail populations and all it implies anyone?) As well let us be clear, the Milton Friedman fiscal policies are installed in part through tyranny, shocking the system as well as using shocks to the system overall to implement these policies. (Shock Doctrine -N Klein - an incredible and highly highly disturbing book that was written with great THOUGHT.)
That being said anytime one loads an adjective on a large population you run the risk of not only limiting ones precepts but as well ones options and dialogue. With that caveat Liberal would be in my opinion, one who puts the people first does not allow corporations the same right and legal definition of personhood and realizes the futility of destroying natural resources for the profit of the few as they sell it all off under the guise of the greater good. As for end game there cannot be one for the game does not end nor is it static. Governmental reach is important as a matter of checks and balances yet it's lack of reach is equally important and the nuances of each concern are as great and varied as the populace it at times contrives and at other times strives to serve. Equal taxation no write offs no corporate wellfare and fair labour practices are a good start. COMPLETE transparency in military spending. The military black budget alone is staggering and here is the kicker on that: in the list of need to know level of importance the president - any of them- is less than halfway up the list. Not an internet rumor my fellow american, a fact. AS for the middle class our labour laws were there for the protection of them after DECADES of near slavery conditions. The average textile worker was a woman and her life span averaged at 26 years. twenty six years my friend.The dust and terrible conditions overall killed thousands every fucking year and that went on till the thirties until strike occurred till people bled in the streets as the lapdogs of the wealthy the police shot beat and tortured thousands across this land of ours. Look to the massive exporting of our jobs via Trade policies and here is the underlying point in that reference up at the POTUS position DEm or GOP the political descriptives are there for your convenience only, they don't give a fuck about you or me. Clarence Thomas - THE deciding vote on Citizen United vs United States of America. When under consideration and in hearings for the SCJ position he was backed by a newly formed non profit that visited and wrote as well everyone who opposed him threatening a massive media campaign that was vile and poisonous to the core no prisoners taken. The name of that non profit? Citizen United the very same who also kicked in hundreds of thousands of dollars to C Thomas campaign chest and MILLIONS to his wife's PAC. GOP approved and you my good buddy defend him defacto in your ignorance as the corporate takeover of the USA GUTS THE MIDDLE CLASS
You speak of 50 million innocent dead. I speak of 50 million hard painful life altering choices that shattered women and men, relationships, families and that were never and will never be convenient. Let us be clear to, the use of devaluating language that you employ - again in the echo chamber- (sacrificed to the god of convenience) is the same technique used in military training to make it easier to kill the other humans portrayed as "the enemy " for what ever fiscal/ political machinations exist and are desired at the time. YOu do a massive disservice to all who have suffered, for you know not the pain, the risk nor the circumstances at hand be it incestual rape or any other horror.
YOu speak of immigration and it's illegalities. I speak of up to 97 million Native Americans dead, the rest left to this day to rot and suffer, forget the casinos they are few and far between and still it is a Faustian deal for the wreckage they leave behind to us all. Lord Jeffery Amherst celebrated , remembered, lauded. Yet it was he who came up the idea of small pox laden blankets distributed to the native masses near and far. Bio engineered genocide. Did Lord Jeffery Amherst have a fucking green card pal? Might does not make right. As for Mexicans and you bet you meant Mexicans, we moved the fucking border. Mexico went from northern California to northern Colorado down to Tex Arkana region, who is crossing illegally now?
THE GOP. Well it was not to bad for a while really it was great even but it isnot was it was anymore, highly conservative radicalised ideologues (Coulter, Bachman,Palin, etc) the rise of the religious right. (lol I love that one, oh Jebus come down and shoot the fuckers with us, amen.) yet us liberals and yes it is a descriptive not a pejorative are still here trying really trying to find sanity in what is going on as we are increasingly oppressed right along with the dumb fucks who are played like fools so they support their own oppressors at the loss of their own future.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
- C.S. Lewis
Thanks for reaching out, I appreciate that.
 

Omgwtfbbq Indicaman

Well-Known Member
let me guess, Sativa's are democrats and indica's are republicans? everyone has an opinion, and some people are clearly wrong, bush was a blight upon the United States and the world, a false flagged war that didnt require we try and reshape the middle east over oil. the guy decided to make teachers, take a chill pill and do a terrible job, with no child left behind. one of the worst idea's i've ever heard. and the fact that most conservatives and democrats each close deals behind closed door even before they step foot and debate about it when they get all dressed up on c-span to lie to the nation. Republicans piss me of because the overly religious who flock to them are always denying someone their liberties, hell, prohibition wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the religious right and the printing industry. liberal in my opinion is someone who tries to make policies toward progress and keeping rights intact. i still believe obama will win the election, the republican candidates all look damn awful.
 

Himself

Member
LOL Government is not responsible for the introduction, use, invention of any of the things you just mentioned.

The car was invented by Karl Benz, not the US government. The Romans developed a network of road systems, not the US Government. The Seatbelt was used in cars for 9 years before the Government made them mandatory, government had jack shit to do with their development.

Why do you think its a good idea for the USA to spray a herbicide on other countries? Ever heard of Agent orange? Lots of people got fucked up from that stuff in the Nam, but to you its a great idea?

It prevents officer friendly from just walking into my home? Sorry the US Constitution does that, not government. The government does ABSOLUTELY nothing to my water, they don't treat one CC of it, I do ALL the treatment MYSELF!!!

I could go on and on. Bottom line, people like yourself worship government as your god, unwilling to use your own resources in furtherance of your goals and dreams, you are under the spell that government will make your life wonderful and it requires no effort on your part.
Dude your snark meter is set WAY too high. I never said the gov't invented anything. The fact that WE (I don't know you) as a country can drink our water with little fear of say cholera or one of many staph blue meanies is due the the EPA and the Clean Water Act. The fact that you can get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt is due to the gov't. The fact that our autos don't erupt in flames (anymore) when they get rearended is due to Ford Motor Co. being sued and losing in a court of law. All these things are functions of our gov't. Which is based on our constitution. And romans didn't build our roads. We have the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways as it was deemed a national priority ostensibly to move troops and equipment around to counter the growing commie threat. Or maybe just to put people to work building infrastructure. Which is what we should be doing now.

Now I am sure you are smart enough to pick anything I say apart. Perhaps this is because we are talking about generalities using broad general statements. I am not talking specifically about your water.

And I worship no god, well except for my neighbor's dog. But about a week ago he switched from speaking to me in english to speaking to me in french and I don't understand french...so..you get the idea. :)

I also believe you can judge a people by the way they treat the least fortunate amongst them. And we are behind the curve in that department.
 
Top