Somehow No One Seems To Think

On Mar 28, 12:01*am, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
(Michael Baldwin) wrote:

Ron wrote

I feel blessed to live in a country where conservatives
and libertarians are frequently mistaken for one another. It's a
mixed blessing in that they are often forced to make
common cause, but good that they can.

*Ron, I think you meant to write _Liberals_ and not "libertarians".
* I'm of _Libertarian_ persuasion. *My personal philosophy is "the
reward of freedom is responsibility". *I cannot imagine a Liberal ever
repeating those words little alone living by them. *

* *You'd be surprised, Mike.

Its been a long cold wait. For a "liberal" to do so requires them to
be fork-tongued. That they are. Snakes -- I keep pet snakes.

Paul G. wrote:
Think about it- "conservative sex.

I expect it must refer to the evangelical right wingers trying to be
missionaries.

Personally, I became a liberal primarily for the great sex.

So what do you do when there's a caucus ?

Paul G. wrote:
$4/gallon gas [and other perceived bad things]

$4/gallon is €0.65 or 0.70/liter. That's less than half what gas costs
in Holland.

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Mar 27, 7:35 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:



The so-called "liberal" in modern pop politics lingo is nothing of the
kind. They are just statists, pure, simple, and stoopid as it is.
Right. Strangely, however, that's also what conservatives are.

"Memo to Jonah Goldberg and National Review: free means free.
Regulation means regulation, whether it is Robert Reich or Jack Kemp
who write the regulations."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman31.html
http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?opt...ask=view&id=46

In a two party system, such as in the USA, LIBERAL (not "liberals" in
retarded pop parlance) are more or less forced to make hay in the
opposition party. "Opposition" in the USA for the last century has
basically meant coalescing to "Republican" because the ideological and
political dominance came from democrats,

I was following perfectly up to this point. Political dominance in the
US does not come from the Democratic party. From 1932 to 1980, I'd buy
that. But today or even in 1996, not so obviously.

who are essentially
socialists. The opposition has been focused on inhibiting the drift to
statism: conservatives oppose because they conserve what already
exists; LIBERALS because they believe in freedom.

I believe in the existence of such people. I believe that they would
have issues with both the Democratic and Republican parties.

A LIBERAL calling a truce with a conservative for the basic point of a
common enemy (democrat-socialist) is really a case of an odd
relationship, but one born of political reality. It so happens that
"Republicans" are a far more diverse coalition due to the fact of
political reality forcing the coalescence of disparate interests into
one opposition, since political realities in democracies become,
unfortunately, binary in nature. So as it goes, the democrat party is
less diverse -- it represents monolithic statism with only minor
detailed differences within.

I almost agree, but not quite. While I agree with your assessment of the
Democrats, I don't see any significant group in the Republican party
that favors liberty either. There are multiple groups in the Republican
party that would deny individual liberties in various ways. The statists
that would deny you the right to own guns and who favor social welfare
programs tend to be Democrats, all the other statists become Republicans.

Yeah, some libertarians vote Republican. But that's only because they
get tired of voting for candidates who lose.

Heck, look at the democrats whacked prez
primary selection procedu it is the height of irony that
"democrats" have no confidence in democracy.

Yep. It was strange when Kennedy made this type of noise in 1980, but
not completely indefensible. He had won a lot of the late primaries and
was more popular than Carter when the convention came around. So the
(lame) argument was that the primary results did not reflect (current)
public opinion. This time there's been no demonstrable shift in public
opinion and Clinton donors are apparently working to promote
overthrowing the primary results. When you threaten to take a
politician's money away, that's unAmerican!

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Mar 27, 5:35 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Michael Baldwin" wrote in message

...



PS - No self-described Liberal would ever drive a Ford Explorer you
fake.
Around here you can tell the Liberals - they're the one's driving the
Mercedes-Benz M-Class, BMW X5, Cadillac Escalades, Ford Expeditions and
Chevy Suburbans. They're the one's complaining about $100 fillups and trying
to get gas prices down as low as possible.

Oh, yeah, and they're the one's telling the rest of us how corrupt we are.

You forgot about complaints of global warming coming out the window of
the SUV.

Also all those BMWs and Mercedes and Cadillacs were paid for with
welfare checks.

"Fred Fredburger" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:
"Fred Fredburger" wrote in message
. ..
Tom Kunich wrote:

The problem is that although none of us like McCain, it looks like we
must vote for him to prevent either Obama or Hillary from getting in
and seeing the end of our country as we know it.

I have no idea how many times I've heard you say say something about
"the end of our country as we know it." It must have happened 20 times
by now. Or else you're just a drama queen.

Then since all of these conversations are stored you ought to be able to
find me saying that before. Unless, of course, you're a moronic idiot.

Or unless I don't care that you've gone senile.

Meaning, of course, that you can't support your false claims.

On Mar 28, 1:47*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Mar 27, 7:35*pm, Fred Fredburger

wrote:
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

The so-called "liberal" in modern pop politics lingo is nothing of the
kind. *They are just statists, pure, simple, and stoopid as it is.

Right. Strangely, however, that's also what conservatives are.

"Memo to Jonah Goldberg and National Review: free means free.
Regulation means regulation, whether it is Robert Reich or Jack Kemp
who write the regulations."http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman31.htmlhttp://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

In a two party system, such as in the USA, LIBERAL (not "liberals" in
retarded pop parlance) are more or less forced to make hay in the
opposition party. *"Opposition" in the USA for the last century has
basically meant coalescing to "Republican" because the ideological and
political dominance came from democrats, who are essentially
socialists. The opposition has been focused on inhibiting the drift to
statism: conservatives oppose because they conserve what already
exists; LIBERALS because they believe in freedom.

A LIBERAL calling a truce with a conservative for the basic point of a
common enemy (democrat-socialist) is really a case of an odd
relationship, but one born of political reality. *It so happens that
"Republicans" are a far more diverse coalition due to the fact of
political reality forcing the coalescence of disparate interests into
one opposition, since political realities in democracies become,
unfortunately, binary in nature. *So as it goes, the democrat party is
less diverse -- it represents monolithic statism with only minor
detailed differences within. *Heck, look at the democrats whacked prez
primary selection procedu it is the height of irony that
"democrats" have no confidence in democracy.

NObama '08!!!!!

Nicely said! I've also got to agree with Fred to some extent in that
both parties are going to strip freedoms, it's just a difference of
which ones. Every time the Republicans go on a campaign to shrink the
government it seem to grow exponentially, at least the Dem's tell us
that's their goal.
Bill C

On Mar 28, 11:46 am, Bill C wrote:
On Mar 28, 1:47 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:



On Mar 27, 7:35 pm, Fred Fredburger

wrote:
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

The so-called "liberal" in modern pop politics lingo is nothing of the
kind. They are just statists, pure, simple, and stoopid as it is.

Right. Strangely, however, that's also what conservatives are.

"Memo to Jonah Goldberg and National Review: free means free.
Regulation means regulation, whether it is Robert Reich or Jack Kemp
who write the regulations."http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman31.htmlhttp://www.fahayek...

In a two party system, such as in the USA, LIBERAL (not "liberals" in
retarded pop parlance) are more or less forced to make hay in the
opposition party. "Opposition" in the USA for the last century has
basically meant coalescing to "Republican" because the ideological and
political dominance came from democrats, who are essentially
socialists. The opposition has been focused on inhibiting the drift to
statism: conservatives oppose because they conserve what already
exists; LIBERALS because they believe in freedom.

A LIBERAL calling a truce with a conservative for the basic point of a
common enemy (democrat-socialist) is really a case of an odd
relationship, but one born of political reality. It so happens that
"Republicans" are a far more diverse coalition due to the fact of
political reality forcing the coalescence of disparate interests into
one opposition, since political realities in democracies become,
unfortunately, binary in nature. So as it goes, the democrat party is
less diverse -- it represents monolithic statism with only minor
detailed differences within. Heck, look at the democrats whacked prez
primary selection procedu it is the height of irony that
"democrats" have no confidence in democracy.

NObama '08!!!!!

Nicely said! I've also got to agree with Fred to some extent in that
both parties are going to strip freedoms, it's just a difference of
which ones. Every time the Republicans go on a campaign to shrink the
government it seem to grow exponentially, at least the Dem's tell us
that's their goal.

-Um- the federal payroll shrank under Clinton and ballooned under
Bush. Clinton produced 4 budget surpluses. There will never be a
balanced Bush budget. You have to look past the propaganda to the
reality. The reality is that Clinton was fiscally responsible, the
Republican't can't stop spending spending spending.

I'm actually a fiscal conservative. Republican'ts act like it's an
anomaly that when they controlled congress and the white house they
went on a wild spending spree. They keep saying things like "we lost
our core values". Nonsense. Republicans have only one core value-
pure, unadulterated greed. They'd slit their children's throats for a
tax cut. Indeed, they have, figuratively speaking.

Now here's the laugh. Bush hasn't cut taxes, he's deferred them. They
are still there, piling up plus interest because he didn't cut
spending. He just charged them on the national credit card. You
can't "pay" a bill by charging it on your credit card, and either can
the gov't.
-Paul

On Mar 28, 4:12*pm, "Paul G." wrote:
On Mar 28, 11:46 am, Bill C wrote:





On Mar 28, 1:47 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

On Mar 27, 7:35 pm, Fred Fredburger

wrote:
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

The so-called "liberal" in modern pop politics lingo is nothing of the
kind. *They are just statists, pure, simple, and stoopid as it is.

Right. Strangely, however, that's also what conservatives are.

"Memo to Jonah Goldberg and National Review: free means free.
Regulation means regulation, whether it is Robert Reich or Jack Kemp
who write the regulations."http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman31.htmlhttp://www.fahayek...

In a two party system, such as in the USA, LIBERAL (not "liberals" in
retarded pop parlance) are more or less forced to make hay in the
opposition party. *"Opposition" in the USA for the last century has
basically meant coalescing to "Republican" because the ideological and
political dominance came from democrats, who are essentially
socialists. The opposition has been focused on inhibiting the drift to
statism: conservatives oppose because they conserve what already
exists; LIBERALS because they believe in freedom.

A LIBERAL calling a truce with a conservative for the basic point of a
common enemy (democrat-socialist) is really a case of an odd
relationship, but one born of political reality. *It so happens that
"Republicans" are a far more diverse coalition due to the fact of
political reality forcing the coalescence of disparate interests into
one opposition, since political realities in democracies become,
unfortunately, binary in nature. *So as it goes, the democrat party is
less diverse -- it represents monolithic statism with only minor
detailed differences within. *Heck, look at the democrats whacked prez
primary selection procedu it is the height of irony that
"democrats" have no confidence in democracy.

NObama '08!!!!!

Nicely said! I've also got to agree with Fred to some extent in that
both parties are going to strip freedoms, it's just a difference of
which ones. Every time the Republicans go on a campaign to shrink the
government it seem to grow exponentially, at least the Dem's tell us
that's their goal.

-Um- the federal payroll shrank under Clinton and ballooned under
Bush. Clinton produced 4 budget surpluses. There will never be a
balanced Bush budget. You have to look past the propaganda to the
reality. *The reality is that Clinton was fiscally responsible, the
Republican't can't stop spending spending spending.

snipped

-Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you can find folks here saying Clinton wasn't really a Democrat,
and that he was really a closet Republican.
If he'd kept his damned pants on he'd eventually be considered one of
the better Presidents. The other thing was his failure on terrorism
which the current clowns not only added to, but blew up into a total
disaster, literally.
I told Howard I wasn't gonna do this, but it's amazing to watch the
folks who were slobbering, and wetting themselves to attack Clinton,
who did a better job of being a moderate/conservative than Bushy boy
who they're still all worshipping, and defending despite his being one
of the greatest, sleaziest, out of control spending disasters in
American politics.
I disagree with your characterization of run of the mill Republicans,
but they've had NO voice in the this administration which has made it
policy to take care of it's friends and extremist fringe nutcases.
So much for taking care of the troops too.:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11854311/
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/kbr-water/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-r...n_b_17429.html
I also can't find it currently at military.com
Lots of new stuff on the body armor bit at SFTT.org too and the
rigging and lies on that.
Bill C

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Fred Fredburger" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:
"Fred Fredburger" wrote in
message . ..
Tom Kunich wrote:

The problem is that although none of us like McCain, it looks like
we must vote for him to prevent either Obama or Hillary from
getting in and seeing the end of our country as we know it.

I have no idea how many times I've heard you say say something about
"the end of our country as we know it." It must have happened 20
times by now. Or else you're just a drama queen.

Then since all of these conversations are stored you ought to be able
to find me saying that before. Unless, of course, you're a moronic
idiot.

Or unless I don't care that you've gone senile.

Meaning, of course, that you can't support your false claims.



How many Kunich "Blah, blah end of blah blah as we know it" quotes will
I have to produce to get you to admit that you're a drama queen? You
asserted that I'm unable to find you saying it before, so one should do
it unless you feel like backpedalling.

But you're going to have to backpedal a lot. Searching groups.google.com
with "tom kunich" "as we know it" finds 4 pages of Kunichisms like this.
Go check yourself.

A normal person would find it pretty humiliating to have to publicly
kiss my ass the way you have to now.

So admit it now, Tom: you're a senile drama queen. The support is in
you're own publicly available words.