Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

things lefists hate most

p0ink

New member
These are the things that most infuriate "progressives," followed by a brief explanation of why. The mere mention of these words will cause the typical left-winger to see (even more) red:

Cars — especially SUVs; the bigger and safer the vehicle, the worse. For leftists, cars are a polluting, annoying expression of individual freedom — a painful reminder that the longstanding efforts of social engineers to herd Americans into mass transit remain unfulfilled.

Guns — and the irritating insistence of "gun nuts" (anyone who owns a gun legally) to look after their own safety rather than trust in the benevolence and capabilities of the all-protecting state.

Suburbs, AKA "sprawl" — and the selfish desire of so many Americans to own their own homes with their own garages and their own backyards.

Straight white men — especially the dead ones that once dominated classroom curricula, and any institutions where they once flourished, such as military academies, prep schools, and fraternal organizations.

Jokes about sexual orientation, race, or gender — unless they're about straight, white men.

Jokes about most anything else — except for the items on this list.

Traditional families — Heather's mommies both deserve full health benefits now, but married couples ought to be penalized with higher taxes until they either die or divorce.

Abstinence — and for that matter, all traditional sexual mores and anyone so backward as to demand them of their children, politicians, or clergy.

Tobacco — the one form of instant gratification the left won't permit.

Religious "zealots" — that is, adherents of any faith that that makes claims on truth, especially Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, Mormonism, and Evangelical branches of Christianity (but not Islam).

The rich — anyone who has earned a lot of money no doubt did something wretched to obtain it and deserves to have it forcefully taken away. (Rich leftists excluded.)

The middle-class — and their contemptible bourgeois values.

The poor — so long as they aspire to become middle-class or rich instead of remaining happily dependent.

Vouchers — a threat to unions, social engineers, and the government monopoly on public education.

Home-schooling — a threat to unions, social engineers, and the government monopoly on public education — and a favorite among the religious zealots.

Standardized testing — or, for that matter, educational standards of any kind.

Real sports — the kind with winners and losers, where things like, height, strength, intelligence, or skill can determine outcomes.

Missile defense — and most other efforts of the U.S. to protect itself from foreign attack.

American "hegemony" — defined as any expression of American interest that contradicts the conventional wisdom of the croissant-munching "international community."

Red meat — because animal life is sacred.

McDonalds — for selling fatty foods containing red meat and marketing them to minors, and for doing what socialism never could: feeding billions and billions on the cheap.

"Big box" stores — like Home Depot or Wal-Mart, for killing the small businesses that taxes and regulations couldn't.

Pharmaceutical companies — for spending billions developing new, life-saving drugs, then charging money for them.

Successful businesses — they must be ripping off their "stakeholders."

Failed business — they must be ripping off their "stakeholders."

Nuclear energy — even if it is all the rage in France.

All other kinds of energy — except for those that are either untenable or prohibitively expensive.

Drilling for oil in ANWAR — and drilling for oil anywhere else.

Clarence Thomas — for acting, thinking, and speaking in a manner inappropriate for successful African-Americans.

Laura Schlessinger — for acting, thinking, and speaking in a manner inappropriate for successful women.

Rush Limbaugh — for thinking and speaking.

The Midwest — backward, uncouth hicks.

The South — backward, Bible-thumping rednecks.

The West — backward, gun-toting nuts.

John Ashcroft — a southerner and a devout Christian at that. For vilification purposes, he's the Newt Gingrich of the new millennium.

Police officers — Latent racists and unrepentant thugs, every one of the them, except for those who happened to be on duty on Sept. 11.

Laws that are tough on crime — and courts that are tough on criminals.

Individual responsibility — the government causes AIDS, poverty causes crime, and discrimination is the root of all inequality.

Anything that isn't safe — and anything that might not be safe. For more clarification, contact legal counsel.
 
they forgot:

an intact family, lower taxes, black conservatives, the pledge of allegiance, the flag, the military.

what else?
 
LMAO. Good post.

I got the biggest chuckle out of "Tobacco- the one form of instant gratification the left won't permit."
 
After reading that post it seems like they(leftest) are just plain out unAmerican and should either be shot(since they don't guns they can't defend themselves it would be easy) or be asked to move to China. They would fit in good there.
 
This thread is probably the most stupid one I've read yet!!

yes we hate everything p0ink!!!!!!! You and whatever stupid ass internet column writer you cut and pasted this from have us all figured out!!! Oh no!!!! We've been exposed!!!!! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAH!!! I love ignorant generalizations!!!!!!! WHooo Hoooooo!!!


USA!! USA!! USA!! USA!! USA!!


duggan001.jpg


duggan002.jpg
 
curling said:
After reading that post it seems like they(leftest) are just plain out unAmerican and should either be shot(since they don't guns they can't defend themselves it would be easy) or be asked to move to China. They would fit in good there.

lol...you think the same about the right then? because whats up there is the view of a minority of the left and extreme left at that. so the extreme rights views could b twisted into a similar emotional arguement perhaps

maybe we could ship the far right-ers into a harsh rightwing country. ;)
 
curling said:
After reading that post it seems like they(leftest) are just plain out unAmerican and should either be shot(since they don't guns they can't defend themselves it would be easy) or be asked to move to China. They would fit in good there.


oh no!!!!!!!!!! the all knowing curling has all the "leftest" people figured out too!!! Such genius displayed on this thread!! I'm surprised you guys didn't put all of this together earlier!!!

You are all correct, every "leftest" as curling likes to call them, subscribes and whole heartedly beleives EVERY SINGLE STUPID POINT that p0ink skillfully and masterfully cut and pasted from some Rush Limbaughesque website. Yes it's true, every leftist thinks this way!!!! All leftists can't think for themselves and don't vary on issues. WEll done boys, pat yourselves on the back, you've just made it to detective.
 
danielson said:


lol...you think the same about the right then? because whats up there is the view of a minority of the left and extreme left at that. so the extreme rights views could b twisted into a similar emotional arguement perhaps

maybe we could ship the far right-ers into a harsh rightwing country. ;)

I don't think there is one left or should I right oh you know what I mean. :D

Nature boy, man poink got to you on that post huh?
 
curling said:



Nature boy, man poink got to you on that post huh?

why do you say that? I'm just pissed that he had us all figured out. I mean, I'm a gun owner and all, but I guess I better return my gun because that stupid column said leftists don't like guns. :rolleyes:
 
The Nature Boy said:


why do you say that? I'm just pissed that he had us all figured out. I mean, I'm a gun owner and all, but I guess I better return my gun because that stupid column said leftists don't like guns. :rolleyes:

Well you could send the guns to me instead. :D But seriously if you like guns maybe you are more rightest than ya think nature boy.
 
Is it me.. or is Nature Boy getting a little froggy?? Seems he is comin wit alot more venom there days. Not a bad thing either...


Oh yeah.. Pi0nk.. GOOD POST!!! But you forgot one thing to ass to your list...


DBaller
 
i like guns and shot many diferent calibres for years.... am i right wing too? :D
 
did rush limbaugh write that or just read it on the air?

pretty funny, saying rush is a thinker when everything written is a negative stereotype.
 
dballer said:
Is it me.. or is Nature Boy getting a little froggy?? Seems he is comin wit alot more venom there days. Not a bad thing either...



DBaller


hey, I'm going to end up having an avatar like yours except your name is gonna be in it if things go through the way they're supposed to.
 
Bottom line is, Left Wingers hate anyone who is both educated and wants to keep their rights.
 
Part of a Broader Plan

The increasingly transparent and aggressive push for civilian disarmament is an important element in a broader, step-by-step program to grant a UN "peace" force and subservient national security forces a monopoly of power. The totalitarian objective behind the UN’s domestic disarmament and international disarmament schemes are the same. That objective is not to eliminate all weapons (be they nuclear bombs or small arms), but to transfer their control to the custodians of the emerging global police state.

As William F. Jasper pointed out in the previous article (page 10), the U.S. government has made the simultaneous strengthening of the UN and disarming of nations official U.S. policy, first in Freedom From War and then in Blueprint for the Peace Race. Although these State Department documents do not address the question of civilian disarmament, it is notable that both the 1997 and 1999 UN "Experts" reports on small arms place that subject under the broader UN agenda of "general and complete disarmament" — a phrase that also figures prominently in the subtitles of the two State Department documents.

It is also revealing that the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance (CGG) explicitly addressed civilian as well as international disarmament in its report entitled Our Global Neighborhood. (That much-heralded report appeared in 1995, the same year the current UN push for gun control began.) Under the chapter heading "Promoting Security," the CGG claimed: "Militarization today not only involves governments spending more than necessary to build up their military arsenals. It has increasingly become a global societal phenomenon, as witnessed by the rampant acquisition and use of increasingly lethal weapons by civilians — whether individuals seeking a means of self-defense, street gangs, criminals, political opposition groups, or terrorist organizations." That is, in the view of the CGG even civilians "seeking a means of self-defense" constitute a security threat — just like "street gangs" or "criminals."
 
Code said:
Bottom line is, Left Wingers hate anyone who is both educated and wants to keep their rights.

incorrcect. another poor generalization. which side has done more in the last X number of months to limit our personal freedoms. hmmmmmmmm. now that's the bottom line.
 
curling said:


Well you could send the guns to me instead. :D But seriously if you like guns maybe you are more rightest than ya think nature boy.


I like alot of things that stupid post seems to say I'm supposed to hate. I could easily find an equally ignorant post about what conservatives hate. I would never need to resort to sucn an inflamitory tactic because it would be wrong. My point is this, such moronic generalization are counterproductive.
 
nordstrom said:
did rush limbaugh write that or just read it on the air?

pretty funny, saying rush is a thinker when everything written is a negative stereotype.

don't get me started on that guy. his pores exude grease instead of sweat.
 
similar to that other self-proclaimed better-than-thou superior of the unwashed masses, rosie o'donnell...

"no, we can't let you protect yourselves, you savages are too stupid and unsophisticated to own guns - now as for me, well that's different..."
-------

Sunday, June 23, 2002 10:20 p.m. EDT
Kofi Annan Probed Over Machine Gun-Toting Bodyguards

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is investigating United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan over reports that his bodyguards carry illegal submachine guns to protect the number one diplomat.

"Sources in the U.N. Security and Safety Service say that members of Annan's personal protective detail have been using the German-made MP5 submachine guns since 1998," reports the National Rifle Association's "America's 1st Freedom" magazine.

While U.N. officials say the extraordinarily lethal firearms have been cleared with U.S. law enforcement, a spokesman for the BATF's parent agency, the Treasury Department, told the Washington Times earlier this year that Annan's machine gunners have been under investigation since February.

The State Department also has a problem with the illegal Annan arsenal, with a spokesman telling the Times that the U.N. is not a law enforcement agency and therefore its employees are prohibited from packing such high-powered heat.

The U.N. first approached the State Department four years ago hoping to get clearance for the plan to arm Annan's security detail to the teeth - but they were turned down.

But that didn't stop Kofi and Co., who reportedly went ahead and acquired the illegal assault weapons anyway.

"Just how Annan's security detail obtained the guns is the focus of the U.S. government probe," the NRA said.

New York City, where Annan is based, supposedly has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country.
 
p0ink said:

Abstinence — and for that matter, all traditional sexual mores and anyone so backward as to demand them of their children, politicians, or clergy.

Tobacco — the one form of instant gratification the left won't permit.

.

Be serious for a moment please ? ;)
 
Monday, July 1, 2002 11:02 a.m. EDT

First the Pledge, Now Mother's Day

The saying "It's as American as the flag, motherhood and apple pie" may soon be destined for the dustbin of history - at least if a handful of liberal congressmen and congresswomen get their way.

While apple pie apparently remains sacrosanct, 11 congressmen made it clear last week that they're not too thrilled about pledging allegiance to Old Glory, at least not as long as they have to utter the words "One nation, under God."

That's how many House Democrats voted either "nay" or "present" on a resolution backing the traditional pledge after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it unconstitutional.

And now another House Democrat says the U.S. should get behind a U.N. resolution that trashes Mother's Day as sexist and discriminatory against women.

Appearing yesterday with WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said it was imperative that the U.S. back the U.N.'s "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women" (CEDAW).

"The treaty would really save women's lives," contended Maloney. "It costs nothing but it affirms our country's commitment to basic human rights. And it is a tool to provide better education and health care and freedom from violence for women around the world."

The Manhattan Democrat complained that 169 nations around the world have signed on, saying, "How can they all be wrong?"

Malzberg countered, "The committee in charge of monitoring the enforcement of the treaty reprimanded Armenia for its 'traditional stereotyping of women in the noble role of mothers' and they criticized Belarus for reinforcing sex-role stereotypes by reintroducing Mother's Day a few years ago."

"Those [provisions] were twisted and taken out of context," Maloney complained. "The committee was lamenting stereotypes of women that some countries use to discriminate against them."

Besides, the liberal Democrat argued, even if CEDAW did require the U.S. to ban Mother's Day, "There is no true enforcement mechanism in it. There's no legal requirement. A treaty is not like law."
 
Thursday, June 13, 2002

U.N. Fatcats Stuff Their Faces at 'Anti-hunger' Talkfest

On-the-dole big shots at the United Nations' widely ridiculed World Food Summit in Rome feasted on lobster, foie gras and goose prepared by a gaggle of gourmet chefs.

Among the gourmands, according to Fox News Channel, was Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe, who fed his face while millions of his victims back home starved.

"There are mission representatives here who, in the light of day and without the slightest respect for their citizens, go on mad shopping sprees for clothes and designer goods and eat in the best restaurants while back home so many children are going hungry," said Piergiorgio Stiffoni, an Italian senator.

"Piano bars in the smart hotels, champagne and night clubs - la dolce vita for delegates in the fight against hunger in Rome," observed the Libero newspaper.

Italians fed up with traffic jams caused by the visiting "dignitaries" reported seeing delegates skipping the conference to go on luxury shopping sprees.

Organizers of the four-day yakfest, which fizzled out today, groused that few Western heads of state attended the would-be summit meeting. But even the leftist-dominated European Union was fed up.

'Noise'

"It is high time that the international community showed a minimum of realism when addressing these issues, and this I think is missing when we listen to the noise coming out of this meeting," EU Aid Commissioner Poul Nielson said Wednesday.

Jacques Diouf, the head of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, tried to shake down Western countries for an additional $24 billion a year - all the better to fuel the exponential growth of those who cannot or will not support themselves. But no dice.

"The request for more money is off the point, and we are not putting out any signal of support to Mr. Diouf's request for new funds," Nielson told Reuters. "They want to create a fund here and a fund there."

Britain was the only major Western power that boycotted the boondoggle. "I'm not sending a minister because I don't expect it to be an effective summit," Britain's International Development Secretary Clare Short told BBC radio.

"It's an old-fashioned U.N. organization, and it needs improvement."

New Scientist magazine noted today, "Politicians today called the World Food Summit, which ended in Rome, a waste of time."

Reuters said: "The war of words did not augur well for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa from August 26-September 4 - dubbed Earth Summit Two. The conclusions of the Rome meeting are due to feed into the Johannesburg event.

"South Africa hopes some 100 world leaders will attend their Earth Summit, but judging by the turnout in Rome, they will be lucky to draw big-name Western chiefs."

The so-called Earth Summit, you might recall, is when 60,000 "environmental" delegates are expected to befoul South Africa with their pampered, pollution-spewing, expense-account habits.
 
whats your point? i have never said the U.N. was perfect (if these U.N. posts have anything to do with me) but that they are a respectable organization that tries to do good. Even Colin Powell (token black republican) supports the U.N.

If you people think the U.N. can force america to stop celebrating mothers day you are either an extremist or ignorant. The U.N. has accused america of international terrorism & practicing torture and nothing has happened to us for it. mothers day won't go away anytime soon.

and for those retorts to this post, there is a difference between national soveriginity and not being held accountable for your actions as a nation. At least to me.
 
Prometheus said:
Monday, July 1, 2002 11:02 a.m. EDT

First the Pledge, Now Mother's Day

"Those [provisions] were twisted and taken out of context," Maloney complained. "The committee was lamenting stereotypes of women that some countries use to discriminate against them."

Besides, the liberal Democrat argued, even if CEDAW did require the U.S. to ban Mother's Day, "There is no true enforcement mechanism in it. There's no legal requirement. A treaty is not like law."
 
nature boy, you know i love you more than life itself :D

but seriously, this list isnt about the average joe sixpack democrat, it is primarily talking about the elitest snobs you guys elect. can you honestly disagree with most of the things in that artile? *honestly*. kudos for you for owning guns (what do you own?).

oh yeah, that was a column on www.frontpagemag.com
 
nordstrom said:
whats your point? i have never said the U.N. was perfect (if these U.N. posts have anything to do with me) but that they are a respectable organization that tries to do good. Even Colin Powell (token black republican) supports the U.N.

If you people think the U.N. can force america to stop celebrating mothers day you are either an extremist or ignorant. The U.N. has accused america of international terrorism & practicing torture and nothing has happened to us for it. mothers day won't go away anytime soon.

and for those retorts to this post, there is a difference between national soveriginity and not being held accountable for your actions as a nation. At least to me.

Ahh, the World Government faction has arrived on the thread :)
 
Code said:
Bottom line is, Left Wingers hate anyone who is both educated and wants to keep their rights.


my god, and you call me over the top.


The fact that i hate education & rights is why i support U.N. organizations like UNDP, UNESCO & ICS. it is all a hoax to help establish the antichrist so a 60 foot tall jesus wearing a bathrobe can come to earth.


:devil:


be afraid
 
p0ink said:
they forgot:

an intact family, lower taxes, black conservatives, the pledge of allegiance, the flag, the military.

what else?


i hate puppies, i don't know if that is a 'leftist' trait though.

you forgot

racial profiling
the brutalities of the prison system
international isolationism
biased historybooks that make us look better than we are



Personally, i hate rush limbaugh for his objective logic. Many a day i have been sitting at home saying to myself 'how can i prevent those damned conservatives from being educated and having rights'? and i just can't do it with bastions of truth like rush limbaugh and ann coulter there to present the facts in a cold, indisputible fashion. Nothing i can do will get past their ability to dig up evidence to support their views and their willingness to view life from all angles.

Looks like i'll have to go back to my old lifestyle of calling anyone who doesn't have 3 or more blacks friends a racist.
 
“War is Peace”
Orwellian Action at U.N. Boots U.S. Off Human Rights Commission; China, Cuba, Libya, Syria and Sudan Voted In
By Wendy Wright
May 8, 2001
In a secret ballot on May 3, 2001, the United States was voted off the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, while Sudan—with perhaps the worst human rights abuses of any country in the world—was voted in.

Ironically, the vote took place as the United States honored the National Day of Prayer, an annual event that underscores America's commitment to religious freedom.

“There's no surprise that a few European countries maneuvered in a secret vote to eliminate the United States from the United Nations Human Rights Commission,” said Sen. Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Countries like China, Cuba and Sudan will no longer be subject to the careful scrutiny that the United States has always demanded.
 
HAS THE UN GONE MENTALLY ILL?


The concept of the United Nations was initially sold to the world as an assembly that would act as a goodwill ambassador in the resolution of conflict between sovereign states. Unfortunately nowadays, despite the platitudes and words, the UN seems inclined to dominate the world and extort billions from developed countries.

There is no parliament or opposition at the UN and they cloak their ambitions in the guise of human rights -- never individual rights. They want the UN peacekeepers to be involved in the various civil wars in Africa -- 30 wars in 30 years. Even though they want these UN soldiers to be called peacekeepers, they want them armed to the teeth with the most modern weapons -- even tanks.

Developed nations began scaling back their participation in UN peace missions following UN failures in Somalia and Rwanda in the early 1990s. This has caused bad feelings within the UN.

The whole continent of North America is represented by only 3 countries at the United Nations -- Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. The continent of Africa is represented by 53 countries at the UN. Therefore the relative influence of African votes at the UN outnumbers North American votes by 50.

Recently a UN panel on the elimination of racial discrimination has questioned one of the most cherished rights of Americans -- free speech.

This UN panel wants the Americans to condemn statements that promote the superiority of any one race. This would mean that the Americans should pass a law that would condemn free speech -- an American constitutional right.

They want the US to halt all executions because they are tainted by "racial discrimination."
They want the International Court to control global events -- appointed UN judges answerable to no one and never even questioned about their vested interests or prejudices.
They believe that nationalism is undesirable and national sovereignty should be subservient to UN authority.

They want an expanded role for UN peacekeeping. (Let your imagination run on that for a few seconds.)
They want all armies to be transferred to UN command and all weapons registered with the UN.
They want to abolish the right to keep and bear arms.
They want human rights to be a global issue on a parallel with the global economy.
They want poor nations brought up to the same level as industrialized nations and they want the industrialized nations to pay for it.
They want the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council to be abolished, thus reducing the influence of the US at the UN.
The UN held a grandiose Millennium Assembly Sept 5-9 2000 in New York City. They adopted their Earth Charter, which would bring about a socialist/communist global system of UN governance.
This Charter demanded that UN countries adopt sustainable development plans and regulations under UN management.
They want universal abortion rights, gender equality -- including homosexuals -- feminist-gay agendas and population control.
All schools should be taught these agendas -- all these feminist-gay policies --under UN teacher supervisors.
The wealthy nations should distribute their wealth among poor nations.
They want the national debts of developing nations to be cancelled.
They want the UN to impose direct taxes.
They want to tax all foreign exchange.
They want to ban all nuclear weapons.
All individuals, groups, unions, associations -- every thing and every body should be subservient to the wishes of the UN.
All dictators despise individualism and individual rights. So does the UN. There will be no freedom in their Orwellian world -- only duty to serve the UN.
 
AMEN!!!

Prometheus said:
HAS THE UN GONE MENTALLY ILL?


The concept of the United Nations was initially sold to the world as an assembly that would act as a goodwill ambassador in the resolution of conflict between sovereign states. Unfortunately nowadays, despite the platitudes and words, the UN seems inclined to dominate the world and extort billions from developed countries.

There is no parliament or opposition at the UN and they cloak their ambitions in the guise of human rights -- never individual rights. They want the UN peacekeepers to be involved in the various civil wars in Africa -- 30 wars in 30 years. Even though they want these UN soldiers to be called peacekeepers, they want them armed to the teeth with the most modern weapons -- even tanks.

Developed nations began scaling back their participation in UN peace missions following UN failures in Somalia and Rwanda in the early 1990s. This has caused bad feelings within the UN.

The whole continent of North America is represented by only 3 countries at the United Nations -- Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. The continent of Africa is represented by 53 countries at the UN. Therefore the relative influence of African votes at the UN outnumbers North American votes by 50.

Recently a UN panel on the elimination of racial discrimination has questioned one of the most cherished rights of Americans -- free speech.

This UN panel wants the Americans to condemn statements that promote the superiority of any one race. This would mean that the Americans should pass a law that would condemn free speech -- an American constitutional right.

They want the US to halt all executions because they are tainted by "racial discrimination."
They want the International Court to control global events -- appointed UN judges answerable to no one and never even questioned about their vested interests or prejudices.
They believe that nationalism is undesirable and national sovereignty should be subservient to UN authority.

They want an expanded role for UN peacekeeping. (Let your imagination run on that for a few seconds.)
They want all armies to be transferred to UN command and all weapons registered with the UN.
They want to abolish the right to keep and bear arms.
They want human rights to be a global issue on a parallel with the global economy.
They want poor nations brought up to the same level as industrialized nations and they want the industrialized nations to pay for it.
They want the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council to be abolished, thus reducing the influence of the US at the UN.
The UN held a grandiose Millennium Assembly Sept 5-9 2000 in New York City. They adopted their Earth Charter, which would bring about a socialist/communist global system of UN governance.
This Charter demanded that UN countries adopt sustainable development plans and regulations under UN management.
They want universal abortion rights, gender equality -- including homosexuals -- feminist-gay agendas and population control.
All schools should be taught these agendas -- all these feminist-gay policies --under UN teacher supervisors.
The wealthy nations should distribute their wealth among poor nations.
They want the national debts of developing nations to be cancelled.
They want the UN to impose direct taxes.
They want to tax all foreign exchange.
They want to ban all nuclear weapons.
All individuals, groups, unions, associations -- every thing and every body should be subservient to the wishes of the UN.
All dictators despise individualism and individual rights. So does the UN. There will be no freedom in their Orwellian world -- only duty to serve the UN.
 
p0ink said:
nature boy, you know i love you more than life itself :D

but seriously, this list isnt about the average joe sixpack democrat, it is primarily talking about the elitest snobs you guys elect. can you honestly disagree with most of the things in that artile? *honestly*. kudos for you for owning guns (what do you own?).

oh yeah, that was a column on www.frontpagemag.com

I own a glock 21. It's not pretty, but it's good for shooting the neighbors.
 
The Nature Boy said:


I own a glock 21. It's not pretty, but it's good for shooting the neighbors.
G26 for conceal carry.
1911 for the home and competitions.
 
p0ink said:
These are the things that most infuriate "progressives," followed by a brief explanation of why. The mere mention of these words will cause the typical left-winger to see (even more) red:

Cars — especially SUVs; the bigger and safer the vehicle, the worse. For leftists, cars are a polluting, annoying expression of individual freedom — a painful reminder that the longstanding efforts of social engineers to herd Americans into mass transit remain unfulfilled.

Guns — and the irritating insistence of "gun nuts" (anyone who owns a gun legally) to look after their own safety rather than trust in the benevolence and capabilities of the all-protecting state.

Suburbs, AKA "sprawl" — and the selfish desire of so many Americans to own their own homes with their own garages and their own backyards.

Straight white men — especially the dead ones that once dominated classroom curricula, and any institutions where they once flourished, such as military academies, prep schools, and fraternal organizations.

Jokes about sexual orientation, race, or gender — unless they're about straight, white men.

Jokes about most anything else — except for the items on this list.

Traditional families — Heather's mommies both deserve full health benefits now, but married couples ought to be penalized with higher taxes until they either die or divorce.

Abstinence — and for that matter, all traditional sexual mores and anyone so backward as to demand them of their children, politicians, or clergy.

Tobacco — the one form of instant gratification the left won't permit.

Religious "zealots" — that is, adherents of any faith that that makes claims on truth, especially Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, Mormonism, and Evangelical branches of Christianity (but not Islam).

The rich — anyone who has earned a lot of money no doubt did something wretched to obtain it and deserves to have it forcefully taken away. (Rich leftists excluded.)

The middle-class — and their contemptible bourgeois values.

The poor — so long as they aspire to become middle-class or rich instead of remaining happily dependent.

Vouchers — a threat to unions, social engineers, and the government monopoly on public education.

Home-schooling — a threat to unions, social engineers, and the government monopoly on public education — and a favorite among the religious zealots.

Standardized testing — or, for that matter, educational standards of any kind.

Real sports — the kind with winners and losers, where things like, height, strength, intelligence, or skill can determine outcomes.

Missile defense — and most other efforts of the U.S. to protect itself from foreign attack.

American "hegemony" — defined as any expression of American interest that contradicts the conventional wisdom of the croissant-munching "international community."

Red meat — because animal life is sacred.

McDonalds — for selling fatty foods containing red meat and marketing them to minors, and for doing what socialism never could: feeding billions and billions on the cheap.

"Big box" stores — like Home Depot or Wal-Mart, for killing the small businesses that taxes and regulations couldn't.

Pharmaceutical companies — for spending billions developing new, life-saving drugs, then charging money for them.

Successful businesses — they must be ripping off their "stakeholders."

Failed business — they must be ripping off their "stakeholders."

Nuclear energy — even if it is all the rage in France.

All other kinds of energy — except for those that are either untenable or prohibitively expensive.

Drilling for oil in ANWAR — and drilling for oil anywhere else.

Clarence Thomas — for acting, thinking, and speaking in a manner inappropriate for successful African-Americans.

Laura Schlessinger — for acting, thinking, and speaking in a manner inappropriate for successful women.

Rush Limbaugh — for thinking and speaking.

The Midwest — backward, uncouth hicks.

The South — backward, Bible-thumping rednecks.

The West — backward, gun-toting nuts.

John Ashcroft — a southerner and a devout Christian at that. For vilification purposes, he's the Newt Gingrich of the new millennium.

Police officers — Latent racists and unrepentant thugs, every one of the them, except for those who happened to be on duty on Sept. 11.

Laws that are tough on crime — and courts that are tough on criminals.

Individual responsibility — the government causes AIDS, poverty causes crime, and discrimination is the root of all inequality.

Anything that isn't safe — and anything that might not be safe. For more clarification, contact legal counsel.

well i'm a leftist, not too far from center though, but the things from this list i will go along with are zealots of any religion(don't hate them, just think they are dangerous), ashcroft(reno too), mcdonalds cause i just don't like them, but as for the rich i think they are undertaxed and the middle class is overtaxed. the poor(such as myself) need a tax cut too.

as you can see i'm not so far to the left i can't see things for what they are. as nature boy said i too could make a post of what righties hate but won't. just suffice it to say it's anything that comes from the center of the left. :)

NB, good match last night. you gave the rock a good one. =)
 
if the left is so concerned about 'spreading the wealth' amongst the entire population, instead of just the few 'elite having it, why is their no wealth tax? oh that's right, because they already have theirs, and they dont want to see anyone else rise up from nothing to that level, hence the income tax.
 
p0ink said:
if the left is so concerned about 'spreading the wealth' amongst the entire population, instead of just the few 'elite having it, why is their no wealth tax? oh that's right, because they already have theirs, and they dont want to see anyone else rise up from nothing to that level, hence the income tax.

trust me, the liberals you speak of in congress are looking to fill their pockets before they help anyone else out. besides, the wealthy aren't taxed as bad as you think, spend some money on a tax attourney and you'll see how much money you can hide from uncle sam. I know I do.
 
great thread pOink!

man you sure know when the libs feel threatened. lol

they dont really deny the facts in that post -- they just rationalize. lol

anywho--I enjoyed reading it and ECHWAM will too!

hell, I am sending it to all on my list.
 
Besides, the liberal Democrat argued, even if CEDAW did require the U.S. to ban Mother's Day, "There is no true enforcement mechanism in it. There's no legal requirement. A treaty is not like law."

DO YOU FUCKING BELIEVE THIS SHIT?!?!?!?!?! A TREATY IS NOT A LAW?????

Article II:
Section 2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.


I guess this is why the US Supreme Court has many times ruled in favor of international treaties as being equal or above Federal law. But what did I expect, the above writer was a liberal Democrat.
 
The Nature Boy said:
you can't be serious that every lefty subscribes to p0inks original post. please say it ain't so huntmaster!!!!

allright you got me

but it aint to far off from many that i know down here and some that i see on this week with cookie and sam!lol:D
 
nordstrom said:
whats your point? i have never said the U.N. was perfect (if these U.N. posts have anything to do with me) but that they are a respectable organization that tries to do good. Even Colin Powell (token black republican) supports the U.N.

I realize that you believe in the UN to your very core, and it is apparent that it is as fanatical as any religious fervor a fundamentalist may have. You may believe that the UN is a respectable organization, but for every so-called acheivement they claim, I can find serious abuses of power and outrageous and threatening claims that have been made by this organization. What is truly amazing is how you expect others to follow your organization after you state that they are not perfect, but, hey, they will get better. The UN is not unwittingly flawed, this is its design. Read up on its early members, Hammerskold, Thant, Lie, etc. and see what their political ideology was.

If you people think the U.N. can force america to stop celebrating mothers day you are either an extremist or ignorant. The U.N. has accused america of international terrorism & practicing torture and nothing has happened to us for it. mothers day won't go away anytime soon.

Explain to us why, if we did agree to UN treaties, they couldn't force us to uphold the terms. I already showed you that treaties are law of the land. Do you realize that the Supreme Court would have to rule in favor of a treaty, as being an enforceable law of the US?

It is obvious you are not well read on US law and constitutional history, rather you are very apt to quoting UN policy, which helps illuminate your insistance on jumping into bed with the UN. You simply have no idea what sort of legal ramifications this could have to the US and its existence as a sovereign nation and the US people as sovereign individuals. You simply see the illusion that the UN is a great peace loving federation. There is simply no credible evidence supporting this. Throwing money at starving people is not peace, nor help.

Try to find a document called "46 Angry Men", which tells, from the viewpoint of 46 civilian medical personnel, of how nice the UN peacekeepers were in Katanga.

and for those retorts to this post, there is a difference between national soveriginity and not being held accountable for your actions as a nation. At least to me.

OH, and by the way, that little racist remark about Colin Powell is against UN Declaration of Human Rights, I think 'Kooky' Anon will be giving you a call.
 
p0ink said:
These are the things that most infuriate "progressives," followed by a brief explanation of why. The mere mention of these words will cause the typical left-winger to see (even more) red:


Let's see -

Cars — especially SUVs; the bigger and safer the vehicle, the worse. For leftists, cars are a polluting, annoying expression of individual freedom — a painful reminder that the longstanding efforts of social engineers to herd Americans into mass transit remain unfulfilled.

Mass transit takes up less space. I understand that in the US, public transport sucks, and so you HAVE to drive. Think of how much more fun it is to be able to go uot and get drunk and get the bus home, instead of having one 1/2 pint of beer and diet coke for the rest of the night coz you gotta have your keys....
Ok, this is the bit for all the UK readers to bitch about trains!
Actually, I think car pools are the way forward - flexible, and as efficient as busses, well, almost. I like carpool lanes like they have in Vancouver.

Guns — and the irritating insistence of "gun nuts" (anyone who owns a gun legally) to look after their own safety rather than trust in the benevolence and capabilities of the all-protecting state.

The issue isn't gun possession, it's lack of respect and proper training in the use and care of firearms that's the problem. I think if training was mandatory for first-time purchasers, you'd have fewer gun-related deaths. I'm all for self-defense BTW.

Suburbs, AKA "sprawl" — and the selfish desire of so many Americans to own their own homes with their own garages and their own backyards.

What's wrong with sububrs, exactly, other than being a long way from the clubs in the centre?

Straight white men — especially the dead ones that once dominated classroom curricula, and any institutions where they once flourished, such as military academies, prep schools, and fraternal organizations.

I like straight white men, especially cute ones.

Jokes about sexual orientation, race, or gender — unless they're about straight, white men.

Some poeple need to lighten up.

Jokes about most anything else — except for the items on this list.
Didf you hear the one about...

Traditional families — Heather's mommies both deserve full health benefits now, but married couples ought to be penalized with higher taxes until they either die or divorce.

Hmm you guys pay weird amounts of tax over there. WHere does it all go? I'm all for families, traditional or otherwise.

Abstinence — and for that matter, all traditional sexual mores and anyone so backward as to demand them of their children, politicians, or clergy.

Nothing wrong with keeping it in your pants.

Tobacco — the one form of instant gratification the left won't permit.

You don't smoke do you poink? I just objefct to people blowing smoke at me, let them smoke all they want at home...

Religious "zealots" — that is, adherents of any faith that that makes claims on truth, especially Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, Mormonism, and Evangelical branches of Christianity (but not Islam).

Nope, just fanatical bastards who don't seem to understand that they have their beliefs and I hvae mine, and I don't appreciate having them shoved down my throat. You wanna go to church, fine by me. You wanna stay home and wash your car instead, fine by me too.

The rich — anyone who has earned a lot of money no doubt did something wretched to obtain it and deserves to have it forcefully taken away. (Rich leftists excluded.)

That's bullshit. I know plenty of welloff folks who deserve their dosh.

The middle-class — and their contemptible bourgeois values.

I am middle class.

The poor — so long as they aspire to become middle-class or rich instead of remaining happily dependent.

I'd hate to be poor. But I don't hate the poor.

Vouchers — a threat to unions, social engineers, and the government monopoly on public education.

I have some home improvement vouchers right here...

Home-schooling — a threat to unions, social engineers, and the government monopoly on public education — and a favorite among the religious zealots.

Home schooling is ok providing the kid is getting basic math and reading skills.

Standardized testing — or, for that matter, educational standards of any kind.
We've had this in Europe for years.

Real sports — the kind with winners and losers, where things like, height, strength, intelligence, or skill can determine outcomes.

I love sports.

Missile defense — and most other efforts of the U.S. to protect itself from foreign attack.

US defence policy not my problem, I don't pay taxes to support it.

American "hegemony" — defined as any expression of American interest that contradicts the conventional wisdom of the croissant-munching "international community."

mmmmm croissants... sorry got distracted there.

Red meat — because animal life is sacred.

On the contrary Red Meat is an excellent comic publication.

McDonalds — for selling fatty foods containing red meat and marketing them to minors, and for doing what socialism never could: feeding billions and billions on the cheap.

Jesus, you don't eat in there do you poink? That shit will make you fat!

"Big box" stores — like Home Depot or Wal-Mart, for killing the small businesses that taxes and regulations couldn't.

I like to have choice, that is other than the choice to shop at walmart or not shop at all. SO I DON'T shop at walmart. To folks who complain, don't shop at walmart and then those businesses will not go away. I buy my fruit and veg at local stores that are more expensive than the big stores BUT the quality is better.

Pharmaceutical companies — for spending billions developing new, life-saving drugs, then charging money for them.

Considering I owe my life to one of these drugs...

Successful businesses — they must be ripping off their "stakeholders."

I don't run a business, can't comment. My problem is with the unsuccessful businesses like Enron. See below.

Failed business — they must be ripping off their "stakeholders."

Nuclear energy — even if it is all the rage in France.

Hmm the French doing something isn't a good reason to do it, otherwise none of us would wash.

All other kinds of energy — except for those that are either untenable or prohibitively expensive.

I have loads of energy, personally.

Rush Limbaugh — for thinking and speaking.
Naw, I hate him coz he's an ass. Talk radio is for Jerry Springer guests.

Police officers — Latent racists and unrepentant thugs, every one of the them, except for those who happened to be on duty on Sept. 11.

Any interaction I have ever had with the police has been fairly positive.

Have you just been majorly pissed off by someone you work wth poink? Sounds like it here.
 
The Nature Boy said:

besides, the wealthy aren't taxed as bad as you think, spend some money on a tax attourney and you'll see how much money you can hide from uncle sam. I know I do.

can you give any examples or even point to any resources on techniques used to do this? It's an accusation that is thrown around all the time, but I have yet to see a description of the actual practices, codes, regs, or rules that allow it to happen.

not disputing or challenging what you say -- but I really am curious to learn more about it.
 
cockdezl said:


1. I realize that you believe in the UN to your very core, and it is apparent that it is as fanatical as any religious fervor a fundamentalist may have. You may believe that the UN is a respectable organization, but for every so-called acheivement they claim, I can find serious abuses of power and outrageous and threatening claims that have been made by this organization. What is truly amazing is how you expect others to follow your organization after you state that they are not perfect, but, hey, they will get better. The UN is not unwittingly flawed, this is its design. Read up on its early members, Hammerskold, c, Lie, etc. and see what their political ideology was.

2. Explain to us why, if we did agree to UN treaties, they couldn't force us to uphold the terms. I already showed you that treaties are law of the land. Do you realize that the Supreme Court would have to rule in favor of a treaty, as being an enforceable law of the US?

It is obvious you are not well read on US law and constitutional history, rather you are very apt to quoting UN policy, which helps illuminate your insistance on jumping into bed with the UN. You simply have no idea what sort of legal ramifications this could have to the US and its existence as a sovereign nation and the US people as sovereign individuals.

3. You simply see the illusion that the UN is a great peace loving federation. There is simply no credible evidence supporting this. Throwing money at starving people is not peace, nor help.

4. Try to find a document called "46 Angry Men", which tells, from the viewpoint of 46 civilian medical personnel, of how nice the UN peacekeepers were in Katanga.

5. OH, and by the way, that little racist remark about Colin Powell is against UN Declaration of Human Rights, I think 'Kooky' Anon will be giving you a call.

I can't argue against most of this stuff, many of those are good points.

1. My U.N. fanaticism probably is a bad thing, it clouds my judgement. I would rather not support the I.C.C. or the U.N. if they are destructive organizations.

I never said the U.N. was perfect, but i have repeadly said that i have never seen any real evidence that the world would be a better place without the U.N. in it.

Please back up your statements that the U.N. is by nature flawed, evil or manipulative. If you don't have time to write, then give me some key words or websites i can view.

2. you probably do know more about international law, i know you know more about the constitution. if you can, show me where it says america must support international treaties it signs, and what the rammifications are for refusing to do so.

Since america never ratified the vienna convention on the law of treaties why would we be subject to treaties we ratify?

3. Tell it to the hundreds of millions of people with tetanus, polio & diptheria vaccinations. Or the individuals who have had help building an economic base due to U.N. support. Or the 1 billion who have clean drinking water now.

http://www.un.org/Overview/achieve.html

4. I found some info on Katanga. U.N. peacekeepers have also been tied to using sex slaves too, and the higher command of the U.N. is having a pedophilia scandal. However, as i keep saying, no one can prove that the U.N. does more bad than good.

I support science too. I know that science destroys millions of lives (pollution, war machines) but it saves 40 for every 1 it destroys. Same with the U.N., i don't support some of their acts, but i see no reason to abandon the entire organization because they aren't infallible. That is like disbanding america because of vietnam. It is an extremist view that can only be carried by those with a gigantic axe to grind.

5. Prove it

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.


Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.


All i see are documents support an individuals right to an education, right to be free of torture and repression, and right to be free from government repression.

Show me where it says you cannot have freedom of speech that is anti-PC. all i see are articles designed to address serious human rights abuses that occur in the 3rd world.



I'm getting tired of supporting the U.N.. Doesn't anyone else think that the U.N. does more good than bad?

You guys act like i care about your philosophies of unbending anti-communism or 'national soveriginity'. It is like a strong animal rights activist going into McDonalds and saying 'you know they kill cows to get that meat' like everyone is going to throw down their hamburgers and storm out in disgust with this new info. I know that the U.N. is more communist than capitalist and that they can impinge on 'national soveriginigy', but i see no evidence that they are more evil than good. And so far, all anyone can offer of U.N. evil is isolated incidents and a bunch of 'would-could' scenarios involving the U.N. being some evil dictatorship.

Tell me, what is your idea of a perfect world, or a perfect america?
 
The Nature Boy said:


why do you say that? I'm just pissed that he had us all figured out. I mean, I'm a gun owner and all, but I guess I better return my gun because that stupid column said leftists don't like guns. :rolleyes:

Actually, you fit the mold pretty well. Many leftists own firearms but don't want average Americans to have the same right. Witness: Rosie O'Donnell and Carl Rowan.
 
ttlpkg said:


Actually, you fit the mold pretty well. Many leftists own firearms but don't want average Americans to have the same right. Witness: Rosie O'Donnell and Carl Rowan.


In all fairness, you seem pretty logical (you don't thrive on negative stereotypes and emotions like many conservatives here).

I consider myself a liberal, but i am not pro-gun abolishion as statistics show that taking away guns either has no effect or creates more crime.

Where are all these leftists who want to remove guns? Is it just an assault on left wing politicians, or do leftists have a track history of being in favor of gun abolition.

james brady was a republican



Bush said: ”I’ve never been a member of the NRA. Gore has been, if I’m not mistaken.“

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Gun_Control.htm

Don’t Blame Liberals for Gun Control

by Richard Poe


http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm
 
Prometheus said:


can you give any examples or even point to any resources on techniques used to do this? It's an accusation that is thrown around all the time, but I have yet to see a description of the actual practices, codes, regs, or rules that allow it to happen.

not disputing or challenging what you say -- but I really am curious to learn more about it.


here's one my accountant told me. you can deduct lunches as business expenses. As long as work related topics are discussed you can write it off. That's all I know, but I'll let you know if I hear of anything else.
 
ttlpkg said:


Actually, you fit the mold pretty well. Many leftists own firearms but don't want average Americans to have the same right. Witness: Rosie O'Donnell and Carl Rowan.

you can call me anything you want Ronnie, but don't use Rosie Odonnel in any sort of comparison to me.
 
nordstrom said:
In all fairness, you seem pretty logical (you don't thrive on negative stereotypes and emotions like many conservatives here).

I consider myself a liberal, but i am not pro-gun abolishion as statistics show that taking away guns either has no effect or creates more crime.

Where are all these leftists who want to remove guns? Is it just an assault on left wing politicians, or do leftists have a track history of being in favor of gun abolition.

james brady was a republican
[/url]

Well nordstrom don't take my word for it, let's see how liberal democrats treat the gun control issue during the upcoming election. You're right, the NRA is made up of Americans from both parties, but it is portrayed as some "right wing wacko lobbying group" during elections.

Mrs Brady and the folks behind the Brady Law advocate enforcement of existing gun laws. So does the GOP, but I don't think we need more.
 
This reminded me of a quote in a book I've been reading...."Slander" by Ann Coulter...I recommend any conservative to pick up this book...

"Predators are great fun for liberals. Criminals and poor people allow them to swell with a sense of their own incredible self-worth. That's the whole point of being a liberal: to feel superior to people with less money......Consider that the leading Democrat argument against Bush's 2001 tax cut was to demand to know how exactly it would help anyone. ...liberals exasperatedly asked how a tax cut was supposed to improve people's lives. To state the manifestly obvious: People would have more money. Liberals are so blocked on the idea that people's money should be their own, they can't see the big fat reward: more money!...They are annoyed at the thought of new money emerging from the perpetual dynamism of capitalist economy. Really vicious liberals are constantly bragging that they love paying taxes. The ostensible point of these boasts is to induce admiration for their deep patriotism or unbounded generosity towards the poor. But the real point is to announce that they do not share the working class's petty concern with taxes."

AMEN!

I could take a million quotes from this book that I agree with...
 
i think your wrong on the spending statement

Now --- we are at war and we are spending money on the war
and trying to replenish our defenses that Billy sold down the river

is this what you are speaking of

or other things
 
Ann Coulter is really over the top, any moderately objective reader can tell you that. She knows as much about liberals as anyone laced with blind hatred and negative stereotypes is capable of, which is very little.
 
more spending for SEC enforcement (which is totally needed)

farm subsidy passed a few months ago - hugest farm bill yet. goes against what conservativism is all about.

btw our military wasn't exactly down the river. basically the forces used in Afghanastan are the type of military Clinton wanted, powerful and rapidly deployable. I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think the number of serviceman has risen dramatically since Dubya has been in office, and the salary's havent gone higher. It's the defense contractors that are getting rich of the defense spendng, notably missile defense (don't get me started on that one).
 
Ann Coulter is not over the top....maybe compared to what most of the news networks spew out on a daily basis (which is so saturated with liberal propaganda by the way)...she gives another perspective to politics that you don't see very often in the media...the REPUBLICAN perspective...yes republicans are hated by the media...therefore the public is usually presented with the "liberal" point of view on many topics. God forbid someone present a conservative opinion, right away they are considered "over the top".
 
Naw, Ann Coulter is what she hates the most. An angry extremely partisan person who uses insults and half truths to further a political agenda that couldn't care less about what is best for the american people when it threatens party lines.

I can't wait until someone takes a record of how many insults, lie, misrepresentations & exaggerations she uses to accuse liberals of being insulting, lying, misrepresenging exaggerators. its got to be 500+, i don't see how it can't be.

Read some of the reviews at amazon.com, many of the 1 star reviewers are conservatives who are ashamed of having someone as partisan and elitist as Coulter as their spokesperson. Many conservatives here on elite are beyond the grasp of logic, and many are also logical and can carry on intelligent debates. Ann doesn't fall into the latter category. She is too venomous & partisan.

(addressed to anyone)

Are there any objective conservative philosophy books that attempt to show with evidence & proof why conservative values & philosophy are better than liberal values (seriously)? i'd prefer a website if possible.
 
nordstrom said:


Are there any objective conservative philosophy books that attempt to show with evidence & proof why conservative values & philosophy are better than liberal values (seriously)? i'd prefer a website if possible.

Let's not discuss values when it comes to liberals because frankly they wouldn't know morals and values if it was shoved up their butts...I'm speaking of the extreme liberals here, who have more compassion for trees and murderers (Andrea Yates is a good example-blame the psychiatrists and "post partum depression" for the death of her children) than they do for unborn babies...
 
nordstrom said:

Are there any objective conservative philosophy books that attempt to show with evidence & proof why conservative values & philosophy are better than liberal values (seriously)? i'd prefer a website if possible.

I think either a robot or a person from the planet Vulcan can do that. that's it.
 
The Nature Boy said:


I think either a robot or a person from the planet Vulcan can do that. that's it.


spoken in a frightened voice

i like larry elder. he's one of the 'good' ones.
 
Top Bottom