BF2S Forums "Dear American Liberals" a letter from a law student.

lowing wrote:

5. The election was not rigged, the 87 million recounts that the democrats insisted on kinds proved that. No matter how they recounted they still lost.

DonFck wrote:

lowing wrote:

5. The election was not rigged, the 87 million recounts that the democrats insisted on kinds proved that. No matter how they recounted they still lost.

Maybe you should get rid of the electorate and start with direct voting?

2000 election:
Bush 50,456,002
Gore 50,999,897

Maybe we would've been spared all the "Inconvenient Truth"-hassle too..

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

So all the charity work, green donations, spreading the wealth ideas are just bullshit.

Not good enough, actually disprove me.

conservatives give to charity more than liberals look it up, so by that conservatives are spreading the wealth as well, yet you hate that ideology.

i hate the ideology that conservatives give to charity? Bit of a long winded ideology lol. By UK definitions i'm possibly a conservative btw. Anywho, i don't care who gives more, that wasn't what i asked of you. Try again, you've got about one hour before i have to go hand some books back.

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

i hate the ideology that conservatives give to charity? Bit of a long winded ideology lol. By UK definitions i'm possibly a conservative btw. Anywho, i don't care who gives more, that wasn't what i asked of you. Try again, you've got about one hour before i have to go hand some books back.

I already addressed this, your examples did not amass wealth through liberal ideologies or practices, they did so through the very capitalist system you despise. move on

I did say disprove me btw. Your just saying the same thing over and over. Get some facts, a journal, some research. Actually debate with me.

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

I already addressed this, your examples did not amass wealth through liberal ideologies or practices, they did so through the very capitalist system you despise. move on

I did say disprove me btw. Your just saying the same thing over and over. Get some facts, a journal, some research. Actually debate with me.

What is it you want me to disprove, they are rich, they are filthy rich, but they got thay way through the capitalist system you hate, NOT the socialist system you want the US to adopt. What is it you are looking for?

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

What is it you want me to disprove, they are rich, they are filthy rich, but they got thay way through the capitalist system you hate, NOT the socialist system you want the US to adopt. What is it you are looking for?

Do you always lose sight of points so quick?

Apparently I do,


so why are you ignoring this one? A point which I think addresses your contention that Gates etc are successful liberals, yet fail to address the argument that they did not become successful through socialist, but capitalist methods.

That with all of the liberal "green" eco-bullshit, these very liberals jet around the world on private jets building industry?

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

Apparently I do,


so why are you ignoring this one? A point which I think addresses your contention that Gates etc are successful liberals, yet fail to address the argument that they did not become successful through socialist, but capitalist methods.

That with all of the liberal "green" eco-bullshit, these very liberals jet around the world on private jets building industry?

They certainly didn't get to the position they are now by looking out for themselves, and only themselves. All of the people i've mentioned before are well noted for having a social responsibility, with Gates known for being particularly good to his workforce, Branson for making travel accessible to the masses, and Bono for live aid (btw before he became properly loaded, not the recent one). Those were the ethics that for the most part their enterprising was rooted in. A very socialist ethic.

Gates has tried to sromp out the compition (Apple) which would cost thousands of jobs, he has also cornered the market with his product through very shrewd practices, also costing jobs and opportunity. He jets around on private jets, very taboo for a liberal apparently ya know wh ogoes green and all. He provided jobs for other to look out for themselves, he has benits in his companies that attract the best people who have something to offer. He does not do this out of the goodness of his heart, It is smart business.

Branson, same thing.

I have no problem with this, but lets call a spade a spade shall we

Bono, is a self rightious rock star, he is not experienced in anything except music, yet this makes him an expert on world affairs. Again, another liberal who says what to do, but does not see fit to do it himself.

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

Gates has tried to sromp out the compition (Apple) which would cost thousands of jobs, he has also cornered the market with his product through very shrewd practices, also costing jobs and opportunity. He jets around on private jets, very taboo for a liberal apparently ya know wh ogoes green and all. He provided jobs for other to look out for themselves, he has benits in his companies that attract the best people who have something to offer. He does not do this out of the goodness of his heart, It is smart business.

Branson, same thing.

I have no problem with this, but lets call a spade a spade shall we

Bono, is a self rightious rock star, he is not experienced in anything except music, yet this makes him an expert on world affairs. Again, another liberal who says what to do, but does not see fit to do it himself.

Can i point out that you can be a liberal, but not be a tree hugger. By your definition i'm a liberal, and i even do Geography, but i don't hug the nearest oak i see.

And what exactly would you know of Bono's 'expertise'? read much on him, or just what you see in the media?

Lets see made a name for himself as the lead singer for U2, and used that to push his own agenda? Is that about it.

Yup you may point that out, but you mentioned "green" as part of your argument in your examples.

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

Lets see made a name for himself as the lead singer for U2, and used that to push his own agenda? Is that about it.

Yup you may point that out, but you mentioned "green" as part of your argument in your examples.

Where? If i did, then i apologise

no apology is necessary, lots of fast posting going on



http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p2547845

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Where? If i did, then i apologise

no apology is necessary, lots of fast posting going on



http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p2547845

Yep, my bad

Macbeth's better version wrote:

I love this, and you will as well.


"Dear American conservatives, social regressives, facist, Nazi's and Palin supporters,

We've stuck together since the late 1950s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know that we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and just will not ever agree on what's right. So let's just end it right now while we can do it on friendly terms. We can smile, shake hands, chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and each go our own way.

So here's a model separation agreement.

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass, each taking a portion. That's going to be the difficult part, but I'm sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy. Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate taste. We don't like unfair class taxes so you can have those. You are welcome to the conservative judges and the Heritage Foundation. And since you love guns and you love war, you can take the firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. But you are going to be responsible for finding a biodiesel vehicle big enough to haul them around.

We'll keep the cooperation, the charitable organizations, the pot farms; we will keep Barnes and Nobles and the strip clubs. You can have the red necks, the trailer trash, the paranoid and the homophobes. We will keep the hot celebrities, the nymphomaniac bisexual women and all of the clubbers. We'll keep the science text books and we'll let you have Fox News and Nashville.

You can be nice to Israel and we'll retain the right to try to work things out before invading. You can have the war hawks and chicken hawks. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we will provide them with relief. You won't have to worry about it. We will keep our science and tolerance. You are welcome to Christianity, Creationism, Intelligent Design and Elizbeth Hasslebeck. You can also have the CPAC, we'll cover it.

We will keep the hybrids, the sports cars and Vans. You can have the pickups, the SUVs and every Ford station wagon you can find. You can give nobody healthcare, since you can't find any practicing doctors. We will continue to believe that healthcare is a right. We will keep the rock and techno music, and I am sure you will be happy to substitute in their place church hymns.  We will practice fair taxes and you can keep giving your richest all the benefits. We will keep our history, our name and our flag while trying to not get invaded by you.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along other like-minded conservative and liberal patriots. And if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the friendly spirit of parting, I'll bet you Puerto Rico which one of us will need whose help in about 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J Wall

Law student and an American

P.S. You can also have Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter"

Karbin wrote:

lowing wrote:

Karbin wrote:

Talk about mixing things up :rolleyes and a fail on sooo many levels
The first link is about the AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations)  NOT the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)

Lets forget that you use Fox so-called News as a source.
And I have a question your you. Have you ever booked a convention?
For the past ten years I have worked with a group that did. I can tell you that the quoted price is WAYYY wrong. For a convention price is based on number of room-nights. The more room-nights the lower the price. In this case, more like $175 to $200 would be in the ball park.
But I guess, for you, as it is a labour convention it should be held in a barn and accommodations should be tents.

Now for your second link:

In 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either. The board declared that it was "inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarianism in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle."

Got it?   Next!

Sorry, 'bout the AFL-CIO thing, hate them to

as for ACLU:

"This farce lasted from 1940 to 1968, a period during which the ACLU was no longer investigated by any Congressional committee, presumably because of its self proclaimed exclusion of communists from its fold. It was during this period that many respectable non-communist personalities from presidents to entertainers, from diplomats to clergymen, joined the now “patriotic” ACLU.  They even cooperated with the FBI in exposing communist front activities.

There is substantial evidence indicating conclusively, that during the “clean” period, many of the “non communist” officials of the ACLU remained active in communist fronts, and were perhaps even more effective than if they were “dues paying” and “card carrying” members of the party due to their new low profiles. In 1968 the ACLU hierarchy decided the ruse had gone on long enough, so they opened membership once more to all the real “card carrying commies” that had been previously barred. In a cursory check of the ACLU Board and National Committee members since its inception, the Reports of investigating Committees of the Congress have revealed that almost 80% of them had affiliated themselves with communist activities over the years.

It should be noted also that while not all ACLU members are communists,
BUT - it can be safely stated that there are NO communist front groups that don’t have ACLU members."


Next!

Lotsa posting..time to get back in.

First
The Smith Act of 1940:

United States federal statute that makes it a criminal offense for anyone to

“ knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association.

Second
The U.S. government outlawed the CPUSA with the Communist Control Act in 1954.

The Internal Security Act (a.k.a the Subversive Activities Control Act, McCarran Act or ISA) of 1950 is a United States federal law that required the registration of Communist organizations with the United States Attorney General and established the Subversive Activities Control Board to investigate persons suspected of engaging in subversive activities or otherwise promoting the establishment of a "totalitarian dictatorship," fascist or communist. Members of these groups could not become citizens, and in some cases, were prevented from entering or leaving the country. Citizen-members could be denaturalized in five years.

It was a key institution in the era of the Cold War, tightening alien exclusion and deportation laws and allowing for the detention of dangerous, disloyal, or subversive persons in times of war or "internal security emergency". The Democratic-controlled Congress overrode President Harry S. Truman's veto to pass this bill. Truman called the bill "the greatest danger to freedom of speech, press, and assembly since the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798."

Sections of the ISA were gradually ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Much of the Act has been repealed, but some portions remain intact. For example, violation of Section 797 of Title 50, United States Code (Section 21 of "the Internal Security Act of 1950"), which concerns security of military bases and other sensitive installations, may be punishable by a prison term of up to one year.

So, they were made a legal political party once more but, to satisfy your view, the ACLU would have to violate the First Amendment by NOT allowing them to be members.
Great idea for a organisation dedicated to upholding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.

Back to you!

Last edited by lowing (2009-03-09 20:50:09)

AussieReaper wrote:

What have you got against Communists lowing?