| Far Left | 9% | 9% - 6 | ||||
| Left | 7% | 7% - 5 | ||||
| Moderate Left | 19% | 19% - 12 | ||||
| Center (more or less) | 26% | 26% - 17 | ||||
| Moderate Right | 9% | 9% - 6 | ||||
| Right | 19% | 19% - 12 | ||||
| Far Right | 7% | 7% - 5 | ||||
| Total: 63 | ||||||
The last one was for "Isn't there some stripper you should be banging while her five year old listens from the other room? " in DST.ATG wrote:
Well said. Or, said from a whale. Or, swell ahead.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
dude fuck. off.
Didn't I get an AWM from you not so long ago for something less harsh?
I got banned for a lot less than what I endure in this thread, hell all threads for that matter....ATG wrote:
Well said. Or, said from a whale. Or, swell ahead.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
dude fuck. off.
Didn't I get an AWM from you not so long ago for something less harsh?
The term neo-con was actually coined by the neo-cons themselves... They were and are essentially interventionist war-hawk Christian-Socialists (the ones that actually figured out that Christian and Socialist values are almost identical). They are the uber-authoritarians.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well more like they coined neo-con so they could go on about how fucked up the neo-cons are, without going against anything that conservative used to mean. Both sides are doing it so they can essentially have their cake and eat it to, but there truly is a difference between what the word meant then and what the word meant now.lowing wrote:
I see so "neo-con" was not meant as the evil step mother to conservativism, it was coined by liberals, to mean a throughback to true conservatism of yesteryear..I understand now.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
dude fuck. off. about what I believe and who I do/do not like. Socialism communism entitlement welfare and social liberalism can die in a fucking fire. You have to realize that in so many areas of academia these words are so overloaded that you can't make heads or tails out of it. "neo" is a poor attempt at differentiating between true liberalism - the love of personal liberty and rights - and the "liberal" democrats.
Conservatism does not mean the love of personal liberty and rights, it is about stability and keeping things the way they are. A conservative in a welfare state wants to maintain a welfare state. Obviously that is not what you are for.
The problem is liberal should not be synonymous with the Democratic Party and conservative should not be synonymous with the Republican Party. That is just not what the words mean. It's not "redefining" anything, it's using the words as they are meant to be used and not as they are used in partisan rhetoric. So yeah, there is a lot lost in translation.
Frankly to differentiate we should just call social liberals bleeding hearts and be done with it, neo is stupidly overloaded as well.
also read my edit to the other post
andwhy is no one addressing the lack of desire to fix the word racism back to what it mean a mere year and a half ago? I mean as long as we are into fixing words all of a sudden.
What did racism mean a year and a half ago?
I hope you see the inconsistency in that thought... NEO con is an insult on top of insult of being a conservative while NEO liberal is praise for what liberalism used to be. It makes no sense. How about you first figure out what you want NEO to mean before you start attaching it to shit?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well more like they coined neo-con so they could go on about how fucked up the neo-cons are, without going against anything that conservative used to mean. Both sides are doing it so they can essentially have their cake and eat it to, but there truly is a difference between what the word meant then and what the word meant now.lowing wrote:
I see so "neo-con" was not meant as the evil step mother to conservativism, it was coined by liberals, to mean a throughback to true conservatism of yesteryear..I understand now.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
dude fuck. off. about what I believe and who I do/do not like. Socialism communism entitlement welfare and social liberalism can die in a fucking fire. You have to realize that in so many areas of academia these words are so overloaded that you can't make heads or tails out of it. "neo" is a poor attempt at differentiating between true liberalism - the love of personal liberty and rights - and the "liberal" democrats.
Conservatism does not mean the love of personal liberty and rights, it is about stability and keeping things the way they are. A conservative in a welfare state wants to maintain a welfare state. Obviously that is not what you are for.
The problem is liberal should not be synonymous with the Democratic Party and conservative should not be synonymous with the Republican Party. That is just not what the words mean. It's not "redefining" anything, it's using the words as they are meant to be used and not as they are used in partisan rhetoric. So yeah, there is a lot lost in translation.
Frankly to differentiate we should just call social liberals bleeding hearts and be done with it, neo is stupidly overloaded as well.
also read my edit to the other post
andwhy is no one addressing the lack of desire to fix the word racism back to what it mean a mere year and a half ago? I mean as long as we are into fixing words all of a sudden.
What did racism mean a year and a half ago?
Umm, yeah, so they're tapping into white guilt. It's what they've always done so why are you so upset by it now? It's not so much to attack you as it is to keep their own people in line. Accuse an American Liberal of racism sometime and watch him bend over backwards to prove that he's not. He'll list the rappers he likes, the black friend he had back in middle school etc. It's actually hysterical to watch. So... it's being done more to manipulate and keep their own troops in line than it is a real attack on conservatives. The white guilt idiots are so trained that they will never allow themselves to come down on the side of an issue that might make them 'guilty' of racism. It's sad, and sadly effective.lowing wrote:
I hope you see the inconsistency in that thought... NEO con is an insult on top of insult of being a conservative while NEO liberal is praise for what liberalism used to be. It makes no sense. How about you first figure out what you want NEO to mean before you start attaching it to shit?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well more like they coined neo-con so they could go on about how fucked up the neo-cons are, without going against anything that conservative used to mean. Both sides are doing it so they can essentially have their cake and eat it to, but there truly is a difference between what the word meant then and what the word meant now.lowing wrote:
I see so "neo-con" was not meant as the evil step mother to conservativism, it was coined by liberals, to mean a throughback to true conservatism of yesteryear..I understand now.
andwhy is no one addressing the lack of desire to fix the word racism back to what it mean a mere year and a half ago? I mean as long as we are into fixing words all of a sudden.
What did racism mean a year and a half ago?
a year and a half ago? it meant the belief of ones race is superior to that of another, for various reasons. Now it is going against Obama, Islam, pro-securing our borders, anything anti-welfare etc.....
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-02 13:59:05)
"In January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush's second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the "main characteristics of neoconservatism"[46]:JohnG@lt wrote:
The term neo-con was actually coined by the neo-cons themselves... They were and are essentially interventionist war-hawk Christian-Socialists (the ones that actually figured out that Christian and Socialist values are almost identical). They are the uber-authoritarians.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well more like they coined neo-con so they could go on about how fucked up the neo-cons are, without going against anything that conservative used to mean. Both sides are doing it so they can essentially have their cake and eat it to, but there truly is a difference between what the word meant then and what the word meant now.lowing wrote:
I see so "neo-con" was not meant as the evil step mother to conservativism, it was coined by liberals, to mean a throughback to true conservatism of yesteryear..I understand now.
andwhy is no one addressing the lack of desire to fix the word racism back to what it mean a mere year and a half ago? I mean as long as we are into fixing words all of a sudden.
What did racism mean a year and a half ago?
I think it is simpler than that........They can not defend their own position with true facts, so they must discredit yours by insisting your opinion is nothing more than racist and dismissing it... Perfect really, you are discredited, ( even if in their eyes) and they do not have to address what you say, therefore do not have to lie, or leave themselves wide open to being exposed and discredited themselves in a far truer sense. This forum is a perfect example of that very tactic.JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm, yeah, so they're tapping into white guilt. It's what they've always done so why are you so upset by it now? It's not so much to attack you as it is to keep their own people in line. Accuse an American Liberal of racism sometime and watch him bend over backwards to prove that he's not. He'll list the rappers he likes, the black friend he had back in middle school etc. It's actually hysterical to watch. So... it's being done more to manipulate and keep their own troops in line than it is a real attack on conservatives. The white guilt idiots are so trained that they will never allow themselves to come down on the side of an issue that might make them 'guilty' of racism. It's sad, and sadly effective.lowing wrote:
I hope you see the inconsistency in that thought... NEO con is an insult on top of insult of being a conservative while NEO liberal is praise for what liberalism used to be. It makes no sense. How about you first figure out what you want NEO to mean before you start attaching it to shit?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well more like they coined neo-con so they could go on about how fucked up the neo-cons are, without going against anything that conservative used to mean. Both sides are doing it so they can essentially have their cake and eat it to, but there truly is a difference between what the word meant then and what the word meant now.
What did racism mean a year and a half ago?
a year and a half ago? it meant the belief of ones race is superior to that of another, for various reasons. Now it is going against Obama, Islam, pro-securing our borders, anything anti-welfare etc.....
Dude, that goes both ways. The Republicans do it just as often, they just do it differently. 'Racist' is the new 'UnAmerican' or 'You hate America'.lowing wrote:
I think it is simpler than that........They can not defend their own position with true facts, so they must discredit yours by insisting your opinion is nothing more than racist and dismissing it... Perfect really, you are discredited, ( even if in their eyes) and they do not have to address what you say, therefore do not have to lie, or leave themselves wide open to being exposed and discredited themselves in a far truer sense. This forum is a perfect example of that very tactic.JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm, yeah, so they're tapping into white guilt. It's what they've always done so why are you so upset by it now? It's not so much to attack you as it is to keep their own people in line. Accuse an American Liberal of racism sometime and watch him bend over backwards to prove that he's not. He'll list the rappers he likes, the black friend he had back in middle school etc. It's actually hysterical to watch. So... it's being done more to manipulate and keep their own troops in line than it is a real attack on conservatives. The white guilt idiots are so trained that they will never allow themselves to come down on the side of an issue that might make them 'guilty' of racism. It's sad, and sadly effective.lowing wrote:
I hope you see the inconsistency in that thought... NEO con is an insult on top of insult of being a conservative while NEO liberal is praise for what liberalism used to be. It makes no sense. How about you first figure out what you want NEO to mean before you start attaching it to shit?
a year and a half ago? it meant the belief of ones race is superior to that of another, for various reasons. Now it is going against Obama, Islam, pro-securing our borders, anything anti-welfare etc.....
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-02 14:08:56)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08 … -american/ it goes both ways in the sense that Democrats accuse racism ON TOP OF calling you UNAMERICAN for not believing their bullshit.JohnG@lt wrote:
Dude, that goes both ways. The Republicans do it just as often, they just do it differently. 'Racist' is the new 'UnAmerican' or 'You hate America'.lowing wrote:
I think it is simpler than that........They can not defend their own position with true facts, so they must discredit yours by insisting your opinion is nothing more than racist and dismissing it... Perfect really, you are discredited, ( even if in their eyes) and they do not have to address what you say, therefore do not have to lie, or leave themselves wide open to being exposed and discredited themselves in a far truer sense. This forum is a perfect example of that very tactic.JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm, yeah, so they're tapping into white guilt. It's what they've always done so why are you so upset by it now? It's not so much to attack you as it is to keep their own people in line. Accuse an American Liberal of racism sometime and watch him bend over backwards to prove that he's not. He'll list the rappers he likes, the black friend he had back in middle school etc. It's actually hysterical to watch. So... it's being done more to manipulate and keep their own troops in line than it is a real attack on conservatives. The white guilt idiots are so trained that they will never allow themselves to come down on the side of an issue that might make them 'guilty' of racism. It's sad, and sadly effective.
Oh noes...lowing wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08 … -american/ it goes both ways in the sense that Democrats accuse racism ON TOP OF calling you UNAMERICAN for not believing their bullshit.JohnG@lt wrote:
Dude, that goes both ways. The Republicans do it just as often, they just do it differently. 'Racist' is the new 'UnAmerican' or 'You hate America'.lowing wrote:
I think it is simpler than that........They can not defend their own position with true facts, so they must discredit yours by insisting your opinion is nothing more than racist and dismissing it... Perfect really, you are discredited, ( even if in their eyes) and they do not have to address what you say, therefore do not have to lie, or leave themselves wide open to being exposed and discredited themselves in a far truer sense. This forum is a perfect example of that very tactic.
not the point I was making. The point I was making was exactly the point I made, and nothing moreJohnG@lt wrote:
Oh noes...lowing wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08 … -american/ it goes both ways in the sense that Democrats accuse racism ON TOP OF calling you UNAMERICAN for not believing their bullshit.JohnG@lt wrote:
Dude, that goes both ways. The Republicans do it just as often, they just do it differently. 'Racist' is the new 'UnAmerican' or 'You hate America'.
Who cares? Seriously, is there anything more infantile than grown men and women trying to one-up each other on the race to the intellectual bottom for votes?
You mean Bush, Cheney Rumsfeld have so thoroughly and permanently screwed the meaning of 'conservative' that real conservatives now have to call themsleves the 'Tea Party'?lowing wrote:
liberal and conservative works just fine. No complaints from the conservative camp, of course the conservative label has not done itself in quite like the those that tote the liberal banner.
There's nothing illegal about betting that something is going to fail. They made the mistake of profiting off of the stupidity of others when the 'others' in this case was the government and it's retarded decision to bail out AIG.11 Bravo wrote:
btw for all of you who enjoy saying warren buffet is the economic man...he says goldman sackofshit commited no fraud. hmmmm
The Tea Party is a a reference to the Boston Tead Party, an anti-tax action.Dilbert_X wrote:
You mean Bush, Cheney Rumsfeld have so thoroughly and permanently screwed the meaning of 'conservative' that real conservatives now have to call themsleves the 'Tea Party'?lowing wrote:
liberal and conservative works just fine. No complaints from the conservative camp, of course the conservative label has not done itself in quite like the those that tote the liberal banner.
I know what it is, why not call themselves conservatives?lowing wrote:
The Tea Party is a a reference to the Boston Tead Party, an anti-tax action.Dilbert_X wrote:
You mean Bush, Cheney Rumsfeld have so thoroughly and permanently screwed the meaning of 'conservative' that real conservatives now have to call themsleves the 'Tea Party'?lowing wrote:
liberal and conservative works just fine. No complaints from the conservative camp, of course the conservative label has not done itself in quite like the those that tote the liberal banner.
They are against the radicalism and fascism of the Obama administration. It has absolutely nothing to do with Bush Cheney or Rumsfeld..It is not an attempt to invent a new political affiliation.
Obama's administration isn't fascist ffs. What a fucking stupid thing to say.lowing wrote:
They are against the radicalism and fascism of the Obama administration. It has absolutely nothing to do with Bush Cheney or Rumsfeld
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-05-02 23:06:09)
