Short of Civil War, Libertarians and Conservatives are doomed...

SINthysist

Rural Racist Homophobe
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
11,940
180 Degrees of Separation
Diane Alden
Sept. 5, 2002

Sept. 11, 2001, had a triple impact. It focused American minds on how vulnerable to attack we were, it showed us how pathetic our intelligence operations were, and it gave us a respite from our national spiritual, cultural and political division.

But 9-11 did not cure that division. We are still a nation as divided as that now-famous map – the one that shows red small-town and rural America that voted for Bush and blue Al Gore urban-suburban city-states.

The philosophical divisions between red and blue country are not the kind that can be healed or compromised away. That is because one side does not understand that the basic principles upon which this nation was founded are not up for discussion or compromise. Over a period of years, the U.S. Constitution has been shunted aside. What replaced it is the dogma of the politically correct collectivist and corporate state.

Because of this failure to understand how profound our divisions really are, in the long run the war on terror and the patriotism that temporarily unite us may not be enough to keep us together.

In all probability the majority of people in the U.S. will remain ignorant and apolitical. Meanwhile, the U.S. will continue to drift into the American version of Euro-socialism and corporate statism. If another leftist on the order of Bill Clinton is elected president, that will increase the division and set the course for the foreseeable future.

That is not hyperbole. If another Clinton type takes office, the direction of the country will be too entrenched and tenured for reform to occur.

Conservatives and libertarians understand that government seldom reforms itself. Because of that, they also know the greatest civilizations always end the same way. Once the dependent client state is created, it does not disappear on its own. Eventually that civilization or nation is destroyed, invaded, loses its cultural and political fire, or dies of its own bureaucratic weight.

A Euro-socialist corporate state for America will leave conservatives and libertarians with nowhere to go. As it is, most libertarians and principled conservatives already know that is the case. They also know that their chance of voting agents of change into office, on a large enough scale to stop the leftward drift, are nil.

As a matter of fact, significant implementation of the agenda of libertarians and conservatives in the United States is a lost cause. National dialogue, agenda and debate on policy will continue to be controlled by the left. Republicans will go along with it or they will not be elected.

The body politic has changed and will continue to change. It is true especially with uncontrolled immigration, in which the ethnic minorities invariably vote left, which means they vote for Democrats. Voting records show this is the case. The only minorities that are exceptions are Cuban refugees and some Asian communities.

In a recent commentary, Martin Kettle of the U.K.'s leftist Guardian newspaper reviews a book which sets out the reasons why the libertarian and conservative agenda may be over with in the United States. Kettle relates:

"In their striking new book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority," the left-of-center writers John B Judis and Ruy Teixeira have used census data, voting studies and exit polls to argue that a combination of deep-rooted modern American demographic, economic and cultural trends is beginning to stack the odds ever more heavily against the Republicans."

Kettle of course incorrectly assumes that the Republican Party still stands for conservative or libertarian or constitutional values. He assumes they have been able to slow the leftward juggernaut that has propelled the United States for 75 years. To paraphrase conservative William F. Buckley, it was the job of conservatives to stand astride history and yell stop.

Well, conservatives have been doing that for decades to absolutely no permanent effect. The direction of America is still leftward HO!

What is frightening is how close Judis and Teixeira have called it. They state:

"The new majority ... is based on professionals, women and minorities, all of whom, especially the Latino minority, are growing as a proportion of the electorate, and all of whom are keen to vote. These Democratic voters are concentrated in postindustrial urban "ideopolises" in the Northeast, the upper Midwest, the West Coast and in significant parts of the South, including Florida and Virginia."

Kettle tells us, "Judis and Teixeira go out of their way not to be deterministic, but their argument is undeniably intriguing. As long as Democrats remain fiscally moderate, socially liberal, reformist and egalitarian, the authors say, the party will enjoy the edge over Republicans for years to come."

What that means is that the direction of the American system and its institutions are going to be in the hands of demographic groups that are the product of the incremental growth of collectivism.

The New American will demand more transfer payments, not fewer. The New American will not mind when there is increased regulation of our lives, as well as multiculturalism at the expense of the American culture and self- interest. They will demand and receive more "stuff" of all kinds from government (prescription drugs, for instance). In addition, there will be the expansion of identity politics, micromanagement of the economy, more taxes and more benefits and more money thrown at worthless expensive failed programs.

Almost nothing short of an act of God, or the individual states insisting on their rights under the Ninth and 10th amendments, can stop the growth of the collectivist central state.

Additionally, the twisted kind of leftist intolerance already in place in society will force libertarian and conservative voices underground. Hate- speech legislation will be the tool that will make that possible. Hate- speech legislation is another indication that, for conservatives, the First Amendment will cease to exist. It has already happened in Canada and it is happening in California and Massachusetts.

When the great silence falls, any opinion that does not fit with the agenda and goals of the left will be called hate.

The take-over of American universities by the left shows how smothering conservative opinion works. As the left took control of universities, conservative opinion and worldview became almost nonexistent among the professorate. How could students learn that there is more than one way to look at the world if they only heard one voice?

Once the left was in charge, few if any conservative professors or scholars were hired. Today there is an almost total absence of conservative or libertarian speakers and scholars on college campuses. When there are, riots and demonstrations and intimidation against them often take place. Free speech is only allowed if you are on the left.

Ask any conservative who has been invited by conservative university student organizations to speak on campus. Ann Coulter and David Horowitz as well as Jeanne Kirkpatrick and many others can tell you about the kind of hatred spewed by students when a conservative opinion is voiced.

This is the way the left works. This is what will happen nationwide when the left or Democrats never lose an election. This control of the agenda and speech has already forced Republicans to vote for and approve of numerous collectivist programs.

Society has always worried about the loony fringe right, but though they may be intolerant, they don't have any power. However, the intolerant left does have power, and lots of it – and they don't hesitate to wield it against conservatives.

The Clinton era is a case in point. Universities are a case in point. Congress is a case in point. Bipartisanship has come to mean you do it the Democrat way or no way. When Republicans protest, immediately the demonization and vilification and lies begin.

Meanwhile, our elected representatives have managed to create an ever-expanding un-elected federal bureaucracy. This entity does most of the implementation of leftist policies. From the State Department to the Interior Department, the left is in control. This means that the U.S. Constitution is a dead duck. The Constitution means whatever the representatives of the leftist/socialist majority and their appointed federal court flunkies say it means. Federal bureaucrats make sure the policies of the left remain in place no matter who is in office.

What should be frightening even to dyed-in-the-wool Democrats is that if another leftist like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Joe Lieberman or John Edwards is elected president, our national self-interest and sovereignty will be at the mercy of international bureaucrats and one-world-fits-all American political advisers like Strobe Talbot or Jeffrey Sachs.

It is the Democratic left that itches to hand American constitutional sovereignty and liberty over to international bodies. It is the left who cannot act in America's self-interest without the approval of an international body of some sort. It is the left that paralyzes us as we pursue any form of American self-interest.

The sad fact is that Republicans are only capable of calling a halt to the insanity when a major catastrophe like Sept. 11, 2001, occurs. Before Sept. 11, Bush and the Republicans were impotent. Daschle and company set the agenda and the direction, even in foreign policy. Sadly, the leftward drift of the U.S. never stops for long.

Division of the House

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." That was true before the American Civil War and it is true now. Nevertheless, if the issue of slavery had not been the ostensible reason to force the South to submit to Northern demands for Union, there would have been absolutely no legal or political justification for Lincoln to hold the South in the Union.

In our own day, the divide in America is not about states' rights versus federal government. It is about what we are as a nation and what we want to be. The differences between us amount to a chasm.

The most disheartening thing is that most conservatives and libertarians have given up hope that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights will ever be resurrected. Thus, even responsible conservatives and libertarians recognize that it may be time for a national divorce. They include Walter Williams, Joseph Sobran and Lew Rockwell, to name only a few.

Many of them don't care diddly if the Democrats/progressives go so far left they fall off the earth, they just don't want to fall off with them. Conservatives and libertarians don't wish them ill; they just don't want to be part of the leftist social or political culture. They want the right to choose.

Conservatives and libertarians want something different from what the collectivist left wants. They can't obtain it through voting, but they would prefer to obtain it peacefully and legally.

In a column last year titled "What the Founders Feared," economist Walter Williams related the intentions of the Founders in regard to a national divorce, which we call secession:

"Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, 'If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.' Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, 'If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the Union ... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.' "

In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

What a concept. It is almost unknown in the United States today. The states are no longer able to be in charge of their land, they cannot decide their own educational policy, they do not have their rights as guaranteed under the Constitution in the Ninth and 10 amendments. In fact, the states have become the agents of the federal government. Originally the federal government was supposed to be the agent of the states.

Constitutional conservatives and libertarians care about putting in place the ideals in the Bill of Rights and the ORIGINAL Constitution as written – a Constitution which any person can read and understand. That no longer seems possible by voting it in through our representatives or expecting our courts to interpret it as it is. Another legal way must be found to re-establish the rule of law through constitutional means even if that means a national divorce.

Funny thing is that it is Canadians who may be developing those legal means for autonomy outside the collectivist state. Canadian provinces, other than Quebec, are yearning to breathe free of the control of the urban city-states of Ottawa and Toronto, the centers of power for the Canadian collectivist state. What we in red flyover country have in common with our conservative Canadian brethren may be summed up in the words of Benjamin Franklin: "Where liberty is – there is my country."

(Next time: The American Free State and 10th Amendment movements. Who are Stephen Harper and Corey Morgan and what is the Calgary Declaration? How will Canada's 1999 Clarity Act be the legal means by which provincial Canada will loosen the socialist strangle hold of Ottawa and Toronto? Former PM Elliot Trudeau began Canadian dissolution with the National Energy Policy Act. By signing onto the Kyoto Protocol, current Canadian PM Chretien just hammered one of the last nails in the Canadian coffin – just ask Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon and the Northwest Territories.)
 
Unless maybe you think like a Liberal, for a change stupid!




Hard Left Dominates Campuses: Time to Fight Back?

Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com Washington Editior
Thursday, Sept. 5, 2002

WASHINGTON-As young people head back to the nation’s college and university campuses, a legal scholar has raised the prospect that Middle Americans may no longer have to sit back and accept hard left indoctrination of their children.
Writing for the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Kenneth Lee, who chairs The Federalist Society’s civil rights practice group, posits the following scenario:


"Imagine opening your newspaper one morning and reading a Supreme Court opinion that puts a startling new twist on an old civil rights tactic. The Court declares that some prominent university has violated equal opportunity laws by ‘engaging in a pattern of employment discrimination….against conservative Republicans and Christian conservatives.


"Of the university’s 1,828 professors, there are only eight Republicans and five Christian conservatives. Such statistical evidence of gross political and ideological imbalance has been taken as a telltale sign of purposeful discrimination in many previous civil rights cases. In this case, as well it provides prima facie evidence that individual rights are being systematically violated on arbitrary grounds. Justice demands compensatory action to protect the rights of these groups.’”


Plaintiffs in such a case----which AEI believes may be just "waiting to happen”—would have plenty of ammunition.


In the same edition of American Enterprise magazine, the editors cite chapter and verse:


Under the heading, "Political party enrollments of professors as listed in local registration records,” the lopsided leftist campus tilt is overwhelming in such key departments as Economics, History, English, Political Science, Sociology, Psychology, and Anthropology. Examples:



Brown University—54 on the left to 3 on the right.
Cornell University—166 to 6
Harvard University—50 to 2
Stanford University--- 151 to 17
University of California at San Diego---99 to 6
Syracuse University---50 to 2

At this point, one gets the drift. AEI documents similar lopsided leftist imbalance at Penn State University, University of Maryland, Denver College, Pomona College, San Diego State University, University of Colorado at Boulder, State University of New York at Binghamton, and others including (of course) University of California at Berkeley.


The University of Maryland apparently is out to indoctrinate freshmen almost before they go to their first classes.


University officials have been distributing 10,000 copies of the "Laramie Project,” described as a play based on the death of homosexual college student Matthew Shepherd. As quoted in the Washington Times, this document, distributed to all incoming freshman, is defended by the university as an effort "to encourage the exploration of ideas.”


A balanced effort to stir "the exploration of ideas” in this issue, would include a recounting of another case that took place shortly after the Matthew Shepherd killing.


As reported by NewsMax.com (‘Hate Crimes’ a One Way Street-March 6, 2001), in Arkansas, two homosexuals were charged with sodomizing and killing 13-year old Jesse Dirkheising. The boy died from suffocation after being bound, gagged with underwear in his mouth, blindfolded, and taped to the bed.


The Shepherd case was big national news. For months, the Dirkheising case did not get out to the media beyond the borders of Arkansas. It appears academia gives the same "balance” to these two cases that the media did.


There is, of course, plenty of anecdotal evidence of the "Shame of America’s One Party Campuses,” as AEI describes it. Space constraints make it impossible to do more than cite some of the many examples compiled by Accuracy in Academia (AIA):


*As the nation mourned the thousands who died on the morning of September 11, 2001, University of New Mexico Professor Richard Berthold bluntly proclaimed to his students, "Anyone who can blow up the Pentagon would get my vote.”


*Tenured professor Kenneth Hearlson of Orange Coast College was suspended without a hearing for claiming in class that Muslims who condemn terrorism in the U.S. but not in Israel were inconsistent. So much for freedom of inquiry in "the marketplace of ideas.”


*A Luntz poll of Ivy League professors revealed startling political bias. In the 2000 elections, 84% of professors surveyed voted for Al Gore, as opposed to a mere 9% for George W. Bush, a bias confirmed by the more recent AEI survey. This prompted David Horowitz, who commissioned the Luntz poll, to remark, "For all of the Ivy League’s talk of diversity, it is painfully evident from this survey that there is no real diversity when it comes to political attitudes and social attitudes of Ivy league professors.”


Which brings us back to New York attorney Kenneth Lee’s hypothetical Supreme Court case.


He acknowledges that the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not outline political affiliation as a protected status. However, interestingly, some states and localities have in fact extended civil rights protection to party membership. Washington, D.C., for example, bars discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, OR political affiliation.


Is this a case "waiting to happen?” It depends on how many parents are outraged enough to band together and use the legal expertise of think tanks such as the Federalist Society to assist in making their case.


Chances are, however, many parents are too busy sacrificing (emptying their bank accounts, holding down two jobs, etc.) so that their offspring will get what the parents hope will be a good balanced education, as opposed to indoctrination.


Conservative students organize or try to organize on campus to tell "the other side,” but they are all too often suppressed by the dominant culture there. The late Hearst columnist Westbrook Pegler once observed that many non-leftist college kids "dare not sass back the professor lest he flunk them.”


Meanwhile, in his forthcoming book, "Why the Left Hates America,” (and the author makes a clear distinction between "liberal” and hard left) AIA’s executive director Dan Flynn says, "Large numbers of young Americans are taught to hate their country. The impressionable minds that are fed a distorted picture of America will be our next generation of teachers, journalists, clergy, and government officials. Unless the prevailing negativism is countered, the kind of history, tradition, and government that is passed on to future generations will be adversely affected.”
 
Why is it that I find the idea of a Far-left Calculus professor so funny?

Also, to the point of the second article. Doesn't Harvard University have as much right to freedom of assembly as Augusta National?
 
two questions AJ

1. If the right is so aghast at the notion of discrimination on college campuses, why is Bob Jones U so popular with them? Would the support the forced hiring of Papists?

2. Should someone be forced to write plays about every crazy notion the Right has? They aren't distributing news reports. It's a play.
 
Uh, tough questions.

From facts in evidence I note 16 left institutes verses your one on the right.

As for Universities, they hold themselves to the lofty ideals of truth, knowlege, and fellowship of study. When they focus on one side of the political spectrum they tie themselves to a moral ball and chain.

I believe Augusta National is a well-known good 'ol boy's club focused on golf and success. Women are free to form a Ladies Tee Club...

When students stop shouting down speakers in an exercise of free speech then we will once again have evidence that they have begun teaching the rules of civics and repsonsible free speech.
 
The internet has turned the libraries into ghost buildings...
 
SINthysist said:

As for Universities, they hold themselves to the lofty ideals of truth, knowlege, and fellowship of study. When they focus on one side of the political spectrum they tie themselves to a moral ball and chain.
.


The fact that right-wing uni's are less numerous than left-wing ones is cute but dodging the question. Should they be forced to hire faculty to represent the mosaic that is America?

See, I don't think so. University's are also about advancing knowledge. So who wants to hire hateful folk clinging to ideas that were old-fashioned 50 years ago? No conservatives teaching at Uni's is simply another kick in the crotch to the failed idealogy that is conservatism in America today. Abandon ship before you're ankle deep in water.
 
As Libertarians...we are doomed...just like the Samauri in Japan, Chivilarist Knight of Europe and now the true Patriots of the America. Our ideals are to high for ignorant masses to understand...all they want is a full belly and the ability to reproduce in security. Lofty goals of truth, freedom, self- determination and faith mean nothing to them. They want their multi-cultral society so they can be some how classified in a group that gets hand outs...the hell with being independent, finding your own truth and having the balls to live by it...OMG you may offend somebody....Got my political rant out for the day!!!!!!
 
Originally posted by Johnny Cool
Why is it that I find the idea of a Far-left Calculus professor so funny?

Also, to the point of the second article. Doesn't Harvard University have as much right to freedom of assembly as Augusta National?
Augusta National is a private club. They receive NO public funding. Harvard accepts government funds, thus they have forfeited their freedom of association by becoming a government subsidized entity (see Amendment XIV).
Originally posted by Johnny Cool
two questions AJ

1. If the right is so aghast at the notion of discrimination on college campuses, why is Bob Jones U so popular with them? Would the support the forced hiring of Papists? . . .
Unless my recollection fails me, Bob Jones University is a private insitution. Thus they have every right to hire and fire whom they please. It's called freedom of choice.

It is not the legitimate province of government to dictate actions to private citizens. This is the reason we (Americans) should never have made the mistake of permitting government run educational institutions.
Originally posted by SINthysist
. . . As for Universities, they hold themselves to the lofty ideals of truth, knowlege, and fellowship of study. . .
At least that's the facade they'd like us to see. For those willing to see the truth, Toto has pulled back the curtain, at least partially.
Originally posted by Johnny Cool
The fact that right-wing uni's are less numerous than left-wing ones is cute but dodging the question. Should they be forced to hire faculty to represent the mosaic that is America?

See, I don't think so. University's are also about advancing knowledge. So who wants to hire hateful folk clinging to ideas that were old-fashioned 50 years ago? No conservatives teaching at Uni's is simply another kick in the crotch to the failed idealogy that is conservatism in America today. Abandon ship before you're ankle deep in water.
If you had any vestige of understanding of freedom and rights, you would not need to ask this question. I doubt he was dodging the question as much as hoping you would actually think. Since I consider his hopes futile, refer to my answer above.

Your propensity to think clearly and objectively is amply evidenced by the content, the intellectually corrupt and dishonest, offering therein. A mind is a sad thing to see wasted.

What I find so utterly disgusting about the collectivist ideology is their absolute intolerance of freedom of anyone who des not ascribe to their beliefs and knuckle under to their tyranny. They are never content to permit dissent and allow others who differ to live in peace along side them (much like the Palestinian terrorists).

Augusta National is the perfect example. They harm no one. They exercise the right of free men in a free society; to choose those with whom they associate.

It is the Fascist collectivist left that is bent of having Augusta National either knuckle under to their tyrannical dictates of face destruction; this from people who represent themselves to care about rights and freedom. The manifestation of one of the common collectivist tenets: truth is whatever advances the cause of the collective.

That you espouse and advocate this ideology speaks volumes of your character and ethics. That you prefer coercion as a means of achieving your goals personally or politically clarifies your stature as one with a strong prediliction to the criminal/tyrannical persuasion.

If you find this form of government so desireable, you have the option to emigrate with lots of destination choices. Conversely, I have no such options. Don't you have the courage of your convictions or the moral or intellectual integrity to pursue you beliefs fully?

While your ideology seeks to suppress, oppress and eradicate dissent by whatever means available, the Libertarian/Constitutionalist conservative seeks only to suppress the criminal activity of those who would, by force of arms, violate the rights and freedoms of their fellow man for their political or other motivations.
 
Boo-hoo! Poor conservatives! The fact that the President is Republican, the House is controlled by Republicans, the majority of governors are Republicans, the most popular news channel is staunchly right-wing, and the number one book in America is a incoherent screed written by a rabid arch-conservative who states that, basically, everything ever said or done by people who disagree with her politics is wrong...that's just, what? Window dressing for the liberal conspiracy that rules the world?

College campuses are hotbeds of liberal rebellion? Well, duh. You're an 18-year-old kid, away from home for the first time, hormones raging. Of course you're gonna rebel, you're gonna fight against the dogma handed down by your parents. You're going to fix the world's problems! You'll tear down the walls of oppression! You want to change the world!

The fact that much of this energy is wasted on ludicrous and pretentious claptrap is due to the inexperience of youth. The hope is that during your youth, you learn about many different ideas, you meet different people, and you learn to make u your own mind instead of being told what to think. That's the hope.

If you ask me, anyone who defines themselves as "conservative" or "liberal" or "libertarian" or whatever is abdicating their responsibility as a thinking adult. Do you make up your mind about an issue not on it's merits, buy how your "team" votes? When you vote, do you weigh the differences between the candidates, or do you just pull the lever marked "Republican" or "Democrat"?

Those maps, the ones that show huge swathes of blue and red dividing Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative? They're total bullshit. In those demarcated areas are people with a myriad of beliefs and political attitudes.

One last point--anyone who describes Penn State as a hotbed of liberal activism has never been to Happy Valley. Penn State is a staunchly conservative place, it's (very good) faculty not very political either way. Had some pinko-Commie hippie type teachers, had some Brooks-Brothers white-shoe wearing profs. The student body is, overall, VERY conservative. And the most popular person on campus, by a million miles, is Joe Paterno, who gave the speech at the Republican national convention nominated George H.W. Bush. So take that article and flush it, those pollsters either have lousy methodology or they don't know how to analyze their data.
 
"The fact that right-wing uni's are less numerous than left-wing ones is cute but dodging the question. Should they be forced to hire faculty to represent the mosaic that is America? "

They sure as hell were forced to accept students based on a certain mosaic of America. In fact, they've even turned to segregation as African Americans prefer to have their own dorms, curriculum and graduations...

Universities have ALWAYS been very eager to do just that sort of thing...
 
I agree pretty much Christo...

Young minds, rebellious, looking for other creeds to fuel their defiance!

What a perfect place to recruit, train, and mold young minds to whatever philosophy one chooses. Now while we can never, ever have a system without a bias...

We could at least present a multi-biased curriculum. No?
 
christo said:

If you ask me, anyone who defines themselves as "conservative" or "liberal" or "libertarian" or whatever is abdicating their responsibility as a thinking adult. Do you make up your mind about an issue not on it's merits, buy how your "team" votes? When you vote, do you weigh the differences between the candidates, or do you just pull the lever marked "Republican" or "Democrat"?

One year in a Presidential election I worked next to a voting center. Bus after bus after bus would come in from the country filled to the brim. The democratic officials would stand at the opening of the bus handing out forms telling the country folk just how to vote. They'd provide a copy of the voting ballot with all the democratic candidates checked off as if they'd already been voted for. No need to read, just check off "this way". I don't think half those people could read.

One of my professors ran a political polling company. After a vote we were chatting over a cup of coffee and he observed that several counties had voted democratic when the polling data showed clear Republican majorities. He smiled as he said, in fact several of the counties had more democratic votes than registered voters (total). Whoops, how'd that happen? He's a Democrat, but he also believed in "fair" and "law" and was disgusted by the widespread cheating in elections engaged in by the Democrats.
 
Last edited:
The difference is with the Democratic constituency, one cannot condemn cheating without judging the people one represents. Thus, cheating is to be expected and condoned since everyone does it. With the Republicans cheating is hypocracy and therefore a high crime...
 
OH MY GOD!!!!!

The Liberals are Coming!!! The SKY IS FALLING!!!



:rolleyes:



I'm moving on. Seen this thread done too many damned times.
 
So your reply wasn't really neccessary, now was it?

But, please, feel free to stop in anytime and let us know how pedantic we are, to you, of course...

You've been taking lessons from Dixon haven't you? If you don't have anything constructive to add take a shot. Maybe you can get some shit-throwing started.

The sky may not be falling, but our standards are lying shattered on the ground.
 
SINthysist said:
The difference is with the Democratic constituency, one cannot condemn cheating without judging the people one represents. Thus, cheating is to be expected and condoned since everyone does it. With the Republicans cheating is hypocracy and therefore a high crime...

LOL. Any means to an end...
 
Unclebill said:


What I find so utterly disgusting about the collectivist ideology is their absolute intolerance of freedom of anyone who des not ascribe to their beliefs and knuckle under to their tyranny. They are never content to permit dissent and allow others who differ to live in peace along side them (much like the Palestinian terrorists).

Augusta National is the perfect example. They harm no one. They exercise the right of free men in a free society; to choose those with whom they associate.


If you find this form of government so desireable, you have the option to emigrate with lots of destination choices. Conversely, I have no such options. Don't you have the courage of your convictions or the moral or intellectual integrity to pursue you beliefs fully?

Wow, compare me to palestinians terrorists and say I have no brain. Bill, you're so full of shit it's a wonder your hair isn't brown.

1) First and foremost, Bill I'm Canadian. As usual you have your head shoved so far up your ass you don't pay any attention to what anyone else says.

2) There is no government pressure to change Augusta national. Simply a private group of citizens seeking to put pressure on private companies to withdraw sponsorship of the event. Put pressure on private citizens with pull not to play there. Sadly you see the evil liberal Bogeyman behind everything so much you can't rationally look at an issue. I don't believe Augusta should be forced to integrate(Which was obvious from the tone of my post. I don't think Harvard should either) But you, much like the Palestinian terrorist are too busy spouting your hateful, irresponsible ideology that you don't take the time to look at what others say.
 
There's an article in yesterday's Times that points to just the opposite. It says that the democrats are on the ropes because 70% of the people in the country now have money invested in the economy (stock market et al) and that these people vote overwhelmingly Republican because they want to see continued growth and that the democrats don't offer a plan, they only whine. (paraphrased). In a real setback for the democrats, even the union/labor households that have money invested in the stock market vote overwhelmingly Republican (don't give away MY money). I know you've seen it Sin, I posted it on another thread.
 
Last edited:
If you are better than UncleBill, then prove it and use less negative rhetoric and simply make better points.

I challenge you.
 
Yeah, but do I remember it!

I've been hit in the head.

Many, many times...
 
Phil Gramm, commenting on the liberal litmous test that the senate is now putting on Judicial appointments, said something to the effect that this strategy, inconsistent with the Judicial review process practiced in this country for over 200 years, will backfire on the Democrats and that he hopes that people will notice that the Judicial ranks are seriously depleted because the Democrats won't approve any appointees. The only way we're going to get judges appointed is if the Senate becomes Republican again.
 
Back
Top