Conservative Thought Of The Day...

[ianalex10]

It is true that the overwhelming majority of the youth in America are liberal. What are the characteristics of youth? They are inexperienced, unsophisticated, immature, emotional and uninformed. You only gain these characteristics through time and experience, which is also when you become more conservative.

[DaysWithoutEnd]

You forgot to mention that they are also still capable of dreaming about a better future, instead of hopelessly clinging to the past.

[Slar]

Originally posted by ianalex10
This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

Note to all: If you ignore it, it will go away.

[Da Spellchecka]

Your last two sentences make absolutely no sense whatsoever... the way you wrote them (or wherever you cut and pasted them from, more likely) infers that you gain the characteristics of youth through time and experience. You're showing yourself to be quite the mental midget.

[yvette7ica]

Originally posted by ianalex10
It is true that the overwhelming majority of the youth in America are liberal.

The internet is a wonderful resource, why don't you take some time to see if they have any official studies on that.

What are the characteristics of youth? They are inexperienced, unsophisticated, immature, emotional and uninformed.

I think you'd be suprised to find that those are generalized characteristics that are not necessarily true when describing "youths". I've met quite a few adults that fit those characteristics. Not to say some youths do not fit into that description, but I've met quite a few that are experienced, sophisticated, mature, emotionally sound, informed, and moderate.

You only gain these characteristics through time and experience, which is also when you become more conservative.

I have to agree that you gain being "inexperienced, unsophisticated, immature, emotional and uninformed" "through time and experience, which is also when you become more conservative". However, experience could mean a wide array of things. You'll need to narrow it down a bit.

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by ianalex10
It is true that the overwhelming majority of the youth in America are liberal. What are the characteristics of youth? They are inexperienced, unsophisticated, immature, emotional and uninformed. You only gain these characteristics through time and experience, which is also when you become more conservative.

The overwhelming majority of youth are neither conservative nor liberal.

Ianalex, I'm glad you've still got all that youthful energy!

[Emperor Wog]

Originally posted by ianalex10
.... are inexperienced, unsophisticated, immature, emotional and uninformed.

add racist, bigoted, asshole to that...and you sum yourself up to a tee.

[yvette7ica]

Originally posted by yoshomon
The overwhelming majority of youth are neither conservative nor liberal.

Does apathetic count as a political ideology?

[DaysWithoutEnd]

Maybe. I don't care.

[ianalex10]

Originally posted by Emperor Wog


add racist, bigoted, asshole to that...and you sum yourself up to a tee.


Emperor Asshat,

Don't expect a Chirstmas card from me this year!

[ajax]

I have become increasingly more militant liberal with every day I age.

[yoshomon]

"militant" and "liberal" don't go together.

What do you do... write really nasty letters to your senator and wear a skimask when you vote?

[Cobalt]

Add active to that description Ajax and I'm totally with you.

Wisdom, which (rumor has it) comes with age, is also derived from the knowledge that you do not know everything about everything but are willing to learn. It seems conservativism breeds itself through fear and a lack of the willingness to learn. This fear is so overwhelmingly powerful that some conservatives prefer teaching theories based on religious myth rather than scientific theory that has actual FACT to support it.

The most enviable characteristic of youths (in general) is that they are willing to take risks in order to learn and gain experience upon which to base future decisions. Science has shown we are hardwired with this behavior of risk-taking. Everytime we learn any bit of information a neural pathway is formed in the brain (this is a fact). It seems, that ianalex has a chemical imbalance. An overabundance of inhibitory neural transmitters, if you will. Or, possibly, an overactive amygdala....you have an assload of fear, to put it another way.

[ajax]

I believe militant and liberal do go together. Well let me clarify to say I become increasingly more Libertarian as I age. I don't believe the term liberal stands for big government, taxing and spending, or caring and sharing politics. Liberal does stand for opposition of: right wing idology, coservative social stances, and traditional solutions to modern problems.

[keyst2891]

I actually am starting to enjoy these little escapades called "ianalex's threads". Makes for quite enjoyment while trying to stay awake at work.

Thank you, Ianalex, for giving me the entertainment to see you write something off the wall and watch board members' heads blow one by one.


Makes my day:D

[tobedawg]

Who needs to listen to AM Radio when you have IanAlex posting on these boards??

I agree.. Great entertainment!! Beats Michael Savage & Sean Hannity any day!!

[DaysWithoutEnd]

Originally posted by ajax
Liberal does stand for opposition of: right wing idology, coservative social stances, and traditional solutions to modern problems.

Calling something an 'opposite' isn't really defining it.

[Cobalt]

Liberal-1. orig., suitable for freeman; not restricted.

skip on down to # 5.tolerant of views differing from one's own; broad minded; not orthodox or conventional.

Progressive- a relative term as oppsed to reactionary or conservative, is applied to persons favoring progress or reform in politics or education etc. and connotes an inclination to more direct action than liberal.

I love Webster's. There you go...I didn't want it to boil down to a semantic argument.

[Johnnylama]

Speaking of a semantic argument, is Ianalex more of an idiot or a prick? Does he lack the ability to grasp complex concepts, or is he simply egocentric?

[Cobalt]

awww johnnylama.....didn't you love stirring up a good argument when you were young and full o' piss and vinegar?
:D

[Johnnylama]

I like GOOD arguments, but I’ve never heard one of those out of Ianalex. I tried actually arguing with him once, you know, with logical arguments and facts, but I got back the intellectual equivalent of “your mom,” so I stopped trying. So, back to my redirected point of discussion since Ianalex’s is useless, is he more of an idiot or a prick? I feel a poll coming on!:D

Here we go. (http://msg.woxy.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22012)

[Cobalt]

hmmmm......difficult. Is there a synonym for peckerhead? The image that word conjures is better than prick for me.

<cookie cutter frat boy removes hat to reveal- GASP!!!! No! A disfiguring penis for a forehead! Can't look away....must warn...somebody.....>

but given the choice, I vote prick.:D

[tobedawg]

you guys really think u can win an argument ianalex by using logic and facts?

Or any Bush supporter for that matter?

[GQuagmire]

Originally posted by tobedawg


Or any Bush supporter for that matter?

Again, I sincerely hope that is sarcasm. There is no need for that. Calling out an individual is one thing (I am not an Ianalex fan myself), but to make such blanket statements is another. Thanks for yet another slap in the face. Can't wait to hear what you have to say about Jews or Hispanics or whatever group you are going to display prejudice against next.

[tobedawg]

Again, I sincerely hope that is sarcasm. There is no need for that. Calling out an individual is one thing (I am not an Ianalex fan myself), but to make such blanket statements is another. Thanks for yet another slap in the face. Can't wait to hear what you have to say about Jews or Hispanics or whatever group you are going to display prejudice against next.

*YAWN*

Here you go again..

Comparing criticism to racism.. You Republicans are such victims huh?..

I don't even know why I even bother reading your posts..

Back on Ignore.. (and no it has nothing to do with your views, it has to do with your arrogance)

:rolleyes:

[Dick Cheney]

Ianalex,

Thank you for helping to spread the word! It is a Very important time for America and Americans.

[foolsgold]

Originally posted by tobedawg
Or any Bush supporter for that matter?

Damn straight. Why, in fact, each and every Bush supporter I know just sticks their fingers in their ears and says "Lalalalalalalala" really loudly when they read the New York Times.

I am not sure why they stick their fingers in their ears while they are reading, though. I guess it just proves that Bush fans are really that stupid.

I'd even go so far to say that Bush supporters should be stripped of all voting rights because they are obviously not half as informed as the most intellectually impaired Democrat voter. You see, Democrats read papers, watch the news and even maintain a secret network of Beltloop Wonks who send personalize TPS reports detailing the latest Republican failures and Democratic successes.

All the Republicans get is the latest Toby Keith song being piped in at Wal-Mart.

I'd make a comparison to Hieronymus Bosch's 'Paradise and Hell' to illustrate my point about Democrat's virtue and Republican's wickedness, but I fear it would be to far over anyone's empty head on the right.

[postfeminist]

cobalt--you rule! thanks for posting the proper definitions. you illustrated exactly why i see myself as a progressive.

[Cobalt]

Bosch is a good reference but I think it's a little extreme....a little .

it goes back to what I said earlier about fear. Most republican voters, in this area anyway, consider themselves"God fearing. I can say I admire their conviction, however misguided. There was an article in The Nation a while back talking about the use of religious rhetoric by the Bush administration in order to manipulate public opinion. Some of the examples were pretty fascinating from the behavior psych standpoint. Religion is such an emotionally charged subject that it doesn't take much shaping to get the kind of fear you've fostered to become an action.

[markalot]

Damn straight. Why, in fact, each and every Bush supporter I know just sticks their fingers in their ears and says "Lalalalalalalala" really loudly when they read the New York Times.

Probably for the same reason you do when any conservative presents their viewpoint? Fair question?

[foolsgold]

Originally posted by markalot
Probably for the same reason you do when any conservative presents their viewpoint? Fair question?

Damn me for forgetting those pesky sarc tags. :(

It was written with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. I did write that in response to the baffling belief that anyone who voted for Bush (I voted Kerry, btw) is a simpleton. It really was that kind of arrogance which I believe played a huge role in Kerry's defeat.

When you want to defeat your opponent, always assume that they are faster, stronger, have better abilities and are more intelligent. Otherwise, you end up writing bitter and whiny posts on a rock n roll website.

[yoshomon]

Clinton gave us NAFTA, welfare reform, constant war against Iraq, war in Kosovo, a bunch of anti-lgbtq legislation, and that's just scratching the surface. Why do so-called progressives support the democratic party?

And then this election so-called progressives bent over backwards supporting John Kerry, a candidate that didn't give a shit about progressive politics.

Maybe progressives should be called what they really are... spineless liberals.

[akip]

politicos warp definitions however they choose. here's an interesting article that gives some context. not sure if you can access it through the link (it's subscriber-only).

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=1jc70i32o9r29m48zyunst4qtqvv2fq3


The Chronicle of Higher Education

The Chronicle Review

From the issue dated December 10, 2004



The Triumph and Collapse of Liberalism


By JOHN LUKACS

The history of politics -- more, the history of human thinking -- is the history of words. Consider what happened to the word "liberal" in the United States.

It has become a Bad Word for millions of Americans. Confident that a large majority of the American people have come to regard, see, or hear the adjective "liberal" as definitely pejorative, the president of the United States found it proper and useful to affix it to his opponent in campaign speeches day after day, across this vast country. Meanwhile, his opponent thought it best not to identify himself as a liberal.

This accusatory label is reminiscent of the habit of some political speakers 50 years ago who declared that their opponents were "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers." Such a similarity, while not precise, is at least interesting, since the increasingly rapid fall of the popularity of "liberal" began just about 50 years ago. It may be worth tracing the curve of its descent.

In the year 1951 no less a demagogue than Sen. Joseph McCarthy still used "liberal" positively, at least on one occasion. In a speech he accused Gen. George C. Marshall and Secretary of State Dean Acheson of being part of "a conspiracy so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so bleak that, when it is finally exposed, its principles shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all liberal men." In that very year Sen. Robert A. Taft, idol of recent American conservatives, thought it necessary to state that he was not a conservative but "an old-fashioned liberal."

But lo and behold: By 1960 President Dwight D. Eisenhower would declare that he was a "conservative." A tectonic shift in the development of American thinking, and of politics, had begun.

I put "thinking" before "politics," since the history of the latter is often a slow -- and belated -- consequence of what is happening under the surface of publicity. In 1964 Barry M. Goldwater, the first outspokenly conservative candidate for the presidency, lost in a landslide. In 1980 Ronald Reagan, a self-designated conservative, won in a landslide. Thereafter, the congealing of the meaning of "liberal" as something bad and anti-American became one mark of the recent presidential campaign. But what was happening was something well beneath the verbal habits of electioneering.

"Conservative" was a word (and a political idea) that Americans eschewed for a long time. During the 19th century much of the political history of Europe and, in particular, of Britain was marked by the debate between conservatives and liberals. In the United States that was not so.

There was no Conservative Party in the United States. There were a few American authors and thinkers in whose writings and statements we can detect properly conservative elements; but they, too, with practically no exceptions, shied away from affixing the conservative label to themselves. Moreover, again practically with few or no exceptions, Americans believed in the concept of "progress"; indeed, it may be said that the more liberal a man was, the more he believed in and advocated progress. That American configuration, seen in politics in the association of liberalism and progressivism, prevailed until about the middle of the 20th century. In 1950 the cultural critic Lionel Trilling declared that the only dominant philosophy in America was the liberal one. In 1955 a Harvard professor, Louis Hartz, wrote that the perennial and prevalent American creed was liberalism.

They were wrong. Those reputable academics pursued the obvious (to quote Oscar Wilde) "with the enthusiasm of shortsighted detectives." Right before their eyes antiliberalism was rising fast. Within a few years antiliberals would adopt "conservative" as an adjective; they began to affix it to themselves proudly (and often imprecisely, but that is not the point). Symptoms and examples would fill a large book. Consider just one: In 1955 the first self-described "conservative" weekly of opinion appeared, The National Review, edited and directed by William F. Buckley Jr. It had few subscribers. Twenty-five years later its circulation was larger than that of The Nation and The New Republic combined. Its enthusiastic readership was the vanguard of the massive popular wave that propelled Ronald Reagan to power.

What were -- what still are -- the sources of American distaste for liberalism (a distance from, rather than a disillusionment with, liberalism)? One was the gradual liberal acceptance, indeed advocacy, of the welfare state. During the 19th century, liberalism, by and large, meant political and economic individualism, an emphasis on liberty even more than equality, a reduction and limitation of the powers of government. From the beginning of the 20th century, liberals, by and large, accepted and advocated the spread of equality, meaning more and more legislation and government bureaucracy to guarantee the welfare of entire populations. That kind of administrative intervention, with its occasional legislative and bureaucratic excesses, turned millions of Americans against "government" (though they were often the same Americans who were enthusiastic about the political and military powers of government).

Another source of the dislike of liberalism was anti-Communism. Just as the political advocacy of liberalism had moved closer to socialism, the ideology and foreign policy of liberals and Democrats often seemed (and were) more tolerant of Communism and the Soviet Union than were nonliberals and most Republicans. Liberals were, or seemed, less patriotic (more precisely, less nationalistic) than most Americans. And it is, of course, the viscous cement of nationalism that binds so many of the preferences and beliefs of masses of people together.

Beneath these political and ideological sentiments there was the sense, more or less apparent, of a general disappointment with liberal ideals. There was the inclination, sometimes fatal, of liberals to take the ideas of the Enlightenment to extremes: to propagate a public morality devoid of, if not altogether opposed to, religion; to insist more and more on institutionalizing the promotion of justice, at times even at the expense of truth; to emphasize freedom of speech, often at the expense of thought; to make abortion legal; to approve same-sex marriages and affirmative action.

To an increasing mass of Americans, "liberal" began to mean -- rightly or wrongly -- a toleration, if not a promotion, of what many considered to be immoralities. That the private lives and the moral behavior of many self-professed conservatives hardly differed from those of their liberal opponents mattered not, at least until now. What may matter in the future is a division between conservatives who love liberty more than they hate liberals and conservatives who don't -- or between conservatives who believe in patriotism and tradition and other conservatives who believe in nationalism and technological progress. But that is another matter.

(cont.)

[akip]

(continued)

For a long time in common American parlance, to be antiliberal meant also to be anti-intellectual. That is no longer so, for many reasons, one of which is the increasing presence of serious conservative thinkers, writers, and academics. Meanwhile, most academics, however, are still anti- or nonconservative, and remote from the mainstream of people. That is not unusual: Isolation of intellectuals and academics from the great mass of people has almost always been thus.

That liberals in academe have contributed to that isolation by asserting unreasonable ideas, contributing thereby to the increasing confusion and corruption of both higher education and intellectual commerce, may be largely true. Alas, the defense of traditions of humanism ceased to be the monopoly of liberals long ago. Still, intellectual dishonesty (and its customary consequence, selective indignation) is not a monopoly of liberals, either: There is evidence of it among self-identified conservative and neoconservative writers, thinkers, and academics.

We must now understand that the collapse or near collapse of liberalism has not been merely an American phenomenon. Worldwide, we are in the presence of a dual historical development.

On a nearly worldwide level, liberal principles, advancing through centuries, and particularly in the 19th century, have triumphed. There is less institutionalized injustice around the globe than ever before. The abolition of slavery; the promotion of universal education, universal suffrage, freedom, and equal rights for women; and the provision of health services, guaranteed help for the poor, popular sovereignty, etc., if not perfectly or everywhere, but at least in principle, have been widely adopted around the world.

But the institutionalization of those reforms, aimed at the elimination of all kinds of injustice, has also led to an increasing prevalence of half-truths of many kinds. Hence the other, the uninspiring side of the liberal coin, evident -- and not only in the United States -- in the decline of Liberal parties, particularly in much of Europe. Evidence of injustice may still animate millions of people, perhaps, especially, the young; but the political label of "liberal" has become soiled, outdated, torn at its edges.

That is a pity, I must say, as a historian who has never been a liberal. A pity: because consider only the relationship of the word "liberal" to the word "democrat." Two hundred years ago -- and for a long time thereafter, especially in the English-speaking world -- "liberal" was a term of praise, unquestionably so. It not only suggested but meant generosity nay, magnanimity; not only breadth of a mind but strength of soul; a reference to someone "free from narrow prejudice," and "worthy of a free man," according to the Oxford English Dictionary. One need not only open the dictionary for proof: It is all around, in the immortal prose of a Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Samuel Johnson, or William Thackeray.

When it came to the formation of the democracies of the West, the concepts of liberalism and democracy, while not inseparable, were surely complementary, with the emphasis on the former. Among the founders of the American republic were serious men who were more dubious about democracy than about liberty. They certainly did not believe in -- indeed, they feared -- populism; populism that, unlike a century ago, has now become (and not only in the United States) the political instrument of "conservatives," of so-called men of the "Right." It is significant that in Europe, too, the appeal of the term "liberal" has declined, while "democratic" is the adopted name of a variety of parties, many of them not only antiliberal but also extreme right-wing nationalist.

Yes, democracy is the rule of the majority; but there liberalism must enter. Majority rule must be tempered by the rights of minorities and of individual men and women; but when that temperance is weak, or unenforced, or unpopular, then democracy is nothing else than populism. More precisely: Then it is nationalist populism. It may be that the degeneration of liberal democracy to populism will be the fundamental problem of the future. True, many liberals have contributed to the inflation -- the degeneration -- of the original meaning of "liberal." But the acceptance of the word "liberal" as a connotation of something damnable, unhealthy, and odious is to be deplored.

Liberalism in its noblest, and also in its most essential, sense has always meant (and, to be fair, here and there it still means) an exaltation, a defense of the fundamental value and category of human dignity. But much of scientism and technology (yes, including the orthodoxy of Darwinism and the absolute belief in progress) declares that there was, there is, and there remains no fundamental difference between human beings and all other living beings. But if that is so, what happens to the emphasis on human dignity? Either human beings are unique or they are not. Either thesis may be credible, but not both. That is not just a question for religion.

John Lukacs is a professor emeritus of history. His newest book, Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred, will be published by Yale University Press in February.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://chronicle.com
Section: The Chronicle Review
Volume 51, Issue 16, Page B9


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2004 by The Chronicle of Higher Education

[weezer6]

Originally posted by foolsgold


Damn me for forgetting those pesky sarc tags. :(

It was written with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. I did write that in response to the baffling belief that anyone who voted for Bush (I voted Kerry, btw) is a simpleton. It really was that kind of arrogance which I believe played a huge role in Kerry's defeat.

When you want to defeat your opponent, always assume that they are faster, stronger, have better abilities and are more intelligent. Otherwise, you end up writing bitter and whiny posts on a rock n roll website.

that's a pretty good one.

[GQuagmire]

Originally posted by tobedawg


*YAWN*

Here you go again..

Comparing criticism to racism.. You Republicans are such victims huh?..

I don't even know why I even bother reading your posts..

Back on Ignore.. (and no it has nothing to do with your views, it has to do with your arrogance)

:rolleyes:


How in the world is it arrogance for asking someone not to pre-judge you? That makes absolutely no sense! I am NOT saying I am a victim, stop making stuff up if you want to have an honest debate. The comparison to racism is fair. I'm not calling you a racist, sir or ma'am. Racists judge a person by their race alone, lumping everyone together (i.e. you are ____ because you are black). You are doing the same thing, but with political affiliation. Not rocket science.

I am simply saying you cannot make a blanket statements about an entire group of people and... 1) believe they are true without question...2) not expect people to get upset at you labeling them. I think anyone on either side of the debate would have to agree with that.

If you want to put me on ignore for disagreeing with you, I guess that says a lot. But to do it because I am "arrogant" - I don't get that at all.

Can someone PLEASE tell me how I am arrogant for asking a person to stop pre-judging me on how I feel towards others without knowing anything about me other than who I voted for? I'm seriously not getting it. This is a sincere request. I certainly don't want to come across that way. I'm just trying to get people to be a little more fair to others and a little less quick to judge someone.

[weezer6]

Originally posted by GQuagmire

I'm just trying to get people to be a little more fair to others and a little less quick to judge someone.

shit, man! good luck. i can't remember who you said you voted for, but if it was bush, you're part of the doomsday plan, and deserve to be ridiculed. you ruined the majority of the woxy boarders lives. get used to it. and you're a stupid, dumb, gay hating, church freak, gun toting, anti-abortion, pro-war, and whatever else can be thrown in, piece of shit. once again, you deserve it. you got about 4 more years of this shit to deal with, at least.

[markalot]

Originally posted by weezer6


shit, man! good luck. i can't remember who you said you voted for, but if it was bush, you're part of the doomsday plan, and deserve to be ridiculed. you ruined the majority of the woxy boarders lives. get used to it. and you're a stupid, dumb, gay hating, church freak, gun toting, anti-abortion, pro-war, and whatever else can be thrown in, piece of shit. once again, you deserve it. you got about 4 more years of this shit to deal with, at least.

Come on, are you really comfortable with that?

[weezer6]

Originally posted by markalot


Come on, are you really comfortable with that?

it doesn't bother me much, it's actually humerous to listen to. this is the only place i really hear all the name calling and broad generalizations. i work in miami county, and it was a republican stronghold, for the most part. and in my home neighborhood, most of the folks i talk to realize you sound like a total dumbass when you lump 51% of the voters into one group and broadly call them all a whole list of unsavory names. so i just don't hear it much except here, and of course, on the tv.

and i'm not saying i mind it, or that it should stop. i was just trying to hip gquagmire to the fact that it isn't going to stop. he would probably like it to, but it isn't, in my opinion. it's actually extremely funny shit, and i hope there is a way for some of the folks on here to reread this crap in about 15 years, you know, if the world actually still exists. doom, doom, doom.

[tobedawg]

Can someone PLEASE tell me how I am arrogant for asking a person to stop pre-judging me on how I feel towards others without knowing anything about me other than who I voted for? I'm seriously not getting it. This is a sincere request. I certainly don't want to come across that way. I'm just trying to get people to be a little more fair to others and a little less quick to judge someone.

*sigh* gotta love the self-victimization.. It seems that we are going round and round and round repeating our points over and over and over and over again.. SO.. Let's try to find some common ground..

Anyway, Okay.. I'll ask you a question..

Can you tell me WHY you voted for George W Bush? What was it? Was it his leadership?, was it his fiscal conservatism and the great way that he kept the deficit down?,Was it how the security he has provided in this country? Was it his foreign policy?, Was it his love for the Constitution?, Was it his Human Rights policy?, Was it his enviornmental policy?, Maybe you are in the upper income tax brackets and love the tax cuts?.. Is it that you are a religious fundamenalist and disagree with abortion and gay marriage? Is it that he is just a likeable down-to-earth President that was marketed really well?

I'm trying to understand you better.. Maybe we can have a rational discussion one day..

You are welcome to ask me some questions if you feel inclined to..

[ahart2001]

Hey GQuagmire,

Just take it from me, there is no use discussing/arguing with tobedawg. He has already tried pullin the same crap with me, and I realized its useless. Its like trying to have a discussion with inalex. Tobedawg is the liberal equivalent of Inalex. I'm not going to resort to namecalling, but you gan probably figure out what I think of tobedawg but the reference to inalex.

You can change policy, but you can;t change attitudes until people are willing to change it themselves.

[Cobalt]

Then we should not refer to Tobedawg as a liberal because there is a lack of tolerance for others beliefs. I wouldn't refer to ianalex as a true conservative or traditionalist either.

Conservative- (in the context of politics)tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these.


I

[ianalex10]

Originally posted by weezer6
it's actually extremely funny shit, and i hope there is a way for some of the folks on here to reread this crap in about 15 years, you know, if the world actually still exists. doom, doom, doom.


In 15 years the history books will be calling Bush the greatest President in the last 50 years!!

[Jake_Barnes]

Originally posted by ianalex10



In 15 years the history books will be calling Bush the greatest President in the last 50 years!!

Why?

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by Jake_Barnes
Why? If u'r the last man standin, u get to write the books.

So aftr instigatin worldwide destruction of history, literature, & such, he will b abl to rewrite history in his own image. Kind'v like Stalin did...

[onest2.0]

Originally posted by ianalex10



In 15 years the history books will be calling Bush the greatest President in the last 50 years!!

So you think that Bush is better than Reagan?

[Johnnylama]

Originally posted by ianalex10



In 15 years the history books will be calling Bush the greatest President in the last 50 years!!

Almost got me there! I hit "reply" thinking an actual human wrote those words, then I read the poster name. No real person could ever put those words in the same sentence.

[bluewilco]

Originally posted by yoshomon
Clinton gave us NAFTA, welfare reform, constant war against Iraq, war in Kosovo, a bunch of anti-lgbtq legislation, and that's just scratching the surface. Why do so-called progressives support the democratic party?

And then this election so-called progressives bent over backwards supporting John Kerry, a candidate that didn't give a shit about progressive politics.

Maybe progressives should be called what they really are... spineless liberals.

Exactly. I think that if you were one of the many that wanted Bush out so badly, you would have come up with a better candidate to endorse than Kerry.

Ianalex it bothers me that, being a conservative as definied by Dubbya, you are putting more a rift between conservatives, democrats and independents (AKA whatever you define your political stance as) rather than uniting us. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting what Bush has been saying--it's easy to misunderstand when the man can barely speak english.

[GQuagmire]

Originally posted by tobedawg


*sigh* gotta love the self-victimization.. It seems that we are going round and round and round repeating our points over and over and over and over again.. SO.. Let's try to find some common ground..

Anyway, Okay.. I'll ask you a question..

Can you tell me WHY you voted for George W Bush? What was it? Was it his leadership?, was it his fiscal conservatism and the great way that he kept the deficit down?,Was it how the security he has provided in this country? Was it his foreign policy?, Was it his love for the Constitution?, Was it his Human Rights policy?, Was it his enviornmental policy?, Maybe you are in the upper income tax brackets and love the tax cuts?.. Is it that you are a religious fundamenalist and disagree with abortion and gay marriage? Is it that he is just a likeable down-to-earth President that was marketed really well?

I'm trying to understand you better.. Maybe we can have a rational discussion one day..

You are welcome to ask me some questions if you feel inclined to..

Why you keep accusing me of self-victimization is beyond me! Talk about going in circles. Sheesh. So if someone accuses me of something I am not (by pre-judging me), I can't express that I don't enjoy that? Please! I'm NOT A VICTIM, I just don't like someone assuming they know how I feel about something without asking me or without knowing. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't feel sorry for myself.

Why did I vote for Bush?

- I am pro-life (I think abortion is wrong, even if you don't believe in God).
- I believe marriage is meant for a man and a woman. Here's a shocker - I don't hate gays! The boy scouts are for boys, the girl scouts for girls and marriage is for a man and woman. No hatred involved.
- My financial quality of life (job stability, economic situation, tax relief) is better over the last four years than it has been before.
- I support being aggressive and fighting terrorists where they hide, rather than fighting battles on our soil.
- I realize that what we thought we might find in Iraq (WMD's) turned out not to be. Bad intelligence. I also believe the world is better off without Saddam in power and now that we are there we have to clean up the mess we made.
- I believe Bush is a much more confident, decisive leader than Kerry would have been. This much is true I think regardless of whether or not you agree with his decision making.

These are not the only reasons I voted for him, but hopefully this gives you the answer for which you are looking. Let it be known that I am not a "religious person". I attend church maybe 5-10 times a year. I rarely, if ever, discuss my religious beliefs with others outside of these boards (i.e. I am not out preaching to people). I have no 700 club bumperstickers on my car (only a woxy.com one!).

I am proud of my "old fashioned values" and I don't like the fact that every day it seems as though something else that was not socially accepted before (whether it be a bare ass on network tv or graphic violence in a video game) becomes so commonplace that no one bats an eye.

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by ianalex10



In 15 years the history books will be calling Bush the greatest President in the last 50 years!!

And please remember that it took death before Reagan got THAT kind of sugar coating.

[tobedawg]

Just take it from me, there is no use discussing/arguing with tobedawg. He has already tried pullin the same crap with me, and I realized its useless. Its like trying to have a discussion with inalex. Tobedawg is the liberal equivalent of Inalex. I'm not going to resort to namecalling, but you gan probably figure out what I think of tobedawg but the reference to inalex.

The IanAlex comparrison, I gotta love it!! Why?? Because I disagree that many of the "Moral Values" voters were true christians..

There are MANY conservative posters on here that I respect (though I disagree with) such as BigSug (he's the daddy of Conservative posters), Markalot (who is more moderate/libretarian) as is Slow Dog...

You seem to be overbrainwashed in your pigheaded religious zealotry to even understand any point that I am trying to make or even explaining your views..

You and G Quagmire DON'T explain your views but would rather just go into immediate "Attack Mode".. "That was hateful.. wha wha wha.. "..

I will now say this about GQuagmire though.. Thank you for posting (below AHart's post) and laying your views and beliefs out on the table..

Then we should not refer to Tobedawg as a liberal because there is a lack of tolerance for others beliefs. I wouldn't refer to ianalex as a true conservative or traditionalist either

Why? Because I don't believe in calling people that take away rights from other people CHRISTIANS!! I have tolerance for many conservatives and have some conservative friends.. I even believe in some of the principles like personal and fiscal responsibility.. However, I am not a fan of religious fundamentalism and zealotry...

Maybe we should be more tolerant of Osama Bin Laden if this is where you are coming from?

[GQuagmire]

Originally posted by tobedawg


I will now say this about GQuagmire though.. Thank you for posting (below AHart's post) and laying your views and beliefs out on the table..



Thanks. I appreciate that. I really didn't go into attack mode (or at least mean to), I just get tired of people making untrue and blind assumptions of me based solely on my political affiliation. I viewed it as defending myself, not attacking...but I hear your point.

It's as simple as this really... not all Democrats have the same character and not all Republicans have the same character. There are good and bad eggs on both sides...on every side.

[Cobalt]

Let me back up a minute...

This was not meant to be an attack. My point was that if you go by the actual definition of"liberal" no one really is truly liberal! You got thrown in front of the bus Tobedawg-sorry. I did not intend to paint you as Master of Intolerance, far from it. It was my perception that we were speaking in absolutes and I ran with it...

Color me derailed. I've lost track of what the real argument was.

I guess I need to ask if we are talking about religion or prejudgment based on stereotype???