Haha, Liberals.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SlartyBartFast
Too true. All conservatives don't support everything Bush says anymore than all liberals support all the crap the hard line conservative liberal haters on AO say they do.

Have you listened to the liberal rhetoric lately? Howard Dean's whole campaign, heck the whole primary campaign for everyone (except Ewards) was "Vote for me, i don't eat babies like Bush does".

The left (now, not the moderate left) has gone completely berserk, hence the anyone but Bush mantra. Read their sites. I pop in every once in a while to read things and its nuts. When John Ashcroft went into the hospital every post on Democratic Undergroud was "Good, I hope he dies". The left is polarized against Bush, and frighteningly so.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Chojin Man
Geez lighten up Albino.
My point is that you can't make generlizations about either side liberal or consertative :P I agree that Move.org is a scary place.

I disagree though.

You can make generalizations about a group, you just made the wrong one.

Conservatives by and large do not like those aspects about Bush. We also by and large support the war, support the tax cuts, and support the FMA.

That is a very accurate generalization.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Lohman446
Yeh, and OReilly's public apology on ABC for supporting Bushs claim that there were weapons of mass destruction, and subsequent hounding of that claim? That was support right. After all FOX is soo biased.

I think it was premature for O'Reilly to do that, but he did set an "x" month timetable to recant if no weapons were found.

And fox is biased, just like CNN, MSNBC, the network news, etc.

It's just biased the other way, and that drives liberals insanse.

If you need proof of bias, look at the Kerry flap over his "foreign leaders" statement. The Boston Globe reporter didn't realize at the time it would be bad for Kerry, so once it blew up in his face the reporter CHANGED HIS STORY. And then CNN carried the changed story as if there had never been a change. They run the "new" quote now and never even ackowledge that for a week there was a different quote, one that Kerry NEVER DISPUTED, and he even BACKED UP THE STATEMENT that the reported now claims he never made.

[Rooster]

"MoveOn is no scarier than www.protestwarrior.com"

Protesting the morons protesting is much like slapping someone who slaps thier children. Its a little of "heres how it feels". The idiots at moveon are just a bunch of whiners who know their day is done, and are too stupid to admit it.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Have you listened to the liberal rhetoric lately?

And how is that different from concervative rhetoric?

Anyone who can't see that rhetoric and dogma is crap no matter who is spitting it out has a brain the size of a pea.

Socio-economic theory is not a science. It even began as a branch of philosophy and theology in universities.

Unfortunately, it keeps it quasi-religious fervor to this day.

Personnally I think some of the scarier stuff comes from www.aei.org (which is the group Bush, Cheney, and others belong to or follow).

But the really worhtless dinks on this board are the ones who will insult and lambaste one side, but as soon as someone makes a similar generalisation against their view point they get all worked up about it ...

[-Carnifex-]

People get worked up because you make the WRONG generalization.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
People get worked up because you make the WRONG generalization.

There's no such thing as a RIGHT generalization.

I mean for christ's sake, certain hard-nosed conservatives on AO are so neanderthal and antisocial that they insult and demean anyone who dare to even deviate slightly from their sacred "truths". Regardless of how conservative the views of the dissenter on other issues, the cabal of usual suspects comes in to, and this is the hypocritical/pathetic part, whine about whiners.

I mean this damned thread is started by someone pointing to an article slagging the democratic party. Pathetic little article really. Nothing new or revealing in it.

You could replace every mention of "Democrat" with "Republican" and every politicians name with a candidate from the opposite party and the article would still be absolutely true. Gesturing and scrambling for voters is what politicians are all about.

But then the infantile regular suspects come in and start throwing around the same tired, pathetic insults and generalisations.

The the REALLY funny part comes. The morons that can't grasp that their limited political is incapable of grasping anything more complex than a binary statement about the opposition get their shorts in a twist when someone makes an identical generalisation about them.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by Rooster
The idiots at moveon are just a bunch of whiners who know their day is done, and are too stupid to admit it.

Until North America is run by the equivalent of the Nazi party the people who run sites like MoveOn AND ProtestWarrior can rest assured that their time has NOT come.

People who can't tolerate open discourse with resulting to generalisations and personal put-downs or insults are the stupid ones.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
And fox is biased, just like CNN, MSNBC, the network news, etc.

Any human being that claims to be unbiased is a fool, a liar, or both.

Anybody takes information they read, view, or listen to as the complete story and the absolute truth is a moron.

If you feel that all the information you receive is unbiased, it's because you're not looking very hard or you're limiting your sources to only people you agree with.

The only way to get unbiased coverage of anything is to be there yourself. But as soon as you recount the situation to another, it is automatically tainted by your viewpoint.

That's not to say you can't make an effort, but it's certainly an effort few are willing to make, and fewer succeed to do.

[FactsOfLife]

Right SBF, and the fact that the libs entire way of life, way of thinking, has been REFUTED by history means nothing.

Tell you what, you just stay up there in Socialist land, we'll go on saving civilization as usual.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife
[B]Right SBF, and the fact that the libs entire way of life, way of thinking, has been REFUTED by history means nothing.[B]

WTF ?!?

Refuted how? There's an awful lot of countries with a wide array of socialist policies doing quite well.

Somebody fill your head with air or what?

Define "libs". If you mean the collapse of Russia, well they weren't "libs". They were totalitarian communists.

Fascism didn't fare to well either. Does that mean capitalism and conservatism has been REFUTED?

Your limited capacity for analysis is pitiful.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast


WTF ?!?

Refuted how? There's an awful lot of countries with a wide array of socialist policies doing quite well.

Somebody fill your head with air or what?

Define "libs". If you mean the collapse of Russia, well they weren't "libs". They were totalitarian communists.

Fascism didn't fare to well either. Does that mean capitalism and conservatism has been REFUTED?

Your limited capacity for analysis is pitiful.

If the Socialist way of life is doing quite well, tell then, why is it the EU exists?

You lump Facism and Conservatism together like any lib does. Shows nothing more that you understand neither.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife
If the Socialist way of life is doing quite well, tell then, why is it the EU exists?

You lump Facism and Conservatism together like any lib does. Shows nothing more that you understand neither.

And your addled thinking lumps so much together it's questionable that you understand anything.

The EU is anti-socialist? Well, NAFTA ain't getting rid of Canadian socialist policies so how do you figure the EU is gettting rid of the various socialist policies in Europe?

Don't try to think too hard FOL. You might hurt yourself.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast
And how is that different from concervative rhetoric?

Anyone who can't see that rhetoric and dogma is crap no matter who is spitting it out has a brain the size of a pea.

Socio-economic theory is not a science. It even began as a branch of philosophy and theology in universities.

Unfortunately, it keeps it quasi-religious fervor to this day.

This is intelligent. You know I find it amazing that normally intelligent people can be so blind. Both sides have resorted to 'labeling' the other side. Ah...here is a tag that I can rally my troops around. Jihad...Jihad!!!!

I would submit, however, that one side is in reaction to the other. The 'liberal' side is not this united front that conspiracy theorists enjoy portraying it as. They are disorganized, prone to argue with each other, prone to vehemently disagree with each other over gradients in issues.

Now, however, they find themselves on the defensive. Labeled as 'unamerican, unpatriotic, etc.'. Lets face it. Kerry served in Vietnam. He earned medals in Vietnam. He will be and is labeled, however, as 'unpatriotic, unamerican'. How can this be?

When Bush took office most people were thinking (including myself), "Oh...who really cares. That was why the vote was so close. There is no difference between them anyway (Bush and Gore)."

Now people (normal America) has seen how wrong they were. There was a BIG difference. We started throwing our weight around in a way that pissed off our friends and allies. We expended all the capital of goodwill outpouring to us over 9/11 by being heavy handed and arrogant. Time for him to go.....

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
I would submit, however, that one side is in reaction to the other.

But where it started is lost in the annals of time ...

Like most of such combats, it only gets civilised once both sides decide to ignore past wrongs (real or perceived) and move on with business at hand. Doesn't mean that the the going is then easy, but it can at least be tolerable if not palatable.

Originally posted by aaron_mag
The 'liberal' side is not this united front that conspiracy theorists enjoy portraying it as. They are disorganized, prone to argue with each other, prone to vehemently disagree with each other over gradients in issues.

Replace 'liberal' with any of the following words and the above statement is just as ture:
- conservative
- christian
- jewish
- muslim
- libertarian
- boy scout
- girl guide

- Any other organisation you care to mention ...

Often that's what ticks people off the most when you underline the inconsistencies in their beleifs. You are often holding up a mirror to them and they don't like what they see.