Why do you hate liberals and liberalism so much?

[kirk and Jenny 0]

I have no idea if I am a liberal or a conservative... Who cares anyways??

All I know is I am a human being....

The labels lack clear distinction. So many "liberals" rely on successful business through their investments that they have an economic base much more closely associated with traditional conservatives. (Big Business) Myself, I share the values of "liberals" of the Roosevelt through Kennedy era. This totally alienates me from the "liberal" of today.

For instance, in this economic depressed area, more than a 100,000 acres of forest was lost to bug kill between 1990-2000. That is more acreage lost here than to logging from 1950-2000. This could have been logged in an environmentally safe way by heli-logging. A Roosevelt democrat would have had individuals logging around infected areas, reducing the spread of bug kill. This would have helped the community with good jobs and a tax base for our schools. A Clinton democrat did not allow logging to occur, because we know as a matter of faith, logging is bad.

[KarenCee 3]

I have no idea if I am a liberal or a conservative... Who cares anyways??

All I know is I am a human being....

Now THAT'S the most intelligent thing I've read in this whole thread.

All I know is I am a human being....

Then you're definitely not a liberal.

Hmm....interesting. God made all people...liberal and conservative, yes? So in a way that's a contradiction of terms. Of course, I'm sure you'll find a way to explain that...conservative fundies always have something to "back" up whatever they say.

If conservative fundamentalists really wanted to "convert" or proselytize others to their way of thinking, I can sure tell you that having a judgmental attitude...such as yours is most of the time...isn't the way to "win" anyone over. I mean, isn't that what you fundies want to do...win everyone over?

[incanada1234 0]

Karen, dude, BREATHE. You should have told me I'm not allowed to joke, I wasn't aware.

Edited September 27, 2006 by incanada1234

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Karen, dude, BREATHE. You should have told me I'm not allowed to joke, I wasn't aware.

you need to read the TOS closely then:

Post jokes if incanada1234 or any files that contain viruses, corrupted files, or any other similar software or programs that may damage the operation of another's computer.

[incanada1234 0]

Oh! I apologize then, Karen, you were right! I'll do my best to stop making jokes and using the and smilies.

Can I still use though?

[tmma 467]

I have no idea if I am a liberal or a conservative... Who cares anyways??

All I know is I am a human being....

Now THAT'S the most intelligent thing I've read in this whole thread.

All I know is I am a human being....

Then you're definitely not a liberal.

Hmm....interesting. God made all people...liberal and conservative, yes? So in a way that's a contradiction of terms. Of course, I'm sure you'll find a way to explain that...conservative fundies always have something to "back" up whatever they say.

If conservative fundamentalists really wanted to "convert" or proselytize others to their way of thinking, I can sure tell you that having a judgmental attitude...such as yours is most of the time...isn't the way to "win" anyone over. I mean, isn't that what you fundies want to do...win everyone over?

I have not been following this thread much....but, did a google and look at what "fundies" are!!! I am pretty sure those "have won quite afew people over" through the time

Kidding BTW

[keltic 1]

Because (for Christians) the Bible is black and white.

the Bible on my shelf also has red... for Christ's words

[incanada1234 0]

Because (for Christians) the Bible is black and white.

the Bible on my shelf also has red... for Christ's words

True.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have no idea if I am a liberal or a conservative... Who cares anyways??

All I know is I am a human being....

The labels lack clear distinction. So many "liberals" rely on successful business through their investments that they have an economic base much more closely associated with traditional conservatives. (Big Business) Myself, I share the values of "liberals" of the Roosevelt through Kennedy era. This totally alienates me from the "liberal" of today.

For instance, in this economic depressed area, more than a 100,000 acres of forest was lost to bug kill between 1990-2000. That is more acreage lost here than to logging from 1950-2000. This could have been logged in an environmentally safe way by heli-logging. A Roosevelt democrat would have had individuals logging around infected areas, reducing the spread of bug kill. This would have helped the community with good jobs and a tax base for our schools. A Clinton democrat did not allow logging to occur, because we know as a matter of faith, logging is bad.

Actually, Clinton made many pro-business decisions (NAFTA and the WTO). Even Gore has tried to demonstrate that business and the environment don't have to collide - there are viable solutions and compromises where all sides benefit.

[kirk and Jenny 0]

I have no idea if I am a liberal or a conservative... Who cares anyways??

All I know is I am a human being....

The labels lack clear distinction. So many "liberals" rely on successful business through their investments that they have an economic base much more closely associated with traditional conservatives. (Big Business) Myself, I share the values of "liberals" of the Roosevelt through Kennedy era. This totally alienates me from the "liberal" of today.

For instance, in this economic depressed area, more than a 100,000 acres of forest was lost to bug kill between 1990-2000. That is more acreage lost here than to logging from 1950-2000. This could have been logged in an environmentally safe way by heli-logging. A Roosevelt democrat would have had individuals logging around infected areas, reducing the spread of bug kill. This would have helped the community with good jobs and a tax base for our schools. A Clinton democrat did not allow logging to occur, because we know as a matter of faith, logging is bad.

Actually, Clinton made many pro-business decisions (NAFTA and the WTO). Even Gore has tried to demonstrate that business and the environment don't have to collide - there are viable solutions and compromises where all sides benefit.

I totally agree with you. The Democrats under Clinton became a big business party, however, only when it would help their constituants. Shipping working class jobs overseas to create more jobs for the upper middle class individuals certainly fits within this motiff. However, helping out working class individuals, working labor intensive jobs like logging was the furthest thing from Clinton's mind even though it would have helped the environment. The reason Clinton was elected was because he was essentially a republican, albeit, a pretty amoral one.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have no idea if I am a liberal or a conservative... Who cares anyways??

All I know is I am a human being....

The labels lack clear distinction. So many "liberals" rely on successful business through their investments that they have an economic base much more closely associated with traditional conservatives. (Big Business) Myself, I share the values of "liberals" of the Roosevelt through Kennedy era. This totally alienates me from the "liberal" of today.

For instance, in this economic depressed area, more than a 100,000 acres of forest was lost to bug kill between 1990-2000. That is more acreage lost here than to logging from 1950-2000. This could have been logged in an environmentally safe way by heli-logging. A Roosevelt democrat would have had individuals logging around infected areas, reducing the spread of bug kill. This would have helped the community with good jobs and a tax base for our schools. A Clinton democrat did not allow logging to occur, because we know as a matter of faith, logging is bad.

Actually, Clinton made many pro-business decisions (NAFTA and the WTO). Even Gore has tried to demonstrate that business and the environment don't have to collide - there are viable solutions and compromises where all sides benefit.

I totally agree with you. The Democrats under Clinton became a big business party, however, only when it would help their constituants. Shipping working class jobs overseas to create more jobs for the upper middle class individuals certainly fits within this motiff. However, helping out working class individuals, working labor intensive jobs like logging was the furthest thing from Clinton's mind even though it would have helped the environment. The reason Clinton was elected was because he was essentially a republican, albeit, a pretty amoral one.

I personally thought he did a good job as President even though there are several issues that I opposed. Some looked at him as an opportunist, but I believe it was more about compromise. Gingrich led Republicans were constantly suspect of Clinton's motives, even when he was essentially doing what they wanted...that was some nasty partisanship right there. As for GW Bush, just what compromises has he made with Democrats in Congress? He's certainly not the uniter that he sold himself as.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I have no idea if I am a liberal or a conservative... Who cares anyways??

All I know is I am a human being....

The labels lack clear distinction. So many "liberals" rely on successful business through their investments that they have an economic base much more closely associated with traditional conservatives. (Big Business) Myself, I share the values of "liberals" of the Roosevelt through Kennedy era. This totally alienates me from the "liberal" of today.

For instance, in this economic depressed area, more than a 100,000 acres of forest was lost to bug kill between 1990-2000. That is more acreage lost here than to logging from 1950-2000. This could have been logged in an environmentally safe way by heli-logging. A Roosevelt democrat would have had individuals logging around infected areas, reducing the spread of bug kill. This would have helped the community with good jobs and a tax base for our schools. A Clinton democrat did not allow logging to occur, because we know as a matter of faith, logging is bad.

Actually, Clinton made many pro-business decisions (NAFTA and the WTO). Even Gore has tried to demonstrate that business and the environment don't have to collide - there are viable solutions and compromises where all sides benefit.

I totally agree with you. The Democrats under Clinton became a big business party, however, only when it would help their constituants. Shipping working class jobs overseas to create more jobs for the upper middle class individuals certainly fits within this motiff. However, helping out working class individuals, working labor intensive jobs like logging was the furthest thing from Clinton's mind even though it would have helped the environment. The reason Clinton was elected was because he was essentially a republican, albeit, a pretty amoral one.

That's definitely true.

However, I think that your assumption that the Democrats cater to the middle-class rather than the working-class is only partially right, as they at least garner some union support; in contrast, the Republicans are even less concerned about the working-class and only care about filthy rich people.

[kirk and Jenny 0]

I have no idea if I am a liberal or a conservative... Who cares anyways??

All I know is I am a human being....

The labels lack clear distinction. So many "liberals" rely on successful business through their investments that they have an economic base much more closely associated with traditional conservatives. (Big Business) Myself, I share the values of "liberals" of the Roosevelt through Kennedy era. This totally alienates me from the "liberal" of today.

For instance, in this economic depressed area, more than a 100,000 acres of forest was lost to bug kill between 1990-2000. That is more acreage lost here than to logging from 1950-2000. This could have been logged in an environmentally safe way by heli-logging. A Roosevelt democrat would have had individuals logging around infected areas, reducing the spread of bug kill. This would have helped the community with good jobs and a tax base for our schools. A Clinton democrat did not allow logging to occur, because we know as a matter of faith, logging is bad.

Actually, Clinton made many pro-business decisions (NAFTA and the WTO). Even Gore has tried to demonstrate that business and the environment don't have to collide - there are viable solutions and compromises where all sides benefit.

I totally agree with you. The Democrats under Clinton became a big business party, however, only when it would help their constituants. Shipping working class jobs overseas to create more jobs for the upper middle class individuals certainly fits within this motiff. However, helping out working class individuals, working labor intensive jobs like logging was the furthest thing from Clinton's mind even though it would have helped the environment. The reason Clinton was elected was because he was essentially a republican, albeit, a pretty amoral one.

That's definitely true.

However, I think that your assumption that the Democrats cater to the middle-class rather than the working-class is only partially right, as they at least garner some union support; in contrast, the Republicans are even less concerned about the working-class and only care about filthy rich people.

The union support is dying, and at least the democratic party is getting honest and not supporting a rise in the minimum wage anymore. (Not like Nader who supports a raise to $10 an hour) As for viable compromise, that does not occur. I have seen no compromise. By the way. My father is John Krutilla nominated for the Noble Prize in resource economy based on his pro environment thesis. I am certainly not anti-environment; just anti the religious (liberal) fanatics who destroy the environment in the name of the environment. (P.S. look up "John Krutilla" on the interenet and see what you get). I know you are all well intentioned; I know you all are well conditioned; However, the Democratic party is the party of the emerging new upper middle class. It has no source of social justice, economic justice or any type of justice. That is why George Bush, the most worthless leader in the modern world, was elected twice.

[dalegg 143]

However, the Democratic party is the party of the emerging new upper middle class. It has no source of social justice, economic justice or any type of justice. That is why George Bush, the most worthless leader in the modern world, was elected twice.

Swoosh! Everyone sucks!

[kirk and Jenny 0]

However, the Democratic party is the party of the emerging new upper middle class. It has no source of social justice, economic justice or any type of justice. That is why George Bush, the most worthless leader in the modern world, was elected twice.

Swoosh! Everyone sucks!

This is not happy, this is horrible. Our 2 main parties suck.