Something is wrong with the way they think.

[Jaime]

Funny how the article doesn't actually call into play the man's politics.

[Winchester]

The communist is right, there is no mention of his political persuasion. He is obviously very American because he is trying to get rich on the efforts of others. The only thing more American than that is killing people over taxes.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Feb 3 2006, 08:14 AM']The communist is right, there is no mention of his political persuasion. He is obviously very American because he is trying to get rich on the efforts of others. The only thing more American than that is killing people over taxes.
[right][snapback]874224[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ok so let's see...

Apparently I'm now a communist.

If an american has liberal views, (s)he abdicates his/her citizenship


BRILLIANT discourse

[Winchester]

I'm sorry, I thought I was being cheeky. Apparently my joke didn't find it's mark. I am dreadfully sorry. I misunderestimated your capacity for laughing at yourself in the context of how others might see you.

I am greatly saddened that my final sentence was overshadowed by my initial outburst.

[Jaime]

No no you silly muslim, I find jokes about calling into question my patriotism to be hysterical.

[Winchester]

There are plenty of patriotic communists.

Hollywood is filled with them.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Feb 3 2006, 07:37 AM']No no you silly muslim, I find jokes about calling into question my patriotism to be hysterical.
[right][snapback]874236[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i thought that communists tended to be patriotic.

Edited February 3, 2006 by Paphnutius

[scardella]

First off... what happened to respect in debate?

Secondly, I agree that potential harm in such a case is quite frivolous. It's like warning against plugging in a toaster and dropping it into the bathtub with yourself. It gets ridiculous after a while. I, for one, would rather see the courts being used for important issues, not money grabs.

On a side note, I know a guy named Jon Kiehl. I'm glad he's not from Louisiana and that his name is spelled differently... or else I'd have to

[Desert Walker]

I think the real problem in the debate over what constitutes "liberal" and "conservative" is that nobody can apparently agree as to what constitutes "liberal" and "conservative" thought and action. Time to shamelessly complicate things a little (for some at least).

When Martin Luther King died the then governor of Georgia, Lester Maddox (such a white, southern, redneck, RACIST name isn't it liberals?), protested the closing of the state capital for King's funeral. Lester Maddox was, among other apparently GOOD things, an ardent supporter of enforced segregation of ethnicities (no I'm not saying segregation is a good thing). Ok here's my point: if everyone in government thought like Lester Maddox government enforced segregation would never have ended, and would still be with us today. Lester Maddox was CONSERVATIVE in that he was unwilling to CHANGE his mind about ethnic segregation. Lester Maddox should have been LIBERAL and CHANGED his mind about ethnic segregation. Why?

Now for something that sounds weird and will probably only be understood by "conservatives." Hopefully not but here it is:

[i]It is sometimes necessary to for a conservative to be liberal in order to support conservative principles.[/i]

Let me explain further. Is it not true that conservatives hold the high opinion that they adhere to the principles of God Himself? That is, of orthodoxy? Yes that is true. Hearkening back to good old Governor Lester now; Lester held the belief that government enforced ethnic segregation was a Godly principle (don't ask me how I know this, I just do). Governor Lester was wrong about this. Government enforced segregation of the races is not a principle contained in orthodoxy; it is not a principle held by God. It is, therefore, a [i]liberal[/i] principle.

My point here is this: true conservatism is equal to true orthodoxy. A man like Lester Maddox is the perfect example of a false (unknowingly so) conservative. Lester Maddox was in fact a LIBERAL because he believed in racial segregation which is not supported by the principles of God (orthodoxy).

Now let me, hopefully, tie this together with this earlier statement:

[i]It is sometimes necessary to for a conservative to be liberal in order to support conservative principles.[/i]

That statement, NOW, should read like this:

[i]It IS necessary for all people to RETURN to true conservatism.[/i]

What is true conservatism? The principles of God. How do we know what those are?

Look to Rome.

[ironmonk]

Well put. It seems that some here focus on the word and not the meaning.

I have addressed my view of the various meanings of both words in various threads/posts... then it seems as if some people forget or did not read what else was posted then they get a skewed view of meaning. Then take what is written out of context...

I prefer the label "Right" other than conservative because I do want to change a lot of things... I will not use radical means (as leftist do)... My views are firstly based on the laws as set forth by God through the Church and secondly the laws of men... I see much need to change many laws and policies of men (which technically is liberal)... but the change is Right, that is based on Church teachings, God's Laws, morals, justice, facts, etc... All "Right" thinking reasons.

Too many people use right/conservative interchangably and technically they have different meanings.

I blame the media for skewing everything... most of the media is about ratings not truth. Fear and hate are "great" tools to manipulate people... just ask Hitler. It would be nice if people used love and facts but they don't get the big ratings.

What sounds more important to see on TV:
"Learn the facts of the plan the right want to do" (Give tax cuts to coroporations that create jobs in America)
OR the edited media spin:
"Learn how the evil right extremists want to take money away from you and put it into the greedy corporations hands"
(and they don't tell you how the right want to give tax cuts to corporations that create jobs, not to corporations that don't)

God Bless,
ironmonk

[homeschoolmom]

Quit with the name calling.
Thank you...

[Sojourner]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 3 2006, 10:46 AM']What sounds more important to see on TV:
"Learn the facts of the plan the right want to do" (Give tax cuts to coroporations that create jobs in America)
OR the edited media spin:
"Learn how the evil right extremists want to take money away from you and put it into the greedy corporations hands"
(and they don't tell you how the right want to give tax cuts to corporations that create jobs, not to corporations that don't)
[right][snapback]874278[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
So you really think that when corporations get tax cuts, they use every penny of that money to create jobs?

Sure that doesn't go into shareholder pockets?

Corporations are only interested in creating jobs to the extent that they get more profit.

They're not looking for tax cuts so they can create jobs. They're looking for tax cuts so they can get more profit into shareholders' pockets.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 3 2006, 11:50 AM']So you really think that when corporations get tax cuts, they use every penny of that money to create jobs?

Sure that doesn't go into shareholder pockets?

Corporations are only interested in creating jobs to the extent that they get more profit.

They're not looking for tax cuts so they can create jobs. They're looking for tax cuts so they can get more profit into shareholders' pockets.
[right][snapback]874336[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It just goes to show that you do not read what is required of corporations to do to get tax cuts like that.

I know what happens, I know what is required, I've been in the business of dealing with thousands of corporations since 1998. I've been reading the plans and listening to both sides of the arguement... and either the dem leaders are totally incompetent at English comprehension or they boldly deceive the people. I don't think they are totally incompetent.

I've seen numerous dem senators lie about the rep plans that would give corporations tax cuts for building new facilities and putting on more employees. The dems deceived the people by saying simply "Republicans want to give tax cuts to corporations!"... they say nothing about how the plan works... they say nothing about for the corps to get the tax cuts they have to expand and create more jobs or they don't get the tax cuts.

You should really listen to both sides before you believe the mud that the dems sling. Partial truths to deceive is the same as lying.

OF COURSE I know there are other reasons for corp tax cuts, and if you actually look at the plans you would learn what the true intent is.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Sojourner]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 3 2006, 12:37 PM']It just goes to show that you do not read what is required of corporations to do to get tax cuts like that.

I know what happens, I know what is required, I've been in the business of dealing with thousands of corporations since 1998. I've been reading the plans and listening to both sides of the arguement... and either the dem leaders are totally incompetent at English comprehension or they boldly deceive the people. I don't think they are totally incompetent.

I've seen numerous dem senators lie about the rep plans that would give corporations tax cuts for building new facilities and putting on more employees. The dems deceived the people by saying simply "Republicans want to give tax cuts to corporations!"... they say nothing about how the plan works... they say nothing about for the corps to get the tax cuts they have to expand and create more jobs or they don't get the tax cuts.

You should really listen to both sides before you believe the mud that the dems sling. Partial truths to deceive is the same as lying.

OF COURSE I know there are other reasons for corp tax cuts, and if you actually look at the plans you would learn what the true intent is.

God Bless,
ironmonk
[right][snapback]874385[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Actually it's BECAUSE I read that I know that corporations often don't hold up their end of the bargain. That's why well-written abatements come with penalties attached -- but those penalties can be difficult to enforce, esp. if companies go bankrupt.

You really should read more before you believe the utopia the Rs paint.

[Winchester]

I know corporations eliminate jobs to raise their stock. I know they increase work hours for other employees to cover the eliminated jobs. I'm familiar with "lateral" promotions which carry more responsibility with the same pay. Thank God I don't work for the bastards.