- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 555
- Reaction score
- 104
- Location
- New Jersey, United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The avatar picture is a joke... (if you ever pay attention to my stuff, you will see I have a huge sense of humor)
Actually, what motivates the majority of people is comfort and security. Sad but true, people tend to not to do much else but pay lip service to higher principals. Plus nobody ever agrees on what the higher principals aught to be anyway. I believe this is why all societies inevitable end up taking a middle path between the stronger ideologies inherent within that particular culture.
Society is constantly changing. Both for the better and worse. People can be taught the truth.
heh, yeah, good luck with that.
Thanks! I've already been doing it.
I wasn't born for no reason.
And what reason were you born for?
Society is obviously changing, as ideologies change, and society is always trending towards that ever changing middle.
Then you will not respect me - but that's alright because I stand up for what I believe in and would rather be hated for that than liked for what I'm not. I don't cave in to pressure to "compromise" what I believe in - what is right and wrong. Liberals really do hate freedom and it's obvious from everything. They also want to turn America away from God.
That's one of the biggest lies I have ever heard. The evil one doesn't get to decide anything.
Then it is probably a good thing if you didn't run for political office! Your statements about liberals hating freedom are baseless as you give zero reasons, more like what a teenager does when asked to explain something. it is always EVERYTHING...
I have found most diehard CONs want the freedoms they value but not so much the freedoms others want. They want in regards to the 2nd A but also want to step in between a doctor and his patient when it comes to a woman's right to chose.
Remind me who put us on the NSA into everything path? I didn't realize BushII was a liberal...
Your victimization of God is nothing new in here. Well worn and BS. I'd say the CONs are trying a silly desperate last gasp attempt to put religious symbols in places they never were before. Here in Oklahoma the Speaker wants a chapel built into the state house. Never had one before, can't say we need to spend that sort of money now.
1- No. That would be a horrible thing if I never ran for office. They need more people like me. Plus if you read the beginning of this thread, you would see that I actually was a member of my County's Republican Committee, from 2008 - 2010. I only chose to serve one term then. And I won as a write in candidate since nobody was running.
2- People deserve the right to carry guns. And that is an EXTREMELY offensive lie when liberal's talk about the woman's right to choose - but not the right of the baby's to choose to live. But if you really believe in a woman's right to murder baby's - perhaps you'll believe in a murderer's right to choose - to kill innocent people?
3- Bushes I & II were both very liberal. I don't care what party 'label' they were. Also they were each elected with the help of the Bilderberg Group. Neither respected the Constitution very much, nor could they balance the budget.
4- We need God in America.
But we get to your core belief, you think CONs want a balanced budget, no most want far less social spending and the same or more in the DoD. balancing the budget is a very secondary goal.
1- No. That would be a horrible thing if I never ran for office. They need more people like me. Plus if you read the beginning of this thread, you would see that I actually was a member of my County's Republican Committee, from 2008 - 2010. I only chose to serve one term then. And I won as a write in candidate since nobody was running.
2- People deserve the right to carry guns. And that is an EXTREMELY offensive lie when liberal's talk about the woman's right to choose - but not the right of the baby's to choose to live. But if you really believe in a woman's right to murder baby's - perhaps you'll believe in a murderer's right to choose - to kill innocent people?
3- Bushes I & II were both very liberal. I don't care what party 'label' they were. Also they were each elected with the help of the Bilderberg Group. Neither respected the Constitution very much, nor could they balance the budget.
4- We need God in America.
I'm not convinced that they necessarily want less social spending (even though they use that slogan). I think they want to privatize it and to continue to let government subsidies it. Many Democrats do too. But, to your point, the budget is secondary. Past Republican Presidents have a far worse record balancing the budget than past Democratic Presidents.
If I could refine it a bit more, Republicans are all for milking the government for DoD and 'privatizing' all they can. The CONs are a subset, they are like the OP, a real Scrooge McDuck who's answer for everything that doesn't fit their agenda is 'liberal'. Small in number we have seen their worst and now hopefully the GOP can find a way out of the TP Bog.
I do have an odd feeling that once the basics are privatized the radicals in CONdom will demand an end to subsidies to social programs. How successful they will be is another story.eace
I do have an odd feeling that once the basics are privatized the radicals in CONdom will demand an end to subsidies to social programs. How successful they will be is another story.eace
I want one who can do both and knows when to fight and when to compromise. Just doing one or the other all the time completely fails to represent one's constituents or the American people as a whole.
It's a little confusing, because liberals don't actually care about freedom.
Well, there's an annoying distinction between what Americans think of as 'liberal' and what the rest of the world (plus political science major Americans) think the word means. In America, liberal is (an odd choice of) byword for progressive, which is used somewhat interchangeably. In politics, a liberal is someone who IS concerned with personal, social and economic liberties, and it's not juxtaposed against 'conservative' the way 'progressive' is.
So if you're saying that American liberals, as in progressives, don't actually care about freedom -- that's sort of true. Now, that's an incendiary statement, and it's also false, but you're correct in saying that an inherent part of progressive doctrine isn't necessarily increasing negative freedoms (though I think most would argue quite rightly that progressive do favour positive freedoms, which are in general better for a society anyway).
But you're also just dead wrong if you're using that term in the political terminology sense, where being a 'liberal' is literally all about freedom.
To destroy evil.
Kind of a silly question...and I get where you are trying to go with this obviously loaded question. The reality is that in life it is rarely that simple or cut and dry. For instance, I'm an attorney. I hear it all this time .... "I want someone who is going to fight for me". And I agree that often this is important. But sometimes the most effective thing that an attorney can do for their client is find a way to negotiate and compromise....because sometimes, you can fight as hard as you can and you come up empty handed...and in those cases, I often hear "I should have taken your advice......."Would you rather support a candidate who will really take on their opposition and stand up for the things you believe in?
Or would you rather have someone more diplomatic and working with the other party?
Unsure/Other (Please explain)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?