What About Liberals?
“The trouble with our liberal friends
is not that they’re ignorant:
It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
- Ronald Reagan
Laugh at Liberals
a site for people in their right mind
advertisement
“The trouble with our liberal friends
is not that they’re ignorant:
It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
- Ronald Reagan
Anonymous Says: October 18th, 2004 at 5:27 pm
a liberal criticizes what he understands the least.
Anonymous Says: October 18th, 2004 at 5:28 pm
that was funny. what is a conservative? a liberal who made it through adolescence
Serbian National Says: October 18th, 2004 at 6:57 pm
The trouble with liberals is that they don’t know so much, but the think they do.
maritnjb Says: October 19th, 2004 at 2:52 pm
liberalism is easy to understand, because its an easy choice that is followed on blind faith…you feel better about yourself and accomplish nothing.
JD Says: October 19th, 2004 at 3:22 pm
Liberalism is a feel good, brain dead exercise in futility. It has been proven wrong so many times it is hard to believe anyone could endorse it. Which is why you begin to question the motivation of the people who promote it.
JD Says: October 19th, 2004 at 3:30 pm
Conservatism, on the other hand, is rooted in critical thinking. It is where you end up after you have gone through the trouble to look at things in a rational, unemotional manner. It doesn’t lend itself to meaningless slogans that fit on T-shirts like “Save the Planet” or “Feed the Children”. It endorses only those ideas that work and rejects those that don’t. And it does not suffer fools well.
Maverick Says: October 22nd, 2004 at 2:40 pm
Amen JD!
Anonymous Says: October 25th, 2004 at 4:04 am
if it isn’t broken, give it to a liberal to fix
brooks Says: October 28th, 2004 at 1:42 am
What’s a camel? A horse put together by a liberal
Jonathan Ferguson Says: October 31st, 2004 at 8:03 pm
The US wasn’t broken until George Bush and the fascist elephants fixed it.
Me Says: November 1st, 2004 at 6:16 pm
TO FERGUSON:
Ferguson you are hopelessly brain washed by the socialists. YOU are the problem with America, their are 2 many idiots in this great country like you, that actually think Communism will work. Worked for Russia didnt it? Oh wait… crap I forgot it didnt… Think realistically, Ferguson communism would only work in a perfect world, and thanks to little lemmings like yourself this world is far from perfect. So screw your head on straight and look around and realize everything isnt just like they teach in College everything is not as predictable as you think. The disease the liberals suffer from: Dillusions of Grandeur. They think they along with a large amount of money can fix everything. NEWS to the liberals life dosent go that way. YOur not as awesome as you would like to think youe are, and everybody really dosent like you.
SO Mr. Ferguson i suggest you take a deep breath accept the truth and try and educate yourself not Indocternate yourself.
Your Fellow American,
ME
Incredulous Says: November 19th, 2004 at 8:08 pm
To ME:
You need to find a new insult to level at us damn college-graduating “indocternated” libruls. Dragging out the laughably ignorant “you communist” line — especially when the person you’re trying to insult hasn’t actually said anything about communism or socialism — is really, REALLY unimpressive. (By the way, you should probably go talk to a poli-sci or sociology professor at your local community college, and find out if they’re really teaching their students that communism works.)
Serb National Says: November 22nd, 2004 at 3:00 am
I have a friend who believes that Communism works and that Russia was better off under Stalin.
Me is right on at least one account – colleges tend to be liberal. Everyone (except my friend) knows that Communism does work, but liberals are trying to take steps towards a socialism, which would go against the Laisse-Faire idealogy that this country was founded on and has prospered so well under.
liberal-dem Says: January 1st, 2005 at 10:37 pm
What I find hilarious about conservatives who claim that liberals are communists or socialists is that they don’t see the irony. A large part of the aforementioned political ideals is the suppression of dissenting viewpoints. So here’s a good question: Who’s the commie? The liberal who decides to speak his/her mind (a right protected by the first amendment) or the conservative who believes that anybody who disagrees with him/her is un-american.
Elise Says: January 1st, 2005 at 11:45 pm
Neither, liberal-dem. Not all democrats are liberals. And not all conservatives believe that anyone who disagrees with them is un-american. Not all republicans are conservative and not all conservatives are Republicans.
Sean Says: January 2nd, 2005 at 9:08 am
You have it wrong liberal-dem. We do not believe that people who voice their own opinions are un-american. Quite the contrary. That’s why we even allow you liberal wacko’s to post sh#t on our site. As G.W. Bush said in his response to the viscious verbal attack on him by the Dixie Chicks, and I quote “I think that freedom is beautiful, and it’s great to live in a country where you can express you opinions and not worry whether or not you’ll be killed. In fact that’s why we are fighting in Iraq, so that the Iraqi people will have the same right.”
So now to just speak for myself for a minute. I don’t have a problem with people who have an opposing view point, in fact I enjoy debating with people who have opposing viewpoints and I’m one of the most conservative people you’ll ever talk to. I do think; however, that people who support and preach Socialism, Communism, and Terrorism are Un-American. Wrap your mind around that.
P.S.: Now that your thoroughly confused I’ll unequivocate. The act of disagreeing is not Un-American. The act of promoting Communism, Socialism, and Terrorism is Un-American.
liberal-dem Says: January 2nd, 2005 at 9:18 am
Exactly. I know not all conservatives believe the other side is un-american. However that viewpoint is present in society. I wont pretend that my side has never stooped to that level. But when the president of the United States bashes the state of Massachusetts at political rallies, then you know that bigotry has seeped into the mainstream. After all he’s the president of the UNITED States of America, not the RED States of America.
liberal-dem Says: January 2nd, 2005 at 6:40 pm
First off, my post #17 was replying to Elise. Just want to make that clear.
Now Sean I’d appreciate it if you told me exactly who is promoting socialism, communism, and terrorism in the United States. And explain why the people you named are socialists, communists, or terrorists.
Elise Says: January 2nd, 2005 at 10:34 pm
And liberal-dem, I would like for you to tell me when Pres. Bush bashed the state of Massachusett. And can you name a state the dems have not trashed? For instance in 2000 there was a lot of trashing of Texas by the Dems. One of their Democratic Reps actually came out asking them to tone it down, because he was from Texas too.
BonnieM Says: January 2nd, 2005 at 10:42 pm
liberal-dem, I never heard our President Bashing Massachusetts. I don’t believe he did. But have heard Dems bashing Texas for the last two campaigns.
liberal-dem Says: January 3rd, 2005 at 1:14 am
During the latter part of the campaign, Bush constantly attacked Kerry because he was a “liberal senator from Massachusetts.” This isn’t an exact quote, but I know that during a rally Bush stated “I wouldn’t expect a liberal senator from Massachusetts to understand people like you.” The insinuation was that people from Massachusetts could not possibly understand the common man.
As for the dems, please post some names. And note that there is a difference between a comedian making fun of a state and the president insulting a state.
BonnieM Says: January 3rd, 2005 at 2:09 pm
No, the attack – If you want to call it that remembering the unkind things and personal things said against Bush- was against his opponenent. He only stated where that Liberal opponent was from. If the shoe fits – wear it! I don’t have the Dems names because I fugured that was politics and know that it happens every presidential election. It happened with Bill Clinton and Arkansas. That offended me and then I realized – It is Politics!It happened with Bush 41. Now I don’t remember it happening with Reagan, but I don’t think I was paying much attention then.
Brad Harless Says: January 3rd, 2005 at 6:56 pm
Its just sad that a president has to resort to name calling to get people on his side, and when he realized that it didnt work he just cheated his way to 4 more years
gonna cry Says: January 3rd, 2005 at 10:08 pm
If the good people of massachusetts keep electing drunken old senators then people will keep making fun of them.
gonna cry Says: January 3rd, 2005 at 10:16 pm
Oh i forgot to call you dems all losers
and harless (MOORE) go make a move.
liberal-dem Says: January 4th, 2005 at 3:42 am
BonnieM, if Bush was only attacking Kerry then why did he mention the state? He did not blatantly say that Massachusetts was out of touch with the common man, he merely insinuated it. Now lets pretend for a second that he did not intend to insult Massachusetts. He only wanted to insult Kerry for being a liberal. Are you saying that it is acceptable for the president to insult liberals for their beliefs? Please read my original post to view my opinion on people like that.
Now I’d appreciate it if you gave some examples of the dems attacking Bush and his home state. Again, I’m hoping you cite politicians (particularly notable ones) and not comedians. After all it’s a comedians job to make fun of people (yes, on both sides).
Gonna Cry, when you learn how to debate like a civilized human being then you may enter this conversation. Third graders call their opponents losers, intelligent adults do not. I think it’d be best if you learned that.
Geaorge Smith Says: March 24th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
ok here is an answer if Bush was insulting Kerry for being liberal why should it matter does he not have a right to his own oppinion? or is it only ok if Kerry bashes Bush. To your other point maybe Kerry does not bash Bushes home state but but he sure bashes Bush and the press is bashing his home state. Also i would not have voted for kerry because he flops around in his answers, he is a liar (vietnam and his service and attrocities), he supports gays and by the way are you gay because you sure like Kerry a lot. Also I would not and could not vote for kerry because i am under-aged.I am only 14.
-George
Anonymous Says: March 25th, 2005 at 3:53 am
liberals are idiots
Dave Says: March 30th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
I know I am coming in late with this, but damn this kinda crap makes me angry!! BRAD!!!(post #23)…Bush didn’t cheat his way into anything!! The political system in this country (ie. the Electoral College system) worked exactly the way it was meant to, and states that voted for Bush in the popular vote were given electoral votes for that, and those that carried Kerry in the popular vote were given those votes in the electoral college!! Thats the way the system works Brad. Apparently it was good enough for you guys when Clinton won it that way, but now that you have lost 2x in a row it is cheating!! Get over yourselves. YOU LOST!!
Bonniem Says: March 31st, 2005 at 2:10 am
Ok== I missed comment #26. Guess I overlooked that way back when. Ok Liberal dem, as I said you don’t have to remember all the names to know it happened, but Congressman Frost from Texas, who is a Democrat asked his fellow democrats to lay off Texas, because that is where he is from and there are good people there. Did you read my earlier comment that people attacked Arkansas when Clinton was running, as tho it was part of the dark ages? I resented that —- but—it is politics. If you can’t take the heat get out! That goes for politicians of all parties. I have a feeling I have been around a while longer than you have and I assure you, both parties do it in the heat of a political battle.
Bonniem Says: March 31st, 2005 at 2:12 am
And Mr. Ferguson, you are about as realistic as The Daily Show!
notafan Says: April 7th, 2005 at 2:08 am
now republicans have to resort to bribing doctors with bullcrap fake awards like congressional physician of the year. but the doctors can only get the prize if they make a campaign contribution. republicans are cheaters and are running our country into the ground.
Bonniem Says: April 7th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Notafan, You are showing your ignorance!
Julian Says: April 8th, 2005 at 4:46 am
Bonniem, you do know what notafan was referencing don’t you? the “Physician of the Year” awards that physician donors to the republican party received (a plaque and picture taken with a senator or congressman). But it cost the docs a couple of thousand $s and several thousand physicians were named “Doctor of the Year”. Shamefully, some of them use the purchased title in their advertisements.
Bonniem Says: April 8th, 2005 at 5:37 pm
Yes, Julian, and since the Democrats never sold a stay over in the white house, or pictures at fund raisers, etc. we can really come down on the Republicans. Julian, when you criticize what one party is doing, you can bet your sweet ___, that the other party has also done it. And , It is just as Paul (I think it was Paul) said – we need to put our efforts in lobbying both parties, to stop the politics and do the work we elected them to do.
Bonniem Says: April 8th, 2005 at 11:32 pm
In regard to comment #35 Correction: Dave, not Paul said that.
liz Says: May 17th, 2005 at 1:18 am
Liberals simply do not care about the spiritual welfare of this country. They say…Well America is not a christian nation, why should we follow those beliefs?…well in case any of you liberals out there missed History class at some point in time, this nation was founded upon the Holy Bible, the ten commandments and a man’s freedom of choice on HOW he wanted to worship God, not WHO he wanted to worship as God. and gay marriage…well that is a sin, and any well brain washed liberal might say…well so is cheating and lying and stealing and we all do that so whats the difference?…well there IS NO DIFFERENCE! thats the whole point! and we put people in PRISON for cheating and lying and stealing! so liberals, argue about your “plans” till your blue in the face…it doesnt make you right…but its handy for us, who cant look smarter compared to a group of overly sensitive, blithering idiots! GO BUSH!
Mr. Jack Says: May 17th, 2005 at 8:17 pm
Liz, our country was not faunded based on the bible otherwise we’d all be puritian, I think you need a history lesson so allow me to educate you.
1. most of the faunding fathers were not christian, they belived in a god as an energy scorce, but not the christian god.
2. The Bible says, “Hate The SIN not the sinner”
3. Gay marrage goes agiansed the constitution, which if you actaualy payed attention in history clearly states that all men are created equil.
4. Gay marriage is very different than lying and stealing, because gay marrage doesn’t HURT ANY ONE!!!! it only affects other gays, what threat does it pose to the hetero sexual world? NONE!
5. 90% of the nation is moderate centrists, so the possibilities of all those challanging you being liberal, EXTRAMLY small
and agian, if I were you liz, I’d shut my mouth, sit down, READ the constitution, and reflect on the tre meaning of SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!
The right one Says: May 17th, 2005 at 10:51 pm
Gay marriage doesnt affect anyone? It affects society as a whole. Not all of us want to have our children grow up in a world where homosexuals are considered normal. They are not born that way they are made that way, either through traumatic events or some other kind of perverse activity. It’s sad we cannot dislike anyone anymore. I still do not respect homosexuals. It is a sickness, liberals seem to think just because they think it’s acceptable let’s expose the whole nation to this crap. it is so refreshing to not have a liberal in office, not that im a huge bush fan, but thank god kerry didnt get it. We’d have gay marriages on tv with jesse jackson being the preacher.
Mr. Jack Says: May 17th, 2005 at 11:23 pm
“Not all of us want to have our children grow up in a world where homosexuals are considered normal.”
funny, thats the same excuse used to keep african americans segragated.
and, yes, i do belive they are born that way, more and more data shows that homosexuality is a genetic function, seeing as homosexuality is present in the animal world, like dogs, and cats, who are uncapable of making an informed decision.
and if the only reason you don’t like Kerry is because of his views on Gay marriage, than thank god you’re not runing this nation otherwise we’d be in global anarchy.
Zach Says: June 19th, 2005 at 6:42 am
Mr.Jack…um…Where did you go to colloege….cuz I think that I want to go there if it’s like Boston College…..
Mr. Jack Says: June 19th, 2005 at 5:37 pm
Im still in college, currently at westpoint Military Acadamy.
hobo Says: June 28th, 2005 at 5:21 am
You all talk about gays as if you had never met one. Don’t you people know anyone who’s gay? Did you notice that they are nice, usually really fun people and they don’t have horns either. If you’re straight, they respect that. Why don’t you just let them live their lives in peace. If they want to get married, what’s that to you? It’s a healthy thing that they are trying to do, create life long relationships. They should have the same rights as anyone else.
I like gays better than I like self righteous, hateful, bigots. You don’t want your kids to think it’s normal to be gay. You want them to think it’s normal to hate those who are different than you. That’s sick.
Antilla The Hun Says: June 28th, 2005 at 6:46 am
actually Hobo, one of my old friends from highschool was gay.
Antilla The Hun Says: June 28th, 2005 at 6:55 am
Hobo, you’re completely right. Teaching kids to hate Homosexuals is teaching them the kind of hate that keeps the American Nazi Party and the KKK going, even though these groups are relatively insignificant, they do pose a threat if economy and society suffer.
Andrew Says: June 28th, 2005 at 8:35 pm
I don’t want my children to grow up in a country with racists, neo-cons, and country music, yet I believe in their rights to marry. Besides all the gays I’ve met are far nicer (and many times more intelligent) than the Republicans I’ve met.
I say we make a compromise. No gay marriages and no Republican marriages.
Deal?
ed Says: July 5th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
I just got my cat neutered and now hes a liberal..
joy Says: July 6th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
I have homosexuals in my family and my children neither disrespect nor hate them. It’s not an issue.
Having said that, I see no point in legalizing ‘gay’ marriage. Those who want to have a lifelong committment can do so without a legal ceremony. Remaining faithful to a partner does not require a legal ceremony, but self-control. If they’re not going to remain faithful-and the same is true of heterosexuals-why marry? It seems to be a moot point.
bonniem Says: July 6th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
That is funny, Ed.
Antilla The Hun Says: July 9th, 2005 at 2:09 am
Joy, if what you say is true then why not outlaw heterosexual marriage as well? It’s just as useless as homosexual marriage.
The fact that YOU see no point in it makes no difference in the matter.
If THEY want to get married, if that’s what makes THEM happy, then why not let them? It makes little difference in society as a whole, accept to neo-religious, racist pigs.
joy Says: July 11th, 2005 at 9:16 pm
Wow, Antilla;
“Neo-religious, racist pigs”?
Did someone run out of their favorite beverage today?
When you’re a little more rational, I’ll discuss real points with you. Name-calling is not conducive to logical conversation. I may surprise you and have some valid points.
And…maybe you could ask my family if I’m “neo-religious” “racist” or a “pig”. Their view may be a bit more accurate than yours…and favorable, in spite of the fact that I’m considered conservative and they’re liberal.
Antilla Says: July 12th, 2005 at 5:48 am
Joy, In comment 50 I refer to people who hang out infront of churches where homosexuals who die from hate crimes with signs that say “God Hates Fags” and stuff like that, not you. By Neo-religious I mean taking certian messages of the bibal and taking them way out of context and ignoring other parts, for example, the bible says homosexuality is a sin, so people hate homosexuals, and ignore the part that says “love the sinner, hate the Sin”
and racist pigs, I just have personal isuues with some people in the American Nazi party.
joy Says: July 12th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
Antilla,
I find it interesting that the same people who say things like ‘God hates fags’ don’t bother to look and see that the Bible also says to have NO malice
(hmmm…is that where Abraham Lincoln got it?)
and “love your enemies”…as well as Jesus saying “Where are your accusers?….Neither do I condemn you, Go and sin no more”.
Hypocrites usually pick and choose what they believe, as the whole truth is too painful for them.
Hypocrisy holds to pet sin(s) while condeming others for theirs.
Again I quote Emerson; “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons”
Personally, I like the line from The Godfather III ; “Never hate your enemies – it affects your judgement.” (though, of course, their method was completely unacceptable).
Now regarding your last comments on homosexual marriage -
One of your comments was “…if that’s what makes THEM happy…”, which, as you know, is no reason to legalize something.
For one thing, ‘happiness’ is transient and therefore making laws to make or keep groups happy results in a nation of spoiled brats; not even considering the ‘hate’ groups we DON’T want ‘happy’.
Also, the “pursuit of happiness”, is not the ATTAINMENT of happiness.
Regarding heterosexual marriage -
Uncommitted relationships are always a farce, whether ‘legalized’ or not. That is not a valid reason to make heterosexual marriage illegal.
Heterosexual marriage is a basic building block in civilization because of a very basic fact of nature. Reproduction.
Of course, there has been ILLEGITIMATE reproduction almost since the beginning of time; and homosexuality almost as long – neither of which are good reasons to legalize them.
The ‘legality’ of heterosexual marriage was made for protection of the women and child(ren) involved, even in cultures where plural marriage was practiced, to ensure their needs (not wants necessarily) were provided for. That is the very basic reason for the legality of heterosexual marriage.
In a nutshell-
There is no need in civilization to make heterosexual marriage illegal, nor homosexual union/marriage legal.
Antilla The Hun Says: July 13th, 2005 at 3:22 am
Yes, but shouldn’t homosexuals be able to get married if they so choose, to show their love for one another the same way heterosexual couples do? To enjoy the same rights such as being able to see their spouse in a hospital when visiting is restricted to married couples and family? There are many other instances where legal homosexual marriage comes in handy for the partners, but I will not name them now. There is a point to it.
Anna Says: July 13th, 2005 at 4:26 am
I don’t see why anything should be made illegal that does not violate another person’s rights. Whose rights are violated when homosexuals decide to be joined in marriage?
joy Says: July 13th, 2005 at 6:30 pm
Again, homosexuals do not need a legal ceremony to show their love for each other, they only need a committed relationship. If they want some sort of ceremony to remember, they can make their own, invite friends, take pictures and celebrate their commitment; none of which require a legal ceremony.
Mr. Jack Says: July 16th, 2005 at 8:45 am
It’s not the ceremony part joy, it’s the rights that come with marriage, such as hospital visitation etc…
Circe Says: July 17th, 2005 at 1:10 am
They just need to be legally married to visit their loved ones when one is in critical care in the hospital, to health insurance for a life partner, and to enjoy many other legal rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples. They aren’t asking for anything special – just to be treated as equals and as humans beings.
Circe Says: July 17th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Matt Cooper’s story in today’s on-line edition of Time (paid access only) is interesting. Here is the part that interested me the most: “Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the “agency” on “WMD”? Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don’t know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me. At this point, I’m as curious as anyone else to see what Patrick Fitzgerald has.”
Anna Says: July 17th, 2005 at 10:14 pm
I bet that a careful look at Elliot Abrams in the CIA leak case is warranted. Elliot Abrams has already pled guilty to one felony and gotten off (via presidential pardon) and then got a high level appointment in W’s administration. I am sure that Bush will pardon anyone in his administration who is convicted of a felony while acting on his behalf – it’s the Bush way; loyalty to administration insiders over truth and justice. By the way, George H. Bush agreed with Joe Wilson’s conclusions on Niger and said so publicly. Wilson was a Bush 1 appointee and strongly supported Bush. Wilson in not a partisan, just a man outraged by Bush 2′s lies regarding WMD evidence (or the lack thereof). The fact that the RNC smear jerks are launching personal attacks against Wilson, a person that Bush 1 considered a true patriot and hero, is absolute proof of how pathetic and scared the RNC is right now. Injured cornered animals can be dangerous.
Lefty Says: July 18th, 2005 at 2:16 am
Circe,
Regarding comment 59. Notice that Rove said “things would be declassified soon.” So Rove did know that the information that he was conveying was indeed classified. That looks pretty bad for Rove. Also, the fact that Scooter Libby is in on this will make even more of a mess for the administration. It would also seem that at least one other high level administration official is in on the story and perhaps many more were in on the cover up. It is all very Shakespearean isn’t it? Oh what a tangled web we weave ……
Circe Says: July 20th, 2005 at 2:11 am
If the Bush administration had not been determined to mislead the american public about the need to go to war Karl Rove would not be up to his nose in trouble right now. They brought this all on themselves. The democrats have nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. As for the Truman quote, it is hard to imagine how anyone could be more different from Harry Truman than Karl Rove is.
Anna Says: July 20th, 2005 at 2:16 am
Just saw a great bumper sticker – “It’s the war, stupid!”
MDrudge Says: October 5th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
We all know liberalism always in some way or another fails. Can anyone say COMMUNISM
Jack Antilla Says: October 6th, 2005 at 6:35 am
MDrudge, Communism is not liberalism.
Liberalism is supporting a change in social or government affairs.
Communism is A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
And Communism hasn’t failed, it’s still very much alive in many parts of the world, one of which is soon to overtake us as a world super power.
can you say CHINA?
Liberal Says: October 7th, 2005 at 1:47 am
American “Liberalism is supporting a change in social or government affairs” as long as it creates bigger government, more spending for social issues, redistribution of wealth, a dependency on government, emphasis of group rights over individual rights, etc.
A change in government affairs enacting communism would be liberalism.
Jack Antilla Says: October 7th, 2005 at 2:59 am
Liberalism also supports strong civil rights, as well as individual rights, as for your statments about bigger government and government dependancy, I think you’re reading too much into right wing propaganda because what you describe above is George W. Bush.
accept to the fact that George W. Looks to individual rights over Civic virtue.
too much emphasis on either one is bad, there must be a balance maintained.
Liberal Says: October 7th, 2005 at 3:49 am
Actually, I’m not speaking from having read right wing propaganda. I’m speaking from having experienced the effects of Liberalism and long before President George W. Bush.
Lefty Says: October 7th, 2005 at 11:58 am
Actually Lib, it sounds like you are criticizing Bush – he has grown the federal government and budget more than any president in history (even domestic spending). He has grown the dept and deficit. He (with the help of the republican congress) has taken away more individual liberties. But, in your favor, he has grown poverty faster than any other president too (1 million new people living below poverty line each year since he became president). You have an impossible case to defend my friend, if you defend Bush. You may enjoy today’s column at juancole.com.
Joy Says: October 7th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
Jack,
I guess communism’s supposed success in China would depend on your definition of success. A government that does not allow even the most basic of human rights can not be considered a success, military power notwithstanding. One of the main faults in communism – wherever it is practiced – is that basic human rights are denied and government heads are simply thinly-veiled tyrants.
Jack Antilla Says: October 8th, 2005 at 2:56 am
Joy, Success in this instance is the fact that the Communist Regime has survived. While, yes it has forced its consent upon it’s governed, they still have consent, and therefore it is a successful government.
Whether or not it’s a good government is a different story.
McSpankerton Says: February 18th, 2006 at 8:59 am
JACK,
In response to comment 38, which you wrote nine months ago:
Your first point is absolutely wrong. Dr. M.E. Bradford did a series of biographical sketches for the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. On the list ONLY two (questionably three) deists were present. (A Deist believes God made the universe to His speculations, then left it and hasn’t/doesn’t get involved with man or Earth.) The rest include: 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, and 2 Roman Catcholics. Liz was right-they believed in the Christian God, and an extremely slim minority (at the most, 5.5 percent-Hugh Williamson is questionable whether he was Presbyterian or Deist) believed otherwise.
Also, in his ORIGINAL farewell address, Washington mentioned God FOUR times, but those parts were taken out in the 1950′s due to separation of church and state.
For Washington being a Christian and openly speaking of the Divine in public would hopefully be normal for years to come. One last thing-read this quote from section 27 of his farewell address:
“Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness…”
Did George Washington and the other founding fathers believe in the separation of church and state-DEFINITELY NOT!
Jack Antilla Says: February 18th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Spankerton, you are a nieve fool.
The founders had religion, but they clearly did not belive in a state founded church like the church of england, etc…
You want to know why? (I love educating people on this subject)
First off read the establishment clause in Amendment 1 of the U.S constitution,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Oh but I suppose all the founding fathers were really apposed to this and it was liberal commies who made them put that in there right?
ok, now on to WHY they didn’t want a State Established church.
Reason 1:
In the 1600s and 1700s, many Europeans immigrated to what would later become the United States. For some this was driven by the desire to worship freely in their own fashion. These included a large number of nonconformists such as the Puritans and the Pilgrims as well as English Catholics. However, with some exceptions, such as Roger Williams of Rhode Island or the Roman Catholic Lord Baltimore in Maryland, most of these groups did not believe in religious toleration. The Founding Fathers knew that a state established church would rip their country appart.
Still think they didn’t believe in seperation of church and state?
nutslikebush Says: February 18th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
McSpank. Don’t like separation of Church and State? Try living in Iran then. But why base your life on weird superstitions that originated with primative shepards and other folks that thought that god wanted them to sacrifice animals to him? Why not face reality instead and build a good moral life with the stuff that is real? Religion is no help in matters of morality.
Jack Antilla Says: February 20th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Actually lefty I highly disagree with you an the issue of religion.
I have observed that religion is a very useful tool in helping people go through life. Something as simple as a prayer when a loved one is sick in a hospital goes along way in lifting a persons spirits.
I myself am a converted Buddhist, and It’s guiding principle of meditation has helped me many times in the past regain my calm and center my mind
As well, most religions have a strong moral code, and motivate people to a sort of richesness through a fear of Retribution. as you said, religion is no help in matters of morality, this is where I feel you are most wrong, the real world as you call it is at times extremely Amoral, and always will be in a capitalistic society.
While religion is a good and healthy thing to have, I stand firm in my belief that it is a private matter, and has absolutely no place in government.
nutslikebush Says: February 21st, 2006 at 4:54 am
Jack,
Buddhism is different. It is rational (at least as espoused by the Dali Lama) and I am sympathetic to Buddhism, except where superstition overshadows the actual teachings of the Buddha. Attachment, as Buddha taught, really is the cause of all suffering. But even though religion, superstious religion, is used as a crutch by many people, I think that it is a crutch that they don’t actually need. In fact, as conservatives like to say about welfare, religion just makes them weak and dependent – dependent on something that doesn’t even actually exist. In that sense, it is worse than the opiate of the people. If you actually read the bible and think about it while you are reading it, it will strike you as the work of inferior, primative minds. Real morality and compassion can completely be supported on a rational basis. I don’t believe that there is a freakish god out there who will punish me (or loves me either, for that matter). Yet I believe that peace, love, and compassion are the most important attributes a person can possess. I believe that I should treat EVERY other person exactly as I wish to be treated (btw, if I were an embryo in a frozen vat of liquid nitrogen and scheduled to be destroyed, I would want to be used for stem cell research). I believe that many of the problems that we face are human-made and have human solutions. Some problems we face, natural disasters, diseases, and the like, are tragic but no god made them happen – they are part of the human condition. I don’t believe that collecting things or money can make me happy. I get no thrill from and have no interest in having power over other people. I do believe that the quality of our lives depends on understand nature and nature’s laws and finding ways to live in a manner that is in harmony with nature. I practice a form of religion, Unitarian Universalism. But I was raised as a Southern Baptist and almost became a minister. I now see that cult that began brain washing me as a child as a serious pathology. I will defend with my life, however, the rights of others to practice the religions of their choice and to practice free speech. We live on this earth for a short while and then we are gone, completely gone. We return to nothingness – precisely where we were (or weren’t) for the eternity that passed before we lived on this earth. No virgins await us, just as no golden streets or singing choir of angles await us. Attachment to these illusions motive war and terrorism. War is a game for fools who do not understand that life is here and now and that’s all.
Jack Antilla Says: February 22nd, 2006 at 6:05 am
many of the problems you site are problems of organized religion which I agree is a disgrace to humanity as it forces others to strip themselves of religious individuality, and conform to a single unified set of ideals. It’s overly nationalistic, and is very dangerous when it’s leaders become, for a lack of a better word, insaine. This leads to holy wars and inquisitions.
Individual religion however gives people somthing to hold on to in times of crisis. the belief in a god, wether it be real or not, gives people hope, and somthing as simple as a prayer can be enough to help them through very difficult times. It’s really quite remarkable how it works, I’ve seen it get many friends through the battle zones of Afganistan when I was there, (for a while we were in close contact with Marines and Army Infintry to gain intell)
It really does work. wether it be real or not doesn’t matter at that point, so long as it isn’t under the influence of organized religion, which in my oppinion is one of the greatest evils.
McSpankerton Says: February 22nd, 2006 at 7:09 am
Guys,
The founding fathers wanted for the American citizens to have freedom to practice whichever denomonation they chose. I NEVER said that they wanted a uniform religion. I just said that there would be freedom to worship God as they pleased. Do your homework and look up the constitutions of the thirteen original colonies, and you’ll see that prayer and Bible reading were originally included in public schools, so separation of church and state was not intended by the Founding Fathers whatsoever.
Also, Nuts, look at the percentage of different kinds of protestants, catholics, atheists, agnostics, plus others that live in the U.S….Now look at the dominating 90% of Shiites in Iran!!! That’s one dominating religion that controls the nation. In the U.S. the protestants have a big voice but so do other groups!!!
Jack Antilla Says: February 22nd, 2006 at 11:48 pm
McSpankerton,
Bible study was in PRE CONSTITUTIONAL public schools.
You’re right the Founders wanted everyone to practice freely, but they didn’t want government supporting single religions.
You are obviously of christian denomination, so I’ll use you as an example, what If I and several other Buddists were elected to congress and said, “ok, I’ll let you practice what you want, but in public school you have to meditate for an hour every day and read scriptures from buddah and so on and so forth, and I also said that I’m going to give the buddist temples a 500 million dollar block grant.
you’d hotly protest this action, the same goes for any other religion, the founders wanted you to worship as you want, but they didn’t want government supporting any religion.
get a history book, I reccomend the American padgent, its one used in colleges and AP level highschools, very insigtfull, also, look into a program called “WE THE PEOPLE” it’s a highschool level competition that deals with many of these issues, several essay’s have been published from this program regarding this mater.
nutslikebush Says: February 23rd, 2006 at 12:40 pm
McSpank,
Do you believe the prophecies of other religions? for example, in Iraq and Iran the Shiites believe that Mahdi is going to return to Iraq and bring the wrath of god down on Islam’s enemies. The shrine that was destroyed two days ago in Iraq was a shrine to Mahdi. That’s why the Iraqi civil war is moving to the next level (the real war is on now, according to the Shia).
Mahdi was the 12th and final of the Shiite imams. Legend has it that he was “occulted” (i.e., ascended to heaven while still alive) by God before his death, and will return to earth to bring an era of justice and peace, followed by the end of the world. Sadr’s militia is named for this imam.
Sadr and his followers are convinced that the time for the Mahdi’s return is close. He disappeared into a supernatural realm from there … so this will be interpreted as an attack on the imam al-Mahdi, an attack on their guy; so for the Sadr people it’s an apocalyptic moment.
There are thousands of such stories scattered throughout the world’s religions. All of them have followers, which is right? I suspect that you reject all religions but one and believe that only one of the thousands of world religions is the true one (ironically, the one thing all religious people share in common is the belief that they worship the true god).
Again, Jefferson and Adams could never be president in modern america because they didn’t have the “right” religious views. (see above).
McSpankerton Says: February 24th, 2006 at 7:30 am
the shiites prophecies are false; islam is false; 400 years before islam was conceived, Jesus prophesied of false christs, false apostles, and anti-christs; in the book of Genesis, Jacob and his brother Esau parted ways and their descendants became enemies; (Jacob-Israel and Esau-many middle easterns)
“a wild man, his hand will be against every man and every man’s hand against him, and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” (Gen 16:12)
The Bible speaks of radical islamic insurgents forging violence constantly.
Nuts, you really don’t get it. Religion is irrelevant. Acknowledging the Creator and the Truth is relevant though. The planet we live on is very priviledged and can support complex carbon life-forms. The odds that we are here according to evolution are VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY slim. Intelligent design has been considered by more and more scientists.
Once the seven-year tribulation begins, you’re not gauranteed to live another second-Christ is waiting with open arms.
nutslikebush Says: February 25th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
McSpank, I would wager that you understand neither “intelligent design” (which has not been supported by a single solitary article published in any peer-reviewed journal – so it has absolutely no acceptance in the scientific community – saying someone, somewhere, somehow made the universe doesn’t constitute a model or a theory! Show me the components of the theory, what it predicts, what evidence could be used to test it, and actual data – then you will have the elements of science. The IDers want a free pass without earning any credibility in the scientific community. ID is just a rehash of Paley’s nonsense. Darwin’s work was a direct rebuttal of Paley’s Divine Watchmaker notion. Now Natural Selection, stands as the most well supported (by fact) theory in all of science.
nutslikebush Says: February 25th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
US District Judge John E. Jones III
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
McSpankerton Says: February 26th, 2006 at 12:35 am
ID is not something one can test. I’m not sure if it’s really considered a science or just heavy evidence. One strong argument is irreducible complexity.
Irreducible complexety refers to a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.
Of course, evolution thrives on massive changes in species, which implies massive internal changes. Micro-evolution, where species adapt to the conditions in which they live to survive, makes sense; but macro-evolution, which asserts that species can change into entirely different species. And don’t give me that crap about apes’ or dogs’ dna being remarkably similar. If we are related to the apes then show me the in-between stages-how come they don’t exist? Where are the homo-erectus species? Why are there so many wholes in the fossil record? Why haven’t we found other complex life forms yet? And if they do exist, how come they haven’t paid us a visit? Natural selection, to some extent, makes sense, but evolution does not.
Chris Says: February 26th, 2006 at 6:36 am
Hey Nuts,
Cite all the “intellectual” essays, experts, and scientists you like, and it will still only leave Evolution as a theory, hence “the Theory of Evolution”. It is understood that intelligent design is also a theory and is not included in scientific journals because it does not fall under such a subject heading. I find it laughable to be arguing over something that is so trivial. We have no way of knowing the truth until we are dead. Moreover, make sure that you don’t make such brash assertions about something you can’t definitively prove…o wait…thats what liberals do.
Cheers.
nutslikebush Says: February 26th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Chris,
the term “theory” is the highest status of any idea in science. In fact, evolution by natural selection is the most well supported theory in any science. Evolution by natural selection is considered a fact by most biologists. A fact is a theory on which there is nearly universal agreement. Your lack of scientific literacy is probably the root of your misunderstanding here. The alternative to evolution isn’t even a theory. ID is far from reaching the status of a theory.
nutslikebush Says: February 26th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
McSpank, the problem is that you don’t seem to understand the principles of natural selection. That makes it easy for ID folks to get you to fall for the ID misinformation. The irreducible complexity argument is easy to defeat, as is the micro vs macro-evolution misconception. Those are the well-rehearsed, but very superficial, issues that Dempsky and the other ID folks are preaching and confusing people with. There are a multitude of problems that are obvious with the irreducible complexity arguement. For those who don’t know what it is – Systems are irreducibly complex if removing any one part destroys the system’s function.
Two problems for IC are: 1. Irreducible complexity is claimed to indicate (but does not) that certain systems could not have evolved gradually. However, jumping from there to the conclusion that those systems were designed is an argument from incredulity. There is nothing about irreducibly complex systems that is positive evidence for design.
2. Irreducible complexity actually suggests a lack of design, thus scoring AGAINST ID if you think about it. For critical applications, such as keeping an organism alive, you do not want systems that will fail if any one part fails. You want systems that are robust.
The statement that “Of course, evolution thrives on massive changes in species, which implies massive internal changes” makes no sense. Evolution is very gradual (even puncutated equilibrium (see S.J. Gould) occurs on a scale of millions of years, a blink of the eye in evolutionary time). You have to understand that the earth is billions of years old (or else everything we think we understand about physics is wrong. for example, the light you see from stars in the night sky left those stars millions of years ago. The light we see from the Hubble space telescope is a picture of the universe 13 billion years ago. We look back in time when we look at the stars). As for species gradually evolving into other species, you understand that we did not evolve from apes but that modern apes and humans shared a common ancestor, one that was neither human nor ape, right? The problem for you is that you have to explain away an awesome body of fossil record and genetic evidence that is completely consistent with Darwin’s predictions about the continuity of species and the process of speciation. Good luck with that.
nutslikebush Says: February 26th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Chris,
ALL human knowledge is uncertain. But we must make decision under conditions of uncertainty. Therefore, the rational thing to do is to evaluate the body of evidence and let the evidence guide us – without bias or prejudice. We may not ever be certain of anything, but we shouldn’t abandon our efforts to understand.
Tony22 Says: February 26th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
liberalism is a brain disease
nutslikebush Says: February 26th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
All ideas are brain viruses.
Jack Antilla Says: February 26th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Tony22. shut up. just shut up you’re embarrasing yourself.
first of all you confuse liberalism with leftism.
they are 2 very differant concepts.
and liberalism is an ideology, not a brain disorder, without liberalism, we’d be stuck in an age where murder, theft, and scandal are a part of everyday life.
McSpankerton Says: February 27th, 2006 at 6:30 am
Nuts,
Those are horrible arguments against IC. Also, I never said anything about how old the universe is. It could very well be 4.5 billion years old. Even in Genesis the concept of time is mysterious at one point-before the fall of man, Adam and Eve could have been in the garden for a LONG time, like say, over 4 billion years. (Before they sinned, they were immortal)
and to Jack: Liberalism IS the reason murder, theft, and scandal are a part of everyday life . Why? Because if a patient isn’t happy with his honest, hard-working doctor, then liberals like John Edwards will step in to sue them and jack up health care costs! If a crook breaks into a house and cuts his hand on the broken window, liberals will be on the crook’s side and not the family’s!!! Liberals believe that everyone in poverty is not at fault. They believe that the laziest people who don’t try to even get a real job (your murderers and thieves!) should be paid for sitting there!!! I’m all for helping those in financial need but there should be some standards and perhaps a background check before the liberals dump our tax dollars all over the place! Last time I checked it wasn’t a conservative christian who robbed that Circle K…oh wait it was some atheist with a Kerry bumper sticker.
Also, liberalism promotes MORE, MORE, MORE freedom…that ultimately leads to the decay of morals which leads to MORE rape cases, murders, larceny etc. Morals are more valuable than the leftists portray them to be. Dems are just SICK and CLOSE-MINDED to common sense. Freedom is great but if it’s so free it turns into anarchy, then it’s just chaos and we’ll get more terrorist attacks. Why? Because liberals lack many things; one important facet is DISCIPLINE!!!
Jack Antilla Says: February 28th, 2006 at 3:17 am
That’s not liberalism gahhhhhhhh!
you’re an idiopt, thats the leftism two different ideologies!!!
Liberalism is supporting a change in tradition. Thats all.
If you think about it ghondi was liberal, but so was the Nazi party in it’s early days. it makes no reference to morality.
And religious preference makes no difference in crime, I’ve known ultra religious christians who have OD’d on herroine, methamphetamine, and other harmfull substanances.
I agree the democratic party sucks, it just annoys me that idiots like you and tony keep confusing liberalism with leftism, if you want to debate politics do it right.
nutslikebush Says: February 28th, 2006 at 3:23 am
Hey, if the ID folks want to play on the scientific playing field and be taught in science classrooms, they are going to have to actually produce some science. Explain the ID theory to me and what it predicts and the body of evidence that supports. There is NONE. It is not even a theory!
As for what liberals believe – well I am a liberal and I don’t believe a single thing that you said that liberals believe. So I suspect that you have no idea what liberals actually believe. Your enemy is completely inside of your head, McSpank.
nutslikebush Says: February 28th, 2006 at 4:01 am
McSpank,
You said that “those are horrible arguments against IC.” I’d like to understand the weaknesses of these arguments. Let’s have a serious discussion of irreducible complexity. Here is my logic:
Systems are irreducibly complex if removing any one part destroys the system’s function. (standard definition of the term)
ID folks say that irreducible complexity indicates that certain systems could not have evolved gradually. I don’t understand how they reach this conclusion. But let’s just give that point away and move on. How does the notion that natural selection can’t explain IC provide any support for ID? If natural selection fails as an answer, ID still doesn’t explain anything. So IC is not an argument for ID, it is just an argument against natural selection.
2. Now to the tougher problem. The thrust of point #1 was that many complex organisms are irreducibly complex. If any part fails, the entire system collapses. Now if you were an intelligent designer of a system, why would you design something that would fail if any of its individual parts fail? Wouldn’t you do like intelligent (but not stupid) engineers do and build a robust system that can survive even when components fail? Doesn’t that imply that if organisms were designed that possess the quality of irreducible complexity that the designer was not very intelligent (or at least sucked at engineering)?
here is another issue that troubles me. ID folks claim that life on earth is too complex to explain by a selection process wherein organisms that have adaptive advantages outproduce organisms that are less well adapted to the environment. Complex creature require a complex designer, right? Well certainly the designer (e.g., God) is complex, right? So God must have a designer too, right? Who designed and built God? It seems like if you push this line of thinking a little bit it’s weaknesses are apparent. I look forward to seeing your logic.
McSpankerton Says: February 28th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Your elaboration on your previous argument makes sense. Yeah, I agree-IC refutes natural selection but doesn’t neccessarily back ID.
As far as the components of our cells go and their entire malfunctioning if one part fails, God intended for man to be perfect; but after Adam and Eve sinned it’s possible that everything has functioned on the IC premise since. With sin we are imperfect; thus we have superb engineering, but not PERFECTO!
It says in the Bible that God is supreme and omnipotent, so there’s no way He had a previous designer. We were all created by Him; but if He was created by someone else, then it would just be an infinite chain; and God declares He is the Almighty and that he is the first and the last (Alpha and Omega)
ID isn’t really a science. Maybe it will be someday, but it’s main focus is denouncing evolution. The premise of natural selection is logical, but large scale evolution fails to unearth significant evidence. Also, a little before Darwin’s time people like Leeuwenhoek were making great discoveries with the microscope. But at that time, they did not progress as far as we have today. When it comes to a bio-chemical process such as photo-synthesis, it’s a very intricate process and with rapid mutations, the plant wouldn’t last in the world…
Anyway check out my new post on “stem cells” containing the Messianic prophecies.
Peace
Righty Says: March 19th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Most people that believe in the state funded religion of Evolution believe that the BIG BANG THEORY is what started all of it right….
Well there’s just a little problem with the whole big bang theory becasue of the INVERSE SQUARE LAW OF ATTRACTION. Now everyone, well maybe most everyone knows that the moon causes the tides on earth and that the earth and moon are moving farther and farther apart from eachother. The problem with the whold BIG BANG THEORY is that for billions of years the earth and moon were very close together. Now using REAL SCIENCE such as the INVERSE SQUARE LAW OF ATTRACTION, which means if you half the distance of the moon you quadrupple the attraction to earth. This means that for billions and millions of years the earth would be totally covered in water roughly 9 times a day if the earth was half the distance it is now from the moon. I don’t know about you but I think I could only comfortably drown once!
The Other Side Says: March 20th, 2007 at 1:38 am
wow, you are amazingly wrong with your science. the moon resulted from an asteroid hitting the earth and projecting the crust of the earth into orbit. the rotation of the earth is why the moon is moving out. furthermore, and this is important, when the moon was closer to the earth, the earth didn’t look like it does now. there were no humans or land animals to care where the water went. so what is your point? that the earth was chaotic billions of years ago? stop taking random parts of science and putting them together to prove your point.
John Says: March 21st, 2007 at 2:35 am
This is a dumb ass conversation. it will not go anywhere.