Why are Neo-Cons sooo puzzled by Bush-Haters?Follow

Garrr! Don't even get me started on that one. I'd also personally like to strangle each and every one of "the truth" kids (how misappropriately named is that anyway?).


Here's one that killed me. They used to have a stretch of frontage road along the 5 that was really convenient because it ran from near where I work right to near where I live, which could allow me to avoid the freeway during really nasty rush hour (there's a kinda bottleneck right between where I work and live). They were doing some construction on the freeway, and did an impact study since the Torry Pines wetlands are right there. Everything was cool. The plan was to close off the road and detour to aother road a bit inland while doing the construction, then re-open the road after it was done.

Well. They closed the road and did the freeway work. Then... Ooops! Apparently, some wildlife from the wetlands had kinda moved into the area where the closed road was. Wasn't there before, but it's there now (duh. What did they think was going to happen when you close off a road for a couple years?). Had to do a whole new freaking impact study on the "new" effect of opening the road since there was now a habitat there.

Stupid road is *still* not open. Sigh...

Thank you for helping prove my second point, pickleprince.

You said you were constantly fighting between your various selves, so why is it so hard to comprehend the idea that limits to what you can/should do is subjective to others? Also, what you seem to leave out is the evident truth that Democrats bring more legislation to the floor RESTRICTING various things than Independents, Republicans and Libertarians. But I suppose that doesn't concern you. If you are talking about Drug legislation, I am with you. But you have to realize that Democrats are equally responsible as the Republicans for your denial of the right to substance abuse. It is about absolute power for both major parties.



Well for your future reference "political" hate speech occurs when someone demeans, defames, or libels someone with whom they disagree for partisan favor. I also am amused by your sudden "respectfully disagree" when you are called on it.


Yes, I am self-important, but not as much so as a Hedonist.



No, I have one self and one mind sir. I often stumble upon internal contradictions. Fortunately for me, I take each circumstance on it's own merits and come to conclusions. Fact always trumps theory. You simply tow a party line. Call me when your mind is out of the clouds.



So now it is considered semantics to hold someone accountable for their irresponsible inflammatory rhetoric?




That, sir, was not a double-entendre. "Double-entendre: A word or phrase having a double meaning, especially when the second meaning is risqué." Perhaps what you said was risque, but urbane is an antonym of urban. Sorry.


This last quote is especially bothersome.


This is a precise example of the elitism you accuse the Bush administration and all traditionalists of. So do you consider all new posters a fraud? Or just the ones that disagree with you?

Another classic example of demeaning someone with whom you disagree. As well as a good example of liberal mob mentality.

Nope. But most people *today* and in this context will equate "Liberal" with "Democrat", especially a month before the US presidential election. I was merely pointing out that the two are not the same.

Um. As I stated earlier then. You point becomes irrelevant. By definition a Liberal is one who seeks change, so saying something like: "All good changes came from Liberals" is totally circular.

Um. Using that same definition, all *bad* changes are Liberal as well. So, the german "final solution" was a Liberal action. After all, it meets all the criteria: It's "new", it was a change in policy, it sought to solve a problem, it came about via a popular movement in which the people were motivated more by slogans and rhetoric then logic and thought.

Not all things Liberal are good. If you are confining your definition of Liberal to "good changes", then you are being incredibly naive (and just stacking the definition to be even more pointless).

I would tend to agree that most Liberal causes have a goal of doing something "good", but that does not guarantee that the result is good.



Odd. You're the one who simplified things to "Liberal==Good" and "Conservative==Evil". But go on and explain how the world isn't all black and white please. I'm listening...



I use it that way because that's largely how it's used in context today. Um... And we can't vote "liberal" on a ballot. At some point, you have to specify your political views. I was mostly responding to Pickle's post, so I aimed things his way. Sustitute Democrate for the liberal party of your choice if that makes you feel more comfortable.




Yes. Which explains nicely why a lot of Joe Schmoos's don't understand. In exactly the way you didn't understand it. So, you're saying that being a Liberal means ignorantly following the largest crowd you see? Got it...




No. Change means just that. To "change" something. To make it different then it was before. This would assume that one has first determined that the way something is now is wrong or not ideal, and that one has come up with a "better" way to do it, and therefore wants to implement a change for the better. My problem isn't with change. It's with the fact that most change that is demanded by the Left is done without thought for whether that change will really make things better or not.




Which is really amusing. First because you go out of your way to accuse me of equating Liberal with Democrat but you feel completely free to equate Conservative with Republican. Pot... Kettle... Secondly because to my way of thinking it's the exact other way around. I see most people mindlessly following a Liberal cause simply because someone said a few magic words and put a protest sign in their hands.

That's not to say that conservatives don't have their mindless people too. The Religious Right is a great example. But that's not all conservatives. Just at a guess I'd still say that the total number of conservatives who chose a particular way on an issue because of "knee jerk" reasons ("God says this is wrong!"), is less then the number of liberals who do the same ("Meat is Murder!").

Edited, Wed Oct 6 19:07:36 2004 by gbaji

It is futile to discuss matters of importance with people who do no believe in truth.

I don't know about that.

I'm having a discussion with a Sock Puppet.

To an open mind, everything is a learning experience.

lib·er·al    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.

3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
a. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.


Gee, i dont see genocide there. Actually you oversimplifed the term by your quote that i posted above my quote. Funny you missed that. You sure make a great Republican. If you dont know how the world works, im not going to tell you. I'll leave that to the religious fundamentalists. Personally, i figure everyone learns on their own, but you are Republican and like to be told. That is sad.. If you want to know what liberal means, look above. Its funny how you use liberal as a 'contemporary' term, but not big government and how it equates to joe-shmoes. And btw, im not left or right. Left wants more government and the right are just wrong. Oh and you first equated Liberal with Dems and Conservatives with Repub. I said that they both are the same and that great social change came from Liberals. You sure are funny. Most ppl actually go conservative, but you like to sound like a wounded puppy. It is a known fact ppl like to fit in, aka status quo. So, by that FACT ppl are more prone to be conservative. It is also a known FACT ppl fear change. But facts never mean anything to someone like you. Conservative, republican, ignorant. Thanks for playing.

For anyone who is interested, I work on the UK National Care Records System, and I can tell you exactly how it works.

It is absolutely not, and never will be, the case that any doctor and nurse can access all patient records. Each patient record is "owned" by the patient's doctor, who can allow access to certain parts of the record to specific specialists at specific times (i.e. when the patient is referred to the specialist). After the case/episode is closed, that specialist will no longer have access to that patient's record.

In addition, a patient can elect to keep any portion of their record kept in a "Sealed Envelope", which can only be opened if the patient's life is at risk and they are unable to give consent. Opening a patients sealed envelope triggers an enquiry where the doctor must justify why they opened it. In addition, it is only senior doctors who have the security access that allows the opening of the "Sealed Envelope".

Obviously people who work in emergency rooms have more ability to view patient records without the authority of a patients doctor. The moral of the story is - Do not ***** around with an emergency room doctor or nurse, because they can find out about your STD history.

P.S. Despite the obvious Big Brother fears I think that such a system is a good thing. As it happens, it tends to be less intelligent and poorly informed people that criticise the scheme for Big Brother reasons. There is actually a more serious and intelligent objection to the NCRS. I will leave it for someone to try and work out what it is ;)

I realize expecting more than the typical response from someone as obviously intellectually deficient is expecting too much, but, just once do you think you could actually post something other than "Did someone strike a nerve?"?

I understand that an unwillingness to accept change is the sign of a small mind, and that conservatives, by defination, are unwilling to accept change. However, if you could just break from the mold for 1 post a year, I'd certainly appreciate it.



Unfortunately, I can understand why someone would vote Republican. What I don't understand is why anyone not a CEO of a multi-national corporation would vote Republican. It's not about taxes, it's about the catering to corporate America and the fucking of the proletariat (sp?). Seriously, look at Republican fiscal policy and tell me it's not inherantly ******** over 95% of this country. We're heading back to the days of Marie Antoinette... I guess most of us just get to eat cake.

Finally, Elsahn, in the three or four posts I've bothered to read, I have yet to see you "own" anyone. Unless, repeating the same statements over and over counts. It's not very humorous even... it hasn't worked for Letterman for 10 years, and I don't foresee it working for you anytime soon. I guess you can keep trying and failing... just like Bush.

Grady

I'm not sure if your complaining about the "need" for an impact study, or that they failed to forsee the wildlife moving into the area (a big "duh" in my book, too), but either way... you failed to mention how the conservatives would do it, which seems to imply that you believe that they just could've done it better. Period.

Seems kind of an odd stance considering your impressive speech just a few posts earlier...

You know, it's kind of funny how many fringe types gather under the political umbrellas.

The Dems tend to get the homosexuals, the radical environmentalists, the athiests, the stoners, and the communists.

The Pubs tend to get the gun nuts, the corporate tax-dodgers, the Christian Fundamentalists, the tobacco coalition types and the Law & Order people.


While both parties obviously spend some time catering to these fringes in order to demonstrate that they (and only they) take the cause seriously, I find it sad that these fringes are imposing themselves more and more upon mainstream citizens.

Why can't anyone just be normal anymore? I wouldn't mind it if we could ship all the extremists off somewhere for a bit so they could settle their differences without us. Things would be a lot nicer around this country.

I laughed. :)