|
|
Post by scrap on Sept 12, 2006 14:45:58 GMT -5
Haven't ventured over for awhile so I thought I'd come by today and drop a little humor to see what can be stirred up ;D
How it all began........
Humans existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers.
They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer & would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in winter.
The 2 most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer..
These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into 2 distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early human ancestors were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as "the Conservative movement."
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as 'girliemen.' Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.
Another interesting revolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't "fair" to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, Marines, athletes and generally anyone who works productively.
Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to "govern" the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tame and created a business of trying to get MORE for nothing.
Here ends today's lesson in world history:
It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to respond to the above before simply laughing and forwarding it. A Conservative will be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately.
|
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Sept 13, 2006 12:19:44 GMT -5
Actually the piece is too stupid to reply to but hey I am bored for a minute.
If conservative means anything it means tradition, so to rewrite the story with a bit more plausibility.
The conservative movement did not really begin as any lazy person who stays where they are is by definition a conservative. That is really the end of their progress.
Since then liberals have dragged them kicking and screaming forward. That still goes on today. Consider coming out the cave, or farming, or science, none of these things are conservative because conservative is tradition and that is a stop not a go.
While I think that is obvious, check out this great country, founded on the liberalism of the enlightenment. And then our founding fathers, most were liberals. Or Lincoln, or FDR, or LBJ all moved the conservatives kicking and screaming forward.
The irony is they are still in the cave mentally but hey if there were no conservatives what would FOX news have as an audience. Cavemen are not extinct they are conservatives glued to Hannity's cave talks.
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." John Stuart Mill
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Sept 17, 2006 21:35:47 GMT -5
That's a sloppy definition of conservative.
Conservative and liberal are subjective labels, since one does not register as one or the other. The Republican party is associated with conservatives.
Hmmm... let's see..are conservatives afraid of change?
Who freed the slaves?
Republicans
Who voted in higher % to give women the vote?
Republicans
Who voted in higher % to pass the Civil Rights Act?
Republicans
Who has ideas for the problems with things like education and social security that don't just include more government control and confiscatory taxes?
Republicans
Democrats (liberals) are basically just socialists, and there is nothing new or "progressive" about that.
The Founding Fathers were much more like modern day conservative libertarians. They left almost all the decision making to the local vote as the Constitution states.
FOX is still the top rated cable news network. Keep talking about your fellow countrymen in that tone. I love it. It's why so many the people don't trust the elitist Dimocrats. You think you know what's best for yourself and everyone else, too, don't you!
|
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Sept 19, 2006 13:07:05 GMT -5
Mo, your list was short and inaccurate. Conservatives fought freeing the slaves. Just because Lincoln was a republican doesn't make him a conservative.
And this is America, we talk, we argue, and we are still fellow Americans, using your words. I really think the conservative movement today when it argues it is fighting for America is really fighting for a totalitarian America based only on fear and not the free, brave country we have come to love and cherish. Your tone is similar to the same talk one would expect from Hannity or Cheney.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Sept 19, 2006 14:57:20 GMT -5
Only the posters at rantweb could turn an e-mail joke into a serious discussion on the anomalistic composition of the respective extremes of the political spectrum. BTW, did anyone happen to see Cindy Sheehan on Hardball stating that she’d rather live under Hugo Chavez (as if she didn’t on her vacation in Venezuela*)? Seems those liberals need to read up on the definition on totalitarianism. *That was a joke. No amount of rum could get Hugo drunk enough to tap that shit.youtube.com/watch?v=duVsDPxinoE |
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Sept 20, 2006 14:35:46 GMT -5
Why is Cindy Sheehan a liberal? Is that some sort of guilt by association?
When you have a child, and you hold that new born, and you raise that child, and that child dies in a needless war then you can criticize Ms Sheehan until then STFU.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Sept 20, 2006 17:24:38 GMT -5
Why is Cindy Sheehan a liberal? Is that some sort of guilt by association? When you have a child, and you hold that new born, and you raise that child, and that child dies in a needless war then you can criticize Ms Sheehan until then STFU. STFU? Hmm, that doesn't quite seem in keeping with your "liberal government of individual freedoms". However, I'm white and of the next generation. I don't procreate remember? So, outside of myself, no one related to me is in danger of dying in a needless war. If you care what people whose grandson, nephew and cousin died in a needless war think of Cindy Sheehan's behavior I produce the following: The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect. Sincerely, Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins. Please abstain from installing this civil hierarchy ruled only by those obnoxious, inarticulate lifelong liberals who have lost kids in wars that they volunteered for on missions that they volunteered for. I don't know about you, but I know several people who have lost kids in war and none of them suddenly gave their allegiance to some sophomoric rock head Third World buffoon. The man Cindy would like to live under actually made a potty joke at the UN. But until next time I'll STFU. |
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Sept 20, 2006 19:38:19 GMT -5
They aint his mom so the answer is the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Sept 20, 2006 20:57:25 GMT -5
Are you serious?
Well I shant expect another of your trite commentaries on American conservatism considering your status as a liberal leaves such analysis utterly baseless.
|
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Sept 21, 2006 18:02:10 GMT -5
You don't seem to be following me. Wait until you have your own children. A mother's love for her children is probably the strongest love there is and for the right wing conservatives to constantly call into question her motives and her person is a disgrace.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Sept 21, 2006 22:12:17 GMT -5
Ppppfff! Holding her up as beyond contempt because she has a dead son is despicable! It's an attepmt at silencing dissenting opinion, much like PC language. CINDY SHEEHAN: COMMANDER IN GRIEF by Ann Coulter August 17, 2005 To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn. Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn't have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on "Entertainment Tonight," you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show. We're sorry about Ms. Sheehan's son, but the entire nation was attacked on 9/11. This isn't about her personal loss. America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years, culminating in a devastating attack on U.S. soil on 9/11. It's not going to stop unless we fight back, annihilate Muslim fanatics, destroy their bases, eliminate their sponsors and end all their hope. A lot more mothers will be grieving if our military policy is: No one gets hurt! Fortunately, the Constitution vests authority to make foreign policy with the president of the United States, not with this week's sad story. But liberals think that since they have been able to produce a grieving mother, the commander in chief should step aside and let Cindy Sheehan make foreign policy for the nation. As Maureen Dowd said, it's "inhumane" for Bush not "to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute." I'm not sure what "moral authority" is supposed to mean in that sentence, but if it has anything to do with Cindy Sheehan dictating America's foreign policy, then no, it is not "absolute." It's not even conditional, provisional, fleeting, theoretical or ephemeral. The logical, intellectual and ethical shortcomings of such a statement are staggering. If one dead son means no one can win an argument with you, how about two dead sons? What if the person arguing with you is a mother who also lost a son in Iraq and she's pro-war? Do we decide the winner with a coin toss? Or do we see if there's a woman out there who lost two children in Iraq and see what she thinks about the war? Dowd's "absolute" moral authority column demonstrates, once again, what can happen when liberals start tossing around terms they don't understand like "absolute" and "moral." It seems that the inspiration for Dowd's column was also absolute. On the rocks. Liberals demand that we listen with rapt attention to Sheehan, but she has nothing new to say about the war. At least nothing we haven't heard from Michael Moore since approximately 11 a.m., Sept. 11, 2001. It's a neocon war; we're fighting for Israel; it's a war for oil; Bush lied, kids died; there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Turn on MSNBC's "Hardball" and you can hear it right now. At this point, Cindy Sheehan is like a touring company of Air America radio: Same old script and it's not even the original cast. These arguments didn't persuade Hillary Clinton or John McCain to vote against the war. They didn't persuade Democratic primary voters, who unceremoniously dumped anti-war candidate Howard Dean in favor of John Kerry, who voted for the war before he voted against it. They certainly didn't persuade a majority of American voters who re-upped George Bush's tenure as the nation's commander in chief last November. But now liberals demand that we listen to the same old arguments all over again, not because Sheehan has any new insights, but because she has the ability to repel dissent by citing her grief. On the bright side, Sheehan shows us what Democrats would say if they thought they were immunized from disagreement. Sheehan has called President Bush "that filth-spewer and warmonger." She says "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started" and "the killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years." She calls the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system" and says, "This country is not worth dying for." I have a feeling every time this gal opens her trap, Michael Moore gets a residuals check. Evidently, however, there are some things worth killing for. Sheehan recently said she only seemed calm "because if I started hitting something, I wouldn't stop 'til it was dead." It's a wonder Bush won't meet with her. www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=71 |
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Sept 22, 2006 6:42:02 GMT -5
Reading Ann Coulter is an exercise in new-think. Ann makes it up as she goes along and fudges over truth because her goal is far from from any truth. There are so many misconceptions in that single piece, it should astound anyone who has paid attention. What is Stalinist agitprop? would you know it if you saw it. What does Wellstone's funereal have to do with this? What you get from Ann is a hatred of the basic American value of dissent. Cindy Sheehan has that right as an American, and Ann cannot stop it, thus the overblown exaggeration, strange connections, and bizarre straw man arguments, that is all Ann has. Ann can remain afraid, striking out at all who fail to conform to her narrow minded view of life. In simple terms Iraq did not have WMD, there was no connection between Iraq and al Queda, Iraq was no threat at all to the US, all that has been said too often and by everyone. When the dumb democrats voted to give Bush war powers they did that out of the same fear that drives too many in our country today. It is critical we do not become a nation so afraid we shoot our neighbor as they approach to say hello. Listen to this carefully. www.youtube.com/watch?v=R65hoa8Ccj4&NR |
|
|
|
Post by cobb on Sept 22, 2006 11:42:02 GMT -5
I don't think Coulter is way off the mark. Sheeham is seemingly living large off the death of her son. I think THIS is the reason that she is torn apart by conservative columnists. Most people choose to show DIGNIFIED sadness, and outrage if necessary, upon the death of a loved one. Her actions do little to promote the action she wants, and they really accomplish nothing but serve to energize the leftist wackos and Democratic Party hardcore...and of course, keep her in the news. I hardly agree with Ann on everything. However, she is funny, and sometimes shows just how ridiculous the leftist elite and their puppets sometimes act. Cobb cobbtown.com |
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Sept 22, 2006 15:17:05 GMT -5
Democratic Senator dies > Democrats use memorial services as left-wing political podium.
Casey Sheehan dies in Iraq > Democrat uses his memory as left-wing political podium.
There seems to be a pattern of democratic shamelessness developing.
You seem to very much hate Coulter’s exercise of her own right of dissent.
Unfortunately for her.
Instead of conforming to Cindy Sheehan’s thick-headed view of life?
This lionization of all lefties whose children have been killed in combat (which, to put it bluntly, is very few) is the very sort of behavior liberals condemn/ed whenever veteran’s protect their views on military/foreign policy by donning the “Draft-dodgers have no place in this discussion” cloak. This is a democracy. Cindy Sheehan and the Jersey Girls have a right to spout their views and use their losses for their own personal agendas; however I also have the right to call into question their blatant attempts to pimp the memories of their dead relatives in order to push those agendas. To the great woe of coddled liberals everywhere, this country wasn’t founded as a Nanny-State and shouldn’t be run as one.
I didn’t agree with the Iraq war before we went in, when all those anti-war democrats were voting for it. I made my views clear then and I’ve made my views clear now. However, to act as though the Bush Administration scared everyone into accepting their diabolical plan for world domination is something out of a Pinky and the Brain cartoon. The Bush Administration is not a fascist dictatorship. Their excursion into Iraq is not the work of a modern-day Third Reich bent on dominating the region through force. They haven’t succeeded (despite whatever liberal, pencil-neck, academic dogs tell you) in scaring the entire nation into accepting their policies. Most people I talk to don’t know what color warning we’re on and think the entire system is a joke. People still fly. People still work in office buildings. People still take the subway. To assert that Americans are so susceptible to the trembling, cowering capitulation that the world has known only to come from the left side of this country reveals the true perception of renowned American fortitude that these so-called patriots hold.
At the crux of this entire strategy lie three fundamental points: The neo-con support of the Israeli state and the patently erroneous beliefs that democracy (1) equals peace and (2) is in any way applicable to the Arab Muslim seventh-century savages of the Middle East. To avow anything else is an exercise in conservative-brand conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Sept 22, 2006 16:25:53 GMT -5
I'm starting to be convinced that midcan isn't a real person. He has to be a computer generated caricature of a liberal democrat!
Bash Ann Coulter all you want. Conservatives and Ann Coulter herself have no problem with it. We don't have a problem with trying to silence speech. You do a very good job of illustrating her point that she wrote about in her last book in the chapter that generated the controversy (and the sales).
The pro terrorism crowd has a right to hold up anyone they want as their spokespeople, including windy Cindy. What is despicable and un-American is to try and assert that anyone speaking a political message is beyond reproach.
BTW,welcome to the board cobb.
|
|
