rebelbuc
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 574
- Reaction score
- 235
- Location
- New Orleans
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Oh, by the way. Harry Reid was as wrong then as Pelosi is now!
You are so naive - sometimes the term traitor applies. So often politicians (D's much more often than R's) perform acts of treason when they think it gives them political capital... more power and/or money! They might not even realize how they are bringing down the country that provides their seat of power and often their wealth. It doesn't matter... their acts are still treasonous!
One example that chaps my hide: How many U. S. soldiers do you think were killed in Iraq due to the very much publicized image of Harry Reid stating something to the effect "We have lost the war in Iraq!" Don't you think that Reid's image on CNN in Iraq demoralized our troops and pumped up the enemy... likely resulting in stronger resistance by an enemy who thinks they are winning or at least have a chance... ultimately resulting in the death of U. S. soldiers. This is an example of a treasonous act by Harry Reid for which he will never be held accountable! That bastard! The Democrat party has many such players... Murtha is another prime example of the traitors with a D beside their name!
Oh, by the way. Harry Reid was as wrong then as Pelosi is now!
Ad-hom.
It hasn't changed. The definition is the same as it has always been. If the liberals of today are not of that definition then they aren't liberals. It's as simple as that.
Nah, I'll stick with the dictionary definition. Thanks, though.
Do you spend a lot of time in the conspiracy theories section?
You can say that your opinion is the truth all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it's only your own opinion.
Like I said, you don't even know me. And yet you still try to tell me who my heroes are. The funny thing is that it just makes you look like a partisan hack and nothing more.
Life is too complex to be defined by stereotypes.
I don't have one.
You stated you were ignorant of a subject.
I merely explained why.
Amazing how fast you can read.
What did Hayek say was the natural consequence of placing the power needed to implement socialist reforms in the hands of government, then?
In other words, you haven't read the book, so your claim that the definition of the word, which you haven't supplied, hasn't changed is clearly a mere restatement of your self-confession of your ignorance, and nothing more.
You mean the defition that's changed over the years but exists as a snapshot in the dictionary you happen to own...but which you won't provide for our review and ridicule?
No, there's more of you people out here.
Yes. Naturally. The fact that it's an opinion automaticly precludes any possibility that it might also be true, since you don't agree with it.
I don't know who your heroes are. I"m listing the usual suspects that liberals of today refuse to mention.
You've never read 1984, either, have you? What about Brave New World?
No, it's not. Lots and lots of people enjoy living like robots.
Most of them voted for Obama.
Their hero.
The Messiah was at some Town Hall Revival 'round about here the other day. Not one person asked The Messiah a question critical of his abysmal performance to date.
Robots.
You didn't vote for Obama?
I agree with the premise, I too don't think standing in the way of an idealogical agenda is treason and the term shouldn't be used as a political tool by either side, all I am getting at is Pelosi's statement is dangerously close in this instance.I'm not a big fan of Pelosi either, I was just illustrating that I think the term far too often gets thrown around and assigned to people just because one doesn't agree with their political views. That's just stupid to me.
If you are going to use lame insults at least own up to them.
I didn't bother to read it because I put far more stock in a dictionary than what an economist/philosopher has to say.
I didn't realize that the definition of liberal as shown in any dictionary was such an obscure object that I had to provide it to you and that you couldn't look it up yourself.
Meaning what exactly? I'm not the one coming up with absurd conspiracy theories about how evil liberals are.
No, I'm saying that your opinion carries as much weight as any opinion does. Just because you think it's true doesn't automatically mean that it is. Keep trying, though.
The usual suspects that are based on stereotypical views that you have about liberals.
I fail to see how voting for Obama means that one holds him as a hero.
The man hasn't even proven himself as to how good of a President he will be.
Yes, he has.
He's not going to be good at all.
In less than sixty days, he's spent two trillion dollars to do nothing.
He's allowed the Russians to massively embarass him.
He's told our Polish allies that our assurances to them don't last longer than the next flush.
He's said the disabled veteran should use private insurance to cover his medical costs...and then he's withdrawn that statement.
He can't talk without a teleprompter.
He thinks the stock market is no more important than daily poll numbers.
He's stated repeatedly that he will not do what's needed to be done to fix the ecomony, ie, cutting taxes and cutting spending.
He can't find cabinet members who've paid their taxes.
etc etc etc.
Of course we know he's going to be a bad president.
He's a Democrat..
I agree with the premise, I too don't think standing in the way of an idealogical agenda is treason and the term shouldn't be used as a political tool by either side, all I am getting at is Pelosi's statement is dangerously close in this instance.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
It's not an insult to point out someone's ignorance of a topic.
If you tried to drag me into a discussion of the relative merits of various power tools and other sex toys, I'd have to claim ignorance of the subject.
In other words, you didn't want to read a book written in 1946 that discussed the contempory usage of the word at that time as compared to both earlier times and today, because, by golly, you know what you know and you're not about let anything like a mere fact change that.
I know how to define liberal: ( * )
How do you define it?
That's not a conspiracy theory, that's a moral assessment of their policies and goals.
Then again, if you think it's wrong, you probably are.
That, and direction empirical evidence.
Why else would someone cast a vote for someone so clearly and completely incorrect?
Yes, he has.
He's not going to be good at all.
In less than sixty days, he's spent two trillion dollars to do nothing.
He's allowed the Russians to massively embarass him.
He's told our Polish allies that our assurances to them don't last longer than the next flush.
He's said the disabled veteran should use private insurance to cover his medical costs...and then he's withdrawn that statement.
He can't talk without a teleprompter.
He thinks the stock market is no more important than daily poll numbers.
He's stated repeatedly that he will not do what's needed to be done to fix the ecomony, ie, cutting taxes and cutting spending.
He can't find cabinet members who've paid their taxes.
etc etc etc.
Of course we know he's going to be a bad president.
He's a Democrat.
It's not an insult to point out someone's ignorance of a topic.
If you tried to drag me into a discussion of the relative merits of various power tools and other sex toys, I'd have to claim ignorance of the subject.
In other words, you didn't want to read a book written in 1946 that discussed the contempory usage of the word at that time as compared to both earlier times and today, because, by golly, you know what you know and you're not about let anything like a mere fact change that.
I know how to define liberal: ( * )
How do you define it?
That's not a conspiracy theory, that's a moral assessment of their policies and goals.
Then again, if you think it's wrong, you probably are.
That, and direction empirical evidence.
Why else would someone cast a vote for someone so clearly and completely incorrect?
Yes, he has.
He's not going to be good at all.
In less than sixty days, he's spent two trillion dollars to do nothing. Much of the money hasn't actually been spent yet, most of it still waiting for programatic disbursement. So saying the expenditures have "done nothing" is fairly misleading on your part.
He's allowed the Russians to massively embarass him. Whether or not he's actually embarrassed is a personal matter. But you go on and read his mind all you want.
He's told our Polish allies that our assurances to them don't last longer than the next flush. That is a load of crap. Substantiate this.
He's said the disabled veteran should use private insurance to cover his medical costs...and then he's withdrawn that statement. As well he should have, it was a terrible idea. It was offered up, loudly rejected, and quietly taken off the table.
He can't talk without a teleprompter. Oh horse****. Please don't be obtuse.
He thinks the stock market is no more important than daily poll numbers. Once again, more unsubstantiated drivel.
He's stated repeatedly that he will not do what's needed to be done to fix the ecomony, ie, cutting taxes and cutting spending. Way to spin the hell out of the idea that you have different thoughts about what is the best economic strategy for this nation right now, but only yours are right. I suppose with this mindset, you probably should be putting words in his mouth and misrepresenting his position.
He can't find cabinet members who've paid their taxes. More extrapolation from the peanut gallery.
etc etc etc. Your partisan rhetoric machine run out of hot air already?
Of course we know he's going to be a bad president.
He's a Democrat.
Well, thank you for confirming that you are a hyper-partisan hack and not worthy of engaging in discussion.
That's the thing, what they are doing is illegal, just not treason, derilection of duty is a reasonable charge, as well as malfeasance, but we do need to start holding those that abuse the constitution legally acountable.Just throwing that out there... I'm not sure if perjury constitutes treason. I don't think the statement in question constitutes treason or perjury, but a lot of the attempts by the left to overthrow the Constitution do.
That's the thing, what they are doing is illegal, just not treason, derilection of duty is a reasonable charge, as well as malfeasance, but we do need to start holding those that abuse the constitution legally acountable.
I was reading the book "Do as I say Not as I do" some time back and it was showing the "contract labor" issues the Pelosis have in their businesses, it's sick, that is really all I need to know personally to realize she isn't stupid or simply mistaken, but has a vested interest in violating laws when they are disadvantageous to her.Well, the problem is proving that they're knowingly trying to subvert the Constitution. I'm going to go ahead and assume that they've all read Article I, Section 8, so I'm not sure how they could not know it but perhaps some of them haven't read it?
Another key point is that we have a people willing to elect these people over and over and over again.
If they don't want to obey the nation's laws, and invade in violation thereof, they should be marched back home at bayonet point.
What part of "illegal" is confusing you?
Where does it seem I am confused? My statements are clearly saying that the process should be changed so it is easier for immigrants to obtain work visa's. I never said anything about them being able to break the law.
It is anti-American to encourage illegal immigration. Which is basically encouraging another country to invade yours seeing how the vast majority of the 20 plus million illegals in this country are from Mexico.
Invade? We have an 8% unemployment rate. These immigrants are not plotting to take jobs away from U.S. citizens -- you make it seem as though it is a war, that promoting a change in immigration policy will make it acceptable for other countries to "invade" our land. I don't think Mexico is planning to start any wars with the US anytime soon ...
It is anti-American to encourage illegal immigration. Which is basically encouraging another country to invade yours seeing how the vast majority of the 20 plus million illegals in this country are from Mexico.
Invade has multiple meanings but they all basically state to intrude or encroach upon.Invade?
These immigrants are not plotting to take jobs away from U.S. citizens
I said nothing about war.-- you make it seem as though it is a war,
that promoting a change in immigration policy will make it acceptable for other countries to "invade" our land.
I don't think Mexico is planning to start any wars with the US anytime soon
You failed to state that their illegal asses need to be sent home.
Immediately.
You were just whining about how unfair it is that current laws are sooooooooooooo difficult for the pooooooooor widdle invaders to obey.
I don't waste patience on that nonsense.
Arrest them, fingerprint and DNA them, heave their butts back over the fence tell them they can never come back,
and then throw their employers in jail.
Illegal invasion problem solved.
You failed to state that their illegal asses need to be sent home.
Immediately.
You were just whining about how unfair it is that current laws are sooooooooooooo difficult for the pooooooooor widdle invaders to obey.
I don't waste patience on that nonsense.
Arrest them, fingerprint and DNA them, heave their butts back over the fence tell them they can never come back, and then throw their employers in jail.
Illegal invasion problem solved.