Leftie Shutdown Smear and Manipulation & I find my TEA Sentiments Waxing again

Look, obviously I cannot tell you what's what in your mind. But I'm telling YOU that saying you're something and rallying against or for one cause does not make you specifically at any part of the political spectrum. You can be for liberal economic policies and have conservative foreign policy and centrist social policies. You're trying too hard to play into 'us vs. them' which hasn't done us any good for the last 40 years.

 

Did I say that they didn't eventually wise up and come to realize that they got caught up in emotionalism that over-ruled their intellect? No I did not. But nonetheless there were a significant number of liberals [or leftwingers] who supported Bush's war venture at first. They were ashamed of having done so after the fact and became bitter opponents of Bush . . . but nonetheless they were what they were and they did what they did.

 

If I may interject here, you two are arguing two different things......

Gatewood is dead on about Bush and the post 911 "love fest" the nation had with Dubya...

But look, he was nowhere near conservative by US standards and some of his economic policies, his continuing of the soft wood tariff war with Canada was outright socialist protectionism...

The man was NOT a conservative.

Meanwhile, Clinton became a conservative in his second term...

And there we are back at the beginning with what I thought we all agreed on, that there is no right or left, liberal or conservative that they are mere labels to denote verying factions that could be called the "Sharks" and the "Jets"...

And that takes us back to politics of convenience and there we are back at Overton and his theories....


Now watch, some dork is going to chime in that old Joe [Overton] is a radical right winger in the employ of the Military Industrial Complex because he works for some free enterprise "think tank" in the land of Dow Chemical....Midland, Michigan.

 

Um... Hate to break it to you, but the biggest "liberal" move by the Obama administration was health care reform which, 20 years ago, the republicans were proposing.

 

Who asked for tea and how the hell do you manage to party with it?

Give me a pissed off and nothing to lose conservative party any day of the weak over the spineless golf players.

 

Funny but I haven't seen the 'let's not categorize' crowd doing much good for the last 40 years. That's probably because they don't really mean it, though.

 

1760 to 1968 Classic Liberal
------------------------------------------
1] Tolerant to New Ideas and also OK with retaining good, proven, Old Ideas!

2] Supporter & Defender of the Constitution and Bill of Rights

3] Believers in Free Enterprise and the open pursuit of wealth who hold fiscal success as a valid and honorable Hallmark of Achievement

4] Supporter & Defender of the Christian Faith and true Charity

5] Pragmatic advocate of National Parks and Preservation running in parallel with limited, but job producing public land economic development

6] Advocates of a tolerant, Race-Blind Society. True believers in racial equality to the point that they do not believe AA and Racial Preferences are needed to achieve equality.

7] Believers in American Exceptionalism, Capitalism, and America's Role as military force for world stability and peace.

8] Able to look squarely at themselves, see their own faults, and work for self-improvement.



2012+ Obama Neo-Liberal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1] Uses IRS, EPA,... and Campus Political Correctness to enforce "Liberal" Dogma

2] Sneers at Constitution as a Living Document to be changed at will to meet the Leftist Agenda

3] Sneers at Self-made Wealth, advocating taxing their wealth away, while getting Rich at middle class tax payer expense

4] Dismantles all things Christian, while advocating any alternate Religion, esp. Islam and Atheism. More than willing to exchange true charity for forced government redistribution of wealth to achieve dependence and subservience.

5] Pushes Liberals-Get-Rich mandatory Carbon-Trading, Wetlands, and for unspecified AGW goals at the demands of psuedo-Science Fear-Mongering.

6] Advocates of ever increasing Racial Preferences and Racial VENGEANCE policies. Blatantly Anti-White and Anti-Male Bigots who cannot conceive of a a racial preference program they'd say is going too far...

7] Contempt for America, its history of important roles in world history, and dismissive of America's International military responsibilities. Above all pro-socialist in any way it can find to move their agenda forward, no matter who it hurts.

8] So enured in double standards, stereo-typing their opponents, and have such an over inflated view of their own important and superiority, they believe that they personally can and have divine-aura replaced Dad, Heritage, Tradition, Hard work, Consequences and even GOD.



The Point is, today's "Liberals" would have easily qualified as Ethnocentric Totalitarian Fascists in 1940!

Worse, they are very rare FOR anything, unless is it more freebies for false-victimhood, or growth of ineffective government.

Words that Describe today's NeoLiberals: Snide, Sneering, Condescending, Oozing-Contempt,Judgmental, Dogmatic, Racist, Hate-Filled, Disorderly, Riotous, Racially-Violent, Dependent, Rigid, Ideological, Prejudging, Shallow, Sarcastic, Ad-Hominem, Misrepresenting, Assuming, Quick-to-Judge,

.... And above all : Intolerant !!!!!!!

The Fact is, today's Liberals are ANYTHING but Liberal!

Liberals of 2012 doesn't stand FOR things, it stands against them. OWS is a case in point. They cannot create wealth, so they riot, destroy, extort, and steal it.


But the point of the OP is, even though it is abundantly clear that Liberalism holds nothing but a social-parasite ridden doom for America, a sub-set of the Republican Party, those willing to sacrifice STANDARDS for a few more years of dwindling political power, are no better!

Libertarians, bless them, have so much passivity, despite a good heart, and noble goals, they will NEVER achieve anything.

What does that leave U.S.?!

-

 

True -- all true -- but if we eschew labels then how do we get our rage on? You gotta have labels in order to keep score. All silliness on my part aside, though. I am quite aware that labels are useful only to a certain point and that at a certain level of wealth and power things can get very blurred regarding alliances and motivations. G.W. Bush for instance was far less the party loyalist ideologue he was painted -- and I certainly swung that particular brush with gusto at the time -- and that in reality he was probably more allied with the ol' loot and plunder robber baron types of old. Yet he was also steeped in the conservative philosophy [just as Obama bathed in socialism and Marxism at a young age] and that sort of thing leaves a permanent impression on the psyche.

In regards to Bush, despite him doing this, that, or the other that reflected liberal tendencies in isolation and therefore say that he was not a conservative I find it better to say, rather, that he was simply a very bad conservative . . . one that misunderstood [or had no real use for] the root core of that ideology or philosophy but had learned how to make himself appear one of them -- in dim lighting conditions, if nothing else. Ditto for Obama and the variations on his liberalism.

To him his radical socialist education via various mentors and conferences did not mean that in his own mind he was not also a good and tried and true liberal, because I doubt that he bothered to distinguish between the two branches of leftwing ideology. Why should he? By clinging to the image of liberalism he could easily climb the Democratic Party's power structure to the upper levels -- never dreaming that he would eventually fool or simply bring into his camp enough of the right sort of [themselves] movers and shakers to leap frog him waaaaaaaaaay past the Peter Principle factor into the Oval Office itself. You do not always expect to come up with a fist-full of pure gold when you are merely reaching out to grasp the political brass ring. But sometimes it can happen.

Anyway you can get me to cease using convenient labels on these disparate individuals and on the conglomeration of thugs and miscreants making up the upper echelons of both party structures when you pry said labels out of my cold, dead hands. Or bribe me . . . yeah bribes are good too. Why doesn't anyone ever offer to bribe me? Er -- I never said that I was a good man, now did I.

 

Apparently some leftwingers are confused over the difference between mutual consenting rough sex and outright rape. Obamacare is the latter.

 

Good points. These problems lead to never ending economic stagnation and eventual collapse as a nation as 'citizen rights' become legislated out of existence . . . or . . . to a reshuffling of party loyalties and intermixing of ideologies and the production of a new and viable political party that takes things in a new and healthy direction. Now smart money is currently riding on the bleak outcome scenario but then again you never know. Sometimes miracles do happen.

 

In a country run by people trying to deliberately polarize people, that's not surprising.

 

Interesting comparisons, and it had not occurred to me Bush was steeped in conservatism, which he was, although Bush senior was not the conservative was Reagan.

However in making that distinction, thank you, it appears another aspect of my point is opened, that using those labels in US politics is chancy at best and fraught with peril.

First, I have long been suspicious of Obama's "steeped in socialism" myth. While he appears to have exploited the social aspects of the US system, particularly in post secondary education, he exhibits NONE of the zeal I have come to know in true socialists. His speeches are inspirational dialogue, he seldom waxes about the plight of individuals, but argues within a broad window of suggestion aimed at focus groups rather than issues. He used "I, me, mine," ten to twenty times more than "we and our". He talks divisively using "them, they" and "you" is in "you didn't build that", warriors words, where the true heart of any socialist I've met uses the opposite. His bail out and allowance of the Wall Street Bonuses made him anathema to any true socialist.


No socialist would have been able to do what Obama did. They do not like banks much. And while they LOVE spending money, it is an addiction with them, but they HATE paying money to corporations of any kind, to them they are the enemy.

Now Bush may have been exposed to conservatism, but look at his record. He continued all that was bad under Clinton, including the easy money mortgages, in fact advanced it [even that was rejected by socialists here..they saw the money in for banks and hated it]. And then there is the mark of a true pseudo-conservative, establish a plan and don't fund it...the No Child Left Behind fiasco where he bought into Teddy Kennedy's drunken rhetoric...

So in that, the labels apply to a degree I would say, so long as its realized that there really isn't a right or a left anymore, that is a catch all and that "conservative" in the US indicates nothing more than the brand...like Coke and Pepsi..the taste test is dependent on what you just ate...

 

Speaking of "spineless golf players", I believe Obama’s Golf Course is still open at Andrews AFB. But canceling the Army-Navy football game is still under consideration. Such rationally consistent creatures, these so-called leaders.

 

You have heard of the Cloward-Piven Strategy?

 

I have to disagree. The R's in no way shape or form try to represent the middle class.
When you pis s off 47% of americans, much being the middle class or former middle class, that is not representation.

But I do agree, neither party represents the middle class. Both represent those who give the most campaign $$$$$$$.

 

Neither of the two primary American Political Parties seem to represent the needs and worries of the Middle Class.

That doesn't mean that the TEA Party, and minor 3rd party is not now the best hope of the American Middle Class.

There was a time when the Democrats were not a major party. They are working hard to find themselves replaced by the TEA Party.

Which is why we see so much vitriol and outright lies extended by the left toward the TEA Party.

Vitriol or not, in my mind, the TEA Party has ALREADY replace the Democrats.

-

 

I am hesitant to laugh at them. They are a reflection of my countrymen....

 

I sympathize with your concern - but I'm not quite as hesitant.

 

I looked at t party when 1st heard of them in 09/10.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

I might have been more inclined to join in. But some of those in the list are "loons" IMO.
And you will probably say RP is a loon, but at least he was on the right track. Again, IMO.

And then their is the rumor, they are heavily backed by the Koch brothers. Who seem hell bent on killing middle america.

 

I'd say the tea party came out ahead with your decision. After all, we all know George Soros is more influential than the Koch Bros. After all, he owns a whole president.

 

So there is truth to the rumor. TY for confirming.
But I don't know what GS has going for me.

 

His name is Barack Obama. I'm sure you've heard of him.

 

The Tea Party was just a politically expedient flash in the pan. Once the Boomers are all gone, the GOP will (*)(*)(*)(*) the t-party out along with them.

 

One can only hope. They're not even trying to be covert about their racism and catering to the plantation owners.

 

I think the best strength of the tea party is not who they get elected, but how they keep the republicans disciplined. What happened under hastert was embarrassing, what bush let pelosi pass was embarrassing. Someone needs to check the mike Enzi's of the world.