Liberals:
Finally, Democrats stopped with the crazy talk and the violent rhetoric. Just kidding.
Democrat Rep Jim Moran: “It [Republican victories in November] happened … for the same reason the Civil War happened in the United States. Southern states, particularly the slaveholding states, didn’t want to see a president who was opposed to slavery. In this case a lot of people in this country, it’s my belief, don’t want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that’s a basic philosophical clash.”
Belknap Democratic Chair Ed Mallard, speaking of Republicans: “They’re going to hang themselves. And we’re going to help them.”
MSNBC Vice President Bill Wolff: “MSNBC does not have a political agenda. The idea that we’re beholden to one side or the other is ridiculous.”
Charles Schumer: “The fact that five senators are for privatizing Social Security shows we’re not crying wolf here. This is a serious movement to undo the most successful government program of the 20th century.”
Danny Glover: “Think about that violence now in relationship to what has happened in Tucson. You know, even though we know that this young man is just deranged in some way, there’s the side that drove him to that act, with the kind of vitriol, the kind of nasty, just villainous violence that is happening. The violence that happened even during, you know, town hall meetings.during the healthcare crisis, the healthcare debate and everything, all this kind of violence. Then you take, again, that, the war, the wars-King talks about that, how that violence-that violence comes home. That violence comes home to haunt us.”
Nancy Pelosi: “President Obama was a job creator from day one.”
Pelosi, with regards to Obama being in the middle: “I think that’s where he’s always been.”
Van Jones: “Here’s how you know if you live in a society where there’s social justice: Would you be willing to take your life . . . write it on a card, throw it in a big pot with everybody else . . . reach in at random and pull out another life with total confidence that it would be a good life?”
Chris Matthews, who regularly beats up on both Palin and Bachmann for supposed in accuracies of quotes he has pulled out of context: “We’re looking at the map of the world right now and where Egypt sits in the world. It’s so strategically located. It has, of course, the Nile River. It has, of course, the Panama Canal.”
Sen. Tom Harkin: “If the people elect these crazy TEA party people, and they come in here and they vote to do all these wacko things, I say, give ‘em rope; give them a lot of rope, then the American people will find out and we will have a real election the next time around.”
President Obama: “Combat operations in Afghanistan have ended.”
Chris Matthews on Michele Bachmann’s TEA party response and why her doing it is a bad idea: “don’t know what to make that. that’s balloon head. we treated slaves as three-fifths of a person. it went to the civil war. we had compromise after compromise to avoid a war. we went to war. slavery continued through the 1860s and only ended because of that war. here’s this woman that you made your spokesperson saying that somehow the founding fathers dealt with it. that’s the one thing they did not deal with. that was the horrible compromise that was at the heart of our constitution. why do you put someone like this forward who is a balloon head? who knows no american history. it’s a ridiculous decision you guys have made. do you know how little this woman knows our history?” By the way, any person who says slaves were treated as three-fifths of a person in the constitution does not know anything about constitutional history. Matthews calls her a balloon-head at least 3 times in this panel “discussion.”
Chris Matthews: “Leading off tonight: Unrest in Egypt. Proving the Iraq war wasn’t needed, these protests in Egypt, as well as in Yemen and Tunisia, are all aimed at dictators supported by the U.S. The demonstrations have not yet turned anti-American, but they could. These are the events the Bush administration hoped to encourage by lying about weapons of mass destruction and invading Iraq. A live report from Richard Engel at the scene coming up. And we`ll stay on this story throughout the hour as events warrant.”
Charles Schumer: “We have 3 branches of government: we have a House, we have a Senate, we have a President; and all 3 of us are going to have to come together and give some.”
President Obama: “Health reform is part of deficit reform. We know that health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, are the biggest contributors to our long-term deficit. Nobody disputes this. And this law will slow these costs.”
Phone message left by unknown person for Maine GOP chairman Charlie Webster: “I wonder if Mr. Webster might survive a nine millimeter but doubtful he’d survive a 50 cal. There’s a lot of 50 cals in Maine. He should change his tune because a lot of people are really mad.”
Liberals from the past:
Joseph Stalin: “Life has become better, comrades, life has become merrier!”
Crosstalk:
Tom McClintock: “The two principle promises that were made in support of Obamacare were, (1) it would hold costs down; true or false?”
Chief actuary Richard Foster: [long pause; a nervous laugh, and then he says] “Um, I would say false, more so than true.”
McClintock: “The other promise that…if you like your plan, you can keep it; true or false?”
Foster: “Uh, not true in all cases.”
_______________________________________
CNSNews.com asked Academy Award-winning actor Richard Dreyfus the following: “MSNBC’s Ed Schultz said of, has said of Dick Cheney, `he’s an enemy of this country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is an enemy of this country. . Lord, take him to the promised land, will you?’ And there’s been other quotes, specifically in the media. I wanted to get your reaction to that specifically. Is that something that you think should be rejected by a civil society?”
Dreyfuss said, “No, that’s not uncivil. That’s actually kind of a beautifully phrased way of saying something that could be uncivil.”
Conservatives:
Rush Limbaugh: “Why are they granting these Obamacare waivers? I thought this law was a panacea. I thought the president said that if you like your health care coverage, you keep it… Is it only if you have a waiver?”
Sarah Palin on the SOTU address: “And his [Obama’s] theme last night in the Speaker of the House was the ‘WTF,’ you know, ‘Winning the Future.’ And I thought, ‘OK, that acronym, spot on.’ There were a lot of ‘WTF’ moments throughout that speech, namely, when he made the statement, Greta, that he believed that we can’t allow ourselves to, I guess, eventually become buried under a mountain of debt. That right there tells you he is so disconnected from reality!”
Dennis Miller: “What the hell was Al Sharpton even talking about? It sounded like Professor Irwin Corey explaining the infield fly rule. And, you know, he’s going to get carpal tunnel from flipping the race card on you that many times in one interview.”
Conservative at Luntz focus group, speaking about Obama’s SOTU: “I feel like I am taking crazy pills. Is he talking about cutting spending? Are you kidding me? All this guy’s done is, spend, spend, spend. In that clip he says we need to live within our means. What is he talking about?”
Rush: “I’m listening to all this Sputnik business from Obama and I’m thinking, ‘Wait, pal, aren’t you the guy that wanted to turn NASA into a Muslim outreach arm of the federal government?'”
Jim DeMint: The President will propose freezing spending at record high levels. Our debt crisis demands spending cuts, not a freeze. When a car speeds toward a cliff, you hit the brakes, not cruise control.”
From:
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview163.htm
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview163.pdf
UPDATE
We got ourselves a Digglanche….thats the reason for the spike in traffic and the dozens of moonbats parading around in the comments. Fun times!
A retired math teacher who spends most of his time exegeting the Old Testament and, once a week, puts out an ezeen.
GARY KUKIS, hi, good POST and you where doing like putting honey on your POST, I duno
but you did attrack a lot of lib worms, here, HAVE YOU NOTICE it?
@Greg:
You do realize, don’t you Greg, that Stalin, and his form of gov’t are of the Leftist ilk right?
GREG because he was a communist , DON’T YOU THINK
Greg, Stalin was quite generous with other people’s money. Like liberals he too felt that the wealth should be spread around. He also agreed that people shouldn’t be given the choice to decide things for themselves. Let’s not forget how much Stalin hated America. Then there is how Stalin looked down on his people and considered them to be ignorant peasants. He firmly believed that power should be concentrated with a select few and that it was all for the good of “the people.”
See, liberals and Stalin have lots in common.
concerned, I see that your concerned about it, but they work at it, did’nt they, that;s all we need to know without trashing anyone concerned.
Well I’m done guys. To those who tried to edify me, thanks.
And to Hard Right – you’ve in no way shown yourself to be either intelligent or educated. I guess the Katie Couric interview was a giant conspiracy created by the left wing? If Aye is a friend I’d recommend emulating him.
We knew you weren’t capable of facing reality, but we did it for those who might be lurking and buying into your shallow views.
@Aye:
I’m curious, Aye, was Hitler also a liberal?
What’s wrong Tom, reality creeping in again and you can’t handle it?
Hitler was a socialist. Not as far left as Stalin, but not too far away either.
BTW, Aye said he was of the left. That’s not the same thing as calling him a liberal.
@concerned:
Good grief, in addition to all they did for this country, risking their lives and their fortunes…… these men had families, homes and businesses to run. They didn’t take a plane or train to meet, they weren’t able to pick up a phone to contact anyone, they had to travel the country side by horse, rain, snow, sleet….that took dedication, stamina and a whole lot of effort. Fortunately, we have records preserved that proves their dedication to this issue.
Well, if you would have perused the tutorial you would have noted the inclusion of Professor Walter William’s quote:
@Tom:
Hitler was on the Leftist end of the spectrum just like all of the other despots throughout history.
They’re all yours.
You should embrace the heritage of the crowd you’ve made yourself a member of and enjoy all of your progenitors.
God help us, because you wingnut fuckers are the dumbest sacks of shit on earth.
Having served my country for 30 years including 4 tours in hostile fire zones, I fully respect the Constitutional right of the lefties out there to call me a racist, an extremist, an idiot, and their enemy just because I oppose Obama’s agenda.
@rougy:
Wow, way to flex your intellect.
Don’t leave. Stick around and show us how smart you are, coward.
@Aye:
Mine? I wasn’t alive back then, Aye. What was it like?
So the Nazis were just another bunch of dope smoking liberals, liberals who happened to wage a bloody fight against communists in the streets of Munich throughout the 30s, during their rise to power, and not the Far Right fascist party all those reputable historians erroneously labeled them as. They should have come to San Francisco, chilled out, played some bongo drums, and none of this would have happened.
From reading Aye’s posts, I’ve learned that Stalin, Hitler and the KKK were all liberals. What an interesting, elastic, rather convenient definition. It’s almost as if liberals are, well, Evil.
Always a shame to see the left and the right not come to terms on ANYTHING!
Send people to your website: http://www.webdesignandmarketing.us find out why internet marketing’s not the future, but the present.
Ummmm Tom, put down the bong. The nazis fought the communists over who would come to power. Not because they had opposing ideologies-which they didn’t.
Reputable historians? Hahahahahaha. Any historian that would call the nazis right-wing doesn’t deserve the title. We really know you mean leftist historian. I bet you believe we gave the indians cholera infected blankets too.
Tell us Tom, what was the official name of the nazi party? Can you answer that? How about answering where Aye called them liberals?
Hard Right, hi, they look like they’r all in the same class of none
all on the same note, they are very boring.
Beez, they are like mindless drones. Their heads have been pumped full of shite yet they believe the lie it’s gold.
Tom doesn’t even know the nazis were socialists. How blind/ignorant can you get?
@Tom:
Never said you were. Irrelevant straw man.
But, hey you’re known by the company you keep, eh?
Another straw man. I never said they were “liberals”. I said that they reside on the Leftist end of the spectrum.
The Nazis and the Communists may have fought for power, control, and authority in Munich but they weren’t fighting due to opposing ideology.
Take a look at the ideological beliefs of the Nazis as well as the Communists and you will find that they do not share any beliefs with those on the Right end of the spectrum, ie limited gov’t, maximum freedom, etc.
Anyone who tries to assign either of those two groups to the Right is either obfuscating, or ignorant, or both whether they be historian or Interwebz forum poster.
Again, reading, and accurate quoting is a very basic, fundamental skill which you have obviously not yet mastered.
I didn’t say they were “liberals”. I said that they were on the Leftist end of the spectrum.
If you care to attempt to refute that these groups were of the Leftist end of the spectrum then please, by all means, knock yourself out but don’t attempt over and over again to claim that I’ve said something that I haven’t.
You won’t be successful in your efforts, but we’ll all get a good laugh in the process of watching you flail about.
Your words. Not mine.
Exit Question: Did the Nazis and the Communists cooperate with one another during WWII?
Just turned on my machine, I surmise that Liberalism must stay in a state of denial or else they would disintegrate, but as Mark Twain wrote, “Denial is more than a river in Egypt.”
Let’s see if Tom ever answers. If he does it should be a hoot.
@Aye, #53:
With that level of paranoia-driven authoritarianism, the distinction between right and left pretty much becomes irrelevant.
Liberalism isn’t authoritarian, by definition. It’s anti-authoritarian.
Stop trying to spin things Greg.
You say by definition. By actual practice, authoritarian. Not as far as the Nazis, but headed in that direction.
@Aye:
Aye, you’re simplistically cherry picking tropes of the left and right and assigning them where you see fit. So the Right is nominally for ‘limited government”, therefore any authoritative government is necessarily Leftist? Doesn’t work that way. There are many stereotypically conservative ideals and tropes that play directly into the formation and powerbase of authoritative governments, such as, say, the Nazis. Nationalism/”exceptionalism”, xenophobia, homophobia, blaming the government for high unemployment, militarism, resentment at limitations on armament, anger at decadence in society or ‘liberal social mores” : these are the major factors that drove Nazi recruitment and they don’t sound leftist or liberal to me. They sound pretty Right Wing, in fact. Not too surprising, therefore, how history has judged Nazism just that.
Let’s look at another popular conservative ideal: religion. How many theocratic autocracies exist in the world today? Are they also ‘leftists’ as they claim the “word of god” overrides all other considerations? Now is it liberals who are always talking about God, Aye? Is it liberals saying gay marriage is an abomination? That we’re a “Christian nation”? And why are the oppositions to these theocratic governments referred to as liberal or secular?
That’s called stereotyping with a large amount of strawman thrown in. Bravo. You avoided actually thinking Tom, just as you were trained. Here’s your cracker.
BTW Tom, what was the name of the nazi party? I noticed you didn’t answer. Now why is that? Hmmmmm.
@Hard Right:
HR, did I miss your response to this? Didn’t think so. Why don’t you put your pom poms down and let your hero, Aye, handle this sans the cheerleading. I don’t think he really needs his side-kick clown to motivate him.
@Hard Right:
So you have an alternate theory for the rise of the Nazi party in Germany, HR? I would like to see that. I would actually like to see you point out Germany on a map, but here’s your chance to impress.
Tom, answer the question. What was the actual name of the nazi party?
@Hard Right:
Are you asking for the National Socialist German Workers Party?
I won’t assume you are stupid enough to think that proves anything, but if you want to convince me otherwise…
Unable to directly answer or factually refute the arguments and questions posed to him, Tom goes into full blown spittle flecked spew spin mode giving us something to point and laugh at.
Didn’t I predict this would happen? Why yes, I do believe I did.
Care to try again there Tommy boy?
I’m going to bed now, so you’ve got all night long to read up on some history, research the facts, and attempt to put together a somewhat cogent reply.
Oh, by the way, did I miss your response to this?
Exit Question: Did the Nazis and the Communists cooperate with one another during WWII?
Duh! You aren’t capable of seeing anything other than you far left ideology. You know, the ideology where you pretend there is nothing bad about your beliefs (to puff up your ego) while attributing everything bad to the Conservative ideology.
I knew you would try to say it means nothing. Funny, you were the one trying throw around strict adherence to definitions just the other day. Ooops.
You see Tom, history shows their beliefs weren’t that far from those that think like you do. I’m not calling you a nazi, but you are definitely cousins.
@Greg:
Uh huh….
Which is why big gov’t controlled, nanny state, forced down ideas – authoritarianism – (such as the individual mandate) are not considered to be liberal policies right?
Right?
Of course, the definition of terms such as “liberalism” has shifted over a period of time. In fact, the term “conservative” is synonymous with the term “classic liberalism.”
But again, the only one bandying about “liberal” is you and your buddy Tommy boy.
You go Hard Right!
Here’s something you’ll ignore Tom, since it doesn’t fit with your core belief that you are morally and intellectually superior simply by virtue of your beliefs.
http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html
@Aye:
I didn’t duck the question. I don’t really understand what your point is. Obviously, Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia fought against each other in WWII. The only area of cooperation I’m aware of was a tacit allowance of atrocities in the Baltic states and Poland as they traded territory back and forth.
#63, Mr. Rougy, please tell me the size of your posterior, that way, I can choose the size and the type of equipment needed, to hand it back to you.
One definition of communism per Webster: “a hypothetcial stage of socialism, as formulated by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and others, to be characteried by a classless and stateless society and the equal distribution of economic goods and to be acheived by revolutionary and dictatorial rather than gradualistic means”
fascism (which NAZISM is): “a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism etc.
While they have differences (not many when comparing Hitler and Stalin for instance) they are both similar in that they advocate dictatorships and strong central governments. It would seem that they would be on the same side of the political spectrum. The opposite to this side of the political spectrum would seem to be this:
Definition of ANARCHY
1a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder
Or this
http://volokh.com/posts/1185254785.shtml
@Aye: You’re such a hardass. 😉
@FAITH7: It is as true as can be: If a neo-conservative is whining about something a Democrat is doing politically, it is always a proven Republican tactic the left has learned to turn against them.
@Aye:
Classical liberalism =/= conservatism, and especially not neoconservatism.
Please, for the love of God, read a book.
@Mr.Rick:
Ah yes, the lie that the dems are the victims who have turned the tables. Who invented “Borking”? What comparable example before that do you have? Let me guess? None. Why? Because you are only interested in justifying your bigotry and mistreatment of Republicans.
@John:
JR if that’s you, you REALLY need to take your own advice. Either way the poster is a hypocrite.
Say What?
So, this is how Obama acts????
What a child!
Obama has let go by the first major document deadline from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Wow! I leave for a day and a half for a simple little blizzard (not the one from Dairy Queen) and come back to find that the moonbats are out in force!!
Either that, or B-Rob has multiple personalities and has attempted to re-invade FA. LOL
Just when I got ready to answer some dry, boring, re-hashed liberal talking point, I scroll down only to find that Aye, HR, Another Vet, Missy, Nan, et al have done so in fine fashion.
Palin bashing has morphed into the new libtard social status activity. LOL
She tweets and the MSM goes into conniption fits.
I normally associated myself as someone on the Left; namely, that I wanted to help people less fortunate than me, and have a set of rules that made sure no one company or group of people took advantage of another. This was about all I knew and cared about, as far as the Left is concerned.
This discussion, however, lead me to do some research. And it really does seem that Nazism, Communism, and Socialism are all on the far left. It puzzled me at first; so what’s on the Right? Nothingness? Anarchy? Everybody fending for themselves, with no limit to how dark we can be to one another. Of course, I can’t imagine anyone here wants true anarchy. Perhaps some rules to keep things in check? How many rules? If we have too much, we feel like we’re back in our parents’ house. Too little, and the greed of individuals can take advantage of a large amount of others who may depend on them.
So now I’m a little closer to the Center, but only in a universal format, not an American one. Mainly because some of the loudest on the Right, in this country, act as childish as Hard Right. This format of discussion only pushes people like me away from your cause. Saying “well he called me names first! They’re all name-callers! Thus, I’ve earned my name-calling pass” is not the grown-up way to lead a discussion. Others in here obtained my interest to look things up on my own while discussing things in a respectable manner, and hey, you got a new person to agree with you on some things. Maybe you, Hard, can take a note from this example? If you want to prove you’re right, prove you’re someone worth agreeing with. It might give you more satisfaction than calling people stupid over and over again.
(This, of course, applies to all other name-callers in this thread, but this particular member was most aggravating)
Anyways, this is just the result you all had on some malleable college student. Thought you’d like to know.
Conservatives [to conserve] Progressives-Liberals [to progress] I think neither won’t can’t! Both are Big Government Advocates, Lack Historical Perspectives and spend and care mostly or only for their own.
The Republicans War of Choice, of Nation Building and of removing one dictator and supporting many others is the contributing factor of unsustainable debt [no the civic, social, investment or freeloader programs]. The Democrats are no different with their War of Choice to contain 100 Islamic Nazi’s and the unsustainable cost to consumerize a 12th century culture. With an exception of the few, the rest are bought and paid for and have only their best interest at their self rightious heart! Like Proabition, it doesn’t work! No need for wealth distribution or class warfare, we just all need to share or a share in what the Legislators appropriate for themselves [healthcare, Vacations-all of it].
Gee…thanks Gary!
@Aye #45:
concerned is latching onto a comment Bachmann made which her critics are making a big fuss over. Really, it’s partisan knitpicking. Did Bachmann really mean from the way in which she phrased the sentence that she thinks the founders ended slavery on their watch? Mmm…I’d say that’s wishful thinking on the part of dishonest political partisans. She delivered a poor choice of phrasing. And that gives political opponents a chance to score cheap points and make mountains from molehills.
If I said I’m going to work tirelessly until Obama is defeated in 2012 but I happened to die before his 2012 defeat…did I lie if he in fact ends up defeated?
Slavery was ended in this country- a practice that had been around for thousands of years before America’s existence as a nation. And ending it was a process whose beginnings did not start with John Quincy Adams or with Lincoln. One can even trace the roots of anti-slavery sentiments and movement in this country even pre-Founding Fathers.
@concerned:
JQA did work rather tirelessly, didn’t he? 1831- til death (17-18 years) in the House of Representatives to end slavery? (Bachmann refers to him as a “forebear”, not a Founder…is there a difference there worth noting?). Now maybe you can be nitpicky about what is meant by “tirelessly” when it comes to the founders; but many were indeed anti-slavery; and yes, even the ones who owned slaves. It’s easy to sit here morally smug in our 21st century armchairs condemning the Founders for not moving fast enough or for owning slaves without putting ourselves in the shoes of the times and in the context of the world in which they navigated through. Gaffa and I had a pretty extensive debate on the subject (read comments).
Nice to see that Joey is starting to come around. By the time he hits 30 he’ll be a Reaganite. Joey, remember these two Reaganisms: ” Government is not the solution, government is the problem” and ” we are one generation away from the loss of freedom”. I paraphrased so shoot me- another lefty solution. Reagan is directly responsible for the liberation of hundreds of millions in Central and Eastern Europe. Again look it up. Reagan is top 3 of your presidents and the Bamster wants some of his glitter. Won’t happen- he’s one and done.
From the Wikipedia entry on the 3/5 compromise, suggested by Bill the troll:
Undercounting slaves was a weapon against slavery, that took power away from any state with slaves. The more slaves a state had, the more power it subtracted. The slaveholders were the ones who wanted slaves counted in full in the census.
I already knew that, but for crying out loud– the essential truth of the matter was right there in front of you. All you saw was “3/5, Constitution, I win.”