I am just the messenger on this one.

If you are a liberal, you believe...

* That trial lawyers are selfless heroes, but doctors are overpaid;

* That the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding;

* That global temperatures are affected more by Yuppies driving SUV's than by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the sun;

* That guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese;

* That businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity; * That self-esteem is more important than doing anything to earn it;

* That there was no art before federal funding;

* That the NRA is bad, because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution, but the ACLU is good, because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution;

* That taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high;

* That Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinam are more important to an understanding of American history than Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee and Thomas Edison;

* That the most troubling thing you can find in a public school is children praying;

* That standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas aren't;

* That any change in the weather is proof of global warming;

* That national wealth is determined by what we consume, not by what we produce;

* That the only wars in which America should become involved are those in which the national security is not at risk;

* That perjury and obstruction of justice are impeachable crimes if a Republican president like Richard Nixon commits them, but harmless private matters if a Democratic president like Bill Clinton commits them;

* That the way to end racism is to give people special treatment on the basis of their skin color;

* That we can have a strong military without spending any money on it;

* That the way to improve public schools is to give more money and power to people who have misused it in the past;

* That a mother can be trusted to decide whether to terminate the life of her baby, but cannot be trusted to choose her child's school;

* That second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV;

* That hunters and fisherman don't care about nature, but pasty-faced activists who rarely leave the Upper West Side of Manhattan do;

* That a bureaucrat living in Washington can make better decisions about how your money should be spent than you can;

* That Hillary Clinton is a strong example for young women of feminist independence because everything she's gotten in her life is a result of her marriage to her husband;

* That being a movie star makes you qualified to speak out on public policy;

* That a handful of religious wackos living in isolation in rural Texas are more of a threat to public safety than Puerto Rican terrorists who plant bombs in major cities;

* That cigarette and liquor advertising must be banned, because it causes kids to smoke and drink, but we don't need to worry about sex and violence in television programming because kids aren't influenced by what happens between the commercials;

* That passing new laws is a better way to prevent crime than enforcing existing ones;

* That the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it has been tried is because people like you haven't been in charge.

-- semper paratus (here_with@my.pals), March 11, 2000

Answers

excellent

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), March 11, 2000.

Out standing (in the rain)!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 11, 2000.

> * That being a movie star makes you qualified to speak out on public policy;

Ronald Reagan was a liberal ????

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 11, 2000.

And if you're a conservative, you believe that you can go through life categorizing people according to your false prejudices and simplistic stereotypes, because those with limited intelligence and closed hearts are too intolerant and selfish to allow themselves to truly understand their fellow man.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 11, 2000.

No Spam: Good point.

Hawk: Whatever.

-- semper paratus (here_with@my.pals), March 11, 2000.

IN NOTHING.

Hawk,

And if that ain't the pot callin' the kettle black.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 11, 2000.

Hawk,

Far better to go through life catagorizing people according to true prejudices and complex stereotypes?

Those with the limited intelligence, it would seem to me, would be of the socialist ilk, you know, the ones who want government to take care of all their wants and desires.

And are not the liberals (hate that term, "they" are socialists) the ones with closed hearts because they are too selfish to allow their fellow man to truly understand themselves and their own capacity for growth and achievement through self-control and personal responsibility?

PS, I do not consider myself a "Conservative", however, conservatism more closely matches the Libertarian phylosophy than do the "Nanny State" ideals rampant in "Liberalism/Socialism".

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 11, 2000.

Being liberal doesn't automatically make you a socialist. Socialists can be both conservative and liberal. You're also wrong in assuming that all liberals want the government to charge higher taxes and take care of all their needs and desires. That is the kind of bullshit lies that fat selfish pigs like Rush Limbaugh have been propagating and a lot of paranoid selfish idiots are stupid enough to believe it. Thanks to him and his loyal following of sheeple, an excellent presidential candidate like McCain has been knocked out of the race in favor of a sleazebag like Shrubya. I consider myself to have liberal views, but there is no way I want higher taxes or more government control. If it were up to me, there would be no government at all. For you people to sit around and think there is any truth to this idea that you can just easily lump people into your categories only demonstrates how incredibly simple-minded you really are.

capnfun, I usually get a response like yours when someone doesn't like hearing me spell out the truth to them about the offensive rubbish they post. That doesn't make me the initiator of the offensive action, but rather a reflection of it.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 11, 2000.

Hawk Says, If it were up to me we wouldnt have any government at all.

Now my friends you can understand why your local hardware store is forced by law to lock up the spray paint.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 11, 2000.

Hawk,

Conservative "socialists" are called Facists.

an excellent presidential candidate like McCain has been knocked out of the race......... but there is no way I want higher taxes or more government control.

Now THAT is funny!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 12, 2000.

Unc, yeah, you're funny too. You obviously buy into the crap that Rush has been feeding you and have no interest in knowing the truth.

If liberals are so in favor of taxes and Clinton is such a liberal then how come he has reduced taxes more than anyone in over 30 years, while Shrubya the conservative raised taxes in Texas more than anyone in that state's history? What about his daddy, remember Big Daddy "Read my lips, no new taxes" George Bush?

Oh yeah, I see what you mean now, liberals ALWAYS raise taxes and conservatives ALWAYS reduce them. LOL!!!

Sounds good until they get into office and then we find out they were just lying.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 12, 2000.

OK OK OK, I'm finally able to stop chuckling enought to add these few thoughts for Hawk.

McCain is without a doubt an honest and honorable man, however he proposed huge spending increases in the Senate and wanted to pay for them by extorting money from the tobbacco companies. Hardly a "smaller government" idea.

He also has proposed Finance Reform laws that do little other than strip the First Amendment rights of everyone EXCEPT the press and those Parties who the government see as qualifing for federal funds, not a freedom enhancing idea, I don't think.

He was also the man who wanted to engage in an all-out war in the Balkans, another "Smaller Government" brainstorm.

But yep, you are right, we are the dumb ones.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 12, 2000.

PS, In case anyone has been able to miss it, I'm a LIBERTARIAN!

Which means that I agree with the Fiscal Conservatives that we need less taxes and smaller government, but dis-agree when they want to regulate my personal behavior. And I also agree with the Social Liberals when they state that we need less government intrusion into our private lives, but dis-agree with them when they propose government solutions for social ills.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 12, 2000.

Unc, you obviously misunderstand me. Part of my being an open-minded person with liberal views is my ability to see that there are usually some advantages and disadvantages to every different type of approach to governmental policy, whether conservative or liberal. There is no black and white, but shades of grey. My reference to being simple-minded has nothing to do with your political views, but rather the way you find it so easy to indiscriminately classify people and completely disregard any of the advantages of understanding an issue from their perspective as well. In other words, instead of being willing to come to a compromise, you simply find it easier to lump everyone into an extreme category so that you can totally dismiss them from consideration.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 12, 2000.

Actually, I just found that the more than a few grains of truth in Semper's post made the examples very funny.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 12, 2000.

Exactly my point Unc. Since I find more of those assumptions not to be true, it sounds to me more like a pathetic excercise in ignorance than anything worthy of chuckling about. VERY narrow-minded.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 12, 2000.

Hawk,Sir

What truth's have you spelled out to me? How can you enlighten me?

(OFFENSIVE RUBISH)???? The only thing I said was NOTHING and the pot/kettle remark.

PLEASE,reflect on what you have reflected.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 12, 2000.

Care to point them out?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 12, 2000.

capnfun, man are you dumb. I was referring to the offensive rubbish that semper posted, not you.

Unc, as I said, I consider myself to be fairly liberal, but I don't believe in any of those statements that liberals supposedly believe. In fact, I think most of them are ludicrous. Sounds to me like you guys are falling into the New World Order trap, which is to have the opposing political parties fighting against each other about changes the NWO are making, regardless of which party controls the government. People like Rush Limbaugh create a smokescreen so that you will choose to blame liberals for everything you don't like, rather than becoming aware of who is actually responsible.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 12, 2000.

So.....the examples contain more than a grain of truth afterall.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 12, 2000.

Hawk

I and probably everyone else are accustomed to replying to the remarks after their name and the juxt of your remarks were;

"capnfun, man are you dumb. I was referring to the offensive rubbish that semper posted, not you."

There were only 6 posters(besides you) before your statement (above) what the hell would you surmise,re-read it.

Dumb?

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 12, 2000.

"So.....the examples contain more than a grain of truth afterall."

Not really. Sempers post attacks liberal citizens, instead of the elite who forward the NWO agenda, who by the way over history have been for the most part more conservative and right-wing in their policy.

So there is some truth that these things are happening to some extent, but you're chasing up the wrong tree. I'd recommend reading any of the books written by David Icke. Afterwards you'll begin to see the way these things really work.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 12, 2000.

Hawk:

I've been looking at the AirSafety Forum everyday over at AirDisaster.com to see where you've posted your MD-80 crash theory. I haven't seen yet. Did I miss it? Or was it all just hot air?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 12, 2000.

Hey Jim, how ya doin ya old moron? I checked out that forum and I wasn't impressed. Apparently most of the people over there are almost as dumb and gullible as you. Here's an example that was posted in reply to the story about the Air Force grounding the 200 KC-135's...

"The grounding question has to do with the cracks found in the horizontal stabilizer, the aircraft are limited to A/Rs with autopilot on. also when the required inspections are accomplished the aircraft will be returned to service without any restrictions placed on them, you guys need to get off the conspiracy kicks."

The news report quotes the Air Force as saying that the problem has to do with the trim actuator which was installed in September of 1999, and this idiot is trying to say that it has to do with cracks in the stabilizer? How do you expect me to get intelligent feedback from morons like this? I mean, you are an excellent example of what would happen, it would just be a waste of my time.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 12, 2000.

Hawk:

And how are you doing, you old paranoid?

Yep, nobody there that would impress you, just actual pilots and such.

Just wanted to confirm that even YOU think your theory is hot air.

BTW, how many MD-80's have crashed lately?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 12, 2000.

None lately. From what I understand, the NTSB and Alaska Air have identified the faulty chips and have remedied the problems that have made themselves known thus far. Very simple thing to fix actually, but they didn't know for sure that it would cause any problem until it was too late. Too late that is, for the 88 people who took a little suprise deep sea expedition on their way home.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 12, 2000.

Hawk, you said,

From what I understand, the NTSB and Alaska Air have identified the faulty chips and have remedied the problems that have made themselves known thus far.

Halfway up this thread you posted a paragraph of words that convinced me that you have moments of lucidity. Then, you follow it with something ludicrous such as your faulty chips statement above. Put a link up for all of us to see. Ive never read one word that suggests that there is ANY relationship here with faulty chips. You could go a long way to dispelling the common impression that you are full of BS. Thats all you need to do Hawk, just slap it up here for everyone to see. We know you have the skills to do this. If for whatever reason you are unable to do this than we will be absolutely certain that you are the clown you appear to be.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 12, 2000.

Oh I get it now Hawk, you're Andy! No, wait, Andy had a sense of humor.

And semper's post did attack views held by "Liberals" and so what, it was still funny.

I said above that I dis-like the "Liberal" label, but the language has been twisted to make that word fit those on the left. As has the word "Conservative" been given to the people on the right. Conservatives have very little interest in "conserving" the Constitutional ideals that the people should be allowed to pursue happiness if that pursuit of happiness does not fit with their ideas of "morality".

Sempers post attacks liberal citizens, instead of the elite who forward the NWO agenda, who by the way over history have been for the most part more conservative and right-wing in their policy.

Now there you go again Hawk with your labeling! Stop it!

Perhaps we should re-label the debate to the forces of "Pro-Freedom" vs the forces of "Anti-Freedom". And the left and right both have their share of folks on both freedom teams. And so, in the spirit of this new debate I offer the following;

You're a conservative if you believe...

* That the NRA is good, because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution, but the ACLU is bad, because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution;

* That the best thing you can find in a public school is children praying;

Hmmmm, those are the only two I can twist, here's two I came up with all by myself

* That pot is evil, but tobbacco is a personal choice.

* That the way to solve consensual crimes is to make more consensual activities criminal.

Anyone else got any?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 12, 2000.

Hey there Hawk- I see you're still trying to piece together your little model airplane that somebody sat on. It's too bad you've got so much free time on your hands because I can visualize you being an addition to society in many ways. You would have been an asset in the Clinton Administration and a damn good example of a liberal. You could have been the head cheese in the Dept. of Warm and Fuzzy Feelings.

-- Liberal Hater (liberty@bell.com), March 12, 2000.

semper paratus, that liberal post (I know you are only the messenger) is one of the most biased and hateful and distored peices of crap I've read on this forum--not counting manny's.

As a *first* I tend to agree with Hawk on some points, especially "False prejudices and simplistic stereotypes." Exactly! How gaawd-damned narrow minded can you get. But I have to agree with RA on the Alaska Airline thing. It doesn't fly. (No pun intended.)

First, I am a conservative fiscally, and I would like to remind you that Clinton and the Republican Congress passed one of the largest cuts to welfre recipients in ages. But, they increased the give aways to the Corporate Welfare Queens by Millions. I don't believe in paying for the public's foolishness from cradle to grave, but to give it to fat cats to advetise overseas and promote world trade is worse. Still costs the taxpayer a bundle. Read my post down the line on give aways.

I could counter each of those "beliefs," but why bother when some of you have already made up your mind to swallow this tripe. I could also post a similar narrow-minded, prejudiced, stereotyped list on "You know you're a conservative when....." But it would be the same sort of garbage.

And Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot. He's from my state and he's a disgrace to thinking people.

l I see this brought Liberal Hater out of the woodwork.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 12, 2000.

And, I would like to add that back when Rush was a 320 lb. idiot, he was so low-down and rotten that he attacked Clinton by referring to Chelsea as "a dog." That takes a scumbag of monumental proportions.

Why does anyone attack the children of public figures. Do you remember the slurs thrown at the Nixon girls, the Johnson girls, and others. Personal attacks on anyone's looks is the sign of a sub-human.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 12, 2000.

Hey there Gilda- You stand high like a duck in a shooting gallery. Rush Limbaugh speaks the truth for all to hear and that's why he has more listeners than anybody else in his industry. But the truth does really hurt doesn't it? You and your group sit out there and demand that warm and fuzzy feeling from somebody else's pocket. Gimme Gimme Gimme Gimme Gimme!

-- Liberal Hater (liberty@bell.com), March 12, 2000.

Gilda you said: "referring to Chelsea as "a dog.""

Oh God, I don't look that bad do I???

hidin' under the bed...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), March 12, 2000.

Let's examine a few of these shall we?

* That trial lawyers are selfless heroes, but doctors are overpaid;

Clinton and his cronies suck up to the Trial Lawyers, no doubt about that. Hence, grain of truth.

* That the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding;

It is without a doubt the side that screams for more and more AIDS money is the left. AIDS is easy to prevent with responsible personal behavior.

* That guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese;

Handgun Control Inc-Clinton-Red Chinese money-Nuke spies, need I say more?

* That there was no art before federal funding;

The left feels that art needs to be publicly funded to survive, grain of truth(big one)I wonder how Van Gogh was able to work without public funds?

* That the NRA is bad, because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution, but the ACLU is good, because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution;

Handgun Control Inc, grain of truth.

* That the most troubling thing you can find in a public school is children praying;

I think that this one is pretty good really, prayer in schools should trouble conservatives as well as liberals, but then we start that whole label thing again.

* That standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas aren't;

Please, do I really need to elaborate?

* That perjury and obstruction of justice are impeachable crimes if a Republican president like Richard Nixon commits them, but harmless private matters if a Democratic president like Bill Clinton commits them;

Another easy one, blatant double standard.

* That the way to end racism is to give people special treatment on the basis of their skin color;

Jesse Jackson is anything but a "Conservative".

* That we can have a strong military without spending any money on it;

Too easy, which side cuts military spending, while at the same time calls for humanitarian intervention in world affairs?

* That the way to improve public schools is to give more money and power to people who have misused it in the past;

N.E.A. another easy one.

* That a mother can be trusted to decide whether to terminate the life of her baby, but cannot be trusted to choose her child's school;

NEA again.

* That a handful of religious wackos living in isolation in rural Texas are more of a threat to public safety than Puerto Rican terrorists who plant bombs in major cities;

This one is a little unfair, but the calls for investigation into Waco etc have come more from the right.

* That the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it has been tried is because people like you haven't been in charge.

I agree with this one, I should be made KING of the world, I could make it all work, really I could!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 12, 2000.

Gilda,

You are comparing me to Manny? I beg your pardon.

I put this up thinking it might create an interesting discussion. (Isn't that what we do here?)

So far, it has not disappointed me.

-- semper paratus (here_with@my.pals), March 12, 2000.

lib hater, I don't know what group you're talking about, but I get NOTHING from the government. I demand nothing from the government, but we pay plenty in taxes to support the corporate subsidies, tax breaks and other perks that conservatives usually vote for.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 12, 2000.

semper paratus:

Sorry. What you have described here is not a liberal, but a *fleeble*.

In case you did not know, a fleeble is an imaginary friend that can only be seen by conservatives. They like to carry them from place to place in their pockets. At political functions, conservatives all pull out their fleebles and show them off to one another.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), March 12, 2000.

This sounds like an Accumulation of Bill Buckleys,who in the last 40 Years have even learned less,than Buckley.Only a "Liberal"has enough Tolerance to put up with You mentally and socially undeveloped "Rush"L.Creatures.

-- hiram A (in@the.east), March 13, 2000.

Doomers = conservatives

Pollies = democrats or marxists

this forum has just become a punch and judy show

stick your tongues out at the other side

BTW having experienced the real effects of socialism in the UK and seen them/known about them from acquaintances in E Europe you'll never catch me voting Labour again

not that Thatcher didn't make her share of mistakes, i don't defend every policy carried out by any party that is closest to my philosophy

regardless of whether you're a democrat or not you've gotta admit that Clinton is a murderer

-- Sir richard (Richard Dale@onion.com), March 14, 2000.