Are all conservatives traitors?

[JD Barleycorn]

I don't think change for the sake of change (or hope and change) is a good thing. Events will change things and will change people's ideas. The left has made it a habit (it is part of their dogma) to lie about what they really want to do. Do you understand that? You can lie about what you voted for (most politicians do for some reason) but liberals lie about the very core of what they believe in. Would Obama have been elected if he had said to the American people (and I'm trying to be nice about this):

"I intend to change the way we use energy in this country by retarding exploration and promoting green energy with public funds even though it is not yet proven to work."

"I intend to improve America's image in the world by apologizing to all those that we have offended either on purpose or inadvertendly.",

"I intend to create a climate for the promotion of progressivism by using taxpayer money to support unions and our friends in industry."

"If elected I will ignore the half of the country that lost the election because winners don't care about what the losers think."

"I intend to force legislation against the wishes of the majority of Americans because I know better than the majority of Americans and if I can't pass my legislation then I will use regulation to achieve my ends."

[mastermind238]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I don't think change for the sake of change (or hope and change) is a good thing. Events will change things and will change people's ideas. The left has made it a habit (it is part of their dogma) to lie about what they really want to do. Do you understand that? You can lie about what you voted for (most politicians do for some reason) but liberals lie about the very core of what they believe in. Would Obama have been elected if he had said to the American people (and I'm trying to be nice about this):

"I intend to change the way we use energy in this country by retarding exploration and promoting green energy with public funds even though it is not yet proven to work."

"I intend to improve America's image in the world by apologizing to all those that we have offended either on purpose or inadvertendly.",

"I intend to create a climate for the promotion of progressivism by using taxpayer money to support unions and our friends in industry."

"If elected I will ignore the half of the country that lost the election because winners don't care about what the losers think."

"I intend to force legislation against the wishes of the majority of Americans because I know better than the majority of Americans and if I can't pass my legislation then I will use regulation to achieve my ends."

And if I might add just a few to this list ...

"If I am elected I promise not to let that yellowed, old, crinkly paper called the Constitution stand in the way of accomplishing my agenda. The idea of the Senate having to approve my appointments is quaint, but not very productive, so I promise I'll just ignore the Senate and appoint whomever I want, whenever I want, whether the Congress is in recess or not."

"If you really want me instead of Hillary to be the nominee of the Democrat party, it'll cost close to a BILLION dollars to get me elected. So I must wait for John McCain to commit to accepting matching campaign funds before I decide to do what no major party nominee has done in almost 40 years - eschew those matching funds so I can raise money without those pesky limits, any way I can - legal or not."

[undercover1]

Only liberals lie????? LOL.

Compassionate conservative (George W. Bush) wages war with a preemptive strike against a country that NEVER posed a threat to the USA. No WMD, no al-quida, no bil laden/hussain/9-11 connecion. So much for "compassion"!!!!!!

"W" also ciritized Gore in the 2000 presidential debates by stating the Clinton/Gore administration were "nation building" and that he, as president, "WOULD NEVER INVOLVE THIS NATION IN NATION BUILDING"! We're STILL in Iraq attempting to build a miniture USA.

[mastermind238]

Originally Posted by undercover1

Only liberals lie????? LOL.

Compassionate conservative (George W. Bush) wages war with a preemptive strike against a country that NEVER posed a threat to the USA. No WMD, no al-quida, no bil laden/hussain/9-11 connecion. So much for "compassion"!!!!!!

"W" also ciritized Gore in the 2000 presidential debates by stating the Clinton/Gore administration were "nation building" and that he, as president, "WOULD NEVER INVOLVE THIS NATION IN NATION BUILDING"! We're STILL in Iraq attempting to build a miniture USA.

Still flogging that horse? The intelligence on WMD was bad, but at the time every intelligence agency in the world believed what we did. That's not the same thing as lying.

Yeah, Bush did what he said he would never do. But we're NOT still in Iraq. Haven't you been paying attention? We left on the timetable established under Bush. Obama did nothing to speed up the withdrawal.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by mastermind238

Yeah, Bush did what he said he would never do. But we're NOT still in Iraq. .

2 TRILLION dollars later!

They all lie.

We only call out the other side.

This is nothing but a shit throwing contest. Who wins those? Tell me please!

[LovingKayla]

Wait. Back to page 1. Did you really suggest Sanger saying she was trying to eliminate the black population was taken out of context ? What context did you mean? Find and quote the whole thing so we tards can see your vast wisdom.

[mastermind238]

Originally Posted by LovingKayla

Wait. Back to page 1. Did you really suggest Sanger saying she was trying to eliminate the black population was taken out of context ? What context did you mean? Find and quote the whole thing so we tards can see your vast wisdom.

I don't ordinarily use Wikipedia, but it was handy. This is from the article on MS:

From 1939 to 1942 Sanger was an honorary delegate of the Birth Control Federation of America, which included a supervisory role — alongside Mary Lasker and Clarence Gamble — in the Negro Project, an effort to deliver birth control to poor African Americans.[87] Sanger wanted the Negro Project to include black ministers in leadership roles, but other supervisors did not. To emphasize the benefits of involving black community leaders, she wrote to Gamble "we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." This quote has been used by numerous Sanger detractors, including Angela Davis and opponents of the legalization of abortion, to support their claims that Sanger was racist.[88] However, according to New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project, Sanger, in writing that letter, "recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South, unless clergy and other community leaders spread the word that the Project had a humanitarian aim."

You'll have to go to the article to find the citations. But I do believe Ms. Sanger has been misinterpreted. I haven't started playing for the other team here. Just trying to keep it fair. There are plenty of respectable ways to discredit Planned Parenthood (which I have no intention of doing here) without resorting to claims that it was founded by a racist. If this were PolitiFacts, the "Sanger was a Racist" claim would have to be rated False.

[CJ7]

I appreciate your code of ethics MM

Kudos

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

I appreciate your code of ethics MM

Kudos

It's certainly a code CBJ7 does not possess.
(For examples see @ http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2207925&postcount=156)

[CuteOldGuy]

Here's the problem. You guys are arguing definitions, while Munchie is advocating shutting down the free speech rights of 25 - 40% of the population. The issue isn't who is what and when, the issue is should we allow free speech or not? Now Munchie's an idiot, but there are many others who hold his view - on both sides. Now if one of these is in a position to enforce the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA of 2012, we have a real problem.

The question is, should we allow political speech which we don't agree with? Or should we use what weapons we have at hand, other than rational, peaceful confrontation, to silence it?

[JD Barleycorn]

Undercover you seem to have forgotten 1998. That is when Bill Clinton issued an executive order to remove Hussein from office by any means necessary. it was seconded by Al Gore Jr., John Kerry, and John Edwards. George W. Bush went to Congress (though it was not necessary) for a resolution to do what had to be done to remove Hussein. There was nothing illegal about what Bush did. Preemptive? Have you forgotten about the no fly zones? or our planes being shot at with missiles? or a flyer that was in the hands of the Iraqi during the first Gulf War? how about the USS Inchon and their damaged ship from an Iraqi mine? how about the USS Stark? forget about the missile strike and dead sailors? Preemptive??? it was long over due and within legal authority.

[Raa1965]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Olivia, I never said or suggested that you were a democrat or not. I don't know how you can say something about Democratic Tea Partiers because Tea Parties don't self indentify as one political party or the other. It is the MSM that always identifies the TEA party are Republicans of some stripe or another. They are like to say that there is not such thing as a democratic Tea Partier.
As for your contention that those are GOP traits, I think history says otherwise and says it very forcefully.

Really dude....Tea Party don't identify with Republicans.....SERIOUSLY....w ait...your right....thy only align themselves with Repulicans on everything...of course that doesnt explain why John Boehner has so much trouble with getting things done....

Wait...thats a whole other issue...

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Raa1965

Really dude....Tea Party don't identify with Republicans.....SERIOUSLY....w ait...your right....thy only align themselves with Repulicans on everything...of course that doesnt explain why John Boehner has so much trouble with getting things done....

Wait...thats a whole other issue...

No they are independent voters those Tea Folks! They just always vote for the GOP ! But do not forget how independent they are.

That is wdhy we make fun of Tea Folks. They think they are something that they are not. They want to cut government spending and they do not want the government messing with their Medicare! No wonder they rallied behind that stupid cunt Sara Palin. She does not know how to govern, just spit out slogans. That is wtf you Tea folks like, slogans. Reality is not in the cards with you folks. Only thing different about going to a Tea Rally and A Jermia Wright sermon is the color of the folks skin.

[JD Barleycorn]

WTF, you've used the words "bitch" and "cunt" to describe prominent women. Go to your room and say 20 Hail Marys. Use a bar of soap if you have it.

Tea Party people are composed of both democrats and republicans according to USA Today. So Tea Party people don't always vote for Republicans but they are looking for someone who is going to respond to the people and be fiscally responsible. Most of us feel that our best bet is in the GOP since we don't have to go so far to find a conserative. The reason you don't hear too much about the Tea Party right now because the Tea Party is working on the other races. State legislatures, governors, congress people, and senators are also being voted on this year. The GOP will take care of the big one and the Tea Party will make their presence felt elsewhere.

[Don't Be Daft!]

Spot on! All politicians lie but I can live with the lies a wee bit better from liberal dems.