billybobama

Thanks for proving my point. You could not answer a direct question so you chose personal attack instead, so typical of ignorance. You said you were a Socialist, boom I know exactly where you stand. Yet you did not Identify 1 person, I repeat not 1 person as either a Liberal or a Democrat.

Katczinsky

I'm not attacking you, I answered your question. You, on the other hand, are calling me ignorant.

It seems to me that you make no logical structure to your argument. In fact, that entire argument flipped on its head. You said you refuse to be 'reduced' to a simple label such as conservative, liberal, libertarian, and so on by taking the political compass test (even though the test doesn't even really label you anything). And now you're acknowledging that such a term as 'socialist' tells you exactly where I stand.

And I fail to see where you're going with identifying people in the white house as conservative or liberal. Many on the top are neo-conservative. Now, is that a term used to control the ignorant because it's reducing someone as a 'term'? No, it gives a fairly accurate description of their philosophy.

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

sgtdmski

Pre-emptive War, it seems more or less common sense to protect one's people against attack not after the attack has already been committed, but rather before it is committed. Does it not??? Government's job is to protect the people, yet if they wait until someone attacks the people, they have in fact not fulfilled their mandate, now have they? In terms of liberal and conservative, it comes out pretty much equal does it not. Conservatives have always held that government should be limited doing what only it can do, i.e. defending the nation. Liberals believe in big government allowing the government to provide solutions for all the ills of the nation. So in truth this is a liberal and a conservative ideal, by definition.

Running up huge debts, is this not Keynesian economics at it best??? Has this not always been the case? Spend, Spend and Spend. When Republicans controlled the Congress they favored tax cuts, but increased spending anyway. When Democrats control the Congress they increase spending and taxes together. History has shown that no matter what a President of the people do, Congress will continue to spend. If you cut off their funding they incur debts, because no one wants to offend a group of supporters. This is a purely liberal idea, of allowing government to grow larger to provide more services for the people. Yet liberals hate Bush, go figure.

Protecting Terrorists, how??? By the assinine rules imposed by the TVA in who they scrutinize? THis is to appease the PC crowd. A true liberal idea of not offending and being open-minded if I ever saw one.

Committing treason. Clearly a liberal tendency. Support for Hiss over Chambers, supporting Castro over the US, being apologist for Saddam Hussein.

dmk

__________________
Conservatism, I repeat is not an ideology. It does not breed fanatics....But if you want men who seek, reasonably and prudently, to reconcile the best in wisdom of our ancestors with the change which is essential to a vigorous civil social existence, then you will do well to turn to conservative principles
-Russell Kirk-

Fluffmeister

This reminds me of the Monty Python sketch about the ancient Welsh martial art of Llap-Goch used for self-defence (in case anyone wonders, no, it's NOT an ancient Welsh martial art, the sketch was a joke).

It's based on two principles:

1. The best method of defence is attack.

2. The best element of attack is surprise.

Therefore, you launch a violent and disabling attack on someone before they've even *thought* about attacking you. For example, you see an old lady walking down the road...

billybobama

I try to respond to your post but I am being spammed in this forum.

billybobama

I finally went to my business desk top to dodge you spammers. You prove my point with every post. You define liberals and conservatives from your own point of view. I suggest you change your name to Webster. Also you have not named 1, I repeat not 1 liberal or conservative. As for the protected terrorist his name is Carellis, not sure the spelling is right. Try and do some homework before you engage your mouth.

Katczinsky

A more accurate term to describe the neo-conservative war doctrine would be preventive war. Pre-emptive almost connotates a sense of urgency, such as the enemy war bombers flying toward our airspace so we need to shoot them down. But preventive connotates that a rational for war is based on a loose and far potential threat to security.

To use the excuses of imminent threat when it came to Saddam's Iraq almost reminds me of the sad excuses for the German invasion of Poland. The Germans thought Poland was a direct threat to Germany, in fact they were told the Polish had attacked them. You're going to have to face the fact that Iraq was essentially a defenseless state. It couldn't defend itself let alone the stupid idea of landing at the beaches of the largest military power in the world.

And also, you seem to continue to prescribe to the obvious lies that Saddam was a sponser of terrorism and Al-Qaeda. Hell, even Bush (now that it is after the fact) admits that they had no connection. Saddam in fact, in terms of other Middle Eastern countries, rightfully could have been our biggest ally in destroying terrorist cells (seeing as you prescribe to Reagan's unbridled use of the ideology of the enemy of our enemy is our friend). Saddam destroyed terrorist cells when they entered Iraq. Saddam was a secular dictator, and for that reason, most if not all radical Islamic terrorist groups hated Saddam. Osama Bin Laden in fact wanted to call Jihad on him during the first gulf war. And in a very sad sense of irony, it was when we denied Osama the privilege of fighting against Saddam did he begin to cease being a CIA asset and started hating America.

Bush doesn't support a policy of making helpful domestic programs. In fact, his policy is just the opposite: he cuts funding or even cancels many valuable domestic programs. Your attempt at framing Bush as a liberal is pathetic. The reason why Bush drives up the deficit at unprecedented levels is because he gives record-breaking tax cuts to the rich, all the while increasing dramatically the funding to the military, funding the quagmire war in Iraq, as well as corporate welfare.

You are obviously unfamiliar with our dealings in Latin America. Not only do we continue to harbor and give asylum to one of the worst terrorists known to Latin America (Luis Posada Carriles, who is guilty of downing a Cuban airliner killing 73 innocent people), but we also have a record of dealing out terrorism ourselves (including but not limited to, assassinations, supporting coups of rightist genocidal dictators, supporting terrorist groups like the contras, and Luis Posada Carriles himself, for example, was a CIA operative).

Not to mention that our war in Iraq has become the most significant contributor in the exacerbation of terrorism around the world. The biggest recruiter for Al-Qaeda isn't Osama bin Laden but George W. Bush.

"Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason...Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy."
-Adolf Hitler

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

billybobama

You prove my post with every word you post. You have not named 1, I repeat for the slow of wit, not 1 Liberal or 1 Conservative. As for protecting terrorists the mans name is Carellis. And outing CIA agents during a time of war is treason.

billybobama

Try your bait and switch on a simpler mind. Stick with the subject which is - There are Liberals and Conservatives. You have not been able to name 1, I repeat, not 1 Liberal or 1 Conservative. Socialist is a believer in a definite form of government. I repeat, the terms Liberal and Conservative, when used as nouns, are nothing more than propaganda terms.

foundit66

Sgt.:
Now, it's quite simple to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana. First of all you force him to drop the banana; then, second, you eat the banana, thus disarming him. You have now rendered him 'elpless.

Palin:
Suppose he's got a bunch.

Sgt.:
Shut up.

Idle:
Suppose he's got a pointed stick.

Sgt.:
Shut up.
Monty Python Sketch - Self Defence Against Fresh Fruit

__________________
"(Gay marriage) is a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish."
-- Jon Stewart
"Please don't judge others by your own standards."
-- Garysher