BF2S Forums WSJ: The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy comfirmed

lowing wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

lol

it's the world against lowing.

nope it is liberals against the self sufficient.

all self sufficient people are conservative and everyone else is liberal?

you're a fucking idiot.

Nice summary rdx-fx.  But I think there's a new term we need to define called the "Ruling Class".  This is a hodgepodge of Republicans AND Democrats that that have formed cliques in Washington.  RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) like Olimpia Snowe, John McCain, and Lindsey Grahame are examples of Republicans in the Ruling Class.  Our leaders like Nancy Palosi, Harry Reid, and of course Barack Obama on the Democrat side.

The counter in the Government are Blue Dog Democrats and Conservative Republicans - their numbers should grow this November.



Its this Ruling Class, I believe, that plays the Country Class (that's the rest of us), to do their biding.  Like when Democrats use liberal organizations like the NAACP, NOW, or many Unions (Teachers, Government workers, etc...), as tools.  Or when Republicans use the guise of "bipartisanship", which is just another way of going along with what Decmorats say.


You might find this article interesting:

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/1 … ss-and-the

via http://www.rushlimbaugh.com (transcript from July, 19, 2010)

Reciprocity wrote:

lowing wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

lol

it's the world against lowing.

nope it is liberals against the self sufficient.

all self sufficient people are conservative and everyone else is liberal?

you're a fucking idiot.

Well first, you did not address what I actually posted. Second, sorry to break it to you but modern American liberal ideology does not lend a great deal of credence toward :

personal responsibility, there is always misfortune, luck, your parents, your environment, or "the man" to blame for your fucked up life and your fucked up decisions in that fucked up life.

reward or consequence toward individual choice. Liberals expect to be bailed out of whatever "misfortune" they have found themselves or brought upon themselves.

determination, ambition, motivation, drive achievement. Instead liberal key words include, luck (good or bad) fortune (good or bad), hope. It is these words that determines what one should have out of life. Of course if your luck is bad and you are unfortunate, you may even the playing field by simply removing wealth from someone else who was lucky or fortunate. I mean it is only fair right?

Now, "not all conservatives are self sufficient and everyone else is a liberal". But is painfully true that liberal ideology does not lean toward or favor the self sufficient side of the spectrum. It does in fact lean toward promoting govt. dependency. and yes Virginia, that goes against being self sufficient.

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-27 14:20:39)

lol eerily quite. Notice none of the liberals want to come out and defend their govt. dependency, their mooching and their thievery from the producing class?

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

lol eerily quite. Notice none of the liberals want to come out and defend their govt. dependency, their mooching and their thievery from the producing class?

Speaking of mooching from society, Wall Street and the auto industry already did that a while back, and both parties supported Wall Street's mooching -- which costs us a lot more than poor people do.

Granted, the auto industry's mooching is more directly tied to corruption involving unions.

you speaking of bail-outs? nothing but another avenue for govt. control

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Speaking of mooching from society, Wall Street and the auto industry already did that a while back, and both parties supported Wall Street's mooching -- which costs us a lot more than poor people do.

Granted, the auto industry's mooching is more directly tied to corruption involving unions.

you speaking of bail-outs? nothing but another avenue for govt. control

To a degree, yes, but it also shows that conservatives aren't as anti-mooching as you're suggesting.  Libertarians are the only ones consistently against mooching.

govt bail outs is not a conservative trait. Conservatives ( who are not in power) by and large protested bail outs. Liberals by and large welcome govt. dependency and in fact adjust their votes to accommodate that end.

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

To a degree, yes, but it also shows that conservatives aren't as anti-mooching as you're suggesting.  Libertarians are the only ones consistently against mooching.

govt bail outs is not a conservative trait. Conservatives ( who are not in power) by and large protested bail outs. Liberals by and large welcome govt. dependency and in fact adjust their votes to accommodate that end.

Bush isn't a conservative? It was his administration that pushed for TARP and the bailout of AIG.

I clearly said "who are not in power"...Meaning private ( conservative ) citizens were completely against the bail outs.

Bush and company betrayed conservative values.

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-28 07:52:49)

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

govt bail outs is not a conservative trait. Conservatives ( who are not in power) by and large protested bail outs. Liberals by and large welcome govt. dependency and in fact adjust their votes to accommodate that end.

Bush isn't a conservative? It was his administration that pushed for TARP and the bailout of AIG.

I clearly said "who are not in power"...Meaning private ( conservative ) citizens were completely against the bail outs.

Bush and company betrayed conservative values.

Well, so did a lot of his constituency.  Neocons aren't anymore small government minded than liberals are.

To put things in perspective, if you want to suggest that liberals and the poor are moochers, neocons and big business are as well.

That doesn't leave us with many people or institutions that can't be classified as moochers in some way or another.

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bush isn't a conservative? It was his administration that pushed for TARP and the bailout of AIG.

I clearly said "who are not in power"...Meaning private ( conservative ) citizens were completely against the bail outs.

Bush and company betrayed conservative values.

Well, that's because he was a neo-con. The conservatives in this country championed him without even knowing what a neo-con is. A neo-con is essentially a liberal (meaning expansion of entitlements, interventionist economic practices, deficit spending etc) that is in love with the military and wants to use it to 'spread democracy'. They use social conservatives to get elected. Why? I dunno, could be the general lack of education among them and the ease with which they are blinded as long as a person remembers to thank god for whatever it is he accomplished, oh and wave his flag. Bush did both of those quite well and mixed in an aww shucks personality for bonus points. Neo-cons were radicals from the 60s, the difference being they believed in the Vietnam War.

It's amazing how small the percentage of the American population actually knew what it was electing. They saw 'conservative' in the title and that was enough for them.

to be fair I do not think it was merely "enough for them" more than they typical issue of being forced to vote for the lesser of 2 evils.