Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Liberals=Clinically insane

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Knight Templar View Post
    I don't know, anybody who would say everything she says just to make a few bucks is probably nuttier than someone who actually believes it!
    Call me a nut then. That woman knows what she's talking about and she isn't afraid to speak her mind. Offending someone isn't a crime. I like her straight talk.
    Ephesians 2:8
    For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God
    Romans 11:29
    for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.

    Comment


    • #47
      Speaking of Ann Coulter

      She does speak her mind and makes sense. By the way, she wrote the book that I was talking about in an earlier post about if democrats had brains, they would be republicans.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by theabaud View Post
        It makes me curious when you say "Liberal Libertarian," what does that mean? As we discussed in another thread "Liberal" is a word in constant and confusing flux, and I myself could describe myself in this manner and another person meaning something different could do the same. I have a feeling that you and I are pretty close in our political doctrines but want to check and see.

        To be open in that, I will say that I oppose about 95% of all government regulation and long for a return to the hands off approach of our founding fathers. I believe in the market and the ability of that to make a larger influence in the lives of people than anything we can force on people. I would call my self a republitarian.
        Basically by "liberal libertarian" I mean that I'm generally a libertarian, but more so on the social side than on the economic, and that I support more of economic liberals' policies than a more traditional libertarian would. For example, I support a moderate amount of welfare in addition to a generally free market. According to the Political Compass test, I'm exactly neutral (0.0) on the economic scale.
        "We are symbols and inhabit symbols; workmen, work, and tools, words and things, birth and death, all are emblems; but we sympathize with the symbols, and being infatuated with the economical uses of things, we do not know that they are thoughts." - Emerson, "The Poet" (Essays, Second Series)

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by dan View Post
          If anyone is Gay, assuming it is by choice, that is a liberal position IMO. His feelings that support Conservative Values are greatly appreciated, except for the division that it demonstrates.
          That's not really a "position" in the normal sense of the word; "I like men" can't be called a political position in the same way that "I support the death penalty" is one. (I do not do either one, by the way.) As for its being a liberal position, it doesn't really indicate that the gay person believes that the government should abstain from interfering in personal matters but involve itself to a certain degree in economic ones.

          Originally posted by dan View Post
          No. I'm suggesting that liberal politicians are more likely to abuse their power. The "new" Eminent Domain allows a governmental entity to acquire private property at a fair price, and turn it over to another private entity just because it would be an enhancement to the community. Abused!
          To convince me that liberal politicians are more likely to abuse power, you'd have to either find a consistent pattern of abuse or something inherent in liberalism that causes it; one example is not sufficient.

          Originally posted by dan View Post
          I support evil's right to exist because the Constitution says that is correct. But their existence does incite others IMO.
          Possibly, but that doesn't negate one's right to sin if it does not hurt another (and "hurt" in the sense of causing someone else to sin is far too vague and impossible to determine to legislate against).
          "We are symbols and inhabit symbols; workmen, work, and tools, words and things, birth and death, all are emblems; but we sympathize with the symbols, and being infatuated with the economical uses of things, we do not know that they are thoughts." - Emerson, "The Poet" (Essays, Second Series)

          Comment


          • #50
            The "new", "fashonable",...

            Originally posted by Luke34 View Post
            That's not really a "position" in the normal sense of the word; "I like men" can't be called a political position in the same way that "I support the death penalty" is one. (I do not do either one, by the way.) As for its being a liberal position, it doesn't really indicate that the gay person believes that the government should abstain from interfering in personal matters but involve itself to a certain degree in economic ones.
            ...Split personality.
            You've never heard of a person being, "morally liberal", but, "economically conservative"?

            Originally posted by Luke34 View Post
            To convince me that liberal politicians are more likely to abuse power, you'd have to either find a consistent pattern of abuse or something inherent in liberalism that causes it; one example is not sufficient.
            Oh, please! The list is endless! The house banking scandal, Savings and Loan Scandal, Keating five, Chinese influence sting, Arabgate.
            Although, the cause is flawed people, liberalism is just the current label.

            Originally posted by Luke34 View Post
            Possibly, but that doesn't negate one's right to sin if it does not hurt another (and "hurt" in the sense of causing someone else to sin is far too vague and impossible to determine to legislate against).
            I wouldn't dream of interfering at all, as long as I get to read about it. How else will I know who the "bad guys" are.
            JER 14:13 Then said I: 'Ah, Lord GOD! behold, the prophets say unto them: Ye shall not see the sword, neither shall ye have famine; but I will give you assured peace in this place.'
            JER 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me: 'The prophets prophesy lies in My name; I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spoke I unto them; they prophesy unto you a lying vision, and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their own heart.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by skc53 View Post
              She does speak her mind and makes sense. By the way, she wrote the book that I was talking about in an earlier post about if democrats had brains, they would be republicans.
              I think she's a hack and does nothing to forward conservative politics. She's not here to progress conservative causes, she's here to lay vitriol at the feet of people who don't agree with her and turn a handsom profit in the meantime.

              And to address an earlier post... no she doesn't know what she's talking about. She's more politically aware than the avg person, but if the facts don't suit her agenda then they mustn't be facts. Example.

              That was shortly after this.
              Last edited by karenoka27; May 2 2008, 02:52 AM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by HisLeast View Post
                no she doesn't know what she's talking about. She's more politically aware than the avg person, but if the facts don't suit her agenda then they mustn't be facts.
                You're absolutely right. I remember seeing her on some talk show, insisting with all her might that Canada sent troops to Vietnam!
                If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. - John 8:36

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Knight Templar View Post
                  You're absolutely right. I remember seeing her on some talk show, insisting with all her might that Canada sent troops to Vietnam!
                  But Canada DID send troops. Although they didn't fight in the war, troops WERE sent. Canada DID support the war effort by producing and selling the United States munitions. Just because their troops didn't actually fight, doesn't mean they didn't support the effort.


                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Vietnam_War
                  Canada did not fight in the Vietnam War, and diplomatically it was officially "non-belligerent". The country's troop deployments to Vietnam were limited to a small number of peacekeeping forces in 1973.[1] Nevertheless, the war had considerable effects on Canada, while Canada and Canadians affected the war, in return.

                  Additionally, at the start of the Vietnam War, Canada was a member of the UN truce commissions overseeing the implementation of the Geneva Agreements, and thus was obliged to stay officially neutral. The Canadian negotiators were strongly on the side of the Americans, however.[citation needed] Some delegates even engaged in espionage on behalf of the Americans, with the approval of the Canadian government. Canada also sent foreign aid to South Vietnam, which, while humanitarian, was directed by the Americans.

                  Canada tried to mediate between the warring countries, aiming for a conclusion that could allow the U.S. to leave the conflict honourably, but also publicly (if mildly) criticised American war methods, occasionally.[citation needed] Meanwhile, Canadian industry exported military supplies and raw materials useful in their manufacture, including ammunition, napalm and Agent Orange,[2] to the United States, as trade between the two countries carried on unhindered by considerations of the purposes to which these exports were being put. Although these exports were sales by Canadian companies, not gifts from the Canadian government, they benefitted the American war effort, none the less.
                  Ephesians 2:8
                  For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God
                  Romans 11:29
                  for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by ddlewis86 View Post
                    But Canada DID send troops. (1)Although they didn't fight in the war, (2)troops WERE sent. (3)Canada DID support the war effort by producing and selling the United States munitions. Just because their troops didn't actually fight, doesn't mean they didn't support the effort.
                    1. Minus one point for Coulter, who claims Canada fought in the war.
                    2. Sent in a peacekeeping capacity, not as a supplement to American forces.
                    3. Strictly an opinion, which is why wikipedia has all the "citation needed".

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by dan View Post
                      ...Split personality.
                      You've never heard of a person being, "morally liberal", but, "economically conservative"?
                      I mentioned social (well, "personal," to quote myself) as well as economic issues in my post, so I wasn't referring only to economic leftism. And if by "morally liberal" you meant the same thing as "socially liberal," then, yes, I have heard of that - it's known as libertarianism (I consider myself mostly libertarian). But if you didn't mean that, then "morally liberal" has an entirely different sense than the political one in which we have been using the word liberal. Just because it has the same word in it doesn't mean the phrases are really related; as I might have said before, a "conservative estimate" (i.e., erring on the side of under- rather than overestimation) has nothing to do with political conservatism. So what I said before is still valid: a gay person can easily believe in some government involvement in the social sphere and less in the economic one. (Admittedly, gays are probably less likely to support laws directed against them - this shouldn't come as a surprise any more than blacks protesting racially discriminatory legislation does - but a gay-rights supporter does not a liberal automatically make.)

                      Originally posted by dan View Post
                      Oh, please! The list is endless! The house banking scandal, Savings and Loan Scandal, Keating five, Chinese influence sting, Arabgate.
                      Although, the cause is flawed people, liberalism is just the current label.
                      I admit that I was not sure what these things were until I Googled them (and I still do not know what "Chinese influence sting" means), but: The house banking scandal involved Republicans as well as Democrats, just not as many (which was the reason Gingrich et al. decided to publicize it); the list of causes for the Savings and Loan crisis (from the Wikipedia article on same) does not include abuse of political power; the Keating five included GOP Sen. McCain, and also the case appears to be one of straightforward political corruption, which affects many politicians but not liberals particularly; and the only thing I could find that was called "Arabgate" was the recent aborted sale of U.S. ports to the UAE, which was a Bush administration plan. None of this proves or even gives evidence that corruption or power-hunger is particularly related to contemporary liberalism as a philosophy.
                      "We are symbols and inhabit symbols; workmen, work, and tools, words and things, birth and death, all are emblems; but we sympathize with the symbols, and being infatuated with the economical uses of things, we do not know that they are thoughts." - Emerson, "The Poet" (Essays, Second Series)

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by HisLeast View Post
                        1. Minus one point for Coulter, who claims Canada fought in the war.
                        2. Sent in a peacekeeping capacity, not as a supplement to American forces.
                        3. Strictly an opinion, which is why wikipedia has all the "citation needed".
                        Canada and the Vietnam War: Peacekeeper or Arms Merchant

                        by Bill Skidmore

                        An essential tenet of Canadian mythology is the belief that ours is a nation of peacekeepers, not warmakers. Supposedly, we even invented peacekeeping. Long after his death, former prime minister and Nobel Prize winner Lester Pearson is best remembered as the father of peacekeeping. A monument to Canadian peacekeepers dominates the approach to the National Gallery in Ottawa. but perhaps more important, at least in symbolic terms, is the monument's location adjacent to the future site of the American Embassy.

                        Lester Pearson was Canada's prime minister from 1963 to 1968, years of escalating American armed intervention in Vietnam. American forces in Vietnam increased from 23,000 in January, 1965 to 525,000 in February, 1968. Throughout the war Canada portrayed itself as neutral, and indeed as an actor promoting peace in Indochina. That Canada provided refuge to thousands of American deserters and draft evaders during the Vietnam War is often cited as evidence that Canada was no satellite of the United States.

                        But Victor Levant, author of Quiet Complicity: Canadian Involvement in the Vietnam War, offers a different version of history. Canada, he says, was a willing ally of the United States in Vietnam, sharing the same assumptions about the nature of the Vietcong insurgency, the strategic importance of Indochina, and the value to the world market system of trade and investment in Southeast Asia. The Pearson government, in accord with the United States, considered Vietnam a proving ground for national liberation struggles, dangerous movements that had to be checked.

                        Canada did not support the United States by sending troops to Vietnam. It did however supply a portion of the war material used by the American military in a war that claimed more than two million lives and traumatized countless millions more.

                        Yet in 1966 Lester Pearson insisted that, as a member of the International Control Commission (ICC), it would be inappropriate for Canada to ship arms to Vietnam. The ICC, which also included Poland and India, was charged with ensuring the implementation of the Geneva Accords, which set the details for French withdrawal from Vietnam and subsequent procedures for governance of the country by the Vietnamese.

                        And so, Canada did not ship arms to Vietnam. At least not directly. Between 1965 and 1973 Canada sold more than $2.5 billion worth of war material to the Pentagon, with sales to the United States jumping 55 percent in 1965 alone. These transactions, according to Levant, were largely solicited by Ottawa. The final destination of many Canadian goods was Vietnam.

                        Canadian products shipped to Vietnam via the United States included ammunition, grenades, aircraft, chemical defoliants, navigation systems, weapons release computers, artillery shells, rocket warheads, and demolition materials. Even Canadian boots, green berets, and rye whiskey made it to Vietnam. As did large quantities of napalm.

                        The Canadian government claimed to have no formal knowledge of products sold to the United States being shipped elsewhere. But Cabinet documents from that period released in 1986 indicate otherwise. In September 1965, then Secretary for External Affairs Paul Martin Sr. informed Cabinet that the Pentagon had procured items in Canada that were destined for Vietnam. Martin, says Levant, "candidly noted that he was bringing this matter to Cabinet's attention not because it represented any change in policy but because it might lead to criticism of the government."

                        The Pearson government clearly knew that Canadian armaments were reaching Vietnam, while proclaiming as unacceptable the shipment of Canadian arms to that country. Why did the Canadian government allow what amounted to a breach of its own policy?

                        For starters, says Levant, Canada-United States trade accounted for more than two-thirds of Canadian exports and almost a quarter of GNP. Further, the United States was by far the largest source of foreign investment in Canada.

                        Canada, or more precisely its business elite, was clearly dependent on the United States for its prosperity, and indeed identified with the economic interests that drove American policy in Vietnam. To have boldly opposed American intervention in Indochina would have meant risking American commercial retaliation. More importantly, it would have meant losing out on the business opportunities made possible by American military investment in Vietnam. Canadian business prospered partly from the sale of minerals and metals for use in American military production, partly by providing food and beverages to sustain American troops, and partly by producing armaments and other military items. In each instance, this commerce was encouraged and aided by the Canadian government.

                        External Affairs Secretary Paul Martin Sr. defended these sales. "It's all very well to talk about Vietnam," he said. "But what about Canada? Canada has an economic life to live." Strange priorities for a country that takes pride in being a peacekeeper.

                        Canada in 1995 continues its close economic association with the United States. If nothing else, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA make sure of that. This association continues to be an unequal one, meaning that Canada has little chance, and perhaps little inclination, to isolate itself from American policies. After all, American military might protects the global investments not only of the American business elite, but of their Canadian counterparts as well.

                        Bill Skidmore is a long-time supporter of COAT.

                        http://www.perc.ca/PEN/1995-10/s-skidmore.html





                        In 1973 the International Commission of Control and Supervision Vietnam (ICCS) was responsible for securing the armistice that lasted two years from 1973 to 1975, known as Operation Gallant. Canada, a member of the commission, contributed 240 Canadian Forces whose role was to monitor the cease-fire in South Vietnam, according to the Paris Peace Conference, and to arrange the release and exchange of more than 32,000 prisoners of war. In addition, ten to forty thousand Canadians, voluntarily served in Vietnam or during the Vietnam era with the American military, of whom 111 Canadians, were lost. One Canadian soldier, Toronto born Peter C. Lemon, won the Congressional Medal of Honor.

                        http://kerfuffle.wordpress.com/2006/...r-was-right-2/


                        Lets move that point BACK into Ann Coulter's column.......Coulter only claimed that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. They DID.
                        Ephesians 2:8
                        For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God
                        Romans 11:29
                        for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by ddlewis86 View Post
                          Canada did not support the United States by sending troops to Vietnam. It did however supply a portion of the war material used by the American military in a war that claimed more than two million lives and traumatized countless millions more.
                          Originally posted by ddlewis86 View Post
                          Lets move that point BACK into Ann Coulter's column.......Coulter only claimed that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. They DID.
                          Ooops. No they didn't... at least not in a support role to US forces. Again, negative 1 point for Coulter.

                          And mostly American owned arms dealers sell war material to Americans? Big shocker there.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by HisLeast View Post
                            Ooops. No they didn't... at least not in a support role to US forces. Again, negative 1 point for Coulter.

                            And mostly American owned arms dealers sell war material to Americans? Big shocker there.
                            OOps, he supplied a source and cited it. Now that source could very easily be faulty, but can you provide a more definitive one that says that Canada did not in any way supply material support to the war effort in Canada?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by theabaud View Post
                              OOps, he supplied a source and cited it. Now that source could very easily be faulty, but can you provide a more definitive one that says that Canada did not in any way supply material support to the war effort in Canada?
                              OOPS the source he cited completely validates my point: Canada did not send troops to Vietnam in support of the US (as Ms. Coulter contends). First sentence, fourth paragraph: " Canada did not support the United States by sending troops to Vietnam. "

                              As for the material support, the vast majority of our equipment manufacturers are American owned. Mostly American companies sell their own product (manufactured in Canada) to their home country does not make Canada the ally to the US in Vietnam that Ann Coulter wants everyone to believe. Interesting (if ineffective) strategy... changing the topic to material supply though. It had nothing to do with the Coulter clip originally brought forth. Even so, very weak case.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by HisLeast View Post
                                OOPS the source he cited completely validates my point: Canada did not send troops to Vietnam in support of the US (as Ms. Coulter contends). First sentence, fourth paragraph: " Canada did not support the United States by sending troops to Vietnam. "

                                As for the material support, the vast majority of our equipment manufacturers are American owned. Mostly American companies sell their own product (manufactured in Canada) to their home country does not make Canada the ally to the US in Vietnam that Ann Coulter wants everyone to believe. Interesting (if ineffective) strategy... changing the topic to material supply though. It had nothing to do with the Coulter clip originally brought forth. Even so, very weak case.
                                I will definately concede that there were no Canadian Combat troops in Viet Nam to support American operations there. the fact that Canada implicitly supported the Viet Nam war seems to be clear by the source which shows that Canadian Companies sold a product to support the US war effort with the Canadian government's tacit approval.

                                Regardless, this point would seem to be moot. I don't think you need to make much effort discrediting Coulter. I like her broad philosophies, but don't care much for how she crafts insults to make her points. This would be like me trying to discredit Michael Moore. WHy bother, he does it himself when ever he opens his mouth.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X