Home > Conservative, Liberal, Libtard > Which are more relevant?

Which are more relevant?


Two different sets of talking points. Which one do you think is more relevant in America right now?

These:

  • Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S.citizen?
    Do you think the Tenth Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum healthcare coverage standards?
  • Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism, and should never have been created in the first place?
  • Do you think President Obama is a socialist?
    Do you think America should return to a gold standard?

Or these:

  • Do you believe the $787 billion “stimulus” bill worked? Would you support a second so-called “stimulus” bill, even though the first failed to create much-needed jobs? Or do you believe the unspent money should be returned to the taxpayers?
  • Are you willing to hold open discussions to reach an agreement on bipartisan health care reform, or will you continue to support backroom deals – such as the Cornhusker Kickback – in order to ram an unpopular and costly government-run health care bill through Congress?
  • Do you support the half-trillion dollars in Medicare cuts proposed in the Democrats’ health care bill, and do you believe that those cuts will strengthen Medicare? If so, would you support a stand-alone bill to “strengthen” Medicare by cutting a half-trillion dollars?
  • Do you support the almost half-trillion dollars in new taxes contained in the Democrats’ health care bill? If so, do you believe raising taxes during a recession is the right thing to do?
  • Do you support increasing the nation’s debt limit by yet another $2 trillion?
  • Do you support the contentious and costly cap-and-trade legislation, or will you stand up for families, seniors, and small business owners who cannot afford to pay for a costly tax increase every time they turn on their lights or go about their day-to-day lives?
  • Do you believe the Obama Administration was correct when they gave the Christmas Day bomber a lawyer and the right to remain silent before our intelligence professionals had the opportunity to question him about other potential attacks on the United States?
  • Do you agree with the Obama Administration that terrorists should be afforded the same rights as American citizens, tried in American courtrooms, and ultimately held on American soil?

Personally, I think the Democrats are scared shitless and their strategy for the 2010 elections show it.

Advertisements
Categories: Conservative, Liberal, Libtard
  1. yttik
    January 27, 2010 at 10:41

    Hello, Zombie!

    Dems are definitely scared because contrary to popular internet belief, all of us expressing disapproval are not Republican plants trying to seduce away vulnerable liberals in some sort of elaborate brain washing scheme. Myself and many others spent years supporting liberal policies and the Dem party, but have moved farther and farther right since the primaries. We’re tired of this current party of intolerance, of tone deafness, of hypocrisy.

    • January 28, 2010 at 22:03

      Welcome! Hey remember he who is guilty should not cast the first stone. Read this article by Greenwald.

      Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-“independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government.

      I really don’t know what to make of it. I understand the want to label Obama as anything other than a “liberal.” They don’t want him to ruin it for everyone. What I don’t understand is this circle the wagon, near inquisition type mentality that is going on over there. You absolutely right when you said, “. See, once you realize where you went wrong, you can change direction. Kind of hard to do when you think your view is the only one that matters and that you’re perfect.”

  2. Woodhull
    January 28, 2010 at 10:29

    This would be tricky questionnaire for most Dems. Because the truth of the matter is that if they continue to support bo, they are tacitly saying “yes” to most (all?) of the questions in part 2, above. Maybe that’s why they now refuse to call him a “liberal” and claim him as their own.

    • January 28, 2010 at 21:13

      They are calling Obama a Republican now. Yttik is doing his best but the groupthink is too powerful there now.

  3. Woodhull
    January 29, 2010 at 07:44

    Hi Guys,

    Yeah. I don’t understand it, either. I couldn’t help myself (habit?) and had to take a look and there’s a strange comment from a “lurker” suggesting that some people had been plants “for months” trying to subtley persuade the readers and commenters at LR to their “conservative” viewpoints.

    My objection to the “true liberal” post was that it was shockingly biased and raised the spectre of McCarthyism. I was deeply disappointed that the blog owner would allow such a post even if it was for entertainment and to see how big a fight would break out. I still don’t know what to make of it, except to say that I don’t know who Pat Johnson is and there is a post saying that someone had been “reading Pat’s writing” (presumably somewhere else) “for 2 years.” I’ve been all over the internet, most at anti-bo sites for the past 2 years and I haven’t seen a Pat Johnson — so I’m thinking Pat was writing at pro-bo, “true liberal” sites during that time. Just speculation though.

    I spent an entire year campaigning for HRC and joined the ranks of the diehards after 5/31/08, but I didn’t feel the need to defend myself to the likes of TL or anyone else who wants to bully me into labeling myself in order to belong. I think all this groupthink is coming out of feeling of disempowerment and fear of being swallowed-up by the bo believers who are coming out of their kool-aide coma. I think their claiming the title “true liberal” is their way of distinguishing themselves from those who supported bo (which they’ve called “faux liberal” and “fauxgressive” all along) and to deny their delight in anything “conservative” or Republican whom they played footsies with in the past couple years while trashing bo and his supporters. If you look back over the past 2 years’ posts, there is a lot of sympathy for conservative views and admiration for Republican leadership.

    • January 29, 2010 at 13:49

      Anyone that tries to force you into believing what they want you to believe are not friends of liberty and freedom. Personally, I think they know how shoddy their argument is, that’s why they want to shut off any debate or opposing views.

    • PJ
      February 2, 2010 at 22:08

      Hi Woodhull. 🙂

      I’m not defending Pat Johnson, but for the record, she used to comment at The Confluence – during the primaries and she has always been pro-Hillary. We were sometimes confused with each other because of her initials. But now, like some other Hillary supporters, she has decided to support Obama – I think. I don’t understand that but it’s her choice. The primaries freed me from the “dems=good, repubs=bad” mindset that I had been heavily invested in. Not completely – I will admit.

      Anyway, just mainly wanted to stop in and say hi.

      • February 3, 2010 at 02:03

        Thanks for stopping by. I think Obama freed some of that mindset, like You, Jeanne, Yttk and myself. While others just got more defensive and more entrenched in the Dem=Good mindsetl…TL springs to mind. Ah to each their own. I’m not here to force anyone to one opinion or another, just to provide some differing opinion and let everyone make up their own mind.

      • Woodhull
        February 3, 2010 at 09:48

        Hey PJ!

        Gosh, it’s beginning to look like a list of “exhiles” here, isn’t it.

        Tongue in cheek: I’m very glad that you aren’t defending Pat, because I find her style indefensible. If she’s now a bo supporter, it all makes sense to me now. It would be rich to have a bo supporter-in-“liberal”-clothing as the most frequent (and unchallenged) commenter on LR!

        In defense of us who chose not to engage in flights of fantasy like what is a “true liberal”; it takes courage of conviction (even if you haven’t fully worked out what your conviction is) to hold your ground. I guess I’m just one of those “cats” that is un-herd-able. 🙂

        • February 3, 2010 at 20:04

          Ha ha, hey I didn’t leave Liberal Rapture, it left me! Seriously though, the whole purity test was a big mistake. The comment section has gone to shit. It’s more of an echo chamber now, than any discussion or debate. I don’t know if John realizes that he let the Fox run the hen house yet.

        • February 3, 2010 at 20:05

          I’m a dog person personally. I’m allergic to cats, but I agree about the cat herding. We are the cats, when TL wants sheep. As a result we had to be culled from the herd. For the greater good, you know!

        • PJ
          February 3, 2010 at 20:50

          Exactly ZH. Right on the money.

        • Woodhull
          February 3, 2010 at 22:45

          That’s too funny! Dogs, cats, sheep… what’s next? Stupid cows??! Well, the cows ain’t comin’ home — or maybe that’s chickens roosting? I’m so confused. I’ve never heard of a herd of cats.

          At any rate, you’re right. The comments are no better than the stuff at huffpo and kos at the height of their secret handshake, trash-the-dissenters period (which is not entirely over by any means). A blind person could see what was coming down the road at LR. And I can’t believe how depraved some of the regulars are sounding, it’s like they are completely different “voices” than the ones we used to know.

  4. PJ
    February 2, 2010 at 21:59

    ZH,

    I like your new digs – glad to see you’re writing more.

  5. PJ
    February 3, 2010 at 11:57

    Yes Woodhull, it does look like all the “naughty” children are gathering here. Ha! I can’t disagree about Pat. It will be interesting to see how the comment section develops at John’s new blog.

    LR was a great experiment, but it looks like the concept of hearing from very differing viewpoints might be over. Which is too bad. I started out not having an opinion about AGW. I felt like ZH made a much more compelling argument. On most “liberal” blogs, I wouldn’t have even gotten a chance to hear that side of it.

    Anyway, I’m glad you two are “cats”!

    • February 3, 2010 at 20:07

      Thank you. My whole objective is to give a different view and perspective. I find it very very telling how some would try and deny you the freedom to listen to an opposing view point. That was one of the points of the Anointed post.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: