Left-wing envirokooks better not oppose this

On Dec 3, 5:34*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 03/12/2010 00:45, wrote:





On Dec 2, 3:57 am, Martin
wrote:
On 02/12/2010 04:19, wrote:

On Dec 1, 9:10 pm, yourmommycalledandsaidbehave
* *wrote:
On Dec 1, 5:13 am, wrote:

On Nov 24, 10:06 am, yourmommycalledandsaidbehave

* *wrote:
On Nov 24, 4:13 am, wrote:

basically following party lines then only the savings and
loan industry would have failed (Whoops didn't we bail out the savings
and load industry once before, Hmm now I remember that was under a
REPUBLICAN and wasn't the REPULICAN presidential candidate McCain
criticized for having exercised "poor judgment" ).

I am a conservative, not a Republican. *You seem to get the two ideas
confused.

It is difficult from your posts to determine how much further to the
extreme right you are than the Neocons though. The lunatic fringes of
conservatism are very ill defined.

The terms "left" and "right" refer ONLY to socialists, a group which
includes both communists and fascists. Communists are on the left and
fascists are on the right. *Conservatives do not fall on that
political spectrum at all; we are neither left nor right, nor anywhere
in the middle of that morass.

You will have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.
You have defined yourself as not any of the above without saying
anything about what you believe in. I am still no wiser about what you
mean by saying you are a "conservative". You have not defined the word.

Low taxes, less government, equal rights, strong national defense,
freedom of speech, right to self defense, religious freedom, right to
privacy, fair trials, school choice, family values, preserve the
environment, support the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, etc.
Simple for most people (but not you) to understand.

No you are about as far from be conservative as is possible. You are
even to the right of the John Birchers' whos members William F.
Buckley called "paranoid and idiotic"

True Conservatives, such as myself, see people like you as leftists.

You see anyone to the left of Ghengis Khan as a leftist. This is ironic
since the ultra-right and ultra-left are virtually indistinguishable as
they each want a totalitarian one party state where no dissent is
permitted.

The ultra-right and ultra-left are all socialists.

So what are you then? Just plain anti-social.
The sort of American who lives in one of those odious gated communities
surrounded by discretely hidden razor wire and goons with guns?

http://www.seeing-stars.com/live/malibu.shtml

There is a map that will show you how to get to the beach, but be sure
to stay on the wet sand. You don't want any of the liberal residents
to accuse you of trespassing.

The only difference is what they call themselves and a few
minor details about their choice of "the great leader".

Ghengis Khan would probably best be described as a leftist. *He was
certainly not a conservative.

Humpty-dumpty still hasn't defined what he means by "conservative".

We find it both disturbing and amusing that people like you are
utterly unable to distinguish fascists (or right-wingers as you like
to call them) from us True Conservatives. *Your ignorance is
astounding and is best explained as the the result of your having been
"educated" in government schools.

So please explain to me the difference between a "true conservative" and
a neofascist in your own words.

A neofascist is a socialist, while a true conservative is not a
socialist.

All the bad bits of being a neofascist without *any* of the benefits for
the community - that sounds really appealing to deranged nutters and
megalomanics alike. Do you model yourself of Ernst Stavro Blofeld or
Napolean?

The best way to benefit the community is to be a conservative.
Socialists only take from the community.

Mature democracies can actually tolerate
political parties from far left to far right.

The US is not a democracy, and was not founded as such, so your
statement is irrelevant.

It is also hopelessly politically immature. Where else would you have a
witch-hunter general appointed to shadow box with reds under the bed. A
particularly odd scenario since the reds in America are Republicans!

Nowadays, the communist and socialist parties are weak in the US
because the Democrat platform seems very similar to their own. A few
Republicans have started to act like socialists, but this discussion
is about conservatives, not Republicans. Try to stay on topic.

I am sure US national security was greatly improved by forcing Charlie
Chaplin out. He didn't seem to do us any harm at all living in the UK.

It probably didn't hurt, but it wasn't conservatives that kept him
from returning.

The extremists do not get
many votes but do provide an outlet for the nutters.

Extremists exist only among the socialists. *There is no such thing as
a extremist conservative in US politics.

So rabid that they are beyond extremism - this I have to see.



Viewed from over the pond it is difficult to tell what you believe in. I
hope as an astronomer you are not so antiscience as to deny evolution

It isn't a pond, the body of water in question is called the Atlantic
Ocean. *I am more pro-science than you are. I know the difference
between a pond and an ocean.

But you seem to lack a knowledge of colloquial English.

You probably meant to say colloquial British.

Hearing people refer to the ocean as "the pond" was somewhat funny the
first 10,000 times, but has grown a bit tiresome over the last few
decades.

You espouse views which are on the rabid side of rightard kookdom.

Is that some sort of technical term?

Describes you perfectly.

One could say that you are on the rabid side of "LEFTtard kookdom" but
it is already a given that leftists are rabid kooks and mostly
"tards" (as you like to refer to people with whom you disagree.)

The comedians didn't need scripts they could just repeat her incoherent
utterances. She made Bush look intelligent by comparison. Neofascist
describes your politics more accurately than Conservative.

How so, idiot?

Look at your rants here and think about how you come across.

No rants, just statements of facts that don't jibe with your twisted
beliefs.

The US style ones sold in Europe are typically the least efficient and
come in at around 550kWh/month. about 3x the best A+ rated kit eghttp://www.dealtime.co.uk/Beko-Beko-AS920-Frost-Free-American-Refrige...

What exactly is a US style fridge?

Something that has double doors is badly insulated, about 1m deep with
2m square frontage and is hopelessly inefficient.

You just described a 100 cubic foot refrigerator. The vast majority
of household refrigerators in the US are in the 20- to 26-cubic foot
size.

A high efficiency European fridge is more like 160kWh/month. eghttp://www.liebherrrefrigerators.co.uk/category/liebherr-fridges/

That's more than mine uses.

Perhaps you don't have an American fridge then. I'm not sure where they
get their figures from some standardised test at a high ambient I would
guess - mine uses nothing like the book value either.

Is an "American fridge" a refrigerator that is designed in America,
built in America or just sold in America?

That is because the typical "conservative" stance in the US is always to
facilitate environmental rape for fun and profit.

You mean like the 20-room mansions, the limos, the heated pools and
the private jets of the hypocritical, faux-green leftist celebrities?

Oh it is the American way for all, but the Republicans are much more
strongly associated with encouraging profligate waste of resources to
make a quick profit. US cars are a classic example of bad by design with
average fleet fuel economy that has not improved since the 1920's.

2010 Bentley Azure, 11 MPG combined.

Ever wonder why Americans bought Japanese cars instead of British
cars? Or for that matter American cars instead of British cars?

The US eco-movement is also a part of the problem since greens tend to
claim things that are demonstrably untrue, and activists like Gore work
on a "do as I say not as I do" world model. I agree he is a hypocrite.

Well, that was easy.

Bush was not called
the toxic Texan for nothing - he did a lot to eviscerate the EPA so his
mates in the oil industry could pollute with impunity.

Your own position on AGW demonstrates clearly a total refusal to accept
any scientific evidence that conflicts with your extreme politics.

When the left-wing, jet-setting eco-hypocrites start practicing what
they preach, then us reasonable, thoughtful people might take the
(supposed) situation seriously. *Not until.

You could always set a good example and encourage others to follow. And
to be fair it sounds like you do.

Of course.

But you don't believe that it makes sense to leave the planet in a fit
state for the next generation. Why does that not surprise me?

I do believe that it makes sense. It's the hypocritical liberals who
don't.

On Dec 4, 2:32*pm, Good King Whensenseless chimed in:

I do believe that it makes sense. *It's the hypocritical liberals who
don't.

You like to generalise even more than I do! :-)

I know my version of the truth and make fun of it's ridiculousness.
You haven't a clue about the truth and still take it seriously. People
make complex and often, illogical choices. They pick and choose from
all the ideas on offer. You pick and choose from your own fantasy,
political beliefs. This is not a sound basis for living a happy life.
Nobody can live up to your peculiarly distorted ideals. Not even a New
Nazi.

Rule makers for other's behavioural codes very rarely bind themselves
to the same standards. There are infinitely more religious hypocrites
than poor atheists. Show me a religious person and I will show you an
evil, lying, sadistic hypocrite. (no offence meant but it's the
obvious truth)

It goes with the territory. "Do as I say. Not as I do." And if you
don't you shall be punished with some horrendous misery. Something
which no normal atheist could possibly imagine in their worst
nightmares! You will find more pesticides than forgiveness in the
average person sitting in a church pew. If they had security
turnstiles on church doors to test for actual practice of their
profit's ideals the churches would be completely empty! There would
certainly be no afterlife insurance scammer miming up at the altar.

The same goes for those who hold strong political beliefs. Those who
believe they hold the only truth will dehumanise and destroy anybody
who disagrees. Yet no political beliefs exist for more than a decade,
or two, without considerable modification. Every iteration of
organised human behaviour should lead to a slightly less aggressive
form. Acceptance of any political system, without comprehensive
personal criticism of the details, is just another form of fantasy
religious belief.

Believing your own ideas hold some fundamental truth is just a
constant reinforcement of fantasy. Those who select like minds to form
close-knit groups become intellectual cripples and fundamentalists.
Just look where such circular brain washing gets you! Go out and talk
to real people. They are all very different from your memorised list
of reasons to hate other people. Move to another country and see if
you match up to their standards. Those who cannot laugh at themselves
are unfit to judge others. Those who judge others should learn to
laugh at the foolishness of it all.

It is difficult to keep a straight face over anything the human race
does seriously. Back on my planet we never stop laughing at the silly,
hairless apes. Constantly displaying their idiocy to each other. In
their decorative, but terribly fragile, goldfish bowl. It must have
been their God's twisted sense of humour to put a big round rock in
there almost as large as the bowl itself. :-)

On Dec 4, 11:11*am, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:32*pm, Good King Whensenseless chimed in:

I do believe that it makes sense. *It's the hypocritical liberals who
don't.

You like to generalise even more than I do! :-)

I know my version of the truth and make fun of it's ridiculousness.
You haven't a clue about the truth and still take it seriously. People
make complex and often, illogical choices. They pick and choose from
all the ideas on offer. You pick and choose from your own fantasy,
political beliefs. This is not a sound basis for living a happy life.
Nobody can live up to your peculiarly distorted ideals. Not even a New
Nazi.

Rule makers for other's behavioural codes very rarely bind themselves
to the same standards. There are infinitely more religious hypocrites
than poor atheists. Show me a religious person and I will show you an
evil, lying, sadistic hypocrite. (no offence meant but it's the
obvious truth)

It goes with the territory. "Do as I say. Not as I do." And if you
don't you shall be punished with some horrendous misery. Something
which no normal atheist could possibly imagine in their worst
nightmares! You will find more pesticides than forgiveness in the
average person sitting in a church pew. If they had security
turnstiles on church doors to test for actual practice of their
profit's ideals the churches would be completely empty! There would
certainly be no afterlife insurance scammer miming up at the altar.

The same goes for those who hold strong political beliefs. Those who
believe they hold the only truth will dehumanise and destroy anybody
who disagrees. Yet no political beliefs exist for more than a decade,
or two, without considerable modification. Every iteration of
organised human behaviour should lead to a slightly less aggressive
form. Acceptance of any political system, without comprehensive
personal criticism of the details, is just another form of fantasy
religious belief.

Believing your own ideas hold some fundamental truth is just a
constant reinforcement of fantasy. Those who select like minds to form
close-knit groups become intellectual cripples and fundamentalists.
Just look where such circular brain washing gets you! Go out and talk
to real people. They are all very different from your memorised list
of reasons to hate other people. Move to another country and see if
you match up to their standards. Those who cannot laugh at themselves
are unfit to judge others. Those who judge others should learn to
laugh at the foolishness of it all.

It is difficult to keep a straight face over anything the human race
does seriously. Back on my planet we never stop laughing at the silly,
hairless apes. Constantly displaying their idiocy to each other. In
their decorative, but terribly fragile, goldfish bowl. It must have
been their God's twisted sense of humour to put a big round rock in
there almost as large as the bowl itself. :-)

You obviously did not read what I wrote earlier:

"Low taxes, less government, equal rights, strong national defense,
freedom of speech, right to self defense, religious freedom, right to
privacy, fair trials, school choice, family values, preserve the
environment, support the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, etc."

These are things that conservatives in the US believe in and support.
None of it becomes political until some idiot liberal (redundant)
tries to stick his or her nose into things that do not concern them.
Conservatives want to be left alone and to leave others alone,
liberals invariably want to put themselves in charge of everything.

Many liberals are not even in favor of freedom of speech. That, all
by itself, makes them dangerous.

On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 12:14:20 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Dec 4, 11:11*am, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:32*pm, Good King Whensenseless chimed in:

I do believe that it makes sense. *It's the hypocritical liberals who
don't.

You like to generalise even more than I do! :-)

I know my version of the truth and make fun of it's ridiculousness.
You haven't a clue about the truth and still take it seriously. People
make complex and often, illogical choices. They pick and choose from
all the ideas on offer. You pick and choose from your own fantasy,
political beliefs. This is not a sound basis for living a happy life.
Nobody can live up to your peculiarly distorted ideals. Not even a New
Nazi.

Rule makers for other's behavioural codes very rarely bind themselves
to the same standards. There are infinitely more religious hypocrites
than poor atheists. Show me a religious person and I will show you an
evil, lying, sadistic hypocrite. (no offence meant but it's the
obvious truth)

It goes with the territory. "Do as I say. Not as I do." And if you
don't you shall be punished with some horrendous misery. Something
which no normal atheist could possibly imagine in their worst
nightmares! You will find more pesticides than forgiveness in the
average person sitting in a church pew. If they had security
turnstiles on church doors to test for actual practice of their
profit's ideals the churches would be completely empty! There would
certainly be no afterlife insurance scammer miming up at the altar.

The same goes for those who hold strong political beliefs. Those who
believe they hold the only truth will dehumanise and destroy anybody
who disagrees. Yet no political beliefs exist for more than a decade,
or two, without considerable modification. Every iteration of
organised human behaviour should lead to a slightly less aggressive
form. Acceptance of any political system, without comprehensive
personal criticism of the details, is just another form of fantasy
religious belief.

Believing your own ideas hold some fundamental truth is just a
constant reinforcement of fantasy. Those who select like minds to form
close-knit groups become intellectual cripples and fundamentalists.
Just look where such circular brain washing gets you! Go out and talk
to real people. They are all very different from your memorised list
of reasons to hate other people. Move to another country and see if
you match up to their standards. Those who cannot laugh at themselves
are unfit to judge others. Those who judge others should learn to
laugh at the foolishness of it all.

It is difficult to keep a straight face over anything the human race
does seriously. Back on my planet we never stop laughing at the silly,
hairless apes. Constantly displaying their idiocy to each other. In
their decorative, but terribly fragile, goldfish bowl. It must have
been their God's twisted sense of humour to put a big round rock in
there almost as large as the bowl itself. :-)

You obviously did not read what I wrote earlier:

"Low taxes, less government, equal rights, strong national defense,
freedom of speech, right to self defense, religious freedom, right to
privacy, fair trials, school choice, family values, preserve the
environment, support the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, etc."

These are things that conservatives in the US believe in and support.

That's what all of the non-conservatives in the USA also believe
in and support. The problem is how to force the "conservatives"
running the government to agree.


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

On 04/12/2010 13:32, wrote:
On Dec 3, 5:34 am, Martin
wrote:
On 03/12/2010 00:45, wrote:

On Dec 2, 3:57 am, Martin
wrote:
On 02/12/2010 04:19, wrote:

On Dec 1, 9:10 pm, yourmommycalledandsaidbehave
wrote:
On Dec 1, 5:13 am, wrote:

I am a conservative, not a Republican. You seem to get the two ideas
confused.

It is difficult from your posts to determine how much further to the
extreme right you are than the Neocons though. The lunatic fringes of
conservatism are very ill defined.

The terms "left" and "right" refer ONLY to socialists, a group which
includes both communists and fascists. Communists are on the left and
fascists are on the right. Conservatives do not fall on that
political spectrum at all; we are neither left nor right, nor anywhere
in the middle of that morass.

You will have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.
You have defined yourself as not any of the above without saying
anything about what you believe in. I am still no wiser about what you
mean by saying you are a "conservative". You have not defined the word.

Low taxes, less government, equal rights, strong national defense,

You already have two mutually incompatible requirements in that line.

Strong national defense costs very serious money. And a powerful army
with an inadequate civilian government is a dictatorship.
So how low do you think taxes should be?

freedom of speech, right to self defense, religious freedom, right to
privacy, fair trials, school choice, family values, preserve the
environment, support the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, etc.
Simple for most people (but not you) to understand.

Most of this I don't have a problem with although I object strenuously
to the religious right and Young Earth Creationists trying to corrupt
the content of science lessons.

It isn't a pond, the body of water in question is called the Atlantic
Ocean. I am more pro-science than you are. I know the difference
between a pond and an ocean.

But you seem to lack a knowledge of colloquial English.

You probably meant to say colloquial British.

No. English. I live in England and we speak English here. You live in
America and you speak American which is a dialect of English.

Regards,
Martin Brown

When everybody enjoys Whensenseless' freedoms who will do all the jobs
he doesn't want to do for minimum wage?

When everybody enjoys low taxes who pays for essential services?

When everybody has a free choice of school will it house an entire
nation's youth? Will education there be free for all? Or limited to
those who can afford free choice?

Religious freedom includes agnosticism and atheism. It excludes
religious garbage in schools, on the street, on TV and online if the
agnostics and atheists are not to suffer a lesser freedom than the
knuckle draggers who still practice stone age superstition.

Whose family values? Yours? Or those who beat their children to death
to match some perversion of their religious fantasy about discipline
and sin? Or those who butcher their own offspring's genitalia for
another religious perversion? Do arranged marriages come under your
ideal family values?

Does your idea of a fair trial exclude wealth as the prime factor in
the delivery of justice? Does it include the selection of a single
defence lawyer based on a completely random and independent
computerised list of all those available? ie. A lottery of all those
not already actively engaged in a trial on the day in question.

Where on the scale from black oil washing up against the coast to
untamed jungle do you place your environmental standards? Does it
match other's ideas of a perfect environment or will you fight wars
over it?

How much national defence do you get for pocket money? Which enemy is
daft enough to take on a fleet of aircraft carriers or tanks these
days? Those with a canoe or backpack full of hi-tech explosives and
unflinching loyalty to a cause. Is a suicide bomber really any
different from a drug crazed marine charging a machine gun post with
his last grenade? It is the enemy, not you, who sets the rules of
war. You must adapt or lose. It was ever thus. Just think of the
colossal waste of the constant and rapid obsolescence of armed forces
stores. Trillions upon trillions of dollars spent on money-no-object,
utterly useless technology for an almost forgotten war. Think of the
sheer numbers of storekeepers who guard and keep an eye on it all.

The conservatives have always promised the unobtainable. Appeal to the
electorate's basest instincts and you can guarantee votes from every
gullible retard out there. Low taxes, big defence, national loyalty,
big prisons, big police, racial purity, big security, big laws, except
no gun laws, no road laws, religious intolerance, no or low minimum
wage, fear of foreigners, hate the unions, hate social security, hate
the unemployed, hate free health care, hate enforcement of industrial
safety and working conditions rules, the illusion of easy success, let
big business run riot, let the corrupt banks do what they will, let
the rich enjoy another form of justice, education and lifestyle.
Somebody has to pay for all this but nobody wants to. Least of all
you.

On Dec 6, 10:55*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 04/12/2010 13:32, wrote:





On Dec 3, 5:34 am, Martin
wrote:
On 03/12/2010 00:45, wrote:

On Dec 2, 3:57 am, Martin
wrote:
On 02/12/2010 04:19, wrote:

On Dec 1, 9:10 pm, yourmommycalledandsaidbehave
* * *wrote:
On Dec 1, 5:13 am, wrote:

I am a conservative, not a Republican. *You seem to get the two ideas
confused.

It is difficult from your posts to determine how much further to the
extreme right you are than the Neocons though. The lunatic fringes of
conservatism are very ill defined.

The terms "left" and "right" refer ONLY to socialists, a group which
includes both communists and fascists. Communists are on the left and
fascists are on the right. *Conservatives do not fall on that
political spectrum at all; we are neither left nor right, nor anywhere
in the middle of that morass.

You will have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously..
You have defined yourself as not any of the above without saying
anything about what you believe in. I am still no wiser about what you
mean by saying you are a "conservative". You have not defined the word..

Low taxes, less government, equal rights, strong national defense,

You already have two mutually incompatible requirements in that line.

Nothing mutually incompatible at all.

Strong national defense costs very serious money. And a powerful army
with an inadequate civilian government is a dictatorship.

A weak army almost guarantees that a (foreign) dictator will
eventually run your country, unless you have a powerful, stable ally
to save your hide and keep the peace.

So how low do you think taxes should be?

Much lower than they are now.

freedom of speech, right to self defense, religious freedom, right to
privacy, fair trials, school choice, family values, preserve the
environment, support the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, etc.
Simple for most people (but not you) to understand.

Most of this I don't have a problem with although I object strenuously
to the religious right and Young Earth Creationists trying to corrupt
the content of science lessons.

You must be confusing that sort of thing with religious freedom.

It isn't a pond, the body of water in question is called the Atlantic
Ocean. *I am more pro-science than you are. I know the difference
between a pond and an ocean.

But you seem to lack a knowledge of colloquial English.

You probably meant to say colloquial British.

No. English. I live in England and we speak English here. You live in
America and you speak American which is a dialect of English.

No, here in America we speak English, and we speak it better the
average Englishman.

On Dec 6, 4:41*pm, "Chris.B" wrote:
When everybody enjoys Whensenseless' freedoms who will do all the jobs
he doesn't want to do for minimum wage?

Perhaps no one will do them or else the work will have to command
higher wages.

When everybody enjoys low taxes who pays for essential services?

Those who pay taxes.

When everybody has a free choice of school will it house an entire
nation's youth? Will education there be free for all? Or limited to
those who can afford free choice?

There is no such thing as free education, but school vouchers would
help the poor get a better education.

Amendment I, of the US Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Religious freedom includes agnosticism and atheism.

See Amendment I above.

It excludes
religious garbage in

* PUBLIC *

schools, on the street,

See Amendment I above.

on TV and online

See Amendment I above.

if the
agnostics and atheists are not to suffer a lesser freedom than the
knuckle draggers who still practice stone age superstition.

See Amendment I above.


Whose family values? Yours?

Anything that doesn't violate the rights of others.

Or those who beat their children to death
to match some perversion of their religious fantasy about discipline
and sin? *

We have laws against that.

Or those who butcher their own offspring's genitalia for
another religious perversion?

We have laws against that.

Do arranged marriages come under your
ideal family values?

That's up to the bride and the groom. At least in America. Maybe not
in backward countries of Europe.

Does your idea of a fair trial exclude wealth as the prime factor in
the delivery of justice? Does it include the selection of a single
defence lawyer based on a completely random and independent
computerised list of all those available? ie. A lottery of all those
not already actively engaged in a trial on the day in question.

You are implying that no one should be able to hire a defense lawyer?

Where on the scale from black oil washing up against the coast to
untamed jungle do you place your environmental standards?

Do you use electricity? Fossil fuels? Where is your food grown? Does
your home take up space that might be better left as wildlife habitat?

Does it
match other's ideas of a perfect environment or will you fight wars
over it?

I think that rain forests and endangered species should be preserved,
but those in some third-world countries do not.

How much national defence do you get for pocket money? Which enemy is
daft enough to take on a fleet of aircraft carriers or tanks these
days?

That's kind of the point of having carriers isn't it?

Those with a canoe or backpack full of hi-tech explosives and
unflinching loyalty to a cause. Is a suicide bomber really any
different from a drug crazed marine charging a machine gun post with
his last grenade? It is the enemy, not *you, who sets the rules of
war.

No, we set the rules.

You must adapt or lose. It was ever thus. Just think of the
colossal waste of the constant and rapid obsolescence of armed forces
stores. Trillions upon trillions of dollars spent on money-no-object,
utterly useless technology for an almost forgotten war. Think of the
sheer numbers of storekeepers who guard and keep an eye on it all.

The conservatives have always promised the unobtainable.

Conservatives make no promises, except to keep government on a short
leash.

Appeal to the
electorate's basest instincts and you can guarantee votes from every
gullible retard out there.

That's exactly what socialists do, make enough promises to enough
people to get enough votes (or support) to win an election (or take
over a country without holding one.)

Low taxes, big defence, national loyalty,
big prisons, big police, racial purity, big security, big laws, except
no gun laws, no road laws, religious intolerance, no or low minimum
wage, fear of foreigners, hate the unions, hate social security, hate
the unemployed, hate free health care, hate enforcement of industrial
safety and working conditions rules, the illusion of easy success, let
big business run riot, let the corrupt banks do what they will, let
the rich enjoy another form of justice, education and lifestyle.
Somebody has to pay for all this but nobody wants to. Least of all
you.

That's quite a few strawmen you have set up there.

On Dec 4, 6:14*pm, Desertphile
wrote:
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 12:14:20 -0800 (PST),
wrote:





On Dec 4, 11:11 am, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:32 pm, Good King Whensenseless chimed in:

I do believe that it makes sense. It's the hypocritical liberals who
don't.

You like to generalise even more than I do! :-)

I know my version of the truth and make fun of it's ridiculousness.
You haven't a clue about the truth and still take it seriously. People
make complex and often, illogical choices. They pick and choose from
all the ideas on offer. You pick and choose from your own fantasy,
political beliefs. This is not a sound basis for living a happy life.
Nobody can live up to your peculiarly distorted ideals. Not even a New
Nazi.

Rule makers for other's behavioural codes very rarely bind themselves
to the same standards. There are infinitely more religious hypocrites
than poor atheists. Show me a religious person and I will show you an
evil, lying, sadistic hypocrite. (no offence meant but it's the
obvious truth)

It goes with the territory. "Do as I say. Not as I do." And if you
don't you shall be punished with some horrendous misery. Something
which no normal atheist could possibly imagine in their worst
nightmares! You will find more pesticides than forgiveness in the
average person sitting in a church pew. If they had security
turnstiles on church doors to test for actual practice of their
profit's ideals the churches would be completely empty! There would
certainly be no afterlife insurance scammer miming up at the altar.

The same goes for those who hold strong political beliefs. Those who
believe they hold the only truth will dehumanise and destroy anybody
who disagrees. Yet no political beliefs exist for more than a decade,
or two, without considerable modification. Every iteration of
organised human behaviour should lead to a slightly less aggressive
form. Acceptance of any political system, without comprehensive
personal criticism of the details, is just another form of fantasy
religious belief.

Believing your own ideas hold some fundamental truth is just a
constant reinforcement of fantasy. Those who select like minds to form
close-knit groups become intellectual cripples and fundamentalists.
Just look where such circular brain washing gets you! Go out and talk
to real people. They are all very different from your memorised list
of reasons to hate other people. Move to another country and see if
you match up to their standards. Those who cannot laugh at themselves
are unfit to judge others. Those who judge others should learn to
laugh at the foolishness of it all.

It is difficult to keep a straight face over anything the human race
does seriously. Back on my planet we never stop laughing at the silly,
hairless apes. Constantly displaying their idiocy to each other. In
their decorative, but terribly fragile, goldfish bowl. It must have
been their God's twisted sense of humour to put a big round rock in
there almost as large as the bowl itself. :-)
You obviously did not read what I wrote earlier:

"Low taxes, less government, equal rights, strong national defense,
freedom of speech, right to self defense, religious freedom, right to
privacy, fair trials, school choice, family values, preserve the
environment, support the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, etc."

These are things that conservatives in the US believe in and support.

That's what all of the non-conservatives in the USA also believe
in and support. The problem is how to force the "conservatives"
running the government to agree.

No, what you say is not true. For example, many of the "non-
conservatives" want to bring back the "Fairness" Doctrine, which
violates the concept of free speech and a free press.

If you want proof of the inability of American politics to perform for
the majority one only has to look at the public swell of support for
Obama at the last election. Did the opposition read the signs and
begin to work for the people to produce the popular changes demanded
by the majority? Or did the opposition continue to work against the
people for their own private greed and party dogma?

The last chance to save America, from itself, has just lumbered past,
unnoticed in the dark. Do you suppose the "selfish right" will be able
to mend the gaping hole they have deliberately made under the
waterline of the US Titanic electorate with their cold hearts?
Ironically they will soon find that they have burnt most of the
lifeboats and the crew are no longer loyal to wealth and privilege.
Not when they realise that the ship is actually sinking fast.

America is now too far from civilisation to be saved by others. They
themselves are already floundering in the ice-cold waters of the
American-made recession. Wiki has clearly revealed the cold hearts of
those who rule only in the name of American profit. Nobody loves an
iceberg. Not even when it is carved in a sloppy, Disney cartoon
rendering of the World's Boy Scout.