More proof that Liberals suck
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
[/sarcasm]
willie
Well-Known Member
Razzies founder John Wilson said the prizes were not meant to mock Moore's film, only the statements Bush and the others make while "putting their highly paid, highly skilled feet in their mouths repeatedly and sucking on them."rraley said:
Catwoman won the Razzies prize.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I liked when Chris Rock was portraying Michael Moore after learning he didn't get nominated for an Oscar... "Damn! I should have just made Supersize Me! I've done the research." 
Railroad
Routinely Derailed
I think we're over-using the term "liberal." Not all liberals are Democrats and not all Democrats are liberals. For example, rraley, from what I can see, you're more of a moderate than a liberal, yet you're a Democrat. You have commonsense and objectivity, unlike the tinseltown folks being discussed here. They happen to be Democrats, so they get the tag, but I'll bet they are probably repugnant to mainstream Democrats, too. I think it's possible to be a liberal Democrat and not be extreme and immature, so I don't think of these idiots as liberals. I'm not sure what to call them, but the Liberal and Democrat labels don't seem to fit.rraley said:
They call themselves "Progressives". And guess who actually coined that term back in the day? Your friend and mine...Hillary Clinton.Railroad said:
But I shall still call them liberals because it's what they are. The only reason they started calling themselves something else is because "liberal" has such negative connotations and "progressive" sounds so...progressive.
But what they mean by "progressive" is censoring any thought or speech that doesn't align with their own warped views, allowing criminals more protection than law-abiding citizens, abortion as entertainment, and taking away a citizen's means of protecting themselves via gun bans.
That does not sound like "progress" to me, unless you consider totalitarian government to be progress.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I think it's best to look at Liberalism's roots in Communism. FDR, Truman, and others were all fans of Communism, if not the Soviets. The Liberals from the 1920s on were all convinced that Communism was the way to go... that everyone should share equally both the pain and the gain from their country. But then human nature had to ruin it's ugly head and ruin the party.
The Liberals had their heydays in the 1950s though the 70s when America was prosperous and we were more open to sharing. Then along comes the high-water mark with the election of Jimmy Carter and he falls all over himself to give the country away, and the economy suffers. Then along comes Ronald Reagan, affirmative action takes hold, and suddenly all Americans are doing better... not great, but better, and doing it through capitalism not communism.
Along comes the 90s, and the great experiment of communism if undeniably proven a failure. What's left for the Liberals? To survive, they become a federation of different special interest groups... Gays, Environmentalists, Animal Rights folks, Pro-Abortion folks, Anti-Death Penalty folks, etc, and things start to go downhill as many of these groups aren't very popular with the American mainstream, and in many cases they are diametrically opposed to one another. They try to stay alive by painting one crisis after another in terms of minority issues, but thanks to affirmative action, more and more blacks are "movin' on up" and becoming Republicans. Notice that "The Black Vote" only gets treated as a seperate entity in the poor cities, not the rich suburbs. Bill Clinton screws over working people with his trade policies, and the unions, which haven't been externally effective for years, erode even further. The only plus side is that welfare is on the decline, but everyone with half a brain knows all Cinton did was put his name on a Republican effort and bill.
So now we're in the new century, and what's happening with Liberals? More people are poor than ever before, but more people are if not wealthy then at least comfortable, so aside from lots of propoganda and demonizing of the rich, which plays well with the poor and the stupid and that's about it, money is pretty much out of the picture. Bush has pushed accountability and funding of schools to the point where complaining about the quality of education places you in danger of directly attacking the weak leg of that stool - teachers. Most of the Liberal leaders of today were spoon fed an anti-military view by their Soviet backers in the 70s, and have a well-established track history of being anti-defense, anti-military, that can't be overcome by a few campaign speeches.
That leaves Liberals with few real central/core values besides abortion, and while most all Abortion advocates are Democrats, not all Democrats are pro abortion. So, Liberals have shown that they can't tend to the needs of the poor, they can't defend the country, they can't build an economy, they can't provide healthcare, and they're pro-abortion, and they believe in a failed social-economic system. And while several key states were split politically in the last election, many were not and were heavilly Republican/Conservative. And many states that should have been heavilly Democratic were shiting to the Right.
Now is just not a good time to be a Liberal.
The Liberals had their heydays in the 1950s though the 70s when America was prosperous and we were more open to sharing. Then along comes the high-water mark with the election of Jimmy Carter and he falls all over himself to give the country away, and the economy suffers. Then along comes Ronald Reagan, affirmative action takes hold, and suddenly all Americans are doing better... not great, but better, and doing it through capitalism not communism.
Along comes the 90s, and the great experiment of communism if undeniably proven a failure. What's left for the Liberals? To survive, they become a federation of different special interest groups... Gays, Environmentalists, Animal Rights folks, Pro-Abortion folks, Anti-Death Penalty folks, etc, and things start to go downhill as many of these groups aren't very popular with the American mainstream, and in many cases they are diametrically opposed to one another. They try to stay alive by painting one crisis after another in terms of minority issues, but thanks to affirmative action, more and more blacks are "movin' on up" and becoming Republicans. Notice that "The Black Vote" only gets treated as a seperate entity in the poor cities, not the rich suburbs. Bill Clinton screws over working people with his trade policies, and the unions, which haven't been externally effective for years, erode even further. The only plus side is that welfare is on the decline, but everyone with half a brain knows all Cinton did was put his name on a Republican effort and bill.
So now we're in the new century, and what's happening with Liberals? More people are poor than ever before, but more people are if not wealthy then at least comfortable, so aside from lots of propoganda and demonizing of the rich, which plays well with the poor and the stupid and that's about it, money is pretty much out of the picture. Bush has pushed accountability and funding of schools to the point where complaining about the quality of education places you in danger of directly attacking the weak leg of that stool - teachers. Most of the Liberal leaders of today were spoon fed an anti-military view by their Soviet backers in the 70s, and have a well-established track history of being anti-defense, anti-military, that can't be overcome by a few campaign speeches.
That leaves Liberals with few real central/core values besides abortion, and while most all Abortion advocates are Democrats, not all Democrats are pro abortion. So, Liberals have shown that they can't tend to the needs of the poor, they can't defend the country, they can't build an economy, they can't provide healthcare, and they're pro-abortion, and they believe in a failed social-economic system. And while several key states were split politically in the last election, many were not and were heavilly Republican/Conservative. And many states that should have been heavilly Democratic were shiting to the Right.
Now is just not a good time to be a Liberal.
willie
Well-Known Member
Bruzilla, I don't think it's fair to accuse FDR and Truman of being fans of communism. A refined form of Socialism maybe. Our modern day far left liberals are closer to extreme Socialism which IMHO is about the same as communist. The elitist liberals want a socialist government because they would be the leaders, sure as hell not the workers. The poor would want it because it is the easy way up. From all I've heard, read and studied, FDR partially but Harry, never.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
willie said:
Then maybe you should study up on your history. FDR was a huge fan of Communism, as was Truman. Both of them thought that the United States could ultimately benefit from a Communistic system, and this brought them very close to Stalin before the end of the war and up until the late 1940s when Stalin started over-stepping his bounds and public sentiment turned against Communism due to the tactics of the Soviets.
The view of history has been pretty well twisted over the years, and colored by the devious actions of the Soviet Union. But there is a very, very, long list of key Americans and British who were Communist sympathizers, not necessarily Soviet sympathizers, but Communist sympathizers. Unfortunately, over the years those two distinct groups have been intertwined, and the stigma of the Soviet supporters makes it hard to accept that folks like Truman, who went to war with the Soviets, could be pro-Communism.
There's a reason why FDR and Truman were so willing to give "Uncle Joe" everything he wanted at war's end. They were advised by known Soviet agents, and (this is my opinion here, as I can't figure out any other reason why they would keep known Soviets on their staffs) wanted to develop a much closer relationship with Communism after the war.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I concur...
...but I would clarify the point.
What we now call 'liberals' are the socialists and communists of another era. Real liberals, like Moynihan, O'neil and so many others, fought off the 'ist' wing of the party for decades and were solid, pro US, pro freedom, pro individual liberals.
Classic liberals.
Modern libs is right where Bruz picks up; the group identity 'liberals'.
And there ain't a damn thing 'liberal' about them. You conform or you are not allowed.
The rise to prominence of modern liberals is thanks, in large part, to Bill Clinton of all people, because of his silliness of '92 and all the moderate to conservative Democrats got sent packing, leaving the lefties.
As far as FDR, for crying out loud, the man tried to disband the Supreme effing Court because they, as the keepers of the Constitution, were in the way of so much of the socialist/communist ideas he had. He's the closest thing we've ever had to a king.
...but I would clarify the point.
What we now call 'liberals' are the socialists and communists of another era. Real liberals, like Moynihan, O'neil and so many others, fought off the 'ist' wing of the party for decades and were solid, pro US, pro freedom, pro individual liberals.
Classic liberals.
Modern libs is right where Bruz picks up; the group identity 'liberals'.
And there ain't a damn thing 'liberal' about them. You conform or you are not allowed.
The rise to prominence of modern liberals is thanks, in large part, to Bill Clinton of all people, because of his silliness of '92 and all the moderate to conservative Democrats got sent packing, leaving the lefties.
As far as FDR, for crying out loud, the man tried to disband the Supreme effing Court because they, as the keepers of the Constitution, were in the way of so much of the socialist/communist ideas he had. He's the closest thing we've ever had to a king.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Fdr...
The dirt on FDR...
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdr.html
New Deal - Toward a Soviet America
The dirt on FDR...
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdr.html
New Deal - Toward a Soviet America
