Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

Sorry for jumping in on Art's reply to JB, but here goes:

What would I take away from FDR's social engineering? #1 Social Security. Since the population is now addicted to it: I would privatize it as proposed by GW Bush #2 Tyrants from the bench. I would have legislators pass laws as the Founding Fathers designed the system to have political input from the people within the framework of the Cornstatution not have elite men or women apointed for life fundamentally change our system without any possible review after their imposed changes. #3 The Victimhood approach to govenment where Government is expected to solve all problems many times created by the huge shift from personal responsibility to Socialism. FDR was all about the ends justifying the means, (from Marx), that modern Libs follow to this day. He was so politically powerfull due to his enormious political skills, and the crisis he presided over; that his negative influances can not be undone at this point. We are a very much a less capable people today as a direct result of those very negative changes.

Some of the financial regulations FDR passed were in fact necessary, (he was a mixed performer as a President), as is the case even with the worst one: Jimmy Carter.

Reduce dependance on foriegn oil ya say? Liberals always lecture the ideal: Art. Had we turned down the thermostats n' all worn sweaters and reelected Mr. Carter, we would have lost a WAR with the USSR. Hard tellin' where that would have left us. Oil is the cheapest easiest way to extract energy for personnal use we now have with 2007 technology much less 1976-1980 technology. Only Liberals would be sooooo irrational to even fight clear economic realities as you apparently think is possible.

China and Vietnam were enemies for centuries and faught a WAR that Vietnam won shortly after we got out. Where do you get your history Art? You are sooooo corncerned about potential losses from a more agressive non PC Vietnam war that we could have won, do ya have any corncern about the 3,000,000 of OUR ALLIES who were slaughtered when we left Vietnam? Selective indignation over hypotheticals is real nice Art!!

Respectfully JR

 

[ArtB]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

OldMercRule sez: " do ya have any corncern about the 3,000,000 of OUR ALLIES who were slaughtered when we left Vietnam?" If you actually mean our allies, you must be including the south Vietnamese. The olnly real allies we had there were in our bought and paid for government. Check your history, most of these were killed BEFORE we left Viet Nam - by us.

 

[12Footer]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

A 12-pack is worthless if all the bottles are empty, Art.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

OldMercRule sez: " do ya have any corncern about the 3,000,000 of OUR ALLIES who were slaughtered when we left Vietnam?" If you actually mean our allies, you must be including the south Vietnamese.

Yes Art: Vietnamese Cambodians and Laotians, news reports by the Liberal MSM tried to downplay, (guess I should not read minds here Art: they covered this in passing as an afterthought with very little emphasis) the gravity of the slaughter and referred to them as "boat people". In Cambodia the MSM referred to the killing as "the killing fields"; ya ever heard of ol' Pol Pot Art? He'd make ya proud of yer Democrat Buds. Maybe too much Kool aid made ya sleepy durring those much shorter news segments, eh? They were not front page every day and top of the six o'clock LIBERAL ADJENDA news every night like the Tet offensive, (which we actually won hands down, although you would not know it watchin' Walter Cronkite) or My Lai and other setbacks the enemies within wanted to highlight to demoralize the American people. That said: they were real people who really were counting on the USA and they really did die horrible deaths: Art! Do you have any compassion for them, or do you only reserve your Liberal compassion for the potential Vietnamise Communists that a less PC war may have killed? Communism as a philosophy has killed more people in absolute numbers or as a percentage of the existing human race then any other single influance in human history. Ya know Art, it may shock you but our system is much more benign then Communism. Moral relativism may taste like a sip o' Kool aid, but: it is not intellectually honest!!

The olnly real allies we had there were in our bought and paid for government.

So I guess you have the highest distain for people on our side who want Freedom? You really like CENTRAL CORNTROL DON'T YA ART??

Check your history, most of these were killed BEFORE we left Viet Nam - by us.

Wrong Art. Just as you were about the ChiComs, (or jus' good ol' China prior to the Commies), relationship with Vietnam for the last 1000 years or so. Please check yer history, I know mine. Try a Google of: BOAT PEOPLE. It might surprize ya how much brutality Ted Kennedy n' his Democrat pals brought our allies in 1975, ya want the same for Iraq I trust? Real compassionate Art!! N' you are accusin' me of spinnin' history: Art?JR

 

[ArtB]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

Good night OMR. Sleep tight!

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

Good night OMR. Sleep tight!

Thanks Art, best wishes to you too! I did not mean to insult you as you are a polite and respectfull poster that I actually do appreciate, and I luv to debate as you probably know. We just approach the issues from totally different perspectives: that all. Thanks for engaging me. JR

 

[treedancer]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

I?m available JR what do you want to argue about?

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

I’m available JR what do you want to argue about?

You and your dad gumed 'research' tend to throw the kitchen sink at me, (and others you debate as well). It takes forever just to read your internet cut n' pastes, (that sometimes do not make sense to the subject at hand). Ya know I only have one brain cell, can't spell n' can't use the computer anywhere near as good as you can. So if I have a choice you are actually one of the more difficult parties for me to make a points with. N' I try not to use "cornpone" either which strains the ol' cell even more. Besides. I doubt you disagree with this thread, (as GW Bush was not the main subject, and we were debating perspectives on history). JR

 

[studlymandingo]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

Lipstick could at least qualify the donkey as a cross-dresser.​

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

Lipstick could at least qualify the donkey as a cross-dresser.​

I thought the donkeys were trying to institute mandatory cross-dressing?

 

[treedancer]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

Quote OldMercsrule


I doubt you disagree with this thread, (as GW Bush was not the main subject, and we were debating perspectives on history). JR


Ya yer right there JR. I try staying out of the Nam threads, and my feelings on the President are rather well known. I’ve got to where I kinda like the purple cornpone threads. Maybe I had better make an appointment with a shrink.

 

[Reel Poor]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

I thought the donkeys were trying to institute mandatory cross-dressing?

Not really, but they do want you to to view cross-dressing and many other issues as minority issues with special interest that should be catered to. They (liberal left) also want you to believe there is nothing different/wrong with these issues as they shove them down our throats.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

Ya know, debatin' Art brings back fond memories of past debates with me Liberal Seattle buds here in God's Country. It also makes ya wonder why anyone who has a sufficiently open mind and at least one functional brain cell that is actually used to ponder the facts n' compare those facts to the propaganda out there would ever cornsider themselves a Liberal, (as currently defined and practiced in modern America today), or ever vote for modern Democrats that toe their irrational current party line. I know I'm pickin' on ya Art, but it clearly highlights the weakness and irrationality of the philosophy ya seem ta be followin'.

#1 Notice the clear lack of acurate historical facts in Art's screed.

A. Ol' Arts' posts shows he thinks the Chinese were friendly with Vietnam.

That shows a nearly total missunderstanding of the history of SE Asia.

B. Ol' Arts' posts show that he thinks that American soldiers and their government were responsible for most of the savage killing of civilians in the Vietnam defeat.

#2 Related matter, notice where Art's compassion is pointed:

A. The enemies. If ya read his post his greatest corncern is a more violent prosecution of that WAR. Who would that have killed? Communists of course!!

B. He challanged my 3 million slaughtered allies figure, then dismissed any corncern he may have for them 'cause they were paid for by our government.

Here is a direct quote to really make this PROFOUND point: "The olnly real allies we had there were in our bought and paid for government. Check your history, most of these were killed BEFORE we left Viet Nam -by us."

I bet Art would be a great guy if ya met him at yer favorite fishin' pond, (which I haven't) so how could he harbor such anti American thoughts?

I'l strain me ol' cell and attempt to 'splain how this could happen.

I think Art is a bit senior to me, so he should be fairly well educated in the time proven old fashioned way prior to the totally PC homocentric carp shoved down the throats of the poor kids going to Liberal public schools now. He could have cornsumed loads of Liberal Kool aid from ol' Walter Cronkite or the other Liberal MSM "journalists", (term used lightly here), who found the winning strategy for the Communists in the 1960s by repeating all bad things about our side every night at 6:00 PM or in the daily newspapers and NEVER saying anything positive about our side of the cornflict.

That could 'splain the HEAVY cornpassion for the enemy Liberals, (and Art himself) always seem ta have, that influance directly leads to our leaders fightin' PC wars since WW2, (that are very hard ta win). The dismissiveness and total lack of cornpassion Art shows for the well documented slaughter that happend by those cornpassionate Communists in SE Asia that Liberals always seem to support reminds me of the disgusting spitting on our wonderfull returning soldiers from that cornflict. Do you think that those who supported Hanoi Jane or spit on our soldiers are Cornservative Republicans today? YAH-SURE-YA-BETCHA.

Liberals and Democrats really should not wonder why Cornservatives sometimes question if they actually luv their own Country. Notice how Art really liked the Socialism imposed by FDR. (N' FDR did it by ruining one of the branches of our government: the Courts.) Cornservatives, (not all but most) tend ta like the system devised by our Founders that has given us the most wonderfull Country n' society in human history. One of the main reasons is the LIMITS on government in the Cornstatution that a carefull reading of Arts' rants leads one to cornclude that ol' Art wants to tear down n' set up a Socialist state based on Marx.

When ya combine this experience with the well documented support of the Sandinistas n' Fidel, by Lib Democrats, (who now hold prominant positions of power in the Democrat party), it makes a person wonder what they see that we are missin'.

Me thinks it all boils down to Corntrol. The Founders clearly wanted a very Liberal dose, (at that time) of basic human rights and protections against the biggest perceived threat to human rights: THE GOVERNMENT. They codified the source of those rights as comming from God to make it harder for future generations to remove them. Modern Libs do not want those protections and that is why they luv FDR sooooooo much, as he did more to dismantle our basic protections then any other single person in American history.

Why do Democrats and Libs nearly uniformly want higher taxes? That's real simple: MORE CORNTROL.

Why do Libs n' Democrats want the Cornstatution viewed as a "living breathing document" that it clearly was not intended to be by those who's blood gave us this WONDERFULL GIFT? MORE CORNTROL.

Why do Libs want Liberal activist judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg? They will change the Cornstatution into a document that blows any way the wind is blowin' n' gives the government more and more CORNTROL of all of our lives, and they have no checks to their cornduct that is ever used: IMPEACHMENT, and their decisions are final and not subject to review.

Now the big one: Why are modern Liberals and Democrats sooooooo seemingly sympathetic to any enemy of our system that we have to fight, n' soooo nasty to our own elected leaders who have to defend us? That's hard to say, but I would guess that they are fairly sure our system is sufficiently strong to survive their anti American conduct, (which it actually does seem to do, so I can see how they feel that way). Most Libs are fairly smug and secure in themselves and their beliefs and very very selfish, n' agree with Marx that: the ends do in fact justify the means. So if they help the enemies we face, and make our struggles against our enemies much more difficult, (which they do by forcing a PC war n' helpin' the enemy with propaganda). They can and have sucessfully projected any failures (which have actually been agrivated by their own anti American cornduct), onto the opposition, (Republicans) with the use of the MSM who labels Republicans: stupid, incompetant, untruthfull, mean spirited n' war mongers for personal gain. The resulting weakness that follows leads to Democrat political gains n' higher taxes, n' weaker military, so the next crisis can be worse n' create more VICTIMS to raise more taxes to insure permanent Democrat votin' victimhood for: you guessed it: MORE CORNTROL.

One final point: Democrat voters are clearly not the sharpest knives in the drawer. A large percentage of 'em really do think that GW Bush was a part of the 9/11 disaster before it was executed by our enemies. That tells ya the modern Liberal education techniques employed today are in fact spectacularly successfull, if ya want dim wit victims or victim wannabes, as Liberals need to continue to dominate our Country.

If Liberalism is in fact logical in purpose, the above may explain their seemingly illogical cornduct. On the other hand: IS LIBERALISM A MENTAL DISORDER ?????? One or the other would seem ta be the answer. Sorry for the rant, (n' anything personal to Art, as I may have read his words wrong). I 'feel' better now!! JR

 

[stevieray]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

JR - out of that whole post, I can only find one sentence to dispute:

"They codified the source of those rights as comming from God to make it harder for future generations to remove them."

You gotta remember, people were just discovering things like the world was round & not the center of the universe, and why things you dropped always hit the ground. How else could they explain the source of their "self-evident truths" other than to try to credit them to some higher power? I think the wording would have been very different if the knowledge base was wider at the time.

IMHO

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

Great article today by one of the main VERY LIBERAL and INFLUENTIAL perps in the MSM of the myth: Republican leaders are STUPID, MEAN, DETACHED. See the "Helen Thomas" article: "Ronald Reagan revealed in new book", which shows that with time and little water under the bridge, (so the current spin from the hard left MSM's influance wanes), and can be diluted with some real experience and some actual facts, THE MSM VERY CLEARLY misslead all of us about the real nature Ronald Reagan. I have NO DOUBT the same is happening today with GW Bush.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/319902_thomas15.html

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

JR - out of that whole post, I can only find one sentence to dispute:

"They codified the source of those rights as comming from God to make it harder for future generations to remove them."

Hey Stevieray, Thanks for readin' my tome. We are probably comming at this from very different perspectives as our spiritual beliefs likely differ far more then our political beliefs, at least that is my take of your and my past interactions. I admit that religious beliefs are usually held in a much more absolute way then political positions, (I know mine are: as I can change politically with new facts or experiences etc., but likely will never change my religious beliefs now that I have come to them). I was an agnostic from my early teens to about 15 years ago, (25 years + or -) and it was always something I deeply pondered prior to the Christian cornclusion I finally came to. As I think you know, I feel it takes much more "faith" to believe our wonderfull and very intricate universe just 'happened' by coincidence or accident then by design.

You gotta remember, people were just discovering things like the world was round & not the center of the universe, and why things you dropped always hit the ground.

Disagree with yer history a bit here Stevieray. Jonannes Gutenberg died in 1468 (printing press); Nicolaus Copernicus died in 1543, (earth revolves around the sun) and Martin Luther died in 1546, (the Protestant Reformation). The Catholic Church had sucessfully surpressed science during the "dark ages", but these three individuals broke the back of that type of conduct, (with considerable blood spilled I might add). Islam peaked in the 14th century, (and was much more open to science then the Church was). The Founders were well aware of this stuff. They carefully chose the word "Creator" to apply to all major religion views, as well as the Atheism which has been around in one form or another since the 6th century. It is not in dispute by historians that their choice of words was to give the corncept much more staying power: Stevieray.

How else could they explain the source of their "self-evident truths" other than to try to credit them to some higher power? I think the wording would have been very different if the knowledge base was wider at the time.

Again I dissagree. The words STILL WORK EXTREMELY WELL TODAY, and we have much more knowledge today. That is why the Libs want ya to think those words are livin' n' breathin' so they can take yer GOD GIVEN RIGHTS: STEVIERAY. Ya need ta ponder why homosexuality is "gay"? Or why abortion on demand is called "choice"? Or what the meaning of the word "is" is? ta get the jist of what I'm sayin' here. Thanks for the reply, JR

IMHO

123

 

[ArtB]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

Hey OMR. I'm crushed! Here I thought that you were almost nice to me in your previous post. Well, back to the battle. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y100/artburr/thumbnailCAC26VPD.jpg

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

Hey OMR. I'm crushed! Here I thought that you were almost nice to me in your previous post. Well, back to the battle. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y100/artburr/thumbnailCAC26VPD.jpg

Hey Art, I was a lil' heavy: I admit. You do sound like a very nice person, ( I'll buy ya an adult beverage or two if we ever meet sometime to make up fer bangin' ya around here). You just happened to walk into some space I know a few things about, have thought deeply about, and I used your candor, (which I really do appreciate) to make some points for other iboat readers (as much as a reply to you). I do luv to debate, and I luv to talk about subjects that I know real well. The last 5 or so years of my career as a stock broker I taught night classes at local community colleges to both educate and gain clients. You threw me soooo many softballs that I could use to generically tee off on Libs n' Dems n' the MSM: (not ment to specifically abuse or pick on you), that I could not resist. I hope yer jokin' about the "crushed" thing as you usually stand yer ground real good, and hopefully have fairly thick skin, as an honorable Liberal swimmin' with this somewhat Cornservative leaning crowd here. Thanks for the interplay, I think it educated some of the others about two very different persectives of the same quite important period of time in our great Country. Respectfully JR