RE:re: once again."Stalinesque tactics of the neo cons" (Greenwich Vil
Reply to: comm-676367539@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-05-11, 11:28AM EDT
Wow! Somebody is arrogant and condescending: 'Joisey'. Are you up to reputation of Village snobs who despise 'the tunnel people'? Or it is just late (or early) slip of the tongue?
Spelling and grammar as well as vocabulary deficiency is my problem that I am working on constantly.
Although I do not appreciate and respect homosexuality especially your, liberal putting it on your banner and pushing it down the throat of us, normal people I do not post too much here anymore and this theme is not of particular interest to me. You mix me with somebody else.
Also you are wrong about equating liberalism and communism. Liberalism is a soft and first stage to communism when it cannot be achieved through revolution and openly proposed.
Liberalism goes step by step.
1. Public education paid for by government through extra taxation (there is no provision for it in US Constitution there fore Federal govt has no rights to do so.
2. Social security - same reason
3. Welfare, medicaid and medicare.
4. Farmer's and corporate subsidies (unless it is needed for defense or other needs mentioned in US Constitution)
Saying that I am all for states rights to address all of the above issues and more if it adhere to their constitutions as well.
And I am all for and actively participate myself in private funding of helping poor, needy and sick people who otherwise could not afford it, directly or through charities.
As one of the Founding Father's said: Government has no business in benevolence.
That is the position of us normal people with common sense no matter wich label we carry R or D. More of a R and specifically C - conservatives.
For your position about people did not support Limbaugh's candidates:
1. He did not pick a candidate in the beginning of primaries, emphasizing that we should pick the most principal conservative possible. One of the good candidate was Romney: he is a successful businessman, administrator: Organized Olympic games in Salt Lake City as well as was a good Governor of MA. And embraced conservative ideas. He indeed received most of republican and conservative votes in the primaries but had been flanked by McCain's democrats and independents who crossed to vote in Republican primaries on one side and Baptist evangelical conservatives who voted for AR Governor Huckabee. The big role got here their animosity toward Romney's Mormon religion. That also brought Hackabee voters and electoral machine to collaborate with McCain's and make Romney's work harder for it.
IMHO and most of conservatives especially Rush listeners and Freepers Romney had much more chance to beat either one Dem/Socialist candidate based on his life accomplishments and record as well as conservative policies he adopted.
Have to go now to celebrate mothers day with my mom, wife and sister.
So long.
re: once again."Stalinesque tactics of the neo cons" (Greenwich Village)
Reply to: comm-676172924@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-05-11, 3:50AM EDT
Well then my comrade in Joisey. Many thanks for the corrections in grammar and spelling.
For one there is not contest here, ( between you and I, that is). Despite your angry rhetoric and oft angst ridden posts about homosexuality, and the fear of Democratic rule being equivalent to communism, I respectfully disagree.
But I thank you for making a point on my behalf. According to you, all the candidates inclusive of McCain are liberals, from plain ole liberal in McCain and socialist and communist in the form of Obama or Clinton. That being said, I guess you lose. You were unable to get support for a candidate that would fit the Limbaustic ( law breaking ) and fellow neo con definition for conservative.
So where's your support?
The answer is there isn't any or you'd have your neo-con candidate.
I won't engage you in the absurd tactic "science" from your way of defining it.
One thing is clear, to which you do admit. You don't have a neo con, in the form you'd like to have seen running.
And the reason is because they've been a colossal failure and have been rejected by the Republican base.
Oh my what will you do when you're once again under commie rule? lol.
Sorry for your experiences. But your analysis of where Democrats stand and the comparison with Soviet Communism are simply wrong. It's good PR chatter, but without merit.
Happy Mother's Day !
- it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
PostingID: 676367539