Gordon Fink
Member
Good answer, and the right one, I believe.
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
Ask a liberal, reformed gun grabber thread!
- Thread starter Nitrogen
- Start date
- Status
AStone
Member
Ah, the common ground emerges.
Good, good. Let's continue this. Let's see if the "conservatives", especially those of more vitriolic right wing flavor, can honor this common ground, to nurture it, water it, make it grow.
Or do they just want to stomp it back into the ground because it came from a <gasping sound> "liberal".
(OMG!
)I watch with pure academic interest, thinking - in the bigger scheme of the condition of Earth today - it doesn't really matter that much...
dragongoddess
member
THe difference between Sean Hannity and Al Franken is Al Fraken can be funny and Hannity couldn't if his life depended on it.
squarooticus
Member
Pardon me if this has been covered before.
How do you reconcile the following two judgments:
(1) Accepting responsibility for your own self-protection; recognizing that relying on the state for that protection is foolish; and asserting that any government restriction on your ability to defend yourself is absurd and insane.
(2) Not accepting responsibility for your property, or your ability to feed yourself, or clothe yourself, or provide for your family, or for taking care of your parents and grandparents, or for providing education for your children, or... yadda yadda yadda.
Cheers,
Kyle
How do you reconcile the following two judgments:
(1) Accepting responsibility for your own self-protection; recognizing that relying on the state for that protection is foolish; and asserting that any government restriction on your ability to defend yourself is absurd and insane.
(2) Not accepting responsibility for your property, or your ability to feed yourself, or clothe yourself, or provide for your family, or for taking care of your parents and grandparents, or for providing education for your children, or... yadda yadda yadda.
Cheers,
Kyle
Warren
Member
If making sure blacks and others of the non-white variety were left defenseless against government tryanny and garassroots evil is "good hearted" what do you consider "bad hearted"?
The whole point of gun control is to make people weak, and non self-reliant and dependent on the government.
It does. That's the point. Violent crime causes fear amongst the populace. A fearful populace demands the government "do something". This something always involves relieving the populace of money and freedom.
AStone
Member
LOL.
Oh, so true, even if very un-PC on this forum.
Thank you sir for your responses.
Sure, it is absolutely fine if Pete volunteers to help, however, there is NO reason why Paul should be FORCED to help. It is completely illogical.
Than why is this same standard not applied to other professions, such as doctors, lawyers, and teachers? Again, it lacks logic.
I am referring to the liberals in California that protested in order to insure that American tax dollars were to be spent on educating mexican children.
No, they should go through the legal channels PERIOD. There are already laws in place that can help asylum seekers. NO liberal would allow people to indiscriminatly enter THEIR home, eat their food, change the channel on their TV, camp in their yard, and create a general nuisance without permission, and yet, this is the liberal stance on illegal aliens.
Good heartedness maybe, logic, no.
I have 16 years of service as an Infantryman in the U.S. Army, 15 of it in Ranger and Airborne Infantry units, and I can count on one hand the total number of liberals I have served with in my career. There is a higher concentration of liberals in the supporting units, but when it comes down to the tip-of-the-spear front-line soldiers, they are overwhelmingly conservative. As a matter of fact, the closer you get to that tip, the further away the liberal will be. There are higher concentrations of liberals in the Navy, and the Air Force, but those services don't have the same amount of "in your face" fighter requirements as does the Army and Marines. I respect all who serve, but I am always amazed at the lack of liberals who are willing to close with and destroy the enemy, while their conservative counterparts pick up the slack. It is not logical.
Liberals, much like children, use emotion rather than logic to reason. This is generally why the courses of action they opt to follow is usually wrong.
I am glad you are seeing the logic concerning personal firearms, and I thank you again for your reply.
Good day to you sir.
Sure, it is absolutely fine if Pete volunteers to help, however, there is NO reason why Paul should be FORCED to help. It is completely illogical.
Than why is this same standard not applied to other professions, such as doctors, lawyers, and teachers? Again, it lacks logic.
I am referring to the liberals in California that protested in order to insure that American tax dollars were to be spent on educating mexican children.
No, they should go through the legal channels PERIOD. There are already laws in place that can help asylum seekers. NO liberal would allow people to indiscriminatly enter THEIR home, eat their food, change the channel on their TV, camp in their yard, and create a general nuisance without permission, and yet, this is the liberal stance on illegal aliens.
Good heartedness maybe, logic, no.
I have 16 years of service as an Infantryman in the U.S. Army, 15 of it in Ranger and Airborne Infantry units, and I can count on one hand the total number of liberals I have served with in my career. There is a higher concentration of liberals in the supporting units, but when it comes down to the tip-of-the-spear front-line soldiers, they are overwhelmingly conservative. As a matter of fact, the closer you get to that tip, the further away the liberal will be. There are higher concentrations of liberals in the Navy, and the Air Force, but those services don't have the same amount of "in your face" fighter requirements as does the Army and Marines. I respect all who serve, but I am always amazed at the lack of liberals who are willing to close with and destroy the enemy, while their conservative counterparts pick up the slack. It is not logical.
Liberals, much like children, use emotion rather than logic to reason. This is generally why the courses of action they opt to follow is usually wrong.
I am glad you are seeing the logic concerning personal firearms, and I thank you again for your reply.
Good day to you sir.
Nitrogen
Member
Good point. Here's how I see it:
I am prepared to handle a certain threat on my own: the home invader, the mugger, etc. I am NOT prepared to handle a roving gang of thugs. I can probably keep a roving gang at bay until a group of police officers arrive.
I am prepared if I lose my job for a few months, but what if my job loss goes past that? I am prepared to try and keep myself healthy by eating right. What happens if I get a debilitating illness, and lose my job?
Thats how I see the government in these cases. I'm initially responsible for my own, but every once in a while, I need backup.
AStone
Member
Not to be too contrary, but there's an alternative explanation.
Perhaps "liberals" aren't so much like "children", but adults who view the world differently than you do. (And, with all due respect, being a soldier doesn't necessarily confer absolute truth to your position, sir.)
Perhaps liberals simply don't support the war efforts that you've been part of, but choose to put their blood, sweat and tears elsewhere.
I'm not saying that those war efforts weren't worthy, but we've all got to make up our mind which battles to fight, which wars to support.
Just thinking out loud here, trying to stimulate logical thinking. No truth implied.
ramis
Member
What?
If you would like to give some of your paycheck to paul, feel free. It's not my job to feed and house paul because he won't work. Better yet, the more I make, the more I'm penalized! (sarcasm) Congratulations, you worked hard and bettered yourself, now suffer the consequences! Oh, the way, pay in some more social security that you'll never see.
ramis
If you would like to give some of your paycheck to paul, feel free. It's not my job to feed and house paul because he won't work. Better yet, the more I make, the more I'm penalized! (sarcasm) Congratulations, you worked hard and bettered yourself, now suffer the consequences! Oh, the way, pay in some more social security that you'll never see.
ramis
GoRon
Member
Do you really think if we all decided to vote for the liberal candidates in the next few elections we would be safer here stateside and as aggressive tracking down our enemies abroad?
Should we vote the Democrats into control of the House and Senate?
a) If yes above, do you think that having Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Clinton, Rockefeller, Schumer, Rangel and Durbin calling the shots would be an improvement?
Should we vote the Democrats into control of the House and Senate?
a) If yes above, do you think that having Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Clinton, Rockefeller, Schumer, Rangel and Durbin calling the shots would be an improvement?
cbsbyte
Member
People are once again equating Liberal with Leftist. They are not one in the same. Leftisit are far left people who support complete control by the Government over peoples rights. Liberals are open minded, freedom minded, concerned citzens who want equal rights for all. Most Dems are liberals.
I can understand not enlisting as a fighter during an unpopular war, however, that does not explain the over all absence of liberal representation I have experienced throughout my 16 year career. I've served with more Samoans than liberals...
IE, the modern democratic party.
leadcounsel
member
"Why do supporters of narcotic laws think that making drugs illegal will prevent criminals from obtaining drugs or make us safer or not realise that the war on drugs is a costly and unwinnable war? Did we learn nothing from prohibition?"
I'm sure you're not the only one on this website. I went liberal-conservative-and now I'm leaning more back towards liberalism again. A sort of liberalism, not in all subjects. I'm very pro-gun, and have been for so long that I can't remember very well when I wasn't. But being out in a more conservative area made me realize that isn't right for me either. Maybe they're neocons, but a lot of things about them I just don't like.
DunedinDragon
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2005
- Messages
- 374
Okay, here's several things that I clearly don't understand about the liberal mindset:
Why do liberals feel it's okay to mandate moral philosophy rather than allowing free choice in the matter from the people who have proven themselves by their actions and results in life to be contributors to our society? Why do they want to reward responsible actions with a loss of freedom to choose for themselves? What makes liberals feel like they know better what's right and wrong than any given individual who's proven themselves by their results in life?
Case in point. Joe works hard his whole life. He takes a loan out and goes to college. Gets a job. Works hard at it. Gets a comfortable life for his family. He believes that this is the land of opportunity and if you work at it you can do well for yourself. If he decides to help someone, he will..but that is his choice. But liberals believe they should MANDATE who he helps rather than allowing it to be his own choice because they don't trust he will make the right choices by THEIR standards. They would rather trust that someone who has NOT achieved anything in their lives will be more responsive to the needs of society and pick themselves up and become a responsible contributor if given some help than the person that has PROVEN by his results that he's a responsible contributor. You mandate actions on the PROVEN performer, but don't MANDATE anything on the proven non-performer. You would rather take away the freedom of moral choice from the type of citizen we want in our society because YOU have determined what's morally and ethically right rather than allowing him to do it. Why is that? Do you NOT trust the performer to do the right thing? Then what makes you think the non-performer will do the right thing?
Here's another one. How can liberals honestly believe that government, which has no motivation whatsoever to contain costs and increase performance, can actually run things better than businesses who MUST do so every single day in order to survive in a competitive environment? Government services have no competition, so what motivation do they have to be efficient and effective? Why do you prefer to trust the organization that has no incentive and distrust the organization that does?
And yet another. How can liberals honestly believe that government, which has a long history of indecisiveness and beauracratic overhead, be more responsive and responsible than an individual that makes their own choices in life? How can you possibly argue that government response is more effective and efficient any individual response? Where in history can you find any example of that ever being the case to support your theory? You have to look no further than Katrina to understand how much more efficient individuals were at responding to problems than was the government.
Yes, there is clearly a philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives and it boils down one thing in my mind. As a conservative I choose to trust people that actually merit my trust because they have proven it to me based on their actual performance, and I choose to NOT trust those that haven't proven themselves to me.
I know this will come as a shock to you and your liberal friends, but you do NOT have a lock on responsible moral actions, and you have no right to dictate it to others just because YOU think it's right. And yes, I would make the same argument to the far right religious conservatives as well.
Why do liberals feel it's okay to mandate moral philosophy rather than allowing free choice in the matter from the people who have proven themselves by their actions and results in life to be contributors to our society? Why do they want to reward responsible actions with a loss of freedom to choose for themselves? What makes liberals feel like they know better what's right and wrong than any given individual who's proven themselves by their results in life?
Case in point. Joe works hard his whole life. He takes a loan out and goes to college. Gets a job. Works hard at it. Gets a comfortable life for his family. He believes that this is the land of opportunity and if you work at it you can do well for yourself. If he decides to help someone, he will..but that is his choice. But liberals believe they should MANDATE who he helps rather than allowing it to be his own choice because they don't trust he will make the right choices by THEIR standards. They would rather trust that someone who has NOT achieved anything in their lives will be more responsive to the needs of society and pick themselves up and become a responsible contributor if given some help than the person that has PROVEN by his results that he's a responsible contributor. You mandate actions on the PROVEN performer, but don't MANDATE anything on the proven non-performer. You would rather take away the freedom of moral choice from the type of citizen we want in our society because YOU have determined what's morally and ethically right rather than allowing him to do it. Why is that? Do you NOT trust the performer to do the right thing? Then what makes you think the non-performer will do the right thing?
Here's another one. How can liberals honestly believe that government, which has no motivation whatsoever to contain costs and increase performance, can actually run things better than businesses who MUST do so every single day in order to survive in a competitive environment? Government services have no competition, so what motivation do they have to be efficient and effective? Why do you prefer to trust the organization that has no incentive and distrust the organization that does?
And yet another. How can liberals honestly believe that government, which has a long history of indecisiveness and beauracratic overhead, be more responsive and responsible than an individual that makes their own choices in life? How can you possibly argue that government response is more effective and efficient any individual response? Where in history can you find any example of that ever being the case to support your theory? You have to look no further than Katrina to understand how much more efficient individuals were at responding to problems than was the government.
Yes, there is clearly a philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives and it boils down one thing in my mind. As a conservative I choose to trust people that actually merit my trust because they have proven it to me based on their actual performance, and I choose to NOT trust those that haven't proven themselves to me.
I know this will come as a shock to you and your liberal friends, but you do NOT have a lock on responsible moral actions, and you have no right to dictate it to others just because YOU think it's right. And yes, I would make the same argument to the far right religious conservatives as well.
Gordon Fink
Member
MrZ said:
The same thing can be said for “conservatives” just as often as it can for “liberals.”
~G. Fink
What about the general march towards the extremest ends by liberal parties. For example the kicking out of Lieberman who had been previously the Democrat vice presidential candidate, Howard Dean as the chairman of the Party, move on Dot Org.
It doesn't matter what the middle, or libertarian version of liberalism think if the extremist or the one who run the show. I am not seeing any real attempt to hold the line. The moderates get drawn out to get people to vote Democrat. The moderates don't get to make the decision. With the extremist running the show if the Democrats win it just means a small minority that want guns made illegal makes the decisions.
Yes I know theres the old counter that the Republicans are run by extremist. Abortion has not been outlawed and abortion doctors are not in jail. Machine guns are not cheap and illegal. Evolution is taught in schools and alternatives are not. About the only claim to extreminism is the war in Iraq and thats not extreme at all considering leaving Saddam in power after 9/11 would have made Bush look really weak. The Clinton administration had Waco, spying on peoples tax records, the FBI files incident. Even with the war as terror as one heck of excuse Bush hasn't had any waco level incidence where the Feds turn
kill large numbers of Americans on telivision. So Bush really lines up as a moderate. At least compared to Clinton. The rulers of the Democrat party have went far beyond Clinton into the land of extremist talk.
It doesn't matter what the middle, or libertarian version of liberalism think if the extremist or the one who run the show. I am not seeing any real attempt to hold the line. The moderates get drawn out to get people to vote Democrat. The moderates don't get to make the decision. With the extremist running the show if the Democrats win it just means a small minority that want guns made illegal makes the decisions.
Yes I know theres the old counter that the Republicans are run by extremist. Abortion has not been outlawed and abortion doctors are not in jail. Machine guns are not cheap and illegal. Evolution is taught in schools and alternatives are not. About the only claim to extreminism is the war in Iraq and thats not extreme at all considering leaving Saddam in power after 9/11 would have made Bush look really weak. The Clinton administration had Waco, spying on peoples tax records, the FBI files incident. Even with the war as terror as one heck of excuse Bush hasn't had any waco level incidence where the Feds turn
kill large numbers of Americans on telivision. So Bush really lines up as a moderate. At least compared to Clinton. The rulers of the Democrat party have went far beyond Clinton into the land of extremist talk.
Cosmoline
Member
With Republicans like "America's Mayor" running around, it's hard getting too holier than thou about Democrats.
Or you talking about the mayor of Redding California Population 80,000? I don't see him running for president anytime soon, or as chairman of the republican party. I also don't see him kicking out the republican govenor of california for being to liberal. Now if he were to switch to being a extremist liberal instead of being a extremist conservative he could go far.
Being a liberal is not a bad thing!
Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. The real issue hear (and I can’t believe that I’m the first to bring this up) is that the term “liberal” has been hi-jacked by leftists. Just as the term “republican” has been hi-jacked by uber conservative Jesus freaks. Liberals, and I mean in the true definition of the word, are those who believe in the “rights of man”, and in individual liberties. After all, that’s where the term comes from, the word liberty. I think that in either case, the connotation of the words that we use have become so muddied, that the people who claim to be from either camp, don’t even know what the hell they are.
As for me, what am I? I am a capitiolist…
Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. The real issue hear (and I can’t believe that I’m the first to bring this up) is that the term “liberal” has been hi-jacked by leftists. Just as the term “republican” has been hi-jacked by uber conservative Jesus freaks. Liberals, and I mean in the true definition of the word, are those who believe in the “rights of man”, and in individual liberties. After all, that’s where the term comes from, the word liberty. I think that in either case, the connotation of the words that we use have become so muddied, that the people who claim to be from either camp, don’t even know what the hell they are.
As for me, what am I? I am a capitiolist…
cuchulainn
Member
So be a man and take the money from others by force. Why get the goverment do that for you? To make it seem good? To remove yourself from the ugly part of by force? "Backup" indeed.
Sorry, we'll never see eye-to-eye with you on this. This is about premises ... precepts ... core principles. Different premises lead to different logical conclusions.
Yes, taxation is an ugly necessity of civilization. However, income redistrubution is an abuse of taxation. (premise) No one has the rightful power to force me to give to charity (/premise).
Letting people live in misery is immoral. Helping them with money taken by force is just as wrong.
Edited to add -- And I'm not sure we really see eye-to-eye on gun control. Your reasoning seems to come from the utilitarian, prohibition-doesn't-work angle.
That raises the question -- If gun control could work, would you support it?
See? Premises. We believe gun control is wrong. Period. If gun control could eliminate murder, we'd still oppose it. Would you support gun control to save 10,000 people a year? We wouldn't. 100,000? Nope. 1 million? Nope.
Just_a_dude_with_a_gun
Member
OK...I'll play.
First the facts, from the CDC, FBI crime stats and the Brady posse's claims, to be fair.
-In 2002, there were 30,000(fbi) firearm related deaths, including murder, negligence, accidents, and suicide. Violent crime with a firearm resulting in death actually accounts for @ 11,000 (fbi, brady) of these deaths... Injuries are said to be number around an additional 60,000.
-there are approximately (brady) 200 million guns in civilian hands, with 4.5 million new guns being bought each year, and 1.5 changing hands in the private sector...
-Also in 2002, As per the CDC, there were 854,000 LEGAL abortions (not counting illegal late-term and basement abortions) performed.
Given these figures... It sounds like a hell of a lot of guns are out there in people's homes, who are minding their own business, resulting in an extremely low relative death and injury rates, while there are 854,000 deathes (28 times more) occuring annually due to an unregulated activity that is championed, even encouraged by your constituency...
This is not an attack, and I do believe in freedom to choose, but "deaths due to x" is a realty. I would just like your thoughts on this....
First the facts, from the CDC, FBI crime stats and the Brady posse's claims, to be fair.
-In 2002, there were 30,000(fbi) firearm related deaths, including murder, negligence, accidents, and suicide. Violent crime with a firearm resulting in death actually accounts for @ 11,000 (fbi, brady) of these deaths... Injuries are said to be number around an additional 60,000.
-there are approximately (brady) 200 million guns in civilian hands, with 4.5 million new guns being bought each year, and 1.5 changing hands in the private sector...
-Also in 2002, As per the CDC, there were 854,000 LEGAL abortions (not counting illegal late-term and basement abortions) performed.
Given these figures... It sounds like a hell of a lot of guns are out there in people's homes, who are minding their own business, resulting in an extremely low relative death and injury rates, while there are 854,000 deathes (28 times more) occuring annually due to an unregulated activity that is championed, even encouraged by your constituency...
This is not an attack, and I do believe in freedom to choose, but "deaths due to x" is a realty. I would just like your thoughts on this....
whats funny to me...
it would seem the "average" liberal and the "average" republican are PRETTY damn close to the same with minor differences....
the problem with this country isnt the "party", its the people who elect our representatives....
The founders wanted more than 2 parties....I wouldnt not be happy if I could go out and only choose either a Glock or Springfield Armorory handgun....
The tradition continues....sadly....
Lifetime representatives....(political lifers).... This doesnt help anybody, there is no "normalcy" to someone who leads their entire life in pursuit of politics!
I think "Democrats" and "republicans" have a great racket goin.... THERES ONLY TWO CHOICES!!!! PICK ONE! and I WAS ELECTED ONCE, ELECT ME AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN AND ......
good thread tho...just sad to see that people cant see the forest through the trees.....
it would seem the "average" liberal and the "average" republican are PRETTY damn close to the same with minor differences....
the problem with this country isnt the "party", its the people who elect our representatives....
The founders wanted more than 2 parties....I wouldnt not be happy if I could go out and only choose either a Glock or Springfield Armorory handgun....
The tradition continues....sadly....
Lifetime representatives....(political lifers).... This doesnt help anybody, there is no "normalcy" to someone who leads their entire life in pursuit of politics!
I think "Democrats" and "republicans" have a great racket goin.... THERES ONLY TWO CHOICES!!!! PICK ONE! and I WAS ELECTED ONCE, ELECT ME AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN AND ......
good thread tho...just sad to see that people cant see the forest through the trees.....
MANEDWOLF - "To be honest, neocons scare me worse than any liberals. Some liberals can be terribly misguided, but they generally don't endorse things like torture, prison without trial, spying on Americans, and using the Constitution as toilet paper."
How very, very typically hypocritical of you neolibs.
Prison without trial? Obviously, you've never heard of those great heroes of the left, Franklin D. Roosevelt & Earl Warren. They put thousands upon thousands of American Japanese into prison without trial, and made sure those Americans' property was confiscated and then "given" to their political buddies... at about five cents on the dollar.
Spying on Americans? What a hypocritical statement, oh so very typical of you see-no-evil-except-Republican-evil neolibs. Again, you've never heard of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy & brother Bobbie Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson & his vaunted left wing liberal Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, Jimmah Carter... and of course, the neolibs' Great King & Saint, William J. Clinton. (Remember those more than 900 FBI files that Clinton ordered illegally from the FBI, on private citizens and his "enemies," that disappeared, while in the Clintons' possession and have NEVER reappeared???? Makes one wonder just what the Clintons use those purloined FBI files for, doesn't it? (Well, no, of course it wouldn't to you neolibs.)
All the above were constantly and systematically using the FBI, the CIA, and private operators to spy on private citizens and politicians, physically, and with illegal wiretaps and bugs, and by ordering IRS files illegally on them. These heroes of the neolibs also systematically ordered the IRS to harrass their "enemies" with unnecessary, expensive income tax return audits.
Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson made Nixon and his "plumbers" look like Sunday afternoon picnicers. Here's a statement made during the Nixon Watergate proceedings, by none other than John Roosevelt, President F.D. Roosevelt's youngest son.
"In May, 1973, at the height of the controversy over Watergate, Bob Considine (reporter) asked John Roosevelt, the President's youngest son what he thought of the scandal. John Roosevelt responded, "I can't understand all the commontion in this case. Hell, my father (F.D.R.) just about invented bugging. Had them spread all over , and thought nothing of it." [It Didn't Start With Watergate, Victor Laskey, The Dial Pres Publs, (c) 1977.]
Using the Constitution as toilet paper?? The neolibs do that each and every day, morning, noon, and night. Try The Man Who Kept The Secrets, Richard Helms and the CIA., by Thomas Powers, Alfred Knopf Publs., (c) 1979, and another about your Great Saint & King, William J. Clinton, Partners In Power by Roger Morris, Henry Holt Publs., (c) 1996.
Might be an eye opener for anyone with an open mind... but so far, I've not met a neolib with an open mind.
Nope, just the typical sanctimonious, self righteous, holier-than-thou hypocracy as expressed by their constant talking points and ignoring the fact that their neolib heroes are just as dirty, or even dirtier, than the neocons. To a neolib, what's sauce for the goose, is DEFINITELY NOT sauce for the gander.
L.W.
How very, very typically hypocritical of you neolibs.
Prison without trial? Obviously, you've never heard of those great heroes of the left, Franklin D. Roosevelt & Earl Warren. They put thousands upon thousands of American Japanese into prison without trial, and made sure those Americans' property was confiscated and then "given" to their political buddies... at about five cents on the dollar.
Spying on Americans? What a hypocritical statement, oh so very typical of you see-no-evil-except-Republican-evil neolibs. Again, you've never heard of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy & brother Bobbie Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson & his vaunted left wing liberal Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, Jimmah Carter... and of course, the neolibs' Great King & Saint, William J. Clinton. (Remember those more than 900 FBI files that Clinton ordered illegally from the FBI, on private citizens and his "enemies," that disappeared, while in the Clintons' possession and have NEVER reappeared???? Makes one wonder just what the Clintons use those purloined FBI files for, doesn't it? (Well, no, of course it wouldn't to you neolibs.)
All the above were constantly and systematically using the FBI, the CIA, and private operators to spy on private citizens and politicians, physically, and with illegal wiretaps and bugs, and by ordering IRS files illegally on them. These heroes of the neolibs also systematically ordered the IRS to harrass their "enemies" with unnecessary, expensive income tax return audits.
Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson made Nixon and his "plumbers" look like Sunday afternoon picnicers. Here's a statement made during the Nixon Watergate proceedings, by none other than John Roosevelt, President F.D. Roosevelt's youngest son.
"In May, 1973, at the height of the controversy over Watergate, Bob Considine (reporter) asked John Roosevelt, the President's youngest son what he thought of the scandal. John Roosevelt responded, "I can't understand all the commontion in this case. Hell, my father (F.D.R.) just about invented bugging. Had them spread all over , and thought nothing of it." [It Didn't Start With Watergate, Victor Laskey, The Dial Pres Publs, (c) 1977.]
Using the Constitution as toilet paper?? The neolibs do that each and every day, morning, noon, and night. Try The Man Who Kept The Secrets, Richard Helms and the CIA., by Thomas Powers, Alfred Knopf Publs., (c) 1979, and another about your Great Saint & King, William J. Clinton, Partners In Power by Roger Morris, Henry Holt Publs., (c) 1996.
Might be an eye opener for anyone with an open mind... but so far, I've not met a neolib with an open mind.
Nope, just the typical sanctimonious, self righteous, holier-than-thou hypocracy as expressed by their constant talking points and ignoring the fact that their neolib heroes are just as dirty, or even dirtier, than the neocons. To a neolib, what's sauce for the goose, is DEFINITELY NOT sauce for the gander.
L.W.
- Status