Epa Nazis

[Blue Thunder]

By modern definitions he was perhaps one of the biggest liberals to ever inhabit the White House.

The modern definition of a liberal is a person who hates everything about America; its culture, its capitalistic ideals, its military power, its freedoms, its people.
Those who would fit the modern day definition of liberal were virtually non-existent back then.
Al Sharpton is a liberal, Jesse Jackson is a liberal, Hillary Clinton is a liberal, those with a communist/socialist agenda align themselves with the liberals, etc etc. Nothing any of these people offer is good for the Country, because they hate America and any traditional ideals it still stands for.

 

[dmoody]

The modern definition of a liberal is a person who hates everything about America; its culture, its capitalistic ideals, its military power, its freedoms, its people.

I'm not sure what source you would get this definition from?

Al Sharpton is a liberal, Jesse Jackson is a liberal, Hillary Clinton is a liberal

I think you must really dislike these particular people. I'm not sure I'm ready to align Hillary Clinton with Bin Laden.

From the merrian-webster online dictionary, being labeled a liberal is defined as:

"a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties"

Unfortunately many of these "liberties" are controversial subjects like abortion and gay rights. It is unfortunate that we can't separate religious beliefs from our political system.

d

 

[Wart]

The modern definition of a liberal is a person who hates everything about America; its culture, its capitalistic ideals, its military power, its freedoms, its people.

Then I suggest you go talk to Bush and his buddies as him and they seem hell bent on destruction of this country and it's principles.

Nothing any of these people offer is good for the Country, because they hate America and any traditional ideals it still stands for.

What do they offer? Do you even know?

 

[Blue Thunder]

As I've said, Bush is a religious moderate, not a Conservative.

As for the above mentioned liberals, what do they want? The destruction of America as we know it, and recreated as a communist authoritarian state. The modern "liberal" is in disguise, they lead (uninformed) people to believe one thing, while themselves believing something entirely different. The modern liberal agenda is one of deceit, because if they ever came out and stated what they really believe in, they'd never get voted into office.

 

[Blue Thunder]

I'm not sure what source you would get this definition from?

I think you must really dislike these particular people. I'm not sure I'm ready to align Hillary Clinton with Bin Laden.

Does one need to read a specific conclusion in order to arrive at one? I define them by their actions, not by their words.

Yes, dislike is a good way of putting it. And the difference between hillary and bin laden is; Hillary wants to destroy American traditional values, without killing any of us, (since none of her ideas would function without a huge population from which to take large amount of taxes. You know, to spread the wealth around, the way she likes to do, to make things "fair") whereas Bin Laden just wants to kill us all.

 

[dmoody]

And the difference between hillary and bin laden is; Hillary wants to destroy American traditional values, without killing any of us,

Wow you have some interesting beliefs. There is so much I'd like to ask in order to fully understand where you are coming from. What specific American traditional values would you be talking about? I think I can guess a few like guns, marriage existing only between a man and a woman, public display of the ten commandments and prayer in schools. What are some of the others that come to mind?

since none of her ideas would function without a huge population from which to take large amount of taxes. You know, to spread the wealth around, the way she likes to do, to make things "fair"

What did you mean by this specifically? Welfare? Paying down the national debt? Higher taxes for the rich, less taxes for the poor?

As I've said, Bush is a religious moderate, not a Conservative.

How would your ideal candidate differ from Bush?

 

[Blue Thunder]

Before you draw any further conclusions, I am an atheist, but since "god" has been printed on money, and mentioned in the pledge of allegiance for so many years, I defend keeping such things, for the sake of tradition. Especially since Christians are the majority in this Country.
Other Traditions of importance, like family values, (yes, a family with a male father and a female mother) raising kids to be more personally responsible for their own actions and not coddled like infants when they're teenagers. Fewer laws to try to control the public, and far more strict punishments for the laws that remain.(including, of course, the death penalty) Though I don't worship any gods, I still believe that the young and innocent should be protected at all costs, including the unborn, since I believe that life truly begins at the moment of conception. If you want to avoid having a kid, you should take responsibility for your actions beforehand, and if an accident happens, then toughs***t, be responsible and have the kid.
The racially discriminating welfare system(yes, it's far easier for an ethnic minority to get welfare than it is for a white) should be gutted, so that only very few cases will warrant paying welfare. (injuries, pregnant single mothers, etc.) But under no circumstances should the current system or anything close to it be allowed to exist. Demanding money from someone who works and then giving it to someone who doesnt want to work is unethical, to say the least. (I call it legalized crime) Low taxation codes should be voted for and if passed, mandated by law, so the next leftist or moderate president won't have the power to turn us any closer toward communism/socialism.

All the appointed judicial activists who have created laws that ignore our written Constitution and who bypass our legislative system to do so are also criminals. It states specifically in the 2nd Amendment that I have a right to carry a gun if I am a law abiding citizen. So why will I get arrested for doing so in some areas? I don't recall there being a vote to change the Constitution. I am an originalist, which means, we should follow the Constitution exactly. It's not there for decoration, it's worked since America's founding.

From my point of view, all government is evil, but necessary. If you let it grow too large(like the liberals and moderates constantly try to do) it will overtake you, like a runaway nuclear reactor. Keep it small and under control, or suffer the consequences.

Reagan was as close to my views as I've seen. (Ted Nugent is actually closer to my views, but he's not running for president yet, likely just for governor)

 

[dmoody]

Before you draw any further conclusions, I am an atheist, but since "god" has been printed on money, and mentioned in the pledge of allegiance for so many years, I defend keeping such things, for the sake of tradition.

This I find odd.. that you would defend something you don't believe in. Me personally, I could care less whether the word, God, is printed here, there or everywhere. I find the more a word or phrase is repeated, the less likely it is to be true. It is in your heart that God will make a difference.

Other Traditions of importance, like family values, (yes, a family with a male father and a female mother) raising kids to be more personally responsible for their own actions and not coddled like infants when they're teenagers. Fewer laws to try to control the public, and far more strict punishments for the laws that remain.(including, of course, the death penalty)

We share lots of common ground here. I'd go even farther and say that I'd support turning back the work week to something less than 40 hours to promote stronger relationships within the family.

Though I don't worship any gods, I still believe that the young and innocent should be protected at all costs, including the unborn, since I believe that life truly begins at the moment of conception. If you want to avoid having a kid, you should take responsibility for your actions beforehand, and if an accident happens, then toughs***t, be responsible and have the kid.

I won't touch that one. Abortion has such deep roots on both sides, I don't think a resolution is possible.

The racially discriminating welfare system(yes, it's far easier for an ethnic minority to get welfare than it is for a white) should be gutted, so that only very few cases will warrant paying welfare. (injuries, pregnant single mothers, etc.) But under no circumstances should the current system or anything close to it be allowed to exist. Demanding money from someone who works and then giving it to someone who doesnt want to work is unethical, to say the least. (I call it legalized crime)

Welfare is absolutely necessary in any capitalistic society. There is a ratio of wealth to poverty at which a nation will deteriorate into anarchy and be overturned. Currently this ratio is on the rise within the US. No welfare system is perfect, you'll always have those who take advantage of it.

Low taxation codes should be voted for and if passed, mandated by law, so the next leftist or moderate president won't have the power to turn us any closer toward communism/socialism.

I don't think it is quite that simple. My wife is an accountant and the more money you've got going out, the more you must have coming in. Want less taxes? Then don't elect officials who support pre-emptively invading other countries and waging long term costly wars.

All the appointed judicial activists who have created laws that ignore our written Constitution and who bypass our legislative system to do so are also criminals. It states specifically in the 2nd Amendment that I have a right to carry a gun if I am a law abiding citizen. So why will I get arrested for doing so in some areas? I don't recall there being a vote to change the Constitution. I am an originalist, which means, we should follow the Constitution exactly. It's not there for decoration, it's worked since America's founding.

America's founders knew that the constitution wasn't perfect so they created a mechanism to allow the constitution to be amended (changed). There were ten ammendments added in 1789 so that demonstrates how quickly our country needed to exercise this system. The first ten amendments are not set in stone nor were they meant to be.

From my point of view, all government is evil, but necessary. If you let it grow too large(like the liberals and moderates constantly try to do) it will overtake you, like a runaway nuclear reactor. Keep it small and under control, or suffer the consequences.

The US government has grown incredibly underneath the helm of a supposedly conservative president. I agree that our system could be made more effective and much leaner.

Anyway I've enjoyed reading your viewpoints and sharing my own. I find that the II crowd is very diverse in their backgrounds and viewpoints. We aren't often swayed by the bling of expensive parts because there aren't many for our cars. Creativity bleeds into every part of a person's life and you won't restore a II without some of this necessary ingredient.

d

 

[mustangmods]

well put d. This country is becoming so diverse it is impossible for us (as a country) to agree on something. No matter what laws and restrictions are passed there will be those that feel that it is negatively affecting freedoms and yet others that feel that it doesn't restrict them enough. Our best chance is to find a happy medium which isn't very easy to do these days. I'll tell ya what we need to do is get a mustang II owner in the white house. It would be one hell of a country then would'nt it :SNSign:

 

[dmoody]

I'll tell ya what we need to do is get a mustang II owner in the white house. It would be one hell of a country then would'nt it

You bet it would

 

[Blue Thunder]

America's founders knew that the constitution wasn't perfect so they created a mechanism to allow the constitution to be amended (changed). There were ten ammendments added in 1789 so that demonstrates how quickly our country needed to exercise this system. The first ten amendments are not set in stone nor were they meant to be.

When the proper methods are followed, then it's legal. But those who create the laws I mentioned that defy the Constitution are not creating new Amendments, or even altering existing Amendments, they're simply passing new laws that bypass the Constitution. And these people arent elected, they're appointed(Eg. Supreme Court) so they have nothing to fear from pissing off the public. Which is why the legislative branch is supposed to pass new laws, and the judicial branch is supposed to enforce those laws. Things arent working that way currently. Anyone who isnt elected by the people has no right creating any laws, because doing so gives them far too much power. We need more originalists in the Supreme Court, like the newly appointed Judge Roberts appears to be, because a true originalist will remain faithful to the written Constitution, regardless of personal preference.