"Fuck em"

bryanfury

i'm a proud liberal. try not throwing it around like its a bad thing.

george clooney said it best. when was the last time liberals were on the wrong side of a social issue?

WindNoSail

bryanfury wrote:

i'm a proud liberal. try not throwing it around like its a bad thing.

george clooney said it best. when was the last time liberals were on the wrong side of a social issue?

Sudan atrocities during the Clinton Administration.

JasonVaritek

WindNoSail wrote:

Sudan atrocities during the Clinton Administration.

Clinton was not a liberal.

Abuskedti

WindNoSail wrote:

Sudan atrocities during the Clinton Administration.

Clinton may have been a Liberal at one time, but he traded that in when he became a Democrat

WindNoSail

JasonVaritek wrote:

Clinton was not a liberal.

That's convenient....so the liberals weren't in power during the Clinton administration?

Exactly what would liberals have done differently?

JasonVaritek

WindNoSail wrote:

That's convenient....so the liberals weren't in power during the Clinton administration?

Exactly what would liberals have done differently?

Clinton was the best Republican President in the last 30 years. Also, Republicans controlled the congress from 1994 to 2000 so you need to get your facts straight before you post things that you know nothing about.

JasonVaritek

Windnosail-

Here you go.

Liberals would not have gone along with Clinton's welfare reform or NAFTA or the Defensive Marrage Act

SoonForgotten2

Why is it that 95% of Americans have no idea what being a "liberal" actually means?

JasonVaritek

SoonForgotten2 wrote:

Why is it that 95% of Americans have no idea what being a "liberal" actually means?

Who knows? Most American's brains are cooked by the media/trends. I am glad I barely escaped.

WindNoSail

JasonVaritek wrote:

Windnosail-

Here you go.

Liberals would not have gone along with Clinton's welfare reform or NAFTA or the Defensive Marrage Act

I was speaking to the my original post about Sudan, what would they have different that would have had them on the correct side of the issue.

As for NAFTA, I was learned from a good liberal professor years ago about how important globalization was and that NAFTA should be approved. He loved it because of the multicultural aspects of it, and the concept that we would be helping citizens of the world share in the economies that were already strong. Seems to me that globalization has only recently become an issue that liberals don't like. Being a conservative, I had a problem with it because to me it seemed to force a blurring of borders and creating lower wages for the US.

Welfare reform - why wouldn't a liberal want to reform one of their own systems that is not working properly? Everything can be improved, right?

Defense of marriage, well I don't recall all the details, but does a liberal have to be defined by agreeing exactly with you on every point?? Does every liberal disagree with Clinton on his policies NOW?

Eliot Rosewater

my2hands wrote:

God damn right Eddie!

I am tired of this neo conservative, extreme right wing bullshit agenda...and i am sick of the people that follow it as gospel... embracing hatred, fear, greed, war, violence, restriction of freedoms, war profiteering, non-tolerance, discrimination, lying, etc., etc.

if the blatant lies about Iraq and Katrina didnt wake them up nothing will!

so "fuck em" and anybody that agrees with them

I agree wholeheartedly...whether or not Ed was serious when he said it....it's definitely how I feel. Especially the ones that have been ripping Ed for what he said on Storytellers....fuck 'em.

WindNoSail

don't gimme no wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly...whether or not Ed was serious when he said it....it's definitely how I feel. Especially the ones that have been ripping Ed for what he said on Storytellers....fuck 'em.

Ok, fuck you too. Wow, that accomplishes alot.

ryan198

WindNoSail wrote:

I was speaking to the my original post about Sudan, what would they have different that would have had them on the correct side of the issue.

As for NAFTA, I was learned from a good liberal professor years ago about how important globalization was and that NAFTA should be approved. He loved it because of the multicultural aspects of it, and the concept that we would be helping citizens of the world share in the economies that were already strong. Seems to me that globalization has only recently become an issue that liberals don't like. Being a conservative, I had a problem with it because to me it seemed to force a blurring of borders and creating lower wages for the US.

Welfare reform - why wouldn't a liberal want to reform one of their own systems that is not working properly? Everything can be improved, right?

Defense of marriage, well I don't recall all the details, but does a liberal have to be defined by agreeing exactly with you on every point?? Does every liberal disagree with Clinton on his policies NOW?

Who said Clinton was a liberal? What a joke! NAFTA was not ever liked by the left (look at the Chomsky interview w/ Zach de La Rocha made in...I believe 1996). Several liberal authors have or did speak out against it when it began Giroux, McLaren, Grossberg, Chomsky, Zinn, etc. come to mind.

El_Kabong

ryan198 wrote:

Who said Clinton was a liberal? What a joke! NAFTA was not ever liked by the left (look at the Chomsky interview w/ Zach de La Rocha made in...I believe 1996). Several liberal authors have or did speak out against it when it began Giroux, McLaren, Grossberg, Chomsky, Zinn, etc. come to mind.

no man, clinton was a total liberal! s&l scams, his wife being wal-mart's corporate lawyer, him allowing the timber industry onto federally protected land and wildlife areas so THEY could determine which trees they thought posed a 'fire hazard' and cut them down (he also subsidized the building of roads for them to do this), the whole pollution credit bullshit, NAFTA (which was STRONGLY criticized by actual liberals for lowering environmental standards in the name of 'free trade')....

ryan198

let's not forget his strong love of church, his fake love of the black community, rolling back of welfare and other stuff, his deals with the WTO, Kosovo ... yes total liberal.

my2hands

my2hands wrote:

God damn right Eddie!

I am tired of this neo conservative, extreme right wing bullshit agenda...and i am sick of the people that follow it as gospel... embracing hatred, fear, greed, war, violence, restriction of freedoms, war profiteering, non-tolerance, discrimination, lying, etc., etc.

if the blatant lies about Iraq and Katrina didnt wake them up nothing will!

so "fuck em" and anybody that agrees with them

i see some people took my comments as personal attacks, or just responded by calling me a "jackass" or something similar

i see "fuck-em" as a way of verbalizing the frustrations many of us feel about the direction of our country under this fanatical administraion and it's supporters...

and the fact is that if you voted for Bush in 2004 this was the agenda you were supporting... and that is the truth... i cannot sugar coat that, i had a conversation with a friend of mine who voted for Bush in 2004... he told me (3 days ago) that he voted for Bush because he wanted to see the "death and destruction over there, instead of here"... and i simply responded by asking what did Iraq have to do with 9/11? he had no answer... 2 years later? and this guy has a college eduation, still confusing 9/11 and terrorism with Iraq? thats just flat out ridiculous... so why should i engage or debate with this type of thinking? why should i tolerate the events of the last few years and its supporters?

i respect everyones right to an opinion and expression of that, but i dont have to tolerate the actual opinion? my example would be the KKK... i agree they have a RIGHT to their opinion, and i even support them being able to express their views publicly, but i dont have to tolerate the message, or respect it.

i saw a sig recently that says "i have become intolerant of intolerance" (thank you eddies grrl)... i think that about sums "fuck-em" up for me

decides2dream

however, by stating 'fuck 'em' and anyone who agrees...you are espousing exactly what you say you disagree with on priniciple: intolerance. one does not need to agree, one can even speak out against, but to remian respectful, open to true debate...that is the better balance imho. i think that is where any possible 'offense' may be taken.

my2hands

decides2dream wrote:

however, by stating 'fuck 'em' and anyone who agrees...you are espousing exactly what you say you disagree with on priniciple: intolerance. one does not need to agree, one can even speak out against, but to remian respectful, open to true debate...that is the better balance imho. i think that is where any possible 'offense' may be taken.

let me ask this... how has tolerance and true debate done for us the last 6 years? it has done squat, becuase THEY are the first to dismiss debate or tolerance?

it is like the fly that keeps running into the glass window... at some point you have to stop hitting your head and find another way around the glass

The Illinoisemakers

my2hands wrote:

let me ask this... how has tolerance and true debate done for us the last 6 years? it has done squat, becuase THEY are the first to dismiss debate or tolerance?

it is like the fly that keeps running into the glass window... at some point you have to stop hitting your head and find another way around the glass

I am not sure how you could expect conservatives to want to come here and debate when your 'tolerance' for them is summed up with 'fuck em'.

decides2dream

my2hands wrote:

let me ask this... how has tolerance and true debate done for us the last 6 years? it has done squat, becuase THEY are the first to dismiss debate or tolerance?

it is like the fly that keeps running into the glass window... at some point you have to stop hitting your head and find another way around the glass

so what are you then suggesting?

ALL i was saying is how i can easily see how one would be offended. sure, in ed's case...it seems he was saying so in jest, or so i have read as i still have yet to watch storytellers. that said, you took it a step further...saying it without humor. to me that is a sign of intolerance, b/c if one cuts off all communication with 'fuck 'em' where does it lead?

to me, you are promoting the close-mindedness you seem to say you abhor? that's all i was getting it. it serves no purpose except to be more devisive. and if your arguement is that 'they do it too'....well both sides taking an immature stance will get us nowhere for certain. what should we do? i have no idea..i ain't that smart. however, at the very least...being open to communication always sounds like a wise idea imo.

btw - have both sides truly been tolerant and engaged in debate? i acvtually think both sides of many issues have exhibited intolerane and close-mindedness at times. this polarity, i have no idea around it....but 'fuck 'em' to me, solves nothing. agree/disaree...whateva.