Parker House, or…?
Not one of them gol-durn croysants, you can bet yer ass on that! Biscuits, like God intended! (Powdermilk Biscuits, of course)
The title of this thread? The one created by Monty, whom you just brushed off with a “sheesh” of annoyance at the suggestion you were referring to him? Are you now saying he is one of these freedom-loving wannabe muzzlers, because he created a thread to complain about Der Trihs?
I should apologize for using your own words against you, Quiddity, because it’s increasingly obvious that it leaves you at a serious disadvantage. While it’s amusing for a while to watch you duck and weave in thread after thread, after a time it just becomes a sad spectacle. When “that’s not what I said!” and “that’s not the same thing at all!” are the only two weapons in your rhetorical arsenal, you’re inevitably going to get spanked.
FYI, in the future, if you wish to avoid looking like an utter fool, you may want to ensure that the groups you invent solely so you may piously rail against them have at least one identifiable member. (Flesh-and-blood, not straw.)
But you said, in your earlier post, that “atheists have such a low view of all humans that they actually believe that only brainless robots enter universities or churches, become ‘programmed’ by a vast conspiracy.”
I’m telling you you’re wrong.
If all you’ve got in response is a rolleyes smiley and a vague excuse about having no evidence, then go fuck yourself.
Haven’t read the ensuing part of the thread…but this, I just had to respond to.
I mean, really, what orbit do you reside in and who made the spokeswoman for what atheists think? Never mind the fact that bringing atheism into this discussion is not just thread-shitting as is your wont but so far out in left field, you’ve left the park by a country mile. Not to mention it’s also complete non sequitur to what was was asked of you by Vinyl Turnip.
First time I say it, but methinks you’re nothing but an outright worthless TROLL.
Seriously, you are one load your Momma should’ve swallowed.
Kind regards and eat me raw, balls and all…don’t forget the pubes either.
~Red
When I was in college, a good liberal:
- opposed welfare reform
- admired the Soviet Union (free health care! free education! equal pay! ).
- had a virulent hatred of Ronald Reagan
- marched against cruise missile testing
- supported a nuclear ‘freeze’
- feared ‘the population bomb’. It was uncool to bring kids into the world, since it’s overpopulated. Forced birth quotas were a favorite conversation around the campus.
- was worried that Alar was going to kill us. Apples are poison.
- thought nuclear was bad. Many, many protests at nuclear plants back then.
- supported the Sandinistas
- opposed the Contras
- supported Castro
- worred about the ‘garbage crisis’
- felt there were ‘limits to growth’. We were running out of food, energy, raw materials, and living space.
- supported every demand of the UAW’s.
- was strongly anti-military. ‘Loathed’ it, you might say.
- was in favor of proactive industrial policy, attempting to steer the economy in the ‘best’ way.
- was a protectionist
Man, did they ever have a lock on the truth! The bald facts sure were on their side back then…
You forgot “big government”! Criminy, Sam, how could you forget “big government”?!
Oh yeah. And big government.
They also liked cats. And not your decent tabby cat, either. I’m talking big white poofty cats with scrunchy faces.
Based on some of the items in that list, I can only assume that in 25 years, your list describing a good liberal will be something like: Tie themselves to trees while blowing up animal research labs, tossing pig’s blood on fur wearers, and waving “Saddam for President” signs. I’ll still go ahead and address them as I was a good liberal at the time.
Not at all, but did oppose what was commonly thought of as “welfare reform” in the political arena. Most good liberals were perfectly happy to have welfare fixed, but “fixed” and “all but eliminated” are not the same thing.
Also not true, although a good liberal didn’t think they were the “Red Scare” that they were made out to be. At that time, they were beginning to make some progress, and that was considered a good thing.
Not really, although I like him far less today than I did when he was president. While we didn’t like many of his policies back then, most of us were unaware at the time of some of the things he did, which in hindsight, weren’t so good. Things such as giving his first speech in Philadelphia, MS, where his platform was “state’s rights.” Had we known, our dislike might have indeed turned to virulent hatred, but we didn’t.
True, although people who actually openly protest are a small minority of those who agree with the protest.
True, and rightfully so at the time. I’m betting you weren’t scrambling to buy real estate in Middletown, PA at the time, and Chernobyl hadn’t even happened yet.
True, although most of them overcame that quite quickly when they got married.
Not true. Once again, that was not only a fringe idea, but that fringe has now joined sides with the right in the immigration battle.
Your average liberal had no clue what Alar was until the 60 minutes episode, and the scare wasn’t completely unfounded. I’m guessing you bought into Whelan’s PR if you think this was a defining issue of the day.
Didn’t we just do this? Yes, they thought it was bad, and at the time, they were right. Today, we have many more protections in place, which wouldn’t have been needed if it hadn’t been bad.
Actually, your typical good liberal had no more clue about who they were than that weird dude with the “Che” t-shirt had about Guevera. In fact, your typical liberal couldn’t have written a stub for a wiki article about any of them until Ollie became a household name.
Didn’t find him as evil as Reagan did doesn’t mean they supported him. Many just thought we should open up trade for the sake of the citizenry of Cuba.
True.
True, and in many ways, valid when you look at the world as a whole, which seemed to be a “good liberal” idea.
As above, your typical liberal couldn’t tell you what UAW stood for, but yes, typically showed strong support for unions.
Not true, but did loathe some of the actions of the military machine. Also wanted a smaller military, but again, that’s not “anti-military”. Hell, I was IN the military and was still a good liberal.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. 
Only in the sense of not wanting America to get screwed over by the greed of corporations. Many of us would have been perfectly happy to have completely open trade with various countries, as long as the country with which we traded also had a completely open, two-way border. Want to trade with Mexico with no tariffs, etc? Open the border and many of them would have been fine with it.
For the most part, yes.
By the way Sam, instead of getting your info from Whelan and the other Limbaughs of that time, maybe next time you should ask what we stood for. We’re not really embarassed about most of our beliefs and would happily share, just as I’m sure you’d happily share what the "YR"s of the day were all about.
I should point out that I was in Canada, so the focus of the left was somewhat different here than in the States. Nicaragua was a big deal here on campus, for some reason. It was the cause du jure for a while then. Handbills announcing support for the Sandinistas were all over the place. There were demonstrations in support of the Sandinistas. As for Cuba, I’m sure there was much more support for Cuba from the left in Canada than the U.S. After all, Castro was a close personal friend of Canada’s favorite Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau. Trudeau’s son Sasha went to Cuba and paid his respects to Castro during his recent illness. I’m guessing the subject of Cuban jail conditions or the dissidents in internal exile didn’t come up over tea.
Hey, give the fringe some credit. That idea was a major plot point for a movie made in the 1970s. I wish I could remember the name of the flick–the plot line had a “one child per family” limit in the US.
You’re probably thinking of the made for TV movie The Last Child.
Liberals have done all of those things in the past, ever heard of FDR?
I had a similar experience in my political science classes (most of my other classes one wouldn’t have many occasion to be political.) And I went to an institution that by and large is, if anything, often assumed to be incredibly right-wing. But the profs who actually taught about the political process were very interested in explaining all the points of view on any given issue. Most of them would not even answer student’s inquiries as to what their party/ideological affiliation was.