I’m pretty sure it’s included in the post where I said John Wayne won WWII by single-handedly whipping Tojo’s ass. That only took him a few movies, so he did the other stuff in between times.
And back in those caves, it was probably a common practice to bump off people who didn’t think the same as you.
Pass the mammoth, please.
We prefer “Warriors of Freedom, Guardians of Democracy, Champions of Justice, and Otherwise Manly Men”. Or paid. Paid is always good. Highly paid would be nice.
John Wayne? JOHN WAYNE?
Well, OK.
I’ll give you that one.
Damnit.
Ho hum. You appear to have a high opinion about the virtue of your behavior. FTR, I’ve done that crap as well.
To answer the OP: progressives require an opposition party to keep them honest. Somebody has to investigate and go after Charlie Rangel, and it’s likely that the left would lack a certain… enthusiasm for the task. Those with a different POV can be helpful, especially if they are honest.
That said, I think the national Republican party has left building and should be dismantled. Their budgetary views are exercises in fantasy and wishful thinking, their foreign policy cartoonish. It was not always thus:
Is Michael Steele the Best Possible Chairman for the Republican National Committee?
Ironically, President Reagan raised taxes repeatedly as events warranted, Nixon valued competence in his administration and Goldwater wasn’t as far right as he appeared in 1964. The problem isn’t with those Republican leaders; the problem is with those modern conservatives who have adopted the worst aspects of their natures.
Actually, it is just tedious.
Ill considered silliness such as the OP tends to bring out the worst on both sides, of course. I am not persuaded that the majority of posters are mindless partisans, but it is certainly true that there are enough loud partisans to keep this sort of thread on the front page of the forum for long periods of time.
I am looking for an honest debate. Don’t blame me because nobody has an argument?
What is the social value of conservatives? Are they Doctors? Teachers? Social workers? So far as I can see, they are none of these things. But they are trust fund inheritors, millionaires, TV preachers and other parasites … am I wrong?
Yes you’re wrong. Conservatives can be found as Doctors, Teachers and Social workers just as you can find liberal trust fund inheritors, millionaires and TV preachers.
Your looking to have a debate great but you seem only willing to have that debate with someone willing to take your stereotypes as facts. You are dishonest.
How about you go ask the PIIGS how they are doing with fiscal liberals running the show for the past few years. Maybe take a tour of the UK on your way back, then see how California and New York are doing before heading over to DC.
Sorry, no. I had a big long thing written, but fuck it. You’re not as bad and all that as you think, and if push comes to shove, I’ll do my own killing. Just stay the hell out of the way. I don’t need any damn protection.
You are as wrong as anyone else who spouts such ignorant generalities. You’ve already been shown you are wrong and simply continue to spout nonsense instead of engaging in the honest debate you claim to want. There is rarely any honest debate involved in such foolishness. Simply useless partisan assertions.
Show me I’m wrong.
California is a fucking mess. Everybody knows that. Tax tax tax tax and more tax, and the damn state is still going broker and broker and broker. Where the hell is all that money going?
:rolleyes:
We’re talking proportions. Yes, there are conservatives that have social value, but most do not. What socially useful group is disproprtionaltely conservative? What would we lose if they all choked to death on a pretzel tomorrow? Their net contribution is negative.
Where? Where has someone shown me “if we lose conservatives, we will lose our _______”? Nobody.
It’s obvious that at this point in the debate, you need to define “social value”.
Nah. You are looking to make yourself feel good by creating a false image of people with whom you disagree so that you can claim that you have an intrinsic worth greater than theirs.
I know many conservative doctors and teachers. I even know at least one conservative social worker, (although I will admit that that career has fewer conservatives). I also know a lot of line workers who are conservative, from whom you get a lot of your finished goods, and I probably know more farmers who are conservative than otherwise and I am willing to bet that you enjoy eating.
How about business owners, including small business owners that which happen to provide a lot of crucial employment.
And you know what, quite frankly, I would include those who pay large amounts of tax in my definition of “social value”.
OK.
A page and a half into this thread and I still see no serious effort on the part of the OP to set forth anything more than broad brush partisan sniping.
Off to the BBQ Pit, (where I would prefer that you put any similar nonsense in the future).
“Serious debate”? Piffle.
[ /Moderating ]
I mentioned Afghanistan and you made the false argument that it was a conservative issue, then abandoned the argument when I pointed out you were wrong.
You’re making a ridiculously broad claim that conservatives don’t hold psoitions that we solcially value. It’s utter and obvious bullshit. Before you ask others to prove you wrong perhaps you could provide evidence that there is any merit at all to your position. It’s the general expectation of GDs