First id like to say this site is a good idea, but the plan to make it was carried out attorotiously(sp).

i found this site while looking for a new gun that H&K have just started producing, MP7. I was woundering if there was going to be a civilian model, or if a civilian could buy it. I then found the area about violence, and the bullying quiz, and the hot head quiz.

Ive been looking around this site for maybe 30 minutes and all i can say is "GOD ****ING DAMNIT, STOP BEING SO ****ING NIAVE". the extream leftism, and stupidity on these boards, and the articles on the site pissed me off so much i had to post about it. Like for ****s sake, you guys are going to become the next PITA activists arent you? How about stop *****ing, and stop being so god damn politically correct, and grow some mother ****ing balls.

Discuss.

harsh

quote:

---

It doesn't matter if she is the "proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing all along." See you are switching your logic around here. At first you are taking one case and going from narrow to broad and then you switch it around to starting from broad then going to narrow. Either you pick to go to a case by case basis or you don't, you can't have both ways.

---

Then perhaps what ComradeSmurf said applies to your posts. I'm reading what you posted and trying to figure out what you mean by it. If you are trying to make some subliminal or underlying point, say it. Yeah, you said you didn't think Bruce was really a liberal in the first place. I think it's when you wrote, "In fact the women was never a completely a Liberal in the first place." There is no discrepancy between what you wrote and how I interpreted it.

quote:

---

This is weaseling your way out; Liberals don't show tolerance towards intolerant movements.

---

Hmm, you said that you didn't think the military is overfunded and I said replied to the effect that that's unusual, but people are different. What's weasling about that? Do you even know what you're talking about?

quote:

---

Begging the question and loaded language, they are present so therefore they are needed.

---

The taxpayers are present, so they need to be milked? Liberal logic. If what you meant to say that because the homeless exist, liberals are needed, you should bear in mind that a lot less people would be homeless if it wasn't for your taxes. Many people have their homes foreclosed upon because they can't afford to pay property or income taxes.

quote:

---

Again you are you using the tolerance of intolerance technicality.

---

Liberals are intolerant of anyone who views things differently, irrespective of whether that POV is tolerant or not.

quote:

---

No I didn't, I was simply pointing out the logical error in it.

---

See above.

quote:

---

Why would I? I wasn't aware that he ever claimed himself as a conservative? Now David Brock with logic I could not believe him.

---

No, but he's supposed to be an "insider" into the media. I suppose Brock would have been a better example.

quote:

---

The reason pro-choice people generally don't allow pro-lifers to speak at their conventions is because pro-life people are about limiting the choice (this is intolerance), while as pro-choice is saying you can choice what you want to do (tolerance.)

---

Thank you for that admission. Oh, man, I can attack this on so many levels! That was one of the most blatant, pathetic attempts as weasling, yourself. I am not saying this to flame you, disparage you, or insult you, and I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but you completely tap-danced around my example and the issues it raises. By your own logic, the RNC shouldn't have allowed to have a supporter of child murder speak at their convention in allowing a pro-choicer to speak, either.

You know full well that the issue here is tolerance for other points of view. In this example, the GOP showed tolerance toward pro-choicers (to some, a.k.a. "baby killers"), but the Democrats refused to show any kind of tolerance toward of pro-lifers (to some, a.k.a. "freedom destroyers".)

Oh, by the way, if one were to follow the logic of your statement, then the DNC should not have had any gun control supporters speak, because they're about limiting choice, while the pro-gun folks, who support your right to choose to own a handgun or 'assault weapon', are the tolerant ones; to borrow your own words, "pro-choice is saying you can choice [sic] what you want to do (tolerance.)"

Sorry, DJMag, I like ya, but your logic fails on so many levels. Again, I'm not saying this to be mean, disparaging, or to be offensive in any way, and I in no way mean to insult you or hurt your feelings, but your reasoning is totally illogical on many levels.

BTW, I don't know if any pro-lifers asked to speak at the DNC, though I'm quite sure there was some Catholic Democrats around. Likewise, AFAIK, Christie Whitman didn't ask to speak at the RNC convention, and she isn't exactly popular with the conservative base either, but speak she did.

"Either you agree or you disagree. Either an American or a Communist."
- Joey Dauben

Shut up, Joey.

When everyone starts to realize that the left-right political spectrum does not exist, and that the real enemies of America and its people are actually behind the gates, then real discussion can and should continue.

Until then, I'm studying up on communist idealism and figuring out a way to get more people to learn about the stuff exposed on Infowars.com.

Oh, while running for office.


Joey Dauben
for School Board
http://www.joeydauben.com

http://www.infowars.com

And if you all dare to discuss what is on Infowars.com, visit the PrisonPlanet.com Forum:

http://pub111.ezboard.com/bprisonplanetforum43008

quote:

---

go read Let Freedom Ring by Sean Hannity .. then come back here and talk.

---

I have, I own the book, and the book is freaking joke, arguably one of the most rhetoric filled/dishonest books I've ever read (case and point http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020826.html). This completely proves my point, you depend on somebody else to tell you what Communism is; anti-conformity, pfft what a freaking joke.

quote:

---

and i have read the communist manifesto.

---

That’s great, but that doesn't mean that much, seeing as the Communist Manifesto does not explain how Communism should be run. As I have said many times
The Communist Manifesto is not meant to explain how Communism should be carried out; it's meant to give a VERY basic outline of thinking. I have mentioned this several times; the book that explains how Communism should run is DAS CAPITAL, again NOT the Communist Manifesto.

quote:

---

Why does the Left want to take out the CIA?

---

Uhhh take a good look at the Libertarians Buddy

quote:

---

and all the left does is raise taxes, raise taxes, and tax even more

---

And.........

go read Let Freedom Ring by Sean Hannity .. then come back here and talk.

and i have read the communist manifesto.

leftism is socialism, and thats just a step away from communism.

Why does the Left want to take out the CIA?

and all the left does is raise taxes, raise taxes, and tax even more.

[This message was edited by bauhaus on March 22, 2004 at 09:56 PM.]

quote:

---

Do you know why liberals hate everyone so much? Because the fall of the soviet union, they have nothing worth fighting for anymore. Everything was exposed. Liberals / left's will die off eventually.

---

I'm really not eager to spell this **** out again to an ignorant person who doesn't have the slightest clue what the **** they are talking about.
Have you read anything on Communism at all, perhaps maybe Das Capital or anything else by Engel or Marx, even freaking Plato, Socrates, Hegel and a lot of other philosophers? My guess is no, so hush child. Until you have actually read from the source you have absolutely no place in saying what is Communist or not. That is why most of the people who publish books in the political arena these days have absolutely no validity. These people haven't even read the ****ing source; they go off second hand knowledge. God damn half the people who talk about Capitalism and try to use Adam Smith as support obviously haven’t even read the book.
The always quote one freaking phrase out of a whole thousand page+ book.
Here’s the one phrase the quote “Every individual… intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his original intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectively than when he really intends to promote it."

But let’s look at a bunch of other quotes

"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy when part of the members are poor and miserable."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The liberal reward of labor, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the laboring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition that they going backwards fast."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The rate of profit... is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.'"
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The interest of dealers, however,... is a always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes frm this order ought... never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"In a society of an hundred thousand families, there will perhaps be one hundred who don't labour at all, and who yet, either by violence, or by the more orderly oppression of law, employ a greater part of the labour of society than any other ten thousand in it. The division of what remains, too, after this enormous defalcation, is by no means made in proportion to the labour of each individual. On the contrary those who labour most get least. The opulent merchant, who spends a great part of his time in luxury and entertainments, enjoys a much greater proportion of the profits of his traffic, than all the Clerks and Accountants who do the business. These last, again, enjoying a great deal of leisure, and suffering scarce any other hardship besides the confinement of attendance, enjoy a much greater share of the produce, than three times an equal number of artizans, who, under their direction, labour much more severely and assiduously. The artizan again, tho' he works generally under cover, protected from the injuries of the weather, at his ease and assisted by the convenience of innumerable machines, enjoys a much greater share than the poor labourer who has the soil and the seasons to struggle with, and, who while he affords the materials for supplying the luxury of all the other members of the common wealth, and bears, as it were, upon his shoulders the whole fabric of human society, seems himself to be buried out of sight in the lowest foundations of the building."

The guy even supported UNIONS

“We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations [that is, unions or colluding organizations] of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual price."

Do you know why liberals hate everyone so much? Because the fall of the soviet union, they have nothing worth fighting for anymore. Everything was exposed. Liberals / left's will die off eventually.

NuShoes, you certainly spend a lot of time and words to say nothing.

quote:

---

Yes, particularly your statement about how if liberals are liars, how we can believe Tammy Bruce. But no one disputes the fact that she was president of L.A.'s NOW chapter, and on the BoD of the national. I supposed it's possible she could have been a proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing all along, and I suppose it's theoretically possible a white Klansman could become president of the NAACP. But it's not bloody likely they'd pass the litmus test.

---

It doesn't matter if she is the "proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing all along." See you are switching your logic around here. At first you are taking one case and going from narrow to broad and then you switch it around to starting from broad then going to narrow. Either you pick to go to a case by case basis or you don't, you can't have both ways.

quote:

---

Good for you. There are also liberals who are pro-life, but they are a rarity. And liberals tend to show immense intolerance for those who believe differently than the standard dogma.

---

This is weaseling your way out; Liberals don't show tolerance towards intolerant movements.

quote:

---

If it weren't for "causes" and interests like the homeless, how would liberals be able to milk the taxpayer for so much money? Where would liberals be?

---

Begging the question and loaded language, they are present so therefore they are needed.

quote:

---

That's what motivated me to start looking at other sources and viewpoints. Moreover, liberals tend to be extremely intolerant of those who believe differently, those who do not accept the standard liberal dogma, at least on hot-button issues.

---

Again you are you using the tolerance of intolerance technicality.

quote:

---

You certainly impugned/said it in different wording when you said, "Nothing is more laughable then a conservatives attempt to some how affect the public opinion by saying "oh this person was a former liberal and they support my beliefs now, so lets listen to them about it." Yet if we look at the logic behind this concept it’s so freaking faulty it’s not even funny."

---

No I didn't, I was simply pointing out the logical error in it.

quote:

---

So, are you going to tell me that Eric Alterman is full of $h!t too?

---

Why would I? I wasn't aware that he ever claimed himself as a conservative? Now David Brock with logic I could not believe him.

quote:

---

Case in point: Remember in 2000, before the Presidential election, the conventions? The Republican National Committee had pro-choice Gov. Christie Whitman speak at the convention in Philadelphia. Now, did the Democratic National Committee show similar tolerance for diverse viewpoints and allow a pro-lifer to speak at their convention? No! Did the "tolerant" liberal crowd dare criticize the DNC for failing to do so? Nope!

---

Did any pro-lifers ask to speak at the convention? Let alone did they actually talk about the abortion issue? See this is another technicality issue here. You are trying to play off the tolerance of intolerance issue. The reason pro-choice people generally don't allow pro-lifers to speak at their conventions is because pro-life people are about limiting the choice (this is intolerance), while as pro-choice is saying you can choice what you want to do (tolerance.)

hahaha ironically I am a peta activist And a straight edge ( no drugs alcohol sex till maturity) and liberal. How are we being nieve Sir Bully.

quote:

---

Did you even read either of my posts in their entirety? I addressed this issue, with both of my posts.

---

Yes, particularly your statement about how if liberals are liars, how we can believe Tammy Bruce. But no one disputes the fact that she was president of L.A.'s NOW chapter, and on the BoD of the national. I supposed it's possible she could have been a proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing all along, and I suppose it's theoretically possible a white Klansman could become president of the NAACP. But it's not bloody likely they'd pass the litmus test.

quote:

---

It would call it more of an issue of being force-fed conservative bull**** by the media, from my perspective. I came to realization of the flat out blatent logical errors in the Right. Also I became aware of the right's lies and the intellecectual dishonesty it takes to get anyone to buy their political philosophy.

---

If you've grown up exposed to right-wing media, then obviously you didn't have any exposure to CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, or CNN, and it's obvious you never read Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, or the Washington Post. I grew up watching all of the above on TV pretty much daily, and usually at least twice a week read either one of the above newspapers and mags or one of the Philly ones, which are also extremely liberal. They advertise liberal policy and lies just like they advertise cars or travel. They sell you on it.
When I still identified with liberalism, I began to see the lack of facts and often illogical nature of liberalism. That's when I became wary and began looking around. When I started learning some things and adopted a more moderate position, I realized just how liberal the media is, and how had it tries to ram liberal ideologies down the public's throat - often subtlely, often not so. When I moved into the more conservative camp, I began to realize that the media was not just liberal, but rabidly so. Particularly on social issues, less so on economic ones.

quote:

---

I'm pretty Liberal and I don’t believe the military is over funded never have. I believe the military should be a little more effective with their money, but I have never believed the Military was over funded. As for the Homeless, I see it as more of an issue that the Right could care less if anybody is harmed as long as they get a profit.

---

Good for you. There are also liberals who are pro-life, but they are a rarity. And liberals tend to show immense intolerance for those who believe differently than the standard dogma.
As far as the homeless, your statement is a case of the pot calling the kettle black: If it weren't for "causes" and interests like the homeless, how would liberals be able to milk the taxpayer for so much money? Where would liberals be?

quote:

---

I started looking into the issues at an early age as well, but I always realized there were other sides to the issues and it is quite pathetic if somebody didn’t realize that. More or less I found that I was being fed things with a Right-Wing slant.

---

Pathetic it may be, but the liberals in the media had a pretty solid control over it until the mid-90's, when Rush Limbaugh became popular.

quote:

---

And I saw it as the opposite, more evidence on the left.

---

The problem is that I saw very little if any evidence from liberals to support their positions. That's what motivated me to start looking at other sources and viewpoints. Moreover, liberals tend to be extremely intolerant of those who believe differently, those who do not accept the standard liberal dogma, at least on hot-button issues.

quote:

---

When did I ever say they couldn't? But I can certainly disagree with their point of view. But the right is certainly proposing the idea of not allowing such by using loaded words for the purpose of engaging in scare tactics.

---

You certainly impugned/said it in different wording when you said, "Nothing is more laughable then a conservatives attempt to some how affect the public opinion by saying "oh this person was a former liberal and they support my beliefs now, so lets listen to them about it." Yet if we look at the logic behind this concept it’s so freaking faulty it’s not even funny."
So, are you going to tell me that Eric Alterman is full of $h!t too?

quote:

---

So are you proposing that conservatives don't care about tolerance?

---

I am proposing that liberals claim to be champions of tolerance, but so rarely practice it. And are, in fact, extremely intolerant.
Case in point: Remember in 2000, before the Presidential election, the conventions? The Republican National Committee had pro-choice Gov. Christie Whitman speak at the convention in Philadelphia. Now, did the Democratic National Committee show similar tolerance for diverse viewpoints and allow a pro-lifer to speak at their convention? No! Did the "tolerant" liberal crowd dare criticize the DNC for failing to do so? Nope!

This is true, an example was Joe McCarthy. Even though people thought he was some crazy guy (which he was) it later turned out that he was right. Communists were sending money to the US to try and take it over.

Wwhat if, in doing so, you find that your truth is quite liberal or conservative? What if, even though you were skeptical and kept an open mind, you still find most of your thoughts coinciding with liberal ideals?

both liberal and conservatives are never right... You have to be in the middle. Find the truth!

Hey NuShoes! The milatary is overfunded! Vent away, boy!

A random question... do people really read the page-long posts people type up on this board?

MTLBYAKY

quote:

---

Hmm, attacking fellow liberals, eh? Yeah, president of L.A. NOW and a sitting member of the national org

---

The key word is FORMER. Nothing is more laughable then a conservatives attempt to some how affect the public opinion by saying "oh this person was a former liberal and they support my beliefs now, so lets listen to them about it." Yet if we look at the logic behind this concept it’s so freaking faulty it’s not even funny. Most of these books propose that “the liberals are liars, etc.." and "this person was an insider so they must know what they are talking about." But wait, I thought you said liberals are liars and shouldn't be believed. Hmmmmmm, but somehow the circumstances magically change just because they tell you what you want to hear. That’s some great freaking logic right there. Purely and utterly pathetic. I have read both of Tammy Bruce’s books and quite frankly they are a joke. In particular "the death of right and wrong" is arguably one of the most logically fallacious books I've ever read on this planet, right next to anything Coulter puts out. The woman is just bitter over the whole O.J Simpson incident that took place, so she jumped ships. Not to mention the women hasn't the slightest ****ing clue what she is talking about when it comes to philosophy. The women list Ayn Rand as one of Hero's, oh yes that's really ****ing Liberal; not to mention that just about destroys any credibility the women has in the field of philosophy. In fact the women was never a completely a Liberal in the first place.

But I'm sure these types of books will continue to sell as long as they use the conservative buzz-words (which consist of "communist" "socialist" "Marxist" "politically-correct" "trial-lawyers) Oh yes I forgot the new one nominated by Nushoes, Fascism. I guess the word "communism" wasn't loaded enough, so let’s pick another word that is even more loaded.