YouTube - Mancow Waterboard 05 22 09

Response to a Liberal's declaration that Conservatives are short sighted.

Actually we are far sighted. We realize that a given action will have an effect later and that the first action should be thought out.

We recognize incrementalizim, now, for what it is. A tool for some to rob the lawful rights of citizens to enjoy what is lawful and what is their right.

We believe in deeds not words.

We believe that Americans have the right to dissent but don’t need to burn our flag to do it. If the dissenter claims that they needed to get other’s attention then they have to realize that they did. You burnt my flag and you have hurt me. Your message was lost to me.

We believe that everyone has the right to express their beliefs but also believe that people have the right to listen or not listen.

We also believe that we have the right to respond to what someone says. Again they have the right to listen or not listen. But if they don’t want to listen to our replies then don’t be surprise if we never listen to you again or that we might ridicule you at every turn.

It’s called respect.

We believe in our history. The good and the bad. We don’t believe that we can pass on our history to our descendants if they only hear bad things about our and our forefather’s conduct and expect them to love our country. This is not the Army where one “Aww Schyte” erases a thousand “Atta Boys.”

We don’t think that the courts should legislate. We are a country of people represented by the people.

We believe that all of the Constitution must be obeyed. It is not a “Living Document” that is open to interpretation of the people in a given time. The Constitution is a literal document with the means of changing it built into it.

We believe that human life is sacred. That is why we believe that when blood is shed it must be done for a reason. That is why when one lays down their life for me we are grateful. That is why when one goes into harms way we are appreciative.

And we also believe that the 45 million Americans have died needlessly. We believe in choice too. And the time to choose is before a woman gets pregnant not because it will be hard or an inconvenience. If a woman’s life is in danger then save the woman’s life. But that was never disputed. Should a woman keep a rapist’s baby? That is up to her. Should she have the baby? I would hope that she says yes. I would rather have my tax money supporting state run orphanages than to see an innocent life taken but that decision is a woman’s.

We know that this country was populated in general by people that believed in God and that they created our society and our government with the idea that God had delivered them and that all men should be allowed their beliefs. We recognize that there are people working to First dispute and ridicule that truth. Second that people that believe in religion are not in complete control of their faculties or that they have not been educated to the truth that they are believing in myths. And Third that even though people that don’t believe in God flourish here that they are in danger by those that do believe in God so the faithful must be eradicated.

We believe that our form of government is the best from of government. We recognize that Communize along with Socialism is a flawed system of government that by design bankrupts itself and robs the hopes and aspirations of it’s people with promises of security. Monarchies, dictatorships and Juntas are even worst. And the worst of all are Democracies.

We know that the ACLU does more harm than good and that it manipulates a system that is used to address grievances. It is a remnant of the Soviet Union and American agents of communists.

We know that the U.N. is not functioning as it was conceived and that we must never lose our sovereignty to it.

We believe that minorities don’t need a helping hand. They don’t need to be baby-sat. They need to be treated equally and to be allowed to flourish.

“We must treat each man on his worth and merits as a man. We must see that each is given a square deal, because he is entitled to no more and should receive no less” Theodore Roosevelt

We believe in criticizing our own party leaders when they are wrong or are not following our wills. Unlike liberals. We throw the bums out. We don’t rally around them.

Oh I can right pages and pages more but I hope that you get the gist of what I am saying.

Now what are liberal views that should be held aloft?

Response to a Liberal's declaration that Conservatives are short sighted.

A response and a response to a response.

[quote]So why bash liberals for expressing their opinions and telling them this is the way it is, my way or the highway?[/quote]
We or at least I am not bashing your right to express those opinions. We/I am bashing your opinions. It’s not like we are talking about your Momma.

Only when your body has been dumped on the highway will you be right that it is my way or the highway.

[quote]Who is supposed to legislate. [/quote] Our elected representatives. As I understand it a court only interprets not legislate. [/quote] Abortion, bussing, taxation, gay marriage. All through the courts and none of it done through the legislative process.
[quote]You do realize that the very reason it is changeable is the reason it is called a living document? [/quote] I used the term “Living Document” in the liberal sense. [quote] If you believe that all of it must be obeyed then why banter back and forth on issues such as abortion and religion vs. evolution. [/quote] Because it is our right to discus ideas. And to go through the Legislative process to make changes.

[quote]We believe that human life is sacred. That is why we believe that when blood is shed it must be done for a reason. That is why when one lays down their life for me we are grateful. That is why when one goes into harms way we are appreciative.

So what is the world domination schism? Are we a junior communist nation much like that of Hitler? [quote] Hitler was a liberal socialist. Nazi is an acronym for National Socialist Party. I am sorry if you could not understand the above statement.
[quote]So basically you believe in limited choice? [quote] Abortion as a contraceptive is wrong. [quote] If half the people say they want to be able to choose when and how they choose and you say the other half says before, then the choice only makes sense when it is in agreeance with you not when it is in agreeance with the people-the people that don’t represent you? [/quote]Some people believed that way about Slavery. That was wrong too. That is why Democracies are bad. But if we had not fought the Civil War we would have eventually outlawed Slavery legislatively though I wish we never had it in the first place.

[quote]We know that this country was populated in general by people that believed in God and that they created our society and our government with the idea that God had delivered them and that all men should be allowed their beliefs. We recognize that there are people working to First dispute and ridicule that truth. Second that people that believe in religion are not in complete control of their faculties or that they have not been educated to the truth that they are believing in myths. And Third that even though people that don’t believe in God flourish here that they are in danger by those that do believe in God so the faithful must be eradicated.

This whole statement seems a contradiction. [/quote] Again I am sorry you can’t understand my statement that there is no “Separation between Church and State” written into our constitution.

[quote]The worst of all are democracies? What do you think we are? [/quote] A Republic. They difference.

[quote]What do you think we are fighting to give the people in IRAQ? Is that a false banner that we fly under to all the other nations of the world? [quote] A Republic that gives representation to all members of it’s society regardless of faith, gender or tribe.

[quote]So this is not a team mentality, this isn’t for the people, this is for the individual? This is whatever I can do to break everyone else back as long as I come out on top. I am all about opportunity. [quote] Yes. Someone has to be on top and I do want it to be me. But all that I ask for is the right to compete on a level playing field. Is that a foreign concept to you?

[quote]Ive seem to be doing fine so far. Just wanted to see what intellectuals there really were here. [/quote] Good luck in your pursuits though many here may call you dumb I doubt any will claim to be an Intellectual, though there are a few lurking here.

A lesson on incrementalizim.

A lesson on incrementalizim.

No Smoking

It all started with anti-smokers groups that wanted a few seats reserved in the back of the airplane for nonsmokers. Then it went to where they demanded that the smokers should sit in the back. Then it was banning smoking on short flights that were less than 2 hours. After all you can refrain for 2 hours. Right? Then it went to an all out ban for any flight in the continental US. Then it was all flights. Next it was no smoking in Airports. The bars at first excluded. Then the bars. Next was the Taxi to the Airport. After that it was the office. Then no smoking in front of the building. Later it was no smoking on the docks or behind the buildings. Onward the Smoking Nazis marched. No smoking in your own car. No smoking in the Ballparks and Stadiums. No smoking Apartments. Then they banned them in restaurants and bars. Then the Smoking Nazis started to sue to make their neighbors quit smoking in the own homes next to theirs. Now in California they don't want smoking in city parks. Next will be the city sidewalks and streets. And after that the jackbooted thugs will be kicking in the door of the ranch owner who’s nearest neighbor is 30 miles away.

All the while it is a legal product being taxed currently at 1,250%. That is right it is not taxed 2% or 10%. Not at 100% or 1,000%. Smokers pay for a product that is sold for .45 cents a pack and is taxed at 12 times its value.

If it is so bad and costs so much in the human toll then why not just make them illegal?

Now we have gotten to the point where good honest law abiding citizens are being required to give up their right to privacy to the fascist anti-smoking Nazi thugs or they are going to take away your livelihood. Forcing you to comply or they will force you to take low paying jobs. If you can find one, reducing your standard of living, forcing you out of your home and eventually taking away your kids.

Berating you, humiliating you, scouring you.

Hunting you down, invading your homes, violating your bodies. Denying you any dignity and privacy.

But it is all for your own good. Someone smarter than you has made a decision for you. That person just cares for you after all and you are so helpless. You are so in need of guidance. After all your superiors, the master race, have only your welfare at heart. So that you can contribute to Fatherland.

Comply.

Resistance is futile. You Vill Comply! Ve Vill Make You OBEY. CIGGHIEL CIGGHIEL CIGGHIEL CIGGHIEL CIGGHIEL CIGGHIEL CIGGHIEL CIGGHIEL CIGGHIEL

.

.

.

Cigarette Swastika http://www.quitsmoking.com/images/signs/roundgoldonblackthumb.jpg

And now the social engineering fascist have Obesity as it Great New Crusade.

[b]"First they came for the Smokers but I was not a Smoker - so I said nothing. Then they came for theObese, but I was not Obese - so I did nothing. Then when they came for me, there was no one left who could stand up for me."[/b]

Ravings of a mad college professer

The United States has lost the war in Iraq, and that's a good thing. Or things a journalism professor would say.

---

Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin.

The upside to losing Iraq? An empire falls

Robert Jensen, LOCAL CONTRIBUTOR
Friday, December 03, 2004

The United States has lost the war in Iraq, and that's a good thing.

I don't mean that the loss of American and Iraqi lives is to be celebrated. The death and destruction are numbingly tragic, and the suffering in Iraq is hard for most of us in the United States to comprehend. [1] The tragedy is compounded because these deaths haven't protected Americans or brought freedom to Iraqis — they have come in the quest to extend the American empire in this so-called "new American century." [2]

So, as a U.S. citizen, I welcome the U.S. defeat, for a simple reason: It isn't the defeat of the United States — its people or their ideals — but of that empire. And it's essential the American empire be defeated and dismantled. [3]

The fact the Bush administration says we are fighting for freedom and democracy (having long ago abandoned fictions about weapons of mass destruction and terrorist ties) [4] does not make it so. We must look at the reality, no matter how painful. The people of Iraq are better off without Saddam Hussein's despised regime, but that does not prove our benevolent intentions nor guarantee the United States will work to bring meaningful democracy to Iraq. [5]

Throughout history, our support for democracies has depended on their support for U.S. policy. When democratic governments follow an independent course, they typically end up as targets of U.S. power, military or economic. Ask Venezuela's Hugo Chavez or Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide. [6]
In Iraq, the Bush administration invaded not to liberate but to extend and deepen U.S. domination. [7]When Bush says, "We have no territorial ambitions; we don't seek an empire," he tells a half-truth. The United States doesn't want to absorb Iraq nor take direct possession of its oil. That's not the way of empire today — it's about control over the flow of oil and oil profits, not ownership.

In a world that runs on oil, the nation that controls the flow of oil has great strategic power. [8]U.S. policymakers want leverage over the economies of its competitors — Western Europe, Japan and China — which are more dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Hence the longstanding U.S. policy of support for reactionary regimes (Saudi Arabia), dictatorships (Iran under the Shah) and regional military surrogates (Israel), aimed at maintaining control. [9]

The Bush administration has invested money and lives in making Iraq a platform from which the United States can project power — from permanent U.S. bases, officials hope. [10] That requires not the liberation of Iraq, but its subordination. [11] But most Iraqis don't want to be subordinated, [12] which is why the United States in some sense lost the war the day it invaded. One lesson of contemporary history is that occupying armies generate resistance that, inevitably, prevails over imperial power. [13]

Most Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone, and most want the United States gone. When we admit defeat and pull out — not if, but when — the fate of Iraqis depends in part on whether the United States (1) makes good on legal and moral obligations to pay reparations, [14] and (2) allows international institutions to aid in creating a truly sovereign Iraq. [15]

We shouldn't expect politicians to do either without pressure. An anti-empire movement — the joining of antiwar forces with the movement to reject corporate globalization — must create that pressure[16]. Failure will add to the suffering in Iraq and more clearly mark the United States as a rogue state and an impediment to a just and peaceful world.

So, I'm glad for the U.S. military defeat in Iraq, but with no joy in my heart. [17] We should all carry a profound sense of sadness at where decisions made by U.S. policy-makers — not just the gang in power today[18], but a string of Republican and Democratic administrations — have left us and the Iraqis. But that sadness should not keep us from pursuing the most courageous act of citizenship in the United States today: Pledging to dismantle the American empire. [19]

This planet's resources do not belong to the United States. [20] The century is not America's. We own neither the world nor time. And if we don't give up the quest — if we don't find our place in the world instead of on top of the world[21] — there is little hope for a safe, sane and sustainable future. [22]

Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and the author of "Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity." He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.


1. “…The death and destruction are numbingly tragic, and the suffering in Iraq is hard for most of us in the United States to comprehend.” The only way that you can comprehend it fool is to live it. You should have given a few years of your life to serve your country. Then you would have comprehenion.


2. “…they have come in the quest to extend the American empire in this so-called "new American century."You mean we get two of them? The 20th Century and the 21st! I’m so happy. You really like me. You really really like me.

3. “It isn't the defeat of the United States — its people or their ideals — but of that empire.” But what is an empire if not the extension of people and their ideals?

4. “…long ago abandoned fictions about weapons of mass destruction and terrorist ties.” They have not been abandoned! They have been proven!

5. ‘…but that does not prove our benevolent intentions nor guarantee the United States will work to bring meaningful democracy to Iraq.” And don’t let those elections fool you, right?

6. “When democratic governments follow an independent course, they typically end up as targets of U.S. power, military or economic. Ask Venezuela's Hugo Chavez or Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Can we ask Germany, Japan, France, South Korea, etc.?

7. “…the Bush administration invaded not to liberate but to extend and deepen U.S. domination.” Why do you have a problem with us doing both? Liberate Iraq and let dictators in the region know that America has a big freaking stick.

8. In a world that runs on oil, the nation that controls the flow of oil has great strategic power. We don’t have to invade to do that. Our submarine force could easily do it. And how do you explain the $50 a barrel price then? I mean that is the price before our greedy oil companies even touch it.

9. Hence the longstanding U.S. policy of support for reactionary regimes (Saudi Arabia), dictatorships (Iran under the Shah) and regional military surrogates (Israel), aimed at maintaining control. Israel is a reactionary regime? Mr. Jenson we also support Mexico, Canada, France, Colombia, Ukraine, Poland, S. Korea, Great Briton etc etc.

10. “…from which the United States can project power — from permanent U.S. bases, officials hope. But only if the freely elected government of Iraq wishes for us to have bases there which we will gladly pay for like we do in the100 or so other countries that we have bases in.

11. “That requires not the liberation of Iraq, but its subordination.”No it doesn’t. See 10 again and reread it.

12. “But most Iraqis don't want to be subordinated, …”And some do? Sounds like there is a market for some enterprising Dominatrix

13. “One lesson of contemporary history is that occupying armies generate resistance that, inevitably, prevails over imperial power.” True, so very true. Look at the Ottoman, Mongol and Roman Empires. It always happen after only 4 or 5 hundred years.

14. “…makes good on legal and moral obligations to pay reparations” I guess building a modern electrical, water distribution system, hospitals, schools, refurbishing the entire oil pumping system, etc, etc don’t count for anything. Oh and lets not for get the tens of thousands of Iraqis that were tortured, raped and killed every year.

15. “…allows international institutions to aid in creating a truly sovereign Iraq.” That wouldn’t happen to be the U.N. you are talking about is it? At least the USA has experience at creating sovereign nations. What experience does the U.N. have?

16. “An anti-empire movement — the joining of antiwar forces with the movement to reject corporate globalization — must create that pressure” Lets join with the World Workers Party, ANSWER, International Action Center, American Communist Party, Green Peace, …

17. “So, I'm glad for the U.S. military defeat in Iraq, but with no joy in my heart.” And how are you going to feel when you come down from what you are hallucinating on and find out that not only did we win and win magnificently but Iraq is an independent freely elected country with a seat at the UN general assembly. I suggest that you see someone experienced with PEST. Because I see a new disorder on the horizon. ONBWR. (Oh No Bush Was Right)

18. “…not just the gang in power today…” You mean that “gang” that was elected with a mandate by the American voters?

19. “…the most courageous act of citizenship in the United States today: Pledging to dismantle the American empire.” Gee? And here I always thought that the most courageous thing a citizen could do was to wear the uniform of the United States military and perform their sworn duties to defend and protect it. See what you miss when you don’t take college course from a would-be writer turn journalist professor.

20. This planet's resources do not belong to the United States.That is why we pay cold hard cash for them.

21. “…if we don't find our place in the world instead of on top of the world…” I don’t know about anyone else but it is good to be on top of the world. Anything else sucks.

22. “…there is little hope for a safe, sane and sustainable future.” And in the entire history of Mankind has there been a time it has been Safe, Sane and Sustainable? Oh forgot. You’re not a History or Political professor. You are a glorified English teacher that teaches students on how to structure their sentences to get the most emotional bang for it’s ink. And after reading your article it is easy to see why you could not hack it in the real world.

Concerning the flap about Armored Humvees.

Concerning the flap about Armored Humvees.

Well two things, maybe three are going to come out of this whole brouhaha.

In a very few years all of those Humvees will need to be replaced because they were not designed to carry the weight of all that armor. It is already starting.

Two, The Press has just handed the President a blank check to get anything he wants for the military. Does anyone think that Sen. Clinton will vote against any bill that has military equipment attached to it? Kerry?

Three, The military will develop an armored fighting vehicle that fills that gap between the Bradley/Stryker and the Jeep. The Humvee is a great vehicle but the service should never have gotten rid of the Jeep.

So everyone that has a hard on for the Pres and SecDef and think you just got a gottcha you better analyze this again.

The ACLU, NEA and the Liberal Media

Originally posted by ********:

They can only criminalize certain religious behavior.

There have been Christians for nearly 2000 years, and there were Jews for nearly 2000 years before that. Both groups are notorious for persisting despite no-holds-barred attempts by governments to wipe them out.

Empires die when they attempt to get rid of God, but religion never goes extinct.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good point. But we and by we I mean Jews, Christians, Muslims, Shamanism, etc, need to make sure that the ACLU and the Liberal cabal does not remove religion from the public square. We must fight their relentless attacks.

The ACLU origin stems from communist with the goal of destroying the United States of America's government and to rewrite it's history while destroying it's emergent culture to make way for world communism.

The USSR and the Nazis have both tried to eliminate and replace religion and both are gone.

The USSR backed the fledgling ACLU from it’s beginning. The USSR is gone but not forgotten. The ACLU, the NEA and the Liberal Intelligenca still dreams of world communism and view the USSR as only the first experiment and believe that it just was not tried in the right place and by the right people. Of course the American Liberal Cabal believes it is superior and will be able to fulfill the birth of the breached child called Communism.

And of course the first that needs to die is the “Opiate of the masses’ as the Intelligenca like to call religion. As long as man has hope and faith Communism cannot be firmly rooted.

And the bloodshed that will follow will make all the deaths of the 20^th Century pale in comparison. After all what is a birth without a little blood?

Ok

Some percentages of the 45 million babies that have been aborted since Roe v. Wade became the "Law of the Land" belong to Republicans and conservatives. And some liberals that have had abortions have become conservatives after coming to terms with the realizations of their action has killed a life.

But the vast, I mean Vast majority of the aborted babies are the products of liberal parents.

Here is a fact.

The majority of children eventually settle into the political beliefs of their parents.

Another fact.

Many Liberals are choosing to not have children or are having children much later in life.

So if you do the math the liberals will in time die out as a persuasion. But there is an alternative.

To hold off the extinction they must convert people to their beliefs.

So they have infiltrated the Teacher's Unions, the Courts and of course the Democratic Party.

Bobby Kennedy if he was still alive would be scratching his head.

Now a question of those here whose parents are Liberals.

Mom, Dad. Have you ever aborted any of my brothers or sisters?

If not, then why do you support someone else killing their children.

If yes, why did you choose me over my brother or sister? Or can I just consider myself the winner of "Life's Lottery"?

Further thought on the Hypocrisy of the ACLU

When was the last time, or would that be the first time, that the ACLU went to court to protect someone 2nd Amendment right?

Well the answer is never because of all of the rights in the Bill of Rights the 2nd is the only one that the ACLU has taken a stand on that it is not an individual right. Meaning that it is a states right. How ridiculous is that? What kind of mental gymnastics must one go through to come up with that opinion?

And what can we derive from this? First that the ACLU selects which rights it wants to protect and only parts of amendments that they wants to champion.

As an organization it is hypocritical and its leadership is selective in what Amendments it will defend because they are agenda driven and that agenda is the same agenda that inspired its communist founders to form the ACLU. To use the very Constitution of this country to destroy this country. To warp the meanings and intentions of the founding fathers, to deliberately misconstrue the writings, character, and history of the revolution. To support outright, lies when needed, to advance their goals.

The very idea that the constitution contains a separation of church and state, that the right to bear arms is a state’s right or that it ever occurred to the men that signed the Constitution and ratified the Bill of Rights that a woman would have the right to murder their unborn child and that it would be protected under the right of privacy is a travesty.

Does anyone really believe that this was the intent of the framers of the Constitution?

If you say yes then you are a liar or a fool. If you say that it is the natural evolution of a living document then you are truly delusional.

Three simple questions.

1. Should the Declaration of Independence be banned from government schools because it states that our rights are granted by the Creator, God or Higher Power?
2. Should history be filtered and altered to remove any reference to God or religion?
3. Or just certain references to be determine by those with the power to do so?

The answer to all three should be No.

But of the three choices the third one is by far the most dangerous of the three. If anyone has ever taken Chinese history in college, has read George Orwell's 1984 or has an ounce of Common Sense would know that.

The Revisionism of History Movement is on the march. Relentless, ruthless and it seems unstoppable.

But America must endure. It must persevere against these attacks. The alternative is distasteful to think of.