Socialist/Liberal ideologists put down USA

[joihan777]

JFK'S Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in France in the early 60's when DeGaule decided to pull out of NATO. DeGaule said he wanted all US military out of France as soon as possible.

 

Rusk responded "does that include those who are buried here?

 

DeGuale did not respond.

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

When in England , at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

 

He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.'

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

There was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?'

 

A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: 'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?'

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S. , English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English. He then asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?'

 

Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied, 'Maybe it's because the Brit's, Canadians, Aussie's and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.'

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on.

 

"You have been to France before, monsieur?" the customs officer asked sarcastically.

 

Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously.

 

"Then you should know enough to have your passport ready."

 

The American said, 'The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it.."

 

"Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France !"

 

The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained, ''Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find a single Frenchmen to show a passport to."

 

You could have heard a pin drop.

[NickF1011]

Amusing anecdotes, but I doubt there is much truth to any of them.

[stephenhawkings]

I could be wrong, but aren't socialism, and liberalism at odds with each other?

[NickF1011]

I could be wrong, but aren't socialism, and liberalism at odds with each other?

 

At odds with each other? How so?

[stephenhawkings]

At odds with each other? How so?

well one enjoys its personal liberties, personally, and all the freedoms associated with it, while the other is focused on a government that provides for all the basics through the sacrifice of extravagance.

[NickF1011]

well one enjoys its personal liberties, personally, and all the freedoms associated with it, while the other is focused on a government that provides for all the basics through the sacrifice of extravagance.

 

Eh, liberals only seem to support personal liberties as long as they are for the "good of society."

[joihan777]

well one enjoys its personal liberties, personally, and all the freedoms associated with it, while the other is focused on a government that provides for all the basics through the sacrifice of extravagance.

 

Freedom without responsibility isn't.

[Trimdingman]

Freedom without responsibility isn't.

 

 

Freedom? That ship has sailed long ago.

 

Liberals blame capitalism for the current economic crisis. Capitalism has been buried under tons of government for decades. It is socialism which has done in our civilization.

[mustang84isu]

Freedom? That ship has sailed long ago.

 

Liberals blame capitalism for the current economic crisis. Capitalism has been buried under tons of government for decades. It is socialism which has done in our civilization.

It is the exact opposite, trimdingman.

 

It is deregulation and Laissez-faire economic policies of the last 25-30 years which has led to the loss of our manufacturing sector and the instability in the banking and finance sector. The free-wheeling attitudes in the investment and real estate sectors led to two bubbles in a 10 year span. It is the fault of everyone who spent beyond their means, ran up their credit cards, or bought a home or car they couldn't afford once the bubble popped.

 

Socialism has nothing to do with it.

[stephenhawkings]

Freedom without responsibility isn't.

huh? maybe in a grand moral world, but in reality absolute freedom has nothing to do with responsibility.

[stephenhawkings]

Eh, liberals only seem to support personal liberties as long as they are for the "good of society."

for the most part, isn't the libertarian party, is for personal freedoms/liberties, Ron Paul too, but they are also for repeal of drug laws, possibly not a good for society.

While socialism, Marxism, nationalism, unionism etc is all about every one equal, every one sacrifices their grandiose possibilities, for average good of all.

Some how I Doubt Ron Paul, or Bob Barr wouldn't be hang with Marx, Lenin, or Mao, but some how the numb skulls at Fox news and others don't know their world politics or history.

[stephenhawkings]

Freedom? That ship has sailed long ago.

 

Liberals blame capitalism for the current economic crisis. Capitalism has been buried under tons of government for decades. It is socialism which has done in our civilization.

TRIM, kind of a short reply?

Liberals blame big government.

[NickF1011]

for the most part, isn't the libertarian party, is for personal freedoms/liberties, Ron Paul too, but they are also for repeal of drug laws, possibly not a good for society.

While socialism, Marxism, nationalism, unionism etc is all about every one equal, every one sacrifices their grandiose possibilities, for average good of all.

Some how I Doubt Ron Paul, or Bob Barr wouldn't be hang with Marx, Lenin, or Mao, but some how the numb skulls at Fox news and others don't know their world politics or history.

 

Libertarian ≠ Liberal. Most Libertarians I know are disaffected Conservatives. Not sure where you are trying to go with that comparison.

Edited September 30, 2009 by NickF1011

[stephenhawkings]

Libertarian ≠ Liberal. Most Libertarians I know are disaffected Conservatives. Not sure where you are trying to go with that comparison.

I beg to differ, maybe on fox noise liberal, or those that like liberty does not equal libertarian(coupled with those that don't like big socialist government), but in the real world it very well may. If you read the following 15 or so offerings I find it hard to mesh the socialist movement with such, and if you consider a maverick reformer that some one claimed to be, the whole idea seams rather circular not linear, or leftist v right, as the argument is posed by so many in the 'liberal media'

(does that include beck and oriely?).

 

from dictionary .com

lib⋅er⋅al

  /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA

 

–adjective

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.

10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.

11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.

12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.

13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

–noun

14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.

15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

[fmccap]

It is the exact opposite, trimdingman.

 

It is deregulation and Laissez-faire economic policies of the last 25-30 years which has led to the loss of our manufacturing sector and the instability in the banking and finance sector. The free-wheeling attitudes in the investment and real estate sectors led to two bubbles in a 10 year span. It is the fault of everyone who spent beyond their means, ran up their credit cards, or bought a home or car they couldn't afford once the bubble popped.

 

Socialism has nothing to do with it.

Lying Propaganda

Most of our country's serious problems can be laid at the feet of Congress and the White House and not at capitalism. Take the financial crisis. One-third of the $15 trillion of mortgages in existence in 2008 are owned, or securitized by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, the Federal Housing and the Veterans Administration. Banks didn't mind making risky loans and Wall Street buyers didn't mind buying these repackaged loans because they assumed that they would be guaranteed by the federal government: read bailout by taxpayers. Under a capitalist system, financial institutions would not have been intimidated or encouraged into making risky loans and neither would they have been bailed out if they did so.

 

Social Security, Medicare and its coverage of prescription drugs have an unfunded liability that exceeds $100 trillion. When those roosters come home to roost, they will make the financial meltdown we've been though look like child's play.

 

Not withstanding all of the demagoguery, it is capitalism not socialism is that made us a great country and its socialism that will be our undoing.

[xr7g428]

Cap, You nailed that one.

[NickF1011]

I beg to differ, maybe on fox noise liberal, or those that like liberty does not equal libertarian(coupled with those that don't like big socialist government), but in the real world it very well may. If you read the following 15 or so offerings I find it hard to mesh the socialist movement with such, and if you consider a maverick reformer that some one claimed to be, the whole idea seams rather circular not linear, or leftist v right, as the argument is posed by so many in the 'liberal media'

(does that include beck and oriely?).

 

from dictionary .com

lib⋅er⋅al

  /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA

 

–adjective

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.

10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.

11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.

12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.

13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

–noun

14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.

15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

 

What does any of that have to do with Libertarians not being Liberals?

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Where was Bushie when Katrina blew through the New Orleans?

LINK

[NickF1011]

Where was Bushie when Katrina blew through the New Orleans?

LINK

 

WTF does this have to do with this topic?

[mikem12]

Where was Bushie when Katrina blew through the New Orleans?

LINK

 

 

a better question would be where was the LA govenor and the New Orleans Mayor?

[RangerM]

What does any of that have to do with Libertarians not being Liberals?

This website is pretty illustrative of what would be considered libertarian:

 

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/

[stephenhawkings]

What does any of that have to do with Libertarians not being Liberals?

I still don't understand where, aside form FOX news, you get the idea that socialists and liberals are the same, and liberals and libertarians are different.

 

heres one link that might open your eyes a little.

http://letfreedomring-plains5728.blogspot....-socialist.html

 

commies do not equal freedom loving reformers

[NickF1011]

I still don't understand where, aside form FOX news, you get the idea that socialists and liberals are the same, and liberals and libertarians are different.

 

heres one link that might open your eyes a little.

http://letfreedomring-plains5728.blogspot....-socialist.html

 

commies do not equal freedom loving reformers

 

When did I ever say socialists and liberals were the same? What are you trying to argue here?

[stephenhawkings]

heres another for all the blue, oops i mean red blooded American BON user will like

it has O'rielly and a blonde what else do you need?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9nKSBykygA

 

"liber"

 

another

http://capitalistleague.blogspot.com/2007/...-socialism.html

Edited October 1, 2009 by stephenhawkings

[RangerM]

When did I ever say socialists and liberals were the same? What are you trying to argue here?

I think you and S. are missing each other. You (Nick) and I think "liberal" in its current connotation.

 

If you think of a "Classical Liberal", then you would be approaching what Libertarians are. (Wiki article)

 

Obama, Pelosi, et al. are not "Classical Liberals".