How would 'YOU' define 'conservative'?

Subject: RE: How would 'YOU' define 'conservative'?
From: bobad
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 06:42 PM

A conservative estimate would be - not very often.

Subject: RE: How would 'YOU' define 'conservative'?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 07:01 PM

BTW, this was originally posted before the BS/nonBS division was instituted- would a clone kindly move it below?

Subject: RE: How would 'YOU' define 'conservative'?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 07:04 PM

John, are you the seventh son of a seventh son? That would explain it.

Subject: RE: How would 'YOU' define 'conservative'?
From: kendall
Date: 31 Oct 07 - 08:41 AM

Doug, one thing I have against the conservatives is all those fibs they make up and spread around like they were gospel. You mentioned one. Al Gore never said he invented the internet. What he did say was that he had been instrumental in developing it for government use. Big difference.
Now, They are spreading all out lies about liberals. I get them all the time, not a word of truth in them. For instance, one claims that Nancy Pelosi has a plan to take away windfall profits with a big tax.
They claimed that the Cinton gang vandalized all the computers before they left Washington. Again, not a word of truth.
Bill O'Reilly was one of the spreaders of this gem, and when the truth came out, he refused to apologize.
Today, a conservative is someone who will say ANYTHING to keep a democrat out of office, and if that democrat happens to be a woman, God help her.

Subject: RE: How would 'YOU' define 'conservative'?
From: kendall
Date: 31 Oct 07 - 09:13 AM

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



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



Boy, are we in trouble... This woman is frightening. Take special note of the last paragraph. Is she really this whacked out?

         Nancy Pelosi condemned the new record highs of the stock market as "just another example of Bush policies helping the rich get richer".    "First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class".

      She went on to say "Despite the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq our economy is still strong and government tax revenues are at all time highs. What this really means is that business is exploiting the war effort and working Americans, just to put money in their own pockets".

      When questioned about recent stock market highs she responded "Only the rich benefit from these record highs. Working Americans, welfare recipients, the unemployed and minorities are not sharing in these obscene record highs". There is no question these windfall profits and income created by the Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those dollars redistributed to the poor and working class". Profits from the stock market do not reward the hard work of our working class who, by their hard work, are responsible for generating these corporate profits that create stock market profits for the rich. We in congress will need to address this issue to either tax these profits or to control the stock market to prevent this unearned income t o flow to the rich."

       When asked about the fact that over 80% of all Americans have investments in mutual funds, retirement funds, 401Ks, and the stock market she replied "That may be true, but probably only 5% account for 90% of all these investment dollars. That's just more "trickle down" economics claiming that if a corporation is successful that everyone from the CEO to the floor sweeper benefit from higher wages and job security which is ridiculous". "How much of this 'trickle down' ever gets to the unemployed and minorities in our county? None, and that's the tragedy of these stock market highs."

       "We democrats are going to address this issue after the election when we take control of the congress. We will return to the 60% to 80% tax rates on the rich and we will be able to take at least 30% of all current lower income tax payers off the rolls and increase government income substantially." We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest."

       When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied :   "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'."      

       Send it on to your brilliant friends. I just did

Subject: RE: How would 'YOU' define 'conservative'?
From: GUEST,Rog Peek
Date: 31 Oct 07 - 09:32 AM

New Labour!

Subject: RE: How would 'YOU' define 'conservative'?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Oct 07 - 11:22 AM

Here is the widest spread myth of all...and it's not limited to conservatives...

The myth that Ahmadinejad said he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map".

He did not say that. He never said that. He said nothing of the kind. He did not use any such words.

Yet it has been repeated so many times now by so many people that it's useless now to even point out that he didn't say that.

The first people to misquote him were, ironically enough, a couple of Iranian publications! Their misquotes were then picked up by world news services and repeated ad infinitum, since it was a very handy misquote for the purposes of anyone wishing to have some damaging propaganda about Iran.

What he literally said, in Farsi, was this: He himself quoted an old statement from the late Ayatollah Khomeini, which was to this effect....that "this regime", meaning the present Israeli Zionist government will one day "vanish from the page of time". All governments and regimes one day vanish from the page of time...and they are replaced by some new government and regime. Study your history for confirmation of that.

Ahmadinejad then went on to say, in reference to the Ayatollah's quote, that the Zionist government presently ruling Israel would one day "vanish" as did the oppressive Soviet regime in the late 80's.

The Soviets did NOT meet their end by a foreign attack, and Russia was not wiped off the map by anyone. The Soviets met their end through a popular revolution, a peaceful one, and they collapsed from within. Russia is still "on the map", and it has not been wiped out.

Ahmadinejad did not, anywhere in his speech, assert that Iran had intentions of attacking Israel, or of wiping anyone off the map, let alone Israel. He did not use the words in Farsi which would translate as "wipe off the map". He did not suggest a military attack by Iran on Israel. What he did suggest (or what Ayatollah Khomeini suggested in the quote) was simply that the present Zionist government was not going to last forever, therefore opponents of it could be glad of that. Well, yeah! NO government lasts forever. To say that is not to threaten to militarily attack Israel.

But the propaganda sources in the West would have much preferred that Ahmadinejad directly threaten to annihilate Israel since THEY want to annihilate the Iranian Islamic regime, so when some oeverzealous fools in an Iranian news service carelessly misquoted Ahmadinejad, the West was absolutely delighted...and they have used the misquote ever since to foment war fever against Iran.

And I know...you probably don't care...or even believe me...because your mind is already made up....so just forget I even said all the above and go on believing forever that he said he would "wipe Israel off the map".

But he didn't. Sorry. He just didn't. He said that "this regime will vanish from the page of time". The "page of time" is a very long page, and all regimes vanish from it in due course, one way or another, and are replaced by some other regime.


The actual statement, translated into English is:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise".

The Iran News Agency (IRNA) later referred to Ahmadinejad's speech saying:

"As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated".

This quote was then "massaged" a bit by the Associated Press and changed to:

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom".

Note the difference in the words...not accidental. "Wiped out" is an active end by violence. "Vanish" implies no such thing.

Ahmadinejad never said that Iran intended to wipe out anyone...but he has been quoted as saying that by the West, because that's the sort of thing they want him to say, in order to justify their pre-emptively attacking Iran.

See this link:

The rumor of the Century

Subject: RE: How would 'YOU' define 'conservative'?
From: GUEST,greymalkin
Date: 31 Oct 07 - 12:51 PM

Yeah, the Iranian leader is a fun guy in reality. The Mullahs repressive? Not a bit. Twinkly-eyed and avuncular - always ready for a kick-about with a soccer ball. Or a woman's head.

Subject: RE: How would 'YOU' define 'conservative'?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Oct 07 - 01:57 PM

So what? I didn't SAY Ahmadinejab is a nice guy, nor did I say I like the Islamic regime in Iran one bit. I don't like them one bit. What I SAID was that he has been misquoted in the media, for propaganda purposes, because he never said one single thing about wiping Israel off the map. He has been lied about.

And that doesn't suit your purposes very well at all, does it? ;-)

That's why you're bringing up other peripheral matters in the form of innuendo to try to evade my point, which is that the main propaganda effort justifying a pre-emptive strike on Iran is based on a 100% myth propagated by the media.

That's how Goebbels did it too, he created myths and innuendo to justify aggression, and the Germans launched pre-emptive attacks on just about everyone in Europe...feeling totally justified, I'm sure. Their reward for that has been to be remembered as war criminals...which they were. So is the Bush administration.

Subject: RE: How would 'YOU' define 'conservative'?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 07 - 03:37 PM

Subject: RE: How would 'YOU' define 'conservative'?
From: GUEST,greymalkin
Date: 31 Oct 07 - 12:51 PM

Yeah, the Iranian leader is a fun guy in reality. The Mullahs repressive? Not a bit. Twinkly-eyed and avuncular - always ready for a kick-about with a soccer ball. Or a woman's head.

    Ironic way to argue a point; make a different point. Four and a half years ago when I tried to convince people that going to war in Iraq was a horrible idea, all I heard was what a bad guy Saddam was. "He kills his own people (Kurds and Shiites) and attacks his neighbors (Kuwait, Iran)." Of course he's a bad man ,I said. The world is full of them. We can't make war on them all. Nor should we. Especially not when we are going to make the situation a whole lot worse. Which we did.
    Now people want to say Ahmadinejab is a bad guy. A fundamentalist.
He funds terrorism. He stifles free speech. He oppresses his people. Okay, I say, he's an asshole. The world is full of them. We can't go to war with all of them. Nor should we.

Subject: RE: How would 'YOU' define 'conservative'?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Oct 07 - 04:05 PM

Exactly.