I should've replied with Rush's hipocracy on the issue.

quote:

---

Limbaugh defines his own term Young Skulls Full of Mush as: ‘‘Young American people after their brains have been pasteurized and filled with multiculturalism, sex advocacy programs, and other twaddle by our failing public school system.’’ But Limbaugh reveals his own supercilious condescension by portraying kids as deciding to have sex with the rationale of simpletons: ‘‘Heck, the school gave me this condom, they know what they’re doing.’’ Apparently Limbaugh doesn’t believe teenagers are at risk of having their minds turned to mush quite so much as he believes that they’re inherently at risk because their minds are already mush.

Today’s sex ed is so highly improved compared to that of half a century ago, a time of prudery and repression to which Limbaugh implies we should return. You watch those old b&w health education films of the 40’s and 50’s and on the surface they’re just laugh-ably hokey, but listen to their exact content and you’ll notice they were extremely conforming. They had nothing to do with the actual changes that take place during puberty. Instead they were almost solely a particular group or person’s personal beliefs being objectified into this presentation of what was ‘‘normal, acceptable behavior,’’ as if there were such a clearly discernible thing.

Besides, if people can’t deal with their kids growing up and becoming sexually intimate, then the real problem is their poor parenting and desire to have the schools and society raise their children for them.

---

Link here ...

[ October 10, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]

No one takes you seriously. Where have I attacked Herr Limbaugh? I've posted rebuttals (admittedly, by other people) to many things he has passed off as the truth. And I've posted portions of an essay criticizing his apparent stance on pre-marital sex. I mean, no offense here, "buddy", but when people call you on stuff, you just ignore the threads in question. And your stance on religion ... ? "God wants us to do it this way, but we don't have to do it if it's too hard."

You also ignore people when they catch you lying. You imply you didn't call Canada socialist by using Sol's definition of socialist, MIB says you did in an AIM conversation, and you haven't touched the thread with a 10-foot pole since. Here's a link to the thread. Page two. Go, prove me wrong.

Then again, we've also got this thread, where you never responded to Jay's question on the top of the 2nd page.

Now, I posted that for the second time. Originally, it was in the We're Striking Back thread, posted two days ago. Unsurprisingly, you've yet to respond. And you say people don't take me seriously? You got a lot to learn, kiddo.

Oh, yes, I called him a big fat idiot. Then again, I could just be refferring to the book. Hmmm.

[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]

[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]

1) Liberals cannot be blamed for every single mess in the world, including the recession, Vietnam War, etc. They make mistakes, but cannot be labelled as lying scum. Repeat after me: there are GOOD Liberals out there.

2) Conservatives are good people. But not perfect. They make mistakes too. They make political blunders. Richard Nixon and Mike Harris are not the only abberations.

3) I watch Biography about Dubya and noted that he appointed a popular DEMOCRAT to one of his major posts when W was Governor of Texas. Politics needs more combinations like this.

4) Liberals DO make some valid points when opposing Conservative policies. Like Conservatives, they have valid concerns, and are not always obsessed with lining their own pockets. On a related Side note, Conservatives here in Ontario approved a 40% raise. Go figure.

5) It is not hell freezing over when Democrats side with Republicans. And Vice Versa.

6) A Conservative who makes a blunder is not automatically defined as a Liberal.

7) Sure the Chinese government is full of shit. But do they deserve to be bombed to hell?

8) Same with the Russians.

2-6) True.

7) The government, yes. The people, no. (No, that's Afghanistan. Nobody deserves to be bombed to Hell unless they attack us first.)

8) Russia is beginning to grow up. We should help them.

What about Jerry Falwell? Isn't he on the Right? And isn't he a Christian Fundamentalist?

I'd rather leave Fundamentalism on its own and not lump it with ANY political affilation.

I also take it that you are blaming liberalism for every BIG mess right? Oy......

[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]

Capitalists think that Chretien is a Socialist Dictator.

Socialists think that Chretien is a Capitalist Pig.

Everyone else doesn't really care, provided that 1) Chretien doesn't stay for a fourth term and 2) Stockwell Day does not EVER come to power.

Not easy to try to straddle two sides of the fence. But inaction on issues that need to be addressed will nip you in the butt all the time.

[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]

As for Canada's socialism, all of what I've said has been true, for varying definitions of socialism. Canada, judging by their policy, believes that socialism might actually work if used in moderation. When talking about dictatorships, I was refering to all-out socialist nations.

I don't know nothin' about the Canadian PM.

As to Jay's question...

But you know what, let's say we build a missile shield. Good, now we stop some ICBM's as they are... where are we stoping them?

Three main possibilities: over the country that fired it, in orbit, or over our country. We don't have any obligation to worry about countries that try to blow us up. In space it's not much of a problem. Over our country, it's better than a direct hit. Of course, depending on the angle of re-entry, it may get blown up over an ocean, but again, better than a direct hit.

Liberals cannot be blamed for every single mess in the world

Only most of them. If every country in the world had minimal government, how many wars would we have seen this century? Any at all? We would also have missed out on the Holocaust and the Soviet and Chinese attrocities. That's about 200 million lives, all total.

Hitler was not a liberal. So many people have pointed this out to you on so many occasions its amazing how stubborn you are.

quote:

---

The word has a number of meanings, all of which reflect aspects of liberal thought. These include "favorable to progress and reform, as in religious or political affairs"; "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"; "open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc."; and "characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts". [Random House Dictionary of the English Language]. Liberals want to change things to increase personal freedom and tolerance, and are willing to empower government to the extent necessary to achieve those ends.

---

Yes, Castro is a socialist/Communist Dictator. But that does not imply that All Out Socialist = Dictatorship. Ontario had a Socialist government at one point. Were they labelled Dictators? No. What about the present Conservative government? References to Dictator are being made on Mike Harris.

Only most of them. If every country in the world had minimal government, how many wars would we have seen this century? Any at all? We would also have missed out on the Holocaust and the Soviet and Chinese attrocities. That's about 200 million lives, all total.

That's your opinion. But keep in mind that the Holocaust, Soviet, and Chinese Atrocities were done by AUTHORITARIAN governments. Whether they were left or right, Liberal or Conservative, it has nothing to do with Authoritarianism.

For Chrissakes, go to a Political Science Class, and get a clue. World Politics do not run the way you say they run.

*smacks Jeff for posting his before mine*

[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]