Its too late to apologize...
POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Friday, August 29, 2025 14:53
VIEWED: 5999
PAGE 2 of 6
Quote:
Originally posted by reenact12321:
So you can take your finger pointing, and your whining and keep it to yourself, it's all just bitching because your team isn't winning right now so you're falling on the ground holding your ankle screaming "ref! ref!" Both parties aim to create a larger government, they just want them for different things. If the conservative party was actually about smaller, less intruisive government, I'd probably support them. Instead they are about incresing their own influence (like everyone else) and using that influence to moralize and stunt the academic and scientific growth of this country in the name of slowly sweeping over to a pseudo-theocratic state.
That's prettymuch it, yeah.
And anyone who knows enough history also understands the exact fate waiting in store for these useful idiot quislings who run across screaming freedom-freedom as they help slap the chains on, since once the fix is in they are too stupid to be useful and so wind up tossed headfirst into the machine they helped build, howling and whining about how loyal they were the whole time, to snickering sociopaths who played on their stupid ignorance to climb to power.
Without which - it would have never happened, and for that reason I consider Jackals like Wulf to be *more* dangerous than would-be dictators cause without the Jackals to take and execute their orders, what's a would-be dictator than one more punk with a big mouth ?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DyingLikeAnimals
Quote:
Jackals: "Finally, we have a strong leader ready to put those malcontents in their places! Where do I sign up?" Jackals are like Lemmings and Snakes: they eagerly collaborate with the villain because they think his campaign of terror and genocide are just causes. Whether it's out of hate, fanaticism, or ignorance, they prefer the villain's despotism to a more benevolent regime. Usually they're harmless once the villain is dethroned: their prejudice comes out only when the bad guys are in power.
So they are, in essence, the nuts and bolts, the very gears that make tyranny possible, and as such, my own theological and philosophical beliefs encourage their pre-emptive elimination as a protective measure since they are about as anti-human as it gets, and with no more emotional context or involvement than removing someone elses dogshit from your front lawn.
As Dreamtrove pointed out in another thread, when they start strapping on the jackboots and talking about the elimination of undesirables, no one HAS to dehumanize them, they have self-selected to do that, to voluntarily surrender their own humanity, and once they have actively made that choice of their own free will - why then, knowing what damage they're capable of, willing and wishing to do, should someone with any sense at all regard them as anything but what they are ?
The bullets in the guns of tyranny.
Servants of the Blind God.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
quislings
nice Churchill-ism usage
"...we need a hood ornament..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
sorry double post.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Reenact
I disagree with your left right dichotomy. Sure, I'm in the middle tending right, and I agree that it's a strange situation when I have an argument with Mike on gun control, because he opposes it, and I would favor some restrictions on gangs, etc, or anything outside of the definition "well ordered militia" but still I have to nitpick:
pro-imperial expansion?
Then explain to me why the lion's share of all internationally deployed troops have been deployed by a democrat? If you are expanding an empire, it requires conquest, with troops. There are precious few major conquests that were arranged by Republicans. I think this is the same for most countries: Leftists governments are far more imperial (China, Russia, Germany) Okay, moving on...
anti-gay marriage
I think this issue is more complex. A lot of people on the right favor gay rights, and a lot on the left don't, but more, I think it's a wedge issue, it's doesn't really define the left or right.
pro-biblical influence
I thought this one was strange. I'm not a christian of course, and I think that most of the people on the right are not active christians. The non-christian right is not psyched about bibles in public schools, which is maybe why it hasn't happened.
On the left, again:
anti-relinquishing of imperial expansion(they're more just subtle about it
No, sorry, I haven't heard this position as a strong voice on the left. I hear it from the Ron Paul right, and maybe the Dennis Kucinnich vote, but I think Paul speaks for about 20% of the right, and Kucinnich speaks for about 2% of the left, just going by polls. I could be wrong, this is just how it seems, but it does seem pretty clearly that way. Maybe back in the McGovern days this was a left wing position.
pro-taxes
I'm sure there are people on the left who aren't particularly pro-taxes
All that said, I think that we could probably hammer it down to a list like that.
Spending would be a major one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dreamtrove, there's several things you said I'd like to address, but I'm a little ADD so I'll try to just focus on one for now. I'm not saying there aren't religious conservatives, what I'm saying is that the religious right definitely has the teeth in the party. How else would you explain blithering incompetent types like Sarah Palin even have a leg to stand on. I should put it this way, there isn't a direct requirement to be Christian Fundamentalist to be part of the Republican party, but it has become part of the Christian Fundamentalism to be part of in part worship the religious right and the republican party (see: Jesus Camp) and that the Christian Fundamentalists represent a little less than a 1/4 of our population. Not only that, but they are a very active, very homogenized (in agreement on things) force. Their theocratic overtones and militant attitudes scare the living pants off of me, someone who is not religious and is something of a humanist. You as a moderate Republican are either a dying breed or being stifled by those who are louder and prouder about being religious, ignorant and aggressive.
As for Imperialism, my comments about the dichotomy were really supposed to be a backhanded joke on that issue. Both parties are equally responsible, just that the Democrats are better at playing it quietly hence more popular in the international arena (international leaders like dems more than reps in recent history)
Now I should explain, our Imperialism is neo-imperialism, it's very different from the Imperialism of old (British Empire) it involves not so much staking a flag and conquest, but quietly putting our fingers in the pie of peoples around the world that have something we want. Cheap coffee, bananas, oil, rubber (see Vietnam war) If you need more data, there are political analysts who can tell this tale much better than I, just google up USA neo-imperialism.
I'll put it this way, no matter who's in the White House, you think we'll leave Iraq until there's conveniently someone elected or installed that likes us a lot. As Tom Lehrer, the 60's satirical song-writer put it about countries we went into to stop communism..... "They've got to be protected, all their rights respected, 'til somebody we like can be elected" It's as true today as it was 50 years ago, we just find new ways to implement it. American standard of living wouldn't be what it is otherwise.
"...we need a hood ornament..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Points for the Tom Lehrer reference
I just get sick of the lefty claim that the right is militaristic when any check of the history books would show that the left should really turn around and clean their own house
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Who's apologising?
If we could go back we would tyrannise you all over again - only harder! Ahahaha!!!
Heads should roll
Thats the spirit...See KPO we are more alike than you think....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Points for the Tom Lehrer reference
I just get sick of the lefty claim that the right is militaristic when any check of the history books would show that the left should really turn around and clean their own house
Historically the right has been anti-war. It was the neocons that changed that. I think we are going back though
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
reenact12321:
You write of gay marriage.
I doubt anyone would oppose gay unions. I sure don oppose civil unions for gay folk.
Its a property issue at the heart of it. Gays want to be able to visit their signifigant others in the hospital, and to pass on their earnings to each other when they pass away.
Who could have a problem with that?
However, like so many issues, the fringe/fundementalist/psychos took it over and ruined it. In fact, i would argue, that gays have destroyed any chance of recognition BY forcing it to be known as Marriage.
Marriage is a RELIGIOUS insitution.
Civil Unions are not.
For all the people who scream and whine about the seperation of church and state, NOW they whine that the government is NOT forcing churches to marry gays.
How does that make sense? How is that even close to being correct?
I mean its such a simple thing. Churches do NOT have to marry you. BUT, you can probably get a civil union, which is essentially the same thing.
What you are really asking for, is that religions have to now accomadate your lifestyle, irregardless of whether their teachings say its wrong.
Its a dangerous, stupid path to tread.
And, by forcing the issue, by trying to force the government to force religions to obey, you've shot yourselves in the foot.
Noone will even consider civil unions anymore. Especially if you are marching and carrying on about "marriage".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm pretty sure the gay "marriages" in California that were stopped were actually civil unions, because they were performed by a judge.
So apparently there's lots of people who don't support gay civil unions, which might be why LGBT march on a gay marriage platform, so they have somewhere to go for a compromise.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME