[1000-Oaks]

Seems like these last fifteen or twenty years the left has successfully driven a lot of conservatives (excluding religious-right whackos of course) "into the closet" out of fear of personal attack. So they listen to the liberal rhetoric and politely nod their heads, keeping their opinions to themselves until voting day.

It's ironic; the gays are "out" and conservatives are "in" in many workplaces and organizations, lol.

Unfortunately vocal lefts don't realize this has happened and think most everybody agrees with them, which only further motivates them to push their opinions on people. Reminds me of bible-thumpers standing outside of schools and malls harrassing people.

Notice: Being a pro-choice athiest and pro gay marriage, I'm hardly a republican or a conservative.

 

[ohio]

It's ironic, the gays are "out" and conservatives are "in" in many workplaces and organizations, lol.

I'm sure Alanis Morissette would agree.

Really it depends on the workplace, and while it sucks to have any workplace where anyone is "out" or "in," I'd say it's progress that there's now a balanced mix where there are options for out homosexuals.

I also posit that you are grossly over-estimating the trend, and that it is still the rare workplace where gays are out and conservatives in. Having worked in many boardrooms and with ties to a few financial institutions the attitude at the top is definitely still that the left is in the closet, straight or gay, at the top of the pyramid in most large orgs.

 

[JohnE]

Try being in the military...where narrow minded knuckleheads spout GOP talking points at you all day long...without ever really thinking about what they are saying, researching the issues or the long term implications of said issues.

He- "Obama wants to take our guns away"
Me- "But you dont own any guns..."
He- "Thats not the point. He is a Muslim anyway"
Me- "Yeah...please dont breed, k?"

 

[Defenestrated]

What about the part where conservatives demonized the word "liberal"?

As for the rest:

 

[1000-Oaks]

Try being in the military...where narrow minded knuckleheads spout GOP talking points at you all day long...without ever really thinking about what they are saying, researching the issues or the long term implications of said issues.

He- "Obama wants to take our guns away"
Me- "But you dont own any guns..."
He- "Thats not the point. He is a Muslim anyway"
Me- "Yeah...please dont breed, k?"

I was, Cavalry Scout in the Army - first point of contact combat arms. I sleep well at night knowing those guys are out there, busting their butts and keeping a watchful eye.

(And BTW, gun owners (not lawyers) are the only thing protecting our freedoms. If it ever gets bad enough, the gun owning public will revolt and take back the government. That's why gun ownership is a constitutional right; to make sure the governent remains by and for the people.)

 

[Samirol]

You have just bought into the right wing's victim complex, saying that the media is blatantly liberal biased. The right says that the left wants to raise taxes on everyone, they say that the fannie and freddie bailout is socialism, none of which are true.

The right is thriving on the victim-complex because they kick the left's ass at wordplay.

Not all work environments are liberal, but the far-right tends to be more hateful, which makes it even more inappropriate in a workplace setting. You don't hear the far-left calling Muslims towelheads or diaperheads, or how Mexicans are ruining this country, you hear it from the far-right. If they are hiding their views, it is because their views are not socially acceptable.

(And BTW, gun owners (not lawyers) are the only thing protecting our freedoms. If it ever gets bad enough, the gun owning public will revolt and take back the government. That's why gun ownership is a constitutional right; to make sure the governent remains by and for the people.)

That's cute.

 

[Defenestrated]

(And BTW, gun owners (not lawyers) are the only thing protecting our freedoms. If it ever gets bad enough, the gun owning public will revolt and take back the government.

aclu.com

protected more freedoms than guns, even protected the freedom to own guns hahah irony

 

[X3pilot]

You have just bought into the right wing's victim complex, saying that the media is blatantly liberal biased. The right says that the left wants to raise taxes on everyone, they say that the fannie and freddie bailout is socialism, none of which are true.

I would offer that the right thinks the left wants to raise taxes on mainly the rich and provide wealth redistribution..

The right is thriving on the victim-complex because they kick the left's ass at wordplay.

Not all work environments are liberal, but the far-right tends to be more hateful, which makes it even more inappropriate in a workplace setting. You don't hear the far-left calling Muslims towelheads or diaperheads, or how Mexicans are ruining this country, you hear it from the far-right. If they are hiding their views, it is because their views are not socially acceptable.

You summed a very good point by highlighting the far side of both sides, all though, I would venture to say that the far left has some pretty mean things to say as well. Like just today when Rep. Fowler (D S.C.) proposed that Gov. Palin's only qualification was that she hadn't had an abortion or the buttons touting a comparison of Jesus as a 'community organizer' and Pontius Pilate as a 'Governor'

So much for the left's platform of seperation of church and state, no?

 

[AngryMetalsmith]

I was, Cavalry Scout in the Army - first point of contact combat arms. I sleep well at night knowing those guys are out there, busting their butts and keeping a watchful eye.

(And BTW, gun owners (not lawyers) are the only thing protecting our freedoms. If it ever gets bad enough, the gun owning public will revolt and take back the government. That's why gun ownership is a constitutional right; to make sure the governent remains by and for the people.)

Seems like these last fifteen or twenty years the left has successfully driven a lot of conservatives (excluding religious-right whackos of course) "into the closet" out of fear of personal attack. So they listen to the liberal rhetoric and politely nod their heads, keeping their opinions to themselves until voting day.

It's ironic; the gays are "out" and conservatives are "in" in many workplaces and organizations, lol.

Unfortunately vocal lefts don't realize this has happened and think most everybody agrees with them, which only further motivates them to push their opinions on people. Reminds me of bible-thumpers standing outside of schools and malls harrassing people.

Notice: Being a pro-choice athiest and pro gay marriage, I'm hardly a republican or a conservative.

Sure about that ?

You are seriously confused.

The first step in fixing a problem is admitting that you have one.

 

[1000-Oaks]

That's cute.

Cute and fundamentally true too.


What about all the nasty things the far left said about Tony Snow when he died of cancer? Unreal.

Ah yes the ACLU, protecting the rights of child molesters to rape young boys (NAMBLA). Fantastic.

 

[Defenestrated]

Cute and fundamentally true too.


What about all the nasty things the far left said about Tony Snow when he died of cancer? Unreal.

Ah yes the ACLU, protecting the rights of child molesters to rape young boys (NAMBLA). Fantastic.

It defended NAMBLA's right to free speech under the First Amendment.

So what you are saying is that speech should only be free if it is popular and uncontroversial?

 

[1000-Oaks]

Try being in the military...where narrow minded knuckleheads spout GOP talking points at you all day long...without ever really thinking about what they are saying, researching the issues or the long term implications of said issues.

Here's one of those knuckleheads:

 

[1000-Oaks]

So what you are saying is that speech should only be free if it is popular and uncontroversial?

Are you saying child molestation is "controversial" and "possibly unpopular"?


Curley v. NAMBLA

In 2000, a Boston couple, Robert and Barbara Curley, sued NAMBLA. According to the Curley's suit, Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari (who were convicted of murdering the Curleys' son, Jeffrey) "stalked Jeffrey Curley... and tortured, murdered and mutilated [his] body on or about October 1, 1997. Upon information and belief immediately prior to said acts Charles Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website at the Boston Public Library." According to police, Jaynes had eight issues of a NAMBLA publication in his home at the time of his arrest. The lawsuit further alleges that "NAMBLA serves as a conduit for an underground network of pedophiles in the United States who use their NAMBLA association and contacts therein and the Internet to obtain child pornography and promote pedophile activity."[28]

“ This was a turning point in discovery of myself.... NAMBLA's Bulletin helped me to become aware of my own sexuality and acceptance of it... ”
—Charles Jaynes, Jaynes' diary[29]

Citing cases in which NAMBLA members have been charged with and convicted of sexual offenses against children, Larry Frisoli, the attorney representing the Curleys, argued that it is a "training ground" for adults who wish to seduce children, in which men exchange strategies on how to find and groom child sex partners.[30] He also claims that NAMBLA has sold at its website what he calls "The Rape and Escape Manual" that details how to avoid being caught and prosecuted.

The American Civil Liberties Union stepped in to defend NAMBLA as a free speech matter and won a dismissal based on the fact that NAMBLA is organized as an unincorporated association, not a corporation. John Reinstein, the director of the ACLU Massachusetts, said that although NAMBLA "may extol conduct which is currently illegal", there was nothing on its website that "advocated or incited the commission of any illegal acts, including murder or rape".[31] The Curleys continued the suit as a wrongful death action against individual NAMBLA members, some of whom were active in the group's leadership.[21]

The targets of the wrongful death suits were Roy Radow, Joe Power, David Miller, Peter Herman, Max Hunter, Arnold Schoen and David Thorstad, a co-founder of NAMBLA and well-known writer. The Curleys alleged that Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari, who were convicted of the rape and murder of their ten-year-old son Jeffrey, were NAMBLA members.

In April 2005, the wrongful death cases was still being considered by a Massachusetts federal court, with the American Civil Liberties Union assisting the defendants on the grounds that the suit violated their First Amendment rights to free speech.[2] The American Civil Liberties Union makes it clear, however, that it does not endorse NAMBLA's objectives. "We've never taken a position that sexual-consent laws are beyond the state's power to legislate," John Reinstein, attorney for the Massachusetts branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in 1997. "I've never been able to fathom their position." (Boston Globe, October 9, 1997). The plaintiffs dropped their lawsuit in April 2008, after a judge ruled that a key witness was not competent to testify.[32]

 

[X3pilot]

Try being in the military...where narrow minded knuckleheads spout GOP talking points at you all day long...without ever really thinking about what they are saying, researching the issues or the long term implications of said issues.

My years of military experience seems to notice that most military members who are spouting GOP talking points confuse the Republican trend to support military spending and bolstering large defense programs with automatic assumptions that the GOP will take care of them accordingly pay and benefit wise. However, some of the military's largest pay increases have occured under Democratic administrations.

 

[Defenestrated]

Here's one of those knuckleheads:

"Do you rescue a fireman just as he is about to save a child?"

Yep that's the US of A, we are the worlds firemen, we invade your for you resources, causing nearly 100,000 of you to die, and call it freedom.

 

[Samirol]

What about all the nasty things the far left said about Tony Snow when he died of cancer? Unreal.

The guy was a complicit helper in the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, I don't want to wish anyone to die, but I don't miss him.

I realize that isn't a socially acceptable position to take, which is why I don't share it in person, because it can be offensive. It has nothing to do about in the closet, because I don't keep it to myself based on fear of what will happen to me, I keep it to myself when in person because it can be offensive to other people.

 

[1000-Oaks]

Sure about that ?

You are seriously confused.

The first step in fixing a problem is admitting that you have one.

I go by common sense, not warm/fuzzy propaganda.

 

[JohnE]

My years of military experience seems to notice that most military members who are spouting GOP talking points confuse the Republican trend to support military spending and bolstering large defense programs with automatic assumptions that the GOP will take care of them accordingly pay and benefit wise. However, some of the military's largest pay increases have occured under Democratic administrations.

Exactly...you should see the faces when I try to point stuff like that out...

I told a guy the other day about McCains plans to rape the VA. Went over like a turd in a punch bowl.

 

[1000-Oaks]

we invade your for you resources

I've been hearing that said for many years, when are we finally going to get some of this oil?? Oh wait, we're not.

 

[Defenestrated]

I've been hearing that said for many years, when are we finally going to get some of this oil?? Oh wait, we're not.

We are, but the invasion destabilized the entire region, which in conjunction with the rampant oil speculation lead to a hike in prices.

Also, the invasion of Iraq created new markets which the good folks at Haliburton and Blackwater generously filled.

But hey, what is war profiteering if we just label it as freedom right?

 

[1000-Oaks]

My years of military experience seems to notice that most military members who are spouting GOP talking points confuse the Republican trend to support military spending and bolstering large defense programs with automatic assumptions that the GOP will take care of them accordingly pay and benefit wise. However, some of the military's largest pay increases have occured under Democratic administrations.

Of the political conversations I experienced in the military, I never once heard anyone say anything to that effect. In my experience, their political orientation was never for personal financial gain.

I don't think military guys love the GOP, it's just that they hate defense-weak liberals who think talking can solve all of the world's problems. Civilization is only one catastrophe away from reverting to animal behavior, and I think military guys understand that. Being close to the line between life and death helps them appreciate the basics.

 

[Defenestrated]

So aside from WWII (which was entered under what could be argued as a socialist administration), exactly what catastrophes has the bloated GOP style military spending averted?

 

[X3pilot]

Of the political conversations I experienced in the military, I never once heard anyone say anything to that effect. In my experience, their political orientation was never for personal financial gain.

Certainly, different demographic groups, different ranges of time and overall socialization that members bring with them into the military plays a role in their thought patterns, I'm just saying what my personal experience shows.

I don't think military guys love the GOP, it's just that they hate defense-weak liberals who think talking can solve all of the world's problems. Civilization is only one catastrophe away from reverting to animal behavior, and I think military guys understand that. Being close to the line between life and death helps them appreciate the basics.

I think most professional military doesn't hate or love one party or another in a truly professional context. I think most despise any part of an overseeing political branch that is too eager to send them into harm's way and not provide the full measures of support to ensure that they can complete the mission fully, as quickly as possible with the least amount of loss of resource and life. Having been on that line you speak of as well, my personal view is that I prefer the use of our military skills and resources as a last resort to truly defend our national interest, not to advance an agenda or personal philosophy.

 

[ohio]

So aside from WWII (which was entered under what could be argued as a socialist administration), exactly what catastrophes has the bloated GOP style military spending averted?

Duh, ALL OF THEM!

 

[Defenestrated]

Oh right, if Vietnam falls to communism the entire world will my bad...


OH WAIT...

 

[X3pilot]

So aside from WWII (which was entered under what could be argued as a socialist administration), exactly what catastrophes has the bloated GOP style military spending averted?

It could be argued that with a properly structured military to provide a show of force (the actual true purpose of a nationalized military) who knows how many were averted since they didn't happen due to the presence of that force?

 

[Defenestrated]

It could be argued that with a properly structured military to provide a show of force (the actual true purpose of a nationalized military) who knows how many were averted since they didn't happen due to the presence of that force?

and I can just as easily argue that most "shows of force" that have actually manifested themselves into military intervention have either failed miserably, or made things worse.

 

[X3pilot]

and I can just as easily argue that most "shows of force" that have actually manifested themselves into military intervention have either failed miserably, or made things worse.

No argument on that point. My point was there is no way of knowing how many potential catastrophes were avoided due to the fact of the unknown factor of how many terrorist/rouge nations/hostile entity or whatever you want to call them, has chosen not to persue a hostile action with a carrier battle group steaming off their coast (one example).

My experience recalls a show of force that led to intervention that didn't fail or make things worse was preventing Iraq from annexing Kuwait

 

[kidwoo]

I go by common sense, not warm/fuzzy propaganda.

Right.

You're more of a fear mongering paranoia, I heard it on the radio and from the militia kind of guy.

(And BTW, gun owners (not lawyers) are the only thing protecting our freedoms. If it ever gets bad enough, the gun owning public will revolt and take back the government. That's why gun ownership is a constitutional right; to make sure the governent remains by and for the people.)

I don't think military guys love the GOP, it's just that they hate defense-weak liberals who think talking can solve all of the world's problems.

I admire guys who can think for themselves. For instance I hope defenestrated keeps posting.

 

[Westy]

The few folks that even mention politics in my office are the ones that feel the need to tell me what Rush Limbaugh had to say the day before. When I tell them I'd rather not discuss what happens on talk radio they instantly call me a liberal and blame me for the worlds problems even though I never really said anything. It is no surprise these are the same folks that I have no respect for professionally. There are plenty of closet conservatives and liberals at work, no one knows who they are because work is not the right place to discuss politics.

 

[Defenestrated]

My experience recalls a show of force that led to intervention that didn't fail or make things worse was preventing Iraq from annexing Kuwait

This ties into what I said about intervention making things worse.

We sponsored the militarization of Iraq, and we backed them in their war against Iran. Well the war we sponsored nearly bankrupted Iraq, prompting Saddam to seize the rich Kuwaiti oil fields.

And the rest is history.

Edit: I really want to stress the point that this is not even an uncommon occurrence in the history of U.S. foreign policy. We are always up to something for all the right reasons, but in the most terrible of ways.

 

[AngryMetalsmith]

I go by common sense, not warm/fuzzy propaganda.

Right.

You're more of a fear mongering paranoia, I heard it on the radio and from the militia kind of guy.

Maybe one day a light will get turned on and 1000-Oaks will be able to find the closet door knob.

 

[Silver]

The guy was a complicit helper in the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, I don't want to wish anyone to die, but I don't miss him.

I wanted him to die. I would have preferred him locked up in the Hague while the cancer ate him alive, but I'll take what I can get. You know why Snow was so bad? He knew what he was doing. A guy like McClellan might be too stupid to know...but Snow wasn't.

Tony Snow was a war criminal. The difference between him and Goebbels? There are a few small ones: Goebbels was responsible for selling more death and misery, but that's setting the bar pretty high. Also, Snow didn't kill his own children.

 

[1000-Oaks]

Right.

You're more of a fear mongering paranoia, I heard it on the radio and from the militia kind of guy.

Ah, more personal attacks instead of substantiated arguements,so predictable. I should start posting "opposing responses" to my own posts, all I'd have to do is jot down some personal attacks. Would save us time.

I admire guys who think the same as me. For instance I hope defenestrated keeps posting.

Fixed it for ya.

 

[Samirol]

I don't think military guys love the GOP, it's just that they hate defense-weak liberals who think talking can solve all of the world's problems.

Don't talk about other people using logical fallacies when you don't hesitate to use strawman arguments.

The point kidwoo is making is that you are parroting the same talking points from right-wing commentators like Savage and O'Reilly, while claiming to be independent.

 

[kidwoo]

Ah, more personal attacks instead of substantiated arguements,so predictable. I should start posting "opposing responses" to my own posts, all I'd have to do is jot down some personal attacks. Would save us time.



Fixed it for ya.

Not only are you a little low in lumens, you can't even recognize irony.


As for your seeming belief that I only want to hear my thoughts echoed, I'd love to share a beer with $tinke'ems here and we've got loads of philosophical differences.

See if that finely tuned independent thought process of yours can figure out why.

 

[valve bouncer]

Buggery hell, if you can't take a little abuse the PAWN is not for you. BTW you're all thimble-cocked bed wetters with chronic bacne.

 

[Transcend]

Cute and fundamentally true too.


What about all the nasty things the far left said about Tony Snow when he died of cancer? Unreal.

Ah yes the ACLU, protecting the rights of child molesters to rape young boys (NAMBLA). Fantastic.

Not really. Gov't controlled militia (Army, Marines etc) vs joe public with his Ar-15 and or 12 guage.

Joe public is just pissing in the wind.

 

[Samirol]

Not really. Gov't controlled militia (Army, Marines etc) vs joe public with his Ar-15 and or 12 guage.

Joe public is just pissing in the wind.

When you take the air force into account, it isn't even a competition

They will have access to the satellites, unmanned recon drones, and a lot more experience and training. If there was a military coup, it wouldn't be a contest.

 

[Defenestrated]

Some of the European welfare states have governments that fear their people more than our govt. fears us.