Posted on 12/05/2008 3:47:25 AM PST by Kaslin
Aw, go ahead. Name him.
In other words, the law means nothing when it opposes their feelings.
I have another description: spoiled brats
Count me among those opposed to capital punishment, at least as currently practiced in this country. I'm not against the concept of capital punishment - lots of criminals deserve to die for what they've done. What I AM against is the fact that whether or not you're convicted, irrespective of innocence or guilt, depends so much any more on the political ambitions of the prosecutor, media attention to the case, how deep your pockets are, and consequently how good your lawyer is (witness OJ Simpson).
I look at the death penalty as just another government program gone wrong, unfortunately.
For instance, I have yet to have anyone on the left enumerate the rights he lost because of the Patriot Act.
Amen to that. I see a post on DU every time I go over there that bitches and whines about how they've lost so many of their rights under Bushitler, but the NEVER enumerate a single one they've lost. EVER.
“i have another d4escription: spoiled brats.”
correction: “spoiled, totalitarian, sc^&Bag brats.”
(can “swine” also be fit in there somewhere?”)
imho
They will do anything to stop the Patriot Act, and if India had something like the Patriot act the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai would probably never have happened
Like everything else, capital punishment goes wrong in liberal states.
>> If I had to describe liberals in a single word it would probably be “feminine.”
I believe the word the author was looking for was “neurotic”.
Bump for the money quote.
FReeper little jeremiah has offered occasionally that it would be better if women did not have the franchise in the U.S. (she's a woman and definitely in the minority on this one).
I would think that Prelutsky is closer to it, by identifying emotive, feeeeeeling-privileging non-thinkers as the civic underperformers. After all, Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin and Laura Bush have never had any trouble figuring it out.
Other intelligent women come to mind -- even the gay Democrat-supporting art professor Camille Paglia, who manages to support labor unions on the one hand and yet have perfectly civil conversations over lunch with Rush Limbaugh, seems to understand the unhinged nature of modern "progressivism" and, like Burt Prelutsky, recognizes that gay activists have modelled themselves on the extremist "street" politics of the 1930's that gave the world a Second World War.
Thus, it might be better to keep the Paglias and Tammy Bruces and Laura Bush in the electorate, and kick out Alec Baldwin, Larry Flynt, and Rosie O'Donnell instead. Maybe we ought to bring back civic literacy testing -- add a logic module -- that'd do it!
“The truth is, it’s left-wingers who make a practice of evading the issues. For instance, I have yet to have anyone on the left enumerate the rights he lost because of the Patriot Act. I have yet to have any of them explain how it is that we invaded Iraq for oil but failed to confiscate even a single drop. Also, I have never had a liberal name all those countries that hate America because of George Bush. Even when I offer to help them get started by suggesting Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, North Korea and Cuba, they refuse to engage.
I have also never had a leftist explain his love affair with socialism and communism, forms of tyranny which have led to unparalleled human misery wherever they have been introduced. But, then, what sort of freedom lovers side with the PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah, against Israel and make cultural icons of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara?”
A breath of fresh air right there.
Although I have to disagree with his “feminine” quote.
If he means “feminine”, as in “weak” or “wussy whiner” - then I’d have to agree.
But that isn’t how I understand the word “femine”.
Compare Hillary to Sarah Palin, and which one is more feminine?
“I have another description: spoiled brats “
hubby and I were watching the pbs special about Hoffman, Seale - and a whole bunch of other hippy/anarchist/freaks the other night.
When it was all over, all I could say was “spoiled brats.”
bttt
The term pinhead should be reserved for use in describing Bill O'Reilly.
I’ve seen this challenge on a “non-partisan” (about 80% left-wing) message board from one of the badly outnumbered conservatives:
“Ever since we invaded Iraq, thousands of Muslim radicals have streamed into Iraq for an opportunity to kill Americans: but these are heavily armed Americans in body armor, with training in the art of war. If our troops were not in Iraq, these thousands of Muslim radicals would have come to the United States to kill Americans, and here, they would have been killing defenseless women and children.
“On September 11, 2001 we saw how many civilians could be killed and how much economic damage could be done by just 19 Muslim radicals, armed with plastic knives and boxcutters.
“So here’s my question: how many American skyscrapers, train stations and suspension bridges, packed with civilians, would you have been willing to watch explode and collapse into smoldering rubble if it meant that we would never invade Iraq?
“How many?”
My conservative friend never gets an answer to his question from the left-wingers, except what he accurately describes as “shucking and jiving.” As a result, he goes even farther than Burt Prelutsky and calls them “f—king morons.”
Communism is not the greatest danger to this country.
Fascism is not the greatest danger to this country.
Racism is not the greatest danger to this country.
Religion is not the greatest danger to this country.
A failing economy is not the greatest danger to this country.
Terrorism is not the greatest danger to this country.
China is not the greatest danger to this country.
LIBERALISM is the greatest danger to this country.
Your tagline is dead on as well. I had the misfortune to be assigned to dump the trash for a barracks in the Philippines when a troop of the vicious little things were inspecting the dumpster (close enough to a barrel) for food. Monkeys can indeed be terrifying little creatures.
Please oblige. Call them what they are: MARXISTS!
Yes, I am shouting.
I am a woman and I agree!
I would also go back to making the ownership of property a requirement as well, and increase the minimum age to 35.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.