Posted on 07/29/2009 6:56:56 PM PDT by FromLori
“Liberals” are not liberal. Please, let’s call them anything but that. These are some of the most intolerant bigots on the face of the earth. They’re filled with hatred for many groups of people who disagree with them or who practice behaviors with which they disagree.
Call them Fascists; call them Socialists; call them Democrats, Leftists, Losers, Pinheads, Pinko-Commie As*holes (who think they know what’s best for you); call them, as H.L. Mencken would, proud members of the Booboisie, or whatever else you want. Hell, you can even call them “progressives” (even though their agenda is just about as “progressive” as it is “liberal”). Just don’t call them “liberal.” The etymology of the word liberal is the same as the word liberty. Real liberals are people who support, cherish and love liberty, not the hoards of historically ignorant and economically illiterate fools of the Democratic Party. Libertarians are liberals.
Democrats and Leftists who refer to themselves as “liberal” are deceiving themselves because it sounds like a hip word to use. It’s as cool, fresh and in as our Hollywood celebrity President. But it’s also a misnomer. “Liberals” used to stand for social freedom, so they said since they began to burn their bras after skipping class and smoking dope 40 years ago. But they’ve surely lost their credibility on being “pro-social freedom” with their insipid, tyrannically un-American War on Smoking.
They are incredibly intolerant of smokers and tobacco users. The only other group of Americans they may have more hatred for are home-schoolers or proud gun owners.
To pay for socialized healthcare, illiberal “liberals” are promoting huge tax increases on other products of lifestyles they don’t agree with: cigarettes, alcohol, fast foods, candy, soda and hotdogs. (Get ready for Friday nights to be way more expensive.) They also hate fat people. If you’re obese and a “liberal,” get with it. Your fellow ideologues hate you and want you to become a vegan after you sign up for your first yoga course. Want proof?
Check out this article, “The Future of Obesity,” from ProtoMag.com. The subtitle of the article: “SHOULD OBESE PEOPLE, LIKE SMOKERS, BE: Barred from indulging in public spaces, taxed on their habit, targeted by public health campaigns, shunned socially?”
Like the Nazis, their wish is to create a master race of human beings, a citizenry of pure, hippie “liberal” douche-bags, skinny vegan non-smokers who drive dinky hybrids to their weekly yoga classes before they eat carrots and dirt for dinner. Let’s take back the word “liberal” from these neo-fascists and own it for ourselves.
(Recall, however, that the Republicans have not done well for their cause by opposing gay marriage while advancing the War on Drugs. But, then, they don’t call themselves “liberal,” do they?)
Thank you!
>The excrement is rapidly approaching the rotating blades of reality.
What is your prediction for the Future?
It's time that we stand up to these Nazi control freaks.
I'm fed up with their social engineering gimmicks.
Enough!
Thanks for the link...that is getting circulated. It makes some really powerful points.
Rush had fun over these control freaks today.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2303957/posts?page=12#12
>"Gay men use more health dollars than any other
>group... but the MSM is quiet - oh so quiet about
>health problems with that group."
Do you have a source for that? A(n admittedly quick) Google didn't turn anything up.
I was a bit curious about it as well. Specifically, is that per capita, or total dollars spent?
Tick mark, HERE, to keep track.
BTW, welcome to FreeRepublic.
You do know that NAZI was the German acronym for national SOCIALISTS, right? The Nazis were the far left. Socialists. National Socialists.
/johnny
It's only intuitive that gay men statistically have more numerous and more serious medical problems, than "straight" men of a comparable age. Every sexually transmitted disease known to man - and there are many - has a higher incidence in a gay male population than an age-matched straight population. That's simply a result of promiscuity: more partners lead to greater chance of acquisition of the causative organism. And some of these sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS, can be life threatening, and require extensive regimens of expensive drugs. On the other hand, it would be hard to think of any illness at all where homosexuals would have a lesser incidence than age-matched heterosexuals.
I'm not saying all gay men are ill or that all straight men are healthy, just saying that on statistical average, the health of gays is significantly worse than that of heterosexual men of a comparable age group.
Some of it you'll be able to find - but for the most part any information that makes a dem victim group look bad isn't made public. If you only got your news from the MSM you would think smoking was more dangerous than meth... Look how they report on - or don't report on - those two conditions. Drug addicts are members of dem victim groups. Same with gays. Same with criminals ( and yeah that group uses lots of health care dollars ) So you won't find it easily. The stuff on money spent per disease compared to the number of people with that disease can be found - but you'll have to do the math.
Nothing is trumpeted when it's about one of the traditional liberal victim groups...
Swine flu fits the pattern - there was too much panic about the flu and now there's all these stories about wanting to protect pregnant women etc. But the panic was there before - before that research came out. And the only people we hear about who have died are young unmarried men with “undisclosed underlying health problems”. What's the secret? If it was people who smoked - they would be shouting it from the rooftops. Smoker's get public humiliation. Liberals hate them and it shows. If it was being overweight it would be front and center and in your face. Liberals hate fat people.
Liberals don't treat anyone but themselves with kid gloves. And that means the people most likely to die from swine flu have to be members of some dem victim group. Because they definitely have the kid gloves on... That said - I could be wrong on this one - or maybe all of it - we'll have to wait and see...
I thought gays spent way more time at the gym?
Maybe so, but during that time, they are probably doing more to injure their health than to improve it.
Working out in a gym makes a person LOOK good. It doesn't prevent AIDS or STDS, or cancer or anything. Might help with preventing heart disease - but even that's up for grabs - walking an hour or so a week has the same effect...
Zero and his henchmen will eat their own just like Hitler did in the end days. LOL
NAZIs were SOCIALISTS. Not far, far, right.
The Republicans (far right, for this country) freed the slaves. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. The far left (Democrat Party) was the party of Jim Crow in the south. Look at Al Gore daddy's voting record.
Try again.
/johnny
New tagline, thanks for the post FromLori!
Did you see the video of the poll intimidation in Philly during the last election?
Looks like someone has moved to higher levels. Makes me sick to see it, regardless of the race involved. I grew up with segregated water fountains and voting rights abuses. I thought it sucked then. I think it sucks now.
/johnny
Ever read the Communist Manifesto? Or what they see the end game as? World domination, brother. Marxists want everyone to be Communists. They said so, in their own words.
Ever count the communists in Congress? There's more than you think, and they tend to be racist.
/johnny
Like Cap and Tax isn't? Like Socialized Medical 'care' isn't? 2200% taxes levied on my personal choice and the company run out of business? Soft drinks taxed?
Wasn't Hitler a non-smoking vegetarian?
/johnny
I happen to be a somewhat overweight smoker, and am enjoying a Guinness even as I type this reply. I tend to espouse a libertarian attitude towards social engineering through government force (in this case lifestyle taxation), and not just because I am a target in more ways than one.
All that said, the reality is that the ‘liberal’ agenda (and I agree with the core of this thread regarding the misuse of the word) is laying the groundwork about bottom line costs about obesity even as we speak - very much in accordance with what we smokers predicted when we were in the gunsights.
My curiosity in asking about per capita vs. bottom line is that, frankly, your argument will carry more weight if you can show that a homosexual lifestyle is a comparable (or at least a noticeable) drain on our total health dollars.
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.