(OT) If I Were A Liberal, or Had Some Other Serious Problem...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

The latest brilliance from Lovely Linda:

"If I Were A Liberal, or Had Some Other Serious Problem..."

by Linda Bowles

July 14, 1999

It is now clear that the only way the misguided masses can atone for the grievous sin of electing a dissolute demagogue to the presidency is to vote a straight Republican Party ticket at the first available opportunity.

Based on this clear insight into the most important political dynamic in America today, I predict that in the forthcoming elections, we will experience one of the largest voter turnouts in recent history as millions of citizens are impelled by a moral imperative to cleanse themselves of past ballot-box offenses.

If I were a liberal, or had some other serious problem, I would search for a way to achieve ethical cleansing. Surely, it is time for liberals to deal with the spiritual reality that it is a sin to enable sin. As a compassionate conservative, I implore them, for their own good, to admit their responsibility for the national embarrassment their leaders, the Clintons, have brought upon the United States of America. Perhaps it would be helpful to briefly review some of the highlights of the Bill Clinton presidency as a point of departure for understanding the national revulsion against him and those closely associated with him.

The big pushes during Clinton's two terms in office were to: raise taxes, cover up the Travelgate scandal, increase government spending, diversify the sexes from two to five, transfer America's manufacturing base to needy foreign countries, legitimize sexual deviancy, sissify the military, cover up Whitewater, foster class warfare, cover up the massacres of American citizens at Waco and Ruby Ridge, keep as many members of the cabinet out of jail as possible, shred 12 tons of incriminating documents, defend racial discrimination against people of non-color, defend welfare as we know it, strip marriage of its meaning by extending its benefits to odd couples, defend and promote infanticide, register welfare recipients to vote, expand benefits for illegal aliens, blame school violence on inanimate objects, recruit illegal aliens to the Democrat Party, raise money to defend the president against a pants-dropping charge, put the Creator of the Universe under house arrest, confiscate private property, control the amount of water used in a toilet flush, deny parents the right to choose schools for their children, mainstream hustler Larry Flynt, subvert the Constitution with loophole-lawyering, return California and Texas to Mexico, foster anti-American multi-culturalism, start Cold War II, promote the idea that oral sex is not sex, mangle the English language with legal babble, prove you can lie under oath and get away with it, establish the moral precedent that adultery is OK if the wife doesn't care, protect endangered weeds and kangaroo rats from farmers, keep Hillary out of jail, develop an affirmative-action program for a venereal disease, promote cigars as sex toys, rent out the Lincoln Bedroom, put degeneracy on a pedestal, socialize medicine, sell nuclear secrets to China, criminalize "incorrect" thought, use the United Nations to teach Third World countries the joys of wholesale abortions, cover up the cover-ups, meddle in the internal affairs of other nations, wage illegal wars, and teach underage children how to have sex without consequences.

If one looks beneath the surface, what comes into full view is the liberal vision for America. It is a vision based on two theoretical models for the perfect society. First, economic socialism, based on the assumption that the government owns all wealth and resources and has the responsibility for managing them to achieve an egalitarian outcome; and second, social hedonism, based on the assumption that the government is the ultimate arbiter of morality and has the responsibility to redefine right and wrong as necessary to accommodate whatever corrupt choices happen to be in vogue.

Both of these "models" reflect a seriously flawed understanding of the nature of the human being and a disastrously flawed understanding of the nature of the universe. These wrong-headed views of man and God account for the inevitable failure of liberalism every time it is tried.

The people of America at long last are becoming convinced that our country is headed in the wrong direction. It is clear that the national mood is changing. No two people in America understand this better than Vice President Al Gore and co-president Hillary Rodham. This explains their frantic and futile efforts to dissociate themselves from Bill Clinton. Hillary can distance herself from Bill, but she cannot distance herself from who she is. She is a socialist. Her solution for doing what is best for children, for health care and for education is the same two-note solution that socialists have for everything: more government control and more money.

As we watch Vice President Al Gore talk about faith, family and traditional values, it is difficult not to remember him standing beside a confirmed serial adulterer who had just been impeached, calling him "one of the greatest presidents" America ever had.


-- ace (x@y.z), July 19, 1999


you actually think there'll be elections in 2000????????????????????

-- bfd (b@f.e), July 19, 1999.

Oh, there will be elections...That will be the first thing that gets fixed! Even if it all has to be calculated manually.


-- DJ (reality@check.com), July 19, 1999.

Oh please, please, Mr. Conservative, show me the way, the truth and the light!!

So, other than a bunch of Conservative bullshit, what's the point?

-- ariZONEa (this_is@stupid.post), July 19, 1999.

Was it a Democratic administration that tripled the national debt in 8 years? -- or was it (gasp!) the true-blue conservative Reaganites?

And I recall that expensive S&L disaster resulting from the Reagan administration's restructuring and deregulation program for the S&Ls.

One or another -- not much to choose from. I admit the Dems seem to be less experienced in keeping their follies under cover.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), July 19, 1999.

-- ariZONEa, -- Tom Carey,

Don't be fooled by the party line BS. Right is Right and left is wrong no matter what party you belong to.

My sister couldn't figure out if she was a liberal or a conservative until my brother listened to her points of view and she discovered that in todays misuse of words she is conservative. Doesn't mean that she is not a liberal in the very true sense of the word. But like as Billy Bob stealing the word "is" and then redefining it on TV, so the Left Wing Commies have stolen a good word, "liberal" and turned it into a very filthy word.

-- freeman (freeman@cali.com), July 19, 1999.

Who was the Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee during the Reagan years??


-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 19, 1999.


When the dems were in congress with a rep president, those crafty dems ruined this country. Now with a dem president and a rep congress, those crafty dems have found yet another way to ruin this country. By god, when are those foolish republicans going to wise up and figure out how to ruin this country themselves?

/:-) Ray,

-- Uhmm.. (jfcp81a@prodigy.com), July 19, 1999.

We might have elections in 2000, but who will the candidates be? George W. Bush? I don't think so... Seriously, people will be looking for someone tough and capable--a leader. I can't think of a single possible candidate like that. I'm trying to... Nah...

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWAyne@aol.com), July 19, 1999.

"Was it a Democratic administration that tripled the national debt in 8 years? -- or was it(gasp!) the true-blue conservative Reaganites? And I recall that expensive S&L disaster resulting from the Reagan administration's restructuring and deregulation program for the S&Ls."

... Tom, please! We've made up our minds. Don't confuse us with facts.

-- alan (foo@bar.com), July 19, 1999.

Wow, Linda Bowles hates him as much as EVERY OTHER PERSON I KNOW....how unusual. The parties don't pick their candidates, the media does. The American public don't vote for the best man, they vote for whomever the media picks. They don't want to waste their votes on a looser, they want to vote for winners! Election Super-Bowl!

This isn't a democratic process....it's a beauty contest, a popularity poll. Who spent the most money on their tap-dancing lessons and their evening gown? Professional beauty queens. For chrisakes, don't vote for anyone with big ears or a crooked nose, how would it look to send somebody like *that* overseas to represent the beautiful people? How else would you explain the Hollywood Humper and his groupies being elected twice? It just makes me sick. Sick I tell ya, just sick and tired and really, really.......

(I'm admittedly stealing this line from someone else, but it's just so darn appropriate and truthful)

"America is at an awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

In the spirit of 1776, and a hope for renewel, providing this country has any backbone and character left in it. Time is about to tell. Get up and participate or sit there and watch, but stay out of the road.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 19, 1999.

I'm with bfd. I do not expect the U.S. to have national direct elections in 2000. Now, that doesn't necessarily exclude county- level elections (note that I didn't use the words "fair" or "accurate"). Representative democracy could then be seqentially attempted to restore some semblance of what had been, e.g., these county representatives could vote to determine state legislators, who would then vote for senators and/or congressmen, who then vote to determine the President. Remember that the Constitutional amendment to begin direct election of U.S. Senators dates back only to 1913, so there is at least some precedence for this. Also, if the Electoral College does not come up with a majority in a Presidential election, I believe that (according to the Constitution) the House of Representatives then votes to determine the outcome. Lastly, in the election of 1864, with the Civil War raging, the southern states simply were not allowed to vote, and the election was held anyway.


-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), July 19, 1999.

This is one of the most difficult moments to make this statement. I've been a democrat all of my life. I'm 38.8. I have always felt that the most intelligent thing to do is vote democrat. Voting republican was easier than thinking and since I was always thoughtful, I never voted republican. True democrats are generally more intellegent and thought provoking rather than adding more fat to the big cow that only trys to dominate with more fat. I have insulted republicans all my life for good reason. Considerably more dense and judgemental and mind numbingly stupid, republicans have been a hard wad of fat to swallow. As you can tell, I am still very agressively rebellious to the task of switching and will cuss all the way to the ballot box, but that slick, slick, bastard prick of a president is going to get us all killed in this country. I mean all of us. We need to elect someone with a freakin bullet proof set of underwear, one that makes his thang smell like a cast has been on it for months. I've never been so freakin pissed at a democrat in all my life. We need a strong and militant and hyper defense budget spending maniac that is crazy enough to keep the communists on their toes. Clinton has waivered wayyyy to many of our protective shields and put governors on defense missle speeds. That S.O.B. is trying to get our asses killed. I for one have become totally radical regarding Clinton's antics. I loved the man so much he could make me cry. Now I hate him so much he can make me cry. This is some major bad juju folks. Yes, for the sake of pure survival, I want a stupid reaganite type to take office to do the magic again that kept this country safe. I'm so *()T@(*(@$# pissed that whoever lets numb nuts do already more damnage to our security, that the gullotine ought to be reintroduced to undo that verile basturd.......good day!

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), July 19, 1999.

uummmm,,, Jesse the body comes to mind. Just say no to cash cows and socialists.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), July 20, 1999.

"a hard wad of fat to swallow" -- thanks, Feller. We'll take that under advisement at our next meeting.

We've been trying to design our Republicans to come in more appealing flavors, but it's been hard work. Thanks for the customer feedback.

Divide and RULE!

-- The Powers (th@be.over.you), July 20, 1999.

The only flavor that appeals to me is, honest, courageous, ethical, knowledgable, owned by none, fearless, Patriot who won't mince words or beat around the bush, will take no prisoners or BS, and carries a copy of the Constitution in their hip pocket. Someone who *demands* Americans take responsibility for themselves as well as their country.

The day either party grooms a candidate like that, at this stage of the 'game', will be a cold day in hell. It's too late to work within the system.......until the voters demand it be cleansed! Too bad they're all waiting for somebody else to do it for them, or unable to acknowledge it even needs to be done! The sheeple are about to be gathered and sheared, because they have allowed a wolf to stand guard over the flock!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 20, 1999.

Interesting article...strangely it rings true enough. Once being a liberal myself, I have to laugh at it and how I was taken in my the trendy, pseudointellectual aspects of the L word. Not that there AREN'T smart liberals out there who can hold their own in a debate (Micheal Moore, Brian Shore, Jesse Jackson are some of em) or deeply respect (Jimmy Carter is one of em), but _for the most part_ the movement is populated by flakey moral relativists and subtley-condescending elitists who DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY BELIEVE, except that PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY STUPID AND NEED TO BE TAKEN CARE OF BY BIG BROTHER.

Not that "liberal" should be spoken of with hushed derision as if it were a bad word. Quite the contrary. The meaning and context of this word changes all the time. Once "liberal" meant that people should be allowed to do their own thing and that a national government should mostly mind its own business in both foreign and domestic matters: Allow the people to be "LIBERAted" and free. If that's what it means, hey, call me a liberal. It would be fine with me if "conservative" meant that you prefered the status quo of bureaucratic friction, bumbling foreign adventurism, cliched experiments in social engineering, cliched populist and pompous demagoguery, etc. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" would be more accurate if they were reversed!

But in reality, politics has gotten a LOT more complicated. There are no longer two poles (liberal and conservative), there are at least four. That is why the Republicans can't get along in their own party anymore, and why the Democrats occasionally seem to be fracturing on smaller scale. Now there is the foreign policy axis (are you globalist as per Clinton/Bush or are you isolationist like Pat Buchanan or Dick Gephardt?), the civil liberties axis (do you oppose the War on Drugs and think that flag-burning is free speech or do you want throw 10-20% of society's "undesirables" in jail?), the fiscal axis (do you want a humble, scaled-back & balanced budget like Newt Gingrich or do you think that massive revenue suckage and deficit spending are a good way of "investing" in America as per Clinton?), and the moral axis (do you think that partial birth abortion is an acceptable, run-of-the-mill medical procedure or do you think public schools should be forced to have a morning prayer on the PA system each day?) ... It's no wonder people are so disgusted with politicians and parties because the platforms of Dems and Repubs simply DO NOT give them any good choices. It's always "the lesser of two evils."

For me, the "lesser of two evils" means voting Democrat (in general) at the state level and Republican at the national, because I am a fan of teachers and think public education should be well-funded. However I don't think that the feds should micromanage every aspect of our lives (me being a fan of the tenth ammendment), and am in favor of scaling back the size and influence of Washington. Nevertheless, soon I will break this trend and vote Libertarian, because these guys more closely articulate my sentiments than anything else now.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), July 20, 1999.

I agree coprolith....and our votes will be wasted and we will be running the risk of putting another corrupt, unlawful, self-serving, egomaniac, communist NWO putz in the Oval Office....once again. Sucks, don't it?

Within this current system....we are *forced* to vote for the one in the lovliest evening gown who can tap-dance around the world!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 20, 1999.

*******GOD BLESS AMERICA????----WHY???????*********

-- 1 nation under????? (dogs@zianet.com), July 21, 1999.


Way I heard it, God is on our side, that's why. (I liked that song.)

"Don't be fooled by the party line BS"

I'm long past that stage, bubba. ALL party lines are BS.

But actions have consequences. Which sooner or later become apparent.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), July 21, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ