"ultra-liberal"

I don't know where the hell Trey and Matt get the idea that "ultra-liberals" use "the ends justifies the means" and lie to you to keep you from using "drugs." When I was a kid growing up in the early to mid-60s, that was what all the reichwinger Republicans did. We were shown all those stupid films with that bald "doctor" with glasses muttering about "kids on drugs." We didn't see "Reefer Madness" but our folks did, and believed it. But the films we saw were of the "one puff and you're on to heroin" genre. That was your "conservative" yak, not "liberal."

D.G. Porter wrote:

Of course it's the liberals. Conservatives now know that Reefer Madness is a joke, so they don't put out crap like that anymore. But the Liberal's, not knowing how to deal with their kids drug use, resort to tricking them with these so called drug consequence ads. It's all a big joke and is exactly what Matt & Trey were making fun of.

It is NOT "liberals," it's reichwing NAZIS like Jon Kyl, John Mica, etc., of the Republcan party. How do I know? -- I SEE THEM ON CSPAN.

They get up there in the well of the Floor withtheir little posters and lie their fucking assees off.

The "liberals" like Charlie Rangle who rail against marijuana don't do anything different (and I think he's an asshole ion this issue, and just as much a liar as Orrin Hatch), but WHO MAKES "DRUGS" THE BIG ISSUE?

Maybe you're to young to remember Carter back in 1977, when he dared to broach the subject of even "decriminalization" -- he was hounded by dinosaurs in the Republican party like Sen. James Eastland (another wanker from the Deep South) who set up a series of Congressional hearings that were admittedly biased against any "relaxation" of drug laws. Anyone who disagreed with Eastland's views was not allowed in.

Then someone set up Peter Bourne, Carter's drug advisor, with some phony quaalude 'scrip scandal, and that was the end of any talk about changing the laws.

Even during the '92 campaign, when Clinton spoke in favor of marijuana law reform, he was hounded by those fuckers on the far right.

It's typical "reichwing" tactics -- goes back to 1949 with "Who lost China!?" Force everyhone into a corner and demand they assume your views OR ELSE.

And who really hates grass? Fucking crackers and yahoos from Geowgia to Kayanzass to Eutawh. The great fucking middle American "heartland" who still thinks it 1923. No "Jazz Age" happened in Kansas!

Liberals may be pussies, but "conservatives" are assholes. They're not even real "conservatives," they're cultural neoNazis.

I thought it was funny as hell whan Stan's dad cut the guy's hand off!

D.G. Porter wrote:

Damn are you misguided.

Yeah, that was funny.

Apparently you are not familiar with the people those areas send to Congress. Yes, tell me how Orrin Hatch wants to make marijuana legal for responsible adults.

You apparently haven't heard that Hatch wants to lift the ban on fetal tissue research. Not exactly a conservative policy, eh?

-D

"In the end, there can be only one, and it may as well be me!"-Kenny (from Highlander: The Series)

Well, Orrin Hatch is a Senator from Utah. Utah's main industry is pharmaceuticals, which would benefit immensely from FTR. He may be conservative, but when it comes to money for his home State, he knows how to vote . . .

• Vaughner

Enlightened self interest, he hopes he can walk again.

once again liberals prove the point they are intollerant. Conservatives are nazis thats ok to say but a liberal is a commie and oh no Im a uneducated red neck. LOL Liberal are great at double talk.

Liberal remeind me of the book 1984 in that book everyone is equal and look how happy they were. Liberals claim that if a thought or idea is "wrong" we need to ban it. Then they go on to say Freedom of speech is being restrited by the conservatives.

It was not conservatives who wanted Huck Finn the Bible or other great works banned from school but social liberals. when I see a liberal I cant help but think "darwin wept" ( Q from STG) once again I will be flamed by liberals questioning my education level and calling me a red neck

to save time yes I know there are spelling errors Im too lazy to correct them second you dont know my race so dont assume Im white thats racist and we dont want that do we..

"Peace through tyranny" Megatron

ROHT has a burr up my butt today

Look, CLOWN -- we have been called commies for over 50 years. It's time we started showing some spine.

You moust be abel to reed waill for someone who can't spull.

Those people are stupid. Harlan Ellison ("Harrison Bergeron") agrees with me on this one.

Whatever, I'll do what I want.

In article , "D.G. Porter" wrote:

Kurt Vonnegut wrote Harrison Bergeron...

But anyway, basically all we do when we call someone "liberal" or "conservative" or "nazi" or "commie" is apply a label that really means nothing in today's world. I don't know a single "conservative" with the same exact views as other "conservatives." I know some "liberals" who really are more conservative than many of my "conservative" friends. People today are not just liberal or conservative, the have many diverse views, and applying a generalizing label to a group that really doesn't exist seems just wrong. The members of the NRA are not all crazy "gun-nuts" and not all members of Earth First are eco-terrorists. People need to attack the issue, not some made-up group.

Does this mean I shouldn't call people "Barbara Streisand" anymore? :(

I took one of those internet "tests" on my political views. I scored exactly the opposite of Tony Blair!

And just how well would "great works" like the Quran being taught in schools be received by the conservatives?

In article ,

Good luck in trying to force everyone into your "reichwing" corner. See if anyone will answer your demands to assume your views or else.

My "views" are that I want to be left alone.

Juan, Juan, sayyyy, that's not a good old REAL American name... sounds like a forriner to me!!

Go back further, and you'll learn many of the established Democratic families benefited from the Opium Wars in China. Can you say "Franknlin Rooselvelt"?

First sensible thing you've said all year.

-D

"In the end, there can be only one, and it may as well be me!"-Kenny (from Highlander: The Series)

No, but I can say the Bush family.

Just one more thing -- they do, but they're using a more sophisticated form of lying to do it. Again, look at assholes like Jon Kyl, John Mica, and that real dick JD Hayworth.

Whenever someone uses terms like "THE this" or "THE that" -- I know I'm in for a bullshit alert.

Like drunkard and ex-LA Mayor Sam Yorty, talking about getting "*the black people* to *see through the issues*."

Sometimes I think anyone who never experienced the Fifties, or even the Kennedy years, doesn't know crap about "liberalism."

In article ,

You mean like "The Reichwing"?

And sometimes, you can't teach an old bitch a new trick.

-D

"In the end, there can be only one, and it may as well be me!"-Kenny (from Highlander: The Series)

"D.G. Porter" wrote in message news:[email]...

Both parties did it back then, but it's funny how you single out the party that didn't control any branch of the federal government for special treatment.

I agree that it's a stretch to single out ultra-liberals in the context of lying about *illegal* drugs to get kids to stay away from them. It is quite fair, however, to accuse them generally of lying and/or stretching the truth on the theory that the ends justify the means. Secondhand smoke, for example.

They didn't need to control the government -- they did control the culture. They still do.

I suppose when Sonny Bono -- that fucking drunk -- made that film in 1968 that we all had to watch -- where he showed cops busting down a locked door because kids were smoking a joint -- and said "What do you want before your pilot flies your plane, for him to smoke a cigarette, or a joint?" -- that he was an "ultra-liberal."

I can't stand second-hand smoke. Makes me feel like barfing -- but I'll tell people that up front -- I consider it rude and only an asshole wans to be rude. If youi smoke that shit and blow it in my face, you're an asshole. Whathe fuck IS IT with some people how just HAVE to have a smoke at the eating table in a restaurant?

Tell you what -- and I've proposed this to those NRA gun-Nazis and they won't go along with it, so let me try you -- I'll support your right to smkoe what YOU want in your home if you allow me the same consideration. And I'll demonstrate or whatever for that right so long as you do. (The gun-Nazis will not support my right but demand I support theirs. But they're still into that "goddam hippie protesting potheads cost us 'Nam" bullshit.)

"D.G. Porter" wrote in message news:[email]...

party

Of course! I almost forgot about how Hollywood, the public schools, the news media (then, especially) have always been controlled by Republicans.

Oh, you said the "fuck" word and called him a drunk I guess that means you must be right after all.

I don't know (or care, really) where Sonny Bono's views fell on the political spectrum in 1968. Do you?

of

quite

truth

Second-hand smoke is similar to farting in public. It's all well and good to ask others not to do it because you think it's rude. That doesn't make it OK to lie and pretend that other people's farts are killing you. And for Christ's sake, if there were enough people out there who enjoyed farting at the dinner table to support farting restaurants, would anyone think of passing a law to prohibit that?!

There's a time and place for everything. If a restaurant owner wants to allow smoking, you are free to ask him to set off a non-smoking section or, failing that, to take your business elsewhere. But if you start dictating to him what he may or may not allow in his own establishment, *you* become the asshole.

I don't know, they just do. I don't enjoy breathing their smoke any more than you do; I just think this should be left to the market to decide.

Last time I checked, the NRA only had one political agenda, and that agenda was diametrically opposed to any position the Nazis would have taken. Are you one of those ultra-liberals who throws around words like "fascist" and "Nazi" as a catch-all for anything that you don't like?

I have heard somewhere that the Nazis were not particularly keen on smoking, but I have yet to hear the NRA voice any opinion on the issue.

No problem there. If it were up to me, all drugs would be legal, with the possible exceptions of date-rape drugs and others that are more likely to be slipped to innocent victims than ingested voluntarily. Now, it's my turn. I'll support your right to patronize restaurants that agree with your philosophy on smoking if you allow me (and the smokers) the same consideration.

Better get started. I've been arguing the legalization position in public forums for over a decade now.

And who, exactly, might these "gun-Nazis" be? You didn't say "NRA gun-Nazis" this time around, so I will assume that in this case you are talking about a group that *agrees* with the Nazis on the gun issue? I'm no fan of Handgun Control, Inc., the Children's Defense Fund, the Joyce Foundation or the Violence Policy Center, but I still think that comparing them to Nazis is a bit over the top.

"Cost" or not, hippie protesting potheads certainly didn't help us in 'Nam. I'm not sure what they have to do with the gun lobby, though (or, for that matter, the Nazis).

The substances found in second-hand smoke are the same as those found in first-hand smoke, which *are* known to be toxic and carcinogenic.

There are public service ads run on TV around here, in which a woman who claims to have never smoked a cigarette in her entire life, but worked in a smoky bar (or restaurant) for most of it tells of how she is dying from lung cancer.

In which case, they'll have to do away with publicly funded health care facilities and services, and leave them to be run entirely by the free market (a libertarian's dream, no doubt).

Where you had no business fighting a war in the first place.

"Bill K." wrote in message news:rK4I9.42326$[email]...

And your point would be...? A lot of things are known to be toxic in certain concentrations but not others. Show me a cigarette powerful enough to pose a significant lung cancer risk via second-hand smoke, and I'll show you a cigarette strong enough to kill the first-hand smoker on impact.

Which only goes to show that if you repeat a lie often enough, eventually people start accepting it as truth. Believe it or not, some people get lung cancer without inhaling any tobacco smoke at all. Of course the one who worked in a smoky bar will be inclined to blame it on that, but there's no statistical evidence to back the assertion up. A few years back, the World Health Organization spiked a study on the subject because they saw it was not going to produce the desired result; in fact, it even had some evidence that second-hand smoke may have a mild protective effect!

more

Better than the fascist's dream of using the existence of public funding for X as an excuse to regulate Y. For all you or I know, smokers probably save the government money by dying early in retirement.

That's a laugh - they chew up max bucks with their health care needs.

What a perfect rightwingnut post: "dying is good for you".

Whoever said anything about dying from inhaling the smoke of a single cigarette? We're obviously talking about regular and repeat exposure with the poisons building up in the lungs over a period of many years or decades.

Oh, please! Exposure to second-hand smoke has no significant effect on the chances of getting lung cancer. It's just another Chicken Little tactic from the militant anti-smoking crowd.

The farting analogy is good. And I don't know if 2nd-hand smoke is or is not hurting me. I don't want to take the chance, and that stuff smells like cat shit. I know a real good fart kills anyone's appetite except the passer's. Even a non-odorous belch can do it. And I know! My eructations are operal!

It's called college.

I'm sick and tired of people BLINDLY worshipping "the market" as if it's the greatest thing since passing wind.

Hey, I got started over 30 years ago.

Try talking to them. Oh, they do love their guns! But try to get them to support any kind of change in drug laws, and they get all, "Nope! You're just an old hippie! I won't support any changing the drug laws!"

Were you there at the time? Do you know anything about 1965-72 except what you're told?

"D.G. Porter" wrote in message news:[email]...

or,

dictating

become

I know, it's not popular among those who would prefer to shove stuff down everyone else's throat.

I'm no

comparing

No, they don't (or at least, they'll never admit that). The groups I mentioned are more interested in *mine*.

Whoever "they" are, be they gun-libertarians like the NRA or the gun-fascists like HCI, their agendas are limited to gun control, for or against. AFAIK, none of these groups have any position on drug legalization.

Oh, I forgot to add -- they controlled EVERY level of local government when I was a kid, and mostly still do -- it's Newport Beach, Costly Mesa, Huntington, Irvine, county board, school boards, etc. Same as then in North County where we live now too.

"D.G. Porter" wrote in message news:[email]...

party

For those unfamiliar with Southern California, may I point out that all four of the cities he mentioned are in Orange County, California, which has long been known as a Republican stronghold (IOW, not exactly a representative sample of the U.S. as a whole, then or now). I might add that even so, the stereotypes about Republican Orange County can be overblown. Our largest city, Santa Ana, is a Democratic stronghold, and even "Republican" Irvine just re-elected Larry Agran, a liberal Democrat, as its mayor.

When I lived there, I actually heard people say with a straight face that ronald reagon was the greatest president the country had ever had.

Oh, there are people all over who still say that. That's why we have a Smirking McChimpface in the White House and a slim Repub majority in Congress. "If-fool me--you can't get fooled again!" GET READY FOLKS! Orange County has gone national!

This is true. Santa Ana has become a Democrat stronghold, but only since 1996. Before then, Robert K. Dornan represented the place. You know,t hat asshole who said he saw a "tide of EVIL sweeping across America" when he lost (again) in '98.

My "representative" is Ed Royce, who, for every year he was in the state legislature, introduced a reslution calling for California to call for a constitutional convention to dump our present Constitution.

We also have sent people like Robert Badham, William Dannymeyer and John Schmitz to Congress, and that infamous closet dork John Briggs to Sacramento. Currently repsenting Newport Beach --- Chris Cox[ucker].

You now have a federal government dominated by these guys -- you are going to get nationally what I grew up with locally. ENJOY, suckers!!!!!! BWAH HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

Maybe Dornan was right. :D You know, lose the battle, win the war. :)

"D.G. Porter" wrote in message news:[email]...

True. Liberals have rather liberal views, so you'd think the Motivation Corp. guy would do what he could to get the boys to take drugs, or at least get the voice to lobby for drug legalization, rather than get them to avoid them.

Anything to smear the liberals is justified to them nowadays, it seems. Lying to stop people from taking drugs is bad, but lying to stop them from becoming liberals is good, I guess.

So whatever happened to their "oh no, here are the oppressors--Christians, Republicans and Nazis" days? Have they since repented?

During the 1980 campaign there was a lot of talk about the ultra-religious right, but then everyone seemed to get scared, or cowed, and just shut up or went to sleep for 12 years.

And there's always the crowd that chants, "Don't vote, it only encourages them."

Get bent, you hippie!

-D

"In the end, there can be only one, and it may as well be me!"-Kenny (from Highlander: The Series)

I wondered if maybe they were just fucking w/ people's heads w/ that line? Because obviously all the drugs = terrorism bullshit is coming from the right, and Matt and Trey aren't stupid.

"D.G. Porter" wrote in message news:[email]...

"D.G. Porter" wrote in message news:...

Ends justtify the means was from the communist manifesto. That would be ultra-liberal.

Matt and Trey would be talking about today's left who don't want you to say some things, drive a certain type of vehicle or protect your own home.

Communists are not liberals in any sense of the word. You are subjected to misinformation. Liberalism is for freedom, not conformity. Conformity is a trait of conservatism. Like Maoism.

Well, as an older leftist, I can tell you with authority that those people are not leftist, they are just another kind of conservative.

You confuse economic theory with social practice.

"D.G. Porter" wrote in message news:[email]...

The way things are going, Liberalism is for FORCED freedom and FORCED tolerance {Death Camp of Tolerance, anyone?}, which is conformity under other names. Conservative protests about them... simply aren't tolerated by patrons of tolerance.

Well, let's test this.

Do you think that people should be "FORCED" to tolerate the existence of other ethnicities in public -- say on a bus or in a restaurant. In other words, I'm sitting at a table in a diner and a black family comes in. Do I have a right to get up and demand they be thown out, or do something similarly assholedness, just because I don't like their skin? (This is what some people say we are being "forced" to "tolerate.")

Do you think people should be FORCED to allow me to do what I want in the privacy of my bedroom with a consentual adult? In other words, do you think people like me should be allowed to have sex with another person of a different race, and in certain positions? Before you answer, did you know that Strom Thurmond's 1948 Presidential platform included statements opposing this freedom, and he was angry because he felt Truman was forcing the South to accept such "communistic" notions such as consensual interracial marriage?

Do you think people should be FORCED to not discriminate against disabled people as long as the disabled person can do the job a well as a non-disabled person. In other words, I'm not talking about a guy with no thumbs wanting to be a plumber. I mean a situation where a blind person could be a speech writer, and he is just as fluent with the language as any sighted person. (Also assuming that all top speechwriters have staff to look up stuff for their use, which they do. Peggy Noonan rarely works solo.) Remember, Homer was blind.

Do you think I should be FORCED to allow you to smoke marijuana in your own living room, or tobacco, in the same place?

In other words, do you think I should be FORCED to leave you alone if you are not committing any crimes and leaving me alone?

Now, see what's going on?

There are people out there who don't want to have to even sit in a diner with some other families, who want to tell you who you cannot marry, or how you cannot have sex, or use birth control, or what you may not drink, eat or smoke. THEY are the ones saying I am FORCING them to accept "MY" "loose" "standards."

I know a guy (younger than me FWIW) who is as gay as all get-out, who is "married" to the same guy for decades, and they live a plain grey modest middle-class monogamous life. There are some people in his state who would like to lock his ass away (and his partner's) for years because of that. What do you think of this?

Do you think adults should be ale to smoe anything they like in their homes? Conversely, do you think I have a right to smoke-free dining space in a public diner if tobacco smoke makes me ill and want to puke?

It comes down to what you mean by "FORCING" people to do -- because some people just aren't happy until they FORCE someone to conformn to their own lifestyle. It's just as bad when PETA gets on my ass as it is if the KKK gets on it. PETA can't stand me feeding tuna to our cat -- the Klan can't stand it that they can't demand "whites only" diners.

People who tend to bash "liberals" these days don't know what real reichwingers were/are like.

You watch too much TV.

You really should get your facts straight before posting follow-ups.

I've got my facts. Where do you get yours -- your ass?