I made a reply to a post by ALIENated which he deleted, so I decided to post it here for all to see:

Why, oh why do conservatives have to appear so stupid?  If you guys could put forth intelligent arguments for conservatism instead of making up false caricatures of liberalism you might get somewhere with the half of the country that laughs at you when you write and talk like that.  It's the reason that Ann Coulter is a joke.

Illogical idealism? Give me a break.  If your idea of conservative logic extends to torture, death squads, spying on Americans and taxing the hell out of our future--as always happens when the Republicans get in control--then your idealism sucks as well.

Conservatives think they see the world for what it really is.  Perhaps they do, since all can imagine are people who are as emotionally and spiritually bankrupt as themselves.  I see conservatives as the gutless neanderthals who lack the courage to make the world a better place.  Speaking of which, when you think you're seeing the world the way it really is you're forgetting to include the many, many people who are willing to give a go at leaving something better behind than a legacy of murderous wars.

Conservatism is defended by people who are just stupid and illogical as those "bleeding heart liberals" you love to caricaturize.  And conservatives can't even walk their own walk.  Why don't you tell me how many billions we've wasted on this Iraq business?  How is that conserving anything?  Now tell me how much safer the world is for democracy?  Democracy, by the way, is the last thing conservatives are interested in so it's just fricking hilarious when they talk about spreading it around the world.

So, when you get out your bat to beat up on liberal caricatures just remember that there are lots and lots of people out in "the real world" who think you're just as idiotic.


del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • silverwhisper said on Dec 15, 2006....
    kelly: you know, i was gonna do the same but you beat me to it. nicely done!

    ed
  • SeanRenaud said on Dec 15, 2006....
    Oh my fucking god.  This is fucking hilarious
  • SeanRenaud said on Dec 15, 2006....
    Damn cutt off
     
    Oh my fucking god, this is fucking hilarious.  An old adage about Pots and Kettles comes to mind as I read this.
  • refugeeboy said on Dec 15, 2006....
    Um, I think you're beating this issue to death.  I agree very much with the first paragraph, but the rest is a little too much for my tastes.
  • silverwhisper said on Dec 15, 2006....
    refugeeboy: it's considerably shorter however than its inspiration, though. :>

    ed
  • bloc said on Dec 15, 2006....
    don't worry. kelly will be disappeared and tortured shortly. The world will be safe again for democracy and freedom once kelly is deleted. long live conservatism!
  • bloc said on Dec 15, 2006....
    I'm sorry, did I say the forthright truth? What I meant to say was that kelly will be extraordinarily renditioned and coercively interrogated for hating freedom.
  • silverwhisper said on Dec 15, 2006....
    no no no: for hating our freedoms. and success, don't forget that one, you ungrateful traitorous scum! :D

    ed
  • bloc said on Dec 15, 2006....
    war is peace
    freedom is slavery
    ignorance is strength


  • NobodySpecial said on Dec 15, 2006....
    I swear every website I go on has some kind of liberal-conservative war going on here. I love it.
  • curmudgeon said on Dec 15, 2006....
    At this point I hvaen't read Alienated's post.
     
    I must say that spewing anti-conservative bile and invective hardly counts as the intellectualism liberals so pompously think they have the monopoly on.
     
    But then again, that's hardly a surprise. Liberals generally have so little to offer that once their meager and haggard and hackneyed proposals are exhausted, they turn to insult.
     
    Indeed, many congratulations on such an original and inspiring post.
     
    By the way - the tag "verbiage" is mispelled. Guess I forgot to forward my admiration of the liberal level of literacy.
  • bloc said on Dec 15, 2006....
    you should read alienated's first. I'm waiting to see if you post the same sort of tirade there ;)
  • SeeingRed said on Dec 15, 2006....

    "...leaving something better behind than a legacy of murderous wars". Kelly, it is safe to assume in general, as you have-liberals in general are democrates and republicans are conservative. The following is a history lesson:The following presidents were in office when the U.S. initiated war-World War I, Woodrow Wilson-Democrat-World War II,F.D. Roosevelt-Democrat-Korean War,Harry S Truman-Democrat-Viet Nam-John F Kennedy-Democrat.

  • SeeingRed said on Dec 15, 2006....

    "...leaving something better behind than a legacy of murderous wars". Kelly, it is safe to assume in general, as you have-liberals in general are democrates and republicans are conservative. The following is a history lesson:The following presidents were in office when the U.S. initiated war-World War I, Woodrow Wilson-Democrat-World War II,F.D. Roosevelt-Democrat-Korean War,Harry S Truman-Democrat-Viet Nam-John F Kennedy-Democrat.

  • NobodySpecial said on Dec 15, 2006....
    Those were really US instigated wars weren't they. As far as I remember WWI was started by a assassination. WWII was when the Japanese bombed pearl harbor. Korea was when we saved the South Koreans Asses from the communist North. Vietnam, well have you ever heard of something called the Vietcon?
  • BlueOrchid said on Dec 15, 2006....
    "making up false caricatures of liberalism"                             
    Um, kelly. Aren't you doing the EXACT same thing here?
  • bloc said on Dec 15, 2006....
    it was really johnson (democrat) that started what we know of as the vietnam war with the lie that was the gulf of tonkin incident. Vietnam was a travesty for sure.

    However, assuming kelly is a democrat (or that liberalism equals democrats) may turn out to be a mistake. More importantly, detailing history from many years ago doesn't really say anything about where the parties are today. I think it's safe to say the republicans from the past would be very unpleased with the republicans of today (spending hikes, torture, government in private matters, the padilla powers, etc)
  • kelly said on Dec 15, 2006....
    silverwhisper:  It's your turn next time.  :-)

    BlueOrchid: Yes.  Bingo.  Consider it an attempt to make conservative hacks see how they appear.  A failed attempt.  (See curmudgeon's comment).

    curmudgeon:  It was most likely a conservative commenter who tagged this post "excessive verbage." [sic]

    bloc:  Spot on.


  • refugeeboy said on Dec 15, 2006....

    Isn't the Internet wonderful?  Entire arguments can now be easily rebutted by showing the person made a typo or misspelled a word.

    Yes, I was the one who added that tag.

  • refugeeboy said on Dec 15, 2006....
    bloc: Let's not forget the weird games both parties now play with sex and crude jokes.  You have the really prudish Republicans, and the really crude ones.  You have the sexually "liberal" Dems, and the sexually sensitive ones.
     
    Also, it's not true that liberal == Democrat.  Greens are liberals.  Libertarians are (classical) liberals.  In some areas, Dems can be downright conservative in comparison to those two.
  • kelly said on Dec 16, 2006....
    refugeeboy: Hey, don't look at me. curmudgeon was the one commenting on the "verbage" thing and intellectual abilities. Personally, I aspire to be a spelling and grammar "Nazi" but I don't hold it against anyone if he makes an honest mistake.
  • xerendipity said on Dec 16, 2006....
    duh, just want to be free!
     
    I chose to be! Every being has their own preference on what kind of outlook in life they want to portray.
     
    Some of those who adhere to conservatism has their own good points though not that much with those who are sassy-liberal (jst a term).
     
    Just hate the word "torture" It's tormenting to the brain!
     
     
  • SeeingRed said on Dec 16, 2006....
    No Block-The Viet Nam War started in 1964- Kennedy was in office.1964-1975. I was in from 1968-1972. You must be a young fellow!
  • SeeingRed said on Dec 16, 2006....
    Those there is no misunderstanding of the aforementioned entry. The entire Vietnam War was from 1964-1975. Yes after KJFK was sadly taken,Johnson took over the helm. Then Nixon got us out in 1975. The rest is history.
  • bloc said on Dec 18, 2006....
    @seeingred
    On 27 July 1964, 5,000 additional military advisors were ordered to South Vietnam, bringing the total US troop level to 21,000. Shortly thereafter an incident occurred off the coast of North Vietnam that was destined to escalate the conflict to new levels and lead to the full Americanization of the war. source

    The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was a 1964 resolution of the U.S. Congress. It is of historical significance because it gave US President Lyndon B. Johnson approval, without a formal declaration of war, “To take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.” source

    I firmly stand by my statement that what most people refer to as the vietnam war (massive us troop levels) started under Johnson not kennedy. Both of the quotes above came from wikipedia
  • SeeingRed said on Dec 21, 2006....

    Bloc- Yes Block that is all factual but that is not what I addressed in my comment. I simply stated a fact that Kennedy got our butts into that mess.  That is a fact. May 1960-Communists organize National Liberation Front, with its Viet Cong fightingforce. U.S. advisers increased to 685.

    October 1961- Gen. Maxwell Taylor sent by President Kennedy as  special adviser to Vietnam. U.S. forces increased to 3,200.

  • bloc said on Dec 22, 2006....
    If you want to be technical then Truman, a democrat, is really the one who started vietnam and not kennedy

    "United States' involvement in Vietnam began during the Truman administration. On V-J Day 1945, Vietnamese Communist leader Ho Chi Minh declared independence, but the US announced its support of restoring French power."

    "Truman authorized $10 million in aid to the French, sending 123 non-combat soldiers to help with supplies"


    source
  • SeeingRed said on Dec 22, 2006....
    Bloc- You are pulling at straws here! Block in 1945 Truman announce support- But we were not INVOLVED- Involvement in Vietnam started May 1960-When communists organize National Liberation Front, with its Viet Cong fighting force. U.S. Advisers were increased to 685.  That is the begining of involement. You cannot logically, historically or factually extracate JFK from getting us INVOLVED in Vietnam. One cannot hide behind the verbiage of "US announced its support of restoring French power".  We did not have one boot on the ground over there. Bloc what is so technical about the facts of the early 60's. If you would like Bloc I'll do a blog piece - A chronology of the Vietnam War from the very begining in 1960 to Jan. 23, 1973 When Nixon announces ceasfire pact. Also Bloc, you sound like an intelligent peson I'm curious why you so dearly want to keep JFK's hands clean of all this when history proves otherwise.
  • SeeingRed said on Dec 22, 2006....
    Bloc before you jump on it! allow me to clarify boots- Meaning combat boots such as those that were sent by JFK in October of 1961 to the tune of 3,200 Enjoy the holidays!
  • bloc said on Dec 22, 2006....
    "You cannot logically, historically or factually extracate JFK from getting us INVOLVED in Vietnam."

    We were paying for 80% of the costs of the french war under truman and before jfk. Paying 80% of the costs of a war is involvement by any definition of involvement that I know of! So we were involved before jfk. Yes, he continued that involvment and sent the first us soldires, but in very small numbers.

    Here is what you said two comments ago: "I simply stated a fact that Kennedy got our butts into that mess."

    Truman go our butts into that mess, kennedy got it a little deeper into that mess, and truman got it really deep into that mess.

    I don't care about kennedy at all. No matter which of these three we pick they are all democrats which is the point you were originally making. Kennedy was certainly a part of this puzzle, but truman got us involved (paying for 80% of the french war) and johnson got us heavily involved (500,000 american troops on the ground). I'm sure kennedy would have sent large numbers of troops if he would have been around long enough.

    Here it is simply
    truman: sent massive amounts of money to help the french fight in vietnam
    jfk: sent a few thousand special forces to fight with and train South Vietnamese soldiers in guerilla warfare
    johnson: sent massive numbers of american soldiers to vietnam (500,000 plus)

    All of these were democrats and all of these played a role in our involvement so your original point still holds. I don't know what your arguing about?
  • SeeingRed said on Dec 29, 2006....
    JFK!
  • Benicareece said on Feb 03, 2007....

    Hi Kelly, you are a breath of fresh air!lol very funny too.

    For bloc and seeing red. Gentlemen your history knowledge is indeed creative and very comical. Eisenhower was the first US president to send our troops to Vietnam. Kennedy inherited that along with the pay of pigs operation. Both under the control, with Eisenhower's blessing, of Richard Nixon. Kennedy had ordered the DOD to remove all troops from Vietnam. The withdrawal was in progress when he was shot, one month later. It's a matter of public record

    Benita Harris

    LT COL.

    US ARMY, Retired

  • bloc said on Feb 04, 2007....
    What is comical about my knowledge of history? Please do point out what is so funny about the historical points I've listed.

    You are correct that Eisenhower sent some advisors to vietnam. I had forgotten because they were such a small number, but I don't find this one little oversight comical. And, I really don't find your underhanded insult comical.
  • SeanRenaud said on Feb 04, 2007....
    Don't get your panties in a knot Bloc, this guy felt the need to remind us of his rank.  I mean damn.
  • bloc said on Feb 04, 2007....
    And I felt the need to remind the non full bird that rank isn't a shield you can hide behind outside of the military ;)
  • SeanRenaud said on Feb 04, 2007....
    Well honestly its not like I respect ANYBODY in the army.  (least not for that reason) but still.
  • Benicareece said on Feb 05, 2007....

    What was comical?--Seeing red said Vietnam war started in 1964 and Kennedy was in office then. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 There were a lot more from both of you, and it was funny, especially to an Historian.

    Typical tactics for childish, in-mature, conservatives;when people don't agree with what you say and think, Insult them!!!! Does that make you feel like a grown up?

    This Col could of also left phd and another long line of accomplishments. I most proud of my rank and service to my country. Especially since I didn't have a commission and started out as an E-1. I also did 2 tours in Vietnam.

    History is written by the victors. Unfortunately, History books are often written by people who have an agenda. Don't believe everything you read. I was taught, if you can't verify your info by a least 3 different independent sources, then it is of little use.

    You do a huge dis-service to our country. This nasty conservatism, is responsible for the mess this country is in. Our grandchildren and their children will have to pay the price, for that kind of hatefulness.

     

     

  • bloc said on Feb 05, 2007....
    "Typical tactics for childish, in-mature, conservatives;when people don't agree with what you say and think, Insult them!!!!"

    Are you referring to me?
  • xerendipity said on Feb 11, 2007....

    It's nearly VALENTINES day! It's time to be very bitchy virgins!

    Take a look at www.writinerary.com

  • Mr.Sunshine said on Feb 18, 2007....
    is this discussion getting a little to personally, are we still fighting for the best idea? Or is this just a mod bath, in which at the end nobody knows who started it.
    Usually, when we are sovereign, how do we react to a unpolished comment? 
    Let's try to turn enemys into friends again and see if we can get out that mess and get a clear picture about the future and our responsibilities.
    Mr. Sunshine

Comment on "The Disadvantages of Being Conservative"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Comment Anonymously

Science and propaganda merge in global warming "debate."...
Every week, I delve into our local city entertainment/op-ed/newspaper....

And no one even seems to care.

...





Even Chris Mathews at MSNBC is starting to question Obama.




...