Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

For those who like to use Liberal as a dirty word

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • For those who like to use Liberal as a dirty word

    I know you like to use that word Liberal as if it were a crime.
    Republicans have tried to turn Liberal into a bad word.
    Well Liberals ended slavery in this country.
    Liberals got women the right to vote, Liberals got African Americans the right to vote.
    Liberals created social security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty.
    Liberals ended segregation.
    Liberals passed the civil rights act, the voting rights act.
    Liberals created medicare.
    Liberals passed the clean air act, the clean water act.
    What did conservatives do? They opposed every single one of those things, every one.
    So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, Liberal, as if it's something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from.
    It wont work, because I will pick up that label and wear it as a badge of honor.
    Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

  • #2
    [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif[/img]

    Comment


    • #3
      How many times are you going to post this?
      RIP Chris Jones 1971-2009
      You'll never be forgotten.

      Comment


      • #4
        QUOTE(JWB @ Nov 7 2005, 10:24 PM) Quoted post

        How many times are you going to post this?
        [/b][/quote]
        I think a few more would suffice....

        "Can't buy what I want because it's free...
        Can't buy what I want because it's free..."
        -- Pearl Jam, from the single Corduroy

        Comment


        • #5
          Is it wrong that I cried when I read that? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cubs.gif[/img]
          --Official Lounge Sponsor of Coach Mike Anderson, Colby Rasmus, and Pearl Jam.
          --Suck it cubbies.
          --Thanks to RBB for my kick ace avatar!!** --RETIRE #51!!!

          Comment


          • #6
            QUOTE(JWB @ Nov 7 2005, 10:24 PM) Quoted post

            How many times are you going to post this?
            [/b][/quote]
            So far, two. But madyaks really hates it when he posts something in a thread and doesn't think it gets noticed, so he has to go and create a brand new thread.

            Comment


            • #7
              It's going to be a shame when the press gets a wind of Josh's man love with Congressman Santos.

              Roll the video.

              Jeez. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif[/img]

              Even they won't be able to spin that one. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]

              Just kidding.

              FWIW:

              I loved Alan Alda's response to the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve (or whatever it's called) versus Oil question.

              He got my vote right there.

              Comment


              • #8
                Mr. Madyaks, what you've just posted is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in the Lounge is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
                Official sponsor of the phrase: "This post is useless without pics."

                Comment


                • #9
                  QUOTE(The Skeptic @ Nov 7 2005, 10:31 PM) Quoted post
                  It's going to be a shame when the press gets a wind of Josh's man love with Congressman Santos.

                  Roll the video.

                  Jeez. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif[/img]

                  Even they won't be able to spin that one. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]

                  Just kidding.

                  FWIW:

                  I loved Alan Alda's response to the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve (or whatever it's called) versus Oil question.

                  He got my vote right there. [/b][/quote]

                  His response was fuck the wild life for a years worth of oil, as I posted earlier on this subject, when Clinton wanted to open the strategic reserve he was called an idiot by the right, they said that a years worth of oil wouldn't change anything. But now it is a great thing to go that year worth of oil. Why? Because now some oil company gets to drill for it, ship it, and sell it.

                  It's the SAME amount of oil, but now it's a great idea, and the harm it will cause the wildlife has only just begun to be understood.



                  And for that he wins your vote.
                  Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    QUOTE(alter ego @ Nov 7 2005, 10:34 PM) Quoted post
                    Mr. Madyaks, what you've just posted is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in the Lounge is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. [/b][/quote]



                    All of it is true, and all of it is what we as Americans see as great things, we hold them up to the rest of the world to show how great our country is. And it was all done by people who at the time it was done were seen as too liberal.
                    Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      QUOTE(madyaks @ Nov 7 2005, 10:38 PM) Quoted post

                      QUOTE(alter ego @ Nov 7 2005, 10:34 PM) Quoted post
                      Mr. Madyaks, what you've just posted is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in the Lounge is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. [/b][/quote]



                      All of it is true, and all of it is what we as Americans see as great things, we hold them up to the rest of the world to show how great our country is. And it was all done by people who at the time it was done were seen as too liberal.
                      [/b][/quote]
                      You obviously haven't seen Billy Madison...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        madyaks:

                        Dude:

                        Take a step back from your liberal fog and research the impact that oil drilling in Alaska will do to the ecosystem.

                        It's miniscule.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          QUOTE(The Skeptic @ Nov 7 2005, 10:40 PM) Quoted post
                          madyaks:

                          Dude:

                          Take a step back from your liberal fog and research the impact that oil drilling in Alaska will do to the ecosystem.

                          It's miniscule. [/b][/quote]

                          We are not sure how bad it will be yet, we know it will effect the migratory routes of the caribou.

                          But why do it if the right said it wasn't enough oil to change anything when Clinton wanted to do it? You know why, because this oil must be drilled, and bill oil will be make money on it. If that's not it I'd like to know why it wouldn't change anything then, but it will now.
                          Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Americans Have Steadily Opposed Drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

                            The controversy over drilling in the Arctic Refuge -- the last piece of America's Arctic coastline not already open to oil exploration -- isn't new. Big Oil has long sought access to the refuge's coastal plain, a fragile swath of tundra that teems with staggering numbers of birds and animals. During the Bush administration's first term, repeated attempts were made to open the refuge. But time after time, the American public rejected the idea. Congress has received hundreds of thousands of emails, faxes and phone calls from citizens opposed to drilling in the Arctic Refuge, an outpouring that has helped make the difference. And polls have consistently shown that a solid majority of Americans oppose drilling; a December 2004 Zogby Survey found that 55 percent of respondents oppose drilling, and that 59 percent consider attaching this issue to the budget process to be a "backdoor maneuver."

                            Despite repeated failure and stiff opposition, drilling proponents press on. Why? Remarks from House majority leader Tom DeLay, in a closed-door session of House GOP leadership, reveal the true agenda. "It's about precedent," said DeLay. He believes that opening the Arctic Refuge will turn the corner in the broader national debate over whether or not energy, timber, mining and other industries should be allowed into pristine wild areas across the country. Next up: Greater Yellowstone? Our western canyonlands? Our coastal waters?

                            The drive to drill the Arctic Refuge is about oil company profits and lifting barriers to future exploration in protected lands, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with energy independence. Opening the Arctic Refuge to energy development is about transferring our public estate into corporate hands, so it can be liquidated for a quick buck.




                            Arctic Refuge Oil Is a Distraction, Not a Solution

                            What would America gain by allowing heavy industry into the refuge? Very little. Oil from the refuge would hardly make a dent in our dependence on foreign imports -- leaving our economy and way of life just as exposed to wild swings in worldwide oil prices and supply as it is today. The truth is, we simply can't drill our way to energy independence.

                            Although drilling proponents often say there are 16 billion barrels of oil under the refuge's coastal plain, the U.S. Geological Service's estimate of the amount that could be recovered economically -- that is, the amount likely to be profitably extracted and sold -- represents less than a year's U.S. supply.

                            It would take 10 years for any Arctic Refuge oil to reach the market, and even when production peaks -- in the distant year of 2027 -- the refuge would produce a paltry 1 or 2 percent of Americans' daily consumption. Whatever oil the refuge might produce is simply irrelevant to the larger issue of meeting America's future energy needs.




                            Handing On to Future Generations a Wild, Pristine Arctic? Priceless.

                            Oil produced from the Arctic Refuge would come at enormous, and irreversible, cost. The refuge is among the world's last true wildernesses, and it is one of the largest sanctuaries for Arctic animals. Traversed by a dozen rivers and framed by jagged peaks, this spectacular wilderness is a vital birthing ground for polar bears, grizzlies, Arctic wolves, caribou and the endangered shaggy musk ox, a mammoth-like survivor of the last Ice Age.

                            For a sense of what big oil's heavy machinery would do to the refuge, just look 60 miles west to Prudhoe Bay -- a gargantuan oil complex that has turned 1,000 square miles of fragile tundra into a sprawling industrial zone containing 1,500 miles of roads and pipelines, 1,400 producing wells and three jetports. The result is a landscape defaced by mountains of sewage sludge, scrap metal, garbage and more than 60 contaminated waste sites that contain -- and often leak -- acids, lead, pesticides, solvents and diesel fuel.

                            While proponents of drilling insist the Arctic Refuge could be developed by disturbing as little as 2,000 acres within the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain, a recent analysis by NRDC reveals this to be pure myth. Why? Because U.S. Geological Survey studies have found that oil in the refuge isn't concentrated in a single, large reservoir. Rather, it's spread across the coastal plain in more than 30 small deposits, which would require vast networks of roads and pipelines that would fragment the habitat, disturbing and displacing wildlife. (Click for a mapped scenario in pdf.)
                            Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              QUOTE
                              We are not sure how bad it will be yet, we know it will effect the migratory routes of the caribou.[/b][/quote]

                              HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

                              Oh my god.

                              Hahahahahaha.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X