Thanks Chris!
on 09/10/2008 at 11:24 AM
That Telegraph article particularly interested me, Drew.
Of course the tawdry demagogue and his VP candidate (beg pardon, watchdog) underestimate Sarah. That stems from their vanity, a vanity that seems de rigeur among latterday leftist scum.
It is also their greatest weakness. As they frantically fondle themselves with their notion that everyone else is stupid, they may be blind-sided and demolished by any adversary worthy of his (or her) salt.
The more convincingly Sarah demonstrates this fact, the better, and she seems well equipped for the job in hand.
I see a real conservative, as in Churchill, I hope to god it is contagious, there seems to be a bug problem in the west, most people do not understand the ideals of the party they vote for, in north America there are lots of people I have met who think they are liberals, I have not before met such classic conservatives! Perhaps someone could define what Liberal is supposed to stand for?
Posted by Chris Edwards
09/10/2008 at 02:12 PM
What does “liberal” stand for? Depends on the vintage. Adlai Stevenson, for example, one of the most liberal men of his day, would look like an iron-bound conservative among current “liberals” (who would likely make him retch).
These days, the term may be safely used to denote anyone who stands for anything and everything that contributes to intellectual and moral decomposition, which perforce must lead to social decay and disintegration, and the dissolution of societal order.
The more clever and farsighted among these folk visualize a bastard utopia, wherein they will have latitude to do what they damn well please, and to anyone they damn well please, without ever taking responsibility for their actions. And we’ll all love one another, we’ll share one another’s burdens, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Among these may be found most of the PC pimps in their various stenches.
The less clever ones (who usually serve as a willing mob for their betters) don’t even bother to look as far as some perverted vision of utopia. They simply skip right ahead to the doing-what-they-damn-well-please, to-hell-with-responsibility part of it. It is no accident that criminals, taken as a class, are overwhelmingly “liberal” in such political sympathies as they can muster.
Concisely spoken, the specimens we may safely call “liberals” these days typically amount to post-civilizational savages, which are far worse than pre-civilizational ones.
Why is this so? Pre-civilizational savages have little knowledge of any kind. Post-civilizational savages have knowledge of every form of evil, which they treasure, while having the most hysterical hatred possible for any form of good.
The most dangerous Axis of Evil is our internal one: Liberals, criminals, and scum!
Where you find one of these three, you find all, invariably! The association rears its head day in, day out, as even a cursory glance at the newspapers or TV news can show you. The interest of one is just as invariably the interest of all.
Tannenberg
Your description fits the active libs, therin might be our problem, I would guess that the majority of dem voters would be shocked if they ever saw the reality of the liberal regeme 2008, as it is the lib politicians spout the “oh its all gone wrong, we must give the poor downtrodden criminals more then they wont need to rape and kill us” and the focus, yet again is on the poor implementation, not the dumb ideal. As you said Liberal 2008 is a critter way, way below Liberal 1945, then Mr Bush is a 2008 conservative way way lower than conservative Alaska 2008!!
For me, trying to escape from where there is no hope in sight, S Palin represents ethics and standards Ive not seen since early Thatcher. Sales of incontinence pads to 2008 liberals must have risen a bit the last week and the thought of Mrs Clinton spitting chips gives me a warm feeling!!Posted by Chris Edwards
09/11/2008 at 11:53 AM
