Comments on CONSERVATIVES ARE COMPLETELY CLUELESS ABOUT JUST WHAT DEMOCRACY IS

Go to Why can't I sue the whole country? - Add a comment - Go to CONSERVATIVES ARE COMPLETELY CLUELESS ABOUT JUST WHAT DEMOCRACY IS

janes

It matter not if what you said was true or not. Although I do not agree with you at all about the judges. You presented such things as being negative and you attitude and word usage was clearly that of someone conveying hatred for those things. You make it very clear you think such things as accepting people who have differing lifestyle is something you feel is very negative.
The post it self was talking about the simple fact that conservatives have made it very clear they have no grasp on what freedom and democracy are and that if they ahd there way we would loose many, many freedoms and the country would no longer be a democracy.
You have done all you could to not really address this issue though.
I see most of our problems coming from the conservative ideas of the past that we need to grow out of. I admit we are very lucky that enough liberal ideas are there to keep freedom alive, but the truth is that if the conservatives had the chance they would take that all away and leave us a ruin of country with no freedoms and no hope for the future.

posted by kooka_lives on May 22, 2005 at 7:40 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka, what I wrote was truth.

It is a fact that judges are adjudicating according to world opinion and their own personal whim.  It is true that the majority of news outlets are trending very liberal.  It is true that children from age five or younger are being required to read about a child's two mommies or two daddies.  If I were you, I would be clapping my hands to see these changes.  I guess I don't understand why you have such a chip on your shoulder, since a lot of "good" is happening that I'd think you'd be quite pleased with. 

I think what you saw in my writing was sarcasm more than hatred or anything else.  I'm amazed at how people like yourself continue to whine about conservatives, when in actuality it seems to me that the liberals are winning the cultural battle.  The people who are the most vocal in society, and who have the greatest ability to make wide ranging cultural changes in general happen to be very liberal.  Sure, right now the Republicans have control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, but who is in charge of the culture?  It ain't the conservatives!

Example: what cultural medium has the most influence over adolescents, teens and young adults?  Is it church? Or MTV?  A lot of these young people go to church on Sunday, but then spend hours on end watching MTV.  And what are they hearing/seeing on MTV?  The five or so minutes of MTV that I've watched over the last year hasn't impressed me as having a stitch of conservativism.

posted by JanesOpinion on May 22, 2005 at 6:41 PM | link to this | reply

janes

You said- "The tyrannical judges are ruling according to their own liberal whim (rather than constitutional law); the media (particularly newspaper and TV, but also some Cable and radio outlets) are antagonistic to anything evangelical or conservative and spew hatred on a regular basis; the school system is teaching kids from an early age that they should hate God and love the lifestyle of every gay Tom, Dick and Harry."

Show me where there is anything but the negative in those words. I have read that many times now and I can not see anything but hate for just about everyone who has a differing view than yours in it. There is also some serious paranoia there as well.

I need not twist your words to see that you have a some serious issues.

posted by kooka_lives on May 21, 2005 at 2:57 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka,

It doesn't matter what I say.  You will twist and turn the meaning of my words along with my original intention and turn it into a negative. 

So as I've asked myself many times . . . why bother?

posted by JanesOpinion on May 21, 2005 at 12:26 PM | link to this | reply

Janes

Please tell me how I am showing hate.
Unlike you I am not trying to preach the idea of not accepting people for who they are. Your comment very much was saying it is wrong for anyone to try for such an idea. You made it clear you hate a lot of different people. I express no hatred and I very much believe we should all accept each other for who we are. I believe in teaching acceptance, unlike you.

And yet once again all we see coming from you is an attempt to discredit. No attempt to really debate the issue and try to provide some kind of facts that go against what I say here. Do you even have a clue as to how a debate works?

The views expressed by you and other conservative are the true heart of the problems right now in our country and there is no doubt at all that such is true. This need to force others to follow their narrow moral code is not what freedom is all about.

posted by kooka_lives on May 20, 2005 at 8:05 PM | link to this | reply

Jethro, I haven't read the book by Farah.

But perhaps I should.  And I laughed at your comment about visiting Blogit and wondering why you do when it's always more of the same by the same.  My sentiments exactly! In fact, I have cancelled my subscription, which I'm sure Kooka will rejoice in knowing, but nonetheless will still be around a few more months until it runs out. Anyway, I found it so ironic comparing my "hateful comments" with kooka's supposedly NOT hateful comments.  I felt a need to look up the word "hate" in the dictionary because it seems to me that either he or I don't know the meaning of the word. 

From what I can tell, it's Kooka who has forgotten the meaning, although I am quite certain he will disagree.

posted by JanesOpinion on May 20, 2005 at 7:50 PM | link to this | reply

jethro

First off, Bush is an idiot. I don't care about IQ or any of that, the guy has no clue as to what this country needs and is fully focused on doing his little personal agenda and screwing the country over. That is not hate filled at all. I am calling him an idiot because he is destroying the future of my country and I am not going to be polite to someone who is doing that.

I am calling conservatives idiots for the same reason.

In-breed hick was being used as a descriptive term to give general sense of the stereotype that fits the idea of someone who would walk around with a shot gun every where they go. I am very puzzled as to why you would say that was hateful. It sounds more like you can not prove me wrong, but instead are trying to discredit me.

You see I have noticed one thing you and other conservatives do, you can not prove what is said wrong so you completely dodge the issue. Neither you nor janes address the real issue I put forth.

Are you trying to force you views on me and others? Just because you are not attending church has nothing at all to do with. You force your views by standing up for laws that take away human rights and force certain morals on people because you agree with them. You force your ideas on other by taking away their choices.

So where had liberal thinking failed? I am lost on this one. Liberal ideas have proven to work great around the world. So far conservative ideas have practically brought down Russia, which is why they are now looking to get away from them.

I was never in the 'cool crowd' at school nor did I ever have any desire to be. They were all conservative whack jobs. If you have not noticed I am far from being one to follow the crowd. I was never in any crowd at school. I had a few close friends who are still my friends now. I was and still am a true free thinker. I look at things and am fairly good and seeing what the problem is and what the real solutions are. Believe it or not, most of my views were formed before I ever really started to look at the political side of things. I do not listen to any of the political talk that is out there from either side. I am wondering just where you got such a strange idea from.

It is amazing that there are people like you who are more than willing to defend the conservative views as they sell away America's future and the freedom of the people. I am very much worried about where those ideas as going to take us and just how little freedom will be left for my children and grandchildren.

posted by kooka_lives on May 20, 2005 at 5:33 PM | link to this | reply

JanesOpinion

Have you been reading Taking America Back by Joe Farah? The reference to the boiling frog made me think of it.

posted by jethro on May 20, 2005 at 1:00 PM | link to this | reply

"the idiot Bush"  "the idiot conservatives" "in-breed hick" you spew hate? noooooooooooooooooooooooo.... Admit it, you have to laugh at yourself sometimes.

posted by jethro on May 20, 2005 at 12:57 PM | link to this | reply

With responses like that I don't need to argue anymore. Howard Dean could have done it better. And by the way, I haven't been to a church in more than a year. Any beliefs you feel I am forcing on you are born of logic and not religion. Liberalism has failed utterly, miserably, and embarrassingly the world around yet you seem to feel that conservatism is "outdated". Funny, you previously never struck me as the type that cared about being in the cool crowd at school.

posted by jethro on May 20, 2005 at 12:55 PM | link to this | reply

jethro

Why, you really have no clue at all do you?

Okay, how would you feel if suddenly the majority of Americans suddenly turned Hindu and started to push the idea that symbols of their faith be put in government buildings and they justified this by saying that most of America is Hindu now and so it only will bother a small percent is the government comes off as being based on Hindu ideas? They also try to make the claim that this is not saying the government is run by their religious beliefs nor does it symbolism any such thing by having the appearance of such, just sets up a good example?

No laws should be based off of religious beliefs. All laws should be based off of what is best to provide as many rights as possible for the people. That idiot Bush can practice his beliefs all he wants, but he better not come off as letting his religious beliefs run the country. Yet many of his supporters seem to wants such a thing to happen. They seem to very much wish to throw the constitution away and start using the bible to run the country by. Of course that really ends up not defending many, many of Bush's decisions, but as long as he is claiming to be a good Christian he can get away with so much more.

If a state banned eggs on Sundays that could also get ruled as unconstitutional. When the idiot conservatives here in Colorado passed very hate-filled and down right insulting bill about tens years back that basically said that anyone could very openly discriminate against homosexuals (Still have no idea how such a horrible thing ever won the vote by the people, most likely irrational fear of homosexuals and not understanding just what the bill did) in quickly got labeled unconstitutional and so is did not last long at all. I was very happy to see true democracy in actions at that point. The conservatives tried to take away freedoms from American citizens and it was stopped. Regulating the selling of alcohol really is just plan stupid. If the state is stupid enough to think such a law makes a difference then that is there problem. That kind of law really does not take away rights though. You can go and just buy the beer the day before. They can not say 'no one is allowed to drink beer on Sunday'. That would be going too far. As for the drinking age thing, that is one of the dumber things we have in action. Many problems would be solved if we got rid of the drinking age and took a cue from what we see everywhere else in the world where underage drinking is no where near the problem it is here. That kind of law also does not fit into your example because it is based on saying that before a certain age people in general lack the needed judgment skills (Although it seems to me that conservatives in general seem to never gain those skills) and so such laws are made to protect the young from making mistakes that could harm themselves and others.

You can carry a shotgun if you want as far as I am concerned. Of course anyone carrying a shotgun around with them all the time would fit the generic stereotype of an in-breed hick, but if that is the image you wish to convey then that is your right. If you wish to be practical a simple revolver makes much more sense Actually I am very much against gun control. In general if is proven that we would be safer if everyone was packing. I seem to be mostly liberal in my thinking, but as I have often tried to explain I believe the Democrats are only slightly smarter than the Republicans. Neither group really has a clue in the end.

In Janes little comment she shows her hatred for me, for media, for out judicial system, for our school and for homosexuals. All of what she says is the kind of blind propaganda that deals with hatred. Your problem is that you are so blind because you share those hatreds that you can not see them as being such. It is like those people who casually insult blacks and other minorities through racial stereotyping and slurs, but try to claim they are not spreading hatred by doing so. It is another example of just how conservative thinking is harmful. You guys hate a lot of things.

It i snot hate to point out that your way of thinking is harming the country. Why? Because ti is true for one thing. It has nothing to do with how you were born or you personal choices in life and everything to do with how you are trying to force your views and beliefs on everyone else through laws and by doing that take away freedom and destroy the foundations of democracy. If all the conservatives were doing was to live their lives as they wish and not attempt to force others to live by their views, I would have no problem with them. I very much believe that everyone has a right to live life as they need to as long as it does not take away the rights of others. And I do not judge people by their lifestyles or views, but by their actions and words. When I see someone like Janes there saying that it is wrong to teach any form of acceptance, I have an problem with that. It is not hatred, but caring about the greater good and the future that I show.

You sit and are trying to defend this abominable destruction of freedom. It is sad and to me it is signs of a sick mind. You are showing that you wish we did live in a theocracy and ahd not freedoms that did not fit in with your personal religion's preached rules. You make that very, very clear here. You have no grasp of what freedom is and seem to not care at all. You would sell away all the future of the country just in order to force your own out dated moral code on everyone else. That is what I meant by saying 'your kind is what is wrong with this country'. it is not hate, but straight out fact. I will stand up and defend freedom and democracy every step of the way because I believe in the future of the country. It scare me to see that Conservatives have no value for these kind of things and really care not about freedom of the future.

posted by kooka_lives on May 20, 2005 at 7:05 AM | link to this | reply

Is it me or does Kooka sound a little desperate?

I rarely get a chance to check into blogit anymore and I know that when I do I'll come across more of the same from well.....the same.

Where to start with this poorly thought out rant.

"Just because the majority of people believe in God, does not mean they are allowed to deny people freedom of beliefs by presenting any aspect of the country as being under any religious influence"

How humorous that this little nugget was part of a rant claiming the other side doesn't understand democracy. Let me get this straight, Kooka is being denied the freedom of his beliefs yet somehow miraculously his beliefs, or lack thereof appear before us right here on Blogit on a regular basis. It must be tough being so oppressed. "any aspect of the country as being under any religious influence"????? He must have downloaded his copy of the constitution from Moveon.org or what not. It's so cute when they get all in a tizzy about the first amendment. Calm down Kooka, all it says is that the govt. cannot MAKE A LAW REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT of a religion or PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.  Basically that means that Bush is free to exercise his religion and let it inform his decision making to his heart's content. He could start up the old fireside chat tradition and read his favorite passages from the bible to the whole country. As long as you have the right to turn the radio off you're NOT a victim. What he and Congress can't do is MAKE A LAW making Christianity, Islam, etc. the official religion of the U.S.. Nothing more and nothing less. Were Kooka's wishful thinking true then the founders of our country would have left all religious references out of their documents, buildings, oaths, etc.. Kooka knows that they surely didn't do this, so what he's going on about now is beyond me.

So the country couldn't ban eggs on Sunday. Not suprising, but a state surely could. If you are under the impression that just because the federal govt. can't make a certain law that some of its citizens could still be subject to said laws, then you've been listening to Kooka too long. We'll term this condition: 'Kooky' with a nod to our friend. All powers not expressly granted by the constitution to the U.S. and not prohibited to the states are left to the states. Maybe Kooka should swing through Indiana on a Sunday and try to pick up a case of beer at a liquor store. Can't, don't sell liquor on Sunday. Explain this please Kooka. Isn't that infringing on the rights of that minority that wants to stock up on Sunday? Did you ever try going to a liquor store to buy a case when you were 17?  I bet those enemies of democracy stepped on your rights. How's about buying cigarettes when you were 16? They kept you down then too. I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet that you're willing to infringe on my right to carry a shotgun down the street too. And that one's more or less spelled out in the bill of rights. What you mean when you say "people's rights" or "minorities' rights" is really just 'what liberals think sounds right'.

Lastly, you told JanesOpinion that you "spew no hatred" and then went on to say that her very mild post was "pure hatred". I really think liberals would not be getting the beatdown in popular opinion that they now are if you guys would stop being so hyper sensititive. Oprah wouldn't find any "hatred" in that post. That you could suggests a certain entrenched outlook on the world. And that outlook is sometimes called "the victim mindset".

The cherry on top is when you tell her: "your kind are what is wrong with this country." By her kind I'm guessing you mean conservative. Now try a little exercise. Pretend that I said that to a gay man, or a black man. Would you call that hate? Yes, yes you would. I would forever be a marked man and would likely never be able to run for public office. But when you aim such a comment at a conservative? Well that's all in a day's work. It's called blinded by ideology. We'll call it Kooky.

posted by jethro on May 20, 2005 at 4:41 AM | link to this | reply

Janes

I spew no hate at all. In fact reading your comment there all I see coming from you is pure hatred. Is there anything you do not hate?
How are the judges not following the Constitution? If anything I am finding there are too many TV shows that seem to be trying to over promote Christians ideas, while having no clue what Christians ideas really are. How are the schools teaching hate? Why do you have a problem with the idea of accepting people for who they are?

You very much are showing just what the present conservatives are like. reading you comment it is very clear you care not at all for freedom or democracy. your kind are what is wrong with our country, that much is as clear as can be. if we can get you to break away from these narrow, closed minded, out dated ideas and see what is need of unity and growth as a people, then we can start truly repairing this country from the damage that has been and is still being done by your way of thinking.

"but it will indeed be a vicious minority who lead the way in removing our freedoms."

How right you are, and they are called Christian Conservative fundamentalists. The whole goal of them is to take away every possible right and freedom people have until all citizens are more or less forced to live by their standards ,ad they standards alone.

posted by kooka_lives on May 19, 2005 at 10:23 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka's so darn fixated on his hatred for Christianity

and conservatives, that he hasn't even noticed that, in general, everything is trending in his favor in such a way that he should be clapping his hands.  The tyrannical judges are ruling according to their own liberal whim (rather than constitutional law); the media (particularly newspaper and TV, but also some Cable and radio outlets) are antagonistic to anything evangelical or conservative and spew hatred on a regular basis; the school system is teaching kids from an early age that they should hate God and love the lifestyle of every gay Tom, Dick and Harry. You get the drift.

There may be a majority of Americans who have these moral values and desire to live them, but it will indeed be a vicious minority who lead the way in removing our freedoms. Just like slowly boiling a frog.

posted by JanesOpinion on May 19, 2005 at 6:29 PM | link to this | reply

Conservatives don't want a democracy ... they want a theocracy ...

they believe God is acting through their leaders and God wants more logging trails in the pacific Northwest or for drilling in Alaska. I'm surprised some of these nutjobs haven't reintroduced prohibition and want to make divorce illegal.

posted by fwmystic on May 18, 2005 at 9:03 PM | link to this | reply

Interesting theory, kooka!

Well expressed,  sorry it doesn't fly. Look again at the fiasco in the Senate. Which party is refusing to allow votes by the full Senate? Which party has demanded for over four years that everything be done its way, regardless of who won the election? Which party is practicing a tyranny of the minority? Which party is using religion as a litmus test for judicial nominees, refusing to allow a full vote on those who practice the crassly incorrect religion of conservative Christianity?

posted by WriterofLight on May 18, 2005 at 7:56 PM | link to this | reply

kooka - Democracy works because the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are based on the rule of law and the Golden Rule. That's why you, on the left, and others on the right, have as much right to rant as do you. Just don't lose focus as the U.S. works to encourage democracy elsewhere so that enchained others are free to participate & rant.

posted by reasons on May 17, 2005 at 3:46 PM | link to this | reply