http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2005-10-07T145044Z_01_HAR647328_RTRUKOC_0_US-QAEDA-JOBS-ODDS.xml

Al-Quaeda is recruiting. Why dont you go join them in the fight against your "great satan" aka the country that gave you everything.

10/9/2005 2:14:39 PM

10/9/2005 2:15:07 PM

dude, just because liberals are wrong doesn't mean that they're evil or unamerican.

just like being not being liberal doesn't make you smart (read: you).

10/9/2005 2:24:23 PM

Do they offer healthcare?

10/9/2005 2:26:58 PM

That and some sort of savings plan would be the deal breaker for me.

I don't hate America quite enough to give up so many benefits.

10/9/2005 3:10:56 PM

Quote :

"dude, just because liberalslibertarians are wrong doesn't mean that they're evil or unamerican."

10/9/2005 3:17:07 PM

Quote :

"Al-Quaeda is recruiting. Why dont you go join them in the fight against your "great satan" aka the country that gave you everything."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

If you weren't so hopelessly dumb, I'd try and explain to you the great irony in what you said.

10/9/2005 3:19:25 PM

damn i hate freedom

10/9/2005 3:39:28 PM

FO BIGL MY NIGL!!

10/9/2005 3:39:59 PM

i liked america a lot more before i realized it spawned tha big girl

10/9/2005 3:44:39 PM

^^^^

haha, didn't even notice that

10/9/2005 3:45:59 PM

NIGL WHAT?

10/9/2005 3:46:22 PM

how does that not make sense

libbies wouldnt be able to run their mouths if this country wasnt the way it is. they should be more appreciative of those who gave them the right to be ignorant.

10/9/2005 4:42:54 PM

Quote :

"they should be more appreciative of those who gave them the right to be ignorant."

Ironically, those people were liberals.

10/9/2005 4:44:42 PM

They were terrorists too

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 4:52 PM. Reason : OMG, BRITIAN GAVE US EVERYTHING]

10/9/2005 4:51:04 PM

OMG NO THEY DIDNT DO ANY FORM OF TERRORISM, AND THIS GUY WILL TELL YOU THAT FOR CERTAIN:

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=349623&page=2#7640580

10/9/2005 5:10:42 PM

Quote :

"they should be more appreciative of those who gave them the right to be ignorant. "

Yeah, and if all Americans were as conservative as you we'd still be flying the Brittish flag.

10/9/2005 5:11:45 PM

NO, THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE NOT DIRTY LIBERALS THEY WERE WONDERFUL MEN LIKE GEORGE DUBYA

why does it take a thread like this to get you people to say stuff like this?

10/9/2005 5:12:57 PM

True conservatives were in favor of the rebellion. You see, the British were becoming too liberal and wanted to force it upon the colonists. What could we do but start a revolt? We had rights as british subjects and they were being violated by the British Government, do we need to paint a picture?

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 5:39 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2005 5:38:50 PM

i always looked at it as:

liberals= desire to change the current system to better fit everyones needs
conservatives=maintain the system and traditional ideals to serve everyones needs

thus, the patriots leading the opposition were liberal, while the loyalists are the example of conservatism.

once again, theres more to it than economics. concecpts, not just numbers.

10/9/2005 5:44:15 PM

They were more like rightist liberals.

In America we fuse conservatism w/ the right and liberalism w/ the left. All liberal/conservative means is whether you want progress or the satus-quo/regression. Left v. right involves the role of gov't.

The British were rightist conservatives.

10/9/2005 5:58:55 PM

And my argument that the only way to preserve the status quo was the revolt is just dropped by the wayside? I think not.

What if I point out that many southerners joined the revolt because they believed the British were going to outlaw slavery?

10/9/2005 6:34:54 PM

WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS

WHAT WAS JOHN ADAMS'S POSITION ON SCHOOL BUSING?

10/9/2005 6:45:49 PM

I'm pretty sure that we can all agree

that if the founding fathers saw America today

they would bitchslap every single last one of us, left or right.

10/9/2005 6:54:55 PM

^^^^you mean like a right-leaning libertarian? i probably wouldn't argue against that (although you don't have to twist my arm to view the founding fathers as being fairly politically aligned with myself)

that said...

^i don't really care too much what the founding fathers would think. it's not their show anymore, and they designed the system so that it wouldn't have to be.

10/9/2005 7:37:40 PM

i mean, the first time a black guy did not address them as Sir

he would probably catch a bullet or a dagger to the dome from ye olde founding fathers

10/9/2005 7:40:10 PM

that part of them wasn't liberal because blacks couldn't vote or do you think that if alive today, they'd be kissing black babies like it was going out of style?

10/9/2005 8:08:42 PM

i mean, they did kiss slaveholders asses because they were a large voting bloc

so probably

10/9/2005 8:11:18 PM

yeah you fucking liberals. why don't you go join the al-qaida because we know you're all on their side anyway. fucking democrats

10/9/2005 8:49:32 PM

10/9/2005 8:49:44 PM

The funny thing is that the way most of you talk, both the liberals and the conservatives you really speak

Libertarian ideas...

you just don't know anybetter or even what the difference is.



[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 8:57 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2005 8:56:23 PM

Capital "L" Libertarians




And LoneSnark: Eh, I guess? But wouldn't you say revolutions inherently liberal?



[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 10:34 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2005 10:23:27 PM

yes, capital L

they want a gun under every pillow and the fire department privatized

10/9/2005 10:35:22 PM

libertarianism is good

Libertarianism is bad

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 10:36 PM. Reason : ^^^and most of the people on this forum know what libertarianism is]

10/9/2005 10:35:35 PM

I believe THABIGL is referring to the ultra liberals, like Soros and Churchill.



[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 10:44 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2005 10:43:31 PM

^

Quote :

"THABIGL: Why dont you go join them"

Soros is reading this?

Dude, Mr. Soros-- can I have some money?



[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 10:46 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2005 10:45:46 PM

why does the big girl make threads and then never posts in them?

10/9/2005 10:47:19 PM

I love how Libertarians are always trying to tell people that theyre really Libertarians and just dont know it.

And lastly what the hell is the purpose of trying to circumbscribe the founders as a whole with modern day political definitions?

10/9/2005 10:50:12 PM

^ its funny.

10/9/2005 10:51:27 PM

i'd say that there ARE a lot of people who are rather libertarian and just don't know it

but there are NOT many people who are Libertarian and just don't know it

the libertarian message sells itself rather well. Libertarians manage it fuck it all up and squander their political opportunities.

10/9/2005 10:52:44 PM

I don't think liberal/conservative left/right are inapplicable.

I'd agree that it is irrelavant, though.

10/9/2005 10:55:32 PM

Can we just call them paleolibertarians so we dont have to worry about capitalization so much?

And on second thought, Jefferson would definately be a republican since he always managed to do almost the exact opposite of what his stated ideals were.

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 10:59 PM. Reason : ]

10/9/2005 10:56:23 PM

Don't hate.

10/9/2005 11:04:20 PM

The Libertarians are just another hack 3rd party

10/9/2005 11:12:08 PM

10/9/2005 11:14:48 PM

im not black and im not a girl, so good try there leftie

get back to your school work and let the real men deal with our problems

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 11:17 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2005 11:17:01 PM

its tough to say, boonedocks... i don't think that the act of revolution itself is inherently liberal, but I think it is usually used by liberals. The revolution that toppled the USSR couldn't really be considered "liberal," could it, since its hard to get more liberal than communism. Also, I don't know how to classify the american revolution, or any revolution from the monarchies of old europe, except for the creation of the USSR, obviously.

10/9/2005 11:17:21 PM

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 11:18 PM. Reason : damnit ^^]

10/9/2005 11:17:42 PM

actually, the revolution that toppled the soviets was very liberal, it just wasnt very leftist.

liberal= change
conservative= retain

the people opposing reformers like gorby were conservative leftists (ie: wanted no change to the system). gorby was a liberal (ie: supported reform to the system). i think thats the best way to put it into perspective.

you can be a liberal rightist and a conservative leftist, or vice versa

[Edited on October 9, 2005 at 11:22 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2005 11:20:53 PM

Quote :

"The revolution that toppled the USSR couldn't really be considered "liberal," could it, since its hard to get more liberal than communism."

Well at the time the old order were leftist conservatives, in that they were communist (left) but pro-status quo (conservative). The status quo was far-far-left, which makes it confusing when we're used to associating liberalism and leftism.

10/9/2005 11:23:04 PM