It doesn't appear to me and to others that the liberals of today are all about individual rights.
CASES IN POINTS: Liberals are food police (How they become all obsessive about people eating a cup of French Fries with saturated fats.) , thought police (How they only want to give you the one side of every story. Just like how the liberal professors are brainwashing people in college.) , and speech (Remember the Fairness Doctrine they wanted to instate/ still probably want to instate it) police.
Not to mention they also want to intrude on our Constitutional 2nd Amendment right and take away our guns.
Doesn't this seem to echo communism to you?
It seems like an oxy moron to call liberals "liberals" these days.
Why don't we those call those certain types of liberals for what they really are?
They're OPPRESSSIVES.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
2007-11-21 08:01:28 · 23 answers · asked by GOD BLESS AMERICA/ANTI LIB 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
ERROR: 2nd to last sentence.
CORRECTION:
Why don't we call those certain types of liberals...
2007-11-21 08:03:18 · update #1
I'm a liberal and I don't care what or how much you eat, I actually believe you're entitled to your own opinion (and I don't want to oppress YOU), I own a gun AND know how to use it. So how am I oppressive?
I truly believe you have every right to generalize, that falls under your right to free speech.
2007-11-21 08:10:49 · answer #1 · answered by katydid 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Still assuming no "WWE" advantage: Terry Funk. As I said before, if he couldn't out-wrestle you he'd out-fight you. If he couldn't out-fight you, he'd out-"crazy" you. Bret Hart. Hate to see Dynamite leave so soon, but the Hitman would just out-wrestle him and make him tap to the Sharpshooter. Sting. A little better wrestler than Savage, I think. Sting would win by submission to the Scorpion Deathlock. Chris Benoit. Damn...what a match-up! Chris' strength advantage would be the difference here. Dean would eventually tap to the Crippler Crossface. Kurt Angle. As great as Owen was, so is Kurt. Kurt's meaner and more ferocious. No submission here, Kurt would just have to wear Owen out and pin him. Hulk Hogan. Hogan CAN wrestle. He's bigger and stronger than Austin, too. The Undertaker. Shawn's good, real good. I just think the Undertaker can beat him. Ric Flair. Flair had no trouble out-wrestling the big guys. The Rock would be no different.
2016-05-24 22:23:23 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For the record, I completely disagree with most liberals as far as the second amendment goes.
All the other stuff you brought up sounds like crazy talk though. I think it's doctors not liberals who want to ban transfats..
But let's not forget where most of the attacks on our personal freedoms are coming from these days.
Or are you the kind that says it's ok to lose freedom for safety? Put another way, if it could be shown that gun control made you safer (and I agree it doesn't) would you go with it? Are you against gun control because it makes you less safe or because it is a violation of the Constitution?
That's an important distinction. I'm against both gun control discrimination and drug control and all the other abuses of our personal freedoms that you guys call family values.
It goes without saying that I'm against the Patriot Act.
2007-11-21 08:11:05 · answer #3 · answered by buster 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, though I believe the same could be said for some conservatives as well. I don't like gun-grabbing liberals any more than I do gay-bashing conservatives. I must say, that when the debates in the 90's over smoking started, I said to a friend that once they ban smoking they'll come for our food next. And so they did. I really hate being right sometimes...
2007-11-21 09:13:42 · answer #4 · answered by maolcolm 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, please.
Let's vote that onto the PC board.
We're living in a time where we're being asked to be ashamed of our country, our patriotism, our belief in God, our participation in traditional holidays, our mores, ourselves.
While all the while, we have the notion that the corruption of the Clintons should be accepted as commonplace forced upon us and the idea that they are in fact superior role models being shoved down our throats.
2007-11-21 08:30:29 · answer #5 · answered by wider scope 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely!!!
Case in point...
In San Fransicko they are seriously talking about
banning the home fireplace!
So much for the family gatherings around a warm
toasty fire on a cold winter's night!
2007-11-23 10:22:09 · answer #6 · answered by realitycheck 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your "CASES IN POINTS" are nothing of the kind. It's easy to win a debate when you're responding to what you claim the other person said.
Are you really falling back on the old "liberals will take your guns" argument? That was a cliche 40 years ago.
As for your apparent hero, Michael Savage, I can only say that the man is in dire need of a check up from the neck up.
2007-11-21 08:11:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
umm actually it is the public that has become food police.
some things in life, the public find non-negotiable, and that includes healthy food, contaminate-free food, and food free of food-borne pathogens. The government and industries that process our food, only respond to the will of the majority in this matter, sorry that you hate being part of the minority!
The sooner you wake up and realize you are only parroting fringe views, the better.
The only thing that forces what is available to you in the way of food, is your lack of preparing your own, and the idea of supply and demand that governs what is on the grocery store shelf.
2007-11-21 08:19:16 · answer #8 · answered by Boss H 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, they are not any more oppressive than those who wish to legislate marriage or so-called moral behavior.
The things you mentioned have nothing to do with holding of all property in common, so no echoes of Communism at all.
That is like saying those in favor of privatizing government programs by corporations are all Fascists.
2007-11-21 08:13:24 · answer #9 · answered by Think 1st 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Why do we still refer to people as pro-choice instead of calling them pro-death?
Why are strippers referred to as 'Exotic Dancers' instead of calling them what they really are?
Why are Muslim teens who rape,pillage and plunder referred to as 'Youths' instead of saying they're Muslims?
Because no one wants to hear the truth anymore they only want to hear what sounds unoffensive to the ear because they themselves are wrong in the head and cannot bear the thought of having to be judged for their own immorality.
And yes that is Communist when you are being told by the mentally ill what you can and cannot eat along with what you can and cannot think.
And now beginning in January 2008 the Homosexuals are going to be allowed into California's public Schools to teach children from Kindergarten on up to the 12th grade how to be gay.
And it will no longer be acceptable to refer to parents as 'mom and dad' and only 'opposite sex parent and same sex parent' will be allowed and all of the text books will have to be rewritten to be gay friendly showing same sex couples wherever it shows a mom and dad.
This bill was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger SB-777 and they also made it a hate crime to oppose this by the School Administration or by the Parents and any School which refuses to allow them onto School property to teach homosexuality to our children will not receive State funding and will have to be closed down because of it.
Yes we are becoming a Communist Nation along with a deteoriating one at that.
2007-11-21 08:24:34 · answer #10 · answered by Adelaide B 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋