On 24/10/2011 1:00 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/24/11 2:56 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 24/10/2011 10:39 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
I know by their postings that many conservatives here don't have a clue
what true liberalism is about. Harry doesn't have a clue, neither. So,
to clear things up, from Wiki:

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in
the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide
array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but
generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal
democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and
freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted,
even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal
ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual
trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical
liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social
liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.

Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment,
rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier
theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute
monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John
Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a
distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights
and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace
absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the
governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life,
liberty, and property.

The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution
used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical
rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in
nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas
spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies
triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges
from fascism and communism. Today, liberalism in its many forms remains
as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all
major continents.

By that definition then there are no liberals nor liberalism.

Today's people who call themselves liberals and liberal-socialists are
about discarding conservative values.

There are no conservative values beyond greed and a stated belief in
Christianity and, once stated, mostly ignored. I know this because I
watched several of the recent GOP nominee debates, and I never heard any
of the candidates espouse anything beyond simple-minded bumpersticker
slogans.

Funny, Rosanne Barr is a liberal religious nut ball, so are the Osmonds.
Religion has fanatics on both sides.

But agree, GOP could tone down the religious crap a bit. But I suspect
it is the liberal urinalism egging it on.

But 0bama is like a bad poker hand, even some democrats know when to quit.
--
Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs. But
we have big huge government we can't afford...
-- Obama and the lefty fleabagger attitude

On 24/10/2011 2:51 PM, Drifter wrote:
On 10/24/2011 3:00 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/24/11 2:56 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 24/10/2011 10:39 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
I know by their postings that many conservatives here don't have a clue
what true liberalism is about. Harry doesn't have a clue, neither. So,
to clear things up, from Wiki:

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in
the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide
array of views depending on their understanding of these principles,
but
generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal
democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and
freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted,
even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal
ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual
trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical
liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social
liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.

Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment,
rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier
theories of government, such as nobility, established religion,
absolute
monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John
Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a
distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural
rights
and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace
absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of
the
governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life,
liberty, and property.

The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French
Revolution
used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical
rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in
nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas
spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies
triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges
from fascism and communism. Today, liberalism in its many forms remains
as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all
major continents.

By that definition then there are no liberals nor liberalism.

Today's people who call themselves liberals and liberal-socialists are
about discarding conservative values.

There are no conservative values beyond greed and a stated belief in
Christianity and, once stated, mostly ignored. I know this because I
watched several of the recent GOP nominee debates, and I never heard any
of the candidates espouse anything beyond simple-minded bumpersticker
slogans.

Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They
worked for one clown.

0bama is hopeless and a chance. Depends if you donated money or not.
--
Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs. But
we have big huge government we can't afford...
-- Obama and the lefty fleabagger attitude

On 10/24/2011 12:39 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
I know by their postings that many conservatives here don't have a clue
what true liberalism is about. Harry doesn't have a clue, neither. So,
to clear things up, from Wiki:

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in
the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide
array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but
generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal
democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and
freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted,
even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal
ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual
trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical
liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social
liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.

Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment,
rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier
theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute
monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John
Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a
distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights
and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace
absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the
governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life,
liberty, and property.

The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution
used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical
rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in
nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas
spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies
triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges
from fascism and communism. Today, liberalism in its many forms remains
as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all
major continents.



If all of this were true, "liberals" wouldn't be so bigoted...

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:00:59 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 10/24/11 2:56 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 24/10/2011 10:39 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
I know by their postings that many conservatives here don't have a clue
what true liberalism is about. Harry doesn't have a clue, neither. So,
to clear things up, from Wiki:

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in
the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide
array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but
generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal
democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and
freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted,
even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal
ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual
trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical
liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social
liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.

Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment,
rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier
theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute
monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John
Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a
distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights
and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace
absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the
governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life,
liberty, and property.

The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution
used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical
rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in
nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas
spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies
triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges
from fascism and communism. Today, liberalism in its many forms remains
as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all
major continents.

By that definition then there are no liberals nor liberalism.

Today's people who call themselves liberals and liberal-socialists are
about discarding conservative values.

There are no conservative values beyond greed and a stated belief in
Christianity and, once stated, mostly ignored. I know this because I
watched several of the recent GOP nominee debates, and I never heard any
of the candidates espouse anything beyond simple-minded bumpersticker
slogans.

The only conservative "value" I've detected in the current crop of
Republican leaders is "what's mine is mine."

Jesus would throw the mother****ers overboard.

In article om,
says...

On 10/24/2011 3:00 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/24/11 2:56 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 24/10/2011 10:39 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
I know by their postings that many conservatives here don't have a clue
what true liberalism is about. Harry doesn't have a clue, neither. So,
to clear things up, from Wiki:

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in
the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide
array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but
generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal
democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and
freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted,
even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal
ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual
trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical
liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social
liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.

Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment,
rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier
theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute
monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John
Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a
distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights
and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace
absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the
governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life,
liberty, and property.

The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution
used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical
rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in
nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas
spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies
triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges
from fascism and communism. Today, liberalism in its many forms remains
as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all
major continents.

By that definition then there are no liberals nor liberalism.

Today's people who call themselves liberals and liberal-socialists are
about discarding conservative values.

There are no conservative values beyond greed and a stated belief in
Christianity and, once stated, mostly ignored. I know this because I
watched several of the recent GOP nominee debates, and I never heard any
of the candidates espouse anything beyond simple-minded bumpersticker
slogans.

Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They
worked for one clown.

Yeah, they did. "Mission Accomplished".

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They
worked for one clown.

Yeah, they did. "Mission Accomplished".

--------------------------------------------------

This myth keeps being perpetuated by the media and those who like to bash
Bush as if he was declaring the end of the war in Iraq.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln had
nothing to do with Iraq, despite what the media
and Bush haters would like to believe.

US Naval ships often deploy on long term "cruises" that typically last for
4-6 months or more away from their home port.
Each of these cruises have a specific "mission". The mission is unique to
the ship or the task force that it is part of.

Navy tradition includes a celebration of sorts by the ship (or task force)
to acknowledge that their specific, unique "Mission" has come to
an end and the ship(s) are returning to their home ports and families. On
smaller ships tradition often includes mounting a broom
upside down somewhere on the mast to indicate a "clean sweep" in the
performance of the unique cruise or mission.

When Bush visited the Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier had just been
relieved by another carrier and was on it's way
back to it's home port. The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship was
in celebration of the end of it's specific cruise
and not the end of the Iraq war.

Eisboch (10 year Navy veteran)

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 07:12:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They
worked for one clown.

Yeah, they did. "Mission Accomplished".

--------------------------------------------------

This myth keeps being perpetuated by the media and those who like to bash
Bush as if he was declaring the end of the war in Iraq.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln had
nothing to do with Iraq, despite what the media
and Bush haters would like to believe.

US Naval ships often deploy on long term "cruises" that typically last for
4-6 months or more away from their home port.
Each of these cruises have a specific "mission". The mission is unique to
the ship or the task force that it is part of.

Navy tradition includes a celebration of sorts by the ship (or task force)
to acknowledge that their specific, unique "Mission" has come to
an end and the ship(s) are returning to their home ports and families. On
smaller ships tradition often includes mounting a broom
upside down somewhere on the mast to indicate a "clean sweep" in the
performance of the unique cruise or mission.

When Bush visited the Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier had just been
relieved by another carrier and was on it's way
back to it's home port. The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship was
in celebration of the end of it's specific cruise
and not the end of the Iraq war.

Eisboch (10 year Navy veteran)


It's not a good excuse to use the ship's schedule as the reason for
the banner. It was a media event, replete with a deck landing by the
CIC in flight jammies, including cod piece.

I seriously doubt the ship carries and hangs banners when it completes
each mission.

Nice try though.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 07:12:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They
worked for one clown.

Yeah, they did. "Mission Accomplished".

--------------------------------------------------

This myth keeps being perpetuated by the media and those who like to bash
Bush as if he was declaring the end of the war in Iraq.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln had
nothing to do with Iraq, despite what the media
and Bush haters would like to believe.

US Naval ships often deploy on long term "cruises" that typically last for
4-6 months or more away from their home port.
Each of these cruises have a specific "mission". The mission is unique to
the ship or the task force that it is part of.

Navy tradition includes a celebration of sorts by the ship (or task force)
to acknowledge that their specific, unique "Mission" has come to
an end and the ship(s) are returning to their home ports and families. On
smaller ships tradition often includes mounting a broom
upside down somewhere on the mast to indicate a "clean sweep" in the
performance of the unique cruise or mission.

When Bush visited the Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier had just been
relieved by another carrier and was on it's way
back to it's home port. The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship was
in celebration of the end of it's specific cruise
and not the end of the Iraq war.

Eisboch (10 year Navy veteran)


It's not a good excuse to use the ship's schedule as the reason for
the banner. It was a media event, replete with a deck landing by the
CIC in flight jammies, including cod piece.

I seriously doubt the ship carries and hangs banners when it completes
each mission.

Nice try though.

Well, there's also this interesting banter where the White House admits
it was for Bush:

October 29, 2003







President Bush addresses the nation from aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln
on May 1 with the banner in the background.



What was once viewed as a premier presidential photo op continues to dog
President Bush six months after he landed on an aircraft carrier to
declare "one victory" in the war on terrorism and an end to major combat
operations in Iraq.

Attention turned Tuesday to a giant "Mission Accomplished" sign that
stood behind Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln when he gave the speech
May 1.

The president told reporters the sign was put up by the Navy, not the
White House.

"I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my
staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way," the president said
Tuesday.

Now his statements are being parsed even further.

Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the
Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.

Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech
declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission
Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq
since then have surpassed those before it.

During the speech in May, Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory
in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on."

The speech and events surrounding it were widely publicized and served
as the symbolic end to the war in Iraq.

At the time, it appeared that every detail of the day's events had been
carefully planned, including the president's arrival in the co-pilot's
seat of a Navy S-3B Viking after making two flybys of the carrier.

The exterior of the four-seat S-3B Viking was marked with "Navy 1" and
"George W. Bush Commander in Chief."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the
speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a
"Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it.

On 10/26/11 7:12 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


Like "hope and change" or "yes we can" Don't knock stupid slogans. They
worked for one clown.

Yeah, they did. "Mission Accomplished".

--------------------------------------------------

This myth keeps being perpetuated by the media and those who like to
bash Bush as if he was declaring the end of the war in Iraq.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln
had nothing to do with Iraq, despite what the media
and Bush haters would like to believe.

US Naval ships often deploy on long term "cruises" that typically last
for 4-6 months or more away from their home port.
Each of these cruises have a specific "mission". The mission is unique
to the ship or the task force that it is part of.

Navy tradition includes a celebration of sorts by the ship (or task
force) to acknowledge that their specific, unique "Mission" has come to
an end and the ship(s) are returning to their home ports and families.
On smaller ships tradition often includes mounting a broom
upside down somewhere on the mast to indicate a "clean sweep" in the
performance of the unique cruise or mission.

When Bush visited the Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier had just
been relieved by another carrier and was on it's way
back to it's home port. The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship
was in celebration of the end of it's specific cruise
and not the end of the Iraq war.

Eisboch (10 year Navy veteran)


Some years ago, I read somewhere that it was the Navy's idea to put the
sign up because Bush was coming aboard and that the White House got the
sign made. The entire event was a Bush media circus, including the part
when he landed on the carrier in a jet with a Navy pilot.

On 10/26/2011 1:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote:


White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the
speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a
"Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it.




Got it, it was a Navy request... Thanks for clarifying..