Why do I hate liberals? Well firstly, of course it would have to do with their utter hipocrisy. ( a word denied by the Anglo-Saxon dictionary)
'I don´t much care for the way American foreign policy is being carried out.'
Well, American foreign policy is, and would be the same no matter who or what would run it! Clinton would have put into action a programme that would have made Ashcroft's 'home security'' look like a kindergarden.
Secondly. With a Democrat in the lead of the socalled American Nation, all the socalled democratic nations of socalled West would have followed suit? I don't think so. In fact, if it had not been for the utter psychotic, granted somewhat beneficial monetary wise, Republican administration, the socalled West and the rest of the world would have been laughing their collective asses off. This is because no one will ever do anything in our modern day society without them having being moved by fear.
Liberals believe that things can be made by calling on the responisibility of the individal citizen. What a lie!
It is clear that nothing in terms of foreign policy can ever be achieved except if a total amount of fear is being employed against the adversary. This is because the adversary uses the maximum amount of fear against the protagonist.
So, should a liberal ever be responsible for this umpteenth war against the umpteenth enemy, it would merely mean a more total and a more direct involvement in the life of the normal citizen.
NO
This socalled 'Liberalism' is a blatant lie.
Liberalism has never, so far as I am concerned, been capable of including the entire human race.
Liberalism is inclusive?
It only addresses the immediate beneficiaries. That is the voters. Liberalism would demand that the poor are being treated in direct accordance with the level of how quickly the really poor of the socalled third nations are being treated, that is exterminated.
The liberal mindset is solely concerned with the level of consumption that the poor of the Western Nations is capable of swallowing. High consumption means peace. We have seen that during the Clinton adminstration, where this philosophy was taken to such heights that a so far never before achievieved before amount of young people were utterly ruined.
Therefore liberalism is really a most dangerous philosophy to push to the young , since it has a much more genocidal agenda to administer. Through peace and quiet of course.
The conservative would much better keep the adversary as a productive slave. The liberal wants to kill off both the slave and the protagonist in order to achieve moral clarity.
Therefore I conclude the following: Liberals are to be totally ignored in any political debate. The only real debate is that between Communists and Fascists (who like to style themselves as Conservatives.) Everything else is inconsequential.
'I don´t much care for the way American foreign policy is being carried out.'
Well, American foreign policy is, and would be the same no matter who or what would run it! Clinton would have put into action a programme that would have made Ashcroft's 'home security'' look like a kindergarden.
Secondly. With a Democrat in the lead of the socalled American Nation, all the socalled democratic nations of socalled West would have followed suit? I don't think so. In fact, if it had not been for the utter psychotic, granted somewhat beneficial monetary wise, Republican administration, the socalled West and the rest of the world would have been laughing their collective asses off. This is because no one will ever do anything in our modern day society without them having being moved by fear.
Liberals believe that things can be made by calling on the responisibility of the individal citizen. What a lie!
It is clear that nothing in terms of foreign policy can ever be achieved except if a total amount of fear is being employed against the adversary. This is because the adversary uses the maximum amount of fear against the protagonist.
So, should a liberal ever be responsible for this umpteenth war against the umpteenth enemy, it would merely mean a more total and a more direct involvement in the life of the normal citizen.
NO
This socalled 'Liberalism' is a blatant lie.
Liberalism has never, so far as I am concerned, been capable of including the entire human race.
Liberalism is inclusive?
It only addresses the immediate beneficiaries. That is the voters. Liberalism would demand that the poor are being treated in direct accordance with the level of how quickly the really poor of the socalled third nations are being treated, that is exterminated.
The liberal mindset is solely concerned with the level of consumption that the poor of the Western Nations is capable of swallowing. High consumption means peace. We have seen that during the Clinton adminstration, where this philosophy was taken to such heights that a so far never before achievieved before amount of young people were utterly ruined.
Therefore liberalism is really a most dangerous philosophy to push to the young , since it has a much more genocidal agenda to administer. Through peace and quiet of course.
The conservative would much better keep the adversary as a productive slave. The liberal wants to kill off both the slave and the protagonist in order to achieve moral clarity.
Therefore I conclude the following: Liberals are to be totally ignored in any political debate. The only real debate is that between Communists and Fascists (who like to style themselves as Conservatives.) Everything else is inconsequential.
Comment