The Lief Reservoir of Simple Truths and Smart One-Liners

[Goldwater]

Guys, CrabCake is right on this issue. Like he said, "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" could describe anybody from Gary Johnson to Michael Bloomberg. If that doesn't convince you the term is meaningless bullsh**t, I don't know what will...

[SWE]

One slight improvement would be "economically right-wing and socially libertarian". I mean that at least makes sense, although it is pithy and annoying. Why do people even need catchy advertising slogans to advertise their beliefs? Why not settle it to a cute jingle why you're at it?

"Are you liberal or conservative?"
"I'm actually pretty libertarian."
"What's libertarian?"
"I'm economically right-wing and socially libertarian."
"Uh... but what's libertarian?"
"Well, it means I'm economically right-wing and socially libertarian."
"You keep defining libertarian as libertarian, I just want to know what that means."
"ARGH, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO SAY FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE AND SOCIALLY LIBERAL BECAUSE IT UPSETS INTERNET LEFTISTS"

Just say you want less government intervention jesus christ is that so hard.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Guys, CrabCake is right on this issue. Like he said, "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" could describe anybody from Gary Johnson to Michael Bloomberg. If that doesn't convince you the term is meaningless bullsh**t, I don't know what will...

I mean, on one end of that phrase, you have WalterMitty, who said he'd support Rick Santorum in the 2006 senate race for God's sake. On the other end, pre-socialism Mechaman. Pretty wide range.

[Gustaf]

Guys, CrabCake is right on this issue. Like he said, "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" could describe anybody from Gary Johnson to Michael Bloomberg. If that doesn't convince you the term is meaningless bullsh**t, I don't know what will...

I mean, on one end of that phrase, you have WalterMitty, who said he'd support Rick Santorum in the 2006 senate race for God's sake. On the other end, pre-socialism Mechaman. Pretty wide range.

It's a good thing that terms like liberal and conservative identify a narrow range of views with surgical precision.

[YaBoyNY]

One slight improvement would be "economically right-wing and socially libertarian". I mean that at least makes sense, although it is pithy and annoying. Why do people even need catchy advertising slogans to advertise their beliefs? Why not settle it to a cute jingle why you're at it?

"Are you liberal or conservative?"
"I'm actually pretty libertarian."
"What's libertarian?"
"I'm economically right-wing and socially libertarian."
"Uh... but what's libertarian?"
"Well, it means I'm economically right-wing and socially libertarian."
"You keep defining libertarian as libertarian, I just want to know what that means."
"ARGH, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO SAY FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE AND SOCIALLY LIBERAL BECAUSE IT UPSETS INTERNET LEFTISTS"

Just say you want less government intervention jesus christ is that so hard.

Or say you hate poor people and your ideology pretty much revolves around being a pothead who doesn't want to pay taxes.

[DavidB.]

This is truly getting ridiculous. From now on, I will ostentatiously identify as someone who is fiscally conservative but socially liberal.

[Goldwater]

This is truly getting ridiculous. From now on, I will ostentatiously identify as someone who is fiscally conservative but socially liberal.

Believe me, I can completely understand what to use a term just because it makes certain people mad. However, using that term will tell people literally nothing about what you actually believe. I'm sure you can find more effective and creative ways of trolling those on the left.

[RFayette]

One slight improvement would be "economically right-wing and socially libertarian". I mean that at least makes sense, although it is pithy and annoying. Why do people even need catchy advertising slogans to advertise their beliefs? Why not settle it to a cute jingle why you're at it?

"Are you liberal or conservative?"
"I'm actually pretty libertarian."
"What's libertarian?"
"I'm economically right-wing and socially libertarian."
"Uh... but what's libertarian?"
"Well, it means I'm economically right-wing and socially libertarian."
"You keep defining libertarian as libertarian, I just want to know what that means."
"ARGH, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO SAY FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE AND SOCIALLY LIBERAL BECAUSE IT UPSETS INTERNET LEFTISTS"

Just say you want less government intervention jesus christ is that so hard.

Or say you hate poor people and your ideology pretty much revolves around being a pothead who doesn't want to pay taxes.

Can you make a single political opinion without resorting to extreme hyperbole and hatred for those who disagree?

[Lief 🗽]

Crabcake is fighting the good fight in this thread.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

You guys are making a mountain out of a molehill.


People use very broad and generic terms all the time as an introduction to what they believe. No one has the time to listen to your in-depth position on every single issue (except on Atlas, and even then you can't possibly be posting something like the political beliefs thread in every thread), and where would you even start?

And sometimes, we don't want to hear your position on every issue; there are times when we'd just like to know the general side(s) of the political spectrum your views lie on and move on from that reference point.

[YaBoyNY]

One slight improvement would be "economically right-wing and socially libertarian". I mean that at least makes sense, although it is pithy and annoying. Why do people even need catchy advertising slogans to advertise their beliefs? Why not settle it to a cute jingle why you're at it?

"Are you liberal or conservative?"
"I'm actually pretty libertarian."
"What's libertarian?"
"I'm economically right-wing and socially libertarian."
"Uh... but what's libertarian?"
"Well, it means I'm economically right-wing and socially libertarian."
"You keep defining libertarian as libertarian, I just want to know what that means."
"ARGH, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO SAY FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE AND SOCIALLY LIBERAL BECAUSE IT UPSETS INTERNET LEFTISTS"

Just say you want less government intervention jesus christ is that so hard.

Or say you hate poor people and your ideology pretty much revolves around being a pothead who doesn't want to pay taxes.

Can you make a single political opinion without resorting to extreme hyperbole and hatred for those who disagree?

I don't speak hyperbole, I speak the unabashed truth.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

One slight improvement would be "economically right-wing and socially libertarian". I mean that at least makes sense, although it is pithy and annoying. Why do people even need catchy advertising slogans to advertise their beliefs? Why not settle it to a cute jingle why you're at it?

"Are you liberal or conservative?"
"I'm actually pretty libertarian."
"What's libertarian?"
"I'm economically right-wing and socially libertarian."
"Uh... but what's libertarian?"
"Well, it means I'm economically right-wing and socially libertarian."
"You keep defining libertarian as libertarian, I just want to know what that means."
"ARGH, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO SAY FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE AND SOCIALLY LIBERAL BECAUSE IT UPSETS INTERNET LEFTISTS"

Just say you want less government intervention jesus christ is that so hard.

Or say you hate poor people and your ideology pretty much revolves around being a pothead who doesn't want to pay taxes.

Can you make a single political opinion without resorting to extreme hyperbole and hatred for those who disagree?

I don't speak hyperbole, I speak the unabashed truth.

I mean if you're trolling, then fair enough; but it must be said that it is normally an astute political move to understand how your ideological opponent's minds work, and "they just hate the poor" (while in same cases having the grain of truth) does not hack it.

[Badger]

The parties switched platforms.

I don't know you well enough to know if you are typing that ridiculous sentence sarcastically or not, but the troubling thing about that myth is that it's so comforting to several different groups.

It is a nice comforting narrative to modern-day liberal Democrats, as (in their minds) it absolves the party of any racism in its past, all the while stealing any Republican accomplishments on the matter and forking it right over to the endless, always-right social treadmill of "liberalism."

It's comforting to Black voters, as it completely justifies the demographic group's switch from the GOP to the Democrats.  It's a lot more noble in the history books to paint it as the GOP turning on Black voters one day in a spat of coded racism than Blacks being forced to vote their economic interests three decades before the CRA/VRA.

It's also pretty comforting to Southern whites, as they can justify their ancestors' (whom they otherwise seem quite proud of) support of an openly racist party by hiding behind things like "states' rights" or "small government."  Of course, things like the Dred Scott case show that Southern Democrats didn't give a crap about states' rights and were willing to take any avenue possible to preserve White racial supremacy.

That pretty much just leaves Northern Republicans and Democrats who are true students of history/not completely ignorant (which, I'll say, describes most on this forum) to try to refute this fairy tale and tell the much more complicated story.

This is a brilliant post, but especially the part about Southern Democrats not caring about states' rights and only using it as a cover for racism.

How would one know Oldies would fall for this hook, line, and sinker?

[YaBoyNY]

One slight improvement would be "economically right-wing and socially libertarian". I mean that at least makes sense, although it is pithy and annoying. Why do people even need catchy advertising slogans to advertise their beliefs? Why not settle it to a cute jingle why you're at it?

"Are you liberal or conservative?"
"I'm actually pretty libertarian."
"What's libertarian?"
"I'm economically right-wing and socially libertarian."
"Uh... but what's libertarian?"
"Well, it means I'm economically right-wing and socially libertarian."
"You keep defining libertarian as libertarian, I just want to know what that means."
"ARGH, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO SAY FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE AND SOCIALLY LIBERAL BECAUSE IT UPSETS INTERNET LEFTISTS"

Just say you want less government intervention jesus christ is that so hard.

Or say you hate poor people and your ideology pretty much revolves around being a pothead who doesn't want to pay taxes.

Can you make a single political opinion without resorting to extreme hyperbole and hatred for those who disagree?

I don't speak hyperbole, I speak the unabashed truth.

I mean if you're trolling, then fair enough; but it must be said that it is normally an astute political move to understand how your ideological opponent's minds work, and "they just hate the poor" (while in same cases having the grain of truth) does not hack it.

Understood, but just about every libertarian on the internet has lead me to the conclusion that their ideology is, literally, "lol who cares about the poor?"

I can debate with a conservative. A libertarian lives in a fantasy world.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

HP. Let's not get so caught up in condemning American involvement in Vietnam (which, for the record, was immoral and stupid) that we forget that the North Vietnamese regime was truly horrible.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I completely agree that we ought to give convicted murders a chance at redemption if possible and that their lives are of equal value (I am against the death penalty), 

People like John Wayne Gacy don't deserve a second chance. Take Gacy and everyother cold-blooded killer out to the backyard and fill them up with led.

Another thing I don't get is how liberals can support the killing of innocent babies through abortion but get angry when disgusting monsters get theirs.

Deserves? That's a different question than whether or not we ought to give it to him. I take the Tolkien approach:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By that logic if we capture Osama Bin Laden we shouldint kill him. I can tell your a moral person but theirs people that are so evil they don't deserve to live.

then yes it would be wrong for us to kill him. It doesn't matter what he deserves; life isn't fair. It matters that he is human and his life still has value whether he deserves it or not.

Than why keep him alive? what value does his life have? Someone like that has no value.

The value of a man's life is not contigent upon what that man can do for you or what contribution he can make to the GDP or taxation, etc. The reason why his life would have value is because he is a person, which is fundamentally the same reason why all human life has value. Now, sure, one can argue that human life does not have objective value, but I suspect he will find that philosophy rather ugly if considered honestly. Indeed, if human life does not have value after all, there would be much less reason to want to kill Osama Bin Laden in the first place.

I think when you commit a act that evil like Bin Laden you have no humanity and you deserve to die. But also don't you think the pyschopaths/serial killers arint human. Theirs definitly something going on with them man look at every pyschopath/mass murderer they all look the same and have that same dead look in their eye.

Plenty of people 'have a dead look in their eyes'. Amazingly, people who 'have a dead look in their eyes' are still people.

[Joe Republic]

Threads like these are great because you can learn who here are true racists like Green Line, The Hawk, and BigSkyBob.

I think blue and yellow avatars are usually pretty good indicators of this in general.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Is there anybody/thing that could beat Mr Cash in a straight up Johnny Cash vs X poll?  Jesus might put up a good fight, but he'd still lose.

I'll vote Jesus, because that's how Cash would have voted.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Context:

You know, this matchup is really ridiculously atlas.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The second amendment starts off with a dangling modifier, so it's a little hard to take seriously.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Neither. Muslims have a right to practice their religion but that right ends when they insight violence. That should be the same for all religions.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The second amendment starts off with a dangling modifier, so it's a little hard to take seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AexVBs09bjA

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Clearly NOT evil

Was actually a Freedom Fighter, as he  was a major Reason why the Soviet Union Collapsed, he took us out the Keynesian caused stagflation malaise of the 1970s  with small government reforms which caused the unemployment rate to drop from 10.8% to 5.7%, inflation and interest rates to drop considerably , and despite liberals calim that he was terrible  for the middle class ,the median income grew from $16,000- around $27,000 in his term(http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php)

[Murica!]

Clearly NOT evil

Was actually a Freedom Fighter, as he  was a major Reason why the Soviet Union Collapsed, he took us out the Keynesian caused stagflation malaise of the 1970s  with small government reforms which caused the unemployment rate to drop from 10.8% to 5.7%, inflation and interest rates to drop considerably , and despite liberals calim that he was terrible  for the middle class ,the median income grew from $16,000- around $27,000 in his term(http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php)

No

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public.  The courts have long confirmed this.  Therefore, we don't have the right to cover our faces in public.

Your courts aren't my courts, so...

...also what DC said is precisely my point. A free society would not be policing what articles of clothing people choose to wear.

Except it does already.

Western Europe may be democratic, but I wouldn't call it a "free society."