Uh, Mox, you started by citing one liberal with dubious views and then moved to "they" -They’ve called 51% of America stupid, etc.

I know there are some vicious liberals out there but you shouldn't skip from one guy to Liberals Everywhere like that.

Perhaps you should watch the news, read the papers or check out the political cartoons.

The cartoonists listed in the link below don't represent the entire left, but they've all got a leftist following for a reason. Let's all sit back and wait for the outrage from Democrats.

http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/000763.html

I agree...liberals are extremely intolerant & the MSM are hypocrits. If cartoons of similar nature were published about Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton it would be front page news.

I don't understand what the Democratic party is doing anymore. Once they were a party that attempted to champion the little guys, now they belittle them. It is sad really.
Over a decade ago i heard from an african-american taxi driver that things like welfare were designed by Democrats to keep the blacks down and dependent. I dismissed it as an unintentional consequence. Now i wonder.

btw Moxie, you should always include a photo in your posts. It is a nice touch to an interesting site.

An amazing post.

You rock, Mox.

Why can't the black voters be more like the hispanic voters?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1058454/posts

I despised Bush's illegal alien-friendly border policies, but I'm starting to lighten up and forgive him due to his successful re-election strategy. Hispanics don't vote in a bloc for the Dems like black voters. The Dems are disappointed that hispanics actually think like INDIVIDUALS when they vote instead of as a group.

The Moxie: Ann [Coulter] said it almost a dozen times. Liberals are racist. Liberals are racist. Liberals are racist. And each time she did -- this girl cheered.

For the record, Ann Coulter is a Christian (a Theist) not an intolerant Atheist.

The Moxie: Is there any end to liberal intolerance?

Yes -- it ends at Solipsism.

The Moxie: They’ve called 51% of America stupid. They have insulted Christians. They have expressed disdain for those who have morals and values (not to mention JOBS). They’ve stated stay at home Moms don’t have “real jobs,” and now they’ve declared a brilliant American woman a parrot, a puppet, anything but what she is; an accomplished, educated, awe-inspiring woman who happens to be black.

Atheists (or Liberals as you like to call them) cannot tolerate Individuality. Their goal, their purpose for existing is to return reality to a state of utter conformity.

Action follows belief (action is (merely) a manifestation of belief).

First, let me thank you for your site...just beginning to read here, but nice to see a reasonable blogger (so far).

I too am surprised by the depth of angst and hatred shown by the Liberals and yet, I do agree that they are the minority and we should distinguish them with a title all their own. Librats would be good, then you can choose where to put the emphasis, on brats or rats as suits your context. Thank God that some Liberals are only slightly leaning, and some even kind of straddle the fence. We also must remember that they are cross boundries of location, culture and religions or non religions.

As to the issue of Condi...the LibRats have outdone themselves in bigotry with little thought to the consequences which I hope will be even more evident in the 2006 and 2008 elections then it was in 2004. Once the blacks of this country see the outrageous attacks and prejudice shown against her it will surely, and I hope swiftly, backlash against the Democrats who not only allow, but quietly support such garbage.

Carry on with the remarkable work, Moxie...and keep showing the moxie you have.

Are we twins separated at birth?;) God Bless you, Alta

Not to mention that they cannot understand that people who might not believe in god have some sort of morality.

Not a chance. I'm feeling alienated too, especially after they rescinded my right to earn a living by being tossed across a bar.

Angelo: ... they cannot understand that people who might not believe in god have some sort of morality.

Yes, Angelo, that is exactly right. I do not comprehend how a person who holds a sincere belief in non-existence of Causality (the notion of consequences for action) can genuinely assert that they will behave as if they believe in Causality.

And oddly no Atheist has ever been able (or willing) to explain it to me.

I wonder why that might be … ?

What I enjoyed most was Ann got all three of Bob Bechel's chins quivering and at the same time.

Love the opening photographs you've been posting lately. Beautiful.

You have to wonder what the Dems are thinking. They made such a big fuss about Halle Berry being the "first african american woman to win the best actress Oscar", for basically showing her hooters in that godawful Monster's Ball film with crazy Billy Bob Thornton.

Along comes Condaleeza Rice, who actually DOES something of worth, and we hear nary a peep from them.

Fucking hypocrites.

Wow, good post. Definite hypocrites.
I love Condi. :)

If a Democratic president had made similar skin-colored cabinet nominations as Bush, liberals and their cohorts in the MSM would've hailed it as a "milestone" in league with Harry Truman's integration of the armed forces and LBJ's civil rights initiatives during the 1960s.

Fucking hypocrite, monkey-assed liberal cocksuckers.

If Condi Rice is some sort of unblack, parrot-puppet of President Bush, then exactly how stupid can the guy the libshits have been saying was just an empty suit be? I wish they would make up their minds on one story and then stick to it. Bush is stupid - but has a higher IQ than Kerry - and tells Condi what to say? She isn't qualified, with a PhD in international relations and lots of professional work in the field, but a complete shitdwarf like Albright, who gave away the U.S. regularly, was?????

My, oh, my! "Libshits", "(all) liberals are racists", "liberal clowns", "librats", and finally "fucking hypocrite, monkey-assed liberal cocksuckers"! What an enlightening and erudite discussion group you people have going here!

Hey david kiss our ass.

Mox, as a fan I'm obiliged to object when you've wandered astray. They're vertically challenged, not midgets.

how's david gonna kiss your ass hamilton when your head's already lodged firmly in it?

I got the hots for Condi and her lobes (left and right).

Love to be in a room with you, Condi, Coulter and Peggy Noonan. And a forklift to lift my jaw up as I go full-tilt Tex Avery wolf.

I really don't mind if you believe in God or if you don't believe in God. I do think that liberals too often like to pin issues to religion or race to make them "no go".

Liberals are like the child that kicks you in the nuts and then runs to their parent to tell them that you touched them with your naughty bits.

They continue to grasp onto "separation of church and state" (which appears nowhere in the constitution) to push their left-wing agenda.

Four hundred years ago, settlers came here to flee religious persecution, not to flee religion.

When are they going to understand that the framers of the constitution wanted to avoid a state religion not take values out of the state simply because they are religious.

David,

you left out "shitdwarf."

[nice one, outlaw3 - that's new to me!]

Angelo -- well said.

Condi isn't merely accomplished, educated, and awe-inspiring. She is by far the most powerful woman in the history of the planet.

And since she clearly has the full confidence and respect of the President of the United States - unlike her predecessor - she is also by far the most powerful black person in the history of the planet.

Little wonder that liberals insist that black americans ought to disown her.

That would be the best. A TV talkshow like "The View" with Moxie, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham. Of course it would have to be on Fox. I would be tossed out on my heels by three musclebound gay men if I brought that idea to ABC CBS NBC.

Angelo: I really don't mind if you believe in God or if you don't believe in God.

I’d say that I don’t really care if you seek your own destruction, just so long as you do not seek our destruction.

Angelo: I do think that liberals too often like to pin issues to religion or race to make them "no go".

Atheism (the basis of Liberalism) is just as much of a “religion” as Christianity or Judaism, or any other. The only difference is that Atheists have cunningly manipulated society at large into believing that Atheism is not a religion.

Angelo: Liberals are like the child that kicks you in the nuts and then runs to their parent to tell them that you touched them with your naughty bits.

An absurd double standard perpetuated at the expense of others – I agree completely.

Angelo: They continue to grasp onto "separation of church and state" (which appears nowhere in the constitution) to push their left-wing agenda.

Whenever you hear a Liberal (i.e. an Atheist) utter the phrase “Separation of church and state!” What they are really saying is “We must establish an intolerant Atheist Theocracy!”

Separation of church and state is the Atheists mechanism for systematically denigrating and persecuting your religion, while simultaneously promoting and extolling theirs.

Angelo: Four hundred years ago, settlers came here to flee religious persecution, not to flee religion.

Of course the Liberals/Atheists would burn you at the stake for speaking such heresy.

… at least if they had their way they would.

Angelo: When are they going to understand that the framers of the constitution wanted to avoid a state religion not take values out of the state simply because they are religious.

They do understand it. It’s just that they want their religion to be the only religion.

Their religion is the “One true faith”; whereas, all of the other religions are just so much “ridiculous superstitious nonsense”.

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

David: What an enlightening and erudite discussion group you people have going here!

What would you like to discuss, Mr. David?

Or are you just whining because these conservatives aren’t demonstrating proper respect for your “superior intellect”?

Serpent,

The funny thing is, you assume there is only ONE reason to behave morally -- some ultimate reward from the big man in the sky.

Here on earth there are lots of reasons to "do the right thing". The least of which is our innate sense of right vs. wrong.

As I have said before, I do not have the time nor desire to debate. However, before you start with your nonsense about atheism being equal to liberalism, I suggest you think twice. Maybe three or four times in your case.

Murder someone? Face prison or death.
Be mean to people? Be lonely.
Have one too many abortions? Infertility when you WANT to have a child.
Abuse a pet? You get back from them what you put forth.
Be promiscuous? Enjoy the trouser rash!
Cheat on your wife? Years of large alimony and child support payments.

I KNOW you get this. But why you won't admit it is the great mystery.

Condi might want a cracker - but only if it's smeared with tuna.

DID You know that Individuals living in “red states” tend to donate far more of their Time and Money (“matter”) to charities than individuals living in “blue states”?

… But I suppose that is just another “magical coincidence” … meaningless and “random” in the grand scheme of things?

The funny thing is, you assume there is only ONE reason to behave morally -- some ultimate reward from the big man in the sky.

My reward does not come from “Sky-Daddy” per sae. Many entities find me beneficial, and in exchange for that sense of benefit I gain “good karma” (energy/power).

Of course according to You … it doesn’t really matter how I behave, or whether my actions are beneficial or harmful, because ultimately I will end up with the same fate regardless. According to your belief, I should only be concerned about my own selfish sense of what is beneficial in the "here and now", because ultimately there won’t be any karmic debt to collect.

Suppose we are going to conduct an experiment. We have two individuals in two identical rooms full of loose cash, jewelry, p0rn0graphy, cigarettes, drugs, and booze. One Individual is told that they are constantly being observed and that ultimately they will be held accountable for all their actions during the period of observation, and the other not knowing that they are observed, and not knowing that they will be held accountable. For what you assert to be true, one would have to believe that BOTH individuals will behave in exactly the same fashion.

For what you say to be True one would have to deny the notion of positive (rewards) and negative (punishment) reinforcement (and I won’t even go into the mountain of evidence for Determinism). For what you say to be True one would have to utterly deny the notion of (ultimate) Causality.

Why would an Atheist do an anonymous “good deed”? Why would an Atheist cause himself harm only to benefit another if there is no way that the Atheist could ever expect repayment of that benefit?

The Fact is an Atheist wouldn’t behave in such a fashion, and the reason that he/she wouldn’t is because it wouldn’t make logical sense from their worldview.

Conversely, if an Atheist can benefit by harming you, and there is very little likelihood that they will suffer any negative consequences in the here and now, then there is nothing preventing the Atheist from benefiting at your expense.

Murder someone? Face prison or death.

What if I believe that I can “get away with it”? What if I am a “superior minded” Atheist; how are a bunch of “stupid theist” ever going to figure out that I was the one to commit murder?

Our prisons are full of Atheists who thought they could get away with murder (or rape, or thievery). They thought that they could escape the consequences of their actions in the here and now, and if you are an Atheist, and you can escape the consequences of your actions in the here and now, then you have effectively escaped them for ALL TIMES! Because once you die, this universe will “cease to exist” and there won’t be anyone to hold you accountable for your horrible selfish (i.e. “beneficial”) deeds.

Be mean to people? Be lonely.

Yes, but remember Atheism is all about Solipsism, and Solipsism is all about being utterly alone (ultimately). In other words, being lonely is not inconsistent with Atheism.

Have one too many abortions? Infertility when you WANT to have a child.

Yes, but to a self-loathing Atheist children merely interfere with an Individuals pursuit of his/her own selfish pleasures and desires. Besides, once you die this universe and everything in it “cease to exist”, so unless you find feeding, clothing, and caring for other individuals 24/7 “beneficial” (dirty diapers anyone?) then there is really no reason to have children.

I’d remind you that Atheists tend to have far fewer children than A-Atheists, and Atheists tend to abort many more pregnancies than avowed A-Atheists (non-Atheists).

Abuse a pet? You get back from them what you put forth

Pets? Animals are merely inferior life forms; only slightly above Theists on the evolutionary hierarchy. Fun to abuse and amuse oneself with, but otherwise worthless.

Be promiscuous? Enjoy the trouser rash!

If conscious entities were immortal then I would be far more careful about what I did or “gave” to who, because eternity is an unimaginably long time for someone to hold a grudge against you.

But that point aside, if two entities benefit from some activity (say sex), then who precisely is being harmed (where is the harm)?

Cheat on your wife? Years of large alimony and child support payments.

Your friends (or your “spouse”), are your friends because you have a persistent beneficial entanglement with them. Over Time you tend to benefit them far more then you tend to harm them.

Otherwise they wouldn’t be your “friends” (Brothers and Sisters … ultimately).

Of course the main reason that anyone is your “friend” (i.e. the Cause (of friendship)) is that you are a source of consistent beneficial (i.e. True) information.

We need Mike back. Serp is starting to have a meltdown and lose focus on who the real socio-political enemies are.

Serp, Mox isn't anti-Christian. She might be an atheist, but she hasn't had a cow over the role of religion in society like the ACLU has. You need to stop generalizing all liberals as atheists. Mox made those previous entries to counter the liberals' generalization that Bush-voters are all stupid Christian bigots.

I've seen Christian liberals bash Bush. I've seen Christian liberals on forums siding with the ACLU's secular agenda and bashing Bush for his public displays of his religious faith.

Mox has expressed goodwill towards her religious fans in her latest entries. The least that we can do is respect the Moxie's personal views without persistently badgering her for her differences. Mox probably disagrees with my views on the Confederate flag issue, but I'm not going to try to endlessly nag her to death until she comes around to my way of thinking. Just let her be and let's get back to stomping Leftist trolls.........

To quote Alanis Morrisette, isn't it ironic?...
The DNC was AGAINST civil rights legislation in the 19th and 20th centuries, but only now do they claim to have supported it because it's just so gosh darned popular! Fuck JOhn KErry. Fuck Dashole. Fuck Slick Willy. Fuck Chirac and Shroeder "What's the safety word, Kofi?" Go Condi; may be she'll finally put a REAL set of balls in the Secretary of State's chair.

Mox, what type of flowering plant is in the pic?

Not, a valid email address on my post. I don't trust the tolerant liberals who troll with anything of mine.

Thanks and keep up the great work!

To me the worst is the Liberal Hypocrat. The want to inflict their ideas on all of us, while exempting themselves. As evidence, I humbly submit the name of John Kerry.

Serp:
I am agnostic/atheist.
I am a definite conservative.
I do nice things for people I've never seen before or ever will see again, simply because it makes me happy to make other individuals happy.
I've done major things for people who could never have a hope of repaying me, and used the "pay it forward" line on them, even though noone has ever asked me to do so (and I've said/done the equivalent even before I saw the related movie).

You are wrong on the root-element of liberalism.

Many liberals arrive at their political understanding _because_ of their religion, especially Catholics ... and they say so quite vociferously, believing that they are called upon to care to the needy and helpless, not just on a person-to-person basis but in their voting and governmental patterns as well.

The deciding factor in this election was urban city-core vs non-city-core as can be seen on the ubiquitous county-by-county maps.

My theory is as follows:
Some people are genetically more individualistic than others. The more individualistically minded you are, the more personal-rights-oriented you are, and vice-versa.
Ted Kennedy, HRClinton, and ?Stalin/Kruschev? have all railed against the "cult of the individual" or something VERY close to that phrase.
Group-minded people become liberals, socilists, communists, etc.
Individualist-minded people become libertarians, entrepreneurs, freedom-lovers, (and by extension militarist-hawks), moralists (actions-have-personal-consequences-types), etc

Incidentally, I am unusually qualified to speak on the individualist-vs-group-minded question beacuse I am an aspergers-autistic (high-functioning-autistic) ... by definition, we are the least group-minded people possible as we are missing the neural-social-processing-lobe that Neuro-Typicals have and have to forebrain-analyze social / facial / body-language data that NTs biologically auto-interpret.

Serp, you choose to define that which surrounds you by the acceptance / rejection of those beliefs that you hold most dear. This defines you far more than it defines that which surrounds you.

Unfortunately, your belief in liberal=atheist fails to explain a non-trivial number of catholic liberals (like my wife's parents and relatives) and another large bloc of southern-baptist liberals (the Clintons for three, plus many VERY religious minority congregations).

My belief that individualist vs groupist parallels libertarian vs liberal does explain not only the 2004 election results, but world-wide phenomenon:

Asiatic cultures hammer down nails that stick up (according to the Chinese proverb) whereas Europe celebrated individual accomplishments far more, leading to technological developments and the age of inventions. Individualists fled from around the world to the USA, leading to our more-libertarian and individualist leanings than Europe's socilist political leanings.

Note also that the Democrats/socilists focus on group identity (race, class, gender, religion) and the Republicans focus on individual rights and responsibilities (2nd-amndmt, property, criminal-punishment, keeping-your-money, etc)

Incidentally, I am also a technological environmentalist ... I believe that environmental problems and human-ecological coexistence problems are best solved through maximizing technology rather than crippling the capitalist economy and imposing government centalized planning systems that socilist-environmentalists believe in.
(The modern Enviro movement has been taken over by "watermelons" ... green on the outside, red on the inside ... sho really are using environmentalism to attack capitalism by the only means left to them.)

PS: I apologize for the _intentional mis-spelling of the word "social"-"ist" which this blog system will not let me spell properly because it contains the name of a commonly spammed-about medicine ... sorry, but I had to munge my post to avoid the spam-filter :)

/\/\
\/\/

edited for clarity: I disagree.

edited for brevity's sake: I hate everyone who does not agree with me.

Some of my best friends are atheists. ;-)

I'm not one of those "What would Jesus Do" type of Christians, but the Man himself didn't hang out with those every-Saturday-synagogue-going sorts. Publicans and tax-collectors, acc. to my Bible, i.e. the worst sinners. ;-)

As for the subject at hand, white liberals thought they had permission from black ones--such as Harry Belafonte and Amiri Baraka--to use such racially-charged epithets against the likes of Dr. Rice and General Powell. But, as with the n-word, such things only go so far. Even the NAACP's Kweisi Mfume--no friend of Republicans--has slammed that Sylvester creep for referring to the Doc as "Aunt Jemima."

I guess "working hard for the black community" doesn't confer "Jemima" privileges.