Take his little graphic about terrorism. First off, it’ from a blog, and one that wasn’t sourced especially well. Anyone who takes anything from a blog (regardless of whose it is), as fact with out looking elsewhere is heading for a fall. the graphic is about “Jihadist terror,” not terrorism as a whole (which includes far more than just Jihadists). And the “growth,” which is questionable due to definition (a particular problem for Afghanistan stats), is hardly “exponential.” Some basic math shows that.

Or how about the little “it’s all lies, damnable lies” about free speach. He’ all in favor of “free speach” as long as he agrees with it, much like he accuses “conservatives” of doing. Don’t think so? It a simple concept: control the language, control the debate. Politically Correct speach, and direct efforts to change the language limits free speach by definition. It limits ideas, it limits debate. See what all the global warming alarmists drivel on about.

And he completely missed the point of my Conservative-Liberal comment. This is the 21st century now, and 20th century liberals are fast becoming the new conservatives. Don’t touch this program or that program. Let’s continue failed policies and throw good money after bad into them. No reform, no increases in effectiveness. Just more of the same old. By definition, that’s “conservative.”

Then there’s this gem:
“Before the Iraq war, there had not been a single documented case of suicide terrorism in Iraq, but since the war began there have been hundreds.31 According to the Washington Post, the number of suicide attacks in Iraq increased eightfold between 2003 and 2006.32″
That’s like saying automobile fatalities were lower prior to 1900. It’s a nonstarter. It’s also a bit of a lie, or more accurately, an intentional mislead. That’s mainly because of the use of a maleable definition of “terrorism.” It doesn’t factor in events of the Iran-Iraq war, or military adventures in the Kurdish regions. So, Taliban military attacks count as “terrorism” in Afghanistan, but Iranian and Kurdish efforts are not included in Iraq. It’s an intentional misrepresentation to skew facts to a predetermined conclusion.

Now as for his list of accomplishments..
Democracy
–>Eh? The Greeks had a sense of a democratic process, but were very exclusive as to who got the vote. It was hardly an accomplishment of “progressive” thinkers. They liked slavery, it made their economy go. They were also rather militaristic. Even modern deomcratic means are hardly the result of “progressive” or “liberal” thinking. More like Classicists taking thier cue from their fore bearers.

Representative Democracy
–>”Progressive” and “liberal” thought? Hardly. The problem here is that Jersey insists on applying modern concepts to eras where they are inapplicable. Thomas Jefferson would not be considered “progressive” or “liberal” by today’s standards, as was barely labeled as “progressive” in his time.

The Universal Plebiscite
–>Repeating himself here. This falls under “democracy.” Notably as practiced by the Athenians. And again, one must look at it closely to see that while on the surface it may appear that Jersey has a point, it falls apart on closer inspection. Such as the restrictions on when and how and who such pleblicites would happen.

Abolishion
–>I’d comment on needing a spell checker, but so do I. Interesting that Jersey brings up Abolition. I say that because of who was behind the movement, namely those same “religious fanatics” he constantly rails against. Not just here in the USA, but in the UK and France as well. Even then, it was a much longer term trend that dates back 1000’s of years, hardly the result of “progressive” or “liberal” thinkers.

The Repeal of Prohibition
–>Uh-huh. Old Joe Kennedy was a real “progressive” and “liberal.” The Prohibition activists (who are still around BTW), have more in common with todays leftists than they do with rightists. It was all about ‘the good of the nation,” “for the betterment of a civil society,” and for “public health reasons.” So square this circle for me, if the Repeal of Prohibition was a “progressive” and “liberal” accomplishment, how can one reconcile the arguments for Prohibition, which was “antiprogressive,” with the same arguments being made for “universal health care,” and the anti-smoking campaigns, which are “progressive?”

Victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
—>Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…..>deep breath<…Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! Puh-Lease! This is so untenable as to be ludicrous! I’d say something more atm, but I think I pulled something laughing so hard at that one…

You went in to a lot more detail on many items than I wanted to take the time to do.

Hah, now you talk about falling for shtick ?
Since you guys are honestly not lovers of freeedom you believe that the average person is simply too ignorant to be free. You seem to believe that the average person can only live a decent life with the guidance of those more qualified, capable and intelligent. That, of course, would be the leftist intelligentsias who think hey are so much smarter and know whats best for us. you guys love big government. If there were a revolution today, it would not be the liberals doing the fighting.
You guys are so well aware of the connection between guns and freedom, so if you just get those pesky little guns out of the way you would be that much closer to not suffering a revolution from the masses that you had finally oppresed into oblivion.

“raise your children as you want,” - no. we just want to make sure that childrens rights are protected and they are receiving some minimal level of education, healthcare, and socialization for the sake of the survival of a civil and functional society. ”

Protected ? hah ! yea, the education would be the indoctrination of irresponsable sex and the freedom of abortion which represents a lack of personal responability.
You guys seek to dominate any institution which can weaken or destroy individual parental rights - public schools, child abuse agencies, pediatric associations, etc.. Its fact.
You also applaud the imprisoning of homeschooling parents who dare to raise their children outside the control of collectivist public schools.
And if you care so much about them, why would you abort one that has a heartbeat ?

“live where you want,” - no. we just want sensiblbly applied, publically necessary ED by public plebiscite, and responsible zoning, again with public consent.”

BS.
The environmentalists which are embraced by the left suggest living places that they assert will do less damage top the environment only as means of population control. By limiting access to beach front property, remote lakeside properties, scenic properties they impose regulations on that owner that make it nearly impossible to enjoy their property. telling them what shrubs and when to cut them, what pest that may exterminate, they set up ficticious reserves in the name of animals that are under no threat etc…etc…
The consent they retrieve from property owners is derived from skewed science presented only to convince the ownere that his hardships are for the right thing. As a forest fire ravages his house because he was not allowed to trim some obnoxious weed.

“drive the type of vehicle you choose,” - no. We just want safe vehiciles on the road. If you want to drive an idiotic vehicle, that’s fine. Just make sure its safe.”
No, you want us to drive cars that make us all look like dorks. And recieve pi$$ poor performace. Also to get us to contribute the ficticious global warming rhetoric by investing in machines that really will do little but advance you agenda of confirming the Global warming lie.
The more eggs on the road, the more people will come to believe the fib is real.

“say what you want,” - I have no idea what you mean by that. Do you want the right to start a riot? Just remember, its the ACLU who stands up for free speech - even for the KKK and NAMBLA. Its you cons that want to restrict rights, pull books out libraries, and rein in peaceable assemby.”

ACLU was originated from a communist doctrine.
Anyone that even thinks of defending NAMBLA or the KKK needs to be shut down.
Period.
We can fight for our rights just fine without them. Trust me.

“where you go to school,” No. You go to school whereever you can. We just want to make sure there are schools to actually go to.”

That teach liberalism.

“choose whether or not to smoke (although interestingly they want to allow you to smoke pot but not tobacco),” No. We just don’t want you blowing your smoke in other people’s faces.”

BS again.
Smoking bans have gotten out of control
It is an infringment on private property.
If so then you would simply legislate “not to blow smoke in peoples faces’

“how much money you can make and how,” No. As long as it’s legal and you pay your fair share in taxes, no one cares how much money you make or how.”

Bs again.

Define “FAIR”???

Nice try. But you have to concentrate on what terrorisms ideal target is, that would be you and the rest of our people.
To use Iraq and Afghanistan as an example is not reflective of “WORLDWIDE” terrorism as you quote.
Figure out which it is you are citing. WORLDWIDE, THE TWO WARS, OR DOMESTIC..
if you pull all your sources from someone whos willing to pull onl what reflects your wantingness to discredit Bush, you will find it.

CBC, Newsweek, and CNN and Newsweek are all lib publications which actually (if you go to the link and R E A D the article) used much more reliable and credible sources than your one.
I figured you would respect the publications that you often swear by, thats why I used them.
But, still, you have yet to explain your hightened and blatent hypocrisy on the matter I mentioned above;

“You know what ?
Not make this too peresonal but if I remember correctly Jersey you have been the one for over a year now that was saying how terrorism is not that big a threat and how we cons just use it as a fear mongering tool and an excuse to go to war.”

Would you care to enlighten me in this area ?
And then we can talk about hypocrisy

“raise your children as you want,” - no. we just want to make sure that childrens rights are protected and they are receiving some minimal level of education, healthcare, and socialization for the sake of the survival of a civil and functional society.

“live where you want,” - no. we just want sensiblbly applied, publically necessary ED by public plebiscite, and responsible zoning, again with public consent.

“drive the type of vehicle you choose,” - no. We just want safe vehiciles on the road. If you want to drive an idiotic vehicle, that’s fine. Just make sure its safe.

“decide whether or not you want to wear a seat belt or helmet,” - that’s just masochistic. Besides, both conservative and liberals are split amongst themselves on this.

“say what you want,” - I have no idea what you mean by that. Do you want the right to start a riot? Just remember, its the ACLU who stands up for free speech - even for the KKK and NAMBLA. Its you cons that want to restrict rights, pull books out libraries, and rein in peaceable assemby.

“where you go to school,” No. You go to school whereever you can. We just want to make sure there are schools to actually go to.

“choose whether or not to smoke (although interestingly they want to allow you to smoke pot but not tobacco),” No. We just don’t want you blowing your smoke in other people’s faces.

“where you can worship,” That’s a lie. I have no clue what you’re reffering to here. If you mean the right to proselytize in publically funded by legislation goverbnment building - that right doesn’t exist.

“how much money you can make and how,” No. As long as it’s legal and you pay your fair share in taxes, no one cares how much money you make or how.

This is all lies, Parrot. All of these pseudo-exmaples are outright lies, lies by ommission, and misrepresentations. I can’t believe you fall for this shtick.

JMJ