OT - What's Wrong Being A liberal?

In article <[email protected]>, deloid
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "BlueDude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Should a Liberal be ashamed?
> >
>
> This is why I am an Environmental Republican!
>
Actually I refer to myself as a Bull Moose Republican

Allen
www.bullmooserepublicans.com

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 06:39:46 -0800, "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:

>
>"Nate Perkins"
>
>> But today, the Republican party wins by intentionally cultivating
>> division - by encouraging disdain of Easterners, liberals, and
>> intellectuals,
>
>
>That's got more spin than a class 4 hurricane. It's a fact that the
>NE is heavily liberal and vote accordingly. They are out of step
>with the rest of the country so pointing it out isn't the division,
>the division was already there.

There's that Out-Of-Step (tm) line again. Christ, you'd think part of
New England voted 50% for Kerry, and the rest of the country voted
100% for Bush. Almost every state in the nation was split down the
middle. If we're out of step, it's only because we don't don
jackboots and start goosestepping with the fearless leader down the
road to hell.

>>dislike of foreigners, fear of gays, and callousness
>> toward those in need.
>>
>Why the derogatory comments? You are doing the demonizing
>and division, not the Republican leadership.

If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists.

>> Generally they have little respect for the
>> opposition, and they seek to smear and destroy their opponents in a
>> particularly personal way.
>
>
>LOL !
>
>
>> Sadly, this president and this party bears little resemblance to the
>> party of Reagan.
>
>Sure it does. Reagan got exactly the same kind of smarmy personal
>attacks from liberals, comedians and the media but history proved the
>detractors wrong and him right.

Sigh.

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Nate Perkins) wrote:

>But today, the Republican party wins by intentionally cultivating
>division - by encouraging disdain of Easterners, liberals, and
>intellectuals,

How silly. Easterners, liberals, and intellectuals are doing a perfectly good
job on their own of cultivating disdain for themselves among the voters, and
have no need of assistance from the Republican party or anyone else.

>dislike of foreigners, fear of gays, and callousness
>toward those in need. Generally they have little respect for the
>opposition, and they seek to smear and destroy their opponents in a
>particularly personal way.

Excuse me? It was the _Dems_ who repeatedly called the President incompetent,
a liar, a dope, etc. There was indeed a vicious, personal smear campaign going
on, but it was directed *at* the Republicans, not *by* them.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

> Should a Liberal be ashamed?

This jar of lube here sez I should apply a Liberal amount. Maybe that's what
happened to Kerry. Didn't use enough anal lube.

The Bush machine, apparently, was well oiled. Despite what the exit polls
were predicting, Bush came from behind, so to speak. 45 million Americans
are now feeling the pain.

Politics can be so scandalous.

"BlueDude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Should a Liberal be ashamed?
>

While this may be regional, a liberal is a kind way of saying socialist.
While socialism is currently a form of politics/government in many
countries, socialism is seen as in a very negative light in the US. Some
socialist countries are currently changing to a more capitalist approach for
survival....others not.

Personally I think that many of the outspoken democrats are socialist
bent..... a significant change from the era of JFK/RFK when the democrats
were doing good in the US. The Repubs are more like what the Dems were in
the 60's except for taxation & environmental issues.

This is why I am an Environmental Republican!

"p_j"
> David
>
> > They tend to be unconscious. Whether or not they have a conscience is
> > another matter.

> Funny thing, Bush voters overwhelmingly were ignorant of reality, at
> least according to scientific polls.



Funny thing. All the polls were wrong so who's having trouble
with reality here?



> But then facts are part of the reality based community which the Bush
> administration sneers at.



I like the Bush sneer. His ability to piss off liberals is a special gift.



> It is ironic that you talk about a conscience when neither Bush nor
> Cheney have expressed remorse for any of their acts. As near as I can
> tell, they are pathological in their absence of ability to see
> themselves as doing wrong.


Maybe they don't share your version of right and wrong?



> Wonder how many troops will have their lives eliminated or destroyed
> today. Bravo Bush. Freedom is spreading.


Just as it did in Japan, Germany, Korea, etc. but let's not digress
into facts.


> Maybe the questiuon should be what's wrong with being David?


Nice.

"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Problem with socialism is it admits of only a collective solution to a
> problem. As it strives to remove all obstacles to failure, it also
> removes
> all opportunity for success.

Very nicely stated!

"p_j"
> "George" >
> > The people were telling the press what they wanted to hear.
> >
> > I view the approaches of the two parties similar to my mom and dad.
> >
> > When I jumped my bike up a curb at full tilt, I really enjoyed the comfort
> > of my mom who said "that mean old pavement jumped up and scraped you. They
> > ought to do something about that curb so it won't hurt people." Liberals
> > tell you they'll remove all obstacles just for you.
> >
> > But I knew it was my dad who was right when he said "how many times is it
> > going to take before you realize that you can't run into curbs at full tilt
> > without tipping the bike? Pick up the wheel, you idiot." Conservatives
> > know that individual effort can overcome any obstacle.
>
> You're confusing the conservative religion which is what the republican
> party has become with reality. Your father may have been correct that
> you are an idiot and your mother sounds like a pretty fucked up person,
> but there is nothing in liberalism that has ever suggested removing all
> obstacles.



Why are liberals so arrogant and condescending? Which comes first,
the ideology or the attitude? Maybe it's two sides of the same coin.



> If anything liberals of today and the past such as Jefferson and Smith
> suggested that one obstacle, the requirement that parasites like the
> hordes at the republican welfare trough should be required to wipe their
> own asses.


You had too many insults piled on there to be coherant.

"Nate Perkins"

> But today, the Republican party wins by intentionally cultivating
> division - by encouraging disdain of Easterners, liberals, and
> intellectuals,


That's got more spin than a class 4 hurricane. It's a fact that the
NE is heavily liberal and vote accordingly. They are out of step
with the rest of the country so pointing it out isn't the division,
the division was already there.



>dislike of foreigners, fear of gays, and callousness
> toward those in need.



Why the derogatory comments? You are doing the demonizing
and division, not the Republican leadership.


> Generally they have little respect for the
> opposition, and they seek to smear and destroy their opponents in a
> particularly personal way.


LOL !


> Sadly, this president and this party bears little resemblance to the
> party of Reagan.


Sure it does. Reagan got exactly the same kind of smarmy personal
attacks from liberals, comedians and the media but history proved the
detractors wrong and him right.

"p_j"
> Fletis Humplebacker <!> wrote:
>
>
> > That's got more spin than a class 4 hurricane.
>
> Good job not making an argument and relying on smarminess.



So you can't argue with it?


> > It's a fact that the
> > NE is heavily liberal and vote accordingly.


> Look at a county by county map. There are some big swaths of blue
> through the middle of the country.



So? I didn't say they were exclusive to the NE.


> I hardly think that Kerry lost for being something he's not and Bush won
> for being something he's not.



So why complain?



> The country was founded by liberals on liberal principles.



According to who? Michael Moore?


> Personally I
> don't care if the Taliban/republican anti-capitalists get 99 percent
> poll approval.


It's the election poll that counts.



> >They are out of step
> > with the rest of the country so pointing it out isn't the division,
> > the division was already there.


> Many of the polls show the division to be between what Bush denigrates
> as the "reality based community" and the talk radio crowd who maintain
> belief in Bush as an emmissary of God as well as notions like Saddam had
> a nuclear weapons program, worked hand in hand with Al Qaeda in the 9/11
> attacks and similar nonsense such as Bush is a fiscal conservative or
> supports the rule of law.


Alot of assertions there. Can you support any of them?



> > >dislike of foreigners, fear of gays, and callousness
> > > toward those in need.


> > Why the derogatory comments? You are doing the demonizing
> > and division, not the Republican leadership.


> No, he's telling the truth about you.


Your head's too far up your butt to know.



> > > Generally they have little respect for the
> > > opposition, and they seek to smear and destroy their opponents in a
> > > particularly personal way.
> >
> >
> > LOL !
>
> Exactly.


Exactly indeed. See previous comment.


> > > Sadly, this president and this party bears little resemblance to the
> > > party of Reagan.


> > Sure it does. Reagan got exactly the same kind of smarmy personal
> > attacks from liberals, comedians and the media but history proved the
> > detractors wrong and him right.


> You mean that he was senile and corrupt?


Yes, that's the kind of juvenile insult I was referring to.



> Ironic that the republican party's key campaign strategy is dishonest
> personal attacks.


Such as? That Kerry's a liberal?


>The squated down and defecated on a hero who defended
> his country for doing exactly that.


Bush said he respected it, but the problem with Kerry is his actions
afterwards which prompted the swift boat vets into action. It may
have made a difference.


>I can't think of a single
> Bush/RNC/other Taliban group advertisement or talking point jihad that
> came close to reality. Many of them were blatantly false.


But how can you know from your vantage point????


> Do you know anything about Rove and his life?


Not really, I'm not the one into character assassination. Thanks for
the insight into a liberal mind.

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1gmvlyw.g22ske2bqbuwN%[email protected]...
> > Todd Fatheree <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > I have to agree with you, Dave. I honestly don't understand the
> thinking of
> > > most people who are pro-abortion.
> >
> > What i don't understand is the anti-life attitude of the
> > anti-abortionists who do not value the life of sperm and eggs. These
> > unborn children deserve the protection of the government.
>
> If that's your best shot, you might consider shutting it instead of looking
> like a moron.
>
> todd
>


Too late.

"p_j"
> Fletis Humplebacker <!> wrote:

> > Why are liberals so arrogant and condescending? Which comes first,
> > the ideology or the attitude? Maybe it's two sides of the same coin.
>
> Conservatives. Isn't that what you mean?


Try reading it again.


> > > If anything liberals of today and the past such as Jefferson and Smith
> > > suggested that one obstacle, the requirement that parasites like the
> > > hordes at the republican welfare trough should be required to wipe their
> > > own asses.
> >
> >
> > You had too many insults piled on there to be coherant.
>
> Yeah, Jefferson and Smith weren't "coherant" either.


I can understand them but I doubt they'd have anything to do with
your comments here.

"p_j"
> Fletis Humplebacker <!> wrote:
>
> > > > They tend to be unconscious. Whether or not they have a conscience is
> > > > another matter.
> >
> > > Funny thing, Bush voters overwhelmingly were ignorant of reality, at
> > > least according to scientific polls.


> > Funny thing. All the polls were wrong so who's having trouble
> > with reality here?


> I was talking about the polling that examined knowledge of facts. Please
> respond to that.



Which poll was that?


> To your point about polls on voter preference being in error, that is
> far from determined. The exit polls that didn't match reported results
> of vote totals were almost entirely in states that were critical to
> Bush. Do you think that is a coincidence or has some innocent
> explanation?


No, the DNC was probably involved.



> > > But then facts are part of the reality based community which the Bush
> > > administration sneers at.



> > I like the Bush sneer. His ability to piss off liberals is a special gift.

> I like it too. That cackle is even better.


Good. We're both happy then. Me with him and you with hate.


> > > It is ironic that you talk about a conscience when neither Bush nor
> > > Cheney have expressed remorse for any of their acts. As near as I can
> > > tell, they are pathological in their absence of ability to see
> > > themselves as doing wrong.


> > Maybe they don't share your version of right and wrong?


> Well this is certainly true. I think the heart of it is that they see
> themselves of unable to do wrong. Lying, cheating and stealing are not
> wrong when they are done in the service of God or God's emmissarys.


Don't you mean Satan and his emissaries?



> > > Wonder how many troops will have their lives eliminated or destroyed
> > > today. Bravo Bush. Freedom is spreading.


> > Just as it did in Japan, Germany, Korea, etc. but let's not digress
> > into facts.


> True, facts are the enemy. Comparing Japan and Germany to occupying Iraq
> rates right up there as assinine and dishonest.


I addressed your misguided comment that soldiers don't die in war for freedom.

> Agreed. But keep in mind that the US was founded by and for Christians.

Are they the same ones who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of native
Indians, often for just for sport?

"GregP"
> WoodMangler

>
>
> >Let me go read that declaration of independence again... Perhaps I missed
> >Abdul's signature the first time.
> >
>
> He was too busy working 14 hours a day for one of the signers....
>
> >At what point did I state or imply that Christians have or deserve special
> >rights and privileges?
>
> When you said that we should continue to maintain religious
> symbols in public places, especially since few of those symbols
> have been there since the "founding of the country."


That would then deny the heritage of the country. No one is
converted by the symbols but they were put there for a reason.
I don't see a good enough reason to systematically remove them.
If it troubles someone that the country was predominately
Christian they should learn to accept history and facts for what
they are, not what they want them to be.

"GregP"
>
"Fletis Humplebacker" >
> >
> >> But today, the Republican party wins by intentionally cultivating
> >> division - by encouraging disdain of Easterners, liberals, and
> >> intellectuals,


> >That's got more spin than a class 4 hurricane. It's a fact that the
> >NE is heavily liberal and vote accordingly. They are out of step
> >with the rest of the country so pointing it out isn't the division,
> >the division was already there.


> That makes a second hurricane. Almost 56M people voted for
> Kerry. The people on the other side of the division line add up
> to more than NEders.



No one said they only lived there.



> Something that should concern all of us is that Kerry could have
> won the election while being down more than 3M votes, and that
> is in spite of our federal system that gives more weight to voters
> in Bush states such as Wyoming. If that had happened, a lot of
> people would have been justifiably angry. Some thought should
> be given to that to see whether we should try to avoid such a
> situation in the future.


I happen to agree that the electoral college is the best solution
so I wouldn't change it. The voting machines, system, etc may
need a bit of tweaking. And I'd be for doing away with exit polling
or reporting results before the rave is called and maybe polling
anywhere near a voting establishment.

"George"
> Boy are YOU out of touch with reality. If you care to, go down to a school
> and see what they're using as History books. Be prepared for a shock.


I doubt much would shock me. Kids are getting a skewed history these
days from the liberal controlled re-education camps.




> "Fletis
>
> > That would then deny the heritage of the country. No one is
> > converted by the symbols but they were put there for a reason.
> > I don't see a good enough reason to systematically remove them.
> > If it troubles someone that the country was predominately
> > Christian they should learn to accept history and facts for what
> > they are, not what they want them to be.

"Prometheus"
> "Fletis Humplebacker"
>
> >
> >"Nate Perkins"
> >
> >> But today, the Republican party wins by intentionally cultivating
> >> division - by encouraging disdain of Easterners, liberals, and
> >> intellectuals,
> >
> >
> >That's got more spin than a class 4 hurricane. It's a fact that the
> >NE is heavily liberal and vote accordingly. They are out of step
> >with the rest of the country so pointing it out isn't the division,
> >the division was already there.


> There's that Out-Of-Step (tm) line again. Christ, you'd think part of
> New England voted 50% for Kerry, and the rest of the country voted
> 100% for Bush.


I do believe the more dedicated liberals are out of touch with the
rest of America. Most people who call themselves liberal are caught
up in the rhetoric.



>Almost every state in the nation was split down the
> middle. If we're out of step, it's only because we don't don
> jackboots and start goosestepping with the fearless leader down the
> road to hell.


That's what I mean. Bush is Satan, blah blah blah. I do not believe
that most people who voted for Kerry are liberal, in fact, many
simply voted against Bush because of the perpetual liberal bashing.
If there were any goosestepping to an ideological drumbeat it was
them.



> >>dislike of foreigners, fear of gays, and callousness
> >> toward those in need.
> >>
> >Why the derogatory comments? You are doing the demonizing
> >and division, not the Republican leadership.


> If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists.



On terrorism, yes. He wasn't talking about domestic issues, except
when they included terrorism. You don't stand with the U.S. on
fighting terrorism?



> >> Generally they have little respect for the
> >> opposition, and they seek to smear and destroy their opponents in a
> >> particularly personal way.
> >
> >
> >LOL !
> >
> >
> >> Sadly, this president and this party bears little resemblance to the
> >> party of Reagan.
> >
> >Sure it does. Reagan got exactly the same kind of smarmy personal
> >attacks from liberals, comedians and the media but history proved the
> >detractors wrong and him right.
>
> Sigh.
>
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam


Sorry, I don't speak Greek.

> As a citizen of the US I am, like almost all citizens of the US,
> believe that we should deal with terrorism. Too bad the
> administration doesn't pay more attention to it.

Do you, unlike most citizens of the US, understand the root cause of
terrorism, especially in the Middle East?

"Prometheus"
> "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:

> >I do believe the more dedicated liberals are out of touch with the
> >rest of America. Most people who call themselves liberal are caught
> >up in the rhetoric.
>
> And most people that call themselves conservative are thoughtful,
> insightful pillars of the community, no doubt.



Usually, yes. Liberalism is based on how one feels about things.
Conservatism is based on practicalities, i.e. how can the problem
actually be solved and what is it's roots.



> >>Almost every state in the nation was split down the
> >> middle. If we're out of step, it's only because we don't don
> >> jackboots and start goosestepping with the fearless leader down the
> >> road to hell.


> >That's what I mean. Bush is Satan, blah blah blah. I do not believe
> >that most people who voted for Kerry are liberal, in fact, many
> >simply voted against Bush because of the perpetual liberal bashing.
> >If there were any goosestepping to an ideological drumbeat it was
> >them.


> I voted for Kerry as a conservative, because Bush hung himself in my
> book through his own words and actions. I don't care about the
> "perpetual liberal bashing" any more than I do about the perpetual
> conservative bashing that goes on on AM talk radio (more often than
> not).

>I don't think you've got much a point here, since no one seems
> to be able to pin down a cohesive liberal ideology. Kind of hard to
> march to a beat that isn't there.



Speak for yourself. Many (millions?) of people can and do pin
down liberal ideology, including liberals themselves.



> >On terrorism, yes. He wasn't talking about domestic issues, except
> >when they included terrorism. You don't stand with the U.S. on
> >fighting terrorism?


> Sure, on fighting terrorists. But not on fighting any country we feel
> like. Hell, why not bomb Paris? They had a relationship with Iraq.



That's been discussed many times here and elsewhere. Pretending
it hasn't doesn't help your case. If France starts harboring terrorists,
invading it's neighbors for a land grab, using WMDs on it's citizens
and the U.N. is deadlocked into a perpetual circle jerk then something
will need to be done.

<[email protected]>

>Both liberals and conservatives alike
> are working towards the common goal of keeping the big government off
> of the little people's backs. We may work at it in different ways, but
> the ultimate goal is the same. Conservatives tend to see this
> difference in taxes which they believe suppress individual freedom
> (quite likely so). Liberals tend to see this difference in restrictive
> measures such as the Patriot Act, which eerily resembles the search and
> seizure policies of the USSR.


Most of my freedoms were taken by liberals, guncontrol, minority
hiring rights, increased taxes for endless social programs, etc, etc.
Yet liberals believe conservatives are largely responsible and like
to quote the Patriot Act and freespeech. When asked for specifics
they don't usually have any. The Patriot Act helps by letting law
enforcement treat terrorism like drug enforcement. makes sense to
me and as a law abiding citizen I don't worry about harmful side effects.
I don't think you know what went on in the USSR.

"Sky"
> Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his
> morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging
> liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.


Nonsense. No one wants to drink contaminated water. This is
propaganda by emotional appeal.



> With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His
> medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought
> to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.


He may have been stupid but his fight was joined by conservatives,
in fact it's the leftist trial lawyer that hinder development, distribution
and costs. The dumb commie is led by emotion, not fact.


> All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical
> plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid
> medical insurance -- now Joe gets it too.



And his employer passes those costs on to consumers because his employer
can't pull money out of his ass. But the dumb commie doesn't know that.



> He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe
> to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the
> meat packing industry.


According to Pravda perhaps but conservatives don't want to eat
spoiled meat either.



> In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is
> properly labeled with each ingredie nt and its amount in the total
> contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what
> he was putting on his body and how much it contained.


You mean his baby bottle or shampoo bottle? Yes they should both
be labeled. Who's against it?



> Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes
> is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the
> laws to stop industries from polluting our air.


They can't stop but many conservatives have and do fight the good fight
as well, no matter what Pravda teaches the useful idiot.



> He walks to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work.
> It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees
> because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public
> transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a
> contributor.



Yes, I enjoy seeing my tax dollars shuttle around three people
in giant belching busses so they don't prsonally add any pollution.
Hey, that's more time for Pravda reading too!



> Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical
> benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy
> liberal union members fought and died for these working standards.
> Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want
> his employees to call the union.


You bet. Since the union will be moving to China soon to join the
work force Joe can enjoy his unemployment bennies. While they
last.



> If Joe is hurt on the job or bec omes unemployed, he'll get a worker
> compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't
> think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
> Its noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some
> bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some
> godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers
> who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.



Good thing they planted all those government money trees to pay for it all.



> Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his
> below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided
> that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and
> earned more money over his lifetime.Joe is home from work.


But Joe could have joined the military and got college funds too.
Maybe they would have helped wean him off of the nipple and quit
relying on others money so much.



> He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the
> country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest
> in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety
> standards.


Which car is that? Seems like the Japanese and Germans get the better scores.



> He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in
> the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers
> didn't want to make rural loans.


Three generations in the same house? I wonder how helpful it really was.



> The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal
> stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural
> electrification.


It wouldn't have happened otherwise?



> He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on
> Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking,
> cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe
> wouldn't have to.


No, Joe's kids will. They'll be paying a 70 percent tax burden unless
someone slaps the cheese eating liberal into reality.



> Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk
> show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and
> conservatives are good.


I listen alot myself and don't hear that simplistic message. If that's
what Joe interprets he has been successfully conditioned by
Pravda. I usually hear about the pitfalls of liberalism, not how evil
liberals are.



>He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans
> have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout
> his day.



Maybe because it isn't true. Joe thinks that because he has been
taught so.


>Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals
> ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone
> should take care of themselves,
> just like I have."

> Should you be ashamed of being a Patriot? I don't think so!

> Of course, the Conservative "think tank" that fill this post with
> comments will never agree. Ignorance works like that!


Where was the thinking in the post? It was all based on false
assumptions, prejudices and misinformation.

This makes me sick. As staunch conservatives, you successfully
attacked a dictionary definition. Congratulations! As an American
liberal, I find it nauseating for two political ideologies, which are
not necessarily opposites, to attack each other like that. Were you
aware that liberal was once thought of as being in favor of laissez
fairee economics (that's basically leave it be capitalism for those of
you that didn't know), equality, and freedom. As far as I am aware, at
least the last two still apply. Both liberals and conservatives alike
are working towards the common goal of keeping the big government off
of the little people's backs. We may work at it in different ways, but
the ultimate goal is the same. Conservatives tend to see this
difference in taxes which they believe suppress individual freedom
(quite likely so). Liberals tend to see this difference in restrictive
measures such as the Patriot Act, which eerily resembles the search and
seizure policies of the USSR. Both the USSR policies and the Patriot
acts were written as protective measures from both outer and inner
forces.

Liberals are painted as communists and Conservatives are painted as
Nazis. Neither is true. We are ALL working for the betterment of our
societies, just in different ways. Maybe we should stop fighting each
other and work together to achieve this common goal-

Here are two definitions of liberal and conservative. I'll leave it to
you to guess which is which. Regardless of what meaning you have
imposed on these two words, maybe it would be good to take a look back
and see what they truly stand for.


1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or
authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and
tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he
ever receive either." - Benjamin Franklin

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his
morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging
liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His
medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought
to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical
plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid
medical insurance -- now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe
to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the
meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is
properly labeled with each ingredie nt and its amount in the total
contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what
he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes
is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the
laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work.
It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees
because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public
transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a
contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical
benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy
liberal union members fought and died for these working standards.
Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want
his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or bec omes unemployed, he'll get a worker
compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't
think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
Its noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some
bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some
godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers
who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his
below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided
that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and
earned more money over his lifetime.Joe is home from work.

He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the
country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest
in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety
standards.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in
the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers
didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal
stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural
electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on
Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking,
cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe
wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk
show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and
conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans
have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout
his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals
ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone
should take care of themselves,
just like I have."

Should you be ashamed of being a Patriot? I don't think so!

Of course, the Conservative "think tank" that fill this post with
comments will never agree. Ignorance works like that!

Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 05:50:13 +0000, BlueDude wrote:
>
> >
> > Should a Liberal be ashamed?
>
> No, just be aware of why you are where you are, and understandwhere
you
> are going:
>
> <http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110005858>
>
> -Doug



Good post Doug!
Thanks!

Ha ha ha! That's funny Fletus!
Well done!

Never Enough Money <[email protected]> wrote:

> Liberals don't meet the definition of liberal. See my comments below.

Nonsense.

> > Liberal (adj.)
> > 1. Having, expressing, or following social or political views or policies
> > that favor non-revolutionary progress and reform.
> Neither party wants violent revolution and reform.

Personally, i think a violent revolution, as the founders called for
under circumstances that are current, would be fine.

> Although Unions, a
> liberal institution, often resort to sabotage, theft, and destruction
> when things aren't going their way.

lol... edycated by talk radio? Unions are a capitalst institution if
anything. Say, you know Karl Rove has engaged in sabotage, theft and
destruction to get his own way. He is considered a hero. If you could
flush your moral relativism, wouldn't that make your imaginary acts
heroic?

> The situations in Iraq and
> Afganistan are more complicated than simple "revolutionary progress
> and reform."

They aren't progress, that's for sure.
> >
> > 2. Having, expressing or following views or policies that favor the
> > freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of their
> > own choosing.
> Hmmm. Liberals want to give a woman a right to choose while taking a
> fetus'es right to life. They favor killing a baby when a woman did not
> exercise hew right to choose when and what penis she accepted.

Why so soft an sperm and eggs?

> (Cases
> of rape excluded.)

LMAO... kill that child, uh, cuz, er, well, well... no reason really,
but its PC, just like its PC to refer to a fetus as a "child."

> Hmmm. Liberals want more taxes.

Nonsense. Liberals advocate for anti-conservative policies like balanced
budgets, sound currency and for having Taliban assholes like the ones
you hear and talk radio and their sheeple who regurgitate the nonsense
wipe their own asses and get their fat snouts out of the welfare trough.

> Taking money from an individual
> reduces that individuals ability of act or express themseslves in a
> manner of their own choosing.

Right, right, everything should be free.

> Hmmm. Liberals want big centralized government

Hmmmmm... are you waking from a coma? The largest increase in government
and radical centralization has just occured under the most conservative
government in modern history. Its so extreme that Reaganites and
Nixonians came out in numbers to plead that the corruption would end.

> although localized
> governenmt provides much more freedom to individuals because decisions
> are made at a local level -- rather than one size fits all decisions
> from big government.

More attacks on Bush...

> Hmmm. Liberal dislike educational choices like vouchers.

Well, it is an idea which will clearly lead to more intervention and
control of private education. That sure isn't liberal.

> They think
> the all Americans should get the same education and it must have the
> NEA seal of approval.

Nonsense. Are you posting this shit while you're drinking?

Is Sean Hannity on as you type?

> Furthermore, the teacher should not be held
> accountable. Seems like a reduction of choice to me.

More silly Taliban propaganda. Best of all, conservatives want all
teaching to be PC and are currently working hard on that Fatwa.

> Hmmm. Liberal want socialized medicine.

Hmmmm... many don't, but many don't want the third choice that dominates
conservative politics, fascist politics. Bush

> Nobody gets to choose. No
> market force

Bush is working hard to eliminate market forces from the health
industry. Ever hear about his anti-trust work or his call for the
rabidly anti-capitalist tort elimination legislation? That's part of
market economics. Hell, its part of the American system.

Know anything about Bill Frist? Fewer hospitals, fewer choices, but you
get to reduce your income with "medical saving accounts." What a cheap
hustle. I guess the people who think Bush is honest and moral will buy
anything.

> (which by the way is the reason 99% of all new drug
> patents and miracle drugs come from the US).

zzzzzzzzzzz... why not make it a higher percentage? Why not say that no
real drug has come from anywhere but America and that any that people
think didn't were really done by Americans but it was stolen?

> Hmmm. Liberals want a social securtiy system which has one rate of
> return, an a low one at that.

Wow. You didn't know that SS has no rate of return whatsoever? Its not
an investment program and efforts to actually achieve that were
viciously attacked by republicans.

> Hmmm. Liberals worship labor unions which tend to reduce salary
> differences based upon merit, protect incompetence, and outsource jobs
> since they ratchet up wages until it is far more economical to go to
> another coutry.

zzzzzzz... I'd go dig up some quotes from Hayek and Smith, but you don't
sound like you can let go of the talk radio stuff.

> Hmmm. Liberals think all large corpoartions are criminal

Now that's better. I must say, as an extreme right winger/extreme
liberal, I hear that all the time. (That's sarcasm for people stupid
enough to believe Sean and Rush.)

> and so they
> punish the most successful even though the company is a source of
> jobs, wealth production, and innovations. The companies then sometimes
> outsource or move altogether, thereby reducing jobs which thereby
> reduce an individuals freedom to...

Translation: it is wrong to punish criminals or advocate for the rule of
law. These bedrock liberal principles are clearly wrong.

> Ahhh. You must be referring to the patriot act! It is proper that
> rights contract and expand with threats (like terroism) to society. In
> the case of the Patriot Act, only a tiny bit has been sacrificed but
> liberal are making it sound like all our rights have been lost. Help
> us eliminate terrorism and even these tiny concessions will be
> restored.

lol... the Coward Act it out to be called. Are you afraid old-timer?
Hope you stock up on Depends.

We've only lost a tiny bit. Sure. I realize you mean that only a tiny
portion of the population has been affected, because it is a radical
bill. Once again, you are stating that the people who founded the
country were stupid assholes and that smart people like Bush, Cheney and
Ashcroft who are diametrically opposed to their views are smart and
good.
> >
> > 3. Of, designating, or belonging to a Liberal political party.
> So far the first 2 definitions tell me that Republicans are liberals.

Bullshit. A huge stinking pile of aging bullshit.

> Not sure I beleive the dictionalry capitilized Liberal above, they
> meant "liberal", not "Liberal."
> >
> > 4. Of, relating to, or characteristic of representational forms of
> > government.
> Republicans/conservatives definitely fit this definition.

LMAO. Where? When? Who?

In fact,
> they are strong propoentns of state's power over the Federal
> governemnt.

Gee, Bush is the exact opposite. So I wonder once again whether you have
recently awakened from a coma? Hell, Bush doesn't believe that the
executive should be limited much at all by the courts. He has claimed
the right to imprison you or execute you without trial on his command
only.

> They favor a "republican" form of government (to which we
> pledge allegiance to) to prevent the situtation where the majority
> always wins - squashing the minority without remorse.

There is a classic chestnut of talk radio. Still waiting for some
sheeple like you to provide an example of this mythic democracy where
there were no represenatives. Hell, I'd settle for some philosopher who
even mentions such a system. Of course none exist.

Meanwhile Bush prepares to squish the shit out of the bloodied democrats
based on a "mandate." Sounds terribly like what you accuse the democrats
of. Of course Bush is doing the work of God and he is infallible, so
maybe that explains the situational ethics.
> >
> > 5. Tolerant of the ideas or behavior of others.
> Liberal can't seem tolerate the ideas of Republicans! Republicans, and
> conservatives in general, are very tolerant of anybody and any idea
> that isn't a lie and doesn't hurt others and is legal.

LMAO. What a crock. No I take that back. What a boatload.

> There are more
> minorities in the Bush administration than any other administration in
> American history.

Bravo. Lotsa house niggers to show he ain't afraid of 'em.

> Repubilcans do not tolerate behaviour that infringes
> on the rights of others: abortion infringes on the rights of a fetus,
> illegal immigration infringes on the rights of citizens, etc.

Uh, Reagan provided amnesty for a huge number of illegals. Bush is
working hard to keep them around. But what about tort reform? That
infringes on the rights of individuals? What about idiotic moral
bullshit like marijuana and blue laws? I know, I know, they must be
sacrificed to the greater good. Right Comrade?
> >
> > 6.a. Tending to give freely; generous. b. Generously given; bountiful.
> If you think the purpose of governemt is to redisteribute wealth, then
> be a Liberal.

No be a conservative. Bush is doing exactly that. The greatest
trough-a-thon in history is ongoing. He just signed two bills that are
monstrosities of welfare largesse. Moreover he is working hard so that
parasites who never have enough money can get others to wipe their asses
for them.

> If you think that fostering a strong business and
> entrepreneaurial environment in order to acheive full employment, be a
> Republican.

Yeah, history is all wrong. Rewrite history. Oh, and by all means donate
the legal limit to the RNC. I hope you did the same for Bush? THAT is
the most critical element of business success. Become a Pioneer or
Ranger and "business success" is guaranteed.

I would note that the republicans are working hard to achieve full
employment. They changed the definition of what it is. I believe they
just redefined what manufacturing is as well, so that would mean an
increase in manufacturing jobs.

Meanwhile the second part of their plan is motoring ahead full speed
ahead - radically increase government employment. Bravo republicans.

Their third strategy is under implementation as well. Get more currency
out there and allow it to devalue. Good for the stock market and good
for employment and good for exports. What could be wrong with anything
like that? Yes, I know, the stupid assholes who founded the country were
against it, but they haven't been right about anything else have they?
> >
> > 7. Not literal: "a liberal translation".
> As in Republicans are conservative even though they are changing lots
> of things for the better -- introducing more individual freedom and
> self-determination.

Do you live in America?
> >
> > 8. obsolete. a. Permissible or appropriat for a free man. b. Unrestrained.
> >
> > 9. Relating to or based on a liberal arts education.
> Most liberal arts folks can't make a living on their own. Hey, we all
> want to be musicians, poets, writers, and historians. Unfortunately
> society only needs a certain amount of these folks.

Guess you didn't make it to college huh? (Here is a clue: edit this
whole thing out because your being an idiot.)

> Also
> unfortunately, these folks think the government should support them
> anyway through massive funding.

No, that would be republicans. Hell, they run 100s of billions through
their trough. Well, except for the bills that Bush vetoed. Right?

> I say "get a job" like the rest of us
> had to.

How many forms of welfare do you receive?

> Do conservatives value liberal arts? Absolutely.

Many don't. Look at Guiliani for instance. He thinks that art isn't even
a form of speech.

> Do we think
> the government should fund liberal arts (especially more than
> medicine, engineering, etc)? No. Liberal arts majors should get out
> and make a living on their own.

Most people in medicine and engineering went to liberal arts colleges.
Your babbling. But by all means, lets keep up the welfare for
conservatives. Wouldn't want to cut back on moral relativism.

Maybe they need stop whining and get a
> job as a plumber, or construction, or whatever the market is
> demanding.

Restaurant helper. Gardener. Not sure why you think they're whining or
unemployed, but what the fuck do you do?
> >
> > (n.) 1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
> Looks like conservatives fir the definitions above more than the
> self-described liberals.

Nonsense.
> >
> > 2. A member of a Liberal political party.
> A paradox if we use the current situation as the example.

Nonsense.
> >
> > --from American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
> >
>
> Now let's get back to woodworking and stop posting political
> statements to this _woodworking_ group. I feel dirty for having been
> seduced into responding this one time. I hope my fellow woodworkers
> will forgive me.

Your countrymen is who you should ask for forgiveness.
>
> I try to keep my politics confined to
> www.politicalparables.blogspot.com.

Yeah, spreading lies and hate shouldn't be part of woodworking but
thanks for admitting to it.

Sbtypesetter <[email protected]> wrote:

> A wise man's heart is at his right hand;
> but a fool's heart at his left.
> Ecclesiates 10:2

Sounds like you speak from the heart.
>
> Best reason I know not to be a
> leftist,

Using the term classically, Bush is a leftist. So, given the monstrosity
of immorality that he advocates and acts, I would agree with that one.

> communist, socialist,
> democrat, et al.

Democrats aren't socialists or communists, but how ironic that you left
out the current American political system, fascism. Strange how you
republicans are pushing it as the solution for the problems of the
world.

Here is Isiah saying the the Bush evangelicals are screwed:

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for
light and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for
bitter."

Todd Fatheree <[email protected]> wrote:

> > >>Should a Liberal be ashamed?
> > >
> > >
> > > As noted by another response, the term has been
> > > hijacked and stood on its head for political purposes
> > > - somewhat like the words patriot and christian. And
> > > it doesn't take much to twist an idea into its opposite.
> > >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Bush on uniting and bipartisanship:
> >
> > President Bush proclaimed his election as evidence that Americans
> > embrace his plans to reform Social Security, simplify the tax code, curb
> > lawsuits and fight the war on terror, pledging Thursday to work in a
> > bipartisan manner with "everyone who shares our goals."
> >
> > [from the San Francisco Chronicle]
>
> Your narrow interpretation of Bush's statement is noted.

Where?

> So, what you're
> saying is that liberals don't want to reform SS, simplify the tax code, curb
> lawsuits (this one I believe), or fight the war on terror?

Reform has had dozens of meanings, and I can't recall many times that
republicans have actually set out to do it. Its just a propaganda term
like patriotism in the Patriot Act or Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Bush just got done spending four years adding more complications to the
tax code.

Lawsuits can be curbed by legal reform and functional regulation rather
that just eliminating the rights of individuals which is what Bush
wants. Hell, he could make a boldly pro-capitalism, pro-justice move by
just allowing helot citizens to see the records of bad doctors rather
than working hard to protect them. He could do that simply and quickly,
probably without legislation. He could reform doctors self-regulation.
He could move to enforce perjury laws in malpractice suits. None of that
will happen. It should be noted that I am a member of what the Bush
administration pejoratively refers to as the reality based community, so
facts mean something to me. Malpractice suits are declining. Malpractice
is rising rather rapidly. The greatest constipation in the federal
courts and the greatest provider of frivolous lawsuits are corporations
suing other corporations. But I admit those are irrelevant because they
are facts.

I would add that Bush described terrorism as a problem that can never be
eliminated and note that there can be no such thing as a war on
terrorism. Current efforts are increasing the legitimacy, value and
liklihood of terror here in America and elsewhere.

We can share
> goals, but have different ideas of how to get there.

I think that's the most sensible thing I've heard you say.


>
> todd

Richard Clements <[email protected]> wrote:

> Unisaw A100 wrote:
>
> >
> you tell them boss

Nobody needs to here the great leader speak. His views are well known.

Gore claims to have invented the internet.

Maybe, bank and medicare defrauder, John E. Bush of the royal Bush
family can take power in 08 was one of my favorites.

David <[email protected]> wrote:

> They tend to be unconscious. Whether or not they have a conscience is
> another matter.

Funny thing, Bush voters overwhelmingly were ignorant of reality, at
least according to scientific polls.

But then facts are part of the reality based community which the Bush
administration sneers at.

It is ironic that you talk about a conscience when neither Bush nor
Cheney have expressed remorse for any of their acts. As near as I can
tell, they are pathological in their absence of ability to see
themselves as doing wrong.

Wonder how many troops will have their lives eliminated or destroyed
today. Bravo Bush. Freedom is spreading.

Maybe the questiuon should be what's wrong with being David?

"George" <george@least> wrote:

> The people were telling the press what they wanted to hear.
>
> I view the approaches of the two parties similar to my mom and dad.
>
> When I jumped my bike up a curb at full tilt, I really enjoyed the comfort
> of my mom who said "that mean old pavement jumped up and scraped you. They
> ought to do something about that curb so it won't hurt people." Liberals
> tell you they'll remove all obstacles just for you.
>
> But I knew it was my dad who was right when he said "how many times is it
> going to take before you realize that you can't run into curbs at full tilt
> without tipping the bike? Pick up the wheel, you idiot." Conservatives
> know that individual effort can overcome any obstacle.

You're confusing the conservative religion which is what the republican
party has become with reality. Your father may have been correct that
you are an idiot and your mother sounds like a pretty fucked up person,
but there is nothing in liberalism that has ever suggested removing all
obstacles.

If anything liberals of today and the past such as Jefferson and Smith
suggested that one obstacle, the requirement that parasites like the
hordes at the republican welfare trough should be required to wipe their
own asses.

Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:

First thing Prometheus, it makes it tough to follow along, because you
are responding to both me and the guy I responded to at the same time in
the same post.

> >Personally, i think a violent revolution, as the founders called for
> >under circumstances that are current, would be fine.
>
> Another quote for you:
>
> "From time to time, the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the
> blood of patriots and tyrants"
> --Thomas Jefferson.
>
> Though I don't see a need for that quite yet, things are certainly
> tending that way.

I wonder how many people wouldn't be happy if there was a bloodless coup
by some general.


>
> >> > 3. Of, designating, or belonging to a Liberal political party.
> >> So far the first 2 definitions tell me that Republicans are liberals.
> >
> >Bullshit. A huge stinking pile of aging bullshit.
>
> Agreed. Republicans have turned into tyrants-in-training. How does
> the desire to control the lives of others based on one group's concept
> of "morality" fit into the definition of liberal?

They hate us because of our freedom.
>
> >Gee, Bush is the exact opposite. So I wonder once again whether you have
> >recently awakened from a coma? Hell, Bush doesn't believe that the
> >executive should be limited much at all by the courts. He has claimed
> >the right to imprison you or execute you without trial on his command
> >only.
>
> Won't be long before he suspends the writ of Habeas Corpus in the
> interest of "National Security." There's even a precedent for him to
> use that Lincoln set in the Civil War.

Hey, he already claimed that right. If a person is deemed a terrorist,
no lawyer, no trial, no nothing. What's the latest on Hamdi and Padilla?
If you get really lucky, you get to be "rendered" to a foreign country
for torture.
<snip>


> >> > 5. Tolerant of the ideas or behavior of others.
> >> Liberal can't seem tolerate the ideas of Republicans! Republicans, and
> >> conservatives in general, are very tolerant of anybody and any idea
> >> that isn't a lie and doesn't hurt others and is legal.
>
> This is just simply wrong. I worked on Thompson's gubernatorial
> campaign in 1998, and the staffers with the college Republicans were
> the least tolerant human beings I have ever had the misfortune to
> meet- they even went so far as to steal opponent's yard signs, and
> physically attack a group of students having some sort of gay/lesbian
> rally. One of them even got on my case for not being a Christian as
> was *helping* the stupid prick staple signs together. This is not to
> say that every Republican is like this- I called myself one for many
> years, and there are many good men and women who take that title who
> are decent citizens and human beings.

Interesting. I'm in Wisconsin, but worked for the libertarian party
during the Thompson years. I confess I have voted republican when I was
a young, foolish, idealistic student. I have to say it is painful
listening to the current conservatives who seem to know nothing of the
roots, principles or ideals of their own movement.

Thompson is a great example of a big government republican though. I gag
every time one of the five media companies that own the news declare
that he is "beloved" by Wisconsinites.

> >
> >No be a conservative. Bush is doing exactly that. The greatest
> >trough-a-thon in history is ongoing. He just signed two bills that are
> >monstrosities of welfare largesse. Moreover he is working hard so that
> >parasites who never have enough money can get others to wipe their asses
> >for them.
>
> Kinda makes you want to weep, doesn't it? I never thought I'd see the
> day when the Democrats were more fiscally responsible than the
> Republicans.

Look at historical patterns and its nothing new.
>
> >Their third strategy is under implementation as well. Get more currency
> >out there and allow it to devalue. Good for the stock market and good
> >for employment and good for exports. What could be wrong with anything
> >like that? Yes, I know, the stupid assholes who founded the country were
> >against it, but they haven't been right about anything else have they?
>
> Wish we were still on the gold standard...

lol... that's my advice to everyone. Buy gold. (Actually, silver is a
good investment me thinks.) I guess I should add that there are a lot of
murmerings among true conservatives about the renewal of Roosevelt's
gold confiscation legislation or some such thing. Word is that because
of a loophole in the legislation, Chinese Pandas are exempt because they
are demoninated in Yuan.
>

> >How many forms of welfare do you receive?
>
> Never took so much as a day's wage from the gov't in my entire life.
> The only things I use from them are those things which I must use for
> lack of other options (police, roads, military etc.) And somehow I
> managed not to vote for Bush.

Prometheus, now you're responding to me after most of your responses
were to the other guy.

But... my point is that welfare payments are made to property owners,
child bearers and all sorts of other categories.

My father is receiving Social Security. Personally, I think in his case
and many of his generation they are welfare payments. One Christmas in a
discussion on the topic, me, him and my uncle made crude calculations.

Based on estimates of his contribution he had received about 50 times
what he payed in. Hell since then, not only does he receive his monthly
allotment of SS bucks, but he's had a variety of medical procedures,
each of which usually costs more than he paid into the system in his
entire lifetime.

Never Enough Money <[email protected]> wrote:

> Denial Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. Sounds like you're
> in the anger phase, Prometheus. Think we're almost ready for a violent
> revolution, do you?

Doesn't have to be violent. Remember Beloved Leader praised General
Musharraf, not because he brought democracy, but because he represented
the ideals of the modern republican party - safety and stability.

> Don't you think you should wait till you actually
> loose the rigth of Habeas Corpus?

Do you even know what it is? Its barely functional even when the Taliban
judges are giving lip service to it. The great hero of the elimination
of the judiciary as a form of balance, Scalia, has proudly proclaimed
that he sees nothing wrong with the Grand and Glorious State executing a
prisoner, even if it is known that he is innocent. I guess that is part
of being "pro-life."
>
> More comments embedded.
>
> > >> > 3. Of, designating, or belonging to a Liberal political party.
> > >> So far the first 2 definitions tell me that Republicans are liberals.
> > >
> > >Bullshit. A huge stinking pile of aging bullshit.
> Whoever wrote this is a good debater! Hah.

Good enough to make you run and hide after your idiotic drooling of
Wahabism AKA talk radio myths.
> >
> > Agreed. Republicans have turned into tyrants-in-training. How does
> > the desire to control the lives of others based on one group's concept
> > of "morality" fit into the definition of liberal?
> Perhaps you could help me out with examples.

LMAO.
> >
> > >Gee, Bush is the exact opposite. So I wonder once again whether you have
> > >recently awakened from a coma? Hell, Bush doesn't believe that the
> > >executive should be limited much at all by the courts. He has claimed
> > >the right to imprison you or execute you without trial on his command
> > >only.
> >
> > Won't be long before he suspends the writ of Habeas Corpus in the
> > interest of "National Security." There's even a precedent for him to
> > use that Lincoln set in the Civil War.
> Well, well, well. Let's just wait and see if your prediction becomes
> reality. I'll bet you'll be eating crow again 4 years from now when it
> does NOT happen. In fact, I'll bet we loose no individual freedoms --
> freedoms will increase by the methods I mentioned in my first post.

Another ignoramus. You've lost all sorts of individual rights including
the writ of habeus corpus which is dysfunctional anyway. Guess you don't
read the news much. You probably follow the church of Rush which
declares that there is no need to read news as the moral hero will
provide you with all the truth you need.
> >

> Your vote for Kerry does not make you a terrorist but it probably
> pleased the terrorist. If you want to parse the words of speeches,
> little Mr. Kerry has some words that are rediculous. Let's not go
> there.

Don't go there because you can't. The Wahabist and General Bush
condemned a hero and a patriot like Kerry because he voted differently
on two different versions of a bill. General Bush demanded complete
power and total unaccountability and said he would vote differently on
different versions of the bill. Of course when Kerry did that he was a
flip-flopper.

Ironic that you claim the exact opposite of every terrorsim expert I
read. Bush is a dream come true for terrorists. Of course those opinions
come from people who the Bush administtration denigrates as "the reality
based community." You know, people like Michael Scheurer and Peter
Bergen.
> >

> Marx was a smart guy but we've also risen above his ideas.

zzzzzzz... we're smarter. We're adopting Mussolini's.
> >

> Which tow bill and why would they be monstrosities of welfare
> largesse? This paragraph needs explanation.

WHAT? What is it you want? I could name the bills, but what's the point?
The corporate welfare bill that just passed is a gross monstrosity. It
even pays money to people who haven't even paid taxes.

Bravo republican "capitalism."
> >
> > Kinda makes you want to weep, doesn't it? I never thought I'd see the
> > day when the Democrats were more fiscally responsible than the
> > Republicans.
> >
> > >Their third strategy is under implementation as well. Get more currency
> > >out there and allow it to devalue. Good for the stock market and good
> > >for employment and good for exports. What could be wrong with anything
> > >like that? Yes, I know, the stupid assholes who founded the country were
> > >against it, but they haven't been right about anything else have they?
> Somebody didn't take a course in Ecomonics. Must be self-taught.

lol... what a comeback. No response though. Care to actually try. I need
a laugh.

And I wouldn't be too proud of learning economics from Hannity, Boortz
and Savage. That's Wahabism although I'm sure you imagine it is God
speaking.

> > >Do you live in America?
> Yes. Currently in Colorado. Previosly in South Carolina, California,
> and Texas. I'm very American.

No you're not. You're a rabid anti-American. But do chop out the
relevant part of my post so you don't have to respond.
> >

> > >Guess you didn't make it to college huh? (Here is a clue: edit this
> > >whole thing out because your being an idiot.)
> I have a doctorate in mathematics.

***IF*** you aren't just bullshitting again, you're not very bright. I
was being sarcastic about your ignorance of what a liberal arts
education is. Couldn't most college freshman answer that? Why is it that
you think that it requires a certain type of degree?
>
> Good that you have not taken from the government.

Is that a slam on the Bush family?
> >
> So grow
> up and move on.

After your immature rants, that's a good one.

Todd Fatheree <[email protected]> wrote:

> I have to agree with you, Dave. I honestly don't understand the thinking of
> most people who are pro-abortion.

What i don't understand is the anti-life attitude of the
anti-abortionists who do not value the life of sperm and eggs. These
unborn children deserve the protection of the government.

Fletis Humplebacker <!> wrote:


> That's got more spin than a class 4 hurricane.

Good job not making an argument and relying on smarminess.

> It's a fact that the
> NE is heavily liberal and vote accordingly.

Look at a county by county map. There are some big swaths of blue
through the middle of the country.

I hardly think that Kerry lost for being something he's not and Bush won
for being something he's not.

The country was founded by liberals on liberal principles. Personally I
don't care if the Taliban/republican anti-capitalists get 99 percent
poll approval.

They are out of step
> with the rest of the country so pointing it out isn't the division,
> the division was already there.

Many of the polls show the division to be between what Bush denigrates
as the "reality based community" and the talk radio crowd who maintain
belief in Bush as an emmissary of God as well as notions like Saddam had
a nuclear weapons program, worked hand in hand with Al Qaeda in the 9/11
attacks and similar nonsense such as Bush is a fiscal conservative or
supports the rule of law.
>
>
>
> >dislike of foreigners, fear of gays, and callousness
> > toward those in need.
>
>
>
> Why the derogatory comments? You are doing the demonizing
> and division, not the Republican leadership.

No, he's telling the truth about you.
>
>
> > Generally they have little respect for the
> > opposition, and they seek to smear and destroy their opponents in a
> > particularly personal way.
>
>
> LOL !

Exactly.
>
>
> > Sadly, this president and this party bears little resemblance to the
> > party of Reagan.
>
>
> Sure it does. Reagan got exactly the same kind of smarmy personal
> attacks from liberals, comedians and the media but history proved the
> detractors wrong and him right.

You mean that he was senile and corrupt?

Ironic that the republican party's key campaign strategy is dishonest
personal attacks. The squated down and defecated on a hero who defended
his country for doing exactly that. I can't think of a single
Bush/RNC/other Taliban group advertisement or talking point jihad that
came close to reality. Many of them were blatantly false.

Do you know anything about Rove and his life?

Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:

> How silly. Easterners, liberals, and intellectuals are doing a perfectly good
> job on their own of cultivating disdain for themselves among the voters, and
> have no need of assistance from the Republican party or anyone else.

Its Doug the anti-capitalist. Why not just say that you hate them
because of their freedom?
>
> >dislike of foreigners, fear of gays, and callousness
> >toward those in need. Generally they have little respect for the
> >opposition, and they seek to smear and destroy their opponents in a
> >particularly personal way.
>
> Excuse me? It was the _Dems_ who repeatedly called the President incompetent,
> a liar, a dope, etc.

Surely you wouldn't claim that Bush was competent or honest, would you?
Is telling the truth a smear?

> There was indeed a vicious, personal smear campaign going
> on, but it was directed *at* the Republicans, not *by* them.

C'mon, be a Christian, you really think that republicans don't use smear
campaigns?
>
> --
> Regards,

Why do you sign your posts like that when you are deliberately being
offensive?

Fletis Humplebacker <!> wrote:

> "p_j"
> > "George" >
> > > The people were telling the press what they wanted to hear.
> > >
> > > I view the approaches of the two parties similar to my mom and dad.
> > >
> > > When I jumped my bike up a curb at full tilt, I really enjoyed the
> > > comfort of my mom who said "that mean old pavement jumped up and
> > > scraped you. They ought to do something about that curb so it won't
> > > hurt people." Liberals tell you they'll remove all obstacles just
> > > for you.
> > >
> > > But I knew it was my dad who was right when he said "how many times is
> > > it going to take before you realize that you can't run into curbs at
> > > full tilt without tipping the bike? Pick up the wheel, you idiot."
> > > Conservatives know that individual effort can overcome any obstacle.
> >
> > You're confusing the conservative religion which is what the republican
> > party has become with reality. Your father may have been correct that
> > you are an idiot and your mother sounds like a pretty fucked up person,
> > but there is nothing in liberalism that has ever suggested removing all
> > obstacles.
>
>
>
> Why are liberals so arrogant and condescending? Which comes first,
> the ideology or the attitude? Maybe it's two sides of the same coin.

Conservatives. Isn't that what you mean?
>
>
>
> > If anything liberals of today and the past such as Jefferson and Smith
> > suggested that one obstacle, the requirement that parasites like the
> > hordes at the republican welfare trough should be required to wipe their
> > own asses.
>
>
> You had too many insults piled on there to be coherant.

Yeah, Jefferson and Smith weren't "coherant" either.

Fletis Humplebacker <!> wrote:

> > > They tend to be unconscious. Whether or not they have a conscience is
> > > another matter.
>
> > Funny thing, Bush voters overwhelmingly were ignorant of reality, at
> > least according to scientific polls.
>
> Funny thing. All the polls were wrong so who's having trouble
> with reality here?

I was talking about the polling that examined knowledge of facts. Please
respond to that.

To your point about polls on voter preference being in error, that is
far from determined. The exit polls that didn't match reported results
of vote totals were almost entirely in states that were critical to
Bush. Do you think that is a coincidence or has some innocent
explanation?
>
>
>
> > But then facts are part of the reality based community which the Bush
> > administration sneers at.
>
>
>
> I like the Bush sneer. His ability to piss off liberals is a special gift.

I like it too. That cackle is even better.
>
>
>
> > It is ironic that you talk about a conscience when neither Bush nor
> > Cheney have expressed remorse for any of their acts. As near as I can
> > tell, they are pathological in their absence of ability to see
> > themselves as doing wrong.
>
>
> Maybe they don't share your version of right and wrong?

Well this is certainly true. I think the heart of it is that they see
themselves of unable to do wrong. Lying, cheating and stealing are not
wrong when they are done in the service of God or God's emmissarys.
>
>
>
> > Wonder how many troops will have their lives eliminated or destroyed
> > today. Bravo Bush. Freedom is spreading.
>
>
> Just as it did in Japan, Germany, Korea, etc. but let's not digress
> into facts.

True, facts are the enemy. Comparing Japan and Germany to occupying Iraq
rates right up there as assinine and dishonest.
>
>
> > Maybe the questiuon should be what's wrong with being David?
>
>
> Nice.

Honest. Not PC though.

Australopithecus scobis <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Gore claims to have invented the internet.
>
> False. He was on a talk show (Larry King?) and said that he was very much
> in favor of a particular bill which funded some sort of internet
> infrastructure. One republican stooge told another republican stooge, and
> between them they made up the "quote." In short, the whole thing is
> another republican Big Lie. Google for the details.

A- scobis, I was being sarcastic and mocking Keith Bohn who is
particularly fond of that Rove slime campaign.

Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:


> >> Gore claims to have invented the internet.
> >
> >False. He was on a talk show (Larry King?) and said that he was very much
> >in favor of a particular bill which funded some sort of internet
> >infrastructure. One republican stooge told another republican stooge, and
> >between them they made up the "quote." In short, the whole thing is
> >another republican Big Lie. Google for the details.
>
> Actually, your version is the falsehood. Here's the truth (from snopes.com):

Snopes doesn't contradict him.
>
> On a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer 9 Mar 1999, Gore said (in part):
> "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in
> creating the Internet."
>
> This is a lie. The Internet existed before Al Gore began serving in Congress.

What tired old slime campaign. Are you ever honest? A cowpath existed
before the Interstate system was built, therefore Doug Miller decrees
that nobody could create the Interstate. Above all, any legislator who
worked for years throughout the government including multiple bills can
claim that he took initiative in its creation.

> even though
> Congressman, Senator, and Vice-President Gore may always have been interested
> in and well-informed about information technology issues, that's a far cry
> from having taken an active, vital leadership role in bringing about those
> technologies.

LOL... I've never heard anyone claim this. Even the nutball republicans
who slimed him admitted it.

> Even if Al Gore had never entered the political arena, we'd
> probably still be reading web pages via the Internet today.

lol... sure... cuz... uh, cuz... well, er, just cuz...

>Should a Liberal be ashamed?
>
>

Of course.

Liberals don't meet the definition of liberal. See my comments below.

Australopithecus scobis <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 05:50:13 +0000, BlueDude wrote:
>
> >
> > Should a Liberal be ashamed?
>
> Liberal (adj.)
> 1. Having, expressing, or following social or political views or policies
> that favor non-revolutionary progress and reform.
Neither party wants violent revolution and reform. Although Unions, a
liberal institution, often resort to sabotage, theft, and destruction
when things aren't going their way. The situations in Iraq and
Afganistan are more complicated than simple "revolutionary progress
and reform."
>
> 2. Having, expressing or following views or policies that favor the
> freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of their
> own choosing.
Hmmm. Liberals want to give a woman a right to choose while taking a
fetus'es right to life. They favor killing a baby when a woman did not
exercise hew right to choose when and what penis she accepted. (Cases
of rape excluded.)
Hmmm. Liberals want more taxes. Taking money from an individual
reduces that individuals ability of act or express themseslves in a
manner of their own choosing.
Hmmm. Liberals want big centralized government although localized
governenmt provides much more freedom to individuals because decisions
are made at a local level -- rather than one size fits all decisions
from big government.
Hmmm. Liberal dislike educational choices like vouchers. They think
the all Americans should get the same education and it must have the
NEA seal of approval. Furthermore, the teacher should not be held
accountable. Seems like a reduction of choice to me.
Hmmm. Liberal want socialized medicine. Nobody gets to choose. No
market force (which by the way is the reason 99% of all new drug
patents and miracle drugs come from the US).
Hmmm. Liberals want a social securtiy system which has one rate of
return, an a low one at that.
Hmmm. Liberals worship labor unions which tend to reduce salary
differences based upon merit, protect incompetence, and outsource jobs
since they ratchet up wages until it is far more economical to go to
another coutry.
Hmmm. Liberals think all large corpoartions are criminal and so they
punish the most successful even though the company is a source of
jobs, wealth production, and innovations. The companies then sometimes
outsource or move altogether, thereby reducing jobs which thereby
reduce an individuals freedom to...
Ahhh. You must be referring to the patriot act! It is proper that
rights contract and expand with threats (like terroism) to society. In
the case of the Patriot Act, only a tiny bit has been sacrificed but
liberal are making it sound like all our rights have been lost. Help
us eliminate terrorism and even these tiny concessions will be
restored.
>
> 3. Of, designating, or belonging to a Liberal political party.
So far the first 2 definitions tell me that Republicans are liberals.
Not sure I beleive the dictionalry capitilized Liberal above, they
meant "liberal", not "Liberal."
>
> 4. Of, relating to, or characteristic of representational forms of
> government.
Republicans/conservatives definitely fit this definition. In fact,
they are strong propoentns of state's power over the Federal
governemnt. They favor a "republican" form of government (to which we
pledge allegiance to) to prevent the situtation where the majority
always wins - squashing the minority without remorse.
>
> 5. Tolerant of the ideas or behavior of others.
Liberal can't seem tolerate the ideas of Republicans! Republicans, and
conservatives in general, are very tolerant of anybody and any idea
that isn't a lie and doesn't hurt others and is legal. There are more
minorities in the Bush administration than any other administration in
American history. Repubilcans do not tolerate behaviour that infringes
on the rights of others: abortion infringes on the rights of a fetus,
illegal immigration infringes on the rights of citizens, etc.
>
> 6.a. Tending to give freely; generous. b. Generously given; bountiful.
If you think the purpose of governemt is to redisteribute wealth, then
be a Liberal. If you think that fostering a strong business and
entrepreneaurial environment in order to acheive full employment, be a
Republican.
>
> 7. Not literal: "a liberal translation".
As in Republicans are conservative even though they are changing lots
of things for the better -- introducing more individual freedom and
self-determination.
>
> 8. obsolete. a. Permissible or appropriat for a free man. b. Unrestrained.
>
> 9. Relating to or based on a liberal arts education.
Most liberal arts folks can't make a living on their own. Hey, we all
want to be musicians, poets, writers, and historians. Unfortunately
society only needs a certain amount of these folks. Also
unfortunately, these folks think the government should support them
anyway through massive funding. I say "get a job" like the rest of us
had to. Do conservatives value liberal arts? Absolutely. Do we think
the government should fund liberal arts (especially more than
medicine, engineering, etc)? No. Liberal arts majors should get out
and make a living on their own. Maybe they need stop whining and get a
job as a plumber, or construction, or whatever the market is
demanding.
>
> (n.) 1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
Looks like conservatives fir the definitions above more than the
self-described liberals.
>
> 2. A member of a Liberal political party.
A paradox if we use the current situation as the example.
>
> --from American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
>

Now let's get back to woodworking and stop posting political
statements to this _woodworking_ group. I feel dirty for having been
seduced into responding this one time. I hope my fellow woodworkers
will forgive me.

I try to keep my politics confined to
www.politicalparables.blogspot.com.

Denial Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. Sounds like you're
in the anger phase, Prometheus. Think we're almost ready for a violent
revolution, do you? Don't you think you should wait till you actually
loose the rigth of Habeas Corpus?

More comments embedded.

Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
[snip]
>
> >> > 3. Of, designating, or belonging to a Liberal political party.
> >> So far the first 2 definitions tell me that Republicans are liberals.
> >
> >Bullshit. A huge stinking pile of aging bullshit.
Whoever wrote this is a good debater! Hah.
>
> Agreed. Republicans have turned into tyrants-in-training. How does
> the desire to control the lives of others based on one group's concept
> of "morality" fit into the definition of liberal?
Perhaps you could help me out with examples.
>
> >Gee, Bush is the exact opposite. So I wonder once again whether you have
> >recently awakened from a coma? Hell, Bush doesn't believe that the
> >executive should be limited much at all by the courts. He has claimed
> >the right to imprison you or execute you without trial on his command
> >only.
>
> Won't be long before he suspends the writ of Habeas Corpus in the
> interest of "National Security." There's even a precedent for him to
> use that Lincoln set in the Civil War.
Well, well, well. Let's just wait and see if your prediction becomes
reality. I'll bet you'll be eating crow again 4 years from now when it
does NOT happen. In fact, I'll bet we loose no individual freedoms --
freedoms will increase by the methods I mentioned in my first post.
>
> >> They favor a "republican" form of government (to which we
> >> pledge allegiance to) to prevent the situtation where the majority
> >> always wins - squashing the minority without remorse.
>
> If this were true, his acceptance speech would not have used the word
> "mandate." Nor would he have expressed the sentiment "If you're not
> with us, you're with the terrorists" I voted for Kerry- does that
> make me a sucide bomber?
Huh? Are you objecting to "They favor a 'republican' form of
government" or that republican forms of governemtns prevet the
majority from always winning?
Your vote for Kerry does not make you a terrorist but it probably
pleased the terrorist. If you want to parse the words of speeches,
little Mr. Kerry has some words that are rediculous. Let's not go
there.
>
> >There is a classic chestnut of talk radio. Still waiting for some
> >sheeple like you to provide an example of this mythic democracy where
> >there were no represenatives. Hell, I'd settle for some philosopher who
> >even mentions such a system. Of course none exist.
>
> Even here there are magistrates, but I think it adds to your overall
> arguement.
Wow. Your political science is running amok. What made you think I was
not wanting representatives? BTW, Plato was a smart guy but we've
(Democrats and Repbulicans) have come much farther than that.
Marx was a smart guy but we've also risen above his ideas.
>
[snip]
> >> There are more
> >> minorities in the Bush administration than any other administration in
> >> American history.
>
> So what? Reward should be based on merit, not some stilted ploy to
> point at the "little guy" he gave a hand up to.
What makes you think merit was not involved?
>
> >> > 6.a. Tending to give freely; generous. b. Generously given; bountiful.
> >> If you think the purpose of governemt is to redisteribute wealth, then
> >> be a Liberal.
> >
> >No be a conservative. Bush is doing exactly that. The greatest
> >trough-a-thon in history is ongoing. He just signed two bills that are
> >monstrosities of welfare largesse. Moreover he is working hard so that
> >parasites who never have enough money can get others to wipe their asses
> >for them.
Which tow bill and why would they be monstrosities of welfare
largesse? This paragraph needs explanation.
>
> Kinda makes you want to weep, doesn't it? I never thought I'd see the
> day when the Democrats were more fiscally responsible than the
> Republicans.
>
> >Their third strategy is under implementation as well. Get more currency
> >out there and allow it to devalue. Good for the stock market and good
> >for employment and good for exports. What could be wrong with anything
> >like that? Yes, I know, the stupid assholes who founded the country were
> >against it, but they haven't been right about anything else have they?
Somebody didn't take a course in Ecomonics. Must be self-taught.
>
> Wish we were still on the gold standard...
>
> >> > 7. Not literal: "a liberal translation".
> >> As in Republicans are conservative even though they are changing lots
> >> of things for the better -- introducing more individual freedom and
> >> self-determination.
>
> How is that? With the "Patriot" Act?
With the methods mentioned in my original post.
>
> >Do you live in America?
Yes. Currently in Colorado. Previosly in South Carolina, California,
and Texas. I'm very American.
>
[snip]
> Sure they can. I have an education in the liberal arts, and I work in
> manfacturing- I produce at least 150% more than anyone else in my
> department every day *because* I understand philosophy. Sure, it's
> that old, "outdated" rational philosophy, but I just can't bring
> myself to jump onto the Kantian bandwagon.
Sounds like hubris to me. I doubt your productivity is related to your
philosophy or understanding of it.
>
> >Guess you didn't make it to college huh? (Here is a clue: edit this
> >whole thing out because your being an idiot.)
I have a doctorate in mathematics.
>
> >> I say "get a job" like the rest of us
> >> had to.
> >
> >How many forms of welfare do you receive?
None.
>
> Never took so much as a day's wage from the gov't in my entire life.
> The only things I use from them are those things which I must use for
> lack of other options (police, roads, military etc.) And somehow I
> managed not to vote for Bush.
Good that you have not taken from the government.
>
> >> Now let's get back to woodworking and stop posting political
> >> statements to this _woodworking_ group. I feel dirty for having been
> >> seduced into responding this one time. I hope my fellow woodworkers
> >> will forgive me.
>
> Get off it. You responded.
Good advice. I will get off of it and I will not respond to your or
anybody elses vitriolic and on;lt faintly accurate postings.

>
> >Your countrymen is who you should ask for forgiveness.
You're probably thinking you told me off. Don't be so smug. Don't be
so angry. My man lost when Johnson won, when Carter won, when Clinton
won. I've been on the loosing side many times. If Bush fullfills your
predictions, then your man will win next time to correct it. So grow
up and move on.

Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote in message
[snip]
>
> Actually, no. I think a violent revolution is almost justified. I
> don't believe that the average American is almost ready for one. Too
> much bread and too many circuses.
You might want re-think. I suppose you ought to buy a gun. Good thing
for you we still can own a gun.
>
>[skip]
> Abortion.
We differ n this one. I'm proud we want to not murder babies. Let's
look at the extremes. One day before birth would be murder, plain and
simple. One day after conception is probably not (but it's not plain
and simple). Where between those two extremes abortion becomes murder
is the debate. A debate worth having.

As far as rights of the majority telling others that abortionis wrong
-- isn't that like the majority making murder or cannabilism or bank
robbery is wrong.

[snip]
>
> War (and the "exportation" of freedom)

Not so simple. You think the Republicans go to war wheever they get a
chance? No. You seem to have forgotten that Saddam ignore the UN
resolutions for twelve years and that there was 9/11 which made us
more willing to defend ourselves. The limp dick diplomacy of the
democrats would never work. Had Lord Chamberlain not been dominate in
Britain, Hitler would have not destroyed most of Europe and killed
millions.

Sometimes it is appropriate to attack another country even if they
have not attacked yours. It's analgous to me catching my neighbor
beating his wife. I will go in an attck him to save her even if it's
in his own house.
>
[snip]
>
> Posting the Ten Commandments on public property
>
I agree with you on this one. However, there's some history to
consider. Also the Democrats want to eliminate this too fast. That's
why they lost votes. To change this, society must be lead, not forced
-- oh I forgot, youi want a violent revlution. Reminds me of all the
lives that were lost because some Ynakees thought slavery had to end
TODAY. Theirimpatience caused a war, a needless war since most
scholars think slavery would have ended anyway in 15 years.

You also miss the point that the liberal have their own morality they
are trying to force upon the rest of us: no guns, abortion, gay
marriage.

[snip]
>
> Gay marriage.
>
Hmmm. Every speech I hear on CNN or other news channels says "We think
it's ok for civil unions but it should not be the same as marriage
because the word marriage means man and woman." That seems like a
great compromise for now. Republicans, at least the many I know
personally and the ones I hear on TV, have nothing against gays. I
suspect there are some uneducated people that dislike gays from both
parties.



[snip]

I notice no difference between this administrations rhetoric on what
they want to do than the Clinton admn, the Reagan, the Carter, the
Johnson, the Nixon, .... This administration says what they mean and
means what they say. Perhaps that is a difference.
>
> That was the previous poster. As for Plato, we have not "come much
> farther than that." Philosophy is the pursuit of truth, and truth is
> outside the constraints of time and social expediency. If I tell you
> that water is wet, water will still be wet a billion years from now
> (or it will have ceased to have been water) An argument built on a
> solid foundation with proper primary axioms and carefully maintained
> logical steps is relevent in all times, and all places. I have never
> seen a single syllogism produced by any contemporary politician that
> can even hold a candle to Plato's dialogues. What I do see is an
> awful lot of polling and sound-byte assertions without a solid
> foundation.
You misunderstood me or I was not clear or both. I meant we've come a
long way in how to implement democracies. True, Plato did state a lot
of truths which are still true. I suspect he made some mistakes, too.
Regarding your asseertion of "an awful lot of polling and sound-byte
assertions without a solid foundation" -- the liberal are particulary
guilty of this.

[snip]
>
>
> What is it you do with a doctorate in Mathematics? If you are a
> professor, you are almost certainly receiving many types of welfare,
> albeit through the filter of your institution.
For 15 years I developed image processing algorithms for pattern
recognition systems from Space. I also worked on high precision
control systems. For the last 10 years I've worked on wireless
telephony. There's a lot of mathemeatics in all of those areas.
[snip]
>
> It is. Now if they would stop taking from me, we'd be getting
> somewhere.
A second thing we agree on.
>
>
[snip]
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
I'm not convinced Hannibal was good. Although the Roman empire had
problems, did the barbarians make things beeter in the long run? In
fact, your friend Plato's culture might have been best had it survived
and not been overwhelmed by the Romans.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Just curious -- which of the Founding Fathers were Jews? Which were Muslims?
>
Which were Christians? From what I've read, most of the major players
were Deists.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On 9 Dec 2004 18:33:02 -0800, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> This makes me sick. As staunch conservatives, you successfully
> attacked a dictionary definition.

WHAT makes you sick? You provided _zero_ context.

> Congratulations!

Indeed.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Both liberals and conservatives alike
> are working towards the common goal of keeping the big government off
> of the little people's backs.
>
HAH!

You, sir, are a hopeless optimist.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:47:04 GMT, Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Richard Clements" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> my personal favorite is the intolerance of the "tolerant left", "to
>> premote
>> tolerance we will no longer tolerate off colored jokes!", "to to more
>> inclusive the holiday displays will no longer include reliugus displays"
>
> They do tolerate bad spelling and punctuation, however.

Not to mention top-posting.

BlueDude wrote:
>
> Should a Liberal be ashamed?

As noted by another response, the term has been
hijacked and stood on its head for political purposes
- somewhat like the words patriot and christian. And
it doesn't take much to twist an idea into its opposite.

Example

1. Peace on earth, good will to man.

2. Peace on earth to men of good will.

One is inclusive and one is exclusive. Which version
is in your Good Book?

Personally, I realize "you can't take it with you"
is true so I prefer to work on leaving the place
a little better than I found it, or at least no
worse. And if I can lend a hand and take a little
of the load off someone who's trying but could
use some help - I will. And if any help I was
able to provide gets passed along long after
I'm gone and forgotten - well that's just icing
on the cake. Definitely not feeling ashamed.

charlie b

Absolutely not, and I'm as conservative as you get. However don't
confuse the Democratic party and liberalism. They aren't the same.
A true liberal speaks the truth, the Democratic party has become mostly
lies since the Clintons have run the party.
A true liberal has core beliefs, and one of those is not saying what
others want to hear just to get their vote.
A true liberal has compassion, wants the best for people, again that is
not what the Democratic party has become.
A true liberal has morals and values, again not what the Democratic
party has become.
A true liberal believes in freedom, not opression. For example a true
liberal believes it is ok to be aethiest, agnostic, muslum, catholic,
protestant.....
The freedom portion of that says the aethiest doesn't have to live by
the christians beliefs, by the same toke it means the christian doesn't
have to live by the aethiests beliefs. For example, public schools
can't force daily prayer because ot the aethiest, no argument. But the
flip side should also be true, a public school should be able to allow
the Boy Scouts to use their facility after school voluntarily.

When the Democratic party, goes back to being liberals and not what
they have become, they will become much more successful politically.

BlueDude wrote:

> Should a Liberal be ashamed?

Unisaw A100 wrote:

>
you tell them boss

HERE HERE!

Never Enough Money wrote:

> Liberals don't meet the definition of liberal. See my comments below.
>
> Australopithecus scobis <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 05:50:13 +0000, BlueDude wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Should a Liberal be ashamed?
>>
>> Liberal (adj.)
>> 1. Having, expressing, or following social or political views or policies
>> that favor non-revolutionary progress and reform.
> Neither party wants violent revolution and reform. Although Unions, a
> liberal institution, often resort to sabotage, theft, and destruction
> when things aren't going their way. The situations in Iraq and
> Afganistan are more complicated than simple "revolutionary progress
> and reform."
>>
>> 2. Having, expressing or following views or policies that favor the
>> freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of their
>> own choosing.
> Hmmm. Liberals want to give a woman a right to choose while taking a
> fetus'es right to life. They favor killing a baby when a woman did not
> exercise hew right to choose when and what penis she accepted. (Cases
> of rape excluded.)
> Hmmm. Liberals want more taxes. Taking money from an individual
> reduces that individuals ability of act or express themseslves in a
> manner of their own choosing.
> Hmmm. Liberals want big centralized government although localized
> governenmt provides much more freedom to individuals because decisions
> are made at a local level -- rather than one size fits all decisions
> from big government.
> Hmmm. Liberal dislike educational choices like vouchers. They think
> the all Americans should get the same education and it must have the
> NEA seal of approval. Furthermore, the teacher should not be held
> accountable. Seems like a reduction of choice to me.
> Hmmm. Liberal want socialized medicine. Nobody gets to choose. No
> market force (which by the way is the reason 99% of all new drug
> patents and miracle drugs come from the US).
> Hmmm. Liberals want a social securtiy system which has one rate of
> return, an a low one at that.
> Hmmm. Liberals worship labor unions which tend to reduce salary
> differences based upon merit, protect incompetence, and outsource jobs
> since they ratchet up wages until it is far more economical to go to
> another coutry.
> Hmmm. Liberals think all large corpoartions are criminal and so they
> punish the most successful even though the company is a source of
> jobs, wealth production, and innovations. The companies then sometimes
> outsource or move altogether, thereby reducing jobs which thereby
> reduce an individuals freedom to...
> Ahhh. You must be referring to the patriot act! It is proper that
> rights contract and expand with threats (like terroism) to society. In
> the case of the Patriot Act, only a tiny bit has been sacrificed but
> liberal are making it sound like all our rights have been lost. Help
> us eliminate terrorism and even these tiny concessions will be
> restored.
>>
>> 3. Of, designating, or belonging to a Liberal political party.
> So far the first 2 definitions tell me that Republicans are liberals.
> Not sure I beleive the dictionalry capitilized Liberal above, they
> meant "liberal", not "Liberal."
>>
>> 4. Of, relating to, or characteristic of representational forms of
>> government.
> Republicans/conservatives definitely fit this definition. In fact,
> they are strong propoentns of state's power over the Federal
> governemnt. They favor a "republican" form of government (to which we
> pledge allegiance to) to prevent the situtation where the majority
> always wins - squashing the minority without remorse.
>>
>> 5. Tolerant of the ideas or behavior of others.
> Liberal can't seem tolerate the ideas of Republicans! Republicans, and
> conservatives in general, are very tolerant of anybody and any idea
> that isn't a lie and doesn't hurt others and is legal. There are more
> minorities in the Bush administration than any other administration in
> American history. Repubilcans do not tolerate behaviour that infringes
> on the rights of others: abortion infringes on the rights of a fetus,
> illegal immigration infringes on the rights of citizens, etc.
>>
>> 6.a. Tending to give freely; generous. b. Generously given; bountiful.
> If you think the purpose of governemt is to redisteribute wealth, then
> be a Liberal. If you think that fostering a strong business and
> entrepreneaurial environment in order to acheive full employment, be a
> Republican.
>>
>> 7. Not literal: "a liberal translation".
> As in Republicans are conservative even though they are changing lots
> of things for the better -- introducing more individual freedom and
> self-determination.
>>
>> 8. obsolete. a. Permissible or appropriat for a free man. b.
>> Unrestrained.
>>
>> 9. Relating to or based on a liberal arts education.
> Most liberal arts folks can't make a living on their own. Hey, we all
> want to be musicians, poets, writers, and historians. Unfortunately
> society only needs a certain amount of these folks. Also
> unfortunately, these folks think the government should support them
> anyway through massive funding. I say "get a job" like the rest of us
> had to. Do conservatives value liberal arts? Absolutely. Do we think
> the government should fund liberal arts (especially more than
> medicine, engineering, etc)? No. Liberal arts majors should get out
> and make a living on their own. Maybe they need stop whining and get a
> job as a plumber, or construction, or whatever the market is
> demanding.
>>
>> (n.) 1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
> Looks like conservatives fir the definitions above more than the
> self-described liberals.
>>
>> 2. A member of a Liberal political party.
> A paradox if we use the current situation as the example.
>>
>> --from American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
>>
>
> Now let's get back to woodworking and stop posting political
> statements to this _woodworking_ group. I feel dirty for having been
> seduced into responding this one time. I hope my fellow woodworkers
> will forgive me.
>
> I try to keep my politics confined to
> www.politicalparables.blogspot.com.

What a hoot! Given the predilections of the press, it's always funny to
follow newspeak. The _former_ senior senator from SD was pretty good at
claiming "bipartisan support" with the participation of three or four
republican senators (including McCain), while blithely disregarding the fact
that on the same bill, more members of his party had defected across the
aisle.

What shame that someone above a custodian level at an educational
institution cannot read English enough to understand that a goal is a
destination, which differs from a journey.

More distressing is the contempt for the democratic process shown by people
who are still shadowboxing after the main event.

Vox populi, vox Dei.

"James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jo4hn wrote:
>
> >
> > Bush on uniting and bipartisanship:
> >
> > President Bush proclaimed his election as evidence that Americans
> > embrace his plans to reform Social Security, simplify the tax code, curb
> > lawsuits and fight the war on terror, pledging Thursday to work in a
> > bipartisan manner with "everyone who shares our goals."
> >
> > [from the San Francisco Chronicle]
>
> Now that's my notion of bipartisanship ;^)
>

The people were telling the press what they wanted to hear.

I view the approaches of the two parties similar to my mom and dad.

When I jumped my bike up a curb at full tilt, I really enjoyed the comfort
of my mom who said "that mean old pavement jumped up and scraped you. They
ought to do something about that curb so it won't hurt people." Liberals
tell you they'll remove all obstacles just for you.

But I knew it was my dad who was right when he said "how many times is it
going to take before you realize that you can't run into curbs at full tilt
without tipping the bike? Pick up the wheel, you idiot." Conservatives
know that individual effort can overcome any obstacle.

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Should a Liberal be ashamed?
>
> This jar of lube here sez I should apply a Liberal amount. Maybe that's
what
> happened to Kerry. Didn't use enough anal lube.
>
> The Bush machine, apparently, was well oiled. Despite what the exit polls
> were predicting, Bush came from behind, so to speak. 45 million Americans
> are now feeling the pain.
>
> Politics can be so scandalous.
>
>

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:03:10 GMT, Rolling Thunder <[email protected]>
wrote:

Can you please elaborate?
Should we follow "GOD", even to the extend of hurting/killing those
innocent bystanders?

>>Should a Liberal be ashamed?
>
>Only when they have a conscious.
>
>Thunder

Well, I know for certain now that you are a moron.


"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gms80y.qymsc610z9k5aN%[email protected]...
> "George" <george@least> wrote:
>
> > The people were telling the press what they wanted to hear.
> >
> > I view the approaches of the two parties similar to my mom and dad.
> >
> > When I jumped my bike up a curb at full tilt, I really enjoyed the
comfort
> > of my mom who said "that mean old pavement jumped up and scraped you.
They
> > ought to do something about that curb so it won't hurt people."
Liberals
> > tell you they'll remove all obstacles just for you.
> >
> > But I knew it was my dad who was right when he said "how many times is
it
> > going to take before you realize that you can't run into curbs at full
tilt
> > without tipping the bike? Pick up the wheel, you idiot." Conservatives
> > know that individual effort can overcome any obstacle.
>
> You're confusing the conservative religion which is what the republican
> party has become with reality. Your father may have been correct that
> you are an idiot and your mother sounds like a pretty fucked up person,
> but there is nothing in liberalism that has ever suggested removing all
> obstacles.
>
> If anything liberals of today and the past such as Jefferson and Smith
> suggested that one obstacle, the requirement that parasites like the
> hordes at the republican welfare trough should be required to wipe their
> own asses.
>
>
>

Problem with socialism is it admits of only a collective solution to a
problem. As it strives to remove all obstacles to failure, it also removes
all opportunity for success.


"deloid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "BlueDude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Should a Liberal be ashamed?
> >
>
> While this may be regional, a liberal is a kind way of saying socialist.
> While socialism is currently a form of politics/government in many
> countries, socialism is seen as in a very negative light in the US. Some
> socialist countries are currently changing to a more capitalist approach
for
> survival....others not.
>
> Personally I think that many of the outspoken democrats are socialist
> bent..... a significant change from the era of JFK/RFK when the democrats
> were doing good in the US. The Repubs are more like what the Dems were in
> the 60's except for taxation & environmental issues.
>
> This is why I am an Environmental Republican!
>
>

Boy are YOU out of touch with reality. If you care to, go down to a school
and see what they're using as History books. Be prepared for a shock.

Then go out and buy Diane Ravitch's _The Language Police_ to finish your
coronary.

"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> That would then deny the heritage of the country. No one is
> converted by the symbols but they were put there for a reason.
> I don't see a good enough reason to systematically remove them.
> If it troubles someone that the country was predominately
> Christian they should learn to accept history and facts for what
> they are, not what they want them to be.
>
>

I thought it was the Maya who played handball for keeps. Any support for
the Toltec or Aztec?

As to the noble Amerinds, ask any other tribe what they thought of the
Huron.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> mp wrote:
> >
> > Are they the same ones who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of native
> > Indians, often for just for sport?
>
> I though that was the Aztecs. Although most of those were sacrificed to
> appease the volcano gods and provide tasty treats for the nobility. Only
a
> few of them were sacrificed because they lost a ball game, but that was a
> regular occurrance, so one could say that it occurred "often".
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

my personal favorite is the intolerance of the "tolerant left", "to premote
tolerance we will no longer tolerate off colored jokes!", "to to more
inclusive the holiday displays will no longer include reliugus displays"

Dave Hinz wrote:

> On 9 Dec 2004 18:33:02 -0800, [email protected]
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This makes me sick. As staunch conservatives, you successfully
>> attacked a dictionary definition.
>
> WHAT makes you sick? You provided _zero_ context.
>
>> Congratulations!
>
> Indeed.

>Personally, i think a violent revolution, as the founders called for
>under circumstances that are current, would be fine.

Another quote for you:

"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the
blood of patriots and tyrants"
--Thomas Jefferson.

Though I don't see a need for that quite yet, things are certainly
tending that way.

>> > 3. Of, designating, or belonging to a Liberal political party.
>> So far the first 2 definitions tell me that Republicans are liberals.
>
>Bullshit. A huge stinking pile of aging bullshit.

Agreed. Republicans have turned into tyrants-in-training. How does
the desire to control the lives of others based on one group's concept
of "morality" fit into the definition of liberal?

>Gee, Bush is the exact opposite. So I wonder once again whether you have
>recently awakened from a coma? Hell, Bush doesn't believe that the
>executive should be limited much at all by the courts. He has claimed
>the right to imprison you or execute you without trial on his command
>only.

Won't be long before he suspends the writ of Habeas Corpus in the
interest of "National Security." There's even a precedent for him to
use that Lincoln set in the Civil War.

>> They favor a "republican" form of government (to which we
>> pledge allegiance to) to prevent the situtation where the majority
>> always wins - squashing the minority without remorse.

If this were true, his acceptance speech would not have used the word
"mandate." Nor would he have expressed the sentiment "If you're not
with us, you're with the terrorists" I voted for Kerry- does that
make me a sucide bomber?

>There is a classic chestnut of talk radio. Still waiting for some
>sheeple like you to provide an example of this mythic democracy where
>there were no represenatives. Hell, I'd settle for some philosopher who
>even mentions such a system. Of course none exist.

Even here there are magistrates, but I think it adds to your overall
arguement.

The Republic of Plato.

(I'm editing this only for the sake of space: The full version can be
found here: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html a lot is
missing, and I would advise anyone interested to read the entire
arguement.)


"And then democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered
their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to the
remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power; and this is
the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly elected
by lot.
Yes, he said, that is the nature of democracy, whether the
revolution has been effected by arms, or whether fear has caused the
opposite party to withdraw."

<<Large snip>>

"Say then, my friend, in what manner does tyranny arise? --that it
has a democratic origin is evident.
Clearly.
And does not tyranny spring from democracy in the same manner as
democracy from oligarchy --I mean, after a sort?
How?
The good which oligarchy proposed to itself and the means by which
it was maintained was excess of wealth --am I not right?
Yes.
And the insatiable desire of wealth and the neglect of all other
things for the sake of money-getting was also the ruin of oligarchy?
True.
And democracy has her own good, of which the insatiable desire
brings her to dissolution?
What good?
Freedom, I replied; which, as they tell you in a democracy, is the
glory of the State --and that therefore in a democracy alone will
the freeman of nature deign to dwell.
Yes; the saying is in everybody's mouth.
I was going to observe, that the insatiable desire of this and the
neglect of other things introduces the change in democracy, which
occasions a demand for tyranny.
How so?
When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil
cupbearers presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the
strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable
and give a plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes
them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs."

<< Large snip>>

"Then come impeachments and judgments and trials of one another.
True.
The people have always some champion whom they set over them and
nurse into greatness.
Yes, that is their way.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he
first appears above ground he is a protector.
Yes, that is quite clear.
How then does a protector begin to change into a tyrant? Clearly
when he does what the man is said to do in the tale of the Arcadian
temple of Lycaean Zeus.
What tale?
The tale is that he who has tasted the entrails of a single human
victim minced up with the entrails of other victims is destined to
become a wolf. Did you never hear it?
Oh, yes.
And the protector of the people is like him; having a mob entirely
at his disposal, he is not restrained from shedding the blood of
kinsmen; by the favourite method of false accusation he brings them
into court and murders them, making the life of man to disappear,
and with unholy tongue and lips tasting the blood of his fellow
citizen; some he kills and others he banishes, at the same time
hinting at the abolition of debts and partition of lands: and after
this, what will be his destiny? Must he not either perish at the hands
of his enemies, or from being a man become a wolf --that is, a tyrant?
Inevitably."

<< Large snip >>

"At first, in the early days of his power, he is full of smiles,
and he salutes every one whom he meets; --he to be called a tyrant,
who is making promises in public and also in private! liberating
debtors, and distributing land to the people and his followers, and
wanting to be so kind and good to every one!
Of course, he said.
But when he has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty,
and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring
up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.
To be sure.
Has he not also another object, which is that they may be
impoverished by payment of taxes, and thus compelled to devote
themselves to their daily wants and therefore less likely to
conspire against him? Clearly.
And if any of them are suspected by him of having notions of
freedom, and of resistance to his authority, he will have a good
pretext for destroying them by placing them at the mercy of the enemy;
and for all these reasons the tyrant must be always getting up a war.
He must.
Now he begins to grow unpopular.
A necessary result.
Then some of those who joined in setting him up, and who are in
power, speak their minds to him and to one another, and the more
courageous of them cast in his teeth what is being done.
Yes, that may be expected.
And the tyrant, if he means to rule, must get rid of them; he cannot
stop while he has a friend or an enemy who is good for anything.
He cannot.
And therefore he must look about him and see who is valiant, who
is high-minded, who is wise, who is wealthy; happy man, he is the
enemy of them all, and must seek occasion against them whether he will
or no, until he has made a purgation of the State.
Yes, he said, and a rare purgation.
Yes, I said, not the sort of purgation which the physicians make
of the body; for they take away the worse and leave the better part,
but he does the reverse.
If he is to rule, I suppose that he cannot help himself.
What a blessed alternative, I said: --to be compelled to dwell
only with the many bad, and to be by them hated, or not to live at
all!
Yes, that is the alternative.
And the more detestable his actions are to the citizens the more
satellites and the greater devotion in them will he require?
Certainly.
And who are the devoted band, and where will he procure them?
They will flock to him, he said, of their own accord, if lie pays
them."

The snips are not meant to change the arguement. Again, I would
encourage any interested persons to read the entire Republic- it's one
of the finest pieces of dialectic philosophy I've ever encountered.
Many of the snipped areas are the steps leading to Plato's assertions,
and they are built carefully towards a very compelling arguement whose
conclusions are supported by much of the world's history. We are not
immune to the evils men do to themselves simply because a large number
of half-wits yell "USA is #1" loudly enough.

>Meanwhile Bush prepares to squish the shit out of the bloodied democrats
>based on a "mandate." Sounds terribly like what you accuse the democrats
>of. Of course Bush is doing the work of God and he is infallible, so
>maybe that explains the situational ethics.
>> >
>> > 5. Tolerant of the ideas or behavior of others.
>> Liberal can't seem tolerate the ideas of Republicans! Republicans, and
>> conservatives in general, are very tolerant of anybody and any idea
>> that isn't a lie and doesn't hurt others and is legal.

This is just simply wrong. I worked on Thompson's gubernatorial
campaign in 1998, and the staffers with the college Republicans were
the least tolerant human beings I have ever had the misfortune to
meet- they even went so far as to steal opponent's yard signs, and
physically attack a group of students having some sort of gay/lesbian
rally. One of them even got on my case for not being a Christian as
was *helping* the stupid prick staple signs together. This is not to
say that every Republican is like this- I called myself one for many
years, and there are many good men and women who take that title who
are decent citizens and human beings.

>> There are more
>> minorities in the Bush administration than any other administration in
>> American history.

So what? Reward should be based on merit, not some stilted ploy to
point at the "little guy" he gave a hand up to.

>> > 6.a. Tending to give freely; generous. b. Generously given; bountiful.
>> If you think the purpose of governemt is to redisteribute wealth, then
>> be a Liberal.
>
>No be a conservative. Bush is doing exactly that. The greatest
>trough-a-thon in history is ongoing. He just signed two bills that are
>monstrosities of welfare largesse. Moreover he is working hard so that
>parasites who never have enough money can get others to wipe their asses
>for them.

Kinda makes you want to weep, doesn't it? I never thought I'd see the
day when the Democrats were more fiscally responsible than the
Republicans.

>Their third strategy is under implementation as well. Get more currency
>out there and allow it to devalue. Good for the stock market and good
>for employment and good for exports. What could be wrong with anything
>like that? Yes, I know, the stupid assholes who founded the country were
>against it, but they haven't been right about anything else have they?

Wish we were still on the gold standard...

>> > 7. Not literal: "a liberal translation".
>> As in Republicans are conservative even though they are changing lots
>> of things for the better -- introducing more individual freedom and
>> self-determination.

How is that? With the "Patriot" Act?

>Do you live in America?

>> > 9. Relating to or based on a liberal arts education.
>> Most liberal arts folks can't make a living on their own. Hey, we all
>> want to be musicians, poets, writers, and historians. Unfortunately
>> society only needs a certain amount of these folks.

Sure they can. I have an education in the liberal arts, and I work in
manfacturing- I produce at least 150% more than anyone else in my
department every day *because* I understand philosophy. Sure, it's
that old, "outdated" rational philosophy, but I just can't bring
myself to jump onto the Kantian bandwagon.

>Guess you didn't make it to college huh? (Here is a clue: edit this
>whole thing out because your being an idiot.)

>> I say "get a job" like the rest of us
>> had to.
>
>How many forms of welfare do you receive?

Never took so much as a day's wage from the gov't in my entire life.
The only things I use from them are those things which I must use for
lack of other options (police, roads, military etc.) And somehow I
managed not to vote for Bush.

>> Now let's get back to woodworking and stop posting political
>> statements to this _woodworking_ group. I feel dirty for having been
>> seduced into responding this one time. I hope my fellow woodworkers
>> will forgive me.

Get off it. You responded.

>Your countrymen is who you should ask for forgiveness.

Greg G. wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> BlueDude said:
>
> >
> >Should a Liberal be ashamed?
>
> Hmmm, let's see.
>
> Tolerant, intelligent, compassionate, open-minded, forward looking,
> independent thinkers
>
> vs.
>
> Rigid, myopic, avaricious, knee-jerk reactionary, subservient, blindly
> imitative, fear mongers.
>
> What do you think?

I take it the liberal is the 2nd one, right?

When was the last time the "opened minded" liberals allowed a pro-life
candidate to speak at their convention?

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 10:57:20 -0600, [email protected] (p_j) wrote:

>
>My father is receiving Social Security. Personally, I think in his case
>and many of his generation they are welfare payments. One Christmas in a
>discussion on the topic, me, him and my uncle made crude calculations.
>
>Based on estimates of his contribution he had received about 50 times
>what he payed in. Hell since then, not only does he receive his monthly
>allotment of SS bucks, but he's had a variety of medical procedures,
>each of which usually costs more than he paid into the system in his
>entire lifetime.


The Social Security System is and always has been a welfare
program wrapped up in a mantle of an "insurance" system by
Roosevelt to make it more palatable to both payers and
recipients. And all pretense of it being a separate pot of money
disappeared when Nixon began to mingle SSS receipts &
expenses in with the Fed budget to hide the extent of his
deficits (and I believe that every president since has followed
suit).

They tend to be unconscious. Whether or not they have a conscience is
another matter.

David

Rolling Thunder wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 05:50:13 GMT, [email protected] (BlueDude)
> wrote:
>
>
>>Should a Liberal be ashamed?
>
>
> Only when they have a conscious.
>
> Thunder

GregP wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:10:11 -0500, WoodMangler
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Agreed. But keep in mind that the US was founded by and for Christians.
>
>
>
> It was founded by Christians of various stripes, and Jews, and
> Muslims, and people with a range of religions I know nothing
> about (slaves who weren't Muslims). And a lot of them
> (especially the slaves) did a very significant portion of the work
> to make the US possible. I don't know whether it was "for
> Chrisitians," but it is true that Christians enslaved and
> discriminated against a significant percentage of the denizens
> and ultimately citizens of this country. I don't see how such

What about the African tribalists who made slavery possible in the
first place? Are they not equally morally culpable? In fact,
in the matter of the Barbary Coast pirates, African slavers
actually enslaved white Europeans, though on nowhere near the
same scale that they conquered and enslaved their own countrymen.

The thing that always gets missed in these convenient little
idelogical rants is that *everyone* through recorded history
engaged in slavery at some point or another. But it was the
children of the Englightenment, animated in many cases by their
Christian beliefs, that *voluntarily ended slavery* ... well
"voluntarily" once the Civil War was fought in the US. This
civilized cessation of slavery is almost unique in human history.
Yes, White Europeans did bad things, but *THEY ALSO FIXED THEM*.

For the record, the one place in the world you can still buy slaves
is ... AFRICA and the buyers are ... Arab Muslims. Have a look
at what's going in Mauretania as an example...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:02:10 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Almost every state in the nation was split down the
>>middle.
>
>Absolutely not true.

Geography does not equal population. Most of those blue counties are
major population centers.

>See http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm for
>a county-by-county breakdown.

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

Yes, it can be very scandalous, look at bush, biggest POS since nixon.


"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Should a Liberal be ashamed?
>
> This jar of lube here sez I should apply a Liberal amount. Maybe that's
what
> happened to Kerry. Didn't use enough anal lube.
>
> The Bush machine, apparently, was well oiled. Despite what the exit polls
> were predicting, Bush came from behind, so to speak. 45 million Americans
> are now feeling the pain.
>
> Politics can be so scandalous.
>
>

"Lu Powell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> According to those definitions, there are no liberals in the Democrat
> party...

Naw, that can't be true. I mean, last election ol' George told us
that all of those Democrats are just a bunch of Liberals. And I know
that I can sure trust ol' George to say it like it is.

Rolling Thunder <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 05:50:13 GMT, [email protected] (BlueDude)
> wrote:
> >
> >Should a Liberal be ashamed?
>
> Only when they have a conscious.
>
> Thunder

Yep. Hard to be ashamed when you are unconscious.