NationStates Jolt Archive

Now I have heard " Well why don't you and your liberal buddys go to Europe where you belong" And you have the classic " Liberals Hate America! " This one is kind of funny " Dude all you liberals are gay " This one is highly amusing " I don't like John Kerry because I like having guns!"
Now I could keep going and going about a lot of stupid insults I tend to get from my republican buddys.
Both sides are gultiy of idiot comments.
You get it from the left and rights, there are idiots on both sides.
But what I don't get is how "Liberal" is used as an insult, I don't how its insulting. Of crouse there are nutcases who use "conservitive" as an insult as well. "Liberal" "Conservitive" people on both sides seem to use them as insults, I don't get it.

Actually, the American ideals are liberal.

They are however, being rejected by an increasingly large number of Americans, in favour of authoritarianism.

Liberal is an insult because the right-wing media have painted it that way. Whenever they tried to depict a liberal it was an effeminate, politically-correct, gun-hating, America-bashing, egghead elitist. They never showed liberals who owned guns, lived a working-class lifestyle, and loved their country despite it's mistakes.

"Right-Wing Media" ? Like Talk Radio? Wow, a lot of power there. I guess CBS, CNN, NYTIMES, LATIMES, etc etc aren't doing a good enough job for you liberals then?

Actually, the American ideals are liberal.

And thats what people forget or don't stop to realize.



I however think America is best off with a combination of both the right and left-wings' agendas. Just without each sides extremes.

Now I have heard " Well why don't you and your liberal buddys go to Europe where you belong" And you have the classic " Liberals Hate America! " This one is kind of funny " Dude all you liberals are gay " This one is highly amusing " I don't like John Kerry because I like having guns!"
Now I could keep going and going about a lot of stupid insults I tend to get from my republican buddys.
Both sides are gultiy of idiot comments.
You get it from the left and rights, there are idiots on both sides.
But what I don't get is how "Liberal" is used as an insult, I don't how its insulting. Of crouse there are nutcases who use "conservitive" as an insult as well. "Liberal" "Conservitive" people on both sides seem to use them as insults, I don't get it.

When people debate like that, there's no need to debate with them, thus, I ignore them.

Liberal is an insult because the right-wing media have painted it that way. Whenever they tried to depict a liberal it was an effeminate, politically-correct, gun-hating, America-bashing, egghead elitist. They never showed liberals who owned guns, lived a working-class lifestyle, and loved their country despite it's mistakes.

Liberal is an insult because the liberals have painted themselves that way.
With the exception of Clinton, there have been no exceptional Democratic candidates since Carter! Hart, Gephart, Mondale, Kerry, Tsongas, Jackson, heck, even Edwards -- all fit your painting better than the image of DEM greats like Kennedy or FDR. And no, I am not happy about that. :(

IMHO, liberals in 2004 are in the exact same boat that the GOP was in 1960... they are despised for excesses by Joe Six-Pack. Yes, the examples you show demonstrate *exactly* how liberals portrayed. But by the same token, not all conservatives are gay-bashing, gun toting, red meat eating politically incorrect macho (wo)men. :)

Also: Right wing media? I'm afraid not -- liberals have been looked at this way by conservatives since the days of Ronald Reagan. If anything, the difference is that the media (in general!) promotes such partisanship that BOTH sides consider the other to be out of control stereotypers.

The DEMs have to stop making excuses and work out a platform that pulls them more towards " the center". And STICK to it. What would I do if I was running the party?

* Dump the stupid gun control agenda and instead become pro law enforcement!
* Stop catering towards minorities. I'm not saying ignore minorities. I'm not saying bash minorities. But stop putting up a minority agenda SEPERATE from the platform, and make a COMMON agenda.
* Gay marriage. Just get out of this one. There is no reason for this to have ever even BECOME an issue. It took women 200 years to get the vote, this won't be decided in 4.
* STOP WHINING. It never helps.
* The DEMs MUST win the White House in 2008, or at the worst, 2012. If not, the party will be officially dead.

American ideals are both conservative and liberal, it all depends on what you're comparing it to. Neither American party represents moderates.

"Right-Wing Media" ? Like Talk Radio? Wow, a lot of power there. I guess CBS, CNN, NYTIMES, LATIMES, etc etc aren't doing a good enough job for you liberals then?
Yeah, right wing media. Most movies, sitcoms, popular non-news magazines, etc. CNN, CBS, etc. are mostly centrist.

CNN and CBS centrist? You must be in a parallel universe or something. CNN is as blatantly left as you can get without falling off the planet, CBS being no better either.

Right wing media is personified by certain shows on the Fox news channel....where bush cab do no wrong and where anyone whodares disagree is shouted at and interupted so their messages can not get through....watch Outfoxed.....

CNN and CBS centrist? You must be in a parallel universe or something. CNN is as blatantly left as you can get without falling off the planet, CBS being no better either.
Spoken like a true fox viewer. CNN never badmouths the president. They only present facts. They spin storys against the left as often as they spin them against the right.

CNN and CBS centrist? You must be in a parallel universe or something. CNN is as blatantly left as you can get without falling off the planet, CBS being no better either.

Does CNN advocate gay marriage, then? Has CBS changed it's logo to an anti-war image? Thought not.

Fox News/Right-wing = CNN/CBS/Left-wing

Everytime a leftwinger complains about talk radio or Fox News, it's what right-wingers have been seeing/complaining about for years with CNN/CBS blah blah blah. There is no news reporting without bias in the world. To be an informed person you just watch both sides and figure out that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

The fact is that while reporters tend to be somewhat liberal, the editors and owners of media outlets tend to be conservative. The conservative owners keep the editors on point to tone down any story that would be seriously left wing, and kill any story that would cost the station or paper money in advertizing.

How do you explain things like:

-500 stories of death in Iraq for every 1 story of women being able to vote, go to school etc

-Dan Rather trying to bash Bush when his documents used as proof were some of the worst forgeries in history (even CBS' document experts told him they were fake, but he moved forward anyway)

-Fox News was the only outlet to talk about the extensive evidence that the U.N. was getting bribed by Sadaam

blah blah blah and so on. EVERYONE has an agenda. People have to admit it and move on with their lives. Life isn't fair

The fact is that while reporters tend to be somewhat liberal, the editors and owners of media outlets tend to be conservative. The conservative owners keep the editors on point to tone down any story that would be seriously left wing, and kill any story that would cost the station or paper money in advertizing.

Nice to assume I'm a "fox-viewer". Notice I never said Fox news WASN'T biased. I think every media outlet in America is biased, and useless as fuck too, or at least the television-based ones are. Half the time they're not even reporting news. But to be so blinded by your political leanings that you can't see any bias in what CBS and CNN report irks the fuck outta me. Turn on CNN and watch it a full day, then come back to me and tell me they aren't biased. When they're not running bogus stories about nothing (Sponge-Bob Square Pants floatie stolen from burger king? There's a headliner), they've invited some Kerry-addict who claims to be a political analyst on their show to repeat what I've been hearing on commericials for the past three months. Watch Anderson Cooper, who ridicules our president quite often, or Lou Dobbs, another reporter who can't seem to stand Bush. Paula Zahn is another biased reporter on that station.

Open your eyes, man. You'd think the conservatives were antichrists just by looking on this board. They're all biased, with the exception of BBC news (or as I like to call it, the NTN, or Nap-time Network). As for CNN not making gay marriage or pro-choice in their slogan, you'll notice pro-life and pro-guns isn't apart of the Fox news slogan either. Get over yourselves. I understand we all have particular political leanings, but let's be realistic here.

The fact is that while reporters tend to be somewhat liberal, the editors and owners of media outlets tend to be conservative. The conservative owners keep the editors on point to tone down any story that would be seriously left wing, and kill any story that would cost the station or paper money in advertizing.
Which is why Keith Obermann was prevented from spewing his conspiracy theory election fraud BS, right?

How do you explain things like:

-500 stories of death in Iraq for every 1 story of women being able to vote, go to school etc

-Dan Rather trying to bash Bush when his documents used as proof were some of the worst forgeries in history (even CBS' document experts told him they were fake, but he moved forward anyway)

-Fox News was the only outlet to talk about the extensive evidence that the U.N. was getting bribed by Sadaam

blah blah blah and so on. EVERYONE has an agenda. People have to admit it and move on with their lives. Life isn't fair
I don't pay attention to fox news. Still I knew about the oil for food scandal. How did that get through the "liberal media"? I watch CNN almost constantly. I have never, NEVER, seen a bodycount of Iraqi civilians on CNN.

I don't pay attention to fox news. Still I knew about the oil for food scandal. How did that get through the "liberal media"? I watch CNN almost constantly. I have never, NEVER, seen a bodycount of Iraqi civilians on CNN.

Well you know, I've got CNN on my television constantly, and I would have to say that I have INDEED seen a body count, multiple times in fact.

Well you know, I've got CNN on my television constantly, and I would have to say that I have INDEED seen a body count, multiple times in fact.
Body count of US troops? yeah, Insurgents? Yeah, Civilians? I haven't seen it.

I don't pay attention to fox news. Still I knew about the oil for food scandal. How did that get through the "liberal media"? I watch CNN almost constantly. I have never, NEVER, seen a bodycount of Iraqi civilians on CNN.

I saw it on CNN once. A mindblowing, should be on every network for weeks, people protesting until the leadership is cleansed situation, and it was BRIEFLY discussed on CNN. Innocents getting their heads chopped off by psychos, coverage for a day. Murdering crazy people getting naked pictures taken of them, coverage for two weeks. But CNN doesn't have an agenda ;)

I saw it on CNN once. A mindblowing, should be on every network for weeks, people protesting until the leadership is cleansed situation, and it was BRIEFLY discussed on CNN. Innocents getting their heads chopped off by psychos, coverage for a day. Murdering crazy people getting naked pictures taken of them, coverage for two weeks. But CNN doesn't have an agenda ;)
The terrorists cutting people's head off was covered ad nauseum by almost all news outlets. Abu Garaib as well. Abu Garaib was perhaps more newsworthy. Those actions by our troops went a long way toward undermining our credibiblity throughout the world. A fuck-up like that is always newsworthy.

Anyway, liberals don't hate America. Conservatives just like to portray us this way. I don't think any US conservative on this forum would see me as anything but a liberal. Also, if you have read my posts I don't see how you can say I hate America. Most US liberals are like me. We love our country. We just think the leaders are fucked.

I don't necessarily hate liberals, just their attitude. Look man, I wouldn't have a problem with ANY liberal if they didn't do what us conservatives are accused of doing all the time, and that's force their opinions on me. I don't have a problem with you at all. You know why? Cause you discuss your opinions in a respectable manner. You don't have a high and mighty attitude, and I find that admirable. But the rest of this board is constantly attacking conservative posters in a deragatory manner-some of the things said here are highly offensive. I'm not a Christian, but if I were, I'd be hunting some of these pricks down. The Christian religion is mocked and spat upon by the whole general forum, yet nobody seems to have a problem with that. But if I came out and said something like "I hate African-Americans" this board would flip.

Great Al Franken quote:
"They don't get it. We love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America the way a four-year-old loves her mommy. Liberals love America like gorwn-ups. To a four-year-old, everything mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow."

Man is a genius!

Which is why Keith Obermann was prevented from spewing his conspiracy theory election fraud BS, right?
Which is why Sean Hannity was prevented from spewing his nonsense, right?

Which is why Sean Hannity was prevented from spewing his nonsense, right?
Wrong. Sean Hannity spewing his "nonsense" would fit right into the liberal claim that the news networks really aren't liberal, because the head honchos (conservatives) dominate the programming. This (Sean Hannity) would make sense under such a claim. Keith Obermann and Dan Rather's claims would not fit into the idea that the conservatives at the top dominate the programming.

Open your eyes, man. You'd think the conservatives were antichrists just by looking on this board. They're all biased, with the exception of BBC news (or as I like to call it, the NTN, or Nap-time Network).
I hate to shatter any carefully cherished beliefs here, but the BBC is pretty biased as well. It might not come across in the States, because we have a different line-up of issues in the U.K. to the U.S., but the Beeb (as we call it) has its own prejudices, same as everyone.

Liberal is an insult because the liberals have painted themselves that way.
With the exception of Clinton, there have been no exceptional Democratic candidates since Carter!

True

Hart, Gephart, Mondale, Kerry, Tsongas, Jackson, heck, even Edwards -- all fit your painting better than the image of DEM greats like Kennedy or FDR. And no, I am not happy about that. :(

I don't think many liberals like being associated with Kerry or Jackson either, but I dare say there hasn't been a good Democratic candidate since... Ford? Eisenhower?

I mean, would you rather I associate conservatives with McCain or with Bush?

If anything, the difference is that the media (in general!) promotes such partisanship that BOTH sides consider the other to be out of control stereotypers.

The DEMs have to stop making excuses and work out a platform that pulls them more towards " the center".

I agree with the first point, but your assertion about Democrats as a whole is incorrect. Most Democrats are moderates and centrists.

* Dump the stupid gun control agenda and instead become pro law enforcement!
* Stop catering towards minorities. I'm not saying ignore minorities. I'm not saying bash minorities. But stop putting up a minority agenda SEPERATE from the platform, and make a COMMON agenda.
* Gay marriage. Just get out of this one. There is no reason for this to have ever even BECOME an issue. It took women 200 years to get the vote, this won't be decided in 4.
* STOP WHINING. It never helps.
* The DEMs MUST win the White House in 2008, or at the worst, 2012. If not, the party will be officially dead.

I agree with all your points and I assure you most "liberals" and certainly Democrats agree. Democrats need to be less whiny, more decisive, and far more vocal. They need to be agressive, and sink to depths of mud slinging and misinforming to survive.

I don't foresee the Democratic party being dead, as that would make the predictions of fringe liberals regarding an authoritarian government correct!

Spoken like a true fox viewer. CNN never badmouths the president. They only present facts. They spin storys against the left as often as they spin them against the right.
I will agree that CNN is generally truthful when it comes to their stories, but theirs is a crime of omission. If you were to actually look at their election coverage you'd notice that they are most certainly pro Democrat. They don't actually try to get dirt on the Dems but they do on the Reps.

I will agree that CNN is generally truthful when it comes to their stories, but theirs is a crime of omission. If you were to actually look at their election coverage you'd notice that they are most certainly pro Democrat. They don't actually try to get dirt on the Dems but they do on the Reps.
Are you talking about their coverage of the actual election night results? They, like most other media outlets, were being extra cautious because in 2000 every station rushed to get the results out first and called a republican victory when it was still up in the air.

CNN's Lou Dobbs consistantly tells it like it is. Whether he's exposing the idiocy of ultra leftists who try to legitimize the illegal crossing of our borders or those on the left and right who think there's no problem with shipping our manufacturing industries overseas. Even those industries key to our military security.

They need to be agressive, and sink to depths of mud slinging and misinforming to survive.
Did you completely miss what both sides of the campaign were doing? Where have you been, in a hole for the past year? This election was nasty and both sides contributed pretty much equally, although Dem constituents were nastier this year.

[QUOTE=Markreich]The DEMs have to stop making excuses and work out a platform that pulls them more towards " the center". And STICK to it. What would I do if I was running the party?

* Dump the stupid gun control agenda and instead become pro law enforcement!
* Stop catering towards minorities. I'm not saying ignore minorities. I'm not saying bash minorities. But stop putting up a minority agenda SEPERATE from the platform, and make a COMMON agenda.
* Gay marriage. Just get out of this one. There is no reason for this to have ever even BECOME an issue. It took women 200 years to get the vote, this won't be decided in 4.
QUOTE]

While they're at it, oughtn't they also adopt the elephant as their party logo and rename themselves the Republican Party?

If things went the way you're saying they ought to, then exactly who will represent the viewpoint of the political left-of-centre? Oh...I guess you're really saying they shouldn't HAVE political representation.

That's awfully hard to swallow, fella.

I have yet to hear ANY reason for gun control that makes sense except for a one-day backround check to make sure you haven't committed a felony with a weapon.

I have yet to hear ANY reason for gun control that makes sense except for a one-day backround check to make sure you haven't committed a felony with a weapon.
Hear hear.

Are you talking about their coverage of the actual election night results? They, like most other media outlets, were being extra cautious because in 2000 every station rushed to get the results out first and called a republican victory when it was still up in the air.
No I'm talking of the coverage leading up to the election. I understand their caution on election night. That doesn't really bother me.

Wrong. Sean Hannity spewing his "nonsense" would fit right into the liberal claim that the news networks really aren't liberal, because the head honchos (conservatives) dominate the programming. This (Sean Hannity) would make sense under such a claim. Keith Obermann and Dan Rather's claims would not fit into the idea that the conservatives at the top dominate the programming.
But if it was a liberal dominated media, then why wasn't Sean Hannity stopped from talking?

French President Jacques Chirac is a liberal. He doesn't like America.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder won election by campaigning on anti-Americanism. He is also a liberal.

Kim Jong-Il is a communist, and therefore an extreme liberal. He doesn't like America.

Vladimir Putin was the former head of KGB and former member of the Soviet Communist Party. He is a liberal. He doesn't like America either, as he works with France and Germany to make our agendas difficult.

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan is a liberal. He doesn't like America.

Liberals don't like America.

French President Jacques Chirac is a liberal. He doesn't like America.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder won election by campaigning on anti-Americanism. He is also a liberal.

Kim Jong-Il is a communist, and therefore an extreme liberal. He doesn't like America.

Vladimir Putin was the former head of KGB and former member of the Soviet Communist Party. He is a liberal. He doesn't like America either, as he works with France and Germany to make our agendas difficult.

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan is a liberal. He doesn't like America.

Liberals don't like America.
Putin's more of an authoritarian nationalist. Like mussolini with vodka. I'm a liberal, I love my country. So do all the liberals I hang out with. All my conservative friends too.

Sigh.
So just because they have a certain political view, they hate the States? Sigh...


Stop following Bush's McCarthyist ideology! If you dislike a view, debate it instead of insulting the person making it! I've been debating for years, but I've never encountered anything like the debate on the Iraq war.

Anti-war on Iraq: We shouldn't invade Iraq because [insert rational reasons here].
Pro-war on Iraq: "Your dad's gay! &u're a c0ward!"
Anti-war on Iraq: Stop flaming. Anyways, [insert rational reasons here].
Pro-war on Iraq: "Leave the USA you anti-American piece of s[...]!!11111111"
...and so on...
:mad:

So because we're against money-wasting (NASA's Mars program) and freedom-robbing Republicans (read the Patriot Act and find out about this thing called "ban on gay marriage"), we hate America? Don't make me laugh. Being against nonsense wars like Iraq, lies and deception (Iraq), and corruption (EnRon) doesn't make me anti-American. I thought my ideology was what America was founded on, but forgive me if I was wrong. I'll move on to trying to throw basic rights out of the window with the Republican party :rolleyes: .

Oh, and regulating guns doesn't violate the second amendment. Read the freaking thing, it says that the "militia" (the need for a militia being the right-wingers' excuse for owning guns) should be well-regulated. :rolleyes:

[List of 10 people who are liberals and don't like the States]
Liberals hate America
Oh, so 10 people speak for hundreds of millions now? How convenient for the rest of us :D (sarcasm alert :) )!

Now I have heard " Well why don't you and your liberal buddys go to Europe where you belong" And you have the classic " Liberals Hate America! " This one is kind of funny " Dude all you liberals are gay " This one is highly amusing " I don't like John Kerry because I like having guns!"
Now I could keep going and going about a lot of stupid insults I tend to get from my republican buddys.
Both sides are gultiy of idiot comments.
You get it from the left and rights, there are idiots on both sides.
But what I don't get is how "Liberal" is used as an insult, I don't how its insulting. Of crouse there are nutcases who use "conservitive" as an insult as well. "Liberal" "Conservitive" people on both sides seem to use them as insults, I don't get it.

because liberal= democrats or reactionary type people with a radical view of the world..oh and atheists

because liberal= democrats or reactionary type people with a radical view of the world..oh and atheists

I wouldn't necessarily say reactionary; you could easily find those on the far right side of the spectrum.

But yes, liberals are more likely to voice their opinions, however whiney and thus they get the tag reactionary.

Radical, see comment about the far right. Both far sides are quite frightening...

I wouldn't necessarily say reactionary; you could easily find those on the far right side of the spectrum.

But yes, liberals are more likely to voice their opinions, however whiney and thus they get the tag reactionary.

Radical, see comment about the far right. Both far sides are quite frightening...


it doesn't do you any good (no matter how tempting it is) to stereotype people. Saing all black people are crips is wrong. But it's pretty safe to assume if you're a crip or blood you're probably black. Maybe not a very PC analogy but do you see what I'm saying

Yeah I think I just needed a reason to post. Shoot the messenger.

Yeah you have a point; its like all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.

I think that was your analogy with the crips.

Anyway, I need to go watch Bondathon. Cheerio.

The DEMs have to stop making excuses and work out a platform that pulls them more towards " the center". And STICK to it. What would I do if I was running the party?

* Dump the stupid gun control agenda and instead become pro law enforcement!
* Stop catering towards minorities. I'm not saying ignore minorities. I'm not saying bash minorities. But stop putting up a minority agenda SEPERATE from the platform, and make a COMMON agenda.
* Gay marriage. Just get out of this one. There is no reason for this to have ever even BECOME an issue. It took women 200 years to get the vote, this won't be decided in 4.
* STOP WHINING. It never helps.
* The DEMs MUST win the White House in 2008, or at the worst, 2012. If not, the party will be officially dead.
The Dems have already been pulled towards the centre. Bill Clinton did that.

1. I think most Democrats don't care about gun control any more. Done.

2. I didn't really understand this one about minorities. Do Democratic candidates address rooms of black people promising to free them from the "evil white oppressor"?

3. I don't think that they should let gay marriage go. To let it be banned, particularly on a federal level, is unAmerican and a breach of human rights. Besides, the GOP made it an issue by throwing out their "states' rights" ideology when Massachusetts decided to permit gay marriage.

4. Both sides whine.

5. It depends who is the Republican candidate in 2008. If it's a sane Republican like John McCain, it won't matter very much. If it's Rick Santorum, then yes, the Dems need to win the White House in 2008. Either way, unless Bush does something worse than Nixon in the next four years, I think that the Reps will win the presidency in 2008.

How do you explain things like:

-500 stories of death in Iraq for every 1 story of women being able to vote, go to school etc
This one is too obvious. Maybe you haven't noticed, but the media tend to go for the sensationalist story. The sad fact is, explosions and killing get higher ratings than voting booths.

French President Jacques Chirac is a liberal. He doesn't like America.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder won election by campaigning on anti-Americanism. He is also a liberal.

Kim Jong-Il is a communist, and therefore an extreme liberal. He doesn't like America.

Vladimir Putin was the former head of KGB and former member of the Soviet Communist Party. He is a liberal. He doesn't like America either, as he works with France and Germany to make our agendas difficult.

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan is a liberal. He doesn't like America.

Liberals don't like America.

Communists aren't liberal. Liberals stand for a relationship between state prerogatives and individual rights that privileges the latter in any conflict between the two. Communists cannot, under any circumstances, be said to stand for that. What both ideologies do stand for is social justice as opposed to unrestricted greed, and the attendant private violations of individual rights and welfare that inevitably arise from the latter. This is something of an inconsistency in liberal thought, actually, and derives from historical accident and simple compassion rather than ideological similarity.
I don't think it's an insult to liberalism to call it inconsistent on these matters (look at conservatives, they claim to be against big government except when it's in your bedroom or supporting a militaristic police state--or theocracy . . .), because the fact is that real ideological consistency leads to things like Communism, which I wouldn't really call a good thing (except in character).
I've known a lot of liberals who do have that sort of knee-jerk blame-America-first mentality. Before 9/11, I had it myself. Since then, though, I actually read some of the things that Osama was saying and realized that anti-Imperialism wasn't really what he stood for. He stood for Islamist imperialism, and he'd stone an atheist like me in the marketplace and set fire to every girl I've ever slept with because they were sluts. In other words, I discovered we don't always make our own enemies. A lot of my comrades on the Left haven't made that discovery, yet, but a lot of them have.
A while back, I ran across a certain quote, I forget who from exactly, but it ran something like,
"America is not a villain. It is a disappointment. But it is a disappointment because it is also a hope."
The Republic of which I am proud to be a citizen was founded upon the most liberal, secular, and progressive principles of the Enlightenment. Culturally, much of it wasn't then, and some of it still isn't as advanced as all that. America hasn't always lived up to its promise, and when it hasn't (slavery, genocide, wars of expansion and conquest, that sort of thing), it's taken a lot of kicking from liberals like me to keep it moving. My ideals are quintessentially American ideals, and my anger at what the radical Right is doing to my country derives from what I see as their betrayal of those ideals in the service of their own narrow-mindedness and lust for power--replacing the Republic with Empire and concern for the public good with an "ownership society" and "family values" where everyone only looks after their own little piece. That's no way to keep freedom safe. And no way to serve justice.
As for the rest of the guys mentioned by TJ Mott:
Putin is not a liberal. Schroeder and Annan both campaigned for sense, when Bush campaigned for a useless war. Being anti-Bush is not the same being anti-American.
Where I stand, it's the opposite.

because liberal= democrats or reactionary type people with a radical view of the world..oh and atheists

Not atheists!

Innocents getting their heads chopped off by psychos, coverage for a day. Murdering crazy people getting naked pictures taken of them, coverage for two weeks. But CNN doesn't have an agenda ;)
How does this point to a liberal agenda?

It saddens me how American conservatives have tanted the word "liberal." :(

But if it was a liberal dominated media, then why wasn't Sean Hannity stopped from talking?
I didn't say it was a liberal dominated media, or that FOX was liberal. It was explicitly stated that "The conservative owners keep the editors on point to tone down any story that would be seriously left wing,"

Edit :
So, if you have bones to pick about the "liberal media" line, don't take it up with me, take it up with people who have said it in this thread. I'm just pointing out that it is false to say that conservative owners keep our left-wing garbage. Not left-wing news, but garbage like the "mysterious Florida votes" and "Army memos".

French President Jacques Chirac is a liberal. He doesn't like America.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder won election by campaigning on anti-Americanism. He is also a liberal.

Kim Jong-Il is a communist, and therefore an extreme liberal. He doesn't like America.

Vladimir Putin was the former head of KGB and former member of the Soviet Communist Party. He is a liberal. He doesn't like America either, as he works with France and Germany to make our agendas difficult.

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan is a liberal. He doesn't like America.

Liberals don't like America.
Chirac = conservative

Scroeder = centrist

Kim Jong-Il = fascist

Putin = pseudo-fascist

Kofi Annan = ???

It saddens me how American conservatives have tanted the word "liberal." :(

It saddens me how American liberals have tainted the word "conservatives."

Come on, now. It goes both ways. Conservatives paint the liberals as being hippies, pro-gun control, pro-drugs, minority loving pussies. You forget it goes both ways, too. Liberals paint the conservatives as gun- loving, war mongering, greedy, God worshipping assholes. A few words come to mind; would Ya'll just shut the fuck up? Although there is SOME truth to what each party says, they paint each other as extremists, which isn't right. However, the dems are further left than the Republicans are right. As for the media bias thing: Yeah, they're gonna be biased. It's natural. However, most of them do indeed lean further left. The only station that is definetely right of center is Fox. The others are more centrist but lean left most times.

I do tend to ignore people who use that kind of argument.
But one thing I can never understand.
I live in a mostly republican dominated area in PA, thankfully not that far away from Pittsburgh, which is very strong Democratic county.
However if I say I don't think Bush is a good president I tend to get labled a " Traitor Commie" or somthing along those lines. It's arguments like that, that make me want to punch somthing.

"Liberals are evil", etc. is a gross oversimplification of politics that America seems to suffer from.

I do tend to ignore people who use that kind of argument.
But one thing I can never understand.
I live in a mostly republican dominated area in PA, thankfully not that far away from Pittsburgh, which is very strong Democratic county.
However if I say I don't think Bush is a good president I tend to get labled a " Traitor Commie" or somthing along those lines. It's arguments like that, that make me want to punch somthing.

I have no problem with people sayin that, as long as they back it up with reasons for disliking him. Calling Bush the anti-christ, however, is another thing.

The current American government is filthy and corrupted.
Hear me out before you call me Un-American.

Now, I don't watch TV news, with the possible exception of C-SPAN. I don't believe anything the major newspapers and television stations say until I validate it with multiple internet sources.

It's obvious that the biggest problem with American politics is that fact that anyone can be president, provided, of course that they're a white straight christian man. That cuts out a huge portion of the American poeple.

Then we have the corruption. Tobacco companies have donated over $27 million to campaigns since 1997. Between 1999 and 2002 the politicians who sponsored the FDA regulation of tobacco House Bill (which was supported by Philip Morris) received 20 times as much money from the tobacco industry as the sponsors of the House bill supported by the public health community.

Somehow, tobacco will never be banned, even though it's much worse for you than some drugs, while medicinal marijuana will remain illegal.

Even Ralph Nader, the supposed champion of the little man, out to get big business, took money from tobacco companies.

This country needs change, and needs it badly.

The current American government is filthy and corrupted.
Hear me out before you call me Un-American.

Now, I don't watch TV news, with the possible exception of C-SPAN. I don't believe anything the major newspapers and television stations say until I validate it with multiple internet sources.

It's obvious that the biggest problem with American politics is that fact that anyone can be president, provided, of course that they're a white straight christian man. That cuts out a huge portion of the American poeple.

Then we have the corruption. Tobacco companies have donated over $27 million to campaigns since 1997. Between 1999 and 2002 the politicians who sponsored the FDA regulation of tobacco House Bill (which was supported by Philip Morris) received 20 times as much money from the tobacco industry as the sponsors of the House bill supported by the public health community.

Somehow, tobacco will never be banned, even though it's much worse for you than some drugs, while medicinal marijuana will remain illegal.

Even Ralph Nader, the supposed champion of the little man, out to get big business, took money from tobacco companies.

This country needs change, and needs it badly.

*Hears you out*....*Calls you un-American*

Please. There's nothing that says one has to be white, straight, or even Christian. No one of different color, religion, or preference has ever been on the ballot. There are no laws saying one must be a white straight christian. AS for the tobacco endorsement, so what? First of all, you can't *take* money that is given to you. Just because they accept the money, doesn't mean they endorse tobacco. They'll accept donations for almost anyone. It's just the owner of the company endorsing the president he likes best, simple as that. And, medicinal marijuana will remain legal because it's just that, medicinal. Tobacco won't get banned because they don't view it as serious a threat as coccaine, crack, Meth, etc.

If they wanna say that, then I'll just say all the hicks should go live in texas and play russian roullette for a few years. It's a two way street darlin.

Well, look at it from their side. What ELSE would they say?

"Liberals hate freedom!"
Wait...wait, no that doesn't really work, does it, since they...you know...always try to fight for it.
"Liberals hate the poor!"
...Yeah, they-! ...Wait, no, no, they don't
"Liberals minorities!"
That's one that works! Only...wait, no it still doesn't. Hrmm.


Really, America was the only thing left :p

The Dems have already been pulled towards the centre. Bill Clinton did that.


No, and no by a long shot.

It is one thing to appease soccer moms by banning "scawy-wooking" firearms, and it is an entirely different thing to call such an action centrist.


I think most Democrats don't care about gun control any more. Done.


Nope.

Lieberman and Kennedy ring a bell?

Do Democratic candidates address rooms of black people promising to free them from the "evil white oppressor"?


Essentially what happens is similar to the like of "the right-wing is what has made you poor and they are why racial injustice still exists".


Chirac = conservative

Absolutely wrong.

He is indeed Liberal; It does not matter if he was more right than his opponent in the previous election.

Well, look at it from their side. What ELSE would they say?

"Liberals hate freedom!"
Wait...wait, no that doesn't really work, does it, since they...you know...always try to fight for it.
"Liberals hate the poor!"
...Yeah, they-! ...Wait, no, no, they don't
"Liberals minorities!"
That's one that works! Only...wait, no it still doesn't. Hrmm.


Really, America was the only thing left :p

Let's look at it from liberal's point of view:
"Conservatives hate freedom!"
Wait, then what are they trying to spreead in the middle east?
Conservatives hate minorities!"
Ya! That's one that works- wait- isn't the secretary of state a minority? Isn't the new Attorney general a minority?
"Conservatives hate the poor!"
Yeah! they try to take away welfare! Only, no, they didn't!

Bullshit goes both ways, friend.

Let's look at it from liberal's point of view:
"Conservatives hate freedom!"
Wait, then what are they trying to spreead in the middle east?
imperialism
Conservatives hate minorities!"
Ya! That's one that works- wait- isn't the secretary of state a minority? Isn't the new Attorney general a minority?
I'll give you that one
"Conservatives hate the poor!"
Yeah! they try to take away welfare! Only, no, they didn't!
but somehow their tax breaks mostly benefit the rich

Bullshit goes both ways, friend.
To an extent.

Ayad Allawi was appointed so that iraqis will be free to die in droves.

Let's look at it from liberal's point of view:
"Conservatives hate freedom!"
Wait, then what are they trying to spreead in the middle east?
imperialism If we were spreading imperialism, we wouldn't allow them to hav etheir own elections. We would'nt allow them to run their own country
Conservatives hate minorities!"
Ya! That's one that works- wait- isn't the secretary of state a minority? Isn't the new Attorney general a minority?
I'll give you that one That's what I thought.
"Conservatives hate the poor!"
Yeah! they try to take away welfare! Only, no, they didn't!
but somehow their tax breaks mostly benefit the rich Your point...most democrats are rich as well...wouldn't they benefit also?

Bullshit goes both ways, friend.
To an extent. Both paint each other as being extremely on the other side, while they're both actually close to center

Italics added by me.

I hate both sides of the political spectrum.
Trust me, I have no love for the Democrats, but they seem to be the only current alternative to an apocalypse.

So because we're against money-wasting (NASA's Mars program)

I'm having you excommunicated from Liberalism. :mad:

Liberal is an insult because the right-wing media have painted it that way. Whenever they tried to depict a liberal it was an effeminate, politically-correct, gun-hating, America-bashing, egghead elitist. They never showed liberals who owned guns, lived a working-class lifestyle, and loved their country despite it's mistakes.

Lol, 'right-wing' media? The media that covered up Stalin's massacres in the 30's, helped bring Mao and Castro to power, whitewashed Ho Chi Minh and the Vietcong in the 60's while smearing the South Vietnamese and the U.S. military, launched propaganda smear-fests against Somoza, Smith, the Shah, etc., lauded and glorified Gorbachev during the 80's and Mandela in the 90's? No offense, but they don't seem too 'right-wing' to me.

launched propaganda smear-fests against Somoza, Smith, the Shah, etc., lauded and glorified Gorbachev during the 80's and Mandela in the 90's? No offense, but they don't seem too 'right-wing' to me.
Last time I checked, the Shah was a "bad guy." As in a theocratic dictatorial bastard. So bashing him would be a good thing.
Gorbachev was rightly lauded for making steps toward peace (yeah, Reagan gets some points there too, much as it pains me to say that).
Why is glorifying Nelson Mandela a bad thing? Please explain that one.

it doesn't do you any good (no matter how tempting it is) to stereotype people. Saing all black people are crips is wrong. But it's pretty safe to assume if you're a crip or blood you're probably black. Maybe not a very PC analogy but do you see what I'm saying

That's a terrible analogy. If you're a fringe radical, you're probably a conservative hiding under the 2nd ammendment in a storm trooper outfit.

It saddens me how American liberals have tainted the word "conservatives."

Come on, now. It goes both ways. Conservatives paint the liberals as being hippies, pro-gun control, pro-drugs, minority loving pussies. You forget it goes both ways, too. Liberals paint the conservatives as gun- loving, war mongering, greedy, God worshipping assholes. A few words come to mind; would Ya'll just shut the fuck up? Although there is SOME truth to what each party says, they paint each other as extremists, which isn't right. However, the dems are further left than the Republicans are right. As for the media bias thing: Yeah, they're gonna be biased. It's natural. However, most of them do indeed lean further left. The only station that is definetely right of center is Fox. The others are more centrist but lean left most times.

Your arguement is completely sound except for the claim that the Democrats are further left than the Republicans are right. I don't know what era you're thinking of, but in this one, that certainly isn't the case.

Last time I checked, the Shah was a "bad guy." As in a theocratic dictatorial bastard. So bashing him would be a good thing.
Gorbachev was rightly lauded for making steps toward peace (yeah, Reagan gets some points there too, much as it pains me to say that).
Why is glorifying Nelson Mandela a bad thing? Please explain that one.

I double on that, except I say Reagan doesn't deserve credit (more like he deserves blame). He kept trying to push it, and Gorbachev was the good guy (or at least the smart one) who tried to slow it down while playing catchup for the safety of his own people toward the end.

***

And you [others] are absolutely wrong about your claims regarding welfare; I can safely say that the current representatives of the Republican party, while they may not hate the poor, are causing many problems for them (including severely reducing spending), and making every attempt they can to brush them out of sight.

5. It depends who is the Republican candidate in 2008. If it's a sane Republican like John McCain, it won't matter very much. If it's Rick Santorum, then yes, the Dems need to win the White House in 2008. Either way, unless Bush does something worse than Nixon in the next four years, I think that the Reps will win the presidency in 2008.

As a President, Nixon at least put an end to Viet Nam, so he's already better than Bush. Add in his statesmanship and bush pales incomparison.

Given the campaigns Bush has run, I call him and Nixon even as men.

Yeah, it would've beeen nice if bush had done something about the intelligence reports before 9/11, wouldnt it? Not saying it was explicitly his fault, but y'know it wouldve been nice.
wonder how many supreme court justices are conservative now?

Most liberals I know love to blame America for everything wrong in the world.

Last time I checked, the Shah was a "bad guy." As in a theocratic dictatorial bastard. So bashing him would be a good thing.
Gorbachev was rightly lauded for making steps toward peace (yeah, Reagan gets some points there too, much as it pains me to say that).
Why is glorifying Nelson Mandela a bad thing? Please explain that one.

Yes and no. The shah was a great guy in some ways, and a real bastard in others. Civil rights in Iran were, for the most part, quite good, but political freedoms were unheard of, and opposition was ruthlessly suppressed. In fairness to the Shah, he did turn Iran into a military and industrial powerhouse, extended suffrage to women, introduced sweeping land reforms that were beneficial to small farmers, etc.

Gorbachev continued to support terrorism and revolution around the world. His regime massacred over 500,000 Afghanis.

Mandela and his ANC thugs used to 'necklace' anticommunist blacks (yes, blacks) during apartheid. They would tie the victim's hands with barbed wire, put a gasoline-soaked tire around their neck, pour gasoline down their throat, set them on fire, and then dance around them and taunt them as they burned to death. They also resorted to terroristic tactics such as bombing cars and buildings, etc. As immoral, unjust, and despicable as apartheid was, it was retained as long as it was not out of racism (though, admittedly, many National Party leaders were of course racist) but as a defense against communism. They were well aware of the large number of blacks who were influenced if not out-right controlled by the communists- hence, the National Party outlawed the African National Congress and other groups. The South African government wanted to gradually abolish apartheid- for example, in the 80's, Pieter Willem Botha legalized interracial marriage, granted political freedoms to Coloureds and Asians, lifted the constitutional ban on multiracial political parties, relaxed the Group Areas Act (which barred non-whites from living in certain areas), etc. However, the rest of the world steadfastly ignored the ANC's terrorism directed against innocent blacks and ignored the government's efforts to gradually eliminate apartheid. When the ANC finally achieved power in 1994 through widespread fraud and intimidation, they set the country on a downward course from which it has not strayed. AIDS and crime have skyrocketed exponentially. The economy is a shambles. Racism is rampant. Corruption is all-pervasive. The government is gradually changing into a one-party dictatorship. White farmers are being murdered- with the tacit consent of the government. Etc.


Btw- I commend you for not flaming. Thanks. You have earned my respect. :)

Nice to see we agree on quite a bit!

I don't think many liberals like being associated with Kerry or Jackson either, but I dare say there hasn't been a good Democratic candidate since... Ford? Eisenhower?

I mean, would you rather I associate conservatives with McCain or with Bush?


Exactly. In going through the candidates, I'm trying to show how UNLIKE "Joe Sixpack" they are.
IMHO, I think many conservatives can/do associate with McCain and even Bush. Or Reagan. But I bet very few do with Ford, or Duke...


I agree with the first point, but your assertion about Democrats as a whole is incorrect. Most Democrats are moderates and centrists.

Fair enough. I just think that what we each consider to be centrist is a bit different. :)


I agree with all your points and I assure you most "liberals" and certainly Democrats agree. Democrats need to be less whiny, more decisive, and far more vocal. They need to be agressive, and sink to depths of mud slinging and misinforming to survive.

I don't foresee the Democratic party being dead, as that would make the predictions of fringe liberals regarding an authoritarian government correct!


I'm very much against mudslinging and misinformation. That's not the way for any nation to live. And IMHO, neither party is innocent. :(

If the DEMs can't take the White House by 2012, they will be. It'll mean that there will have suffered through 40 years of a Supreme Court mostly chosen by the GOP. And 40 years in which only 12 will have been with DEM leadership in the White House. And that's not counting Congress.

No, they must win, and must change their message to do so.

By the same token, the GOP really must work to not squander what they have at this point and do good, else they will be seen as self aggrandizing charlatians that promised "A" but delivered "K".

The DEMs have to stop making excuses and work out a platform that pulls them more towards " the center". And STICK to it. What would I do if I was running the party?

* Dump the stupid gun control agenda and instead become pro law enforcement!
* Stop catering towards minorities. I'm not saying ignore minorities. I'm not saying bash minorities. But stop putting up a minority agenda SEPERATE from the platform, and make a COMMON agenda.
* Gay marriage. Just get out of this one. There is no reason for this to have ever even BECOME an issue. It took women 200 years to get the vote, this won't be decided in 4.
QUOTE]

While they're at it, oughtn't they also adopt the elephant as their party logo and rename themselves the Republican Party?

If things went the way you're saying they ought to, then exactly who will represent the viewpoint of the political left-of-centre? Oh...I guess you're really saying they shouldn't HAVE political representation.

That's awfully hard to swallow, fella.

Not at all. I'm saying that the DEMs need to pick issues they can WIN on.

* Gun control is as dead as returning to the gold standard as an issue. Case closed, sorry.

* Gay marriage needs at LEAST 20 years to become accepted, and by being it being made into an issue too early, it will fail. Society moves slowly, as as "enlightened" as you may think you (I mean you in terms of hardline left) are, you can't force others to your point of view. Gay marriage will be accepted, someday. The same way as women's rights and minority (blacks esp) rights are today. But that took generations, and so will this.

The DEMs need to concentrate on things which the majority of the people WANT. They want law enforcement, not more restrictive laws on themselves. They want balanced budgets and jobs.

The Dems have already been pulled towards the centre. Bill Clinton did that.

1. I think most Democrats don't care about gun control any more. Done.

2. I didn't really understand this one about minorities. Do Democratic candidates address rooms of black people promising to free them from the "evil white oppressor"?

3. I don't think that they should let gay marriage go. To let it be banned, particularly on a federal level, is unAmerican and a breach of human rights. Besides, the GOP made it an issue by throwing out their "states' rights" ideology when Massachusetts decided to permit gay marriage.

4. Both sides whine.

5. It depends who is the Republican candidate in 2008. If it's a sane Republican like John McCain, it won't matter very much. If it's Rick Santorum, then yes, the Dems need to win the White House in 2008. Either way, unless Bush does something worse than Nixon in the next four years, I think that the Reps will win the presidency in 2008.

1. Yes, I hope that it is true. But when the (ineffective) assault weapons ban lapsed, it was howled about by the liberals all the same. Time will tell.

2. Close enough, given how the NAACP works against the GOP. The black vote holds major cache within the DEMs. You think Clinton living in Harlem didn't help Hillary get elected?

3. I'm opting for a middle course. It needs TIME for acceptance, not to be bandied about for votes.

4. Of course they do. But if I hear one more time someone complain about the makeup about the Supreme Court... argh.

5. Hard to say, a single event changes so much. But I still stand by my assertion that if the DEMs don't win by 2012 they'll be as good as redundant.

Now I have heard " Well why don't you and your liberal buddys go to Europe where you belong" And you have the classic " Liberals Hate America! " This one is kind of funny " Dude all you liberals are gay " This one is highly amusing " I don't like John Kerry because I like having guns!"
Now I could keep going and going about a lot of stupid insults I tend to get from my republican buddys.
Both sides are gultiy of idiot comments.
You get it from the left and rights, there are idiots on both sides.
But what I don't get is how "Liberal" is used as an insult, I don't how its insulting. Of crouse there are nutcases who use "conservitive" as an insult as well. "Liberal" "Conservitive" people on both sides seem to use them as insults, I don't get it.
i often hear people claiming that those godless baby-eating liberals all hate America, but i don't see how that can possibly be the case; on the contrary, they must REALLY REALLY REALLY love America, if they are willing to stick around through the crapfest that we have been enduring for the last 4 years. they must love America far more than their conservative counterparts, since liberals are watching their tax dollars support the very states that marginalize, insult, and oppress the liberal states. they must love America more dearly than ever in view of the recent election, because they are staying to fight, to better their nation, and to continue helping make America strong, even as their most dearly held values are spat upon by the government and 51% of American voters.

Chirac = conservative

Scroeder = centrist

Kim Jong-Il = fascist

Putin = pseudo-fascist

Kofi Annan = ???

I like it, but I'd give:

Putin = Despotic/Stalinist

Kofi Annan = Opportunist

...Kim Jong-Il is nominally Communist, but fascist does kind of fit him in terms of political action if not thought.

Yeah, it would've beeen nice if bush had done something about the intelligence reports before 9/11, wouldnt it? Not saying it was explicitly his fault, but y'know it wouldve been nice.
wonder how many supreme court justices are conservative now?

It'd have been nice if Clinton did, too. No one is innocent.

So far, no more or less justices than when he took office.

"Right-Wing Media" ? Like Talk Radio? Wow, a lot of power there. I guess CBS, CNN, NYTIMES, LATIMES, etc etc aren't doing a good enough job for you liberals then?

Yeah, right wing media. Most movies, sitcoms, popular non-news magazines, etc. CNN, CBS, etc. are mostly centrist.

Read Al Franken's book "Lies and the lying liars who tell them". He goes into some detail on this issue - how the american media is ferverantly right-wing biased.