NationStates Jolt Archive

Is what I hear true? Is "liberal" really on a par with "Nazi", "fascist", and "communist" in the class of political smears in America?

Why? How? What went wrong?

Regan. 'Nuff said.

"Liberal" was successfully defined by the opposition as high taxes, big government, banning guns, mandatory abortions, and gayness.

Just like "Santorum" was successfully defined by the opposition as the frothy mixture of lubricant and fecal matter that is sometimes the product of anal sex.

Damn commie pinko hippie drug addled scum. Why, in my day, your parents used to beat you so hard you'd see kids with skull fractures all regular. But the little 'tards still used teh salute and kiss the flag every 5 minutes [/sarcasm]

It's just like the fact neo-con is a dirty word, it's not something to really worry about. It's just politicians smashing their opponents.

"Liberal" was successfully defined by the opposition as high taxes, big government, banning guns, mandatory abortions, and gayness.

Just like "Santorum" was successfully defined by the opposition as the frothy mixture of lubricant and fecal matter that is sometimes the product of anal sex.
Not to most of us Pennsylvanians :p


Liberal is not on par to nazi, communist, and fascist. It might even be worse, but only because no one (reasonable) really listens to people who call others nazis, communists, or fascists.

Not to most of us Pennsylvanians :p
Ah, Ricky "Man on Dog" Santorum is up for re-election in 06. He's number one on the Dem hitlist. Too bad he's practically the only GOP incumbent that can even be called vulnerable. :(

If I lived in America, I would be scared to death by Rick "you have no right to privacy" Santorum. He's an ultra-moralising fascist.

"liberal" isn't, "Liberal" which has become solely associated with the far left wing of the Dems on the other hand is.

If I lived in America, I would be scared to death by Rick "you have no right to privacy" Santorum. He's an ultra-moralising fascist.
and he's a senator, whose craziness is kept in check by the other senators.

hay you think that is bad. When Im Israel normal and welcomed. When I come home to teaching job in NY state my nickname is "the pinko commi" of the north country. It is very sad. But at least it isnt 60 yeasr ago. I think it got really bad becuase the people that are too poor to afford a proper education pass it on. Which is all the rednecks of the US. About 3/4 of America. That is also the result of having elections where "the big guy" is ones and not the others.

"Liberal" is a political swear word these days because Republican groups (particularly major regional think tanks) have discovered the power of issue framing, something Democrats have yet to understand. In speeches, interviews, press conferences, and what have you, intonation and wording (rhetoric) is just as important, and is indeed even moreso, than the substance of the issue being discussed. The cumulative effect of it is enormous, as can be seen by the fact that the "bad word" status of "liberal" has been (intentionally or not) picked up by the mass media. Democrats do not help things, being so oversensitive to certain aspects of public opinion that they stopped calling themselves liberal once the word started being framed in this way, rather than fighting the framing with their own rhetoric. In their defence, of course, many Democrats are not liberals; they are mostly centrists or, more recently, moderate conservatives. However, this does not stop the framing, which continues to brand them regardless. It's all a question of psychological assotiations, most of which are subconscious, but easy to manipulate if you know what you are doing.

"liberal" isn't, "Liberal" which has become solely associated with the far left wing of the Dems on the other hand is.
um no liberal, no one uses the word as a proper noun

because liberals have yet to figure out that the vast majority of their ideas are flawed in at least one major way. Rather than accept and modify it they say things like "..the people that are too poor to afford a proper education pass it on. Which is all the rednecks of the US. About 3/4 of America.." which is not only ignorant and incorrect, it is also arrogant and offensive - not an effective way to win the hearts and minds of America.

Most liberals find it too hard to resist since they are naturally arrogant, offensive, ignorant and incorrect.

Is what I hear true? Is "liberal" really on a par with "Nazi", "fascist", and "communist" in the class of political smears in America?

cause right now they stand for things on a par with nazis fascists and communists

bump

Is what I hear true? Is "liberal" really on a par with "Nazi", "fascist", and "communist" in the class of political smears in America?

Why? How? What went wrong?

The country was told that liberals were going to eat their children and ban the bible and enforce their neo-nazi facist regimes. That was pretty scary so half the country believed that; likewise the other half didn't believe it and opposed the other side.

Moral to the story: Liars are funny.

Oooh, Liberal is a dirty word now? Do I get bad boy points for being one? Will it help me pick up chicks? Can I have it embroidered on my leather jacket?

*says the word "liberal"*

My mom (a conservative): "GO WASH YOUR MOUTH OUT WITH SOAP, BEN!"

So why is "liberal" a dirty word in America?
Surely it's obvious, because Americans are authoritarian.

Surely it's obvious, because Americans are authoritarian.
But so are liberals (or at least they are economically)

I'm libertarian so I'm not being hypocritical, nor am i trying to be a jerk about it

cause right now they stand for things on a par with nazis fascists and communists
Then why are all the nazis and fascists in the Republican Party?

And communism is dead, sorry. Socialism and welfare liberalism exist to an extent within the centrist Democratic Party.

Most liberals find it too hard to resist since they are naturally arrogant, offensive, ignorant and incorrect.
Liberals say the same thing about conservatives.

Surely it's obvious, because Americans are authoritarian.

There's nothing wrong with Authority. To have order, you've got to have authority. The more liberal a country is, the closer to chaos it is.

Then why are all the nazis and fascists in the Republican Party?

could you name me so of them

cause I know members of the demicratic party who's reccords on abortion would put stalin and moa to shame

The country was told that liberals were going to eat their children and ban the bible and enforce their neo-nazi facist regimes. That was pretty scary so half the country believed that; likewise the other half didn't believe it and opposed the other side.

Moral to the story: Liars are funny.
No wonder I laughed at your post then.
:rolleyes:

could you name me so of them
Guess who United White Front voted for?

cause I know members of the demicratic party who's reccords on abortion would put stalin and moa to shame
Obviously not everyone feels that abortion equals murder.

Liberals say the same thing about conservatives.
yes, but liberals proove us right on a regular basis. They make it easy, as in the quote from my post.

Guess who United White Front voted for?

the accuisation that one is a facist is a very serious one, it'll take more than the names of a few people who voted for one to convice that one is a facist


Obviously not everyone feels that abortion equals murder.

and not every one felt that jews equaled humans, or non-communist dissedents for that matter

To me Liberal makes me think of the Political party... you know... seeing as the ruling party of Canada is the LIBERAL party of Canada....

Anyways though, it seems to me "conservative" is used just as derogatively as liberal.... and then again, sometimes both are used praisingly... depends on who you're talking to.

just give it up - nobody cares about Canada

I agree, it depends more on who your talking too, and this isn't a recent phenomina - conservitives have been doing it for years its just that now since the conservitive movement in America is flowering again you see alot more of it

and not every one felt that jews equaled humans, or non-communist dissedents for that matter
can you define when a fetus can be labeled a baby? or do you believe it is always a child? think of the mass murder men commit everyday, youd wet yourself

yes, but liberals proove us right on a regular basis. They make it easy, as in the quote from my post.

"Most liberals find it too hard to resist since they are naturally arrogant, offensive, ignorant and incorrect."

lets see, which of these are not subjective. hmm arrogant

who can it be thats arrogant? oh yeah. George Dubya with his mandate and we are better than the muslims bullshit, no arrogance there
not to mention all this bs about liberals being trash oh yeah good job on arrogance hypocrite


offensive? wow your afraid of homosexuality and thing a zygote is a living child. im pretty offended by being told what i can and cant do by a bunch of self proclaimed superior moralists


ignorant and incorrect? should we go back to the poll numbers about how many fox viewers think saddham had nukes ready to launch at us and was sipping champagne in a hot tub with osama bin ladin?

Because people are idiots.

Flat out.

Because people are idiots.

Flat out.
and the winner is... Goed Twee

can you define when a fetus can be labeled a baby? or do you believe it is always a child? think of the mass murder men commit everyday, youd wet yourself

I believe life starts at conception

a sperm cell is just a cell, let it be and it will never be anything more than a cell

let and egg cell and a sperm cell together and you know what happens, so its ok guys

Is what I hear true? Is "liberal" really on a par with "Nazi", "fascist", and "communist" in the class of political smears in America?

Why? How? What went wrong?


The conservative media monopoly (CNN, MSNBC, FOX) has socialized people to believe that "liberal" implies something bad.

I believe life starts at conception

a sperm cell is just a cell, let it be and it will never be anything more than a cell

let and egg cell and a sperm cell together and you know what happens, so its ok guys
but sperm and eggs dont come together if people masterbate. wow your killing unconseived babies billions of em! its only ok to do it at sperm banks ++

in addition: life beginning at conception is an opinion. at conception there is barely a zygote and i doubt its called that and that point in time and zygote is nowhere near a fetus and definately not a human child. at conception its just a rapidly multipling mass of cells. wow everyone time to stop lasering cancers, they might kinda be potential babies!

can you define when a fetus can be labeled a baby? or do you believe it is always a child? think of the mass murder men commit everyday, youd wet yourself
Dictionary (and if dem u come in we don’t have to argue this more)
Says that a fetus = baby

And the fetal stage occurs at the 8th week after conception (before that is embryonic stage) so yeah

The conservative media monopoly (CNN, MSNBC, FOX) has socialized people to believe that "liberal" implies something bad.
Wow haven’t heard of CNN being in the conservative media monopoly before usually conservatives detest it (at least any I know do) bout as much as liberals ditest fox lol

The whole media bias thing is suspect in my eyes. I've always seen the news media to be more lazy, and sensationalist, rather than having a political leaning.

Though Fox definately seems to have a right-leaning bent; I haven't noticed any bent on the others. Then again, if you already lean to the right, you're likely to think of Fox as balanced, and CNN as being left-leaning. It's all relative.

Yes it is, but CNN's partisan to partisan ratio is a lot better than Fox's, who by the way always uses retarded and incomptent liberals.

Also, how is that conservatives would be so concerned with the life of child to have it born but then deny it a proper child hood and education? That's the situtation for many impoverished children.

There's nothing wrong with Authority. To have order, you've got to have authority. The more liberal a country is, the closer to chaos it is.
Yes, the more liberal the country is, the freer it is. But most of the EU is Liberal, not liberal. It has an authoritarian streak that's a mile wide.

"Most liberals find it too hard to resist since they are naturally arrogant, offensive, ignorant and incorrect."

lets see, which of these are not subjective. hmm arrogant

who can it be thats arrogant? oh yeah. George Dubya with his mandate and we are better than the muslims bullshit, no arrogance there
not to mention all this bs about liberals being trash oh yeah good job on arrogance hypocrite


offensive? wow your afraid of homosexuality and thing a zygote is a living child. im pretty offended by being told what i can and cant do by a bunch of self proclaimed superior moralists

ignorant and incorrect? should we go back to the poll numbers about how many fox viewers think saddham had nukes ready to launch at us and was sipping champagne in a hot tub with osama bin ladin?



Liberals love to put words in Dubya's mouth. He can actually be quoted saying that Muslim-Americans are just as American as any other Americans.

The bad guy's are extremist Muslims(or as michael moore would like to call them "minute men") that want to kill you and destroy any democracy in the Middle East.

Fox's reporting isn't biased, it just gets blasted because it has conservative pundits unlike CNN which just has liberal pundits.

Personally, I think homosexuals should be able to express the same rights as any other citizen of the USA. Referring to your "zygote" comment. In California, a blue state, Scott Peterson got a double murder charge for killing his wife and unborn child.

In California, a blue state, Scott Peterson got a double murder charge for killing his wife and unborn child.
Which as we have all said, is complete and total bullshit.

cause right now they stand for things on a par with nazis fascists and communists

Yeah, human rights and equal protection - *exactly* like fascists and communists.

I believe life starts at conception

And yet you aren't willing to back that up by prosecuting women who have miscarriages due to their busy lifestyles for child abuse and neglect.

Which as we have all said, is complete and total bullshit.
The idea that he was guilty? Because the child qualifies as a normal baby since most babies at 8 months can survive out of the womb. As such it was most certainly a double murder.

Miscarriages happen, you don't choose to have a miscarriage.

Choosing to end something's life is just wrong. It doesn't even make sense.

Personally, I would rather live in a poor family or with a single mother and get even a small oppurtunity at succeeding in life than having it end because my mother assumes she wouldn't be able to take care of me or wouldn't even put me up for adoption.

I know some liberals are going to say(or have said) that the kids are going to grown up abused(newsflash, parents can actually choose not to abuse their child) or that the kid could be born retarded. Well, why don't we just kill all the abused and retarded children of the world?

Abortion should only occur when the mother's life is in danger.

Abortion should only occur when the mother's life is in danger.
How much in danger?

A 20% chance of dying?

Or maybe just permanent damage to the uterus.

How much in danger?

A 20% chance of dying?

Or maybe just permanent damage to the uterus.
But you are coming from a POV that the fetus/embryo whatever is not a human … they are coming from a nether POV with inherently affects their argument


Its hard to argue logic when you both have different premises

There is always a chance that a women or her baby can die during labor.

A chance of death should be 50% or more if it could possibly be predicted. This makes it so that for women that have a "more than likely chance" that they would die in the event of childbirth, they could have an abortion.

There is always a chance that a women or her baby can die during labor.

A chance of death should be 50% or more if it could possibly be predicted. This makes it so that for women that have a "more than likely chance" that they would die in the event of childbirth, they could have an abortion.
How would you feel if you were the husband, and were told as your wife went into labor that she had a 45% chance of dying, and thus was denied an abortion (even though both of you wanted an abortion)?

I wouldn't like those odds.

I would be pretty pissed off.

First off, in that case I wouldn't want an abortion.

I wouldn't want an abortion for my wife unless the chance of death was probably 70%. Personally, I'd value my kid's life over my wife's life.

First off, in that case I wouldn't want an abortion.

I wouldn't want an abortion for my wife unless the chance of death was probably 70%. Personally, I'd value my kid's life over my wife's life.
:eek:










that is all.

First off, in that case I wouldn't want an abortion.

I wouldn't want an abortion for my wife unless the chance of death was probably 70%. Personally, I'd value my kid's life over my wife's life.
Wow I could understand up to the 50 percent (may not agree but could understand) but wow

It comes down to this.

If you had to choose between your baby or your wife, who would you choose?

Your baby has never had a chance to experiance many of the things in life. Your wife on the otherhand has experianced many things.

Do you even have kids or a wife?

No, its a hypothetical question and I thought that was obvious.

My point, so how would you have any idea what it feels like? There is a reason I dont ask hypothetical questions.

The poster asked a hypothetical question, I answered and now I'm asking a hypothetical question.

Why the double standard against me and not him?

Or is it just because you don't agree with my views, and if so I am perfectly fine with that.

It comes down to this.

If you had to choose between your baby or your wife, who would you choose?

Your baby has never had a chance to experiance many of the things in life. Your wife on the otherhand has experianced many things.
I would choose wife personally

Another hypothetical

What if she had kids? Other kids already … lets say 5
There is no way for the dad to support and care for these kids by himself
How would that change things?

Just curiuse(sp) what are the chances of the baby surviving if the mother doesn't, I was under the impression that they weren't veary good.

In that position, I would be dissapointed and probably put the child up for adoption.

That's a pretty one sided question though. 5 children? At what age? Seriously, I would think at least some of these "kids" would be almost adults which dismisses the "having a hard time caring for them all".

It comes down to this.

If you had to choose between your baby or your wife, who would you choose?

Your baby has never had a chance to experiance many of the things in life. Your wife on the otherhand has experianced many things.
To each their own...but damn...

(I'd save my wife, btw)

"Liberal" is a political swear word these days because Republican groups (particularly major regional think tanks) have discovered the power of issue framing, something Democrats have yet to understand. In speeches, interviews, press conferences, and what have you, intonation and wording (rhetoric) is just as important, and is indeed even moreso, than the substance of the issue being discussed. The cumulative effect of it is enormous, as can be seen by the fact that the "bad word" status of "liberal" has been (intentionally or not) picked up by the mass media. Democrats do not help things, being so oversensitive to certain aspects of public opinion that they stopped calling themselves liberal once the word started being framed in this way, rather than fighting the framing with their own rhetoric. In their defence, of course, many Democrats are not liberals; they are mostly centrists or, more recently, moderate conservatives. However, this does not stop the framing, which continues to brand them regardless. It's all a question of psychological assotiations, most of which are subconscious, but easy to manipulate if you know what you are doing.

Well, I am still proud to be liberal, regardless of any spin on the word.

To each their own...but damn...

(I'd save my wife, btw)


Emotionally I would be devastated if I had lost my wife but I would be even more devastated if I had lost a child.

Each to their own, personally I value logic over emotion though.

Here's how I see the abortion thing:

Those who oppose abortion also have a tendency to not want to pay the taxes necessary to care for a baby born into an under-privileged home. Some morons see this as punishment for the parents. It is not; it's punishment for the baby. So much for being compassionate, huh? This is very similar to how economic sanctions do not hurt the leaders of a country so much as they hurt the citizens.

The idea of liberal being used as a dirty word is absurd to me. I tend to lean to the left, and call myself liberal, but I'm not very extreme, and often agree with conservative values. I still get labeled as if it's a bad thing, though. The fact that political opinions are enough to make people suggest that those with differing opinions are bad JUST BECAUSE they have differing opinions is very sad to me. What happened to being the UNITED States of America? It seems as though unity only matters to some people if they're only united under their opinion.

Dissent is kind of important, after all. If you don't understand every side of an issue, then you won't really know how to support your own. Ad hominem attacks only demonstrate ignorance, and an inability to support yourself. Those of you who have fallen for the idea that liberals are bad just because they're liberals have been brainwashed. This is my biggest beef with the Republican party right now. I don't disagree with their core ideology most of the time. I do disagree with them turning back on their ideals of states' rights and a small government. That coupled with foul attacks at the opposition make me very disinterested in that party.

In that position, I would be dissapointed and probably put the child up for adoption.

That's a pretty one sided question though. 5 children? At what age? Seriously, I would think at least some of these "kids" would be almost adults which dismisses the "having a hard time caring for them all".
Lol I actually toned it down from a real life situation

(not the abortion part) but my GF there are 6 kids (I toned it down) and she is 19 (now) in her family their dad ended up going to prision

so 6 kids single parent support

Anyways yeah it sounds one sided but really not too far off (and at the point that the mother only had 5 kids my gf the oldest was 12 so 5 kids oldest 12 lol)

Here's how I see the abortion thing:

Those who oppose abortion also have a tendency to not want to pay the taxes necessary to care for a baby born into an under-privileged home.



A tendency, that sounds like a stereotype. Personally, I would want to pay taxes that are necessary to care for a baby born into an under-privelaged home.

Emotionally I would be devastated if I had lost my wife but I would be even more devastated if I had lost a child.
If the little bugger hasn't even poked his head out yet it's hard to really get much of an attachment, one that would overrule my love for my hypothetical wife.

Each to their own, personally I value logic over emotion though.
Love itself is inherently illogical. Emotion wins.

I agree, emotion beats logic easily. Notice how I said "value".

I'm going to sleep, thanks for the discussion Cho~

Later all.

LONG LIVE PIRATES N NINJAS ARRRRRRRR

Miscarriages happen, you don't choose to have a miscarriage.

If you are sexually active and living a stressful lifestyle, you are well aware that you may become pregnant and have a miscarriage. If an embryo is truly the same as a born child, this is clear neglect and manslaughter

Hey, let's ban smoking and drinking to pregnant women!!!

America is supposedly one of the most powerful countries in the world. I think that's why Americans tend to be conservative. They don't like the idea of change, because taking risks means taking chances, and they'd hate to lose the status they have. XP

Then again, I could be completely illogical, despite living in America, and being very liberal. XD

- Asylum Nova

America is supposedly one of the most powerful countries in the world. I think that's why Americans tend to be conservative. They don't like the idea of change, because taking risks means taking chances, and they'd hate to lose the status they have. XP

Then again, I could be completely illogical, despite living in America, and being very liberal. XD

- Asylum Nova
Lol while I am not going to argue with your statements

How does this relate to the topic (maybe I am just an idiot)

Nah, I just think the rest of the Western world doesn't have a huge rural central region known as the "heartland".

Take away that and we're fairly European/Candian in beliefs.

Nah, I just think the rest of the Western world doesn't have a huge rural central region known as the "heartland".

Take away that and we're fairly European/Candian in beliefs.
To be fair (I have been using that a lot I knoticed) very few states won by massive majority … so even if you eliminated the heartland as you say bush may not have won but if I look at the maps right he probably would have gotten about 40 percent of the vote average … not exactly “European” like lol


(and the stats were a guess but as far as I can tell fairly acurate)

First off, in that case I wouldn't want an abortion.

I wouldn't want an abortion for my wife unless the chance of death was probably 70%. Personally, I'd value my kid's life over my wife's life.
Well, we'll see what you say if you're ever in that situation. Somehow I think you'd choose the person you've formed a (hopefully) lifelong, strong, time-tested, supportive emotional bond with, over someone you've never even seen. It may be emotion trumping logic, but that's what a lot of the abortion debate comes down to, anyway.

Anyhow. Done helping the thread get off topic...back to the original subject. A lot of what I was talking about has come out in this thread, as well. People sling mud overtly, and as well more subtly through their language. I truly wish people would just stop slinging mud altogether, and realize that, no matter how much you disagree with your political opponentry, they're still human, and no matter what their political affiliation, they're trying to do what they think is best for mankind. I may despise George W Bush, but I respect the fact that he thinks he's doing the right thing, just as I think I'm doing the right thing by opposing him.

First off, in that case I wouldn't want an abortion.

I wouldn't want an abortion for my wife unless the chance of death was probably 70%. Personally, I'd value my kid's life over my wife's life.Interesting choice, can't say I'd agree.

But then I've never met your wife.

People in the U.S. like to listen to talk radio. Unfortunately, it's dominated by various forms of far right-wing hosts. The one thing all of these hosts have in common is their disdane and disgust for liberals. This has become a propaganda machine which I think caused the election of GWB in the last two elections.
During their shows, these rt wing-extremist-talk show hosts label themselves as the voice of the people, the source of truth, and the preservers of the american way. Some even call liberalism a disease, a mental illness, etc. and still others call for legal repression of liberals. However, when they're called to task as being political hacks they say they're simply entertainers and the rules of equal time don't apply to them.

To be fair (I have been using that a lot I knoticed) very few states won by massive majority … so even if you eliminated the heartland as you say bush may not have won but if I look at the maps right he probably would have gotten about 40 percent of the vote average … not exactly “European” like lol


(and the stats were a guess but as far as I can tell fairly acurate)

He was not referring to states, but more towards areas. Yes New York was sort of close, but there is a great deal of Rural area there. The same goes for California, Illinois, Pennsylvania and the rest of Kerry states. The fact is that most of Europe is a great deal more urban than the US, and the urban areas in the US have liberal values resembling those of Europe.

Nothing went wrong. It finally went right. Liberals are being exposed, including their (unexplainable) Anti-American ideas. With Friends Like Them, We Take Over.

Name some Anti-American ideas that liberals have.

Nothing went wrong. It finally went right. Liberals are being exposed, including their (unexplainable) Anti-American ideas. With Friends Like Them, We Take Over.
Another closed site. My specialty. Say something MEANINGFUL or move on down the road.
Um...did you just quote yourself and disagree with yourself? THis is a bit confusing.

This is, at least the first of these two, exactly what I'm talking about. Perhaps you'd like to admit to the fact that liberals are human beings, just like yourself, with the same needs and wants on a day to day basis, and a largely similar idea of the state in which they would like to see the world; they just have different ideas on how to get there? Neither liberals nor conservatives are "evil" or "anti-American." Both sides think they're doing the right thing for the nation. Admit that, please.

um no liberal, no one uses the word as a proper noun
That's because, correct me if I'm wrong here, there's no Liberal party in America. So people equate liberal with Democrat because liberals are so terrified by the Republican stance they'd rather see anyone else in.

That's because, correct me if I'm wrong here, there's no Liberal party in America. So people equate liberal with Democrat because liberals are so terrified by the Republican stance they'd rather see anyone else in.

I think a lot of liberals would vote for a republican candidate such as McCain, Powell, or Giuliani. I don't know a single conservative who would vote democrat.

It is the conservatives who are afraid of democratic stances. They are worried about gays, abortion, gun control, less military spending, taxes and just about anything where the "slippery slope" argument is used.

"liberal" is a dirty word in 50% of America - though of that 50%, I'm sure that words like "evolution" and phrases like "the Rule of Law" are also considered dirty, or inconvenient, at any rate.

Um...did you just quote yourself and disagree with yourself? THis is a bit confusing.


No, I think (s)he was spiking h(is)(er) own ball because after h(is)(er) awe-inspiring argument that liberals where evil and anti-american no one responded for a whole 14 minutes, thus closing down the thread in light of h(is)(er) earth-shattering revilation. (S)he was doing it as a victory dance.

I think a lot of liberals would vote for a republican candidate such as McCain, Powell, or Giuliani. I don't know a single conservative who would vote democrat.

It is the conservatives who are afraid of democratic stances. They are worried about gays, abortion, gun control, less military spending, taxes and just about anything where the "slippery slope" argument is used.


While this is very true I'd like to simplify it a bit. Conservatives are thought of by liberals as asshole rednecks who say "do it my way or else!" while liberals are thought of by conservatives as whiny pussys who say "lets talk about it and see if we can find common ground". Now, both of these are obviously generalizations and as such aren't always true, but thats the great thing about opinions - mine are always right! :D


But as to why liberal is a dirty word in this country it's because liberals don't stand up to conservatives and KICK THEIR ASSES (figuratively speaking) anywhere near enough. When was the last time you heard a liberal scream SHUT UP! at a conservative? Liberals have let the conservatives demonize them, and some (dumbass) liberals have said and done stupid things that only enforce this sterotyping by conservatives. Liberals do tend to be more willing to try and find common ground and aren't as intolerant as your average conservative.

"Most liberals find it too hard to resist since they are naturally arrogant, offensive, ignorant and incorrect."

lets see, which of these are not subjective. hmm arrogant

who can it be thats arrogant? oh yeah. George Dubya with his mandate and we are better than the muslims bullshit, no arrogance there
not to mention all this bs about liberals being trash oh yeah good job on arrogance hypocrite


offensive? wow your afraid of homosexuality and thing a zygote is a living child. im pretty offended by being told what i can and cant do by a bunch of self proclaimed superior moralists


ignorant and incorrect? should we go back to the poll numbers about how many fox viewers think saddham had nukes ready to launch at us and was sipping champagne in a hot tub with osama bin ladin?


See what I mean? You guys make it too EASY! Not even an attempt at being rational! I love it!

Oh, and where are the grammar and spelling Nazis when you need them?

See what I mean? You guys make it too EASY! Not even an attempt at being rational! I love it!

Oh, and where are the grammar and spelling Nazis when you need them?
Don’t take him seriously … most of us personally disown him ourselves lol

There hasn't been a legitimate Left in the United States since the 1920s.

"Liberal" is also a misnomer. It means someone who wants less government and more individual freedom. The Founding Fathers (with a few exceptions) would be considered Liberals. Liberal originally did not mean "Left".

The American Left does believe in some personal freedoms, but wants to limit freedom of speech through political correctness. They want freedom for a woman's body through abortion rights, but they don't want public expressions of religion. They don't believe in property rights - a shrimp has more rights to land than a human - your land isn't yours - your money belongs to the government - your job is to be given to someone of the government's choosing. And you can't own a gun, because power belongs to the government.

Oddly, the American Right isn't that far away from the American Left. In the end, both want the government up your rectum with a big fist.

There hasn't been a legitimate Left in the United States since the 1920s.

"Liberal" is also a misnomer. It means someone who wants less government and more individual freedom. The Founding Fathers (with a few exceptions) would be considered Liberals. Liberal originally did not mean "Left".

The American Left does believe in some personal freedoms, but wants to limit freedom of speech through political correctness. They want freedom for a woman's body through abortion rights, but they don't want public expressions of religion. They don't believe in property rights - a shrimp has more rights to land than a human - your land isn't yours - your money belongs to the government - your job is to be given to someone of the government's choosing. And you can't own a gun, because power belongs to the government.

Oddly, the American Right isn't that far away from the American Left. In the end, both want the government up your rectum with a big fist.

Oh libertarian are we?:) (not saying it’s a bad thing just seems to naturally flow from the sound of your statements)

When was the last time you heard a liberal scream SHUT UP! at a conservative?
Actually, it was 'Shove it" and it was directed at a conservative journalist.



Liberals have let the conservatives demonize them, and some (dumbass) liberals have said and done stupid things that only enforce this sterotyping by conservatives.
Change 'some' to 'far too many' and you are starting to get at the root of the answer.


Liberals do tend to be more willing to try and find common ground and aren't as intolerant as your average conservative.

Ah yes, like Michael Moore, Janeane Garofalo, Whopi Goldberg, Al Franken and Harry Belafonte.

No, I'm not a Libertarian. It flows from the sales model of both parties - sell the idea that we're giving you more personal freedom (perhaps select freedoms), and then take back with both hands.

"We're all for throwing the 'wrong sort' of people in prison!" (whoever we think you don't like)

"We're all for 'accountability'!" (whatever that means)

"We're all for more freedom for <fill in special interest or potential block of voters>!"

Don’t take him seriously … most of us personally disown him ourselves lol
LOL - don't worry, I can tell who the real players are, but sometimes ya just gotta kick when that big 'ol arse is hanging out there like that.

Matalatataka is one of those that was deceived. He evidently believes that his side can do no wrong, and is morally superior. Why, they aren't unfair or intolerant, are they?

News flash, ladies and gentleman. Never assume that your party is "better" or composed of "better" people. It will quickly prove to be wrong.

Or, in other words, stop believing your own press releases.

No, I'm not a Libertarian. It flows from the sales model of both parties - sell the idea that we're giving you more personal freedom (perhaps select freedoms), and then take back with both hands.

"We're all for throwing the 'wrong sort' of people in prison!" (whoever we think you don't like)

"We're all for 'accountability'!" (whatever that means)

"We're all for more freedom for <fill in special interest or potential block of voters>!"
Very true seems to be a lot of what both parties are about

(Personally I think all politicians are dumb asses)

I seem to remember a quote I will paraphrase (will try and look it up)

“those that are capable of getting elected to high office are probably the type of people we don’t want there”

Ah yes, like Michael Moore, Janeane Garofalo, Whopi Goldberg, Al Franken and Harry Belafonte.

Michael Moore is (and you are going to go apeshit when I say this) rather tolerant. He just feels Bush is horrible for this country.

I don't know much about Al Franken. I have enjoyed listening to him in interviews and such but I haven't heard his radio program.

As for the other three. What was the point of bringing up those? To show that you can't find anybody besides three washed up Hollywood entertainers with absolutely no political credibility?

Here's a good example:

During the Clinton Administration, Hillary and others had secret meetings to come up with a universal health care plan. The attendees names and the notes of the meetings were secret. Attempts by the opposition to get any of this information was stonewalled. Top ranking Democrats argued that they were entitled to keep these things secret.

During the Bush Adminstration, Dick Cheney and others held secret meetings to come up with an energy policy. The attendees names and the notes of the meetings were secret. Attempts by the opposition to get any of this information was stonewalled. Top ranking Republicans argued that they were entitled to keep these things secret.

Or, we have Nixon's attitude towards evidence. I can have my secretary sanitize it and we won't have anything too embarassing.

Or, we have Hillary's attitude towards evidence. I can order the FBI agents to wait in the hall while my lawyer sanitizes my former lawyer's office and we won't have anything too embarassing.

See anything in parallel yet?

Get off your high horse.

I wish I had an answer for you, but I have noticed it as well. Bob Dole was trying to use it in a derogatory sense in the '96 election.

Is what I hear true? Is "liberal" really on a par with "Nazi", "fascist", and "communist" in the class of political smears in America?

Why? How? What went wrong?

What went wrong is that, at some point in the development of education in the United States, someone made the decision to teach children completely the wrong meaning of words. As a result, most Americans have no conception of what the word liberal means. This goes, not only for the critics of so-called "liberals", but also for those who call themselves "liberal". A similar situation exists in relation to the words communism and socialism.

Vas.

Liberal was equated with Communist for a long time (since the 1930s).

Now, it's equated with "tax and spend". The implication to the middle class and upper class voters is that now that you've either made it to the middle class, or finally made your first million, the "liberals" are going to take your money by raising your taxes to European levels, and then spend that money on anyone except you (midnight basketball was a real, but comically ill-fated program).

No one in the middle class wants to give up their money to the poor - after all, that would return them to a lower standard of living, especially if that money were never put into programs that they use.

It's not as though we don't spend money on Defense, or NASA. But if you take the money spent by the Department of Health and Human Services, and only the money they spend in the first three months of the year, it's more money than the Defense Department spends in a year, and more money than was spent on the entire space program (moon shots, shuttle, and all) to the present date.

Want to convince the middle class that it's a waste of money? Easy as pie.

Actually, it was 'Shove it" and it was directed at a conservative journalist.
you couldnt count the number of times journalists have been told to shove it...



Ah yes, like Michael Moore, Janeane Garofalo, Whopi Goldberg, Al Franken and Harry Belafonte.
yesh they are far less understanding, willing to compromise and fair than you [/sarcasm]

hypocrite

"Liberal" is a political swear word these days because Republican groups (particularly major regional think tanks) have discovered the power of issue framing, something Democrats have yet to understand. In speeches, interviews, press conferences, and what have you, intonation and wording (rhetoric) is just as important, and is indeed even moreso, than the substance of the issue being discussed. The cumulative effect of it is enormous, as can be seen by the fact that the "bad word" status of "liberal" has been (intentionally or not) picked up by the mass media. Democrats do not help things, being so oversensitive to certain aspects of public opinion that they stopped calling themselves liberal once the word started being framed in this way, rather than fighting the framing with their own rhetoric. In their defence, of course, many Democrats are not liberals; they are mostly centrists or, more recently, moderate conservatives. However, this does not stop the framing, which continues to brand them regardless. It's all a question of psychological assotiations, most of which are subconscious, but easy to manipulate if you know what you are doing.

After reading about four pages of inane argument I really would like to reiterate this person's post. Its only a dirty word because the republicans have made it that way to serve their purposes, and the liberals reacted in a way that helped them do it. This is not to say the repubs are evil or scheming either, its just politics. The democrats have often times tried the exact same things.

Is what I hear true? Is "liberal" really on a par with "Nazi", "fascist", and "communist" in the class of political smears in America?

Why? How? What went wrong?

No its not a dirty word here

Everyone who thinks the Libearls are evil and nasty and that a "Liberal" country is like a nazi dictatorship, take a drive/fight/ect Up to Montreal or Toronto, and hang out for a few days. Maybe, just maybe, you'l see that a country ruled by The LIBEARL party really isnt so bad, and that the whole country is just that, a "Liberal party" *teehee* ;)

That being said, the consertivates somtimes have some good ideas too, and perhapes instead of polarizing your selves into Liberals and Con's you should think of your own idea's and views, instead having them fed to you by Bush, Kerry, or that wanker with a talk raido show that listen to driving home from work.

Its only a bad word because of said polarization based on pre packaged politics, and the said package called "Liberal" is opposed by the majorty of voting Amercains, so thus it disliked by the majorty. Make up your political package, dont just take the one sitting on the shelf!

cause right now they stand for things on a par with nazis fascists and communists
:rolleyes:

Yes, Denis Kucinich lost the primary election because he stood for killing Jews, invading Canada/Mexico, regulating people's personal lives, and confiscating all private property, right?

:rolleyes:
The country was told that liberals were going to eat their children and ban the bible and enforce their neo-nazi facist regimes. That was pretty scary so half the country believed that; likewise the other half didn't believe it and opposed the other side.
I still struggle to have faith that the vast majority of America is not sufficiently stupid to think that liberals eat children and ban the Bible - right?

But so are liberals (or at least they are economically)

I think that's quite an exaggeration. Socialists are economically authoritarian; liberals are just "regulation capitalists". Liberals are generally pro-free market. They must realise that excessive market freedom has disadvantages.

yes, but liberals prove us right on a regular basis. They make it easy, as in the quote from my post.
And saying that everyone should live by the Bible is not arrogant?

Then why are all the nazis and fascists in the Republican Party?

And communism is dead, sorry. Socialism and welfare liberalism exist to an extent within the centrist Democratic Party.
There are no nazis in the Republicans, but they do have fascist senators (Santorum and Coburn).

Communism isn't dead, because you can't kill ideas. However, it barely exists in America (understandably).

Anyways though, it seems to me "conservative" is used just as derogatively as liberal
That's because the Canadian media seems to have a slight anti-conservative bias.

can you define when a fetus can be labeled a baby? or do you believe it is always a child? think of the mass murder men commit everyday, youd wet yourself
Let's not get into the abortion debate. There are plenty of threads about it.

That's because, correct me if I'm wrong here, there's no Liberal party in America. So people equate liberal with Democrat because liberals are so terrified by the Republican stance they'd rather see anyone else in.

It is the conservatives who are afraid of democratic stances. They are worried about gays, abortion, gun control, less military spending, taxes and just about anything where the "slippery slope" argument is used.
You are both right. The Democrats, despite often having rather milquetoast positions, can always depend on the left vote because they're not the Republicans.

Likewise, the Republicans, despite often having rather extremist positions, can always depend on the right-wing (libertarian/moderate conservative) vote because they're not the Democrats.

That's what's disgusting.

liberals are thought of by conservatives as whiny pussys who say "lets talk about it and see if we can find common ground".
What's so bad about this?

:rolleyes:

Yes, Denis Kucinich lost the primary election because he stood for killing Jews, invading Canada/Mexico, regulating people's personal lives, and confiscating all private property, right?



But Fascism and communism are on opposite sides?
Fascism is uber Capitalism, and while Communism is uber socialism.

So Why are they grouped together?

If it were really a dirty word, women would be screaming it out when in the throes of passion.

Is what I hear true? Is "liberal" really on a par with "Nazi", "fascist", and "communist" in the class of political smears in America?

Why? How? What went wrong?

No it is not. Both sides spew a fair amount of venom and say the words conservative and liberal with disgust at times, but I don't think liberal = fascist or Nazi... communist perhaps or at least socialist, but not fascist or Nazi. Actually, conservatives are frequently decried as bording on Nazi or fascist. Neither generalization is accurate.

But Fascism and communism are on opposite sides?
Fascism is uber Capitalism
Actually, fascism is uber social authoritarianism. Fascism is directly opposed to something like anarcho-capitalism, or simply libertarianism. As a matter of fact, Hitler's Germany wasn't particularly capitalist...

However, social authoritarianism for some reason seems to be associated with capitalism nowadays, much to the irritation of libertarians.

You don't call someone a fascist because they want to privatize social security and end welfare. You call someone a fascist when they assert you have no right to privacy (as notable U.S. Senator Rick Santorum has said).

But Fascism and communism are on opposite sides?
Fascism is uber Capitalism, and while Communism is uber socialism.

So Why are they grouped together?
Yes, communism is an economic system and an extension of socialism, but fascism is a political/social system. Fascism can be used with any economic model. The traditional Mussolini fascism went with capitalism, but it was capitalism regulated so that nothing "immoral" or "degenerate" would come from it. Also, in China and Stalin's USSR, socialism was combined with fascism to create a huge government to control people's lives.

Uber-capitalism is market libertarianism.

If it were really a dirty word, women would be screaming it out when in the throes of passion.
How do you know some of them don't? ;)

Hmm. I haven't boned that many conservative women, so maybe you have something there. A liberal woman wouldn't think it was a dirty word...

The country was told that liberals were going to eat their children and ban the bible and enforce their neo-nazi facist regimes. That was pretty scary so half the country believed that; likewise the other half didn't believe it and opposed the other side.

Moral to the story: Liars are funny.

More accurately, the other half was told that conservatives would turn America into a fascist theocracy and kill everyone who wasn't white, and bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Moral of the story: Never, ever forget that the knife cuts both ways.

"Liberal" was successfully defined by the opposition as high taxes, big government, banning guns, mandatory abortions, and gayness.

Just like "Santorum" was successfully defined by the opposition as the frothy mixture of lubricant and fecal matter that is sometimes the product of anal sex.
I thought that was called pelosi?!?

Everyone needs to quit with this "half and half" stuff. A significant proportion of us don't buy into either "side" and fight for what *we* believe in.

Why? Because the proud nationalists of the United States refuse to look at Scandinavia. Liberal welfare states, top ten of the WEF most competitive list, and in general rulezzor. Norway is the best country to live in, according to LIFE or somesuch magazine. So yeah, if the US took a look at Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, liberal would be a good word.

but sperm and eggs dont come together if people masterbate. wow your killing unconseived babies billions of em! its only ok to do it at sperm banks ++

in addition: life beginning at conception is an opinion. at conception there is barely a zygote and i doubt its called that and that point in time and zygote is nowhere near a fetus and definately not a human child. at conception its just a rapidly multipling mass of cells. wow everyone time to stop lasering cancers, they might kinda be potential babies!

that is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, and I watched the entire democratic national convention so you were up against some pretty stiff competition

yes, eggs and sperm don't come together if people masterbate, thats pretty far from murder by abortion

and conception is far from vauge, it occures when a sperm cell and an egg cell come together

cancer is a hell of a lot different than a fetus, one is a human life one is something potentionaly leathal that will never be anything more than a cancerous blob and will never be able to surive on its own

Everyone needs to quit with this "half and half" stuff. A significant proportion of us don't buy into either "side" and fight for what *we* believe in.

For the record, I'm the absolute last person to believe in the "divided country" crap. I'm just pointing out for Zekhaust the logical extension of his own rhetoric.

Yeah, human rights and equal protection - *exactly* like fascists and communists.

how are liberals protecting human rights?

and the numbers they've put down with abortion is well on par with the communists

And yet you aren't willing to back that up by prosecuting women who have miscarriages due to their busy lifestyles for child abuse and neglect.

did they intentionaly try to kill that person?

If you are sexually active and living a stressful lifestyle, you are well aware that you may become pregnant and have a miscarriage. If an embryo is truly the same as a born child, this is clear neglect and manslaughter

how is living a stressful lifestyle any more likely to cause a miscarriage?

"liberal" is a dirty word in 50% of America - though of that 50%, I'm sure that words like "evolution" and phrases like "the Rule of Law" are also considered dirty, or inconvenient, at any rate.

its statements like that that make us laugh at you all

how are liberals protecting human rights?

Pretty much all liberal views that I hold, as well as those I have spoken to, have the protection of human rights as their very basis.

but sperm and eggs dont come together if people masterbate. wow your killing unconseived babies billions of em! its only ok to do it at sperm banks ++

Hope you didn't hurt yourself putting up that strawman.

did they intentionaly try to kill that person?

Neglect is *very* rarely intentional. Are you suggesting that we stop prosecuting parents for neglect?

how is living a stressful lifestyle any more likely to cause a miscarriage?

You really should study biology, darling.

Miscarriages generally result because the woman's body does not feel it is in a good situation for childbearing. Stressful lifestyles are the very definition of what would make a body feel that it was not in a good environment.

By your definition, any sexually active woman who skips meals, gets less than the recommended amount of sleep, does any heavy lifting or exercise, or drinks alcohol could be committing child abuse leading to manslaughter.

Neglect is *very* rarely intentional. Are you suggesting that we stop prosecuting parents for neglect?

but once again - are those women intentionaly trying to kill someone?

You really should study biology, darling.

Miscarriages generally result because the woman's body does not feel it is in a good situation for childbearing. Stressful lifestyles are the very definition of what would make a body feel that it was not in a good environment.

By your definition, any sexually active woman who skips meals, gets less than the recommended amount of sleep, does any heavy lifting or exercise, or drinks alcohol could be committing child abuse leading to manslaughter.

last time I was in bio-class stresful enough to effect the baby was on par with starvation - if the physical descriptions you described affected the outcome of pregnancey how come refugees Africans have children?

but once again - are those women intentionaly trying to kill someone?

It doesn't matter. I am not suggesting that you prosecute them for murder (which would imply intent), only neglect (which applies if human life starts at conception, but does not in any way imply intent to harm).

Pretty much all liberal views that I hold, as well as those I have spoken to, have the protection of human rights as their very basis.

but are those rights under threat in America?

It doesn't matter. I am not suggesting that you prosecute them for murder (which would imply intent), only neglect (which applies if human life starts at conception, but does not in any way imply intent to harm).

so you conceed that a misscariage is not the same as abortion

last time I was in bio-class stresful enough to effect the baby was on par with starvation - if the physical descriptions you described affected the outcome of pregnancey how come refugees Africans have children?

They don't *always* result in a miscarriage or unsuccesful implantation - but certainly can, depending on the woman. You *do* realize that the vast majority of fertilized eggs do not implant succesfully and end up flushed down the toilet?

but are those rights under threat in America?

Yes.

so you conceed that a misscariage is not the same as abortion

Which, again, is completely beside the point.

Weren't the Nazis ultra-right wing extremists? Liberals are generally middle ground, and when you get 'extreme' Liberals they'd surely be more left than right? Stupid thread.

but are those rights under threat in America?

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-usa/index

how are liberals protecting human rights?

and the numbers they've put down with abortion is well on par with the communists

And everything that a communist has said is per se bad, wrong and imoral?

how are liberals protecting human rights?

and the numbers they've put down with abortion is well on par with the communists

Listen stupid person. Liberals don't 'put people down'. Do you think all doctors that perform abortions are Liberal homicidal maniacs who gain some kind of perverse pleasure from performing abortions? Maybe you do since you're clearly living in cloud cuckoo land. I would say 99% of humans do not think abortion is a good thing, but you have two choices.

1) Make all abortion illegal
2) Attempt to tackle the cause of unwanted pregnancies, while constantly evaluating and modifying the whole process and laws regarding abortions.

To you, the first option is the obvious one, but that option is driven by pure moral and emotional drives, and doesn't even think about the practicality or possible knock on effects of such a law.

First of all, if you make abortions illegal, they will still carry on, to a lesser extent no doubt, but each illegal abortion is bound to be much worse than a legal one. I'm sorry to reveal to you that even with most people not liking abortion, desperate people will still choose it in the most dire situations.

So, the obvious answer is to make the situations not so dire that abortion is something they want to do. So, you know what this requires? MONEY. Are you prepared to put your wallet or your purse where you mouth is? Will you be prepared to pay more tax to help support all the unwanted children? Would they live a good life, since the mother(or father, or both) would have chosen an abortion if it was legal?

See, that option, taking money out of your pocket to make your law a fair and properly implemented law, conflicts with your conservative opinions. Pretty inconvenient wouldn't you say?

Here's another idea, tackle the cause of the problem. Better sex education, free contracpetive to all (of all kinds, pill, condoms and the miriad of other options). Unfortunately, these options also conflict with your conservative attitudes, I mean we can't have young people being taught about sex and prevention in a frank and plain manner? Also we can't be paying more of your hard earned cash for contraception.

So you basically want a law that fits with your view of the world, regardless of actual facts, and bugger the consequences. Way to go with the smart thinking.

More accurately, the other half was told that conservatives would turn America into a fascist theocracy and kill everyone who wasn't white, and bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Moral of the story: Never, ever forget that the knife cuts both ways.

I'm sorry; it was the first thing that came to mind. The knife certainly does cut both ways. I was just remembering the things posted in churches in the south. Never hear about those things you mentioned besides the theocracy. Don't really know of anyone who believed those either. Of course, I don't know 280 million odd people. Excuse my obviously baised example. But it refered to the topic more than anything.

If it were really a dirty word, women would be screaming it out when in the throes of passion.
Then my name is a dirty word!

:rolleyes:

And saying that everyone should live by the Bible is not arrogant?

.
No, it is not. No more so than saying everyone should eat well and excersize.

No, it is not. No more so than saying everyone should eat well and excersize.

Do we attempt to legislate that people *must* eat well and exercise?

Liberals are supposed to favor middle and lower class citizens, as well as immigrants.

Conservatives are supposed to favor upper class citizens and natives. They are the ones for big government and low tax on the upper class.

Do we attempt to legislate that people *must* eat well and exercise?
Apparently you've missed the whole 'Supersize me' and fast-food regulation debate.

Liberals are supposed to favor middle and lower class citizens, as well as immigrants.

Conservatives are supposed to favor upper class citizens and natives. They are the ones for big government and low tax on the upper class.
Only in liberal's wet dreams.

I thought that liberals favored Hollywood types, gays, working class union members who want to price themselves out of a job, and blacks who enjoy living on welfare.

I thought conservatives favor big businessmen, corporations, defense contractors, and anyone who likes guns and Jesus.

Apparently you've missed the whole 'Supersize me' and fast-food regulation debate.

There's a huge difference between forcing people to eat healthily and punishing the providers of unhealthy food (as opposed to banning it).

Is what I hear true? Is "liberal" really on a par with "Nazi", "fascist", and "communist" in the class of political smears in America?

Why? How? What went wrong?

'Liberal' isn't a dirty word. 'Crevice' is a dirty word.

Well, it seems that even a lot of Democrats think that "class" is a dirty word - so dirty that they don't want to use it or discuss it anymore.

I always thought words like "buttcrack" were dirty...

'Liberal' isn't a dirty word. 'Crevice' is a dirty word.
In what twisted world could jargon to describe glacial formations be construed as rude?

ok I know the discussion is on why is liberal a bad word. but really people think about it. DANG is considered bad by some people. everything is in the eye of the beholder. and to the moron who said the conservative monopoly on media of msnbc and CNN which incase you did not know is usually called the Communist News Network. and the liberal slants put in there is outrageous.
Liberal is a bad word to conservatives.
Conservative is a bad word to liberals.
liberal, conservative, they are all hypocrits to Libertarians.


sorry not finished reading all the post I just had to tell the moron that the liberals controll CNN and MSNBC.

There's a huge difference between forcing people to eat healthily and punishing the providers of unhealthy food (as opposed to banning it).
not really. Read it like this:

"There's a huge difference between focring people to read christian books and punishing the providors of unchristian books. (as opposed to banning it)"

not really. Read it like this:

"There's a huge difference between focring people to read christian books and punishing the providors of unchristian books. (as opposed to banning it)"

If you're such a bigot that you exquate physical well-being vs. greedy food producing corporations with sectarianism, then there's not much point in discussing the issue. The situation as it exists is that unhealthy food is cheaper and easier to get in a ready to eat form than healthy food, with the added benefit of massive child-targetted advertising budgets. Penalising the likes of McDonalds, while also providing help, through tax breaks for example, to organic food producers is not "unfair" or dictatorial, it's levelling the playing field - something right-wing assholes continually oppose. Oh, it's fine for big corporations to poison people because they're big, which means they must be good!

Do you win all of your arguments by calling people bigots and assholes? Maybe you can post a picture of yourself crying and stomping your feet also?

You've proven what I suspected you to be - a hypocrite. You apply a double standard to critisize people who advocate spiritual health but not to critisize people who promote physical health.

You made it far easier than I expected. The last bit of rhetoric and colorful language really put it over the top. Thanks for being such a great example. I don't think you could have been any more repulsive had I ghostwriten it for you.

Do you win all of your arguments by calling people bigots and assholes? Maybe you can post a picture of yourself crying and stomping your feet also?

You've proven what I suspected you to be - a hypocrite. You apply a double standard to critisize people who advocate spiritual health but not to critisize people who promote physical health.

You made it far easier than I expected. The last bit of rhetoric and colorful language really put it over the top. Thanks for being such a great example. I don't think you could have been any more repulsive had I ghostwriten it for you.

Physical health is an objective category. Good nutrition is good nutrition *universally*.

Spiritual health is not.

For some, spiritual health is Christianity, for others, it is Islam, Wicca, atheism, no religious beliefs at all, etc.

Is what I hear true? Is "liberal" really on a par with "Nazi", "fascist", and "communist" in the class of political smears in America?

Why? How? What went wrong?
It's not a dirty word. Some just love to ceaselessly poke fun at the word, and since you are looking for any reason to hate the right, you accept that liberal is a dirty word to Americans. I guess there's something in the water of dear, dirty Dublin.

And communism is dead, sorry.

Really? Vladimir Putrid, President of Russia, was a colonel in the KGB. Vietnam, China, Laos, North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and Angola are still communist countries. Zambia, Namibia, South Africa, Venezuela, and Brazil are heading in that direction. Communists are still alive in other parts of the world as well.

Really? Vladimir Putrid, President of Russia, was a colonel in the KGB. Vietnam, China, Laos, North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and Angola are still communist countries. Zambia, Namibia, South Africa, Venezuela, and Brazil are heading in that direction. Communists are still alive in other parts of the world as well.
First of all, I doubt all of the Soviet bureaocracy, or even most of it, truely believed in communism. The state controlled everything, and took away every priviledge if one didn't work. Secondly, I wouldn't describe any of those countries as communist. China calls itself that, but it really isn't, as it has more of a market economy, and is building more of one every day. Same with Vietnam.
As for the others, it's more of a form of socialism they are leaning towards. They are very different theories, and communism was by far the most radical. It's basically dead, and the big Marxist-Stalinist holdout, North Korea, has a critically insane leader who denies reality.

First of all, I doubt all of the Soviet bureaocracy, or even most of it, truely believed in communism. The state controlled everything, and took away every priviledge if one didn't work. Secondly, I wouldn't describe any of those countries as communist. China calls itself that, but it really isn't, as it has more of a market economy, and is building more of one every day. Same with Vietnam.
As for the others, it's more of a form of socialism they are leaning towards. They are very different theories, and communism was by far the most radical. It's basically dead, and the big Marxist-Stalinist holdout, North Korea, has a critically insane leader who denies reality.

Okay, so they're not communist states in the sense that there is perfect equality, no need for government, etc. But they're still ruled by dictators who prescribe to Marx's theories.

Okay, so they're not communist states in the sense that there is perfect equality, no need for government, etc. But they're still ruled by dictators who prescribe to Marx's theories.
Well, I thought you meant communism in the sense of what Lenin and Stalin interpreted Marx's theories to be. In any case, saying that you are a communist doesn't always make it so. Half of the countries on your list have leaders that say they are communist just to stay in office. Besides, South Africa has something extremely far from a Marxist command economy.

Well, I thought you meant communism in the sense of what Lenin and Stalin interpreted Marx's theories to be. In any case, saying that you are a communist doesn't always make it so. Half of the countries on your list have leaders that say they are communist just to stay in office. Besides, South Africa has something extremely far from a Marxist command economy.

South Africa's leaders are all communists or at the very least pro-communist, and South Africa is rapidly becoming more and more socialist.

South Africa's leaders are all communists or at the very least pro-communist, and South Africa is rapidly becoming more and more socialist.
Remember, communism and socialism are different. Communism's transistional period is a so-called "dictatorshiip of the proletariat", which the USSR was stuck in. Socialism is different, as it seeks to preserve the state, and all forms of thought and moral values, which the leading socialist Robert Owen sought to do.

how is living a stressful lifestyle any more likely to cause a miscarriage?
You obviously don't know anything about it then. Do some research. Don't stop on that topic, either.

its statements like that that make us laugh at you all
C'mon, y'all! Rally 'round the flagpole! We'll ... wait a minute, i'm speaking in generalization. Trying to seem like my bias represents anyone else anywhere. Help, i'm lonely. *sob*

IMHO posts 37, 102, and 105 cover it well. But for elucidation ....
LIBERAL:
OED (SE, 2001): #2 - Generous. #3 - Open-minded. #4 - Not strict or rigorous. #5 - Broadening. #6 - Favoring political and social reform.

Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1996): Pert. to the arts worthy of a free man; free in bestowing; unrestrained; free from prejudice.

WEBSTER'S NWD (1995): #1 - Generous. #3 - Not literal or strict. #4 - Tolerant, broadminded. #5 - Favoring reform or progress.

So out of those you can glean the current euphemization? Not hardly. The current use of the word is a slanderous act by a group of cowards who can't deal with people for what they really are, so they instead demonize people with a generalization and an ascription of relatively infantile attitudes, like the attitudes people usually mature out of when they stop being afraid of their own closet or having the lights off at the wrong time of day.

And for post #15 ...
FASCISM:
OED : Extreme totalitarian RIGHT-WING nationalist movement or philosophy
WEBSTER'S : A system of government characterized by dictatorship, BELLIGERANT NATIONALISM and racism, militarism, et cetera.

Apparently you meant a different word than the one you erroneously used. See posts 22, 23, and 27 for clarification ... and remember that Karl Rove is actually the son of a Nazi party member, in case you're easily confused. I'll stop there for now and not mention Prescott Bush's alignments ....

Posts 17, 20, 95, 107, 111, 113 - yup.

_end of line_