NationStates Jolt Archive

I see people (mostly Americans) say that they are anti-liberal on a daily basis in here, and I would really like to know and try to understand. If you could be so kind as to answer this : Why do Americans use the word "liberal" as a foul word? Is it wrong to be liberal, and if so, why?

Please note that this is not meant as a thread for flaming, spamming or other things that are in violation of the forum rules. If you must flame, please do it in another thread. Thank you.

I see people (mostly Americans) say that they are anti-liberal on a daily basis in here, and I would really like to know and try to understand. If you could be so kind as to answer this : Why do Americans use the word "liberal" as a foul word? Is it wrong to be liberal, and if so, why?

Please note that this is not meant as a thread for flaming, spamming or other things that are in violation of the forum rules. If you must flame, please do it in another thread. Thank you.

The same could be said of people that use conservative as a dirty word....how about both sides elaborate on this. I don;t use liberal as a dirty word. I don't agree with most of their viewpoints, but i don't try to make the pariahs.

In british english, liberal means freedom-loving, and liberal policies are those which allow the most freedom to the most people. This does not solely mean freedom from taxation, as some taxation helps to free the children of the poor from ill health and bad education.

I think that in america liberal means "commie" but I don't understand why.

I see people (mostly Americans) say that they are anti-liberal on a daily basis in here, and I would really like to know and try to understand. If you could be so kind as to answer this : Why do Americans use the word "liberal" as a foul word? Is it wrong to be liberal, and if so, why?

Please note that this is not meant as a thread for flaming, spamming or other things that are in violation of the forum rules. If you must flame, please do it in another thread. Thank you.

Remember, only you can prevent forum fires.

Now back to your regularly scheduled post.

Where was I...ah yes...liberal. I dislike modern liberalism because...the majority of "liberals" are ***-******** *******, just like the conservatives.

[Note: Pre-emptive removal of flamebait. OMG, I did a pre-emptive strike! Bad Tex! *slaps self on back of head* You can't pull a Bush like that!]

In british english, liberal means freedom-loving, and liberal policies are those which allow the most freedom to the most people. This does not solely mean freedom from taxation, as some taxation helps to free the children of the poor from ill health and bad education.

I think that in america liberal means "commie" but I don't understand why.

WTFDude? Pulling that "In British English" shit. NEWSFLASH! BRITLAND does NOT exist dude!

WTFDude? Pulling that "In British English" shit. NEWSFLASH! BRITLAND does NOT exist dude!


Sorry, but what are you trying to say?

WTFDude? Pulling that "In British English" shit. NEWSFLASH! BRITLAND does NOT exist dude!

What? What happened?

I see people (mostly Americans) say that they are anti-liberal on a daily basis in here, and I would really like to know and try to understand. If you could be so kind as to answer this : Why do Americans use the word "liberal" as a foul word? Is it wrong to be liberal, and if so, why?
[/SIZE]

Thats part of the problem with our system. The extreme polarization that goes on with our party system winds up in some people treating it like a sport with teams and competition. Yes, there is competition when it comes to running for office etc., but really, when it comes down to it, we're all on the same 'team.' This sounds sort of cheesy, but I'm not sure how to describe it any other way.

Remember, only you can prevent forum fires.

Now back to your regularly scheduled post.

Where was I...ah yes...liberal. I dislike modern liberalism because...the majority of "liberals" are ***-******** *******, just like the conservatives.

[Note: Pre-emptive removal of flamebait. OMG, I did a pre-emptive strike! Bad Tex! *slaps self on back of head* You can't pull a Bush like that!]

Yes, but why do you think that they are ***-******** *******?

WTFDude? Pulling that "In British English" shit. NEWSFLASH! BRITLAND does NOT exist dude!

WTF are you trying to say? We all know that there is no such thing as "Britland", but there are one such thing as "Britain".

Thats part of the problem with our system. The extreme polarization that goes on with our party system winds up in some people treating it like a sport with teams and competition. Yes, there is competition when it comes to running for office etc., but really, when it comes down to it, we're all on the same 'team.' This sounds sort of cheesy, but I'm not sure how to describe it any other way.

So you're saying that the liberals are, in the average Americans view, trying to break down that system and therefor something you (speaking about Americans in general) don't like?

No, what Damascue's comment meant was that our two-party system has become such a fervent rivalry, that the two "sides" loathe each other... Thus, any name you call the other can be said with hateful passion...

So, the term "liberal" is an insult from conservatives, because conservatives consider it a bad word (simply because it belongs to the opposing viewpoint), and vice versa...

As for why it might appear that liberals are hated more here in the U.S., my guess is that it's because our country as a whole seems to be conservatively minded... Very traditionalist and "old-fashioned"... It is also very strongly grounded in Christian ideals (which are conservative in themselves)...

Liberal ideals go against that grain, and appear to be too "immoral" and such... Thus, liberals are thought of as being a bane on society, that is trying to "undermine our values" and turn the country into some sort of cesspool of sin...lol

Of course, us liberals know better... It's them darn conservatives that are causing all of the problems...lol

So you're saying that the liberals are, in the average Americans view, trying to break down that system and therefor something you (speaking about Americans in general) don't like?

No, thats not what I'm saying at all. I am a "liberal." I am saying that people who view the government more as a sport and support only their "team" of officials and condemn the rest for their label of "Democrat" or "Republican" are making our democracy less efficient. It makes compromise, a key idea in democracy, harder to achieve.

I don't hate liberals or conservatives. Rather, I dislike uninformed people that automatically assume that everything liberal is "bad" and everything conservative is "good," and vice versa.

Actually, it goes back to early in the 20th century. Basically the term liberal was co-opted by the communists in their agitprop. Thusly the right has come to view it as a dirty word. For actual liberals in the US political system you need to look at the Libertarian party.

No, thats not what I'm saying at all. I am a "liberal." I am saying that people who view the government more as a sport and support only their "team" of officials and condemn the rest for their label of "Democrat" or "Republican" are making our democracy less efficient. It makes compromise, a key idea in democracy, harder to achieve.

I don't hate liberals or conservatives. Rather, I dislike uninformed people that automatically assume that everything liberal is "bad" and everything conservative is "good," and vice versa.

yes, the political process ahs become a veritable blood sport. Now they do not fight for the people, but for seats in office. No matter how self-righteous they are. The games ends at the end of the election cycle and they cout their "points" (offices earned).

The Democratic party is alienating their members, as it the republicans. The past base of dems would have been those "rednecks" you so hate and malign. they were your base, now you have disenfranchised them. Good job guys....good job....lest you forget, they are middle class too. Many of them are below the poverty line. ANd don't say that it i because they spend all their time drinking/shotting things. Because i could say that the inner city epople you support are too busy drinking/shooting up. THe dems now, despite what you may profess, cater more to the elite of society.

Yes, but why do you think that they are ***-******** *******?

Oh, alright. My jaundiced view of modern liberalism:

The majority of American liberals:

1. Are ignorant of the complexities of our legal system.
2. Don't actually read the text of the "dangerous" laws they rant about.
3. Don't have reasonable justifications for their position even though they espouse the supremacy of reason.
4. Have a poor grasp of American legal history.
5. Believe whatever liberal propaganda their parents and/or professors told them without bothering to think about the issues critically for themselves.
6. Operate under the assumption that their opposition is out to harm America, is too stupid to conspire to harm America, and are bunch of homophobic racist gun-loving beer-swilling misogynists.

And just for balance:

The majority of American conservatives:

1. Are ignorant of the complexities of our legal system.
2. Don't actually read the text of the "dangerous" laws they rant about.
3. Don't have reasonable justifications for their position.
4. Have a poor grasp of American legal history.
5. Believe whatever conservative propaganda their parents and/or teachers told them without bothering to think about the issues critically for themselves.
6. Operate under the assumption that their opposition is out to harm America, is smart enough to conspire to harm America, and are bunch of elitist feminazi tree-hugging vegetarian communists.

It felt good to get that off my chest. :D

I will note, however, that this is only the majority of each group, and is based entirely on generalizations. I actually have a great deal of respect for the positions of some conservatives and liberals alike.

yes, the political process ahs become a veritable blood sport. Now they do not fight for the people, but for seats in office. No matter how self-righteous they are. The games ends at the end of the election cycle and they cout their "points" (offices earned).

The Democratic party is alienating their members, as it the republicans. The past base of dems would have been those "rednecks" you so hate and malign. they were your base, now you have disenfranchised them. Good job guys....good job....lest you forget, they are middle class too. Many of them are below the poverty line. ANd don't say that it i because they spend all their time drinking/shotting things. Because i could say that the inner city epople you support are too busy drinking/shooting up. THe dems now, despite what you may profess, cater more to the elite of society.

You are getting on my last nerve. You talk about The Democratic Party catering to the elite...Have you seen the Republican Party? Of course the Democrats are going to have to pull in some higher support; look who they have to compete with for funding etc.

And turn on spell check.

In british english, liberal means freedom-loving, and liberal policies are those which allow the most freedom to the most people. This does not solely mean freedom from taxation, as some taxation helps to free the children of the poor from ill health and bad education.

I think that in america liberal means "commie" but I don't understand why.

starting with the 60's anti-war crowd, the marxist in this country have taken over the term "liberal" to cover their communist agenda. the KGB was behind this, and that fact has been proven. look at all the leftist in congress, most proudly belong to a socialist organization. that is why lib = commie here. a true liberal isn't a bad thing, but today's american one is.

starting with the 60's anti-war crowd, the marxist in this country have taken over the term "liberal" to cover their communist agenda. the KGB was behind this, and that fact has been proven. look at all the leftist in congress, most proudly belong to a socialist organization. that is why lib = commie here. a true liberal isn't a bad thing, but today's american one is.
funny, i wasn't aware i was a communist. interesting. say, friend, do you have a source for that, other than the deepest, darkest recesses of your rectum? ;)

Oh, alright. My jaundiced view of modern liberalism:

The majority of American liberals:

1. Are ignorant of the complexities of our legal system.
2. Don't actually read the text of the "dangerous" laws they rant about.
3. Don't have reasonable justifications for their position even though they espouse the supremacy of reason.
4. Have a poor grasp of American legal history.
5. Believe whatever liberal propaganda their parents and/or professors told them without bothering to think about the issues critically for themselves.
6. Operate under the assumption that their opposition is out to harm America, is too stupid to conspire to harm America, and are bunch of homophobic racist gun-loving beer-swilling misogynists.

And just for balance:

The majority of American conservatives:

1. Are ignorant of the complexities of our legal system.
2. Don't actually read the text of the "dangerous" laws they rant about.
3. Don't have reasonable justifications for their position.
4. Have a poor grasp of American legal history.
5. Believe whatever conservative propaganda their parents and/or teachers told them without bothering to think about the issues critically for themselves.
6. Operate under the assumption that their opposition is out to harm America, is smart enough to conspire to harm America, and are bunch of elitist feminazi tree-hugging vegetarian communists.

It felt good to get that off my chest. :D

I will note, however, that this is only the majority of each group, and is based entirely on generalizations. I actually have a great deal of respect for the positions of some conservatives and liberals alike.


I do fully endorse the positions and generalizations mentioned above.
I will add that both liberals and conservatives use words with previously established definitions in a new manner so as to confound the general population into believing some propaganda. For example: Liberal used to mean fredom-loving until the more socialist factions of USA politics subverted the word to include acceptance of the idea that govt knows best, which it usually does not.
For purposes of truth in bias, I am a Libertarian (I believe in the responsible use of freedom and that govt's role is to protect citizens from aggressors, foreign and domestic. A free market can usually handle the rest.)

Pax,
Lord Dymaxion of Pizantiahk
:sniper:

funny, i wasn't aware i was a communist. interesting. say, friend, do you have a source for that, other than the deepest, darkest recesses of your rectum? ;)

Seconded...

Perhaps some liberal ideals correspond to a communist system, but the two are hardly hand-in-hand...

I'd classify myself as a "liberal" (at least in terms of my stance on various major social issues), yet I'll be one of the first to say that communism just doesn't work... I'm a big fan of capitalism, in fact...

Social ideology and economic ideology don't always match up as universally as you've implied...

However, you've helped to point out part of the problem... Either side will find any way it can to villify the other, and this sort of talk is a good example...

American politics seems to require each side worship their chosen party with a near-manic determination, and they are compelled to do everything in their power to insult the opposition at every turn. It appears to be a largely American-only thing; "if you don't support my party, you're a ******* ****-faced ****head with no **** or a ******* **** **** ******* ******* on your ******* **** ******* ******* **** ****** **** spoon!"
Thus, each side, be they liberal or conservative, takes the other and insults them. I've seen so-called liberals use the word 'conservative' with just as much contempt as conservatives use the word 'liberal', it just so happens that a lot of conservatives are hard-line Christians who will attach the words 'evil' and 'immoral' along with it. Liberals in turn attach the words 'psycho' and 'ignorant' to conservative, and it goes on from there.

I'm not saying that such behaviour is present in everyone, as I know many Americans who are capable of having an actual civilised debate regarding their own politics. Nor am I saying it's limited wholly to Americans, as I know some Europeans who are equally obnoxious and largely ignorant when it comes to politics. But it does seem to be the behaviour of an alarming majority of Americans. If anyone could find a forum on the internet free of such flame wars in the run up to the election, I congratulate you 'cause I sure as hell couldn't. This forum in particular was the worst of the lot though, to be honest. If had to say why it is like this, I don't know. Must stem from the same nationalism that compels an equally alarming number of Americans to belittle foreigners, I suppose.

speaking as a compassionate conservative ( :D ) I see the liberals as follows:

-if liberals cannot get what they want via the legislature, they go to court, and they keep going until they find a judge willing to legislate the liberal agenda from the bench;
-liberals have, since the civil rights era, had only 1 interest, keeping minorities down. They need minorities like blacks and hispanics to be poor otherwise said groups wouldn't vote democRAT, all succesful blacks and hispanics who commit the 'crime' of joining the republicans are attacked and smeared relentlessly, look how socalled minority leader Harry Reid disparaged Clarence Thomas. The liberals are now panicking because the republicans are reminding the blacks, who tend to be family oriented and much more religious than whites, that the liberal agenda is basically anti-family, anti-religion and pro-gay;
-liberals have, with few exceptions, over the last 20 years voted against virtually every new weapon that the military requested, liberals smeared Vietnam war veterans as agressors and murderers;
-everything about liberals is phony, look at the John Kerry campaing, it typified the liberal mindset, socalled elite northeasterners (New Englanders), all of them whites by the way (see my point on liberals wanting to keep minorities down) think that they have invented it all and they know it all and everyone should listen to them because they know best. They think they can fool people with photo ops (like sKerry going hunting), the reality is that they feel themselves elevated above 'rednecks' and 'hicks' who do not like what liberals say.

I just want to say, whatever happened to the democrat party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy (2 people of great integrity, Truman who was anti communist and Kennedy who advocated self reliance and tax cuts), neither of them would recognize the party as it is today.

Liberal used to mean that you would pay attention to both sides of an issue and make an educated decision based on facts. That was many years ago.
Now I have to call myself a conservative, as my views tend to fall with a conservative position most often. I wont steadfastly stick to being conservative and be blind to all other positions-I still listen to both sides, try to see the facts through the blizzard of deception and misinformation and then make up my mind if there is enough to even support doing so.
It involves keeping your mouth shut and listening more, paying attention to knee jerk reactions.

American politics seems to require each side worship their chosen party with a near-manic determination, and they are compelled to do everything in their power to insult the opposition at every turn. It appears to be a largely American-only thing; "if you don't support my party, you're a ******* ****-faced ****head with no **** or a ******* **** **** ******* ******* on your ******* **** ******* ******* **** ****** **** spoon!"
Thus, each side, be they liberal or conservative, takes the other and insults them. I've seen so-called liberals use the word 'conservative' with just as much contempt as conservatives use the word 'liberal', it just so happens that a lot of conservatives are hard-line Christians who will attach the words 'evil' and 'immoral' along with it. Liberals in turn attach the words 'psycho' and 'ignorant' to conservative, and it goes on from there.

I'm not saying that such behaviour is present in everyone, as I know many Americans who are capable of having an actual civilised debate regarding their own politics. Nor am I saying it's limited wholly to Americans, as I know some Europeans who are equally obnoxious and largely ignorant when it comes to politics. But it does seem to be the behaviour of an alarming majority of Americans. If anyone could find a forum on the internet free of such flame wars in the run up to the election, I congratulate you 'cause I sure as hell couldn't. This forum in particular was the worst of the lot though, to be honest. If had to say why it is like this, I don't know. Must stem from the same nationalism that compels an equally alarming number of Americans to belittle foreigners, I suppose.
interesting, if rehashed, point. personally, i try to avoid such labels as best i can, as they rarely define anyone's complete belief structure. it's a lot easier to deal with if you think of it as more of a scale. and in regards to the nationalism tidbit, while, on the whole, i agree, if you can show me a human who does not carry some prejudice, who does not belittle some group of people based largely on ignorance and blighted hatred, then i will show you a man who has led a disingenuous, self-decieving life. it is easy to claim to be without prejudice. it is, in my experience, impossible to achieve.

[QUOTE=Hitlerreich]speaking as a compassionate conservative ( :D ) I see the liberals as follows:

They think they can fool people with photo ops (like sKerry going hunting), the reality is that they feel themselves elevated above 'rednecks' and 'hicks' who do not like what liberals say.

How about Hillary coming from Arkansas and donning a New York Yankees hat? Bingo!! An instant New Yorker. And Bill Clinton taking up offices in Harlem. Talk about phony!!

When columnist Carl Rowan preaches gun control and uses a gun to defend his home, when Maryland Gov. William Donald Schaefer seeks legislation year after year to ban semiautomatic "assault weapons" whose only purpose, we are told, is to kill people, while he is at the same time escorted by state police armed with large-capacity 9mm semiautomatic pistols, it is not simple hypocrisy. It is the workings of that habit of mind possessed by all superior beings who have taken upon themselves the terrible burden of civilizing the masses and who understand, like our Congress, that laws are for other people.

The liberal elite know that they are philosopher-kings. They know that the people simply cannot be trusted; that they are incapable of just and fair self-government; that left to their own devices, their society will be racist, sexist, homophobic, and inequitable -- and the liberal elite know how to fix things. They are going to help us live the good and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us to do it. And they detest those who stand in their way.

The private ownership of firearms is a rebuke to this utopian zeal. To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state. It is to reserve final judgment about whether the state is encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend that freedom with more than mere words, and to stand outside the state's totalitarian reach.

and in regards to the nationalism tidbit, while, on the whole, i agree, if you can show me a human who does not carry some prejudice, who does not belittle some group of people based largely on ignorance and blighted hatred, then i will show you a man who has led a disingenuous, self-decieving life. it is easy to claim to be without prejudice. it is, in my experience, impossible to achieve.

I didn't claim they existed in any way. But I've noticed Americans (usually n00bs on the forum, but sometimes not) who have seemingly little problem with expressing their nationalism in the most obnoxious and arrogant way that they possibly can, almost as though they're trying to piss people off, but you can tell that they actually mean it. I've also seen British people do it, but nowhere near as frequently and casually, and not usually as offensively, as I see Americans do it. It's not an insult nor an attempt to generalise the entire population of America, it's just an observation.

When columnist Carl Rowan preaches gun control and uses a gun to defend his home, when Maryland Gov. William Donald Schaefer seeks legislation year after year to ban semiautomatic "assault weapons" whose only purpose, we are told, is to kill people, while he is at the same time escorted by state police armed with large-capacity 9mm semiautomatic pistols, it is not simple hypocrisy. It is the workings of that habit of mind possessed by all superior beings who have taken upon themselves the terrible burden of civilizing the masses and who understand, like our Congress, that laws are for other people.

The liberal elite know that they are philosopher-kings. They know that the people simply cannot be trusted; that they are incapable of just and fair self-government; that left to their own devices, their society will be racist, sexist, homophobic, and inequitable -- and the liberal elite know how to fix things. They are going to help us live the good and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us to do it. And they detest those who stand in their way.

The private ownership of firearms is a rebuke to this utopian zeal. To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state. It is to reserve final judgment about whether the state is encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend that freedom with more than mere words, and to stand outside the state's totalitarian reach.
Until guns are banned they are the only means of self-defense, nice job thinking things through instead of grinding to a mind-numbing halt

I didn't claim they existed in any way. But I've noticed Americans (usually n00bs on the forum, but sometimes not) who have seemingly little problem with expressing their nationalism in the most obnoxious and arrogant way that they possibly can, almost as though they're trying to piss people off, but you can tell that they actually mean it. I've also seen British people do it, but nowhere near as frequently and casually, and not usually as offensively, as I see Americans do it. It's not an insult nor an attempt to generalise the entire population of America, it's just an observation.
i'm well aware that it was not an insult. my post was not an attack on your views, merely an observation of my own. and this is my 800th post. sigh. milestones, i suppose.

The liberal elite know that they are philosopher-kings. They know that the people simply cannot be trusted; that they are incapable of just and fair self-government; that left to their own devices, their society will be racist, sexist, homophobic, and inequitable -- and the liberal elite know how to fix things. They are going to help us live the good and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us to do it. And they detest those who stand in their way.

The private ownership of firearms is a rebuke to this utopian zeal. To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state. It is to reserve final judgment about whether the state is encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend that freedom with more than mere words, and to stand outside the state's totalitarian reach.

The liberal elite arent the slightest bit tolerant either. They do know best and will inflict that upon us. And they seek Hollywood to support that. Actors and actresses that start off as whores and sudddenly strike it rich entertaining us in one way or another are now suddenly social and spiritual scholars with an answer for everything. I love to hear Barbara Streisand encouraging women not to run their clothes dryer to cut down on pollution/global warming, etc.. when she, as an individual, is likely right now consuming more energy in her normal day to day activity than a small town.

In british english, liberal means freedom-loving, and liberal policies are those which allow the most freedom to the most people. This does not solely mean freedom from taxation, as some taxation helps to free the children of the poor from ill health and bad education.

I think that in america liberal means "commie" but I don't understand why.

For the same reason that "intellectual" means ignorant, "feminist" means scrotum hunting Amazon, and "conservative" means hater of civil rights, lover of guns, hypocritical hater of the taxes that they beinifit from and the liberals pay to theirown detriment, and one who is skilled in the art of holding deeply held convictions that are absolutly contrary to those they held only seconds before and that all of those things are patriotic and vital to American morality.

Neo-cons have been on a largely successful campaign to integrate NewSpeak into the English language. This explains why so many conservatives think that they've put a cogent argument together just by plugging words into existing arguments as though they're some sort of one size fits all formulae.

Until guns are banned they are the only means of self-defense, nice job thinking things through instead of grinding to a mind-numbing halt

Considering that the majority of violent crime in the US is committed without a firearm, if you don't have a gun, you are defenseless.

In a world without guns, if you're not big enough to defend yourself, you won't be able to.

I have personally taught a wheelchair-bound man how to shoot, so that he could carry a concealed weapon. He has been beaten and robbed many, many times by men who had no guns.

What would you tell him to do? He was beaten AFTER he gave them all his money. AFTER he cooperated.

The next time they beat him, they are in for a fatal surprise.

The liberal elite arent the slightest bit tolerant either. They do know best and will inflict that upon us. And they seek Hollywood to support that. Actors and actresses that start off as whores and sudddenly strike it rich entertaining us in one way or another are now suddenly social and spiritual scholars with an answer for everything. I love to hear Barbara Streisand encouraging women not to run their clothes dryer to cut down on pollution/global warming, etc.. when she, as an individual, is likely right now consuming more energy in her normal day to day activity than a small town.

What conservative boot camp teaches you that a reliable argument is to make up a fault of someone and then present it as a fact.

I find this defense of conservative politicing to be particularly odious coming from someone who is probably at this moment having gay tranny-sex while on a coke binge at a satanic mass.

See? You don't want to rely on that style of argument.

"Nobody's right... when everybody's wrong... "

-Buffalo Springfield, "For what it's worth"

Considering that the majority of violent crime in the US is committed without a firearm, if you don't have a gun, you are defenseless.

In a world without guns, if you're not big enough to defend yourself, you won't be able to.

I have personally taught a wheelchair-bound man how to shoot, so that he could carry a concealed weapon. He has been beaten and robbed many, many times by men who had no guns.

What would you tell him to do? He was beaten AFTER he gave them all his money. AFTER he cooperated.

The next time they beat him, they are in for a fatal surprise.

I applaud you and I hope this man never needs to defend himself again, but he can go on living his life with some dignity and go on living it as he sees fit, not cowering and defenseless.
People that have guns should be taught gun safety and handling-having a gun should be a second nature.
Isnt it funny how people that are ignorant about guns are so emotional and hysterical about them?

How can conservatism be good? The world changes: change along!

What conservative boot camp teaches you that a reliable argument is to make up a fault of someone and then present it as a fact.

I find this defense of conservative politicing to be particularly odious coming from someone who is probably at this moment having gay tranny-sex while on a coke binge at a satanic mass.

See? You don't want to rely on that style of argument.

You're hysterical and dont make a valid point.

How can conservatism be good? The world changes: change along!

Put the word "environmental" after can. :D

Put the word "environmental" after can. :D
Any kind of conservatism actually

-if liberals cannot get what they want via the legislature, they go to court, and they keep going until they find a judge willing to legislate the liberal agenda from the bench;

Yeah, no conservative's ever done that.


-liberals have, since the civil rights era, had only 1 interest, keeping minorities down. They need minorities like blacks and hispanics to be poor otherwise said groups wouldn't vote democRAT, all succesful blacks and hispanics who commit the 'crime' of joining the republicans are attacked and smeared relentlessly, look how socalled minority leader Harry Reid disparaged Clarence Thomas. The liberals are now panicking because the republicans are reminding the blacks, who tend to be family oriented and much more religious than whites, that the liberal agenda is basically anti-family, anti-religion and pro-gay;

And conservatives are pro-slavery, pro-death, pro-killing all non-white people.... C'mon man, what you're saying is just as idiotic.


-liberals have, with few exceptions, over the last 20 years voted against virtually every new weapon that the military requested, liberals smeared Vietnam war veterans as agressors and murderers;

Like McCain, when he was in the primaries? Oh, no, that was Bush...


-everything about liberals is phony, look at the John Kerry campaing, it typified the liberal mindset, socalled elite northeasterners (New Englanders), all of them whites by the way (see my point on liberals wanting to keep minorities down) think that they have invented it all and they know it all and everyone should listen to them because they know best. They think they can fool people with photo ops (like sKerry going hunting), the reality is that they feel themselves elevated above 'rednecks' and 'hicks' who do not like what liberals say.


And you feel yourself to be elevated above the liberals. But that's OK now, right?

Here:

-All conservatives want to murder black people
-All conservatives want to abolish every religion but Christianity, which they want to make mandatory.
-All conservatives support the right to kill whomever you want to
-All conservatives want to kill every criminal, even if they only stole a candy bar
-All conservatives want to make themselves richer on the blood of the working class
-All conservatives want to make money at the expense of the country as a whole

You're only right-wing, not *right*.
When columnist Carl Rowan preaches gun control and uses a gun to defend his home,

Gun control is not the ban of guns.


when Maryland Gov. William Donald Schaefer seeks legislation year after year to ban semiautomatic "assault weapons" whose only purpose, we are told, is to kill people, while he is at the same time escorted by state police armed with large-capacity 9mm semiautomatic pistols,

Assault weapons are not banned from the police, because they are the ones meant to protect, obviously. Methinks you either do not know the issues, or you're purposefully confusing them because you'd have no point otherwise.


it is not simple hypocrisy.

I agree with you, it's not hypocrisy at all.


It is the workings of that habit of mind possessed by all superior beings who have taken upon themselves the terrible burden of civilizing the masses and who understand, like our Congress, that laws are for other people.

As opposed to you, who feels it is ok to make broad generalizations? Oh, but that doesn't show your elitism, no....




Here we go with that liberal elite bullcrap. As opposed to the conservative elite that makes a killing off of the hard labor of the middle class?

[quote]
They know that the people simply cannot be trusted; that they are incapable of just and fair self-government; that left to their own devices, their society will be racist, sexist, homophobic, and inequitable

Are you saying it hasn't been? Wow, just insane man. Revisionism in it's highest form.


-- and the liberal elite know how to fix things. They are going to help us live the good and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us to do it. And they detest those who stand in their way.

More stupid generalizations. One day, when you grow up maybe, you'll learn to loathe people who do what you're doing now, because, as others have pointed out, it only hinders democracy, not helps it. You do support democracy, don't you?


The private ownership of firearms is a rebuke to this utopian zeal. To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state. It is to reserve final judgment about whether the state is encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend that freedom with more than mere words, and to stand outside the state's totalitarian reach.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Tell me, are you going to kill someone for denying you rights? If you went to a polling place, and someone didn't give you a ballot, would you pull out your AK-47 and shoot them?

The first guy I responded to was at least reasonable. You sir, are an idiot.

Put the word "environmental" after can. :D

Just remember who gave us the Environmental Protection Agency... Richard Nixon.

The liberal elite arent the slightest bit tolerant either. They do know best and will inflict that upon us.

Like the religious right?


And they seek Hollywood to support that.

Just like the oil industry for the right. And the arms manufacturing industry, and the this industry and that industry... Big Business essentially.


Actors and actresses that start off as whores and sudddenly strike it rich entertaining us in one way or another are now suddenly social and spiritual scholars with an answer for everything. I love to hear Barbara Streisand encouraging women not to run their clothes dryer to cut down on pollution/global warming, etc.. when she, as an individual, is likely right now consuming more energy in her normal day to day activity than a small town.

Yes, and I hear you operate a nuclear power plant that dumps uranium in playgrounds. You bastard!

Just remember who gave us the Environmental Protection Agency... Richard Nixon.

Makes sense, actually... it's conservatism!

He also gave us the Space Shuttle...

Like the religious right?


Exactly. But there is one important difference between the Hollywood elite, and the religious right.

There are a lot more registered voters in the religious right.

Any kind of conservatism actually

I actually favor budgetary conservatism...
(Unlike most people I know, I live below my means.)

Like the religious right?



Just like the oil industry for the right. And the arms manufacturing industry, and the this industry and that industry... Big Business essentially.



Yes, and I hear you operate a nuclear power plant that dumps uranium in playgrounds. You bastard!


And to you, "Big Business" is synonomous with "Bad" ? Please, let me have Jack Welch influence politics over Alec Baldwin -or Lee Iacocca over Tim Robbins any day. Business employs and insures people and make products and services we either want or need.

There are a lot more registered voters in the religious right.

How unfortunate. :p

And to you, "Big Business" is synonomous with "Bad" ? Please, let me have Jack Welch influence politics over Alec Baldwin -or Lee Iacocca over Tim Robbins any day. Business employs and insures people and make products and services we either want or need.

Businesses are still not people. People should control democracy, not business.

Businesses are still not people. People should control democracy, not business.

Movies aren't real life, and just because someone plays someone intelligent in a film does not mean that the actor in question has more than a few spinal ganglia at work.

Odd, how there's a much bigger grass roots organization for Republicans than there is for the Democrats. I wonder why.

Businesses are still not people. People should control democracy, not business.


Thats why I named well known CEOs in my post-they are people.

Movies aren't real life, and just because someone plays someone intelligent in a film does not mean that the actor in question has more than a few spinal ganglia at work.

Odd, how there's a much bigger grass roots organization for Republicans than there is for the Democrats. I wonder why.


You're right. I need Bono to sing and make music videos. Ben Affleck can make a movie. I couldnt care less what they think about real life.

Movies aren't real life, and just because someone plays someone intelligent in a film does not mean that the actor in question has more than a few spinal ganglia at work.

So you're saying people shouldn't try to have an effect on democracy?


Odd, how there's a much bigger grass roots organization for Republicans than there is for the Democrats. I wonder why.

Yeah, only if you're blind.

Thats why I named well known CEOs in my post-they are people.

They are people. Their businesses are not. They can try to change the vote, but buying politicians for their business should not be the way.

So you're saying people shouldn't try to have an effect on democracy?

Well, you said that CEOs (who are people) shouldn't be allowed to have an effect. So no actors with less education than, say, Christopher Hitchens has as a columnist. No one less well informed.


Yeah, only if you're blind.

That's officially from the Democratic Party - that for some reason, they have little or no grass roots organization outside of the major urban centers - that somehow, they were just "counting on" people to vote for them. Part of their strategy to comeback is the development of a grass roots organization - an organization that currently does not exist in most of the country.

Which is why most of the suburbs and all of the rural areas went Republican.

speaking as a compassionate conservative ( :D ) I see the liberals as follows:

-if liberals cannot get what they want via the legislature, they go to court, and they keep going until they find a judge willing to legislate the liberal agenda from the bench;
-liberals have, since the civil rights era, had only 1 interest, keeping minorities down.
-liberals have, with few exceptions, over the last 20 years voted against virtually every new weapon that the military requested, liberals smeared Vietnam war veterans as agressors and murderers;

-everything about liberals is phony, look at the John Kerry campaing,

Liberals are bad because they are racist phonies, who vote against buying guns, and use the law to get what they want.

Glad that's cleared up.

Well, you said that CEOs (who are people) shouldn't be allowed to have an effect. So no actors with less education than, say, Christopher Hitchens has as a columnist. No one less well informed.


Nope, I said that businesses shouldn't have an effect. Not CEOs.

That's officially from the Democratic Party - that for some reason, they have little or no grass roots organization outside of the major urban centers - that somehow, they were just "counting on" people to vote for them. Part of their strategy to comeback is the development of a grass roots organization - an organization that currently does not exist in most of the country.

Did you forget about the Democratic primaries? Most of the campaigns were grassroots. What about Moveon?


Which is why most of the suburbs and all of the rural areas went Republican.


Marginally. It wasn't like some major landslide for the Republicans in every county.

Did you forget about the Democratic primaries? Most of the campaigns were grassroots. What about Moveon?


Apparently, the Democratic Party is convinced that they don't have a grass roots organization - it's completely absent in most areas of the country.

Moveon's members are not as widespread as the churches in this country.

Not even close, in terms of personal reach and ability to rally supporters.

Wow, vitriolic.

I'm not going to try to answer this question. I'll just say this: if you are not an American and reading this post, this is indemnifying of the hatred in this country, and, of course, why the two party system doesn't work. Apparently all liberals are minority hating atheists that believe everyone should be able to sit on their butts and get a welfare check, which simply isnt true. And all conservatives are all millionaire self-centered Christians that bulldoze rainforests on a whim and, of course, hate minorities. Again, not true.

The truth is, most people dont consider themselves either. Most are moderates because neither party represents them. It's really hard to be a pro-life pro-union citizen and call yourself either. But there is a party for these people in Britain, Canada, France, and even Iraq. This two-party thing does everything it can to absolutely condemn the other side to make it look stupid to support them, yet, of course, both sides do everything to crush any other rising faction so as not to lose fairweather supporters. Democrats...Republicans...they're both as bad as the other because neither lets the American people have a choice.

America's citizenry isn't as polarized as most of these people would have you believe. Our voices are just so squelched by the two major parties and innundated by propoganda that it just becomes impossible to understand either side.

Apparently, the Democratic Party is convinced that they don't have a grass roots organization - it's completely absent in most areas of the country.

Moveon's members are not as widespread as the churches in this country.

Not even close, in terms of personal reach and ability to rally supporters.

Ah, I wasn't counting churches. Odd. At least your acknowledging the religious right. Still, Moveon's presence on the internet is very large.

United Sociologists,

I agree with you, absolutely. That does not mean however that the conservatives aren't a bunch of damn fascists! :p

The main reason I do not espouse liberal values is this:

I hate socialism, except where absolutely necessary.

I believe that a person's money is HIS and not the GOVERNMENT'S.

Liberals are generally for higher taxes than are conservatives... probably to account for their high social spending.

Some of this goes to fund welfare cases, where the liberal assumption seems to be that people without jobs are without jobs mostly due to environmental factors instead of lack of effort on the part of the individual. I don't buy that. In some cases I'm sure people go for months really trying to find work and failing... but how hard is it to find A JOB? Beggars can't be choosers -- while you scoff at that, think of how easy it would be to gain SOME form of employment while you're looking for something more up your alley... I'm doing it right now. If I can do it, so can Joe Blow down the street who's taking welfare).

I'm not quite as much at odds with liberals when it comes to non-economic/financial/tax concerns.

But the fact that liberals seem to favor financial equality over financial freedom is anathema in my eyes. Freedom needs to be the #1 priority. Stealing from some to give to others... is not indicative of financial freedom; that is government intrusion. People in this country should be responsible for themselves financially, if they are able mentally and physically to work.

Nope, I said that businesses shouldn't have an effect. Not CEOs.
So, CEO's can't use the money they have to contribute to campaigns? I guess that actors and actresses shouldn't be allowed to contribute either. I also wish that there was a big space on your income tax where you could pledge a certain amount of money to charities, and that it was open for all people to see. Then we could see how mcuh these so called compassionate liberals feel about parting with their hard-earned money.
Did you forget about the Democratic primaries? Most of the campaigns were grassroots. What about Moveon?


Hmm, at least the major Republican supporters don;t slash tires of campaign vehicles.

I also wish that there was a big space on your income tax where you could pledge a certain amount of money to charities, and that it was open for all people to see. Then we could see how mcuh these so called compassionate liberals feel about parting with their hard-earned money.

In a compassionate liberal capitalist economy, sufficient tax money is collected and spent on health, education and welfare that any human compassionate cause doesn't need charities to support it.

So, CEO's can't use the money they have to contribute to campaigns? I guess that actors and actresses shouldn't be allowed to contribute either. I also wish that there was a big space on your income tax where you could pledge a certain amount of money to charities, and that it was open for all people to see. Then we could see how mcuh these so called compassionate liberals feel about parting with their hard-earned money.


Wow. You are an excellent spin master. Seriously. Congratulations!

I swear, you've been able to attack a strawman in three posts now I believe!

Hmm, at least the major Republican supporters don;t slash tires of campaign vehicles.

No, they club baby seals. Seriously, :rolleyes:!

Ah, I wasn't counting churches. Odd. At least your acknowledging the religious right. Still, Moveon's presence on the internet is very large.
At least I'm acknowledging reality.

Moveon may have a lot of online members - but not enough feet on the ground.

Feet on the ground translates into voters.

If the Democratic Party doesn't turn it around in the next election, they're going to slide into oblivion.

No, what Damascue's comment meant was that our two-party system has become such a fervent rivalry, that the two "sides" loathe each other... Thus, any name you call the other can be said with hateful passion...

So, the term "liberal" is an insult from conservatives, because conservatives consider it a bad word (simply because it belongs to the opposing viewpoint), and vice versa...

As for why it might appear that liberals are hated more here in the U.S., my guess is that it's because our country as a whole seems to be conservatively minded... Very traditionalist and "old-fashioned"... It is also very strongly grounded in Christian ideals (which are conservative in themselves)...

Liberal ideals go against that grain, and appear to be too "immoral" and such... Thus, liberals are thought of as being a bane on society, that is trying to "undermine our values" and turn the country into some sort of cesspool of sin...lol

Of course, us liberals know better... It's them darn conservatives that are causing all of the problems...lol

Ah, but what a country of opposites we are! The U.S. is simultaneously at the forefront of conservatism (Jerry Falwell) and liberalism (gender-reassignment surgery). Anyone who spends some time here in San Francisco cannot deny that; we are facing a conservative majority, that is true, but as long as Valencia Street has the Anarchists' Collective Bookstore and the Socialist Action Bookstore And Lecture Room, there will always be a cadre of super-leftists to oppose them.

WTFDude? Pulling that "In British English" shit. NEWSFLASH! BRITLAND does NOT exist dude!

DUDE, you like, dropped yer p0cket! LOLLZ0RZ!!!!!111

yes, the political process ahs become a veritable blood sport. Now they do not fight for the people, but for seats in office. No matter how self-righteous they are. The games ends at the end of the election cycle and they cout their "points" (offices earned).

The Democratic party is alienating their members, as it the republicans. The past base of dems would have been those "rednecks" you so hate and malign. they were your base, now you have disenfranchised them. Good job guys....good job....lest you forget, they are middle class too. Many of them are below the poverty line. ANd don't say that it i because they spend all their time drinking/shotting things. Because i could say that the inner city epople you support are too busy drinking/shooting up. THe dems now, despite what you may profess, cater more to the elite of society.

Come now, the Republicans don't? Just look at their taxation record as a party and tell me they don't also cater to elitists.

speaking as a compassionate conservative ( :D ) I see the liberals as follows:

-if liberals cannot get what they want via the legislature, they go to court, and they keep going until they find a judge willing to legislate the liberal agenda from the bench;
-liberals have, since the civil rights era, had only 1 interest, keeping minorities down. They need minorities like blacks and hispanics to be poor otherwise said groups wouldn't vote democRAT, all succesful blacks and hispanics who commit the 'crime' of joining the republicans are attacked and smeared relentlessly, look how socalled minority leader Harry Reid disparaged Clarence Thomas. The liberals are now panicking because the republicans are reminding the blacks, who tend to be family oriented and much more religious than whites, that the liberal agenda is basically anti-family, anti-religion and pro-gay;
-liberals have, with few exceptions, over the last 20 years voted against virtually every new weapon that the military requested, liberals smeared Vietnam war veterans as agressors and murderers;
-everything about liberals is phony, look at the John Kerry campaing, it typified the liberal mindset, socalled elite northeasterners (New Englanders), all of them whites by the way (see my point on liberals wanting to keep minorities down) think that they have invented it all and they know it all and everyone should listen to them because they know best. They think they can fool people with photo ops (like sKerry going hunting), the reality is that they feel themselves elevated above 'rednecks' and 'hicks' who do not like what liberals say.

I just want to say, whatever happened to the democrat party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy (2 people of great integrity, Truman who was anti communist and Kennedy who advocated self reliance and tax cuts), neither of them would recognize the party as it is today.

Now I'm going to do a terribly liberal thing and take offense at something you said. Since when did anti-religion equal pro-gay? Since when were they opposites? I consider myself a devout student of world religions, and I think my ex-boyfriend would agree. I know the Bible well; I have studied the Koran, the Tao Te Ching, the I Ching, the Talmud, haftoras, Kama Sutrua and even the Book of Mormon. True, I may not be Christian, but am I against religion? Certainly not.

Also, I find it sad that you find the greatest thing that Truman did to be opposing communism.

Lemme explain, from a nonpartisan platform.

I hate the word Liberal, as it is used now, becuase it was stolen from we Classical Liberals, or Libertarians (as we've been forced to call ourselves).
The "liberals" here in America are anything but, becuase they only meet the qualifications for the term halfway (socially, never economically).

It's a misnomer. The real word for their platform, which plenty here in NS will tell you would be fine, would be Democratic Socialists.

The American term liberal, to sum up, defines a group that is anything but.
The only true liberals are the Libertarians. A lot of Democrats here will openly admit this as well.

When columnist Carl Rowan preaches gun control and uses a gun to defend his home, when Maryland Gov. William Donald Schaefer seeks legislation year after year to ban semiautomatic "assault weapons" whose only purpose, we are told, is to kill people, while he is at the same time escorted by state police armed with large-capacity 9mm semiautomatic pistols, it is not simple hypocrisy. It is the workings of that habit of mind possessed by all superior beings who have taken upon themselves the terrible burden of civilizing the masses and who understand, like our Congress, that laws are for other people.

The liberal elite know that they are philosopher-kings. They know that the people simply cannot be trusted; that they are incapable of just and fair self-government; that left to their own devices, their society will be racist, sexist, homophobic, and inequitable -- and the liberal elite know how to fix things. They are going to help us live the good and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us to do it. And they detest those who stand in their way.

The private ownership of firearms is a rebuke to this utopian zeal. To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state. It is to reserve final judgment about whether the state is encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend that freedom with more than mere words, and to stand outside the state's totalitarian reach.

Have you read anything by Machiavelli? That's essentially what he advocates doing. Machiavelli teaches that the attainment of the true democratic republic is the very highest political ideal, and that *anything* done in the process of getting there is justified.

Machiavelli is read zealously by political analysts of both parties; I know several.

I'm British, and I have to say, the issues Americans have with the word 'liberal' seem to stem from a crippling lack of political intelligence. I suppose the limitations of a two-party system lead towards this, but seriously, the ingrained hatred of the other side you all seem to have and your (general) inability to accept a reasoned argument is ridiculous.

Look at the presidential election, for example. The aims of the two parties seemed to be to present Bush as a jibbering idiot and puppet of the corporations, and Kerry as an opportunistic lying communist. I'm sorry, but it's obvious to outsiders that that's crap.

It's just a shame you are too intolerant and ignorant as voters to see it.

I'm British, and I have to say, the issues Americans have with the word 'liberal' seem to stem from a crippling lack of political intelligence. I suppose the limitations of a two-party system lead towards this, but seriously, the ingrained hatred of the other side you all seem to have and your (general) inability to accept a reasoned argument is ridiculous.

Look at the presidential election, for example. The aims of the two parties seemed to be to present Bush as a jibbering idiot and puppet of the corporations, and Kerry as an opportunistic lying communist. I'm sorry, but it's obvious to outsiders that that's crap.

It's just a shame you are too intolerant and ignorant as voters to see it.
You got that right! Sad we have to hear it from across the Atlantic, cuz most of the voters here don't seem to realize this.

At least I'm acknowledging reality.

That is definitely a rare thing for a conservative. :p


Moveon may have a lot of online members - but not enough feet on the ground.

Feet on the ground translates into voters.


Stuck in the ol' days still?


If the Democratic Party doesn't turn it around in the next election, they're going to slide into oblivion.

Opinion's a nifty thing, ain't it?

I'm British, and I have to say, the issues Americans have with the word 'liberal' seem to stem from a crippling lack of political intelligence. I suppose the limitations of a two-party system lead towards this, but seriously, the ingrained hatred of the other side you all seem to have and your (general) inability to accept a reasoned argument is ridiculous.

Look at the presidential election, for example. The aims of the two parties seemed to be to present Bush as a jibbering idiot and puppet of the corporations, and Kerry as an opportunistic lying communist. I'm sorry, but it's obvious to outsiders that that's crap.

It's just a shame you are too intolerant and ignorant as voters to see it.

I loved your post. It shows that we Americans understand the British point of view of politics the same way Britons understand cooking.

Seriously, take yourself less seriously. :)

I loved your post. It shows that we Americans understand the British point of view of politics the same way Britons understand cooking.

Seriously, take yourself less seriously. :)

i'll have you know I am an excellent cook, so long as you like it well done.

i'm annoyed by American liberals because they tend to have socialist or even communistic economic ideas, and i believe socialism and communism are dishonorable.

of course, i am equally annoyed by conservatives, because they have authoritarian notions about social policy.

i think conservatives and liberals tend to be about equal in obnoxiousness, at least in the US.

I see people (mostly Americans) say that they are anti-liberal on a daily basis in here, and I would really like to know and try to understand. If you could be so kind as to answer this : Why do Americans use the word "liberal" as a foul word? Is it wrong to be liberal, and if so, why?

Please note that this is not meant as a thread for flaming, spamming or other things that are in violation of the forum rules. If you must flame, please do it in another thread. Thank you.

"Liberalism" in the U.S. consists primarily of a tax and spend/entitlment mentality. How that has much to do with being liberal is beyond me, but this country was founded on the frame work of personal freedom and personal responsibility and I'm for whatever party keeps its hands the farthest out of my personal life and pockets. Problem is, anymore, that both sides want into our pockets and to limit our freedoms. I'm sick of both sides to be honest. I'd like to vote for personal freedom and personal responsibility, but there isn't a viable party that represents that adequately so I end up chosing between the lesser of 2 evils. :(

"Liberalism" in the U.S. consists primarily of a tax and spend/entitlment mentality. How that has much to do with being liberal is beyond me, but this country was founded on the frame work of personal freedom and personal responsibility and I'm for whatever party keeps its hands the farthest out of my personal life and pockets. Problem is, anymore, that both sides want into our pockets and to limit our freedoms. I'm sick of both sides to be honest. I'd like to vote for personal freedom and personal responsibility, but there isn't a viable party that represents that adequately so I end up chosing between the lesser of 2 evils. :(

Because you couldn't possibly start up your own party? Crazier things have happened in the past.

i'll have you know I am an excellent cook, so long as you like it well done.

Er, yes but sushi?? :D

Because you couldn't possibly start up your own party? Crazier things have happened in the past.

I'm not even old enough to run for Pres. so I don't know how well that would work. I also know that my ideas are not new and I don't have the resources to be much of a voice and even if I were, I know that my opinions are not in the majority.

The Dems *must* win one of these two elections.
If they fail to do so, they will cease to be an effective party.

Consider: since LBJ, there have only been 1 Carter and 2 Clinton administrations. That's only 12 Democrat years out of 35, or about 33% occupancy of the White House.

If you count from 1945 (when FDR died in office), there have additionally been 2 terms of Truman, half a term of Kennedy, and a term and a half of LBJ. That's only 28 out of 60, or about 46%.

If the DEMs don't win in '08 and/or '12, it's all over. The GOP will certainly have appointed 100% of the Supreme Court justices by 2015.

In order to win, the DEMs need to give up on issues that are dead.
Basically:
Focus on the budget, social security and medicare.
Give up on national healthcare and gun control.
But be pro law enforcement.

BTW, I'm a Connecticut Independent. I voted for Bush twice, and Lieberman for Senate three times. IMHO, the Union cannot stand with a single party.

I'd like to vote for personal freedom and personal responsibility, but there isn't a viable party that represents that adequately so I end up chosing between the lesser of 2 evils. :(

There most definitely is a party that's ALL about personal freedom and responsibility, in fact, that's the whole platform!!!! :confused:

Haven't you heard of the LP yet?

click here (http://www.lp.org)

Our Platform, first words on our site (in a nutshell):
The Libertarian Party is committed to America's heritage of freedom:
individual liberty and personal responsibility
a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.
We welcome your participation and support.

i'm annoyed by American liberals because they tend to have socialist or even communistic economic ideas, and i believe socialism and communism are dishonorable.


I don't believe I've ever heard the term 'dishonourable' used to describe a political group. Please elaborate.

I don't believe I've ever heard the term 'dishonourable' used to describe a political group. Please elaborate.
What's wrong with that? She means that, in her opinion, it is less than honorable for the state to redistribute wealth and seize control of all means of production.
You may disagree, but it made perfect sense.

See? That wasn't so hard.

(Sorry for speaking for ya, Bottle)

You wanna know what's wrong with liberals? That's a pretty long thread. Why not start a thread called "What's right with liberals?" and save us all a little time.

Haw, haw, haw.

No, but for real. You wanna know what's wrong with liberals? Check out these jokers:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=the%20liberal%20media

All they ever talk about on their board is smoking each others' poles and meeting up in bath houses for anyonymous liberal sexual congresses.

What's wrong with that? She means that, in her opinion, it is less than honorable for the state to redistribute wealth and seize control of all means of production.
You may disagree, but it made perfect sense.

See? That wasn't so hard.

(Sorry for speaking for ya, Bottle)

I don't have a problem with whatever her views concerning socialism and communism are, it just seems very perculiar to talk about politics in terms of 'honour'. Honour suggests matters of the morality of individuals, rather than the morality of systems.

You wanna know what's wrong with liberals? That's a pretty long thread. Why not start a thread called "What's right with liberals?" and save us all a little time.

Haw, haw, haw.

No, but for real. You wanna know what's wrong with liberals? Check out these jokers:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=the%20liberal%20media

All they ever talk about on their board is smoking each others' poles and meeting up in bath houses for anyonymous liberal sexual congresses.

So? What should they be discussing? Why do you care what they discuss?

I don't have a problem with whatever her views concerning socialism and communism are, it just seems very perculiar to talk about politics in terms of 'honour'. Honour suggests matters of the morality of individuals, rather than the morality of systems.
Well, I'd agree that any use of the word honor, when referring to politics or governments, is a hillarious oxymoron. :D