| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2005 05:35:37 PM |
| Object: |
none |
"Reuters news agency this week headlined a story, "Critics Say Bush
Inaugural Too Lavish for Wartime," then quoted one "critic," Rep.
Anthony Weiner, New York Democrat, who complained that the estimated
$40 million for the Bush-Cheney inauguration is extravagant.
The Associated Press moved a story that asked, "With that kind of
money, what could you buy?" The answer, the wire service said: "200
armored Humvees ... vaccinations and preventive health care for 22
million children ... and a down payment on the nation's deficit."
But a review of the cost for past inaugurations shows Mr. Bush's will
cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which
cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr.
Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25
percent.
According to the Consumer Price Index, $42 million in 1997 is the
equivalent of $49.5 in 2004."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050119-103531-1062r.htm
FDR's inauguration, on the other hand, was the most extravagant.
Historian: FDR's Inauguration Was 'Extravagant'
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first inauguration, held during the worst days
of the Great Depression, was "the most lavish undoubtedly" of all the
presidential inaugural celebrations, according to Donald Kennon, chief
historian of the U.S. Capitol Historical Society.
Kennon tells Newsday that for FDR's big day "an exact replica of Federal
Hall in New York, costing $100,000 - an extravagant sum for the Depression
years - was built on the White House lawn for Roosevelt's use in reviewing
his parade."
Extravagant indeed, especially considering that in 1933, America was on the
brink of economic collapse - with 25 percent unemployment, bread lines
stretching around city street corners and formerly prosperous executives
reduced to selling apples from pushcarts.
What's more, Roosevelt's inaugural parade lasted a mind-numbing four hours,
twice the time President Bush's inaugural parade is expected to last on
Thursday.
Reporters of FDR's day, however, weren't complaining that he had misspent
precious dollars that could have relieved some of the economic misery
engulfing the nation - the way they are now about the costs Bush's
inauguration celebration.
Roosevelt's inaugural bash didn't stop with the parade. In fact, Warner
Brothers Studio shipped an entire trainload of its top stars to join in the
revelry.
The Hollywood celebs imbibed then-illegal bootleg booze during the trip and
partied inauguration night away to the music of orchestras led by two of
the nation's top bandleaders, Rudy Vallee and Guy Lombardo.
Roosevelt, however, didn't attend any of his inaugural parties. The media
of the day claimed that he wanted to get right to work that night on the
nation's banking crisis.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
20 Jan 2005 07:31:58 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
"Reuters news agency this week headlined a story, "Critics Say Bush
Roosevelt, however, didn't attend any of his inaugural parties. The
media
of the day claimed that he wanted to get right to work that night on
the
nation's banking crisis.
Apparently you didnt hear historians talking about FDR's
WARTIME inauguration.
Told that Congress had appropriated $25,000 for the inauguration,
he said, "I'll do it with 2."
Incidentally, where's the citation for your wild story about
the 1933 inauguration.
.
|
|
|
| User: "A Nengineer" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
20 Jan 2005 08:02:16 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Incidentally, where's the citation for your wild story about
the 1933 inauguration.
Considering that every single dollar of the $40 million you're
bellyaching about came from private contributions, what's your beef?
I'll tell you what it is: Bush got elected, and Kerry is a loser. In
fact, you people haven't even been able to cadge up even fifty percent
of the popular vote in any Presidential election since 1964. DESPITE
your legacy of vote fraud.
You're losers.
That's what chaps your hide, and--like the spoiled brat adolescents you
are--you're gonna "act out" about it.
Tough. The adults are still in charge, and they told you to get yer hand
out of the cookie jar, you stupid snot-nosed brats.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
21 Jan 2005 08:49:02 PM |
|
|
A Nengineer <awful@tragedy.com> wrote:
Cognitus44@hotmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, where's the citation for your wild story about
the 1933 inauguration.
Considering that every single dollar of the $40 million you're
bellyaching about came from private contributions, what's your beef?
Smirk. After all, when Bush cuts taxes for the rich by billions,
what's a $40 million kickback?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
21 Jan 2005 07:17:05 AM |
|
|
A Nengineer <awful@tragedy.com> wrote:
Cognitus44@hotmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, where's the citation for your wild story about
the 1933 inauguration.
Considering that every single dollar of the $40 million you're
bellyaching about came from private contributions, what's your beef?
I'll tell you what it is: Bush got elected, and Kerry is a loser.
And the funny thing?
Average IQ of states tallied against who they voted for.
Top IQ states ALL voted for kerry.
Bottom IQ states ALL voted for bush.
Pretty solid cut off in the middle too, with only 2 bush in the kerry lot
before the shift.
Bush was surprised when he got re-elected cos he realised there were 40
million people dumber than him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
21 Jan 2005 09:44:11 PM |
|
|
<spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message news:hcvqsc.4t4.ln@freenet.co.uk...
A Nengineer <awful@tragedy.com> wrote:
Cognitus44@hotmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, where's the citation for your wild story about
the 1933 inauguration.
Considering that every single dollar of the $40 million you're
bellyaching about came from private contributions, what's your beef?
I'll tell you what it is: Bush got elected, and Kerry is a loser.
And the funny thing?
Average IQ of states tallied against who they voted for.
Top IQ states ALL voted for kerry.
Bottom IQ states ALL voted for bush.
Why are you posting a proven lie?
.
|
|
|
| User: "pyotr filipivich" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
24 Jan 2005 03:28:07 PM |
|
|
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "Yardpilot"
<yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote back on Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:44:11 -0800 in
talk.politics.guns :
<spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message news:hcvqsc.4t4.ln@freenet.co.uk...
And the funny thing?
Average IQ of states tallied against who they voted for.
Top IQ states ALL voted for kerry.
Bottom IQ states ALL voted for bush.
Why are you posting a proven lie?
I thought that would be obvious.
A) He's too dumb to know the difference
or
B) "There are some things so preposterously wrong, that only an
Intellectual would believe them." After George Orwell (IIRC).
tschus
pyotr
or C: both.
--
pyotr filipivich
This is a .22 caliber derringer, one of the smallest, lightest handguns
ever made. It's over a hundred years old and might not even penetrate your
skull if I miss your eye socket. So you have to ask yourself just one
question: "Do I feel lucky?" - Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by Lady Foole
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
25 Jan 2005 03:56:15 PM |
|
|
"pyotr filipivich" <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:rqpav0tnujf1c0s026q182b1cm7qlabtau@4ax.com...
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "Yardpilot"
<yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote back on Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:44:11 -0800 in
talk.politics.guns :
<spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hcvqsc.4t4.ln@freenet.co.uk...
And the funny thing?
Average IQ of states tallied against who they voted for.
Top IQ states ALL voted for kerry.
Bottom IQ states ALL voted for bush.
Why are you posting a proven lie?
I thought that would be obvious.
A) He's too dumb to know the difference
or
B) "There are some things so preposterously wrong, that only an
Intellectual would believe them." After George Orwell (IIRC).
Both are good possibilities, though I thought he was just an *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
21 Jan 2005 11:05:54 PM |
|
|
In article <10v3imhbm2s6872@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
Average IQ of states tallied against who they voted for.
Top IQ states ALL voted for kerry.
Bottom IQ states ALL voted for bush.
Why are you posting a proven lie?
Where is it proven a lie?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Lentz" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
22 Jan 2005 08:55:10 AM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5bef8df23d497e98bf9e@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <10v3imhbm2s6872@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
Average IQ of states tallied against who they voted for.
Top IQ states ALL voted for kerry.
Bottom IQ states ALL voted for bush.
Why are you posting a proven lie?
Where is it proven a lie?
Isn't it the liberal position that intelligence can't be measured by a
test?
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
22 Jan 2005 09:12:00 AM |
|
|
David Lentz wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5bef8df23d497e98bf9e@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <10v3imhbm2s6872@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
Average IQ of states tallied against who they voted for.
Top IQ states ALL voted for kerry.
Bottom IQ states ALL voted for bush.
Why are you posting a proven lie?
Where is it proven a lie?
Isn't it the liberal position that intelligence can't be measured by a
test?
It's THEIR intelligence that can't be measured, even at the sub
atomic/human level.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
22 Jan 2005 09:22:11 AM |
|
|
In article <iPtId.168010$AL5.65683@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, dlentz10
@rochester.rr.com says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5bef8df23d497e98bf9e@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <10v3imhbm2s6872@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
Average IQ of states tallied against who they voted for.
Top IQ states ALL voted for kerry.
Bottom IQ states ALL voted for bush.
Why are you posting a proven lie?
Where is it proven a lie?
Isn't it the liberal position that intelligence can't be measured by a
test?
Is it?
What makes you think so, and what definition of 'liberal' are you
referring to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Lentz" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
22 Jan 2005 11:02:21 AM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5c7ffc4b6e5f8198bfcb@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <iPtId.168010$AL5.65683@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, dlentz10
@rochester.rr.com says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5bef8df23d497e98bf9e@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <10v3imhbm2s6872@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
Average IQ of states tallied against who they voted for.
Top IQ states ALL voted for kerry.
Bottom IQ states ALL voted for bush.
Why are you posting a proven lie?
Where is it proven a lie?
Isn't it the liberal position that intelligence can't be measured by a
test?
Is it?
What makes you think so, and what definition of 'liberal' are you
referring to?
Liberals equals MSM equal democrat.
Those would consider TBC to be the three most vile letters in the universe.
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jose Maria Lopez Hernandez" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
23 Jan 2005 12:18:02 PM |
|
|
David Lentz wrote:
Liberals equals MSM equal democrat.
In Europe Liberals is like Republicans in the USA. The terms
differ from country to country.
--
Jose Maria Lopez Hernandez
Director Tecnico de bgSEC
jkerouac@bgsec.com
bgSEC Seguridad y Consultoria de Sistemas Informaticos
http://www.bgsec.com
ESPAŅA
The only people for me are the mad ones -- the ones who are mad to live,
mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time,
the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn
like fabulous yellow Roman candles.
-- Jack Kerouac, "On the Road"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
22 Jan 2005 02:04:09 PM |
|
|
In article <xGvId.168026$AL5.21352@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, dlentz10
@rochester.rr.com says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5c7ffc4b6e5f8198bfcb@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <iPtId.168010$AL5.65683@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, dlentz10
@rochester.rr.com says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5bef8df23d497e98bf9e@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <10v3imhbm2s6872@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
Average IQ of states tallied against who they voted for.
Top IQ states ALL voted for kerry.
Bottom IQ states ALL voted for bush.
Why are you posting a proven lie?
Where is it proven a lie?
Isn't it the liberal position that intelligence can't be measured by a
test?
Is it?
What makes you think so, and what definition of 'liberal' are you
referring to?
Liberals equals MSM equal democrat.
Those would consider TBC to be the three most vile letters in the universe.
David
You are clearly talking about something that is unique to your location
and/or lifestyle, as it makes no sense to me! ;-))
There are two basic meanings to the word 'liberal' where I live:
1. A political party (or offshhots) that is pretty much middle-of-the-
road (neither far left nor far right)
2. A way of looking at life which generally equates to 'live and let
live' when faced with others who have a different point of view,
religion, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality etc.
Does your meaning of 'liberal' come anywhere like either of those?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
23 Jan 2005 10:08:24 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5cc21146b613fa98bfcc@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <xGvId.168026$AL5.21352@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, dlentz10
@rochester.rr.com says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5c7ffc4b6e5f8198bfcb@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <iPtId.168010$AL5.65683@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, dlentz10
@rochester.rr.com says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5bef8df23d497e98bf9e@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <10v3imhbm2s6872@corp.supernews.com>,
yardpilot@gorge.net
says...
Average IQ of states tallied against who they voted for.
Top IQ states ALL voted for kerry.
Bottom IQ states ALL voted for bush.
Why are you posting a proven lie?
Where is it proven a lie?
Isn't it the liberal position that intelligence can't be measured
by a
test?
Is it?
What makes you think so, and what definition of 'liberal' are you
referring to?
Liberals equals MSM equal democrat.
Those would consider TBC to be the three most vile letters in the
universe.
David
You are clearly talking about something that is unique to your location
and/or lifestyle, as it makes no sense to me! ;-))
There are two basic meanings to the word 'liberal' where I live:
1. A political party (or offshhots) that is pretty much middle-of-the-
road (neither far left nor far right)
Nonsense.
2. A way of looking at life which generally equates to 'live and let
live' when faced with others who have a different point of view,
religion, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality etc.
Also nonsense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
23 Jan 2005 10:47:43 PM |
|
|
In article <10v8ss27ekrgpe7@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
There are two basic meanings to the word 'liberal' where I live:
1. A political party (or offshhots) that is pretty much middle-of-the-
road (neither far left nor far right)
Nonsense.
2. A way of looking at life which generally equates to 'live and let
live' when faced with others who have a different point of view,
religion, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality etc.
Also nonsense.
Codswallop to you too! ;-)))
Whether you like it or not, in my area of that world, what I wrote above
(that you quoted) is what the word signifies. It may well have different
connotations in different parts of the world. Here (the UK) it means
either a generally central political party (neither to the left nor to
the right), or a laid-back attitude to life and other people. Depends on
the context. People can be liberal in attitude without particularly
supporting that political party rather than any other or even any
political party at all, and vice versa.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
23 Jan 2005 11:26:18 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5e8e4d5861dc398c019@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <10v8ss27ekrgpe7@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
There are two basic meanings to the word 'liberal' where I live:
1. A political party (or offshhots) that is pretty much middle-of-the-
road (neither far left nor far right)
Nonsense.
2. A way of looking at life which generally equates to 'live and let
live' when faced with others who have a different point of view,
religion, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality etc.
Also nonsense.
Codswallop to you too! ;-)))
Whether you like it or not, in my area of that world, what I wrote above
(that you quoted) is what the word signifies.
Only in your fevered imagination. Others disagree. That being the case,
there is no consensus that your claim is correct.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
24 Jan 2005 12:08:32 AM |
|
|
In article <10v91e3su94aj9e@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
Whether you like it or not, in my area of that world, what I wrote above
(that you quoted) is what the word signifies.
Only in your fevered imagination.
No dear... fact!
Sorry you don't like it, but that's your choice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
25 Jan 2005 03:52:35 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5ea13a40c20d1f98c01c@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <10v91e3su94aj9e@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
Whether you like it or not, in my area of that world, what I wrote
above
(that you quoted) is what the word signifies.
Only in your fevered imagination.
No dear... fact!
Your "creative editing" constitutes lying, *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
26 Jan 2005 12:38:06 AM |
|
|
In article <10vdfja4is5ma12@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5ea13a40c20d1f98c01c@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <10v91e3su94aj9e@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
Whether you like it or not, in my area of that world, what I wrote
above
(that you quoted) is what the word signifies.
Only in your fevered imagination.
No dear... fact!
Your "creative editing" constitutes lying, *****.
Your posting is intact... look on Google. Unless you have set the no-
archive, of course... I can't be bothered to look. And if you have then
YOU have effectively edited your post. Nobody else.
It hasn't been hacked by me!
Blame someone else for your problems!
You also would come to no harm if you bothered to read (and make the
effort to understand) about responsible quoting in newsgroup
discussions! ;-))
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
26 Jan 2005 04:13:56 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c614b2cbe612a3498c054@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <10vdfja4is5ma12@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5ea13a40c20d1f98c01c@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <10v91e3su94aj9e@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
Whether you like it or not, in my area of that world, what I wrote
above
(that you quoted) is what the word signifies.
Only in your fevered imagination.
No dear... fact!
Your "creative editing" constitutes lying, *****.
Your posting is intact
Liar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
27 Jan 2005 03:03:46 PM |
|
|
In article <10vg57aog9df2ed@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
Your posting is intact
Liar.
If your posting doesn't show up on Google as you sent it, try finding
who hacked it.
It wasn't me and there's no way you can prove it was me! ;-))
Take your silly accusations elewhere.
You are boring!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
28 Jan 2005 11:23:57 AM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c63678f38ba159998c064@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <10vg57aog9df2ed@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
Your posting is intact
Liar.
If your posting doesn't show up on Google as you sent it, try finding
who hacked it.
That is a very poor evasion, *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
09 Feb 2005 07:37:42 AM |
|
|
In article <10vksvgg1631of4@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c63678f38ba159998c064@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <10vg57aog9df2ed@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
Your posting is intact
Liar.
If your posting doesn't show up on Google as you sent it, try finding
who hacked it.
That is a very poor evasion, *****.
What 'evasion'?
Certainly YOU appear to be an '*****'! ;-))
The fact remains that I have *never* altered/hacked/edited *anyone's*
postings. Ever.
Try throwing your stupid strawmen out at others! ;-))
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
09 Feb 2005 11:54:37 PM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c74227da944a2798c0a1@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <10vksvgg1631of4@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c63678f38ba159998c064@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <10vg57aog9df2ed@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
Your posting is intact
Liar.
If your posting doesn't show up on Google as you sent it, try finding
who hacked it.
That is a very poor evasion, *****.
What 'evasion'?
Yours.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
10 Feb 2005 03:15:47 PM |
|
|
In article <110ltejgc9skn22@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
If your posting doesn't show up on Google as you sent it, try finding
who hacked it.
That is a very poor evasion, *****.
What 'evasion'?
Yours.
Since there was no evasion from me, you are clearly deluded! ;-))
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
11 Feb 2005 09:20:38 AM |
|
|
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c75df60a82d198e98c0b8@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <110ltejgc9skn22@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
If your posting doesn't show up on Google as you sent it, try
finding
who hacked it.
That is a very poor evasion, *****.
What 'evasion'?
Yours.
Since there was no evasion from me
You lie badly, but idiots do that a lot. You're stepping right in the
evasion, so it's yours.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
24 Jan 2005 03:45:02 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <10v8ss27ekrgpe7@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
There are two basic meanings to the word 'liberal' where I live:
1. A political party (or offshhots) that is pretty much middle-of-the-
road (neither far left nor far right)
Nonsense.
2. A way of looking at life which generally equates to 'live and let
live' when faced with others who have a different point of view,
religion, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality etc.
Also nonsense.
Codswallop to you too! ;-)))
Whether you like it or not, in my area of that world, what I wrote above
(that you quoted) is what the word signifies. It may well have different
connotations in different parts of the world. Here (the UK) it means
either a generally central political party (neither to the left nor to
the right), or a laid-back attitude to life and other people. Depends on
the context. People can be liberal in attitude without particularly
supporting that political party rather than any other or even any
political party at all, and vice versa
Absolutely, however, the word 'liberal' has taken on a different context
as the Democratic (or liberal) side of the political fence drifts
further and further to the left.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
25 Jan 2005 10:45:38 AM |
|
|
In article <_M-dndgPIfvH8WjcRVn-hw@comcast.com>,
says...
Whether you like it or not, in my area of that world, what I wrote above
(that you quoted) is what the word signifies. It may well have different
connotations in different parts of the world. Here (the UK) it means
either a generally central political party (neither to the left nor to
the right), or a laid-back attitude to life and other people. Depends on
the context. People can be liberal in attitude without particularly
supporting that political party rather than any other or even any
political party at all, and vice versa
Absolutely, however, the word 'liberal' has taken on a different context
as the Democratic (or liberal) side of the political fence drifts
further and further to the left.
In the UK it's still where it has been all along - pretty much in the
middle between extreme left and extrme right. That it might appear
otherwise is because labour (which was very left in the past) has
shifted right in an enourmous leap, and if anything is often now more to
the right of the tories! ;-))
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: none |
24 Jan 2005 09:59:56 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Pat Winstanley wrote:
yardpilot@gorge.net
There are two basic meanings to the word 'liberal' where I live:
1. A political party (or offshhots) that is pretty much middle-of-the-
road (neither far left nor far right)
Nonsense.
2. A way of looking at life which generally equates to 'live and let
live' when faced with others who have a different point of view,
religion, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality etc.
Also nonsense.
Codswallop to you too! ;-)))
Whether you like it or not, in my area of that world, what I wrote above
(that you quoted) is what the word signifies. It may well have different
connotations in different parts of the world. Here (the UK) it means
either a generally central political party (neither to the left nor to
the right), or a laid-back attitude to life and other people. Depends on
the context. People can be liberal in attitude without particularly
supporting that political party rather than any other or even any
political party at all, and vice versa
Absolutely, however, the word 'liberal' has taken on a different context
as the Democratic (or liberal) side of the political fence drifts
further and further to the left.
Except that the Democrats have been drifting to the right. It only
looks like they've been drifting left in comparison to the republicans
that have gone for to the extremist right.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
