atheist@home.com wrote in message news:<k3knc0lt3p5linfsmtjlvcpr879q1ink5m@4ax.com>...

On 12 Jun 2004 05:56:10 -0700,

Maybe so, but every old-fashioned liberal who reflexively defends
liberalism tacitly and implicitly supports what liberalism has become.

I'm an old-fashioned liberal, too, which sort of means "libertarian"
these days, though not really. Perhaps we need a new term, "neolib,"
coined to be similar to "neocon."

Is it really such a bad act?
Or do they just seem make more sense lately?

That's a subject for a longer discussion. But I don't think they make
much sense either. Regardless of one's views of whether it was a
good idea to invade Iraq, for example, it's pretty clear from evidence
that the WMD justification was agreed upon by committee. It is also
pretty clear that there was never any semblance of a plan to do the job
right.

Most people don't care. They decide whether they're fer' it or agin'
it first, and then they occasionally try to decide what they're fer' or
agin' after the fact, but only when questioned.

On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:35:12 -0700, "Yang, AthD \(h.c\)"
<eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote:

<atheist@home.com> wrote in message
news:lltnb0tipr9f66ts3i5mqquv4lfeu5rng1@4ax.com...

On Mon, 31 May 2004 17:37:02 -0400, Sean C <redhawk@hvc.rr.com> wrote:

How about an honest, well thought out definition of liberal followed
by one of conservative?
I keep getting accused of being conservative while I don't see myself
as such for the most part.

Because at some point competence is more important than ideology.

Yang my friend...that doesn't make the least bit of sense to me.
When you refer to competence what exactly are you referring to?

LBJ was a well meaning *****.
He gets a pretty raw deal from conservatives <Talk about hyprocisy>

Just vote Democrat no matter what.

Your liberal arts professors will be so proud of you for doing so.

Cast it for the man who believes that he was born to be president

On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:35:12 -0700, "Yang, AthD \(h.c\)"
<eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote:

<

On Mon, 31 May 2004 17:37:02 -0400, Sean C <redhawk@hvc.rr.com> wrote:

How about an honest, well thought out definition of liberal followed
by one of conservative?
I keep getting accused of being conservative while I don't see myself
as such for the most part.

Because at some point competence is more important than ideology.

Yang my friend...that doesn't make the least bit of sense to me.
When you refer to competence what exactly are you referring to?

If American aren't dying on a daily basis in Iraq 14 months after "Mission
Accomplished", that the budget isn't awash in red ink, that there aren't
fewer jobs today than 4 years ago, that the postwar planning wasn't so inept
that they were feeding pork to the Iraqi army, that its anti-terrorism
coordination wasn't so awful that Tom Ridge doesn't know what John Ashcroft
is doing, then none of anyone's criticism would matter. 10 years from now,
the liberals will point at GWB's administartion for the failings of
conservatism the same way conservative point at LBJ for the failings of
liberalism.

LBJ was a well meaning *****.
He gets a pretty raw deal from conservatives <Talk about hyprocisy>
concerning his domino theory regarding Vietnam because given the times
he was right to believe in it.
The function of Soviet ComIntern was world wide revolution and the
"Tyranny of the Proletariat."
<Lenin's term, not mine>
And ComIntern funded the North Vietnamese along with many fat and
sassy, well fed, comfortable and oh so smart, self assured and
arrogant "anti-war" activist organizations in the United States.

The *radical* left is and always has been in lockstep.

They have never been totally devided and the only
contentious thing about them is the argument over who
deserves government support the most.

They fight like cats and dogs over the taxpayer's money.

They will also eat their young.

Totally selfish, self absorbed jerkoffs.

Everything is always all about them and their selfish causes and
the rest of humanity be damned.

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:24:32 -0400, Sean C <redhawk@hvc.rr.com> wrote:

In article <lltnb0tipr9f66ts3i5mqquv4lfeu5rng1@4ax.com>,
<atheist@home.com> wrote:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 17:37:02 -0400, Sean C <redhawk@hvc.rr.com> wrote:

The average business takes five years to generate a profit. Only 20
percent of business start-ups actually succeed. I would say Air

has done exceedingly well pulling in over 6 million listeners after
just 4 months of operations. They recognized a management problem, and
dealt with it.

We have yet to see if they have effectively dealt with it.

Yes, but that wasn't your point. Your point was that since you perceive
them to be failing, this is evidence you are right in thinking them a
bunch of arrogant, hate-filled, know-it-all liberals who are out of
touch with main stream America.

How about this:
They are "a bunch of arrogant, hate-filled, know-it-all <so called>
liberals who are out of touch with main stream America" and as such
they *will* fail.
It doesn't matter whether you like it or not.

I'd say the "mass" of the public is divided about 50/50, but there are
huge numbers of conservatives and independents who are fed up with

and his policies.

And some Democrats who are fed up with and don't trust Kerry.

So? The Left has always been divided and contentious, and it is hardly
a secret many of us do not see him as a true liberal, but simply the
lesser of two evils. But we have always felt that way.

The *radical* left is and always has been in lockstep.
They have never been totally devided and the only contentious thing
about them is the argument over who deserves government support the
most.
They fight like cats and dogs over the taxpayer's money.
They will also eat their young.
Totally selfish, self absorbed jerkoffs.
Everything is always all about them and their selfish causes and the
rest of humanity be damned.

With Bush, the anger and distrust run far deeper, and you now have
Republicans and conservatives who were once ardent and unflinching Bush
supporters now openly speaking out against him, and many vowing to vote
Democratic, something most of them would never do except under the most
extreme circumstances. This is a dramatic change.

Like it's something different that so many Democrats have spoken out
against Kerry?
Lol!

And we can't trust any of them fully.
Don't you think maybe the mass of the American public is liberal in
many things while conservative in others?

Which has what to do with what you wrote? You are claiming liberals are
out of touch with America. You are claiming that by criticizing the
President and the neo-cons, which is what they do on Air America, they
are guilty of hate mongering, as though Bush is somehow above reproach,
and any criticism of him can only be motivated by arrogance and hate,
and not reason.

"Neo-con, neo-con, neo con."
Bleat, bleat, bleat.
Such fadist people you are.
"Neo-con" is the latest english expression directed at those who
disagree with the left and given the fact that you are all so damned
easily led and fall in step so readily it's no damned surprise that
you all use the same term to describe those who don't fall in step
with you.
You will never understand anything about reality because you don't
know any better than to spout the trash you have been spoon fed by
government propaganists in every public school you ever attended.
You are oh so bright.
And original.
It's one thing to debate the man's policies and quite another to
demand his head on a platter.
There is nothing funny or the least bit clever about your
ninteen-sixties wannabe heroes.
They are typically boring idiots who believe that if they passed
history 101 they know everything there is to know about history.
They are all experts in economics, science, sociology, psychology,
philosophy, political science and animal husbandry.
They all talk as though they are in possession of uncommon knowledge
and obviously believe themselves to be the products of uncommonly
brilliant intellects yet the only thing that matters to them is which
party a man belongs to.
They are idiots of the first order.

In saying this, you are merely parroting the propaganda
of Fox News and other elements of the extreme right, who see any
criticism of the president as inherently evil, and who invariably label
liberal critics of the president as hate-mongers.

It's the way they say it that exposes them for what they are.

How about an honest, well thought out definition of liberal followed
by one of conservative?
I keep getting accused of being conservative while I don't see myself
as such for the most part.

When you come out with what sounded like a typical, "those durn libruls
are destroying America" rant, this is the kind of response you're going
to get. All you're doing here is demonstrating a fairly typical
right-wing intolerance of dissent.

You don't know me very well.
I believe everything that comes from any politically oriented jerkoff
should be challanged.
And I don't like politicians of any stripe.
I detest the U.S. federal government because it is not the servant of
the people but the servant of those you so admire.
It is the servant of those who never worked an honest day in their
damned lives but who are not only allowed to vote but are encouraged
to vote for the politician who promises them the most *freebies* at
the expence of hard working taxpayers who are struggling just to make
ends meet.
Your party is loaded down with millionaires who don't have a clue as
to the cost of a loaf of bread.
The Republican party is loaded down with the same.
But the Democrats are the best at playing the class, race game.
The best at taking form the hard working successful and giving it to
those who are losers by choice.
It's utterly stupid to deny it.
You have been had.

You know it occurs to me that it's an absolute waste of time to even
attempt to answer the rest of your post.
I am totally snockered so that should put us at about the same
intellectual level <If you are sober that is>
I am tired of you and people like you.
You bleat, bleat, bleat the party line and think you are being oh so
damned clever and that every opinion you have is an opinion you formed
on your own.
You are just a natural born genius aren't you?
And anybody who disagrees with you is just stupid as hell aren't they?
And a "neo-con."
So typical of hate filled, modern day "liberals."
I am overwhelmed by your brilliance.
Let's just leave it at that.

atheist@home#1554

<snip>