| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Locke" |
| Date: |
27 Jul 2004 03:41:34 AM |
| Object: |
What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
I've noticed something disturbing about the Democratic National Convention
already, and I only saw two speeches so far, which may be a new
zero-to-concerned speed record. I noticed this in all the pre-Convention
commentary, as well as the post-first-day commentary, as well as in the
Convention itself.
That disturbing trend is the absence of the so-called L-word. Not that one,
Mary Cheney, don't get nervous, I'm not talking about that. I mean the word
'liberal'.
Last I heard, and maybe it's just me, but aren't we supposed to be in a
two-party system? Aren't we supposed to have two officially recognized
associations with differing viewpoints who both on occasion control various
branches of the government, but who have to answer to the other?
Isn't that what's supposed to make our government work? I thought we talked
about the 'Ruling Baath party' in Iraq like it was the Third Reich because
it oppressed all other parties. I thought the debate between two differing
viewpoints was what our government was all about. From the Federalists and
the Anti-Federalists onward, eventual agreements between two polarized sides
make sure the country itself is moderate enough so that, while nobody is
really happy, nobody is especially angry either, which is all you can ask
for.
Now, though, there's this aforementioned disturbing new trend of dodging who
you are. It's not limited to the convention, it's been going on for years.
Whichever party is in power, the other tries desperately to be more like
them. We no longer have a liberal party and a conservative party, we have
the party in power and a tentatively moderate party who doesn't want to seem
too disagreeable.
This isn't limited to one side or the other. During the Clinton years, the
Republican party tried to reshape their image by calling themselves
"Compassionate Conservatives" or "Neo-Conservatives". Now the Democrats
don't want to seem too liberal, so they don't alienate the undecided voters.
This raises two questions in my mind. First, why do we assume undecided
voters are conservatives? It seems like that's what the Democratic
leadership is assuming. The Republicans make no mistake about how
conservative they are, but the Democrats have to be moderates. What if the
undecided voters are liberals? Who will they go to? What if they're only
undecided because they lack a real liberal option?
Second, what's so wrong with being honest? Why couldn't the "Compassionate
Conservatives" admit that they weren't any more liberal than during the
Reagan years? Why can't the liberals of today proudly step out onto the
stage and say to the crowd, yes, I am a bleeding heart liberal and I'm proud
of it? Would it ruin their image to be a real opposing party, to speak your
mind rather than follow the leader? Is it really in the best interest of the
country to lie and jump on the bandwagon of whoever voters liked four years
ago rather than give people another option and trust them to respect your
honesty?
I can hear the conservatives now, telling me that it's for the best, because
the right laws were passed over the last four years. But remember, that just
over half the country didn't vote for those ideas. By pushing purely
conservative ideology through the legislative system, you ignored the wishes
of half the voters in the nation. And how much did you like the idea of the
minority party rolling over when Republicans voted for benefit increases and
environmentalism in the 90s?
This is a representative republic, yes, which means that we pick
representatives to carry out our wishes. Some areas choose conservative
representatives, some choose liberal representatives. Those areas that
choose to have liberal representation want just that. But it's those
Democrats who do get elected who try their hardest to be as conservative as
possible. The voters who chose a Democrat aren't being represented as they
wished. And even when it comes to the President, he or she doesn't have a
responsibility to only those who voted for him or her. The President has a
responsibility to act in the best interest of everyone.
So what I'm asking is this. If you're a Democrat, write your Democratic
elected officials and ask them to be liberal and to be proud of it. If
you're a Republican, ask your Republican official to be conservative.
Conflict and debate, checks and balances, that's what the founding fathers
knew would shape our nation into the great state it is today. Sadly, bending
to the wishes of the majority of elected officials, taking away an option
for those who disagree with the status quo, this trend of changing views to
match the opposition is eliminating the checks, throwing off the balance,
and tearing the nation apart.
-Locke
Yellowhat.org - Log in. Be heard.
http://www.yellowhat.org/
.
|
|
| User: "Crazy Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
27 Jul 2004 07:08:21 AM |
|
|
"Locke" <Locke@yellowhat.org> wrote in message
news:ce54g8$oa4$1@news.astound.net...
I mean the word 'liberal'.
Liberal = Socialist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Meeder" |
|
| Title: Re: What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
28 Jul 2004 02:40:03 PM |
|
|
First off, there is no need to get all loopy around here just because
you have not heard anybody refer to themselves as a liberal at the
Democratic Convention. Being a liberal is not an evil thang folks. But after
what the Repub's have successfully done with liberal bashing and making sure
they name call even if it doesn't truthfully fit the person's political
stands(I mean c'mon, we all have some of both inside of us, liberal and
conservatism) on many issues.
I have yet to meet a liberal who completely fits the definition and
"Crazy *****" perhaps you should look into your dictionary before you
speak next time. Or check out my website for a true definition of a liberal.
www.franklyspeakingpress.com
---ginger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Crazy Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
29 Jul 2004 09:16:02 AM |
|
|
"Jerry Meeder" <ginjer16@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:niTNc.17104$iK.12281@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
First off, there is no need to get all loopy around here just because
you have not heard anybody refer to themselves as a liberal at the
Democratic Convention. Being a liberal is not an evil thang folks.
Yes it is.
That's why the Demmies are scared to speak the word.
I have yet to meet a liberal who completely fits the definition and
"Crazy *****" perhaps you should look into your dictionary before you
speak next time. Or check out my website for a true definition of a
liberal.
www.franklyspeakingpress.com
---ginger
There may be a couple of dozen genuine liberals left in America, maybe.
Most of them have perverted into Socialists, Euro-Socialists.
If John Kennedy was alive today he'd be a slightly right of center
Republican.
America has changed.
The Euro-Socialists are attempting to take over.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Freddy" |
|
| Title: Re: What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
28 Jul 2004 01:25:07 AM |
|
|
"Avanti_Ken" <KMatson-remove-@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:<dRzNc.4567$jd.280251@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
"Freddy" <freddy_nerk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42b00426.0407271312.4fb3d6aa@posting.google.com...
"Crazy *****" <crazyodb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<VArNc.14903$PK5.10185@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
"Locke" <Locke@yellowhat.org> wrote in message
news:ce54g8$oa4$1@news.astound.net...
I mean the word 'liberal'.
Liberal = Socialist.
In Australia of course, Liberal = Conservative, Labor = Not quite so
conservative officially but having conservative policies,
Democrat/Green = liberal and nobody at all is socialist in public.
The Nerk
=================
Of course were not talking Australia. Were talking USA Mr. Nerk!
True, but my point was that the OP's assertion was contextually
dependent. Outside of the particularity of the US, the bulk of the
world sees fundamental differences between socialists and liberals.
This in turn raises the question of the OP, which was why "liberal"
was a dirty word in the US.
Plainly, for a variety of reasons, which largely devolve I suspect on
the absence in the US of any national movement espousing socialism in
any recognisable form as a political goal, and the consequent
coralling of some of the more demoralised sections of the natural
constituency of this movement into the more liberal factions of the
Democrats, has muddied the fundamental differences between the two --
to the detriment of both. The liberals have to don conservative
regalia whenever the subject arises, so as not to "alienate" largely
conservative swing voters, which inevitably pushes the putative
"socialists" even further to the right, debauching the notion of
socialism still further by associating it with state control and
re-muddying the water for the liberals.
The Nerk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Locke" |
|
| Title: Re: What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
28 Jul 2004 03:24:26 AM |
|
|
Wow. Pardon me if this comes across the wrong way, but what in the world is
someone who knows how to correctly use big words, let alone who actually
addresses a topic directly rather than taking random personal shots at
public figures, doing on a newsgroup? I'm extremely impressed, and I'd like
to thank you for restoring a shred of my respect for Internet denizens and
members of the general public who follow politics.
If you have anything you'd like to write about, please, submit it to my web
site (www.yellowhat.org). That reply is better than anything I've written
so far, I can't imagine what you could do in an essay.
--
-Locke
Yellowhat.org - Log in. Be heard.
http://www.yellowhat.org/
"Freddy" <freddy_nerk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42b00426.0407272225.302ca1d4@posting.google.com...
"Avanti_Ken" <KMatson-remove-@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<dRzNc.4567$jd.280251@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
"Freddy" <freddy_nerk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42b00426.0407271312.4fb3d6aa@posting.google.com...
"Crazy *****" <crazyodb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<VArNc.14903$PK5.10185@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
"Locke" <Locke@yellowhat.org> wrote in message
news:ce54g8$oa4$1@news.astound.net...
I mean the word 'liberal'.
Liberal = Socialist.
In Australia of course, Liberal = Conservative, Labor = Not quite so
conservative officially but having conservative policies,
Democrat/Green = liberal and nobody at all is socialist in public.
The Nerk
=================
Of course were not talking Australia. Were talking USA Mr. Nerk!
True, but my point was that the OP's assertion was contextually
dependent. Outside of the particularity of the US, the bulk of the
world sees fundamental differences between socialists and liberals.
This in turn raises the question of the OP, which was why "liberal"
was a dirty word in the US.
Plainly, for a variety of reasons, which largely devolve I suspect on
the absence in the US of any national movement espousing socialism in
any recognisable form as a political goal, and the consequent
coralling of some of the more demoralised sections of the natural
constituency of this movement into the more liberal factions of the
Democrats, has muddied the fundamental differences between the two --
to the detriment of both. The liberals have to don conservative
regalia whenever the subject arises, so as not to "alienate" largely
conservative swing voters, which inevitably pushes the putative
"socialists" even further to the right, debauching the notion of
socialism still further by associating it with state control and
re-muddying the water for the liberals.
The Nerk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Freddy" |
|
| Title: Re: What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
29 Jul 2004 01:37:17 AM |
|
|
"Locke" <Locke@yellowhat.org> wrote in message news:<ce7ns1$ele$1@news.astound.net>...
Wow. Pardon me if this comes across the wrong way, but what in the world is
someone who knows how to correctly use big words, let alone who actually
addresses a topic directly rather than taking random personal shots at
public figures, doing on a newsgroup? I'm extremely impressed, and I'd like
to thank you for restoring a shred of my respect for Internet denizens and
members of the general public who follow politics.
If you have anything you'd like to write about, please, submit it to my web
site (www.yellowhat.org). That reply is better than anything I've written
so far, I can't imagine what you could do in an essay.
Thanks for your postive feedback "Locke". I'll keep it in mind. In the
meantime, if you search the google archive for my nick, you'll get a
better idea of where I'm coming from. Looking at your site, I take it
that it's supporting the Kerry candidacy. (I read the Nader article).
I'm from the far left, so anything I would write is unlikely to
benefit Kerry. In fact, it might assist Bush, since it would appeal
rather more to those leftists reluctant to support the Democrat Party.
If you happen to find something you'd like to publsh, you may do so
with my good grace, provided you email me, attribute honestly and
don't slice it so that it appears to mean something else.
All the best
The Nerk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Locke" |
|
| Title: Re: What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
29 Jul 2004 03:59:11 AM |
|
|
Actually, that makes me want something of yours more...I'm trying to get a
lot of opinions, but it's a new site, so all that's there right now are my
own. I want to diversify a bit...ok, I want to diversify a lot.
Ok, so that was some shameless plugging and exposition. But to be fair, you
brought it up.
--
-Locke
Yellowhat.org - Log in. Be heard.
http://www.yellowhat.org/
"Freddy" <freddy_nerk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42b00426.0407282237.42b348f9@posting.google.com...
"Locke" <Locke@yellowhat.org> wrote in message
news:<ce7ns1$ele$1@news.astound.net>...
Wow. Pardon me if this comes across the wrong way, but what in the
world is
someone who knows how to correctly use big words, let alone who actually
addresses a topic directly rather than taking random personal shots at
public figures, doing on a newsgroup? I'm extremely impressed, and I'd
like
to thank you for restoring a shred of my respect for Internet denizens
and
members of the general public who follow politics.
If you have anything you'd like to write about, please, submit it to my
web
site (www.yellowhat.org). That reply is better than anything I've
written
so far, I can't imagine what you could do in an essay.
Thanks for your postive feedback "Locke". I'll keep it in mind. In the
meantime, if you search the google archive for my nick, you'll get a
better idea of where I'm coming from. Looking at your site, I take it
that it's supporting the Kerry candidacy. (I read the Nader article).
I'm from the far left, so anything I would write is unlikely to
benefit Kerry. In fact, it might assist Bush, since it would appeal
rather more to those leftists reluctant to support the Democrat Party.
If you happen to find something you'd like to publsh, you may do so
with my good grace, provided you email me, attribute honestly and
don't slice it so that it appears to mean something else.
All the best
The Nerk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Crazy Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
28 Jul 2004 12:56:06 PM |
|
|
"Freddy" <freddy_nerk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42b00426.0407271312.4fb3d6aa@posting.google.com...
"Crazy *****" <crazyodb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<VArNc.14903$PK5.10185@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
"Locke" <Locke@yellowhat.org> wrote in message
news:ce54g8$oa4$1@news.astound.net...
I mean the word 'liberal'.
Liberal = Socialist.
In Australia of course, Liberal = Conservative, Labor = Not quite so
conservative officially but having conservative policies,
Democrat/Green = liberal and nobody at all is socialist in public.
Maybe so, but the Australian can't own firearms for self-defense and are
therefore SLAVES - so who cares?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Freddy" |
|
| Title: Re: What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
29 Jul 2004 01:44:53 AM |
|
|
"Crazy *****" <crazyodb@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<WMRNc.19346$PK5.12569@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
"Freddy" <freddy_nerk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42b00426.0407271312.4fb3d6aa@posting.google.com...
"Crazy *****" <crazyodb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<VArNc.14903$PK5.10185@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
"Locke" <Locke@yellowhat.org> wrote in message
news:ce54g8$oa4$1@news.astound.net...
I mean the word 'liberal'.
Liberal = Socialist.
In Australia of course, Liberal = Conservative, Labor = Not quite so
conservative officially but having conservative policies,
Democrat/Green = liberal and nobody at all is socialist in public.
Maybe so, but the Australian can't own firearms for self-defense and are
therefore SLAVES - so who cares?
Australians can -- in fact John Tingle, the head of the "Shooters
Party" in NSW (Australia) some years ago was carrying a revolver in
public on the basis of his claim that he needed it.
He successfully steered legislation through the parliament providing
that where a weapon was used (not necessarily a firearm) in
self-defence (or in defence of another) that the test would be whether
at the time the weapon was used the person was entitled to believe
their life was in danger (or that of another). In such cases, no
charge would be laid, even if the death of an attacker resulted.
I don't feel the need to carry a firearm, and can't think of a single
occasion when I might have produced one to advantage. That might
change of course, in which case I would, but for the moment, it's not
necessary.
In all states, one can apply for a firearm if one is of good character
and has a reasonable purpose. (eg sporting, vermin control in rural
area, self-defence, professional etc).
The Nerk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Crazy Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
29 Jul 2004 09:12:41 AM |
|
|
"Freddy" <freddy_nerk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42b00426.0407282244.2177b8e3@posting.google.com...
"Crazy *****" <crazyodb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<WMRNc.19346$PK5.12569@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
"Freddy" <freddy_nerk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42b00426.0407271312.4fb3d6aa@posting.google.com...
"Crazy *****" <crazyodb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<VArNc.14903$PK5.10185@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
"Locke" <Locke@yellowhat.org> wrote in message
news:ce54g8$oa4$1@news.astound.net...
I mean the word 'liberal'.
Liberal = Socialist.
In Australia of course, Liberal = Conservative, Labor = Not quite so
conservative officially but having conservative policies,
Democrat/Green = liberal and nobody at all is socialist in public.
Maybe so, but the Australian can't own firearms for self-defense and are
therefore SLAVES - so who cares?
Australians can -- in fact John Tingle, the head of the "Shooters
Party" in NSW (Australia) some years ago was carrying a revolver in
public on the basis of his claim that he needed it.
He successfully steered legislation through the parliament providing
that where a weapon was used (not necessarily a firearm) in
self-defence (or in defence of another) that the test would be whether
at the time the weapon was used the person was entitled to believe
their life was in danger (or that of another). In such cases, no
charge would be laid, even if the death of an attacker resulted.
I don't feel the need to carry a firearm, and can't think of a single
occasion when I might have produced one to advantage. That might
change of course, in which case I would, but for the moment, it's not
necessary.
In all states, one can apply for a firearm if one is of good character
and has a reasonable purpose. (eg sporting, vermin control in rural
area, self-defence, professional etc).
If you have to beg for permission to own a firearm you're a slave.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dez Akin" |
|
| Title: Re: What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
26 Aug 2004 02:02:41 AM |
|
|
"Crazy *****" <crazyodb@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<tB7Oc.18206> > In all states, one can apply for a firearm if one is of good character
and has a reasonable purpose. (eg sporting, vermin control in rural
area, self-defence, professional etc).
If you have to beg for permission to own a firearm you're a slave.
If you have to wield hyperbole with menace for every thesis, you'll be
dismissed as incompetant, lunatic, or deceptive.
One might very well argue: 'If you have to submit yourself to the
social contract, you are a slave.' Which by your semantic
interpretation of the word 'slave' may be true. Any laws that at all
restrict my freedom make me a slave I suppose, which would come to a
suprise to slaves that have been auctioned off historically:
'Excuse me sir, but I know you have it rough working 18 hour days in
miserable conditions when you aren't being beaten by the master or
watching your sister get raped, but I'll have you know that I too am a
slave, in my four bedroom house with three televisions, a computer and
two cars, because really, I have to obey this silly law regarding
background checks for firearms. Well, I have to go now, fellow
opressed brother in misery.'
While there may be legitimate social/idelogical reasons for individual
firearms, semantic trifles over enslavement of the citizens by the
government in a democracy (I suppose tyranny of the majority?) aren't
the most compelling arguments.
And in todays world of powerful military states, the argument that any
determined government inclined to dabble in facism isn't going to be
the least concerned over several citizens with small arms. They'll
just be eaten by strike teams, tanks, and guided bombs.
I'm not saying that you should give up your crusade, but you should
really reexamine your argument here.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Lodahl" |
|
| Title: Re: What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
14 Aug 2004 06:04:21 PM |
|
|
In article <VArNc.14903$PK5.10185@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
Crazy ***** <crazyodb@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Locke" <Locke@yellowhat.org> wrote in message
news:ce54g8$oa4$1@news.astound.net...
I mean the word 'liberal'.
Liberal = Socialist.
conservative = corporatist = fascist
--
I will fully support my duly elected president in any action he takes to
stop the terrorist killing of innocent people by militant extremists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
14 Aug 2004 09:48:33 PM |
|
|
(Wayne Lodahl) wrote in news:cfm5pl$jeo$1
@eskinews.eskimo.com:
In article <VArNc.14903$PK5.10185@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
Crazy ***** <crazyodb@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Locke" <Locke@yellowhat.org> wrote in message
news:ce54g8$oa4$1@news.astound.net...
I mean the word 'liberal'.
Liberal = Socialist.
conservative = corporatist = fascist
lib·er·al
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox,
or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from
bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress,
and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Tibbs" |
|
| Title: Re: What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
15 Aug 2004 09:06:04 AM |
|
|
Mitchell Holman wrote:
treetaxi@eskimo.com (Wayne Lodahl) wrote in news:cfm5pl$jeo$1
@eskinews.eskimo.com:
In article <VArNc.14903$PK5.10185@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
Crazy ***** <crazyodb@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Locke" <Locke@yellowhat.org> wrote in message
news:ce54g8$oa4$1@news.astound.net...
I mean the word 'liberal'.
Liberal = Socialist.
conservative = corporatist = fascist
lib·er·al
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox,
or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from
bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress,
and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal
Yet none of that describes today's political left wing. There are more
personal restrictions with "political correctness" and ideals such as
quotas for lessor qualified minorities, abortion for birth control,
parental rights taken away for school children, Racial preferences
fomenting racial division, and so on and on and on.
jt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
15 Aug 2004 11:06:19 AM |
|
|
John Tibbs <jwtibbs@earthlink.net> wrote in news:411F6DBD.4030604
@earthlink.net:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
treetaxi@eskimo.com (Wayne Lodahl) wrote in news:cfm5pl$jeo$1
@eskinews.eskimo.com:
In article <VArNc.14903$PK5.10185@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
Crazy ***** <crazyodb@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Locke" <Locke@yellowhat.org> wrote in message
news:ce54g8$oa4$1@news.astound.net...
I mean the word 'liberal'.
Liberal = Socialist.
conservative = corporatist = fascist
lib·er·al
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox,
or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from
bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress,
and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal
Yet none of that describes today's political left wing.
Actually, all of it does. Who is for exploring
new paths in stem cell research, and who is against
it? Which ex-president is building homes for the poor
and which are sitting by the golf course drinking
martinis? Who made the largest charitable donation
in history? Who is for reducing drug prices and
who is for subsidizing them?
There are more
personal restrictions with "political correctness" and ideals such as
quotas for lessor qualified minorities,abortion for birth control,
parental rights taken away for school children, Racial preferences
fomenting racial division, and so on and on and on.
Take up your objections to those with Colin
Powell. And the GOP-dominated Supreme Courts that
created them.
Mitchell Holman
"You all know that I believe in a woman’s right
to choose and I strongly support affirmative action."
Colin Powell, Aug 12, 1996
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
27 Jul 2004 09:14:27 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 12:08:21 GMT, "Crazy *****" <crazyodb@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Locke" <Locke@yellowhat.org> wrote in message
news:ce54g8$oa4$1@news.astound.net...
I mean the word 'liberal'.
Liberal = Socialist.
Classical Liberalism = Libertarian
Welfare Liberalism = Statism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'That ideological base (Kyoto) can be juxtaposed and compared with
man-hating totalitarian ideology with which we had the bad fortune to
deal during the 20th century, such as National Socialism, Marxism,
Eugenics, Lysenkoism and so on. All methods of distorting information
existing in the world have been committed to prove the alleged validity
of these theories. Misinformation, falsification, fabrication, mythology,
propaganda. Because what is offered cannot be qualified in any other way
than myth, nonsense and absurdity.' - Andrei Illarionov Russian Economist
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Avanti_Ken" |
|
| Title: Re: What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
27 Jul 2004 09:01:42 AM |
|
|
Liberal = bad in many minds. Progressive = good in many minds.
Meaning of Liberal and Progressive --- Exactly the Same -- Nyet Difference!
Socialist = Same as Liberal and Progressive.
That is why the word Liberal is not used much. Liberal = Socialist in many
folks minds.
It will take a while but people are starting to understand that Progressive
also means Socialist Liberal.
+++++++++++++++++=
Now there is not anything wrong in saying your a Liberal or Progressive or
Socialist.
I feel your pain, yes I do....
--
Avanti_Ken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich" |
|
| Title: Re: What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
27 Jul 2004 08:53:46 AM |
|
|
The label "liberal" is the kiss of political death. That's all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Crazy Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: What's so bad about admiting you're liberal? |
28 Jul 2004 12:57:15 PM |
|
|
"Rich" <Rich@anon.com> wrote in message
news:ULWdncspOPHww5vcRVn-hA@speakeasy.net...
The label "liberal" is the kiss of political death. That's all.
Blow one Kerry's way then...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
