Are you one?

[Guest]

With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, you just might be a liberal if...

* You're sure the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to abortion and gay marriage, but not the right to own a handgun.

* You think Dan Quayle is the dumbest Vice-President we ever had because he believed a flash card that misspelled "potato," but think Obama is a genius despite the fact he believes we have more than 57 states.

* You'd be more upset about your favorite candidate being endorsed by the NRA than the Communist Party.

* You think the same criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime will just hand them over to comply with the law if guns are made illegal.

* You know that 86% of all income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners and you still feel that the rich "aren't paying their fair share of the taxes."

* You put a higher priority on oil pipelines possibly inconveniencing a few caribou than you do on lowering the price of gas for everyone in the country by drilling ANWR.

* You're worried that Osama Bin Laden might not get a fair trial if we capture him, but want George Bush thrown in prison for being too zealous in protecting us from Al-Qaeda.

* You get infuriated when you hear about the CEO of a Fortune 500 company making tens of millions of dollars, but don't see a problem with an actor, basketball player, or trial lawyer making the same amount.

* You're constantly seeing subtle, coded racism in campaign ads, but see nothing racist about blacks being promoted over more qualified white applicants because of Affirmative Action.

* You think it's obscene that oil companies are allowed to make 8.3 cents per gallon in profit with gas prices this high, but would never suggest cutting the 13 cents per gallon they pay on taxes to reduce the price of gas.

* You think George Bush is a chickenhawk because he wanted to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan despite the fact that he only served in the National Guard, but you don't think the same about Barack Obama, who has never served in the military and probably couldn't find either country on a map without help.

* You think protesting outside of abortion clinics is extremism and should be illegal, but carrying around giant puppet heads while wearing a t-shirt that compares Bush to Hitler is just exercising your First Amendment rights.

* You think the case for global warming is proven without a shadow of a doubt, but that we need another century or two worth of evidence to figure out if capitalism and free markets work better than socialism.

* You believe the best way to fix the government screwing something up in the market is with...drumroll, please...more government intervention.

* You think the first thing we should have done when Russia invaded Georgia was to take the matter to the United Nations, where Russia sits on the UN Security Council.

* You spend your days criticizing the use of private jets, SUVS, and luxurious houses that consume enormous amounts of resources and then ride in an SUV to the airport, get on your private plane, and fly home to your luxurious house.

* You have more nice things to say about countries like Cuba and France than you do about your own country.

* You think the war in Iraq is unwinnable, but victory in the war on poverty is going to happen any day now if we can just get the Democrats back in charge.

* You won't even support English as our national language, but can't seem to understand why people worry about tens of millions of illegal aliens changing our culture.

* You think censorship is absolutely wrong; except when it's applied to conservatives on college campuses or on talk radio via the fairness doctrine.

* You get more upset about an American soldier accidentally killing a civilian than you do about a terrorist deliberately blowing up a school bus full of kids.

* You think Fox News is hopelessly biased to the right, but MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS call it right down the middle.

* You think the real hero of the Cold War was Mikhail Gorbachev.

* You couldn't care less about what Americans in states like Kansas or Virginia think of you, but you would be greatly upset if a Frenchman gave you a dirty look because you're an American.

* You think kids in public schools should have to watch Earth in the Balance and read Heather Has Two Mommies, but no piece of literature with the word "Jesus" on it should be allowed within a hundred yards of a school.
;D

[Guest]

You could add:

* You think the Electoral College should be abolished and the President be elected by a national popular vote, but okay for your party at its national convention to count delegate votes from Florida and Michigan at only 1/2 vote per delegate as compared with delegates from other states.

[Guest]

SIB & STEVE - I THINK YOU HAVE NAILED IT. GREAT!!!!!! :bigthumbsup:

[Guest]

Well, I could take each and every point apart but I doubt you guys would believe it. If liberals believed half the garbage written above, they would be pretty stupid and I honestly don't know any stupid liberals -- it usually takes some thought and effort to say no. And please quit confusing Democrats with liberals. Some liberals are Democrats. Most of us are independents and are as likely to vote for a Republican candidate as a Democrat.

JFK gave a good definition of a liberal Democrat: http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html

The American Heritage Dictionary defines liberal as: "1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States."

To me, it is a willingness to listen to all sides, respect the rights of individuals, not be willing to have my mind made up by the prejudices of others but rather by what I can verify.

BTW -- I'll defend your right to protest outside of an abortion clinic even though I totally disagree with you and so on and so forth.

Aren't you guys glad we liberals aren't as willing to bash and insult you conservatives as you are we liberals?

[Guest]

To me, it is a willingness to listen to all sides, respect the rights of individuals, not be willing to have my mind made up by the prejudices of others but rather by what I can verify.

BTW -- I'll defend your right to protest outside of an abortion clinic even though I totally disagree with you and so on and so forth.

Aren't you guys glad we liberals aren't as willing to bash and insult you conservatives as you are we liberals?
__________________________________________________ ____

To the first part of the above...your definition of a liberal...being "willingness to listen to all sides, respect the rights of individuals, not be willing to have my mind made up by the prejudices of others but rather by what I can verify." I agree that is USED to be that way awhile back....actually President Clinton was somewhat close to that, HOWEVER..AND CHECK IT OUT..FACTS....The party was HIJACKED in the 70's by the liberal wing...the Jessie Jackson's....the MOVEON's....the ACLU. THAT is when I left the party as they were and continue to sell out to the poor, etc for one thing...VOTES.
The Democratic party is now owned by the liberal wing.

To your other point "Aren't you guys glad we liberals aren't as willing to bash and insult you conservatives as you are we liberals?". You evidently have selected reading and listening habits. The media is constantly bashing conservatives...actually heard two Dem pundits on CNN actually not discussing issue but MAKING FUN OF RONALD REAGAN...calling all conservatives rich bible thumpers. While I think the bashing goes BOTH WAYS I cannot allow you to make this claim because it is not close to true !

[Guest]

Bucco, I was specifically referring to TOTVers. There have been a few threads with the dumb jokes about liberals. Sorry, but I'm sick of them.

I think most true liberals stepped away from the Democratic party a long time ago. I see little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats -- they both spend our money with little regard to what is really wanted or needed. All they are are a bunch of political hacks. I vote to what I think is best for the country at this time. So do my liberal friends.

[Guest]

Bucco, I was specifically referring to TOTVers. There have been a few threads with the dumb jokes about liberals. Sorry, but I'm sick of them.

I think most true liberals stepped away from the Democratic party a long time ago. I see little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats -- they both spend our money with little regard to what is really wanted or needed. All they are are a bunch of political hacks. I vote to what I think is best for the country at this time. So do my liberal friends.
__________________________________________________ ____________

I NEVER make jokes about Liberals....note that I have not once chimed in on any of those types of posts (and I like to talk politics :)

I agree that both parties are at fault...TOTALLY AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

I will however defend totally that the Democratic party has been taken over by their EXTREMEST LEFT WING. Just read the leaders and the money....extreme liberals.

[Guest]

Bucco, I thnk you're missing my point. As you've said, you have not made these type of posts. Others have and then others quickly chime in agreeing with them. My point was and is that they are not correct. As I've said, I am a liberal and proud of it.

Without liberals, there would have been no America since it was our liberal forefathers (especially Messrs. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, et al.) who created this country. There would still be slavery, child labor, women would not have the vote, etc. if liberals had not spoken up and fought against these atrocities. We would probably still be fighting in Vietnam. There would be no social security. And these are only some of the things that have occurred because of liberals.

Yes, liberals can and do go to extremes at times. So do conservatives. The difference is that the liberals I know respect conservatives' rights to say what they believe. We'll even fight and march for that right. Here, the implication is that liberals are basically stupid (see comments like, "You think the case for global warming is proven without a shadow of a doubt, but that we need another century or two worth of evidence to figure out if capitalism and free markets work better than socialism") or misguided.

This is not the first of these type of threads that have been created here and I doubt it will be the last.

This has nothing to do with the Democrats or the left wing. This has to do with insulting people because they dare think or act differently from you. Tarring an entire group because of a radical contingent is wrong. If these type of "jokes" were directed at an ethnic group, most of you would be up in arms rather than saying that you agree and that "you have nailed it."

It is posts like this that got me to leave the political forum. It quit being enjoyable or a place to learn. It became a place to attack with no basis, no foundation, no facts -- just innuendo.

[Guest]

I think I get your point and I think we have a general agreement here. Neither of us like the generalization and labeling that goes on, either liberal or conservative or whatever.

I read them and only respond within the thread if something is said. The internet is a blessing and a curse at the same time. So much gargage out there to copy and paste !
So many websites to validate any extreme viewpoint.

[Guest]

I considered myself to be a liberal for many years however since these bunch of crazies got control of the party I have had to change my position. Anything taken to an extreme is not good either on the left or the right.

Usually when I sit down and talk to someone right of my postion we can usually agree on some points. But to do that you have to listen.

I do favor some type of gun control mostly because of the number of women killed by their husbands, boyfriends and or lovers... I don't believe the framers would have ever thought of an AK47 or Cop Killer bullets. I think the guy in Texas who went out a shot to guys in the back running away from a botched robbery at a neighbors house should be put to trial for murder or at least manslaughter.

Lets talk

[Guest]

Do you think if the 80 year old husband and wife came back home from shopping and walked in on that so called botched robbery; that they would be alive today. They would have been DEAD. The neighbor yelled stop or I'll shoot, they didn't stop and he shot.

[Guest]

But you really DONT know that cause the neighbor took the law into his own hands.

Let me tell you a true story...I was driving down the street by my house and came across a guy throwing rocks at a dog. I stopped my car got out and asked the guy to stop. He said...well I won't post that. I turned to get in my car looked back and he had pulled a gun out of his fanny pack. Turned out he didn't have a permit for the gun nor to carry concealed. I following him home and reported him to the police.

I could have been shot for asking some to treat animals humanely.

Trust me it is very hard to agree with the NRA when something like this happens.

Of course the police said it was a very brave thing that I did, but to never do it again.

[Guest]

Do you think if the 80 year old husband and wife came back home from shopping and walked in on that so called botched robbery; that they would be alive today. They would have been DEAD. The neighbor yelled stop or I'll shoot, they didn't stop and he shot.


They were running. They had dropped the items they were going to steal. They were in the neighbors' yard. They were shot in the back (which I thought was a no-no by Texas code of ethics). How was this guy even remotely in danger? Sorry, sounds like cold-blooded murder to me regardless of what a Texas grand jury calls it.

[Guest]

RW, they were criminals. If they didn't kill someone this time they may have the next. They were not teenagers they were grown men. The way I see it, two less criminals on the street to worry about. Maybe a message was sent to other criminals. That is the operative word RW, criminals.

[Guest]

They were running. They had dropped the items they were going to steal. They were in the neighbors' yard. They were shot in the back (which I thought was a no-no by Texas code of ethics). How was this guy even remotely in danger? Sorry, sounds like cold-blooded murder to me regardless of what a Texas grand jury calls it.


They will NOT rob anymore, will they!!!

[Guest]

And it was still murder. The man had called 911. 911 had told him not to shoot.

Yes, they had broken the law but I'm sorry. You will never convince me that property is worth a human life and that goes from both sides of the coin. You want to rob a place? I hope you get caught and spend some time in prison. You don't need to kill the owners to do that. They want to take your or your neighbors' stuff? Let them. It's STUFF! It certainly isn't worth the loss of life.

You don't know if these guys would have robbed again. Yes, the odds are likely but who knows? They could have found God tomorrow and never robbed again. We'll never know if these could have become good and honorable men. We do know they are dead and that some guy killed them because he could. Where does that make him much different than the thieves? They both robbed -- two a home, one two lives. Sorry, doesn't balance out in my mind.

Anyway, this is a debate that could go on forever and none of us will be convinced. You think that murder is right in protecting a neighbor's home that is unoccupied and there was no immediate danger to anyone. I think it was cold-blooded murder and should have been punished. Shall we agree to disagree?

[Guest]

Well said RedWitch...couldn't have said it better.

[Guest]

No we shall not agree. The man was found innocent by Grand Jury. That does not make him a murderer as you put it. Am I right or wrong?

rjrex's statement was simply put and so very true.

[Guest]

But the Fed Man commeth....

We shall see.

[Guest]

No we shall not agree. The man was found innocent by Grand Jury. That does not make him a murderer as you put it. Am I right or wrong?

rjrex's statement was simply put and so very true.



There are differences in being "innocent" and "not guilty" and "no probable cause to return an indictment." The latter is what a grand jury returns if there is no indictment. As there is no "double jeopardy" involved in "no indictment retured," nothing stops a prosecutor from trying again if more/other evidence refreshes the case.

Grand juries are unique, in that members cannot be challenged for bias, etc. and replaced. They are who they are, and indeed mirror the attitudes and mores of the community.

Grand jury proceedings are also secret. No matter what, the only persons who know what really was presented to the grand jury are the jury members themselves, the prosecutor and judicial staff working the case. So, there's probably a LOT more to this particular case than ever made it into the press.

[Guest]

So, there's probably a LOT more to this particular case than ever made it into the press.


Steve care to share some of your thoughts....

[Guest]

Police initially identified the dead men in Horn's yard as 38-year-old Miguel Antonio DeJesus and Diego Ortiz, 30, both of Houston of Afro Latino descent. However, DeJesus was actually an alias of Hernando Riascos Torres. They were carrying a sack with more than $2,000 cash and jewelry taken from the home. Both were convicted criminals from Colombia who had entered the country illegally, and were members of an organized burglary ring in Houston. Police found a Puerto Rican identification card on Ortiz while Torres had three identification cards from Colombia, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic, and had been previously sent to prison for dealing cocaine and was deported in 1999.

Steve I read up on this story and it sounds to me that these guys got what they deserved. Their past history is enough to make you cringe. RW made them sound like two misguided youth's. Also, testimony revealed one of the men ran toward Joe Horn and both were on his property during the escapade. He then ordered stop and finally shot.

[Guest]

No, I didn't say nor imply they were misguided youths. I certainly knew better than that. They were robbing a home. They were fleeing. Did that mean that they couldn't in the future turn their lives around? It has been known to happen.

Unless the news articles have changed, neither man was on the killer's property and they had dropped the bags when threatened by him. And, I'm sorry, but if you shoot two men in the back, you tell me where the threat is to you. They were fleeing -- plain and simple.

Yes, the grand jury found the neighbor not guilty of any charges. I'm sure in most communities that would not have been the case unless a lot of facts (like he was being threatened) were hidden from the public at large. Our justice system is not perfect. Innocent people have been convicted and sentenced to prison and even put to death. Guilty people have been decided to be not guilty -- sometimes in a trial, sometimes by decisions made by others, sometimes by error. Telling me that two people are shot in the back for having stolen property makes it murder to me. Unless you can show me that these men were in fact threatening the neighbors, the man who did the shooting, the little old lady from Pasadena, someone, you're not going to convince me otherwise. And I doubt anything I can say will convince you that this man is other than a hero.

That's why I asked if we could agree to disagree. You said no. I'll hold out my hand again. Is this subject really worth the debate?

[Guest]

Well, I could take each and every point apart but I doubt you guys would believe it. If liberals believed half the garbage written above, they would be pretty stupid and I honestly don't know any stupid liberals -- it usually takes some thought and effort to say no. And please quit confusing Democrats with liberals. Some liberals are Democrats. Most of us are independents and are as likely to vote for a Republican candidate as a Democrat.

JFK gave a good definition of a liberal Democrat: http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html

The American Heritage Dictionary defines liberal as: "1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States."

To me, it is a willingness to listen to all sides, respect the rights of individuals, not be willing to have my mind made up by the prejudices of others but rather by what I can verify.

BTW -- I'll defend your right to protest outside of an abortion clinic even though I totally disagree with you and so on and so forth.

Aren't you guys glad we liberals aren't as willing to bash and insult you conservatives as you are we liberals?



NOW YOU ARE TALKIN RED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

* You think kids in public schools should have to watch Earth in the Balance and read Heather Has Two Mommies, but no piece of literature with the word "Jesus" on it should be allowed within a hundred yards of a school.
;D


Perhaps having children watch Earth in the Balance and not allow the name Jesus on school grounds can be compared to one another.....or debated.....but adding the comment about some book about Two Mommies has nothing to do with either one....

Let me tell you that Heather is probably better off with two mommies...

[Guest]

A plain clothes police detective responding to the 911 call had arrived at the scene before the shooting and witnessed the escalation and shootings, while remaining in his car. His report on the incident indicated that the men who were killed "received gunfire from the rear". Police Capt. A.H. Corbett stated the two men ignored Mr. Horn's order to freeze and one of the suspects ran towards Joe Horn before he angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back. Pasadena police confirmed that the two men were shot after they ventured into his front yard. The detective did not arrest Horn.

RW, do you still want to disagree???

[Guest]

You're coming up with facts I have not heard. According to the reports for the at least the first week of this incident, the men were shot in the back. Horn was on the phone to 911 who told him to not shoot. There was no mention of police being on the scene -- supposedly, they arrived after. There was no mention of either of the men coming towards Horn -- the exact opposite as a matter of fact. Sorry, but I don't buy the change in stories. It sounds like someone condoned Horn's actions and covered them up. Might make it more palatable to the grand jury but you'd have a hard time convincng me that facts would change that drastically from the initial news reports and then from the follow-up reports of a week or so later (which meant reporters did have a chance to get the facts).

If a police officer was there, why didn't he shoot or take some sort of action? And why didn't he at least bring Horn in? And why did initial news reports say Horn had in fact been arrested?

And since when is any property more important than human life? Granted, these were two bad guys but Horn had no idea if they were two men tryng to feed a starving family or two kids being stupid. So, yes, it was and is and will always be murder to me. The only way it wouldn't be is if you could convince me that Horn was truly in danger and I doubt that's possible.