What is a self-defined Liberal?

[Guest]

.... if by a "Liberal" (they) mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

- John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960

How the right would LIKE to define us...

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then … we are not that kind of "Liberal."

- John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960

[Guest]

Liberals want larger Government More Government jobs, fewer private sector jobs and confusingly more taxes on the producers to give things to the non-producers.

[Guest]

It seems to me that conservatives have convinced themselves and some of the american public that being a liberal is like being a communist. I disagree. To be a liberal is to define the liberty of all people. Thjat's where the word comes from. To be a liberal is to trust individuals and fanilies to run their lives as they see fit. To be a liberal is to create a nation where anyone can excel if they are willing to work. Liberals get their label by standing for liberty. Consevatives get their label from a desire to conserve a style of living.

[Guest]

Of course there are always exceptions, but IMO, a liberal doesn't really stand for much of anything. Nothing is ever black and white, only shades of gray.

They generally put feelings above fact or reality. If it sounds good and makes them feel good, the actual outcome or consequence doesn't really matter.

Liberals generally put their faith in government for solutions and fail to realize that most of the problems are created by government.

Rugged individualism, self reliance and personal responsibly is somewhat of a foreign concept... or even considered mean spirited by some. They preach tolerance but are generally intolerant to beliefs other than theirs. Political correctness is the rule of the day.

They generally believe that money earned belongs to the government and should be distributed by the government. The more you earn the more that should be taken. They generally believe that government knows best on how to spend our money.

Just my opinion.

[Guest]

...Rugged individualism, self reliance and personal responsibly is somewhat of a foreign concept... or even considered mean spirited by some. So which of the two "conservative" candidates for the U.S. House meets this description? The one guy that sneaked into the candidacy using subterfuge? He hasn't said much and seems only to have experience chasing perps in a rural Florida county.

Or the other guy who has no particular positions on any of the major problems facing the country? So far at least his complete campaign platform is that he is a staunch supporter of the Constitution as well as state's rights. Somehow that doesn't light my fire for my representative in the House who has to deal with a myriad of security, fiscal and social issues that he seems to know little about.

Or is it possible that a candidate from the "other" party might satisfy the description better? Geez, I'd hope someone is more qualified than the first two.

.... if by a "Liberal" (they) mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

- John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960
If I could find a candidate that met this description, I'd vote for him/her in a nanosecond. I wouldn't care what party he was from.

[Guest]

Of course there are always exceptions, but IMO, a liberal doesn't really stand for much of anything. Nothing is ever black and white, only shades of gray.

They generally put feelings above fact or reality. If it sounds good and makes them feel good, the actual outcome or consequence doesn't really matter.

Liberals generally put their faith in government for solutions and fail to realize that most of the problems are created by government.

Rugged individualism, self reliance and personal responsibly is somewhat of a foreign concept... or even considered mean spirited by some. They preach tolerance but are generally intolerant to beliefs other than theirs. Political correctness is the rule of the day.

They generally believe that money earned belongs to the government and should be distributed by the government. The more you earn the more that should be taken. They generally believe that government knows best on how to spend our money.

Just my opinion.

You quote the standard party line and sound bites quite well, unfortunately it's not based on reality.

[Guest]

Of course there are always exceptions, but IMO, a liberal doesn't really stand for much of anything. Nothing is ever black and white, only shades of gray.

They generally put feelings above fact or reality. If it sounds good and makes them feel good, the actual outcome or consequence doesn't really matter.

Liberals generally put their faith in government for solutions and fail to realize that most of the problems are created by government.

Rugged individualism, self reliance and personal responsibly is somewhat of a foreign concept... or even considered mean spirited by some. They preach tolerance but are generally intolerant to beliefs other than theirs. Political correctness is the rule of the day.

They generally believe that money earned belongs to the government and should be distributed by the government. The more you earn the more that should be taken. They generally believe that government knows best on how to spend our money.

Just my opinion.

I agree. I also believe that if Kennedy was alive today he would be appalled at what happened to the democrat party. I believe that Kennedy would be a Tea Party kind of guy. :throwtomatoes:

[Guest]

Actually it is based in reality. But it is a reality that few liberals really understand or would even admit to if they did.

There are many many examples to illustrate exactly what I said.

[Guest]

This is an old definition of the difference between a Liberal and and a conservative:

A liberal and a Conservative were walking down the street and saw a homeless man.

The Conservative gave him his card and asked him to come to his offiice to apply for a job. He then reached into his pocket and gave the Homeless man 20 dollars.

The Liberal gave him the address to the Welfare Office then reached into the Consevative's pocket and gave the Homeless man 50 dollars.

[Guest]

hehe.

[Guest]

Someone tell me where rugged individualism, self reliance and personal responsibly fits into the liberal ideology?

Also tell me where limited government, pro private sector fits into the liberal ideology?

[Guest]

Someone tell me where rugged individualism, self reliance and personal responsibly fits into the liberal ideology?

Also tell me where limited government, pro private sector fits into the liberal ideology?

Were you asking this question while happily living on Social Security and Medicare. Or was it while you were driving on nicely paved highways with traffic lights to avoid accidents? Perhaps it was while you were drinking a glass of water that was clean to your government's standards. Or taking your medicine that is regulated by your FDA. Perhaps it was eating a burger that was not full of rancid meat and rat droppings, or maybe while you were safe in your home becasue your fire and police and the U.S. Military are watching over you for your safety.

Maybe you prefer that your airline pilot is a rugged individualist. Who needs federal standards for a license, or inspectors to make sure that a planes' mechanics are safe to fly? Who needs to control the patterns of thousands of planes in the sky? Rugged individualists should should just push on through and take-off and land whenever and wherever they want, shouldn't they?

Maybe you were just coming back from the VA, where your health benefits, for better or worse, are supplied by your government, while millions of your school children are given the best education in the world (America is #1 isn't it? Isn't that what you keep saying?)

You see, you are throwing out the position that "rugged individualism" is something that only the repub party has, or that somehow that's a magic definition of "providing for the common good" is your standard- and one, if you are living in The Villages, you have COMPLETELY given up for the privileges you receive through your amenity fees. Rugged individualists don't eat at restaurants, or golf in foursomes, clog, or take "tours" of foriegn countries. Rugged individualists don't take cruises!!!. Rugged individualists don't join in commmunity activities like churches, block parties or Relays for Life. Rugged individualists do not have their money stashed in government regulated IRA'S or retirement plans, they keep their money under the bed.

I'll toss it back to you.. Without the sound bites..Just what is "Rugged Individualism" in a civilized society? BTW, I have hiked the Sierra Madres, Appalachians and the Rockies, and am an Eagle Scout. I have been to the jungles of the Amazon and the markets of exotic Morocco. Never with a tour group. Rugged enough for ya? You betcha!

[Guest]

No one said we wanted to go back to the caveman lifestyle. Government has it's uses. Problem is that democrats are turning it into the nanny state. Democrats have turned millions of people to depend on monthly checks instead of being independent. How is Johnson's war on poverty working out for us?
Government is getting huge. We cannot continue on this course. Too many on the wagon and too few pulling the wagon. Democrats have been passing "gimme Bills" to buy votes for too many years.
Unions and Democrats have brought our system to it's knees. It has wrecked our automobile industry and now the government employees lavish paychecks and pensions are destroying us. Look to Greece and see our future.

Maybe after the democrats crash our system, we all will be "rugged individuals" as we will have no choice. It might be sink or swim time!!!!

[Guest]

Actually I don’t live in the villages, I don’t golf, never been on a cruise, I don’t have any money stashed in government IRA’s, I’m not on social security, Medicare, VA or any other government program and never have been.

I’ll most likely be working all of my life... that I am able. What I have used or may use in the future I paid into out of my paychecks all my life. Had I the ability to choose, I would have gladly opted out and fended for myself.

Your examples are disingenuous at best. The government does have a role, that’s why the constitution was written. Liberals and their entitlement mentality seem to have forgotten what the government’s role really is.

Your perception of rugged individualism is so far off the mark it proves my point perfectly. Liberals don’t really get it. But the rest of your post is telling. Government, government, government, government, government and more government.

[Guest]

Someone tell me where rugged individualism, self reliance and personal responsibly fits into the liberal ideology?...I suppose there are lots more examples, but how about Harry S. Truman? He was a Democrat...a liberal, if you will.

[Guest]

I suppose there are lots more examples, but how about Harry S. Truman? He was a Democrat...a liberal, if you will.

Give us a break. Definitions change over time. Democrats were once somewhat conservative, until they discovered that giving money away buys votes!!!

[Guest]

I suppose there are lots more examples, but how about Harry S. Truman? He was a Democrat...a liberal, if you will.


I swore I would never come back here but I cannot allow you to get away with this remark !!!

To compare the Democratic party of Harry Truman to this democratic party is an outrage...no, better said...an OUTRAGE !!!!

I was a loyal hardworking member of the Democratic party until the early 70's when the incidious growth within the party of those who were more interested in VOTES than anything and everything.

Then, at the turn of this century the party was bought and paid for by the progressive wing of the party and if you want,will supply the facts already listed on this forum many times ! Just google folks like Soros !

This is NOT the democratic party of which I was a proud and very hard working member...it is not even close.

The Republican party, as well has swung to far to the right, but not even close to the way the Democratic party has swung left. Those who are getting press from the far right have NO..NO...say in Republican affairs, however on the other hand, those hard left progressives are running the current Democratic party !

I can recall in the early 70's being told by a high ranking Democratic official in Pennsylvania that the emphasis will be on getting the minority vote and that "we" will promise them everything and anything to get that vote. Whether what is promised can be done or is the right thing is not up for discussion !

[Guest]

:agree: But I want to add one thing. The Republicans have not gone too far to the right. It only looks like it has compared to the Progressives. Remember how much spending the party did when Bush had the congress. There is no way in heck that would have happened if there was someone in there that was like Reagan. Bush caved in on immigration and spending. Bush was no real conservative.

[Guest]

...This is NOT the democratic party of which I was a proud and very hard working member...it is not even close....Bucco, you know where I stand on things. I'm the last one who will defend this Democratic party. (I won't defend the Republicans either, by the way.)

But Harry Truman was FDR's Vice President. Is there a huge difference between what has occurred in this administration compared to FDR? Both were coming off a depression, both had high unemployment. Lots of similar problems. About all FDR didn't have was a war or two to contend with--that and having terrorists trying to kill Americans in their homeland if possible.

But are all the "government intrusions" into people's lives all that different between FDR and BO? Both Democrats, separated only by about 75 years. I'm not challenging your memory, Bucco, but I thinlk it can be demonstrated that the Democrats of old aren't all that different than today.

One exception--like the Republicans, the Democrats also have a "wingnut faction" as far to the left as the GOP wingnuts are to the right. Maybe the wingnuts were there back in the 1930's as well, but I don't recall reading about them.

[Guest]

Bucco, you know where I stand on things. I'm the last one who will defend this Democratic party. (I won't defend the Republicans either, by the way.)

But Harry Truman was FDR's Vice President. Is there a huge difference between what has occurred in this administration compared to FDR? Both were coming off a depression, both had high unemployment. Lots of similar problems. About all FDR didn't have was a war or two to contend with--that and having terrorists trying to kill Americans in their homeland if possible.

But are all the "government intrusions" into people's lives all that different between FDR and BO? Both Democrats, separated only by about 75 years. I'm not challenging your memory, Bucco, but I thinlk it can be demonstrated that the Democrats of old aren't all that different than today.

One exception--like the Republicans, the Democrats also have a "wingnut faction" as far to the left as the GOP wingnuts are to the right. Maybe the wingnuts were there back in the 1930's as well, but I don't recall reading about them.


I am sure that you know this, but basically every program that FDR enacted, with the exception of Social Security has been overturned !!!!

Listen, I agree..both parties have the wingnut faction, but starting in 2000 this party has been overtaken by the far left...will not call them wingnut because I am not into labels or name calling....HOWEVER, this party is "owned" right now by the unions and those who lean VERY far left. If you really read about the folks in the background of this party...those who pushed Obama to where he is....it is shocking.

Now, this is NOT a defense of the Republican party....they, as you say, both have their segments. Difference is the far left has been SUCCESFULL in taking over control of thier party....the far right makes noise but controls nothing at this point within the Republican party.

Listen, this is my opinion, but as I told you during the campaign I have really spent time reading about the rise of this faction in the party the last 10 years and the evidence to me is overwhelming about the idealogy that is controlling this White House.

I think it may have been you who brought up the right wing "neo conservative" groups that had much too much input in the early Bush years but they fizzled out quickly...this progressive group in the Democratic party is so well funded and so strong there is little to no chance of them being moved out unless the voters send a clear message.

We need both parties back to the middle and quickly.

By the way, if my history memory serves me...FDR brought out his own type of "tea ******" movement and again...all but Social Security have been turned over. There may be a few financial controls that he set up still around, but the point is...FDR caused the same stir !

The world is a different place...while money was important then, it is more now...the world is "smaller"....FDR held out in getting involved in what was happening in the world until Pearl Harbor and probably made WW2 last much longer at more severe loss of life, but that is for historians to debate. Point is, you cannot ignore these things today !


Point is....to me,anyway, this current Democratic party is controlled by the extreme far left, albeit a much smoother and sly faction, and that is very dangerous to this country. Neo conservative could also be as dangerous but simply consider a President and congress who facing serious and back breaking deficits would pass a financial mess like the health care bill which does not even do what they said....address costs...and was totally opposed by the american citizens and despite what they have said, it is more opposed the more the american public knows. Add that to the fact that is was done with backroom deals, secret pacts, payoffs, etc, and you can see the danger.

[Guest]

Were you asking this question while happily living on Social Security and Medicare. Or was it while you were driving on nicely paved highways with traffic lights to avoid accidents? Perhaps it was while you were drinking a glass of water that was clean to your government's standards. Or taking your medicine that is regulated by your FDA. Perhaps it was eating a burger that was not full of rancid meat and rat droppings, or maybe while you were safe in your home becasue your fire and police and the U.S. Military are watching over you for your safety.

!

So far as I know, no-one on this board was given the option to not pay into Social Security and save that portion of their income. Social Security was conceived as an inter-generational Ponzi scheme with each following generation paying for the ones before it. As any Ponzi scheme goes broke when the number of suckers willing to jump in can no longer support the outflow. This has now happened to Social Security and benefit cuts are coming. My children know that they will never receive a dime from Social Security. By the time they would become age eligible, the 'means testing' will eliminate them. Medicare is in similar straits. Let's stop this BS and start discussing with some concept of reality.

[Guest]

Let's stop this BS and start discussing with some concept of reality.

I guess we can only use your concept of reality, huh? Everyone else's is invalid.

I notice you completely ignored the bulk of my post which was about the public services we receive from our government- the same services that make the U.S. "The #1 country in the world."

[Guest]

...We need both parties back to the middle and quickly....Right on, Bucco!

About the only time I'm seen some cooperation between the parties recently, compromise if you will, seems to be what's going on right now on the financial regulatory reform bill negotiations. From what I've read, the POTUS is involved and there is a clear but behind the scenes give and take in a joint effort to get a bill that can be passed by both the GOP and the Democrats, with support from the President. Maybe even more encouraging--if I'm interpreting what I read correctly--both sides seem to be stiff-arming the entreaties of the lobbyists for the banks. Congress seems to be refusing every effort by the special interests to gut the bill being negotiated. It's not done until it's done, but I'm hopeful on this one.

The question I have regarding a similar situation is: why couldn't such negotiation and compromise have happened on the healthcare bill? The problem facing the nation was at least as critical. Virtually everyone agreed that something needed to be done. But what was passed was a Rube Goldberg bill, heavily influenced by virtually every healthcare lobby that there was, which produced a bill which had only limited "reforms" and will have to be fixed--many times probably--by future Congresses.

What happened between the passing of the healthcare bill and what seems to be happening now on financial regulatory reform?

[Guest]

I guess we can only use your concept of reality, huh? Everyone else's is invalid.

I notice you completely ignored the bulk of my post which was about the public services we receive from our government- the same services that make the U.S. "The #1 country in the world."

PTown, I did not bother to respond to them since these are largely the services and protection required by the US Constitution. Apparently you are unfamiliar with that document, but I sincerely recommend it to you.

Why I primarily addressed Social Security and Medicare is that they are two programs that 'liberals', such as yourself use to justify bigger and bigger government and attack those who disagree. These programs are crumbling as I write this. This is failed liberalism.

The current liberal government of the United States is not looking forward, but rather marching backwards to the time of the New Deal. Government stimulus was tried then for 12 years and it did not work then and is not working now. As VK has pointed out, the Obama administration is doing its best to copy Greece with unsustainable welfare programs and deficits. Greece is going down and may well take the rest of the EU with it. Why should we choose to emulate a failed solution?

Go to your union towns, I suggest Detroit, St Louis and East St Louis to see the impact of 'liberal' politics. If you want, I will go to Detroit with you and we can take the Segway tour of a destroyed city - one that was the richest city in the world in 1950. Heck, I'll even pay for your Segway tour! Once you fall in love, you can sell your Villages home and buy one in the liberal paradise of Detroit and have a lot of cash left over. The median price for a home in Detroit is $6,100. Think, do you really leave the conservative values of Florida and embrace the liberal values of Detroit? If you do not, please tell us why a liberal would choose to live in a conservative community rather than a liberal Detroit?

[Guest]

:popcorn: Be right back. Going for a diet coke.

[Guest]

Right on, Bucco!

About the only time I'm seen some cooperation between the parties recently, compromise if you will, seems to be what's going on right now on the financial regulatory reform bill negotiations. From what I've read, the POTUS is involved and there is a clear but behind the scenes give and take in a joint effort to get a bill that can be passed by both the GOP and the Democrats, with support from the President. Maybe even more encouraging--if I'm interpreting what I read correctly--both sides seem to be stiff-arming the entreaties of the lobbyists for the banks. Congress seems to be refusing every effort by the special interests to gut the bill being negotiated. It's not done until it's done, but I'm hopeful on this one.

The question I have regarding a similar situation is: why couldn't such negotiation and compromise have happened on the healthcare bill? The problem facing the nation was at least as critical. Virtually everyone agreed that something needed to be done. But what was passed was a Rube Goldberg bill, heavily influenced by virtually every healthcare lobby that there was, which produced a bill which had only limited "reforms" and will have to be fixed--many times probably--by future Congresses.

What happened between the passing of the healthcare bill and what seems to be happening now on financial regulatory reform?


Yes, wouldn't it be nice if Washington worked this way all the time in OUR best interests.

But to answer your question, it is the opinion of this Independent that what is happening, in regards to the Financial reform, is the issue of mid term elections. We have one party smelling blood and not wanting to make a serious mistake while the other party is running scared and both do not want to look bad by not going after the "bad guys", ie Wall Street.

[Guest]

...Go to your union towns, I suggest Detroit, St Louis and East St Louis to see the impact of 'liberal' politics. If you want, I will go to Detroit with you and we can take the Segway tour of a destroyed city - one that was the richest city in the world in 1950....There's a whole lot more that lead to the decline of the auto industry and Detroit than "liberal politics", BBQ, and you know that.

I lived in Detroit for ten years and one of my sons lives there now. I worked in the auto industry while I was there and he does as well. I arrived in Detroit right out of college in June of 1960. Yes, that was a time when Detroit was a proud, productive city. The auto industry appeared to be one of the best-managed group of companies in the world. Auto workers defined what "middle class" meant and what a middle class could accomplish.

Since 1960--fifty years--Detroit and the auto industry has gotten to where it is now. There has been the cyclical ebb and flow of political leadership in the country, from Kennedy and Johnson's liberalism thru Nixon and Ford and the first Bush's conservative tilt (with a short interruption by Jimmy Carter). Two terms of the most conservative President we've had in fifty years, Ronald Reagan, was followed by two terms of Clinton, arguably a liberal, followed by two terms of Bush 43's "compassionate conservatism". The makeup of Congress has had similar ebbs and flows of political ideology over the fifty years that Detroit has experienced such decline.

So for you to assert that Detroit and the auto industry has declined because of "liberal politics" while Florida is just fine is not only inaccurate, but ridiculous on its face. As of March, 2010 Michigan's unemployment rate is 14.1%, Florida isn't far behind at 12.8%, both states are substantially higher than the national average.

So much for the effect of the effect of the conservative government of Florida as opposed to the liberal government of Michigan.

You need to look for another example of the effect of liberal ideology as opposed to conservatism. If you dig deeply enough, you might find that the problems faced by the U.S. today are more the result of incompetent, self-serving, special interest driven government rather than any ideological or party label.

[Guest]

VK, could not have daid it better.

[Guest]

VK-- Neither Bush is a conservative. As far as Florida is conserned JEB is probably more conservative then the other two Bush's, but Christ certainly isn't a conservative. Not even close. I do agree with your last sentence, however.

[Guest]

PTown, I did not bother to respond to them since these are largely the services and protection required by the US Constitution. Apparently you are unfamiliar with that document, but I sincerely recommend it to you.

Why I primarily addressed Social Security and Medicare is that they are two programs that 'liberals', such as yourself use to justify bigger and bigger government and attack those who disagree. These programs are crumbling as I write this. This is failed liberalism.

The current liberal government of the United States is not looking forward, but rather marching backwards to the time of the New Deal. Government stimulus was tried then for 12 years and it did not work then and is not working now. As VK has pointed out, the Obama administration is doing its best to copy Greece with unsustainable welfare programs and deficits. Greece is going down and may well take the rest of the EU with it. Why should we choose to emulate a failed solution?

Go to your union towns, I suggest Detroit, St Louis and East St Louis to see the impact of 'liberal' politics. If you want, I will go to Detroit with you and we can take the Segway tour of a destroyed city - one that was the richest city in the world in 1950. Heck, I'll even pay for your Segway tour! Once you fall in love, you can sell your Villages home and buy one in the liberal paradise of Detroit and have a lot of cash left over. The median price for a home in Detroit is $6,100. Think, do you really leave the conservative values of Florida and embrace the liberal values of Detroit? If you do not, please tell us why a liberal would choose to live in a conservative community rather than a liberal Detroit?

:agree: The most liberal cities and states are the ones that are in financial distress. Just one critical look at Kalifornia explains it all.

[Guest]

A recovering liberal and a psychotherapist in Berkeley compares liberals and conservatives.

"To become a conservative, I've had to learn a whole new language, one based on reason. If conservatives want to understand the liberal mind, they should consider becoming bilingual, too.

"Liberals live in a stratosphere centered on emotions and magical thinking. If you've tried to reason with your daughter and she looks at you blankly; if your neighbor changes the subject during your compelling arguments; if your cousin says this about Obama: "I don't know why. I just like the guy"...that's why..."

-- The most illustrious of all leftists, Noam Chomsky, still maintains that the Khmer Rouge did not slaughter millions of Cambodians.


-- Liberal luminaries Annette Bening and Naomi Wolf defend radical Islam, including the dreaded burqa.


-- After journeying to Cuba, members of the Congressional Black Caucus bragged about the stellar conditions there.


-- Michael Moore thinks that the Cuban health system is to die for.


-- Anita Dunn, a former special assistant to Obama, stated that Mao is one of the people she admired the most.



http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/liberals_are_from_mars_conserv.html

[Guest]

I lived in the Detroit area for 50 years and know exactly what happened causing its demise.

Very simply it was the Unions and the incompetence and corruption of the Detroit leaders.

[Guest]

A recovering liberal and a psychotherapist in Berkeley compares liberals and conservatives.

"To become a conservative, I've had to learn a whole new language, one based on reason. If conservatives want to understand the liberal mind, they should consider becoming bilingual, too.

"Liberals live in a stratosphere centered on emotions and magical thinking. If you've tried to reason with your daughter and she looks at you blankly; if your neighbor changes the subject during your compelling arguments; if your cousin says this about Obama: "I don't know why. I just like the guy"...that's why..."

-- The most illustrious of all leftists, Noam Chomsky, still maintains that the Khmer Rouge did not slaughter millions of Cambodians.


-- Liberal luminaries Annette Bening and Naomi Wolf defend radical Islam, including the dreaded burqa.


-- After journeying to Cuba, members of the Congressional Black Caucus bragged about the stellar conditions there.


-- Michael Moore thinks that the Cuban health system is to die for.


-- Anita Dunn, a former special assistant to Obama, stated that Mao is one of the people she admired the most.



http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/liberals_are_from_mars_conserv.html

Great article BK. I always feel better after reading The American Thinker.

[Guest]

Berkeley Psychotherapist.

"Liberals live in a stratosphere centered on emotions and magical thinking."

Me

"They generally put feelings above fact or reality. If it sounds good and makes them feel good, the actual outcome or consequence doesn't really matter."


;)

[Guest]

.... if by a "Liberal" (they) mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

- John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960


YES! I'm proud to say I'm a Liberal! :MOJE_whot:

[Guest]

Conservatives can mistakenly assume that liberals think like they do, in a learned and rational way. This is an exercise in futility since liberalism is not based on logic
Robin of Berkeley


My oh my, is that the truth. You Betcha.:cool:

[Guest]

Conservatives are anti-family..they want to define what the family should be
Conservatives are anti-business ...but pro big money
Conservatives are anti-religion..they are for one dominant religion
Conservatives are anti-freedom..they want to stop homosexuals,abortion,freedom of expression and womens rights
Conservatives are anti-morality..they support only one specific morality
Conservatives are anti-military..they see the military as a way to impose their standards and values on others.
And finally as proven many times on this board conservatives are extremely narrow minded.

[Guest]

That's like asking Rev. Phelps to describe what a real Christian should be!

A recovering liberal and a psychotherapist in Berkeley compares liberals and conservatives.

"To become a conservative, I've had to learn a whole new language, one based on reason. If conservatives want to understand the liberal mind, they should consider becoming bilingual, too.

"Liberals live in a stratosphere centered on emotions and magical thinking. If you've tried to reason with your daughter and she looks at you blankly; if your neighbor changes the subject during your compelling arguments; if your cousin says this about Obama: "I don't know why. I just like the guy"...that's why..."

-- The most illustrious of all leftists, Noam Chomsky, still maintains that the Khmer Rouge did not slaughter millions of Cambodians.


-- Liberal luminaries Annette Bening and Naomi Wolf defend radical Islam, including the dreaded burqa.


-- After journeying to Cuba, members of the Congressional Black Caucus bragged about the stellar conditions there.


-- Michael Moore thinks that the Cuban health system is to die for.


-- Anita Dunn, a former special assistant to Obama, stated that Mao is one of the people she admired the most.



http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/liberals_are_from_mars_conserv.html

[Guest]

ptownrob said, "That's like asking Rev. Phelps to describe what a real Christian should be!"

Really, I don't get the comparison of a life-long liberal who is now a conservative to a pastor of a church who speaks out against homosexuality. Enlighten me.

[Guest]

YES! I'm proud to say I'm a Liberal! :MOJE_whot:


IF what JFK said about liberalism were still true today then I would still be a proud liberal but it is not even in the same ballpark today...NOT EVEN CLOSE !

I believed and voted for JFK because of his definition of liberalism.....I worked hard for Democratic candidates because of that.....

THAT is not what the Democratic party or liberalism is today and it is not even close at all !

[Guest]

IF what JFK said about liberalism were still true today then I would still be a proud liberal but it is not even in the same ballpark today...NOT EVEN CLOSE !

I believed and voted for JFK because of his definition of liberalism.....I worked hard for Democratic candidates because of that.....

THAT is not what the Democratic party or liberalism is today and it is not even close at all !

In all our diatribes from both sides, we seem to forget sometimes that the voting public is the ultimate foundation of what this nation is about. Period. End of any argument. In 2008, the majority of Americans believed inwhat the Democrats were offering. That includes both houses of Congress- don't put all the blame on Obama. There's an irony that a only a conservative would say "It's bad because it's not the same old party." That's what conservatives want, by definition- the same old thing.

We will see what happens in 2010 & 2012. The extreme right is screaming loudest right now, but they represent only 18% of the actual electorate. It's the vote count that matters, and I think many people clearly see how obstructionist the Republicans in the Senate are being by threatening to filibuster everything. This will win them points with the radical right, but for most Americans it just shows partisanship. They have paralyzed the government and only the Tea movement thinks that's a good thing.
Every radical right candidate that defeats a more "moderate" Republican is handing a victory to the Democrats in districts that might ordinarily vote moderately conservative.

Of course, we could barter chickens over this-the way they did in the good old days, according to one of your rising stars (who just got trounced in the primaries!)

[Guest]

In all our diatribes from both sides, we seem to forget sometimes that the voting public is the ultimate foundation of what this nation is about. Period. End of any argument. In 2008, the majority of Americans believed inwhat the Democrats were offering. That includes both houses of Congress- don't put all the blame on Obama. There's an irony that a only a conservative would say "It's bad because it's not the same old party." That's what conservatives want, by definition- the same old thing.

We will see what happens in 2010 & 2012. The extreme right is screaming loudest right now, but they represent only 18% of the actual electorate. It's the vote count that matters, and I think many people clearly see how obstructionist the Republicans in the Senate are being by threatening to filibuster everything. This will win them points with the radical right, but for most Americans it just shows partisanship. They have paralyzed the government and only the Tea movement thinks that's a good thing.
Every radical right candidate that defeats a more "moderate" Republican is handing a victory to the Democrats in districts that might ordinarily vote moderately conservative.

Of course, we could barter chickens over this-the way they did in the good old days, according to one of your rising stars (who just got trounced in the primaries!)

The majority of Americans are conservative. Democrats won because Bush was not conservative. With this unpopular Healthcare Bill and threats of a Value Added Tax, It will be a bloodbath this November. Republicans will control congress and then we can reverse these anti-capitalist bills and steer America to prosperity once again.

GO TEA PARTY!!!!!!:eclipsee_gold_cup:

[Guest]

From the new "Tea Party Movie"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zntBAkzGaM&feature=player_embedded#!