Personally, i think a violent revolution, as the founders called for
under circumstances that are current, would be fine.

Another quote for you:

"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the
blood of patriots and tyrants"
--Thomas Jefferson.

Though I don't see a need for that quite yet, things are certainly
tending that way.

3. Of, designating, or belonging to a Liberal political party.
So far the first 2 definitions tell me that Republicans are liberals.

Bull****. A huge stinking pile of aging bull****.

Agreed. Republicans have turned into tyrants-in-training. How does
the desire to control the lives of others based on one group's concept
of "morality" fit into the definition of liberal?

Gee, Bush is the exact opposite. So I wonder once again whether you have
recently awakened from a coma? Hell, Bush doesn't believe that the
executive should be limited much at all by the courts. He has claimed
the right to imprison you or execute you without trial on his command
only.

Won't be long before he suspends the writ of Habeas Corpus in the
interest of "National Security." There's even a precedent for him to
use that Lincoln set in the Civil War.

They favor a "republican" form of government (to which we
pledge allegiance to) to prevent the situtation where the majority
always wins - squashing the minority without remorse.

If this were true, his acceptance speech would not have used the word
"mandate." Nor would he have expressed the sentiment "If you're not
with us, you're with the terrorists" I voted for Kerry- does that
make me a sucide bomber?

There is a classic chestnut of talk radio. Still waiting for some
sheeple like you to provide an example of this mythic democracy where
there were no represenatives. Hell, I'd settle for some philosopher who
even mentions such a system. Of course none exist.

Even here there are magistrates, but I think it adds to your overall
arguement.

The Republic of Plato.

(I'm editing this only for the sake of space: The full version can be
found he http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html a lot is
missing, and I would advise anyone interested to read the entire
arguement.)


"And then democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered
their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to the
remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power; and this is
the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly elected
by lot.
Yes, he said, that is the nature of democracy, whether the
revolution has been effected by arms, or whether fear has caused the
opposite party to withdraw."

Large snip

"Say then, my friend, in what manner does tyranny arise? --that it
has a democratic origin is evident.
Clearly.
And does not tyranny spring from democracy in the same manner as
democracy from oligarchy --I mean, after a sort?
How?
The good which oligarchy proposed to itself and the means by which
it was maintained was excess of wealth --am I not right?
Yes.
And the insatiable desire of wealth and the neglect of all other
things for the sake of money-getting was also the ruin of oligarchy?
True.
And democracy has her own good, of which the insatiable desire
brings her to dissolution?
What good?
Freedom, I replied; which, as they tell you in a democracy, is the
glory of the State --and that therefore in a democracy alone will
the freeman of nature deign to dwell.
Yes; the saying is in everybody's mouth.
I was going to observe, that the insatiable desire of this and the
neglect of other things introduces the change in democracy, which
occasions a demand for tyranny.
How so?
When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil
cupbearers presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the
strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable
and give a plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes
them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs."

Large snip

"Then come impeachments and judgments and trials of one another.
True.
The people have always some champion whom they set over them and
nurse into greatness.
Yes, that is their way.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he
first appears above ground he is a protector.
Yes, that is quite clear.
How then does a protector begin to change into a tyrant? Clearly
when he does what the man is said to do in the tale of the Arcadian
temple of Lycaean Zeus.
What tale?
The tale is that he who has tasted the entrails of a single human
victim minced up with the entrails of other victims is destined to
become a wolf. Did you never hear it?
Oh, yes.
And the protector of the people is like him; having a mob entirely
at his disposal, he is not restrained from shedding the blood of
kinsmen; by the favourite method of false accusation he brings them
into court and murders them, making the life of man to disappear,
and with unholy tongue and lips tasting the blood of his fellow
citizen; some he kills and others he banishes, at the same time
hinting at the abolition of debts and partition of lands: and after
this, what will be his destiny? Must he not either perish at the hands
of his enemies, or from being a man become a wolf --that is, a tyrant?
Inevitably."

Large snip

"At first, in the early days of his power, he is full of smiles,
and he salutes every one whom he meets; --he to be called a tyrant,
who is making promises in public and also in private! liberating
debtors, and distributing land to the people and his followers, and
wanting to be so kind and good to every one!
Of course, he said.
But when he has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty,
and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring
up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.
To be sure.
Has he not also another object, which is that they may be
impoverished by payment of taxes, and thus compelled to devote
themselves to their daily wants and therefore less likely to
conspire against him? Clearly.
And if any of them are suspected by him of having notions of
freedom, and of resistance to his authority, he will have a good
pretext for destroying them by placing them at the mercy of the enemy;
and for all these reasons the tyrant must be always getting up a war.
He must.
Now he begins to grow unpopular.
A necessary result.
Then some of those who joined in setting him up, and who are in
power, speak their minds to him and to one another, and the more
courageous of them cast in his teeth what is being done.
Yes, that may be expected.
And the tyrant, if he means to rule, must get rid of them; he cannot
stop while he has a friend or an enemy who is good for anything.
He cannot.
And therefore he must look about him and see who is valiant, who
is high-minded, who is wise, who is wealthy; happy man, he is the
enemy of them all, and must seek occasion against them whether he will
or no, until he has made a purgation of the State.
Yes, he said, and a rare purgation.
Yes, I said, not the sort of purgation which the physicians make
of the body; for they take away the worse and leave the better part,
but he does the reverse.
If he is to rule, I suppose that he cannot help himself.
What a blessed alternative, I said: --to be compelled to dwell
only with the many bad, and to be by them hated, or not to live at
all!
Yes, that is the alternative.
And the more detestable his actions are to the citizens the more
satellites and the greater devotion in them will he require?
Certainly.
And who are the devoted band, and where will he procure them?
They will flock to him, he said, of their own accord, if lie pays
them."

The snips are not meant to change the arguement. Again, I would
encourage any interested persons to read the entire Republic- it's one
of the finest pieces of dialectic philosophy I've ever encountered.
Many of the snipped areas are the steps leading to Plato's assertions,
and they are built carefully towards a very compelling arguement whose
conclusions are supported by much of the world's history. We are not
immune to the evils men do to themselves simply because a large number
of half-wits yell "USA is #1" loudly enough.

Meanwhile Bush prepares to squish the **** out of the bloodied democrats
based on a "mandate." Sounds terribly like what you accuse the democrats
of. Of course Bush is doing the work of God and he is infallible, so
maybe that explains the situational ethics.

5. Tolerant of the ideas or behavior of others.
Liberal can't seem tolerate the ideas of Republicans! Republicans, and
conservatives in general, are very tolerant of anybody and any idea
that isn't a lie and doesn't hurt others and is legal.

This is just simply wrong. I worked on Thompson's gubernatorial
campaign in 1998, and the staffers with the college Republicans were
the least tolerant human beings I have ever had the misfortune to
meet- they even went so far as to steal opponent's yard signs, and
physically attack a group of students having some sort of gay/lesbian
rally. One of them even got on my case for not being a Christian as
was *helping* the stupid prick staple signs together. This is not to
say that every Republican is like this- I called myself one for many
years, and there are many good men and women who take that title who
are decent citizens and human beings.

There are more
minorities in the Bush administration than any other administration in
American history.

So what? Reward should be based on merit, not some stilted ploy to
point at the "little guy" he gave a hand up to.

6.a. Tending to give freely; generous. b. Generously given; bountiful.
If you think the purpose of governemt is to redisteribute wealth, then
be a Liberal.

No be a conservative. Bush is doing exactly that. The greatest
trough-a-thon in history is ongoing. He just signed two bills that are
monstrosities of welfare largesse. Moreover he is working hard so that
parasites who never have enough money can get others to wipe their asses
for them.

Kinda makes you want to weep, doesn't it? I never thought I'd see the
day when the Democrats were more fiscally responsible than the
Republicans.

Their third strategy is under implementation as well. Get more currency
out there and allow it to devalue. Good for the stock market and good
for employment and good for exports. What could be wrong with anything
like that? Yes, I know, the stupid assholes who founded the country were
against it, but they haven't been right about anything else have they?

Wish we were still on the gold standard...

7. Not literal: "a liberal translation".
As in Republicans are conservative even though they are changing lots
of things for the better -- introducing more individual freedom and
self-determination.

How is that? With the "Patriot" Act?

Do you live in America?

9. Relating to or based on a liberal arts education.
Most liberal arts folks can't make a living on their own. Hey, we all
want to be musicians, poets, writers, and historians. Unfortunately
society only needs a certain amount of these folks.

Sure they can. I have an education in the liberal arts, and I work in
manfacturing- I produce at least 150% more than anyone else in my
department every day *because* I understand philosophy. Sure, it's
that old, "outdated" rational philosophy, but I just can't bring
myself to jump onto the Kantian bandwagon.

Guess you didn't make it to college huh? (Here is a clue: edit this
whole thing out because your being an idiot.)

I say "get a job" like the rest of us
had to.

How many forms of welfare do you receive?

Never took so much as a day's wage from the gov't in my entire life.
The only things I use from them are those things which I must use for
lack of other options (police, roads, military etc.) And somehow I
managed not to vote for Bush.

Now let's get back to woodworking and stop posting political
statements to this _woodworking_ group. I feel dirty for having been
seduced into responding this one time. I hope my fellow woodworkers
will forgive me.

Get off it. You responded.

Your countrymen is who you should ask for forgiveness.