Should a Liberal be ashamed?



Of course.

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 05:50:13 +0000, BlueDude wrote:


Should a Liberal be ashamed?

Liberal (adj.)
1. Having, expressing, or following social or political views or policies
that favor non-revolutionary progress and reform.

2. Having, expressing or following views or policies that favor the
freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of their
own choosing.

3. Of, designating, or belonging to a Liberal political party.

4. Of, relating to, or characteristic of representational forms of
government.

5. Tolerant of the ideas or behavior of others.

6.a. Tending to give freely; generous. b. Generously given; bountiful.

7. Not literal: "a liberal translation".

8. obsolete. a. Permissible or appropriat for a free man. b. Unrestrained.

9. Relating to or based on a liberal arts education.

(n.) 1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.

2. A member of a Liberal political party.

--from American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

Note especially definitions 2 and 4. The ruling party and its adherents
especially dislike definitions 1, 5, 6 and 9.

To answer the question, hook, line, and sinker, no. There is nothing to be
ashamed of and everything to be proud of.

--
"Keep your ass behind you"

BlueDude said:


Should a Liberal be ashamed?

Hmmm, let's see.

Tolerant, intelligent, compassionate, open-minded, forward looking,
independent thinkers

vs.

Rigid, myopic, avaricious, knee-jerk reactionary, subservient, blindly
imitative, fear mongers.

What do you think?


Greg G.

Should a Liberal be ashamed?

A wise man's heart is at his right hand;
but a fool's heart at his left.
Ecclesiates 10:2

Best reason I know not to be a
leftist, communist, socialist,
democrat, et al.

ojunk (Sbtypesetter) writes:

A wise man's heart is at his right hand;
but a fool's heart at his left.
Ecclesiates 10:2

Best reason I know not to be a
leftist, communist, socialist,
democrat, et al.

As we in Germany say: "Oh Herr, lass Hirn regnen!" (Oh Lord, let there
be a rain of brains)
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

No as a Liberal you bring balance to me being a Conservative. Balance is =
what we need in this world.
Puff

"BlueDude" wrote in message =
...
=20
Should a Liberal be ashamed?

BlueDude wrote:

Should a Liberal be ashamed?

As noted by another response, the term has been
hijacked and stood on its head for political purposes
- somewhat like the words patriot and christian. And
it doesn't take much to twist an idea into its opposite.

Example

1. Peace on earth, good will to man.

2. Peace on earth to men of good will.

One is inclusive and one is exclusive. Which version
is in your Good Book?

Personally, I realize "you can't take it with you"
is true so I prefer to work on leaving the place
a little better than I found it, or at least no
worse. And if I can lend a hand and take a little
of the load off someone who's trying but could
use some help - I will. And if any help I was
able to provide gets passed along long after
I'm gone and forgotten - well that's just icing
on the cake. Definitely not feeling ashamed.

charlie b

Juergen Hannappel said:

(Sbtypesetter) writes:

A wise man's heart is at his right hand;
but a fool's heart at his left.
Ecclesiates 10:2

Best reason I know not to be a
leftist, communist, socialist,
democrat, et al.

As we in Germany say: "Oh Herr, lass Hirn regnen!" (Oh Lord, let there
be a rain of brains)

Looks like we are in a severe drought... ;-)


Greg G.

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 05:50:13 GMT, (BlueDude)
wrote:


Should a Liberal be ashamed?

Only when they have a conscious.

Thunder

BlueDude wrote:
Should a Liberal be ashamed?


No, we should be proud. And also ready to point out that
what the far right calls a liberal isn't even a liberal anymore.
Clinton was not a liberal, he was a centrist.
Dennis Kucinich is a liberal. About 20 people voted for him (including me.)
I am a liberal.

Yes indeed.

And I don't need to hide behind a fake newsgroup handle or email alias.


Jim Kirby

Sbtypesetter wrote:
A wise man's heart is at his right hand;
but a fool's heart at his left.
Ecclesiates 10:2

Best reason I know not to be a
leftist, communist, socialist,
democrat, et al.

The writer was probably just facing the wrong direction.

According to those definitions, there are no liberals in the Democrat
party...

"Australopithecus scobis" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 05:50:13 +0000, BlueDude wrote:


Should a Liberal be ashamed?

Liberal (adj.)
1. Having, expressing, or following social or political views or
policies
that favor non-revolutionary progress and reform.

2. Having, expressing or following views or policies that favor the
freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of
their
own choosing.

3. Of, designating, or belonging to a Liberal political party.

4. Of, relating to, or characteristic of representational forms of
government.

5. Tolerant of the ideas or behavior of others.

6.a. Tending to give freely; generous. b. Generously given; bountiful.

7. Not literal: "a liberal translation".

8. obsolete. a. Permissible or appropriat for a free man. b.
Unrestrained.

9. Relating to or based on a liberal arts education.

(n.) 1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.

2. A member of a Liberal political party.

--from American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

Note especially definitions 2 and 4. The ruling party and its
adherents
especially dislike definitions 1, 5, 6 and 9.

To answer the question, hook, line, and sinker, no. There is nothing
to be
ashamed of and everything to be proud of.

--
"Keep your ass behind you"

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:03:10 GMT, Rolling Thunder
wrote:

Can you please elaborate?
Should we follow "GOD", even to the extend of hurting/killing those
innocent bystanders?

Should a Liberal be ashamed?

Only when they have a conscious.

Thunder

Unisaw A100 wrote:


you tell them boss

charlie b wrote:
BlueDude wrote:

Should a Liberal be ashamed?


As noted by another response, the term has been
hijacked and stood on its head for political purposes
- somewhat like the words patriot and christian. And
it doesn't take much to twist an idea into its opposite.

[snip]

Bush on uniting and bipartisanship:

President Bush proclaimed his election as evidence that Americans
embrace his plans to reform Social Security, simplify the tax code, curb
lawsuits and fight the war on terror, pledging Thursday to work in a
bipartisan manner with "everyone who shares our goals."

[from the San Francisco Chronicle]

jo4hn wrote:


Bush on uniting and bipartisanship:

President Bush proclaimed his election as evidence that Americans
embrace his plans to reform Social Security, simplify the tax code, curb
lawsuits and fight the war on terror, pledging Thursday to work in a
bipartisan manner with "everyone who shares our goals."

[from the San Francisco Chronicle]

Now that's my notion of bipartisanship ;^)

"jo4hn" wrote in message
ink.net...
charlie b wrote:
BlueDude wrote:

Should a Liberal be ashamed?


As noted by another response, the term has been
hijacked and stood on its head for political purposes
- somewhat like the words patriot and christian. And
it doesn't take much to twist an idea into its opposite.

[snip]

Bush on uniting and bipartisanship:

President Bush proclaimed his election as evidence that Americans
embrace his plans to reform Social Security, simplify the tax code, curb
lawsuits and fight the war on terror, pledging Thursday to work in a
bipartisan manner with "everyone who shares our goals."

[from the San Francisco Chronicle]

Your narrow interpretation of Bush's statement is noted. So, what you're
saying is that liberals don't want to reform SS, simplify the tax code, curb
lawsuits (this one I believe), or fight the war on terror? We can share
goals, but have different ideas of how to get there.

todd

They tend to be unconscious. Whether or not they have a conscience is
another matter.

David

Rolling Thunder wrote:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 05:50:13 GMT, (BlueDude)
wrote:


Should a Liberal be ashamed?


Only when they have a conscious.

Thunder

Should a Liberal be ashamed?

This jar of lube here sez I should apply a Liberal amount. Maybe that's what
happened to Kerry. Didn't use enough anal lube.

The Bush machine, apparently, was well oiled. Despite what the exit polls
were predicting, Bush came from behind, so to speak. 45 million Americans
are now feeling the pain.

Politics can be so scandalous.

What a hoot! Given the predilections of the press, it's always funny to
follow newspeak. The _former_ senior senator from SD was pretty good at
claiming "bipartisan support" with the participation of three or four
republican senators (including McCain), while blithely disregarding the fact
that on the same bill, more members of his party had defected across the
aisle.

What shame that someone above a custodian level at an educational
institution cannot read English enough to understand that a goal is a
destination, which differs from a journey.

More distressing is the contempt for the democratic process shown by people
who are still shadowboxing after the main event.

Vox populi, vox Dei.

"James T. Kirby" wrote in message
...
jo4hn wrote:


Bush on uniting and bipartisanship:

President Bush proclaimed his election as evidence that Americans
embrace his plans to reform Social Security, simplify the tax code, curb
lawsuits and fight the war on terror, pledging Thursday to work in a
bipartisan manner with "everyone who shares our goals."

[from the San Francisco Chronicle]

Now that's my notion of bipartisanship ;^)

The people were telling the press what they wanted to hear.

I view the approaches of the two parties similar to my mom and dad.

When I jumped my bike up a curb at full tilt, I really enjoyed the comfort
of my mom who said "that mean old pavement jumped up and scraped you. They
ought to do something about that curb so it won't hurt people." Liberals
tell you they'll remove all obstacles just for you.

But I knew it was my dad who was right when he said "how many times is it
going to take before you realize that you can't run into curbs at full tilt
without tipping the bike? Pick up the wheel, you idiot." Conservatives
know that individual effort can overcome any obstacle.

"mp" wrote in message
...
Should a Liberal be ashamed?

This jar of lube here sez I should apply a Liberal amount. Maybe that's
what
happened to Kerry. Didn't use enough anal lube.

The Bush machine, apparently, was well oiled. Despite what the exit polls
were predicting, Bush came from behind, so to speak. 45 million Americans
are now feeling the pain.

Politics can be so scandalous.

Yes, it can be very scandalous, look at bush, biggest POS since nixon.


"mp" wrote in message
...
Should a Liberal be ashamed?

This jar of lube here sez I should apply a Liberal amount. Maybe that's
what
happened to Kerry. Didn't use enough anal lube.

The Bush machine, apparently, was well oiled. Despite what the exit polls
were predicting, Bush came from behind, so to speak. 45 million Americans
are now feeling the pain.

Politics can be so scandalous.

Greg G. wrote in message . ..
BlueDude said:


Should a Liberal be ashamed?

Hmmm, let's see.

Tolerant, intelligent, compassionate, open-minded, forward looking,
independent thinkers

vs.

Rigid, myopic, avaricious, knee-jerk reactionary, subservient, blindly
imitative, fear mongers.

What do you think?

I take it the liberal is the 2nd one, right?

When was the last time the "opened minded" liberals allowed a pro-life
candidate to speak at their convention?

Absolutely not, and I'm as conservative as you get. However don't
confuse the Democratic party and liberalism. They aren't the same.
A true liberal speaks the truth, the Democratic party has become mostly
lies since the Clintons have run the party.
A true liberal has core beliefs, and one of those is not saying what
others want to hear just to get their vote.
A true liberal has compassion, wants the best for people, again that is
not what the Democratic party has become.
A true liberal has morals and values, again not what the Democratic
party has become.
A true liberal believes in freedom, not opression. For example a true
liberal believes it is ok to be aethiest, agnostic, muslum, catholic,
protestant.....
The freedom portion of that says the aethiest doesn't have to live by
the christians beliefs, by the same toke it means the christian doesn't
have to live by the aethiests beliefs. For example, public schools
can't force daily prayer because ot the aethiest, no argument. But the
flip side should also be true, a public school should be able to allow
the Boy Scouts to use their facility after school voluntarily.

When the Democratic party, goes back to being liberals and not what
they have become, they will become much more successful politically.

BlueDude wrote:

Should a Liberal be ashamed?

Subject

Rant on all you fish ****s, but just not here.

Lew

"James T. Kirby" wrote in message ...
Sbtypesetter wrote:
A wise man's heart is at his right hand;
but a fool's heart at his left.
Ecclesiates 10:2

Best reason I know not to be a
leftist, communist, socialist,
democrat, et al.

The writer was probably just facing the wrong direction.

Well, keep in mind that Hebrew (which is what Ecclesiastes was written
in) *is* written from right to left, so...well, that's probably what
got him mixed up. (C:

Jim

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.

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:48:44 -0600, p_j wrote:

Gore claims to have invented the internet.

False. He was on a talk show (Larry King?) and said that he was very much
in favor of a particular bill which funded some sort of internet
infrastructure. One republican stooge told another republican stooge, and
between them they made up the "quote." In short, the whole thing is
another republican Big Lie. Google for the details.

--
"Keep your ass behind you"

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 09:48:18 -0500, Lu Powell wrote:

According to those definitions, there are no liberals in the Democrat
party...

and?

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:53:00 -0800, Never Enough Money wrote:

Liberals don't meet the definition of liberal. See my comments below.

Say what? BTW, I typed the definition in from the dictionary. I left out
some pronunciation stuff. And right, the word "liberal" used as a
perjorative by the other side bears no resemblance to the meaning of the
word, at least as defined by this particular dictionary.

I started to annotate the previous poster's annotations, but they all
wound up being restatements of the para above.

--
"Keep your ass behind you"

In article , Australopithecus scobis wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:48:44 -0600, p_j wrote:

Gore claims to have invented the internet.

False. He was on a talk show (Larry King?) and said that he was very much
in favor of a particular bill which funded some sort of internet
infrastructure. One republican stooge told another republican stooge, and
between them they made up the "quote." In short, the whole thing is
another republican Big Lie. Google for the details.

Actually, your version is the falsehood. Here's the truth (from snopes.com):

On a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer 9 Mar 1999, Gore said (in part):
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in
creating the Internet."

This is a lie. The Internet existed before Al Gore began serving in Congress.

As Snopes says, "It's true that Gore was popularizing the term "information
superhighway" in the early 1990s (when few people outside academia or the
computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet) and has introduced a
few bills dealing with education and the Internet, but even though
Congressman, Senator, and Vice-President Gore may always have been interested
in and well-informed about information technology issues, that's a far cry
from having taken an active, vital leadership role in bringing about those
technologies. Even if Al Gore had never entered the political arena, we'd
probably still be reading web pages via the Internet today. "


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:33:15 GMT, (BlueDude)
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:03:10 GMT, Rolling Thunder
wrote:

Can you please elaborate?
Should we follow "GOD", even to the extend of hurting/killing those
innocent bystanders?


Move on, Troll!

Denial Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. Sounds like you're
in the anger phase, Prometheus. Think we're almost ready for a violent
revolution, do you? Don't you think you should wait till you actually
loose the rigth of Habeas Corpus?

More comments embedded.

Prometheus wrote in message . ..
[snip]

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****.
Whoever wrote this is a good debater! Hah.

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?
Perhaps you could help me out with examples.

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.
Well, well, well. Let's just wait and see if your prediction becomes
reality. I'll bet you'll be eating crow again 4 years from now when it
does NOT happen. In fact, I'll bet we loose no individual freedoms --
freedoms will increase by the methods I mentioned in my first post.

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?
Huh? Are you objecting to "They favor a 'republican' form of
government" or that republican forms of governemtns prevet the
majority from always winning?
Your vote for Kerry does not make you a terrorist but it probably
pleased the terrorist. If you want to parse the words of speeches,
little Mr. Kerry has some words that are rediculous. Let's not go
there.

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.
Wow. Your political science is running amok. What made you think I was
not wanting representatives? BTW, Plato was a smart guy but we've
(Democrats and Repbulicans) have come much farther than that.
Marx was a smart guy but we've also risen above his ideas.

[snip]
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.
What makes you think merit was not involved?

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.
Which tow bill and why would they be monstrosities of welfare
largesse? This paragraph needs explanation.

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?
Somebody didn't take a course in Ecomonics. Must be self-taught.

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?
With the methods mentioned in my original post.

Do you live in America?
Yes. Currently in Colorado. Previosly in South Carolina, California,
and Texas. I'm very American.

[snip]
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.
Sounds like hubris to me. I doubt your productivity is related to your
philosophy or understanding of it.

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

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

How many forms of welfare do you receive?
None.

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.
Good that you have not taken from the government.

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.
Good advice. I will get off of it and I will not respond to your or
anybody elses vitriolic and on;lt faintly accurate postings.


Your countrymen is who you should ask for forgiveness.
You're probably thinking you told me off. Don't be so smug. Don't be
so angry. My man lost when Johnson won, when Carter won, when Clinton
won. I've been on the loosing side many times. If Bush fullfills your
predictions, then your man will win next time to correct it. So grow
up and move on.

"BlueDude" wrote in message
...

Should a Liberal be ashamed?


While this may be regional, a liberal is a kind way of saying socialist.
While socialism is currently a form of politics/government in many
countries, socialism is seen as in a very negative light in the US. Some
socialist countries are currently changing to a more capitalist approach for
survival....others not.

Personally I think that many of the outspoken democrats are socialist
bent..... a significant change from the era of JFK/RFK when the democrats
were doing good in the US. The Repubs are more like what the Dems were in
the 60's except for taxation & environmental issues.

This is why I am an Environmental Republican!

Well, I know for certain now that you are a moron.


"p_j" wrote in message
...
"George" george@least wrote:

The people were telling the press what they wanted to hear.

I view the approaches of the two parties similar to my mom and dad.

When I jumped my bike up a curb at full tilt, I really enjoyed the
comfort
of my mom who said "that mean old pavement jumped up and scraped you.
They
ought to do something about that curb so it won't hurt people."
Liberals
tell you they'll remove all obstacles just for you.

But I knew it was my dad who was right when he said "how many times is
it
going to take before you realize that you can't run into curbs at full
tilt
without tipping the bike? Pick up the wheel, you idiot." Conservatives
know that individual effort can overcome any obstacle.

You're confusing the conservative religion which is what the republican
party has become with reality. Your father may have been correct that
you are an idiot and your mother sounds like a pretty ****ed up person,
but there is nothing in liberalism that has ever suggested removing all
obstacles.

If anything liberals of today and the past such as Jefferson and Smith
suggested that one obstacle, the requirement that parasites like the
hordes at the republican welfare trough should be required to wipe their
own asses.

"p_j"
David

They tend to be unconscious. Whether or not they have a conscience is
another matter.

Funny thing, Bush voters overwhelmingly were ignorant of reality, at
least according to scientific polls.



Funny thing. All the polls were wrong so who's having trouble
with reality here?



But then facts are part of the reality based community which the Bush
administration sneers at.



I like the Bush sneer. His ability to **** off liberals is a special gift.



It is ironic that you talk about a conscience when neither Bush nor
Cheney have expressed remorse for any of their acts. As near as I can
tell, they are pathological in their absence of ability to see
themselves as doing wrong.


Maybe they don't share your version of right and wrong?



Wonder how many troops will have their lives eliminated or destroyed
today. Bravo Bush. Freedom is spreading.


Just as it did in Japan, Germany, Korea, etc. but let's not digress
into facts.


Maybe the questiuon should be what's wrong with being David?


Nice.

Problem with socialism is it admits of only a collective solution to a
problem. As it strives to remove all obstacles to failure, it also removes
all opportunity for success.


"deloid" wrote in message
...

"BlueDude" wrote in message
...

Should a Liberal be ashamed?


While this may be regional, a liberal is a kind way of saying socialist.
While socialism is currently a form of politics/government in many
countries, socialism is seen as in a very negative light in the US. Some
socialist countries are currently changing to a more capitalist approach
for
survival....others not.

Personally I think that many of the outspoken democrats are socialist
bent..... a significant change from the era of JFK/RFK when the democrats
were doing good in the US. The Repubs are more like what the Dems were in
the 60's except for taxation & environmental issues.

This is why I am an Environmental Republican!

"George" george@least wrote in message
...
Problem with socialism is it admits of only a collective solution to a
problem. As it strives to remove all obstacles to failure, it also
removes
all opportunity for success.

Very nicely stated!