Should a Liberal be ashamed?

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"

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 09:48:18 -0500, Lu Powell wrote:

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

and?

"Lu Powell" wrote in message ...
According to those definitions, there are no liberals in the Democrat
party...

Naw, that can't be true. I mean, last election ol' George told us
that all of those Democrats are just a bunch of Liberals. And I know
that I can sure trust ol' George to say it like it is.

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.

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

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 04:15:55 -0500, Greg G. wrote:

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... ;-)

Now, that made me laff.

Renata



Greg G.

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.

"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

In article ,
ojunk (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.

Wow, being a Christian and a Democrat, I find that a real stretch. But
then we all know that Christ (The word Christian came from) never hung
out with the lower class people of his time period. He told his
followers that they should force their ideas on others and to use
physical force to do so. He also advocated big business and the love of
money. He said only those with money get into Heaven and sit at the side
of our Father.

In my mind, if Jesus came back tomorrow he would be condemned by many of
the folks who now profess to know him so well and do things in his name.
I wonder if he will be as gracious to Jerry Fallwell and his ilk, as he
will be to the poorer less-vocal lower profile followers of his
teachings and who comfort and assist others with the best of their
ability, physically and monetarily. But, that is only MHO. I have some
liberal leanings, so I must be wrong. I know this because the Bible
Thumpers told me so.

God speaks:
Conservatives - Good Liberals - Bad

EPS

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 11:26:42 -0500, EyesPinchedShut
wrote:

In article ,
ojunk (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.

Wow, being a Christian and a Democrat, I find that a real stretch. But
then we all know that Christ (The word Christian came from) never hung
out with the lower class people of his time period. He told his
followers that they should force their ideas on others and to use
physical force to do so. He also advocated big business and the love of
money. He said only those with money get into Heaven and sit at the side
of our Father.

Don't forget how he got the Jews all riled up the whip the Romans.

In my mind, if Jesus came back tomorrow he would be condemned by many of
the folks who now profess to know him so well and do things in his name.
I wonder if he will be as gracious to Jerry Fallwell and his ilk, as he
will be to the poorer less-vocal lower profile followers of his
teachings and who comfort and assist others with the best of their
ability, physically and monetarily. But, that is only MHO. I have some
liberal leanings, so I must be wrong. I know this because the Bible
Thumpers told me so.

God speaks:
Conservatives - Good Liberals - Bad

EPS

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

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?

I think from your own description, you can't possibly be a liberal.

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.

--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

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

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 ;^)

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 ;^)

"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

Unisaw A100 wrote:


you tell them boss

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


Should a Liberal be ashamed?

Only when they have a conscious.

Thunder

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

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!

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

Rolling Thunder wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 05:50:13 GMT, (BlueDude)
wrote:

Should a Liberal be ashamed?

Only when they have a conscious.

Thunder

Yep. Hard to be ashamed when you are unconscious.

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

James T. Kirby did say:

BlueDude wrote:
Should a Liberal be ashamed?

Certainly not. The hand wringing, fear mongering socialists who call
themselves liberal should be.

what the far right calls a liberal isn't even a liberal anymore.
Clinton was not a liberal, he was a centrist.

Clinton is a statist.

--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

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.

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.

This makes me sick. As staunch conservatives, you successfully
attacked a dictionary definition. Congratulations! As an American
liberal, I find it nauseating for two political ideologies, which are
not necessarily opposites, to attack each other like that. Were you
aware that liberal was once thought of as being in favor of laissez
fairee economics (that's basically leave it be capitalism for those of
you that didn't know), equality, and freedom. As far as I am aware, at
least the last two still apply. Both liberals and conservatives alike
are working towards the common goal of keeping the big government off
of the little people's backs. We may work at it in different ways, but
the ultimate goal is the same. Conservatives tend to see this
difference in taxes which they believe suppress individual freedom
(quite likely so). Liberals tend to see this difference in restrictive
measures such as the Patriot Act, which eerily resembles the search and
seizure policies of the USSR. Both the USSR policies and the Patriot
acts were written as protective measures from both outer and inner
forces.

Liberals are painted as communists and Conservatives are painted as
Nazis. Neither is true. We are ALL working for the betterment of our
societies, just in different ways. Maybe we should stop fighting each
other and work together to achieve this common goal-

Here are two definitions of liberal and conservative. I'll leave it to
you to guess which is which. Regardless of what meaning you have
imposed on these two words, maybe it would be good to take a look back
and see what they truly stand for.


1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or
authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and
tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he
ever receive either." - Benjamin Franklin

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.

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

"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!

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!