An ode to liberals

[Vicious Wishes]

Stereotyping is the first sign of ignorance.

When I meet an intelligent republican that doesn't lie, I may begin to believe what you just said.

So democrats dont lie and republicans do?

They all lie, that is why they are politicians

Everyone lies. Every single person on Earth, daily, in small doses. If you say you don't...you're lying.

[Eazy E]

Everything I say is a lie.

Except for that.

And that.

[Jamie]

Damn straight. Self-made values are American ideals. Even if he wasn't 100% self-made, it's the attitude and the spirit that counts. No Greek was like Odysseus, but they still celebrated the ideal. By the way, he DID take care of himself, AND THEN SOME, BY PAYING TAXES.

Exactly, ya Goddamn hippies! Hasn't your mother ever told you to do what you are told and to respect your elders? Homosexuals, women, Muslims and environmentalists are the devil! Ya hear me? The Devil!

[Guns N RockMusic]

Damn straight. Self-made values are American ideals. Even if he wasn't 100% self-made, it's the attitude and the spirit that counts. No Greek was like Odysseus, but they still celebrated the ideal. By the way, he DID take care of himself, AND THEN SOME, BY PAYING TAXES.

Exactly, ya Goddamn hippies! Hasn't your mother ever told you to do what you are told and to respect your elders? Homosexuals, women, Muslims and environmentalists are the devil! Ya hear me? The Devil!

And if I was a Muslim I'd say homosexuals, women, infidels and environmentalists are the devil. Alah Ackbar!!!

if I was a liberal I'd say breeders, white men, christians and anyone who works is evil!


Liberalism is an infantile, submissive world view.  It is the world view of men who do not have the moral toughness to stand up and do single combat with life, who cannot adjust to the reality that the world is not a huge, pink-and-blue, padded nursery in which the lions lie down with the lambs and everyone lives happily everafter.

Oh and SLC, show me some stats on how many people are even in unions anymore.? I have the stats, but I want to see you squirm while you try to pull some numbers out of your ass.? And please save the dramatic name calling like racist, moron and liar for another day.

[RichardNixon]

Damn straight. Self-made values are American ideals. Even if he wasn't 100% self-made, it's the attitude and the spirit that counts. No Greek was like Odysseus, but they still celebrated the ideal. By the way, he DID take care of himself, AND THEN SOME, BY PAYING TAXES.

Exactly, ya Goddamn hippies! Hasn't your mother ever told you to do what you are told and to respect your elders? Homosexuals, women, Muslims and environmentalists are the devil! Ya hear me? The Devil!

And if I was a Muslim I'd say homosexuals, women, infidels and environmentalists are the devil. Alah Ackbar!!!

if I was a liberal I'd say breeders, white men, christians and anyone who works is evil!


Liberalism is an infantile, submissive world view.? It is the world view of men who do not have the moral toughness to stand up and do single combat with life, who cannot adjust to the reality that the world is not a huge, pink-and-blue, padded nursery in which the lions lie down with the lambs and everyone lives happily everafter.

Oh and SLC, show me some stats on how many people are even in unions anymore.? I have the stats, but I want to see you squirm while you try to pull some numbers out of your ass.? And please save the dramatic name calling like racist, moron and liar for another day.

Wanting universal healthcare, holding leaders accountable for starting immoral wars, and wanting people to be fed and have housing does not equal "not able to adjust to the reality that the word is not a huge, padded nursery in which the lions lie down with the lambs."

[2NaFish]

Everything I say is a lie.

Except for that.

And that.

And that.

And that.

And that.

[Walk]

As a conservative, I think anyone can have as many children as he wishes, as long as he can afford healthy food, private school, whatever college his child wants, a clean environment, and enough money to help his child start a business if he wishes. Naturally, most people can't afford this, since the world is overpopulated and most people can't afford these "luxuries". It's a sad state of affairs. 

A liberal would say to limit everyone to 2 children, so that it's all equal. A conservative strives towards having the best conditions and quality of life for his children, and if he can manage, will have as many if he wishes if he can provide adequate opportunities. This, of course, makes liberals who can't afford the best for their offspring, upset. They want taxes and redistribution of wealth so everyone can grow up and be mediocre, just as they are.

[Skeba]

A good example of why I try to stay away from political discussions over here.

A thread full of generalizations. How does anything constructive come out of this? And why is it always about the party, and not about the ideas?

[RichardNixon]

A good example of why I try to stay away from political discussions over here.

A thread full of generalizations. How does anything constructive come out of this? And why is it always about the party, and not about the ideas?

Put some ideas on the table and we can talk about it.

[Skeba]

Well, let's start with that one. About the parties?

Why is it that when a topic is set, it automatically divides people... And the dividing factor being the party that they're 'rooting for', and not the topic itself? It seems to me that it's something that is done so much in America, that the actual topics loose meaning, and every topic becomes about which party is right, and not about what solution would be best for the country. Do you see this 2 party system as a good, healthy solution, or should there propably be more? Or would more parties mean just confusion to the average citizen? Is politics made more approachable with only 2 parties? Is it then more like a sport where you pick up a favorite, and stick with them no matter what?

[Walk]

I agree, Skeba. I don't like attacking subdivisions of liberals (Democrats, feminists, socialists), since it's much more effective attacking the entire philosophy. Plus, a single political party exists in only one country, where a philosophy can be found anywhere. I do pay attention to 3rd parties like the Constitution party and the Libertarian party.

[Skeba]

I think the effectiveness is a bit questionable, since it also makes it really easy not to pay attention to it. As I am not an American, I don't feel that I would stand behind either party. So for me it's always about the topics and the facts or opinions that back them up, not about a party's opinion on a subject.

And why should people be targeted instead of ideologys? Sure it gets people's blood going, and sometimes more involved if you attack them instead of their thoughts, but again - I think it tends to make stuff a lot more about who's right, and who gets the glory, than actually solving the problems that are being discussed.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Well, let's start with that one. About the parties?

Why is it that when a topic is set, it automatically divides people... And the dividing factor being the party that they're 'rooting for', and not the topic itself? It seems to me that it's something that is done so much in America, that the actual topics loose meaning, and every topic becomes about which party is right, and not about what solution would be best for the country. Do you see this 2 party system as a good, healthy solution, or should there propably be more? Or would more parties mean just confusion to the average citizen? Is politics made more approachable with only 2 parties? Is it then more like a sport where you pick up a favorite, and stick with them no matter what?

wel because the party you are rooting for kinda summarize your thoughts on some subjects
like for example, i could state my opinions on a lot of subject (economy, unemployment, wolrd market, death penalty ) yes, i could  ... but if i say i'm socialist, it's faster and easier and you'll kinda figure what i think (on 80% of the subjects ...)

and generalization are not bad, when they're on Concepts, not people.

[Charity Case]

Perspective is so funny. ?I would hate to be associated or considered by anyone to be liberal. ?People like Michael Moore, Al Fraken and Cindy Sheehan are an embarrassment to this country imo. ?I could never imagine protesting a war we are currently fighting. ?I would never do that to our troops. ?Even if I thought the war was wrong, I'd never pull what Michael Moore or Sheehan did. ?It is a digrace. ?I could never imagine being against the death penalty or caringto much what happens in gitmo to the prisoners. ?I cannot imagine attacking a sitting a president either. ?I supported Clinton when he was in office (I never voted for him but once he became president, I supported him). ?I was against his impeachment. ?I consider him a low life for not being able to control his sexual urges at his age and in his position as president, ?I consider him a low life for doing it in the oval office. ?I consider him a low life for the pardons he handed down. ?In hindsight it appears he could have had bin Laden on a silver platter and refused on 3 occasions. ?But regardless, I supported him as president and was against attacking him for those things while he was president. ?I grew up being taught respect for the office of president. ?That's not to say that I agree with each man who has been president or each policy, just that viscious attacks against that office are wrong. ?What Michael Moore did was wrong. ?And anyone that supported that is, again imo, a loser. ?Again, perspective is everything. ?There are obviously a lot of people who think protesting an ongoing war or attacking a sitting president is acceptable. ?To each his own. ?I just wouldn't want to be associated with it.

That is not to say that I don't agree with some liberal views. ?I believe too much in action and I dispise protest for the sake of protest. ?I grew up in Maine which is basically a neutral state (it leans left a tad). ?I moved to Rhode Island that is very very liberal, and now I live in Orlando which is basically a 50/50 mix. ?Of those 3 places, the most corruption and the people with the lowest morals resided in RI. ?It is coincidence?

And someone asked or commented on slc's name....it is taken from a very bad movie about a rebellious kid from Salt Lake City.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Perspective is so funny. ?I would hate to be associated or considered by anyone to be liberal. ?People like Michael Moore, Al Fraken and Cindy Sheehan are an embarrassment to this country imo. ?I could never imagine protesting a war we are currently fighting. ?I would never do that to our troops. ?Even if I thought the war was wrong, I'd never pull what Michael Moore or Sheehan did. ?It is a digrace. ?I could never imagine being against the death penalty or caringto much what happens in gitmo to the prisoners. ?I cannot imagine attacking a sitting a president either. ?I supported Clinton when he was in office (I never voted for him but once he became president, I supported him). ?I was against his impeachment. ?I consider him a low life for not being able to control his sexual urges at his age and in his position as president, ?I consider him a low life for doing it in the oval office. ?I consider him a low life for the pardons he handed down. ?In hindsight it appears he could have had bin Laden on a silver platter and refused on 3 occasions. ?But regardless, I supported him as president and was against attacking him for those things while he was president. ?I grew up being taught respect for the office of president. ?That's not to say that I agree with each man who has been president or each policy, just that viscious attacks against that office are wrong. ?What Michael Moore did was wrong. ?And anyone that supported that is, again imo, a loser. ?Again, perspective is everything. ?There are obviously a lot of people who think protesting an ongoing war or attacking a sitting president is acceptable. ?To each his own. ?I just wouldn't want to be associated with it.

That is not to say that I don't agree with some liberal views. ?I believe too much in action and I dispise protest for the sake of protest. ?I grew up in Maine which is basically a neutral state (it leans left a tad). ?I moved to Rhode Island that is very very liberal, and now I live in Orlando which is basically a 50/50 mix. ?Of those 3 places, the most corruption and the people with the lowest morals resided in RI. ?It is coincidence?

And someone asked or commented on slc's name....it is taken from a very bad movie about a rebellious kid from Salt Lake City.

well you are what we can call a cheerleader. you cheer. you support. you follow. you adore. it's simple.
you are proud of the football players while they are running on the field and you are drinking beer sitting.
that's it
you need to separate yourself from the rest of the world. live by yourself, not by what your country does or think

[RichardNixon]

Well, let's start with that one. About the parties?

Why is it that when a topic is set, it automatically divides people... And the dividing factor being the party that they're 'rooting for', and not the topic itself? It seems to me that it's something that is done so much in America, that the actual topics loose meaning, and every topic becomes about which party is right, and not about what solution would be best for the country. Do you see this 2 party system as a good, healthy solution, or should there propably be more? Or would more parties mean just confusion to the average citizen? Is politics made more approachable with only 2 parties? Is it then more like a sport where you pick up a favorite, and stick with them no matter what?

You really have a point there. A multi party system in the US would be a good idea. There could be run-off elections until a winner is proclaimed.

As to why more emphasis is placed on parties rather than issues? People have very strong differing beliefs in which direction the US should go. Issues like abortion, Iraq, social security are very divisive. In 2004, Kerry and Bush were seen as champions to their parties cause--even if Kerry was too far to the right for a lot of us lefties. Over the years, since the Neo-cons have highjacked the White House and have come to power illegitimately, political discussion has became more partisan and more nasty.

But to answer your question; In short, a politician becomes a champion and people put a lot of faith in their candidate of choice.

I knew Kerry was just a middle-of-the-road democrat, and that he wouldn't have been a great president, but I got wrapped up in the whole 2004 election. And as I volunteered for Kerry and talked with folks, I became more and more zealous.

If it were 1976 and it were Carter and Ford, maybe it could be about the issues, but not now. Bush and the Republicans must be stopped. They are ruining the country, the world. But like every American, all I can do is participate in the campaigns, and talk with people about their political beliefs.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

in the end it all comes back to 2 parties anyway.
we have lots of parties in france, but eventually, people have to choose between 2 concept / ideologies ...
multiple choices end up being close to ONE at the end
i think it's because, at the time of choice, people need it to be simple, and it's easier to choose between A and B , than a b c d and e ....

[SLCPUNK]

Bush and the Republicans must be stopped. They are ruining the country, the world. But like every American, all I can do is participate in the campaigns, and talk with people about their political beliefs.

And that, it America. Unless you pay attention to black (democrats) getting turned away at the voting booths because they were listed as? felons" ( by a republican data base). Enough being turned away to turn an election for a certain somebody in the white house. A law suit brought on by those people, was won, yet virtually ignored by the "liberal media". Or if you pay attention to touch screen voting booths with no paper trail who were created by a company that was a huge donator to the republican party. Things like that, are not America and should be stopped. Not only stopped but brought up on charges and punished. It was one of the worst days for America, worse than the mess we are in now. Because is was the begining of the end of democracy.

The rest: participating in campaigns,voting and talking to people is America and should be encouraged by both sides.

[Jamie]

I could never imagine protesting a war we are currently fighting. ?I would never do that to our troops. ?

It might sound strange but that's pretty much the same reason people DO protest wars. What good is it for a president/PM or whatever it my be to turn around after a number of years fighting an immoral and illegitimate war and say 'oh sorry we should never have started that war in the first place, my bad' after thousands upon thousands of people have already died as a direct result. I think building a war on lies and personal agendas and sending a bunch of troops to fight and die is more disrespectful than someone saying that a war is wrong and should not have happened in the first place. Ask yourself who is disrespecting the troops, the leaders that send them to war for no reason or the people in the streets making their voice heard and saying that they are losing their lives for nothing?

[Skeba]

in the end it all comes back to 2 parties anyway.
we have lots of parties in france, but eventually, people have to choose between 2 concept / ideologies ...
multiple choices end up being close to ONE at the end
i think it's because, at the time of choice, people need it to be simple, and it's easier to choose between A and B , than a b c d and e ....

Well, that's kinda what I was talking about.

You said earlier that people are rooting for parties because it summarises about 80% of their thoughts, but as you narrow down the parties to just 2, then the party you were rooting for, might not be one of them, thus shrinking the percentage in worst cases to less than 50% with both parties. Then it becomes a situation of smaller of two evils, just like in the last US election. People were voting for Kerry, not because of the ideas that he had or the party he represented, but just because he wasn't Bush. And it seems to continue, and reflect to every debate and discussion.

And this is something that I think needs to be addressed. I think, no matter who the sitting president is, the decisive organs of the community should be more diverse, than a 2 party system. Now it seems, that every discussion leads to  republican/democrat-debate, and the goals everyone is trying to reach seem to fade away.