You describe yourself as a liberal, right?
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-07
In Reply to: In your dictionary - as limited as it has proven to be - sally
nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I used those words to describe...
supporting the effort in Afghanistan but not supporting the effort in Iraq. Perhaps I should have said abandoned rather than thrown to the dogs. Means the same to me. As to Sheehan, this is the Sheehan family statement:
In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:
The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
lets describe you
You are the most intelligent man on the face of the earth. No one understands your amazing gifts. No one gets your subtle humor. And yet, here you sit, wasting your intellect on a bunch of young women. Maybe you need to grow up and seek out your own kind.
I heard a woman describe the USA
as an eagle. An eagle needs both a left wing and a right wing to fly. I've seen John McCain work with democrats and reach across the aisle. I have not seen that from Barrack Obama. I just do not feel that our country needs someone who is so far to one side and I feel that Barrack Obama is an extreme left kind of guy. We need someone who is more in the middle.
Those words 'hatred' & 'intolerance' describe the
Please describe in detail the racist nature of
the cartoon....if you can.
The procedure of partial birth abortion you describe is...sm
somewhat true, as well as gruesome. However, It is never done as an elective procedure, rather as an emergency procedure in order to save the life of the mother when it is a breech delivery and the cervix clamps down before the head delivers, or when the fetus has died in utero. The few times I saw it done during my career, everyone in the room, sometimes even the doctor was crying. To say that someone choses this to get rid of a baby is simply just not true.
Mere words cannot describe my feelings to your post....so I won't even try....
Please describe the actual physical threat that you allege was made on this internet chat board.
Thank you.
The so called liberal media is not so liberal anymore...sm
Case and point Fox News is the #1 media outlet via ratings and hardhitting conservative anchors, pundits, and journalists. Other than Hardball, I don't know of another mainstream show that puts the liberal point of view out there and checks this administration and their policies.
liberal hit piece by a liberal deep thinker....
x
The 2 issues you describe usually go hand-in-hand.
keep women out of power. The old 'barefoot-and-pregnant' story. As a feminist, I wouldn't vote for a candidate who was against EITHER issue. Being pro-choice has nothing to do with hating babies, etc. Pro-choice has to do with keeping a very personal, private choice just that: Personal & Private, between a woman and her doctor, and no-one else. If a woman hasn't any power over her OWN reproductive system, and whether or not the time is right (if ever) to bear a child, she certainly isn't going to be given much else to be in charge of, either.
The only reason this issue EVER became a hotbed political issue is that the religious fanatics in this country, who have been trying to control the reins of government, picked an issue that was certain to divide people. They took this choice out of the doctor's office and put it in the public eye so that the country could be divided, and in that way 'conquered'. Have to hand it to 'em, some of the campaign tactics, as repugnant as they are, have been pretty slick. Shows they've got some pretty fancy lawyers. The terrorist tactics (threatening, and even sometimes killing) docs who perform TABs; harrassing women entering family-planning clinics; and chasing some family planning clinics out of some towns.
There used to be a clinic a few blocks from my home, and every Friday this looney-tune and his whacked-out buddies would block park a truck with pictures of fetuses on it, and would block an entire sidewalk with their signs, fake babies (dolls), themselves, etc. I guess they think they're scaring people with their pictures & signs, but it only serves to infuriate them. In large part, the attempts to overthrow Roe vs Wade by the religious lunatics of the world is one of the main reasons I stopped voting Republican after Ronald Reagan, and voted Democratic instead.
And then of course there is the issue of our jobs. When that all started going down the toilet (or shall I say - to the Third World) I realized the 'trickle-down effect' I'd been led to believe when I was a Republican in the past was a lie. It doesn't trickle DOWN, the money only gushes UP -- to the ones who already have the most of it.
I am neither liberal nor the other.
I am a human being on this planet tired of hearing you whine.
hardly. I am on the liberal
board posting for fellow liberals. I am unconcerned about the reactions elicited from posters on the wrong site for their views.
No one said anything about a liberal rag....
could you post a link? Thanks.
JFK was NOT liberal
Yes, he was a Dem, but nothing even like the so-called centrists. But Obama--we're talking as far left las one can go! Be careful what you wish for! His #1 liberal rating in the Senate should be enough. Don't forget Biden is #3, with Ted Kennedy #2.
Those of you who make, say, double my salary, then you can give half of it to me. Fear not, Obama will make sure that happens. For all the bi%ching on this board about lost wages, that should be reason enough to NOT vote for the man who was a Senator only150 days or something like that. Community agitator is another subject, and not a pretty one, either.
PBS has gone very liberal..............
Any federal funding should not be allowed with one-sided reporting. LIBERAL IDIOTS!
If they cannot have real interviews with REAL people, don't use my money to fund lame brain idiots!
Oh...and the liberal
Obama butt kissing media doesn't spin things at all. Oh please! Give me a break.
Shall we not forget that Immelt who head GE also runs NBC and he told them no Obama bashing. I'm sure you are getting fair and balanced news from them, huh?
I am not a liberal..........nm
nm
a far-liberal would probably be someone
who lives in the woods, is homosexual/lesbian, who is pro-life, marries a same-sex person, etc.....all in the same person.
Liberal values?
You asked about the values of liberals, so here goes ... at least from this liberal's perspective. I value people's inherent ability to make decisions about their own lives, barring medical issues preventing same (i.e., mental incapacity). I live by the Golden Rule. I value the choice for people to practice whichever faith they choose ... or none at all ... and really mean it! I accept people and their differences from the "norm". I believe 2 consenting adults with the required mental capacity should be allowed to marry - with no litmus test. And I sure don't care what people do in their own bedrooms as long as it is between consenting adults. Most importantly, I value the principles set forth by the Constitution of the United States since, first and foremost, I am an American.
That about sums it up. I hope it helps!
Liberal, my tailfeathers...
...I can't even watch MSNBC anymore - if that's what conservatives think is "liberal" TV then the definition of "liberal" must be that they don't entirely siphon their news out of Scotty McClellan's shorts. And they have Olberman.
I admire your fortitude MT ME - I had to turn off my TV about a year ago. I keep up with Faux News on the Newshounds website but that's as close as I can stand to get, lol. I am hoping hard for the early successful launch of Independent World Television (no corporate funding or advertising and it'll be coming from Canada)but that's a ways off. I totally miss 24-hour NEWS like CNN was when it first started. Thank God for blogs!
get off the liberal board
Why must you conservatives continue to post here? We dont want you or your ideology posted here..Bush is to fault, for gosh sakes, he even admitted it..in his pea brain he kind of realizes he was wrong in his response..
Gt, I know and like and get along with many liberals.. You are not a liberal,
x
Same old liberal blather...
we're for the little guy... blah blah blah. The big wig Democrats don't a crap about the little guy, only his vote. If the woes of the lower class working stiffs could be fixed, they'd have been fixed already. A Democrat has been in office along enough in the last 40 years to do that, but it never gets done. Not in 8 yrs of Clinton, or anybody before him. You know why? Because the plight of the poor isn't the government's fault. It's not the rich man's fault either. But nobody wants to say what the problem is for fear of hurting somebody's feelings. Or better yet, if they problem were actually fixed, who would the Democrats get to vote for them? They NEED there to be racism, and poverty, and inequality (imagined or real). It's really quite sad.
get off the liberal board
Can you not read English? Get off the liberal board, fool..bye bye..get out of here..
Some humor for my liberal
http://folksongsofthefarrightwing.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
Neither liberal or any other persusian here. TI
I won't apologize in this instance. Antisemites always rub me the wrong way. Shal-alu Shalom Yerushalim
It's clearly the LIBERAL media
It's okay to trash Clinton but don't touch St. Ronnie. Besides, the producer is a friend of Rush,
so clearly it's fact based....uh huh.
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2006/09/liberal-media-strikes-again.html
I can't classify myself as liberal but...
I'm so totally not a conservative either. Just wanted to make a new post saying GREAT re-format of the old board! Me likie!
Liberal: A definition.
1. A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties. 2. A person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets.
Can someone please define *liberal* for me, please?....(sm)
I have asked this question before and did not get any answers, thought I would try again. On another board I got slammed for saying Obama was a liberal. Okay, if he is not, why isn't he? I don't want a dictionary definition, I would like to know, you who post here, how do you define liberal? How do you define yourselves, your political leaning...I am NOT trying to pick a fight, and I will not comment on the answers. I would really, really like to know, and what better place to find out than the liberal board?
Define Liberal
American Heritage Dictionary:
lib·er·al (lĭb'ər-əl, lĭb'rəl) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. #
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.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
5. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
6. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
7. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
8. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.
Define Liberal
That's about it, actually. That would be me. I can echo liberal democrat's sentiments too other than the democrat part. In my opinion only, "Leftist" is a term applied to people who do not agree with all conservative views, and is applied by conservatives. I would consider some of my views conservative, such as my own views on illegal immigration and fiscal responsibility, yet I have been called a leftist. Go figure.... They seem to think it is an insult I suppose.
Okay....when you say *I can echo liberal ...
Democrat's sentiments too other than the democrat part* what do you mean by that? What sentiments do you mean? For instance...this board is the *liberal* board...are Democrats liberals by liberals' definition? No? If not, what is difference? Why would a liberal say Obama is not liberal? What about him is not liberal? That is pretty confusing to me...just trying to learn.
As to *leftist,* I thought, and maybe mistakenly...applied to the far left wing of the Democratic party. I also thought, and apparently mistakenly...that Democrats were liberals...and obviously that is not true, because I was jumped on by referring to Obama as a liberal. I would be interested to know what about Obama does not classify him as liberal...
Who cares if you are liberal
This is the liberal board, no one asked you whether you wanted to be a liberal or democrat..Great..we dont need you, the majority of the country and world are left leaning and liberal..Go back to the conservative board and live your happy little insulated unrealistic life..dont bash the posters on this board because they state they are proud to be democrat or leftist or liberal..that is what this board is for..the liberal board, i.e., it is for liberals.
WELL there are certainly NO liberal Democrats
running for president...
Obviously the liberal mindset is...
.....beyond your understanding. Very few liberals "tolerate" the war in Iraq. Most of us probably find it "intolerable." Just as many of us become nauseated by the right-winger(s) posting on this board under the pretense of "I just want to understand your position better" when the actual intent is to mock and belittle. "Liberal" also does not denote naive fool and you are fooling no one with your disingenous posts, hence the nausea you produce. I believe part of the quality of liberalism is to be accepting of others' lifestyles, belief systems, race, color, creed, etc. but it is not to accept or tolerate cruelty, bigotry, hatred, violence, etc. This is such a basic concept I can't believe I'm explaining it!!
GOD bless.....even the liberal
:)
Isn't this a liberal site?
Why are you posting here? You're the furthest thing from a "liberal" I've seen in a long time.
How liberal or conservative are you...sm
Take a quiz. You might be surprised, I know I was. I am an independent, who through the years, have become more conservative. However, I'm surprised I even have any liberal views anymore. Interesting stuff.
Put aside your differences, have some fun, and see what you find about yourself.
http://www.blogthings.com/howliberalorconservativeareyouquiz/
My political profile is:
Overall 80% conservative, 20% liberal
Social issues: 100% conservative, 0% liberal
Personal responsibility: 50% conservative, 50% liberal
Fiscal issues: 100% conservative, 0% liberal
Ethics: 50% conservative, 50% liberal
Defense and crime: 100% conservative, 0% liberal
It's not just liberal politicians.
It's politicians in general. They're all so crooked they have to be screwed into the ground when they die. It's wrong to call prostitution the oldest profession because it's actually politicians that hold that title, although they are similar fields - they both screw people for money.
You can put lipstick on a mean liberal, and it's still a...
mean liberal....good grief, go to bed already.
You're a broken record, record, record....
Oh, this must be "lastworditis" poster.....right?????
Good grief, Charlie Brown
Thank you liberal - this joke is old and I
heard it the other way.
For McCain drive with headlights off during day.
For Obama drive with headlights off during the night.
Nothing amusing, just shows what side you support.
#1 & #3 most liberal senators
It's a fact. The one between them is none other than Ted Kennedy! He's #2! Obama is #1, Biden #3.
How can so many people buy into this spin? Cuba thought they found their true messiah, too. Castro promised them change and something new, and look where that got 'em.
A Liberal Supermajority...sm
Everyone should read this article.
A Liberal Supermajority
Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.
If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.
The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.
- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.
Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.
The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.
- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.
The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.
- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.
The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.
- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.
- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.
- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.
Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.
- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.
It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed AL Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.
In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html
I am probably 1/2 liberal, 1/2 conservative
I don't think I'm particularly dense, just able to sort fact from fiction.
She's very liberal and one-sided and VERY
@@
Yes they are and the liberal newspapers are doing
@
which one is the super-liberal?
The bible also says "thall shalt not commit adultery or lie," both of which McCain has done. Wouldn't that make him super-liberal?
All the liberal were screaming that
we as Americans have a right to know every intimate detail of John McCain and Sarah Palin's life. They shouted "we are voting for them. It is our right". That was before the truth started coming out about Obama. Now those same one are trying to suppress the info and say we don't have a right to know.
I have to point out your rather liberal
sprinkling of the word "all" which would make a rather interesting discourse untrue. It should also be noted it was legal on both sides to pay someone to go in your place or your son's place to service. There also were blacks serving on both sides, some even freely. I honestly don't know who or where the southern blacks served, but the northern ones were made to stay in their own units, not with whites. Not all plantation owners were rich, nor did they all leave and come back later. After Sherman went through, there really was not much left to come back to in all honesty, nor was there any money since confederate money was worthless. Are you saying you think they should have kept the "freed slaves" on their land? How were they going to support them. Anyway, they probably would have been accused to still having slaves. Many of them could no longer pay the exorbitant taxes, at least the ones where reconstruction had not moved in people from the north into their homes. There is just is no one single story here to define the whole that was happening.
And, excuse my confusion, but weren't the northerners republican and the southerns democrats? Just commenting regarding your post, don't plan on starting a range war over it.
|
