PDA

View Full Version : Liberal..why is it a "dirty" word?



DolFan31
06-01-2004, 06:55 PM
Over time, conservatives have affiliated the word "liberal", which refers to a politically ideology, to "dirty" words. Whats so bad about being a liberal? And why is it ok to be conservative but not liberal?

The definition of liberal according to dictionary.com is:
lib脗路er脗路al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

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.

Whats so bad about that? Liberalism is just another political ideology. So therefore, if its wrong to be liberal, then its wrong to be conservative too.

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 07:41 PM
That's REALLY simplistic. People aren't complaining about liberalism, they are complaining about Liberals. Quite honestly, considering what we went through in the 60's/70's, the Liberals are holding the more conservative views, and the Conservatives are being quite liberal in their desire to change us back to an older time. I know you aren't dumb enough to believe that when people decry "Liberals" like Ted Kennedy they are using the word in it's Websters form.

Phinzone
06-01-2004, 08:26 PM
Agreed PhinPhan, it's not a problem with liberalism, but a problem with Liberals. I have no problem with change, but they have gone TOO far on many occassions. And Liberals doesn't mean democrats IMO, I'm talking about this whole "we have to accept and love everyone" mentality. Nobody is wrong, everybody is right, everyone has to tip toe around eachother, so as not to offend anyone. We can't have the 10 commandments in a court room, we can't say under god in the pledge or allegiance, gays should be allowed to marry, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. It just gets damn tiresome hearing people cry foul about EVERYTHING.

"gays can't marry and are being descriminated against"- Bull ****, gays CAN marry...a woman, just like ANY other person in the US. Same as people can own guns, with limitations.

"I have a problem with using under god in the pledge of allegiance"- Tough cookies, more than 70% of the US claim to follow some type of religion. your the minority get over it.

"Football teams shouldn't be allowed to pray before a game"- NONE of the players complained, why the hell should anyone else? If 65 plays on a team want to pray, and one doesn't he can sit out the prayer session, where the hell is the intelligence of making EVERYONE change for one person?

Millions of people in our society, and a few people with very liberal views think it's up to everyone else to make them feel included. I'll be honest, I can't play basketball, I stay my white *** off a basketball court. Maybe I should complain, and make everyone else let me win to make me feel better, that way I don't hurt my fragile ego. I get sick and tired of that crap. Too often Liberal means "I'm doing what I want, and I feel I have the right to make everyone else agree with me".

Section126
06-01-2004, 10:19 PM
Liberals are for the most part inherently evil.

Inside of every Liberal there is a socialist yearning to get out.

They are elitist scumbags, who truly hate america.

Now....Democrats...that's a different story....they are just misguided.

Churchill: "If you are 20 and not a Liberal.....you have no heart......if you are 30 and still a liberal....you have no brain."

Dolfan954
06-02-2004, 07:39 AM
Over time, conservatives have affiliated the word "liberal", which refers to a politically ideology, to "dirty" words. Whats so bad about being a liberal? And why is it ok to be conservative but not liberal?

The definition of liberal according to dictionary.com is:
lib脗路er脗路al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

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.

Whats so bad about that? Liberalism is just another political ideology. So therefore, if its wrong to be liberal, then its wrong to be conservative too.
There's nothing bad about being a liberal. I'm a liberal by nature. Many people don't like liberals because they're too close-minded and stuck in their own ways to consider a different solution.

PhinPhan1227
06-02-2004, 10:15 AM
Agreed PhinPhan, it's not a problem with liberalism, but a problem with Liberals. I have no problem with change, but they have gone TOO far on many occassions. And Liberals doesn't mean democrats IMO, I'm talking about this whole "we have to accept and love everyone" mentality. Nobody is wrong, everybody is right, everyone has to tip toe around eachother, so as not to offend anyone. We can't have the 10 commandments in a court room, we can't say under god in the pledge or allegiance, gays should be allowed to marry, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. It just gets damn tiresome hearing people cry foul about EVERYTHING.

"gays can't marry and are being descriminated against"- Bull ****, gays CAN marry...a woman, just like ANY other person in the US. Same as people can own guns, with limitations.

"I have a problem with using under god in the pledge of allegiance"- Tough cookies, more than 70% of the US claim to follow some type of religion. your the minority get over it.

"Football teams shouldn't be allowed to pray before a game"- NONE of the players complained, why the hell should anyone else? If 65 plays on a team want to pray, and one doesn't he can sit out the prayer session, where the hell is the intelligence of making EVERYONE change for one person?

Millions of people in our society, and a few people with very liberal views think it's up to everyone else to make them feel included. I'll be honest, I can't play basketball, I stay my white *** off a basketball court. Maybe I should complain, and make everyone else let me win to make me feel better, that way I don't hurt my fragile ego. I get sick and tired of that crap. Too often Liberal means "I'm doing what I want, and I feel I have the right to make everyone else agree with me".

See, here's what I find funny...Conservatives cry foul over school prayer/Pledge/10 Commandments/etc because people are complaining even though no real harm is being done by their presence. Fair enough, and I agree. People need to relax and focus on REAL problems. But THEN they turn around and complain about gay marriage. HYPOCRITE!!! Where is the harm in two people marrying each other? How does that impact you in ANY way? On the one hand you will complain about hte gay "lifestyle", but then turn around and refuse to support them becoming monogamous. I find it laughable that anyone who supports divorce has the balls to say ANYTHING about gay marriage. Two people who love each other and also happen to be the same sex, THAT destroys the sanctity of marriage...but DISOLVING that marriage doesn't? Again...HYPOCRITE!!!! And before anyone asks...I'm DEVOUTELY heterosexual, married for 4 years and have a son. It just boggles my mind when people pull out the "just relax" card WHILE they're being tight a$$es...Incredible!!!

DolFan31
06-02-2004, 12:07 PM
See, here's what I find funny...Conservatives cry foul over school prayer/Pledge/10 Commandments/etc because people are complaining even though no real harm is being done by their presence. Fair enough, and I agree. People need to relax and focus on REAL problems. But THEN they turn around and complain about gay marriage. HYPOCRITE!!! Where is the harm in two people marrying each other? How does that impact you in ANY way? On the one hand you will complain about hte gay "lifestyle", but then turn around and refuse to support them becoming monogamous. I find it laughable that anyone who supports divorce has the balls to say ANYTHING about gay marriage. Two people who love each other and also happen to be the same sex, THAT destroys the sanctity of marriage...but DISOLVING that marriage doesn't? Again...HYPOCRITE!!!! And before anyone asks...I'm DEVOUTELY heterosexual, married for 4 years and have a son. It just boggles my mind when people pull out the "just relax" card WHILE they're being tight a$$es...Incredible!!!

Right on the money there Phin, and Ill say Liberals can be hypocrites too.

Anyway, I dont really have a problem with religion or anything I just dont like it being shoved down my throat which is why I see the problem with saying "One Nation Under God". Our country is about religious freedom which also means freedom from religion. What if a buddhist went to our public schools and had to recite the peldge which means he or she would have to say "..one nation under God?" He would feel that God is being shoved dwon his throat. You do know that Buddhists dont believe in God, right? I support the right that we dont have to recite the pledge for that reason. Not everyone chooses to believe in God, and thats their right. Why should have to say "One Nation Under God"? It should be a choice.

I dont mind athletes praying. I see a religious violation there, because everyone should be free to express their religion publicly and privately. So I have a problem there. As long as no one forces other to pray, Im fine with prayer. And this is coming from an Agnostic.

I also have a problem with Political Correctness. It does go way too far and there is a double standard for minorities. PC by itself is ok because we have to draw the line somewhere. PC should be around to help prevent hate crimes and such but there is no law where it says you cant offend anyone. Thats apart of freedom of speech.

Whats the problem with two people who love each other and want to marry? How is that going to bother anyone? The only problem I have with gay marriage is it might open the doors for marriages I do have a problem with: incest and beastiality. As sick and funny as it sounds there are people out there who feel that both are acceptable and they may say "if gays can marry why cant I marry my sister or my cat?" Other than that however, I have no problem with gay marriage.

PhinPhan1227
06-02-2004, 12:15 PM
Right on the money there Phin, and Ill say Liberals can be hypocrites too.

Anyway, I dont really have a problem with religion or anything I just dont like it being shoved down my throat which is why I see the problem with saying "One Nation Under God". Our country is about religious freedom which also means freedom from religion. What if a buddhist went to our public schools and had to recite the peldge which means he or she would have to say "..one nation under God?" He would feel that God is being shoved dwon his throat. You do know that Buddhists dont believe in God, right? I support the right that we dont have to recite the pledge for that reason. Not everyone chooses to believe in God, and thats their right. Why should have to say "One Nation Under God"? It should be a choice.

I dont mind athletes praying. I see a religious violation there, because everyone should be free to express their religion publicly and privately. So I have a problem there. As long as no one forces other to pray, Im fine with prayer. And this is coming from an Agnostic.

I also have a problem with Political Correctness. It does go way too far and there is a double standard for minorities. PC by itself is ok because we have to draw the line somewhere. PC should be around to help prevent hate crimes and such but there is no law where it says you cant offend anyone. Thats apart of freedom of speech.

Whats the problem with two people who love each other and want to marry? How is that going to bother anyone? The only problem I have with gay marriage is it might open the doors for marriages I do have a problem with: incest and beastiality. As sick and funny as it sounds there are people out there who feel that both are acceptable and they may say "if gays can marry why cant I marry my sister or my cat?" Other than that however, I have no problem with gay marriage.

Two things...both prayer and the Pledge ARE voluntary, so there's no coersion involved(I don't know if you meant to imply that there was, or that someone thought there should be). And as for opening doors to other kinds of marriage...a dog isn't a consenting adult...so it doesn't apply. As for incest, in the vast number of cases, it begins while one person is a child, so there's a crime involved there. In those VERY few cases where it doesn't, who gives a rats rear end if two adults fall in love and just happen to be siblings? Again, who is harmed? In my opinion, EVERY law should be held up to one standard above all others...show the harm. If you can't show me who is hurt, than there's no need for a law, PERIOD!! If you're going to restrict my rights, it had BETTER be because whatever I was going to do takes away someone ELSES rights. Otherwise, leave me the heck alone.

DolFan31
06-02-2004, 12:30 PM
Two things...both prayer and the Pledge ARE voluntary, so there's no coersion involved(I don't know if you meant to imply that there was, or that someone thought there should be). And as for opening doors to other kinds of marriage...a dog isn't a consenting adult...so it doesn't apply. As for incest, in the vast number of cases, it begins while one person is a child, so there's a crime involved there. In those VERY few cases where it doesn't, who gives a rats rear end if two adults fall in love and just happen to be siblings? Again, who is harmed? In my opinion, EVERY law should be held up to one standard above all others...show the harm. If you can't show me who is hurt, than there's no need for a law, PERIOD!! If you're going to restrict my rights, it had BETTER be because whatever I was going to do takes away someone ELSES rights. Otherwise, leave me the heck alone.

I was saying that they are both voluntary heh.

Like you said with the harm, show me the harm when someone does drugs, solicites sex, or gambles? The harm from drugs is self-inflicted, and if were going to have a law saying you cant harm yourself, then everyone should go to jail for cutting themselves or something like that. I feel that you drive under the influence of anything you should be prosecuted.

Prositution- what goes on between two consenting adults is no ones business.

Gambling - No ones business if I decide to blow my money away.

PhinPhan1227
06-02-2004, 12:49 PM
I was saying that they are both voluntary heh.

Like you said with the harm, show me the harm when someone does drugs, solicites sex, or gambles? The harm from drugs is self-inflicted, and if were going to have a law saying you cant harm yourself, then everyone should go to jail for cutting themselves or something like that. I feel that you drive under the influence of anything you should be prosecuted.

Prositution- what goes on between two consenting adults is no ones business.

Gambling - No ones business if I decide to blow my money away.

I agree that all drugs should be decriminalized, and pot legalized. Hard drugs shouldn't be legal however as you CAN show harm, both economic and to the phyisical safety of those around anyone under their influence. But that requires treatment, not jail time.

DolFan31
06-02-2004, 01:06 PM
I agree that all drugs should be decriminalized, and pot legalized. Hard drugs shouldn't be legal however as you CAN show harm, both economic and to the phyisical safety of those around anyone under their influence. But that requires treatment, not jail time.

Well Id agree to that considering what we're doing now isnt working.

Kamikaze
06-03-2004, 04:25 PM
Liberals are for the most part inherently evil.

Inside of every Liberal there is a socialist yearning to get out.

They are elitist scumbags, who truly hate america.

Now....Democrats...that's a different story....they are just misguided.

Churchill: "If you are 20 and not a Liberal.....you have no heart......if you are 30 and still a liberal....you have no brain."

That would be like me saying this:

Conservatives are for the most part inherently evil.

Inside of every Conservatives there is a fascist yearning to get out.

They are power-hungry scumbags who want to impose their Judeo-Christian theocracy on every aspect of life, who truly hate America.

Now....Republicans...that's a different story....they just aren't as fanatical.


See? That made just about as much sense (no sense) there buddy. :shakeno:

PhinPhan1227
06-03-2004, 05:06 PM
That would be like me saying this:

Conservatives are for the most part inherently evil.

Inside of every Conservatives there is a fascist yearning to get out.

They are power-hungry scumbags who want to impose their Judeo-Christian theocracy on every aspect of life, who truly hate America.

Now....Republicans...that's a different story....they just aren't as fanatical.


See? That made just about as much sense (no sense) there buddy. :shakeno:

Actually...throw the word "arch" in front of Liberal or Conservative, and I'd agree with BOTH of these posts.... :lol:

DolFan31
06-03-2004, 05:12 PM
What would you rather have? Socialist or Fascist?

Not that we should move toward either, but Id rather live in a Socialist government than a Fascist one.

DolFan31
06-03-2004, 05:14 PM
That would be like me saying this:

Conservatives are for the most part inherently evil.

Inside of every Conservatives there is a fascist yearning to get out.

They are power-hungry scumbags who want to impose their Judeo-Christian theocracy on every aspect of life, who truly hate America.

Now....Republicans...that's a different story....they just aren't as fanatical.


See? That made just about as much sense (no sense) there buddy. :shakeno:
:up: :woot: :yes: :clap:

Fin_Fanatic
06-03-2004, 05:35 PM
What would you rather have? Socialist or Fascist?

Not that we should move toward either, but Id rather live in a Socialist government than a Fascist one.

:shakeno: :shakeno:

PhinPhan1227
06-03-2004, 05:47 PM
What would you rather have? Socialist or Fascist?

Not that we should move toward either, but Id rather live in a Socialist government than a Fascist one.


Technically, one is a political regime, while the other is economic. In point of fact, most Fascist regimes ARE/were Socialist. Either way, for the average person, the effect is the same. You are a cog in a wheel.

t2thejz
06-03-2004, 08:40 PM
Liberals are for the most part inherently evil.

Inside of every Liberal there is a socialist yearning to get out.

They are elitist scumbags, who truly hate america.

Now....Democrats...that's a different story....they are just misguided.

Churchill: "If you are 20 and not a Liberal.....you have no heart......if you are 30 and still a liberal....you have no brain."you are soo right......its sorta sad if you think about it

Section126
06-04-2004, 11:38 AM
Actually...throw the word "arch" in front of Liberal or Conservative, and I'd agree with BOTH of these posts.... :lol:

So would I!!!!! :up:

Problem is that most liberals are "Arch" Liberals......:foundout:

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 11:57 AM
So would I!!!!! :up:

Problem is that most liberals are "Arch" Liberals......:foundout:

No, you wouldnt. You appear to be a stanch conservative with no regaurd to other's ideas. At least Phin is a bit more moderate than you.

Section126
06-04-2004, 02:35 PM
No, you wouldnt. You appear to be a stanch conservative with no regaurd to other's ideas. At least Phin is a bit more moderate than you.


I am moderate.....

These are my beliefs:

Pro-Choice
Anti-Drug War
Support legalized prostitution
Anti-Tax
Anti-wasteful spending
I want kill all of our enemies
and I think liberals are scumbags because they have a vitriolic hatred of anybody that dissagrees with them.

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 02:44 PM
I am moderate.....

These are my beliefs:

Pro-Choice
Anti-Drug War
Support legalized prostitution
Anti-Tax
Anti-wasteful spending
I want kill all of our enemies
and I think liberals are scumbags because they have a vitriolic hatred of anybody that dissagrees with them.

And conservatives dont do the same?

Also, nobody likes paying taxes, but thats the price we pay for our free society. Freedom isnt free.

And if those are your beliefs, guess what? You're socially liberal!

Of course, labels, when you get down to it, dont really mean a thing.

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 02:49 PM
And if u are pro-choice, why in the hell are you pro-bush, arguably one of the most pro-life presidents we've ever had!

Anti-wasteful spending? We have record deficits under Bush, who also supports full funding the Department of Defense which uses excess money to fund programs that usually go defunct.

Everything else though, I support but we'd be lucky to find a President who would have the balls to do anything like that no matter if hes a Democrat or Republican.

Kamikaze
06-04-2004, 02:52 PM
Yeah, keep throwing out the blanket accusations Section126. It makes you look real smart.

Again, you make as much sense as someone saying this: "I think clergymen are scumbags because they want to bang the little altar boys."

It seems like you've got more of a problem with liberals than just simple disagreement. You're practically foaming at the mouth here.

Section126
06-04-2004, 02:57 PM
Yeah, keep throwing out the blanket accusations Section126. It makes you look real smart.

Again, you make as much sense as someone saying this: "I think clergymen are scumbags because they want to bang the little altar boys."

It seems like you've got more of a problem with liberals than just simple disagreement. You're practically foaming at the mouth here.

:confused: :confused:

I DO think clergymen are scumbags because they want to rape little boys.

I would have no problems with Liberals if they didn't lob insults like Nazi, Facist and other cute insults.

Section126
06-04-2004, 03:00 PM
I am pro-choice and pro-Bush because Bush ain't gonna do anything about abortion.

As for Partial Birth Abortion...I think the practice is MURDER.

You see.....I have a daughter that is 13 months old......when you see what she looked like in a ultrasound when my wife was in her 6th month...you tend to think that PBA's are inhuman and disgusting.

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 03:04 PM
I am pro-choice and pro-Bush because Bush ain't gonna do anything about abortion.

As for Partial Birth Abortion...I think the practice is MURDER.

You see.....I have a daughter that is 13 months old......when you see what she looked like in a ultrasound when my wife was in her 6th month...you tend to think that PBA's are inhuman and disgusting.

Im anti-partial birth abortions as well.

Bush is going to do something about abortion by appointed more pro-life judges who are working already to overturn Roe vs. Wade

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 03:05 PM
Yeah, keep throwing out the blanket accusations Section126. It makes you look real smart.

Again, you make as much sense as someone saying this: "I think clergymen are scumbags because they want to bang the little altar boys."

It seems like you've got more of a problem with liberals than just simple disagreement. You're practically foaming at the mouth here.

Im not sure exactly where you're going with that either. :confused: :confused:

PhinPhan1227
06-04-2004, 03:08 PM
Im anti-partial birth abortions as well.

Bush is going to do something about abortion by appointed more pro-life judges who are working already to overturn Roe vs. Wade


Lol...so is Kerry according to his last comments. I have no problem with SOME shift back to center where Roe v Wade is concerned. The idiocy that allows PBA's to continue under the guise of saving the mother has to be the biggest load of crap I've seen since the NRA tried to justify legalizing armor piercing bullets. There isn't a single instance on record of a PBA being done to save a mothers life, but we should ignore that fact and allow viable babies to be killed? I'm STAUNCHLY Pro-Choice, but that practice truly sickens me. As much for the idiocy of the argument as anything else.

PhinPhan1227
06-04-2004, 03:09 PM
Im not sure exactly where you're going with that either. :confused: :confused:


I think he meant to say "ALL clergymen are scumbags because SOME of them bang little boys".

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 03:27 PM
I think he meant to say "ALL clergymen are scumbags because SOME of them bang little boys".

oh ok then. Thats what I was thinking but I wasnt sure. :whew:

Kamikaze
06-04-2004, 03:36 PM
Yeah, guess I should have been more clear with that.

Section126
06-04-2004, 04:33 PM
Yeah, guess I should have been more clear with that.

Glad you cleared that up.

themole
06-05-2004, 11:28 AM
What would you rather have? Socialist or Fascist?

Not that we should move toward either, but Id rather live in a Socialist government than a Fascist one.

Socialism, Fascism, it is still stateism. We are NOT what our forefathers conceived, yet we are not wards of the state either, unless you decide that income tax is of "voluntary compliance" and you don't want to volunteer, or realize that property tax denies the down and out their right to own property, and penalizes the prosperous for having something nice. If you should decide against paying any of the above....you will feel the "velvet glove" possibly for the rest of your life.

I don't know who or what we have become but I do know that the two main parties are not serving the Constitution and are IMO trying to destroy it.

TheAmerican

PhinPhan1227
06-05-2004, 12:24 PM
Socialism, Fascism, it is still stateism. We are NOT what our forefathers conceived, yet we are not wards of the state either, unless you decide that income tax is of "voluntary compliance" and you don't want to volunteer, or realize that property tax denies the down and out their right to own property, and penalizes the prosperous for having something nice. If you should decide against paying any of the above....you will feel the "velvet glove" possibly for the rest of your life.

I don't know who or what we have become but I do know that the two main parties are not serving the Constitution and are IMO trying to destroy it.

TheAmerican

While I agree with that in spirit...the Constitution was never meant to be set in stone, or followed word for word like the Bible. I think taxation is out of hand, but really, without it we never would have become more than a third rate country.

themole
06-05-2004, 02:07 PM
While I agree with that in spirit...the Constitution was never meant to be set in stone, or followed word for word like the Bible. I think taxation is out of hand, but really, without it we never would have become more than a third rate country.

Once upon a time we got pretty strong using tarrifs, and I agree we need taxation, just not on income and property. Property taxes sound ok until you know someone that looses everything due circumstances beyond their control. IMO, NO ONE should have to forfeit payed for property due to unpaid taxes.

On Constitutional matters...it is not to be trifled with thus the difficulty in changing it. Only 27 times in 213 yrs. although it has been subjected to questionable INTERPRETATION by to many Supreme Court justices in the past 50 years. Our beloved Constitution is under constant attack by those who would merely profit from the change and those who despise it for what it prevents.

I'M HARDCORE & a BIGOT, concerning matters of the U.S. CONSTITUTION :D

Fin_Fanatic
06-06-2004, 01:04 PM
Once upon a time we got pretty strong using tarrifs, and I agree we need taxation, just not on income and property. Property taxes sound ok until you know someone that looses everything due circumstances beyond their control. IMO, NO ONE should have to forfeit payed for property due to unpaid taxes.

On Constitutional matters...it is not to be trifled with thus the difficulty in changing it. Only 27 times in 213 yrs. although it has been subjected to questionable INTERPRETATION by to many Supreme Court justices in the past 50 years. Our beloved Constitution is under constant attack by those who would merely profit from the change and those who despise it for what it prevents.

I'M HARDCORE & a BIGOT, concerning matters of the U.S. CONSTITUTION :D
if the constitution was never interpreted there would probably still be segregation too. i agree, the constitution is set up well and it shouldnt be messed with TOO much. but still as the times change sometimes you need to change, the same thing goes with the laws we live by

PhinPhan1227
06-07-2004, 01:08 PM
Once upon a time we got pretty strong using tarrifs, and I agree we need taxation, just not on income and property. Property taxes sound ok until you know someone that looses everything due circumstances beyond their control. IMO, NO ONE should have to forfeit payed for property due to unpaid taxes.

On Constitutional matters...it is not to be trifled with thus the difficulty in changing it. Only 27 times in 213 yrs. although it has been subjected to questionable INTERPRETATION by to many Supreme Court justices in the past 50 years. Our beloved Constitution is under constant attack by those who would merely profit from the change and those who despise it for what it prevents.

I'M HARDCORE & a BIGOT, concerning matters of the U.S. CONSTITUTION :D

Don't get me wrong...I'd vote for an across the board federal sales tax in a heartbeat. But that would be a TRULY fair taxation, and since the wealthy and the poor make up such strong voting blocks, it's never pass. As such, the middle class bears the burden as always.

DeDolfan
06-07-2004, 01:36 PM
That's REALLY simplistic. People aren't complaining about liberalism, they are complaining about Liberals. Quite honestly, considering what we went through in the 60's/70's, the Liberals are holding the more conservative views, and the Conservatives are being quite liberal in their desire to change us back to an older time. I know you aren't dumb enough to believe that when people decry "Liberals" like Ted Kennedy they are using the word in it's Websters form.

I tend to separate them as far or extreme left or right. Teddy Kennedy along with Jesse jackson are about as extreme left/wacko you can be while Reagan [RIP] along with GW Bush are pretty much as far right as one can be. But of those 4 mentioned, i have to give kudoes to Reagan, not because of his passing, but because of his efforts to end the cold war in the manner he did. But actually, there are alot of folks that claim to be all on one side or the other when when simply talking about various issues will often tell another story. I guess the best way to "deal" with it is to follow the Olympis scoring methods in that you throw out the high and low scores (the far left and far right) and then average the remaining ones left!! :D

DeDolfan
06-07-2004, 01:53 PM
I am pro-choice and pro-Bush because Bush ain't gonna do anything about abortion.

As for Partial Birth Abortion...I think the practice is MURDER.

You see.....I have a daughter that is 13 months old......when you see what she looked like in a ultrasound when my wife was in her 6th month...you tend to think that PBA's are inhuman and disgusting.

Let's see........ you are pro-choice? That's fine, your POV. But then you're against partial birth abortionas well??

You ought to go on one side of the fence or the other cuz straddling it may wind up with splinters in yer assss, don'tcha' think?

PhinPhan1227
06-07-2004, 01:55 PM
I tend to separate them as far or extreme left or right. Teddy Kennedy along with Jesse jackson are about as extreme left/wacko you can be while Reagan [RIP] along with GW Bush are pretty much as far right as one can be. But of those 4 mentioned, i have to give kudoes to Reagan, not because of his passing, but because of his efforts to end the cold war in the manner he did. But actually, there are alot of folks that claim to be all on one side or the other when when simply talking about various issues will often tell another story. I guess the best way to "deal" with it is to follow the Olympis scoring methods in that you throw out the high and low scores (the far left and far right) and then average the remaining ones left!! :D


That's why I count myself as dead center. I'm quite Right about foreign policy and the economy. But hard left on several social issues.

Section126
06-07-2004, 02:51 PM
Let's see........ you are pro-choice? That's fine, your POV. But then you're against partial birth abortionas well??

You ought to go on one side of the fence or the other cuz straddling it may wind up with splinters in yer assss, don'tcha' think?

I am like most of the country........

PBA's are something that only the far left and the nutcases from the Dem party support.....

PhinPhan1227
06-07-2004, 02:57 PM
Let's see........ you are pro-choice? That's fine, your POV. But then you're against partial birth abortionas well??

You ought to go on one side of the fence or the other cuz straddling it may wind up with splinters in yer assss, don'tcha' think?


I'm also Pro-Choice, and against PBA's. In my opinion the distinction between an abortable fetus and a not abortable fetus is viability. In the case of a 1st trimester fetus, it is incapable of living without the mother, therefore she has a choice. In the case of Partial birth abortion, the fetus has a good chance at survival if delivered. Further, there is no reason for an exclusion because of a risk to the mothers health. If the doctor can deliver the head in order to perform the PBA, he can just go ahead and deliver the whole baby. And quite honestly, if medical science progresses to the point that a fetus can survive even earlier, than so be it...push the time back even further. But for me the line is clear...while a healthy delivery is not an option abortion should be allowed. Once a healthy delivery has even a remote chance however, that option is now gone.

DeDolfan
06-07-2004, 02:59 PM
I am like most of the country........

PBA's are something that only the far left and the nutcases from the Dem party support.....

True, it would have to be a nutcase to want a PBA.
But, IMO, abortion is abortion, with a TRUE health hazard being an exception.

DeDolfan
06-07-2004, 03:00 PM
I'm also Pro-Choice, and against PBA's. In my opinion the distinction between an abortable fetus and a not abortable fetus is viability. In the case of a 1st trimester fetus, it is incapable of living without the mother, therefore she has a choice. In the case of Partial birth abortion, the fetus has a good chance at survival if delivered. Further, there is no reason for an exclusion because of a risk to the mothers health. If the doctor can deliver the head in order to perform the PBA, he can just go ahead and deliver the whole baby. And quite honestly, if medical science progresses to the point that a fetus can survive even earlier, than so be it...push the time back even further. But for me the line is clear...while a healthy delivery is not an option abortion should be allowed. Once a healthy delivery has even a remote chance however, that option is now gone.

I ain't goin' there. We've hashed this out in the past and I know nothing new to add to it. ;)

PhinPhan1227
06-07-2004, 03:02 PM
True, it would have to be a nutcase to want a PBA.
But, IMO, abortion is abortion, with a TRUE health hazard being an exception.


That's because I assume that you feel that a fetus becomes a human being at the time of conception due to religious grounds. Fine...I's never argue against someones religious beliefs. I'll ask this question though...if a fetus is a person from day one...than why is an abortion due to health risks a viable exception? Aren't you saying that it's ok to kill one person to save another? By that logic, if I have a liver disease, aren't I justified in killing another person for his liver?

DeDolfan
06-07-2004, 03:19 PM
That's because I assume that you feel that a fetus becomes a human being at the time of conception due to religious grounds. Fine...I's never argue against someones religious beliefs. I'll ask this question though...if a fetus is a person from day one...than why is an abortion due to health risks a viable exception? Aren't you saying that it's ok to kill one person to save another? By that logic, if I have a liver disease, aren't I justified in killing another person for his liver?

I do believe that life begins at conception, but not for religious reasons tho.

Answer............. not exactly, but i understand what you're saying tho. iMO, this is the kind of thing where pro-choice matters. But the difference is, the fetuse has no say at all in the particular decision [in abortion], where as you and the other do. IMO, the only thing that makes it different is that the fetus, altho alive, is an "unknown" human at that time with no personal bonding having been established yet, altho some women may argue that but i'm only trying to illustrate a point. The others you speak of [about the liver] has been somone's father, mother, sibling, etc. their whole lives which make the difference. that's my only reason, as subtle as it may be. However, it is such a fine line that if I was "politically pressured" to make a stand as in "all for it" or "all against", I would likely vote all against in that the "mother's health in jeopardy" claim is likely quite rare compared to all cases.
But thakns for bringing up a good point about it tho. I had never really thought much about it that way before.

PhinPhan1227
06-07-2004, 05:01 PM
No sweat...and seriously, I'm not trying to change your opinion here. In my experience I've yet to meet a single person who changed their mind about abortion based on anything anyone else had to say on the matter. The purpose of my question was more about establishing a defining line. If you take the stance that a child is a child from hour one of conception, than you are either absolute on that, or you have a moral dillema. Where is the line in that case? As for mother vs fetus...If a doctor refused ANY action which was needed to save my wifes life in a medical emergency he'd be looking down the barrel of a handgun in about a half a heartbeat. And in answer to your question/statement..while Partial Birth Abortions are NOT an issue in the mothers health...abortions themselves are..and are quite often. There are women whose bodies can't handle a pregnancy. In fact, most brittle diabetics are at MASSIVE risk if they do decide to get pregnant among others. So in those cases, as soon as a woman finds out she is pregnant, a doctor would probably recomend an immediate abortion. So again, unless you are going to try to take the approach that you're going to let a woman die(again, good luck), there IS a delima here.



I do believe that life begins at conception, but not for religious reasons tho.

Answer............. not exactly, but i understand what you're saying tho. iMO, this is the kind of thing where pro-choice matters. But the difference is, the fetuse has no say at all in the particular decision [in abortion], where as you and the other do. IMO, the only thing that makes it different is that the fetus, altho alive, is an "unknown" human at that time with no personal bonding having been established yet, altho some women may argue that but i'm only trying to illustrate a point. The others you speak of [about the liver] has been somone's father, mother, sibling, etc. their whole lives which make the difference. that's my only reason, as subtle as it may be. However, it is such a fine line that if I was "politically pressured" to make a stand as in "all for it" or "all against", I would likely vote all against in that the "mother's health in jeopardy" claim is likely quite rare compared to all cases.
But thakns for bringing up a good point about it tho. I had never really thought much about it that way before.

themole
06-07-2004, 05:30 PM
Don't get me wrong...I'd vote for an across the board federal sales tax in a heartbeat. But that would be a TRULY fair taxation, and since the wealthy and the poor make up such strong voting blocks, it's never pass. As such, the middle class bears the burden as always.

MIDDLE CLASS ! Are you refering to that small segment of tax payers with the BULLS EYE on their pay stubs? :cry:

themole
06-07-2004, 05:58 PM
That's because I assume that you feel that a fetus becomes a human being at the time of conception due to religious grounds. Fine...I's never argue against someones religious beliefs. I'll ask this question though...if a fetus is a person from day one...than why is an abortion due to health risks a viable exception? Aren't you saying that it's ok to kill one person to save another? By that logic, if I have a liver disease, aren't I justified in killing another person for his liver?

You would NEVER get away with it! Who ya gonna get to stick the new one in? Where ya gonna keep the "AQUIRED" liver until you can get someone to put it in for ya. They might turn around a sell it right out from under ya, leave you there to die on the table, take your money, pick themself up another.....what? 50-100k for a good liver. I would never risk it!

I've puzzeled with the abortion question as Dedolfan sees it for a long time and stand squarely with him on it, BUT I've never been faced with loosing my wife or any other love one over the matter either. I leave it up to the Supreme Judge of the Universe to deal with those who have made such decisions.

PhinPhan1227
06-07-2004, 06:24 PM
You would NEVER get away with it! Who ya gonna get to stick the new one in? Where ya gonna keep the "AQUIRED" liver until you can get someone to put it in for ya. They might turn around a sell it right out from under ya, leave you there to die on the table, take your money, pick themself up another.....what? 50-100k for a good liver. I would never risk it!

I've puzzeled with the abortion question as Dedolfan sees it for a long time and stand squarely with him on it, BUT I've never been faced with loosing my wife or any other love one over the matter either. I leave it up to the Supreme Judge of the Universe to deal with those who have made such decisions.

I couldn't leave that decision up to him. At least not overtly(since it would be up to him no matter what I did). Dead serious...if any doctor ever refused my wife a treatment to save her life he would forfeit his. I'd have zero compunction about that decision.

themole
06-07-2004, 06:45 PM
That was my point 12....The consequence of such a decision would be dealt with in the here after. I usually try to ERR on the side that I believe to be right.

Clumpy
06-08-2004, 05:13 AM
Liberals are for the most part inherently evil.

Inside of every Liberal there is a socialist yearning to get out.

They are elitist scumbags, who truly hate america.

Now....Democrats...that's a different story....they are just misguided.

Churchill: "If you are 20 and not a Liberal.....you have no heart......if you are 30 and still a liberal....you have no brain."


I'm a veteran and a democrat and a proud liberal......I make $45,000/yr and I'm an elitist scumbag?

I pity you :(

PhinPhan1227
06-08-2004, 03:32 PM
I'm a veteran and a democrat and a proud liberal......I make $45,000/yr and I'm an elitist scumbag?

I pity you :(


S126 was a bit out of hand with that statment. I think he was generalizing those liberals who look out from their ivory towers and think that their idealized world is worth imposing on everyone around them.

finfan54
06-08-2004, 08:16 PM
What would you rather have? Socialist or Fascist?

Not that we should move toward either, but Id rather live in a Socialist government than a Fascist one.

this makes no sense. i would rather have a country, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.............and cut down on the amount of money lawyers can make off of other people/industries who employ poeple.

finfan54
06-08-2004, 08:18 PM
S126 was a bit out of hand with that statment. I think he was generalizing those liberals who look out from their ivory towers and think that their idealized world is worth imposing on everyone around them.


hes referring to Hollywood dumbasses and nightly newscasters who work for the DNC. and George Soros, the anti christ.

finfan54
06-08-2004, 08:32 PM
when it comes to taxes. why wouldnt you want as many people making as much money as they could? it means the economy is expanding and more taxes are being retrieved becuase more people working (keeping unemployment low) and more people in higher tax brackets.

The commy libs want to take as much as they can and pretend they care about the small guy but what they are really doing is punishing those succeed. i believe the rich should pay more but not way more.

if i had my way, i would have a flat tax with a flat business tax so businesses could predict their bottom line better and not lay people off so quickly.
But that will never happen. anyways, democrats are becoming insane with their stupid bias repetitive BS that never has basis in fact and they only go according to today and never look at history to judge what is and what is not. revisionist history if you will. George Bush was the nice guy who allowed Dems in by saying "i am a uniter and not a divider", then the dems had jim jeffords jump ship in order to give them power. it ended up backfiring anyways. Most people want facts and not BS. we can all see with our naked eye what is obvious. Dems have loyal idiots who see things in a one size fits all mentality. DEmocrat or nothing at all. Sad state of affairs people. The things that the TEd Kennedy's and Hillary Clintons of the world say are unispring and meanspirited.

Clumpy
06-09-2004, 03:16 AM
S126 was a bit out of hand with that statment. I think he was generalizing those liberals who look out from their ivory towers and think that their idealized world is worth imposing on everyone around them.


And the Neo-Cons haven't? :confused:

PhinPhan1227
06-09-2004, 10:22 AM
And the Neo-Cons haven't? :confused:


Well...I think the basic difference between Arch Liberals and Arch Conservatives(the Neo Con label is bull$hit...there's nothing new about any of them), is that the Liberal mindset is the imposition of a hard left world which exists only in the minds of the arch liberals. The Arch Conservatives however want the imposition of a hard right world which DID exist, but which has been left in the past.

Section126
06-09-2004, 02:33 PM
Hey Clumpy....I was talking about Liberals...not Democrats.......I think that Liberals have rallied around the America Hating clique that George Soros is the Emperor of and that Michael Moore is the Jabba the Hut of.

PhinPhan1227
06-09-2004, 02:41 PM
Hey Clumpy....I was talking about Liberals...not Democrats.......I think that Liberals have rallied around the America Hating clique that George Soros is the Emperor of and that Michael Moore is the Jabba the Hut of.


I still think you need to qualify the statement. There are plenty of liberals who are just idealists. But they actually live in the world they try to idealize. That's a far cry from those liberals who have tremendous personal wealth but keep trying to find ways to redistribute everyone ELSES money. Or those liberals who talk about racial equality but actually look down on those who are not their race(average white liberal who supports Affirmative Action without thinking it through for example). Those liberals fit your description...but not the average guy who just considers himself a liberal.

DolFan31
06-09-2004, 06:35 PM
I still think you need to qualify the statement. There are plenty of liberals who are just idealists. But they actually live in the world they try to idealize. That's a far cry from those liberals who have tremendous personal wealth but keep trying to find ways to redistribute everyone ELSES money. Or those liberals who talk about racial equality but actually look down on those who are not their race(average white liberal who supports Affirmative Action without thinking it through for example). Those liberals fit your description...but not the average guy who just considers himself a liberal.

like me :D

paul13
06-10-2004, 04:18 AM
I still can芒鈧劉t believe someone posted this. The word liberal in politics is no more dirtier then the word republican .The fact is politics is a dirty game.

PhinPhan1227
06-10-2004, 10:01 AM
I still can芒鈧劉t believe someone posted this. The word liberal in politics is no more dirtier then the word republican .The fact is politics is a dirty game.

Actually that would be "conservative", rather than "Republican". But in all honesty, "Liberal" has recieved a negative air ever since the regan era. If you doubt that, take a look at how many Democrats are willing to use the label Liberal compared to how many Republicans AND Democrats will use the label Conservative.

ohall
06-10-2004, 12:14 PM
Actually that would be "conservative", rather than "Republican". But in all honesty, "Liberal" has recieved a negative air ever since the regan era. If you doubt that, take a look at how many Democrats are willing to use the label Liberal compared to how many Republicans AND Democrats will use the label Conservative.

Former President Jimmy Carter gave the word liberal a bad name. I'm surprised no one has typed that yet. That guy would haven given back Alaska if Russia had asked for it.

Oliver...

paul13
06-10-2004, 06:18 PM
You can not be that gullible the liberals bash the conservatives just as much as the conservatives bash the liberals. give me a brake

themole
06-10-2004, 08:00 PM
Former President Jimmy Carter gave the word liberal a bad name. I'm surprised no one has typed that yet. That guy would haven given back Alaska if Russia had asked for it.

Oliver...

Ollie, I think FDR deserves that dishonor.