Fox News features the most disgusting Leftist Religious Nut ever.

[EGarrett]

http://theync.com/r041906nut.shtml

This woman pickets funerals. Among many other things. Look in her eyes.

And hopefully, this will put to rest the idea that the religious-quackery is strictly the domain of conservatives.

I'll also say that as a man, who doesn't hit women...if this chick came to a funeral of one of my close friends or family members spouting this stuff...I'd probably punch her in the face.

[Cleon]

This woman pickets funerals. Among many other things. Look in her eyes.

And hopefully, this will put to rest the idea that the religious-quackery is strictly the domain of conservatives.
WTF? She's one the Phelps clan. In what possible way is she leftist?

Or am I just not picking up on your sarcasm?

(Alan Colmes has the best question, IMO. "What's the matter with you?")

[EGarrett]

WTF? She's one the Phelps clan. In what possible way is she leftist?

Or am I just not picking up on your sarcasm?

(Alan Colmes has the best question, IMO. "What's the matter with you?")
She's anti-gay, but also anti-war...apparently. Maybe I should've just said "anti-war hippy?" It's hard to figure her out...maybe I was mesmerized by her psycho-gaze.

[BryanLower]

This actually illustrates one of my problems with Fox news. They give more time to the fringe than they should. Instead of getting the more thoughtfu and moderatel advocates of a viewpoint, they try to pit two extremes against each other. This is the equivalent of setting up a straw man.

I think it is also why most of my conservative friends have no idea what Liberalism really is.

[Cleon]

She's anti-gay, but also anti-war...apparently. Maybe I should've just said "anti-war hippy?" It's hard to figure her out...maybe I was mesmerized by her psycho-gaze.
She's not anti-war. She's just anti-everything-that-isn't-in-her-cult. But even if she were, that doesn't make her "leftist" in any reasonable sense of the word. Antiwar.com is anti-war (obviously), and it's run by a bunch of libertarians.

She's with these guys (http://www.godhatesfags.com). Not leftist. Crazy, yes. Leftist, no.

Don't get me wrong; being verbally assaulted by Sean Hannity is usually a sign that someone is somewhere to the left of, say, Benito Mussolini. But that really doesn't apply here.

[Manny]

She's anti-gay, but also anti-war...apparently. Maybe I should've just said "anti-war hippy?" It's hard to figure her out...maybe I was mesmerized by her psycho-gaze.I can't see the video from work, but if she's with the Phelps clan she's not so much anti-war as anti-military. And she's anti-military because their policy is "don't ask don't tell" instead of "interrogate everyone and everyone who even hints that they don't hate gays goes to Leavenworth." It's all back to the gays with them.

[hammegk]

I think it is ... why most of my conservative friends have no idea what Liberalism really is.
Your conservative friends all think you have the problem understanding what Liberalism really is.

[BryanLower]

Your conservative friends all think you have the problem understanding what Liberalism is.

Since I've studied the philosophy of Liberalism, from the earliest form to the most recent incarnation, I'd say I have a pretty good idea what it is. Certainly a better idea that someone who only gets an impression of it from its critics.

[geni]

She's anti-gay, but also anti-war...apparently. Maybe I should've just said "anti-war hippy?" It's hard to figure her out...maybe I was mesmerized by her psycho-gaze.


In 1998, Westboro picketed the funeral of Gore's father, screaming vulgarities at Gore and telling him "your dad's in Hell."


In Practice they are pretty A-political. They probably would defult to old style southen democrat but the whole gay thing is such an obsession for them that they don't like any of the major parties much.

Unltimately insanity isn't a political position.

[Rob Lister]

http://theync.com/r041906nut.shtml

This woman pickets funerals. Among many other things. Look in her eyes.

And hopefully, this will put to rest the idea that the religious-quackery is strictly the domain of conservatives.

I'll also say that as a man, who doesn't hit women...if this chick came to a funeral of one of my close friends or family members spouting this stuff...I'd probably punch her in the face.

It took me all of thirty seconds of watching that clip to decide that some people are just too far gone mentally to be given my attention. I had to click the little X in the upper corner of the browser tab.

[Skeptic]

For Phelps, the deaths of soldiers in the war in Iraq are God's punishment for the USA tolerating homosexuality. I'm not exactly sure if this is pro-war or anti-war (the war is a bad thing but it's a deserved bad thing), but it surely has nothing to do with the usual left/right distinctions.

[Snide]

It took me all of thirty seconds of watching that clip to decide that some people are just too far gone mentally to be given my attention. I had to click the little X in the upper corner of the browser tab.Part of me wondered why in the world she was given any air time on (something as big as) Fox News, but since she was so resoundly shot down by both hosts, I'm kind of glad she was. But I do hope she is never given another milisecond...

[hammegk]

Since I've studied the philosophy of Liberalism, from the earliest form to the most recent incarnation, I'd say I have a pretty good idea what it is. Certainly a better idea that someone who only gets an impression of it from its critics.
Oh?

And how does your take differ from "From each according to his ability; To each according to his need."?

[Tony]

Oh?

And how does your take differ from "From each according to his ability; To each according to his need."?

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Marx criticized liberalism many times in The Communist Manifesto.

[Ryokan]

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Marx criticized liberalism many times in The Communist Manifesto.

Indeed. Ideologically, liberalism is the worst enemy of socialism, as two of its core ideals are political and economical freedom for the individual.

(Of course, American liberalism has changed so much that I, as a European liberal, do not recognize it.)

[Shaun from Scotland]

For Phelps, the deaths of soldiers in the war in Iraq are God's punishment for the USA tolerating homosexuality. .


Erm......what? Run that by me again......????

[geni]

Erm......what? Run that by me again......????

The guy is insane:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

[Shaun from Scotland]

The guy is insane:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

You know, I freely admit that how somebody could end up this twisted in the head is quite simply beyond me......

[BPSCG]

I laughed my ass off.

It was like watching someone hunt penned-up cattle with a high-powered rifle.

You gotta assume H&C knew full well what kind of nutbat this lady was before they asked her to come on the show, and they had her on just so they could indulge that deep recess of the id they (and we all) have that wants to occasionally hit someone over the head with a baseball bat. They certainly didn't change anyone's minds on any issue of any significance, or shine any light on any important issue of the day, with the possible exception of the limits of free speech.

FWIW, I think it's good that they passed a law banning protests at funerals. Because otherwise it would just be a matter of time before some idiot protestor got his or her lights punched out.

[a_unique_person]

http://theync.com/r041906nut.shtml

This woman pickets funerals. Among many other things. Look in her eyes.

And hopefully, this will put to rest the idea that the religious-quackery is strictly the domain of conservatives.

I'll also say that as a man, who doesn't hit women...if this chick came to a funeral of one of my close friends or family members spouting this stuff...I'd probably punch her in the face.

Not having a go at you, but it appears you got the impression they were trying to give.

[Darat]

Part of me wondered why in the world she was given any air time on (something as big as) Fox News, but since she was so resoundly shot down by both hosts, I'm kind of glad she was. But I do hope she is never given another milisecond...

From what I can gather the piece was legitimate news because it appears her 80 member church has managed to make the legislative of at least one state pass laws to prohibit their activities. Unfortunately the studio based twosome* seemed to be ignoring this point.

(*I take it they are a TV equivalent of "shock jocks" rather then hosting a serious news based programme?)

[Zep]

This woman is why God invented paint-ball guns...filled with Mace paintballs.

[CFLarsen]

The guy is insane:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps
From Wikipedia:

A good left hook makes for a right fine wife. Brethren, they can lock us up, but we'll still do what the Bible tells us to do. Either our wives are going to obey, or we're going to beat them!

Why would any American woman accept that in 2006?

[BPSCG]

(*I take it they are a TV equivalent of "shock jocks" rather then hosting a serious news based programme?)Not quite, but that's fairly close. The program is "news-based. The format is to invite a guest or guests on to talk about his view on some issue, then to discuss it with Hannity (on the political right, on the left side of the TV screen) and Colmes (political left, screen right).

That's the structure of the show. In practice, it amounts to Hannity denouncing anyone he disagrees with as an America-hater or worse, and anyone he agrees with as a great American (okay, that's oversimplifying a bit, but I don't think any regular watchers will dispute me much on that). Colmes, OTOH, attacks from the left, and is rather low-key by comparison; I've heard complaints he isn't aggressive enough.

But all serious exchange of ideas gets blown away in the opening seconds of the debate. Part of it may be because they do have a tendency to invite wild-eyed moonbats, though generally not as nutso as this last one, but even if they were to invite any former president of the United States of America, the tone wouldn't change significantly.

I'll give Hannity this: He's a bulldog with a question. They once had Kate Michaelman on (president of National Organization of Women or National Abortion Rights League - I forget which) to talk about abortion. Hannity asked her a very simple question, albeit one full of razor-sharp teeth: "Is abortion ever wrong?"

Michaelman danced around the question, talking about a woman's right to privacy, it's a difficult decision, should only be between a woman and her doctor, legislators have no business interfering in the decision, etc., etc., but refusing to answer the question. Hannity kept at her and it was obvious she would have much rather been performing eye surgery on herself.

But really, the show is just an excuse for someone to come in, give an opinion, then endure five to ten minutes of abuse.

[HarryKeogh]

Why would any American woman accept that in 2006?

Why would any woman accept that in 2006?

(Of course the vast majority don't.)

[BPSCG]

Why would any American woman accept that in 2006?Because she's a good Muslim?

[BryanLower]

Oh?

And how does your take differ from "From each according to his ability; To each according to his need."?

That's exactly what I'm talking about. You have no idea what it is. It has a real meaning, and it generally isn't what more Conservatives think it is.

[Darat]

Because she's a good Muslim?

Well the link Claus provided goes to beliefs of a Christian group so the answer so far is:

Because she's a Christian or Muslim*.

Any other religions want to throw their hats in and claim it is fine to beat your wife? Anyone know if wife beating is a Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu teaching?

(*I'm not disputing it because I believe it is true but I should point out that at the moment this is just an assertion i.e. no evidence has been put forward to support this claim.)

[Darat]

Why would any woman accept that in 2006?

(Of course the vast majority don't.)

I would say because the consequences of not accepting it would be even worse. :(

[a_unique_person]

They had satirical "The Chaser" asking an anti-gay marriage politician in Australia why he took that stance. "Is it because you haven't met the right man yet?" http://www.thechaser.com.au/

[brodski]

FWIW, I think it's good that they passed a law banning protests at funerals. Because otherwise it would just be a matter of time before some idiot protestor got his or her lights punched out.
I was under the impression that Westbro Baptist Church has been funded to a significant degree from settlements arising after Phelps and his followers had been assaulted.
Remember Phelps is (was?) a lawyer.

[Psi Baba]

Not quite, but that's fairly close. The program is "news-based. The format is to invite a guest or guests on to talk about his view on some issue, then to discuss it with Hannity (on the political right, on the left side of the TV screen) and Colmes (political left, screen right).

That's the structure of the show. In practice, it amounts to Hannity denouncing anyone he disagrees with as an America-hater or worse, and anyone he agrees with as a great American (okay, that's oversimplifying a bit, but I don't think any regular watchers will dispute me much on that). Colmes, OTOH, attacks from the left, and is rather low-key by comparison; I've heard complaints he isn't aggressive enough.
This is basically the FoxNews' MO in a nutshell. It's how they do everything. I seriously doubt that Colmes is on the left at all. He's role-playing. You pretty much said it yourself, Colmes comes across as a milquetoast while Hannity leaps upon 3-dimensional strawmen, i.e. extremists or wackos that they want the viewing audience to believe typify liberals or democrats. It's all theatrics, on par with pro wrestling. There is no news value in it all. Rupert Murdoch pulls the strings, Hannity, Colmes, O'Reilly, and everyone else bounce up and down.

BTW, I didn't actually see the video as the facist website that was linked to in the OP crashed Firefox (I guess being opensource, Firefox is a "Liberal/Commie/Socialist" browser) in a neverending loop of incomprehensible messages, much like a FoxNews broadcast.

[pgwenthold]

FWIW, I think it's good that they passed a law banning protests at funerals. Because otherwise it would just be a matter of time before some idiot protestor got his or her lights punched out.

So how do you feel about legislated "buffer zones" around abortion clinics to keep anti-abortion protestors away from clients and staff?

My impression is that many of the same people who object to abortion clinic buffer zones on the grounds of free speech support anti-protestor laws for funerals.

[BPSCG]

This is basically the FoxNews' MO in a nutshell. It's how they do everything. Rupert Murdoch pulls the strings, Hannity, Colmes, O'Reilly, and everyone else bounce up and down.If you think that's "how they do everything," then all you're watching is the opinion shows, not the news. Watch Brit Hume's Special Report for actual news. Airs at the same time as CBSNBCABC evening news shows, though Hume isn't as perky as Katie Couric.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Another Red Letter Friday. This must be the first time I ever agreed with Hannity.

Charlie (potential Bush apologist?) Monoxide

[Skeptic]

Well the link Claus provided goes to beliefs of a Christian group so the answer so far is:

Because she's a Christian or Muslim*.

Any other religions want to throw their hats in and claim it is fine to beat your wife? Anyone know if wife beating is a Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu teaching?

In judaism, wife-beating used to be allowed, but the last significant Rabbi to permit it lived, I think, 100 years ago or so. But even when allowed (in the sense of not considered a crime), it was frowned upon; to be known as a wife-beater would usually mean, at least, social ostracism.

[HarryKeogh]

Another Red Letter Friday. This must be the first time I ever agreed with Hannity.

Charlie (potential Bush apologist?) Monoxide

I saw Hannity yesterday. We were eating in the same restaurant. Sean didn't look nearly as demonic in person. Maybe he checked his pitchfork at the door.

[Darat]

In judaism, wife-beating used to be allowed, but the last significant Rabbi to permit it lived, I think, 100 years ago or so. But even when allowed (in the sense of not considered a crime), it was frowned upon; to be known as a wife-beater would usually mean, at least, social ostracism.

You live and learn.

So out of the three Abrahamic religions the winner in this round is Judaism!

[brodski]

You live and learn.

So out of the three Abrahamic religions the winner in this round is Judaism!
"Join us tomorrow, when our topic will be, `Religion: Which is the one true faith?' " [/simpsons]

[BPSCG]

You live and learn.

So out of the three Abrahamic religions the winner in this round is Judaism!In fairness to Christianity, I can guarantee you that Jesus never advocated wife-beating. That's an invention of people who claim to follow his teachings.

Islam, on the other hand...

[a_unique_person]

In fairness to Christianity, I can guarantee you that Jesus never advocated wife-beating. That's an invention of people who claim to follow his teachings.

Islam, on the other hand...

People who are quoted in the "Buy Bull".

[Upchurch]

So how do you feel about legislated "buffer zones" around abortion clinics to keep anti-abortion protestors away from clients and staff?

My impression is that many of the same people who object to abortion clinic buffer zones on the grounds of free speech support anti-protestor laws for funerals.
I'm for the buffer zones and against the anti-protestor laws. Does that mean something?


eta: grammer police

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I was under the impression that Westbro Baptist Church has been funded to a significant degree from settlements arising after Phelps and his followers had been assaulted.
Remember Phelps is (was?) a lawyer.

I don't think that is correct.

And yes, he was a lawyer. But he was disbarred many years ago.

[Darat]

In fairness to Christianity, I can guarantee you that Jesus never advocated wife-beating. That's an invention of people who claim to follow his teachings.

...snip...


Perhaps if he had actually married he may have mentioned it....

;)

[brodski]

I don't think that is correct.
I'm sure I remember seeing it in the Wikipdeia article, but it's not there now, perhaps I dreamed it, it has been known.



And yes, he was a lawyer. But he was disbarred many years ago.
thanks.

[BPSCG]

Perhaps if he had actually married he may have mentioned it....

;)So when did you stop beating your wife? :p

[Rob Lister]

Islam, on the other hand...

Seems perfectly fine with wife killing, if you can justify a reason under current islamic law. Heck, sister killing seems fine too in many cases.

tsk.

this is why religion, any religon, sucks. even political religion. it's only a matter of degree and sophistacation.

follow any blindly and you'll find all lead you astray from time to time.

[EGarrett]

Not having a go at you, but it appears you got the impression they were trying to give.
Should I have a different impression of her?

I already said that her position probably isn't leftist but is hard to define. But in terms of her being a disgusting religious nut, I think I was dead-on.

[hammegk]

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Marx criticized liberalism many times in The Communist Manifesto.
OK. Yet you neglected to provide your soundbite describing Liberalism. Oversight?

Indeed. Ideologically, liberalism is the worst enemy of socialism, as two of its core ideals are political and economical freedom for the individual.
I see. How does the LIberal achieve it in practice.


(Of course, American liberalism has changed so much that I, as a European liberal, do not recognize it.)
Hilary and Ted Kennedy define in my 'Murrican eyes the Liberals in our political system. I'd still like to hear from Tony what he means by Liberalism, and how his Liberalism gets applied in the real world.

[DavidJames]

Hilary and Ted Kennedy define in my 'Murrican eyes the Liberals in our political system. I'd still like to hear from Tony what he means by Liberalism, and how his Liberalism gets applied in the real world.How about citing specific legislation that they've sponsored or signed which you've used to arrive at your definition.

[EGarrett]

OK. Yet you neglected to provide your soundbite describing Liberalism. Oversight?


I see. How does the LIberal achieve it in practice.


Hilary and Ted Kennedy define in my 'Murrican eyes the Liberals in our political system. I'd still like to hear from Tony what he means by Liberalism, and how his Liberalism gets applied in the real world.
This is an interesting discussion, too.

As a moderate, I find that most people who subscribe to one political philosophy do so because they actually don't understand the otherside, and if asked cannot explain why their opposition thinks the way they do. And if you can't understand both sides, how on earth can you make a decent decision in the matter?

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

Someone I work with once said that the hard and fast rule for telling if a woman is batsh*t insane is if you can see white all the way around her eye.

Go back to the video. It certainly supports the theory.

[BryanLower]

This is an interesting discussion, too.

As a moderate, I find that most people who subscribe to one political philosophy do so because they actually don't understand the otherside, and if asked cannot explain why their opposition thinks the way they do. And if you can't understand both sides, how on earth can you make a decent decision in the matter?

EGarrett, very good point, and I get this from a lot of moderates. In many cases, they're right.

I do, however, understand both sides. And I consider myself a Liberal. I really get hammered by some Liberals when I don't instantly demonize the other side. But I have always tried to be fair. As Hobhouse said (paraphrasing), Liberalism isn't merely tolerant of all viewpoints, as if they don't matter. It gives those ideas a fair hearing, and allows them to rise or fall on their merits.

For conservatism, I would recommend reading Kristol (for what he calls "Neo-conservatism"), Roger Scruton (a British conservative), Mlilton Friedman (economics), and... a few others whos names are not at the tip of my brain. There are a lot of good ones.

For Liberalism, Hobhouse is good for some of it. He makes some connections to Socialism, however, that I don't think are accurate. John Rawls is another good Liberal writer. Keynes of course, but he's a little outdated. Robert Reich is actually writes pretty well about liberal economics. I'll probably think of a dozen others right after I post this.

In any case, I'm always looking for better models of either philosophy, as well as all other politcal philosophies (shocker! There are more than two!) . I'm always giving other ideas a fair hearing. I'm always happy to find Conservatives who do the same.

[hammegk]

How about citing specific legislation that they've sponsored or signed which you've used to arrive at your definition.
Do you live in the USA?
1. HilaryCare debacle 2. The Kennedy philosophy, shared by many trust-funders who want to spend my money rather than their own.

Legislation sponsored & signed is imo irrelevant. How do they vote.

Not that you'll accept the source ...

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/02/national_journa_3.html



I notice no one seems willing to provide a sound bite describing their view of "What is a Liberal in US politics", or anywhere else for that matter.

[brodski]

I notice no one seems willing to provide a sound bite describing their view of "What is a Liberal in US politics", or anywhere else for that matter.
Perhaps if you where interested in understanding politics rather than just hammering away at your straw men, you wouldn't demand that political philosophies which can be boiled down to a single sound bite.

[jj]

I notice no one seems willing to provide a sound bite describing their view of "What is a Liberal in US politics", or anywhere else for that matter.


The present definition: Anything that the arch-conservative radical right wishes to vilify.

[Tony]

OK. Yet you neglected to provide your soundbite describing Liberalism. Oversight?

Huh? My "soundbite"? What are you on about?

[Tony]

Indeed. Ideologically, liberalism is the worst enemy of socialism, as two of its core ideals are political and economical freedom for the individual.

(Of course, American liberalism has changed so much that I, as a European liberal, do not recognize it.)

I'd be so bold as to say that, effectively, there is no such thing as American liberalism. I'd also say the conservatives of the 90's employed, and came to power on, the rhetoric of liberalism with all their "small government, limited government, personal freedom" BS that they dropped the moment they seized power.

[EGarrett]

EGarrett, very good point, and I get this from a lot of moderates. In many cases, they're right.

I do, however, understand both sides. And I consider myself a Liberal.
According to those political tests, if 0 is pure Conservative and 100 is pure Liberal, I'm about a 60.

I don't think anyone who does understand both sides can consider themselves a liberal.

This might just be stock moderate philosophy...but what makes the world work best is NOT liberal philosophy. Nor is it conservative philosophy. It's the tension between them.

In every example from the past where either group completely got their way, they created hell on earth where millions of people died. Either by starvation (communism/socialism removing incentive to work) or burning in ovens (fascist removal of whichever they deemed "undesirables").

So, if you accept 60 as a liberal, then you can count me in with you. But if you consider that moderate, I don't see HOW you could understand both sides and say your anything else.

I really get hammered by some Liberals when I don't instantly demonize the other side.
That's what made me a non-liberal. I considered myself liberal, but I was the only person in my politics class in college who wouldn't join in on the non-stop, 24-7, relentless, shrill Bush-bashing. Mainly because they were so insistent with it that it made me curious what Bush must be thinking to do things so unpopular.

As Hobhouse said (paraphrasing), Liberalism isn't merely tolerant of all viewpoints, as if they don't matter. It gives those ideas a fair hearing, and allows them to rise or fall on their merits.
See, that's where I think you're falling into that bias that creates liberals and conservatives.

Both of them seem to idealize they're own point of view as being perfect, which is just a sign that they really DON'T have the perspective needed to define themself as either one.

See, I understand your vision of liberalism as a sort of ideal arbitrator of ideas. But that isn't as good as it may sound. Because at some point, you have to decide what philosophy you will use and which one you won't. Which ideas you will support and which you will punish. Otherwise nothing will get done and you will be trampled by the people who have decided.

Liberals believe in trying to keep us all happy. Which is good. They are more than willing to hear everyone's side, which is good. But they're so willing that they never actually come to conclusions, which is bad.

There are points in life where, for your own safety or just to keep the world working, we have to make decisions. You have to do things that make someone unhappy. That's where Liberals, and liberalism as a whole has to step aside and let Conservatives grab the reigns and do ugly things.

Then, as per their role, the liberals will immediately start saying "stop! stop! That's enough. We can go back to patching things up and trying to keep people happy now." Which is their role, because if they don't the Conservatives will continue until they've killed whatever caused the problem, and whatever they think may have contributed to the problem until nearly everyone is dead.

Both sides play their role. Both sides are NEEDED in society. So I don't see how any person who really understands that can think either philosophy is wrong. What dictates the rule of either philosophy isn't whether one is objectively right or wrong (which so many people believe), but the logic and reason of any given situation allowing one side to temporarily outdebate the other and thus assert it's will.

A person who's willing to try and examine that logic and reason (which requires pesky thinking and is legitimately a pain in the ass at times), doesn't need to subscribe to either philosophy, but instead can choose the best course of action at a given time. Those are the people who I think are the closest to being "correct" about the world. I.E. the moderates.

For conservatism, I would recommend reading Kristol (for what he calls "Neo-conservatism"), Roger Scruton (a British conservative), Mlilton Friedman (economics), and... a few others whos names are not at the tip of my brain. There are a lot of good ones.

For Liberalism, Hobhouse is good for some of it. He makes some connections to Socialism, however, that I don't think are accurate. John Rawls is another good Liberal writer. Keynes of course, but he's a little outdated. Robert Reich is actually writes pretty well about liberal economics. I'll probably think of a dozen others right after I post this.

In any case, I'm always looking for better models of either philosophy, as well as all other politcal philosophies (shocker! There are more than two!) . I'm always giving other ideas a fair hearing. I'm always happy to find Conservatives who do the same.
I hope you don't mind me taking your invitation to go on such a Moderate rant. But thanks for the chance.

[hammegk]

Huh? My "soundbite"? What are you on about?
I asked if you could provide in a few words your understanding of Liberalism, since you found mine, linking it to what you termed socialism, incorrect. Remember?


Perhaps if you where interested in understanding politics rather than just hammering away at your straw men, you wouldn't demand that political philosophies which can be boiled down to a single sound bite.
I demand nothing, but find it of interest no one with more sense than jj can make a response.

Is your Liberalism too difficult to describe without writing books about it?

[DavidJames]

Do you live in the USA?
1. HilaryCare debacle 2. The Kennedy philosophy, shared by many trust-funders who want to spend my money rather than their own.

Legislation sponsored & signed is imo irrelevant. How do they vote.A non-answer, not that I expect anything more from you. What are you afraid of? Show me the tangible evidence which leads you to your opinions.

So Kennedy wants to spend more of your money, wanna talk about national debt, who's spent more of your money, Clinton when he was president or GWB?

notice no one seems willing to provide a sound bite describing their view of "What is a Liberal in US politics", or anywhere else for that matter.Pot-Kettle, I asked for something specific from you and you refuse.

[Tony]

I asked if you could provide in a few words your understanding of Liberalism, since you found mine, linking it to what you termed socialism, incorrect. Remember?

I never said that your (mis)understanding of liberalsim was socialism. But to answer your query, I'd say liberalism is embodied in the statement "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

[hammegk]

I see. Be advised then I am a Liberal.


I asked for something specific from you and you refuse.
Need a waaaaaambulance?

[BPSCG]

The present definition: Anything that the arch-conservative radical right wishes to vilify.Hitler was a horrible, horrible man. He should roast in Hell, getting porked up the ass throughout all eternity by the demon known as "Thorn-Cocked Gulbuth the Rampant."

There. I have just vilified Hitler.
I don't think there are many here who would question that I am a card-carrying member of the arch-conservative radical right.

Therefore Liberal = Hitler, by jj's definition.

Q.E.D.

[brodski]

Hitler was a horrible, horrible man. He should roast in Hell, getting porked up the ass throughout all eternity by the demon known as "Thorn-Cocked Gulbuth the Rampant."

There. I have just vilified Hitler.
I don't think there are many here who would question that I am a card-carrying member of the arch-conservative radical right.

Therefore Liberal = Hitler, by jj's definition.

Q.E.D.
you wouldn't be the first
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34148

[Mark]

Need a waaaaaambulance?

Yet another intelligent, insightful comment from a conservative. :rolleyes:

[hammegk]

Don't you realize that confirms -- as I stated above -- I am a Liberal?

A conservative wouldn't give a damn.