You might be a Liberal if...

mk86fcc

New member
...you believe that:

-that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding;

-that trial lawyers are selfless heroes, but doctors are overpaid;

-that global temperatures are affected more by Yuppies driving SUV's than by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the sun;

-that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese;

-that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity;

-that self-esteem is more important than doing anything to earn it;

-that there was no art before federal funding;

-that the NRA is bad, because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution, but the ACLU is good, because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution;

-that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high;

-that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinam are more important to an understanding of American history than Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee and Thomas Edison;

-that the most troubling thing you can find in a public school is children praying;

-that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas aren't;

-that any change in the weather is proof of global warming;

-that national wealth is determined by what we consume, not by what we produce;

-that the only wars in which America should become involved are those in which the national security is not at risk;

-that perjury and obstruction of justice are impeachable crimes if a Republican president like Richard Nixon commits them, but harmless private matters if a Democratic president like Bill Clinton commits them;

-that the way to end racism is to give people special treatment on the basis of their skin color;

-that we can have a strong military without spending any money on it;

-that the way to improve public schools is to give more money and power to people who have misused it in the past;

-that a mother can be trusted to decide whether to terminate the life of her baby, but cannot be trusted to choose her child's school;

-that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV;

-that hunters and fisherman don't care about nature, but pasty-faced activists who rarely leave the Upper West Side of Manhattan do;

-that a bureaucrat living in Washington can make better decisions about how your money should be spent than you can;

-that Hillary Clinton is a strong example for young women of feminist independence because everything she's gotten in her life is a result of her marriage to her husband;

-that being a movie star makes you qualified to speak out on public policy;

-that a clerk in a government-owned liquor store is a selfless tribune of the people, but a clerk in a privately owned liquor store is a vile oppressor of the masses, even though prices are lower and hours are longer in the private store;

-that a handful of religious wackos living in isolation in rural Texas are more of a threat to public safety than Puerto Rican terrorists who plant bombs in major cities;

-that cigarette and liquor advertising must be banned, because it causes kids to smoke and drink, but we don't need to worry about sex and violence in television programming because kids aren't influenced by what happens between the commercials;

-that passing new laws is a better way to prevent crime than enforcing existing ones;

-that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it has been tried is because people like you haven't been in charge.

(Apologies if this should have been posted in the "General" forum.)

------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36

[This message has been edited by mk86fcc (edited January 20, 2000).]
 
Sounds pretty accurate, I may be a liberal but I'm not blind to the idiocy of most of my brethern. But euqally bad & equally true things can be said about most conservatives. Instead of spending time putting liberals down; You might try winning more of them over to the side of liberty (being armed). People on the exrteme right & left are generally freedom loving & are natural allies. If two people can agree that "if you don't bother me I won't bother you" then they can get along, whatever the other differences between them. It seems like most conservative politicians don't care if you're armed as long as you behave as they want: & it seems like most liberal politicians don't care how you behave as long as you're not armed. Both groups need to stop trying to force other people to obey them. Guns & by extension fredom are my #1 issue. For the issue of freedom, I'm willing to set aside the rest of my personal opinions about how things should be. I think that some of you conservatives need to do the same. Let there be no mistake this is a war & allies are what's needed.

You might be a liberal if.....

You own an assult rifle & 3,000 rounds of ammo.

"Know the stillness of freedom,
Where there is no more striving"
- The Dhamapadah
- Buddha 563-483 B.C.

[This message has been edited by Tony III (edited January 20, 2000).]
 
Tony, I think you're using an outdated definition of "liberal." Kinda like my outdated definition of "patriot."

Which reminds me--Che Guevara was a patriot and the Contras were terrorists . . .

Of two students, sitting side by side, the one reading his detailed poem about killing someone with a knife is an artist; the one who says he makes knives is scary. (I found this one out in person today. Guess which is me.)

You have ever attended a conference to discuss laws against hunting and other forms of animal cruelty at which at least one of your meals was a lobster dropped alive into boiling water.

You have ever been both an officer in your local PETA chapter and married to a professional bass tournament fisherman! (Believe it or not, also true. She's my mom's cousin.)
 
George Carlin, Oliver Stone, Tim Robins, & Ralf Nader meet my definiation of liberal. As far as I'm concerned Bill Clinton & Strom Thurman are the same person. Neither one respects ALL of my rights. After all you don't have to respect a person or their choices, just their rights; these Bozos don't see the difference.
 
Tony -

Reading between the lines of your posts, sounds to me more like you'd fit the current definition of a Libertarian rather than a liberal. Obviously, any comparison/stereotype/analogy will break down if you push it far enough. I'd have to say though, that as a general rule your statement of you might be a liberal if you own an assault weapon and 3000 rounds of ammo is really pushing the limit.

Just for the record, and historic/dictionary definitions aside, the following are simplifications of my ideas on liberals and conservatives:

Liberal - generally Democrat, more government is better government, people need to be told what's good for them, the Constitution means what we say it means.

Conservative - generally Republican, less government is better government, people can decide what's good for them themselves, the Constitution means what it says.

As I say, these are oversimplifications, but I believe they're valid nonetheless.

------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36
 
You might be a liberal if...

...you champion the miserable plight of the poor whilst driving around in your Mercedes.

...you advocate stringent weapon control laws whilst you readjust your sportscoat to hide your concealed handgun.

...you believe that, despite the current status of countries like Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba, socialism and communism would greatly improve the quality of life in America.

That's all for now...

------------------
Better a smart man with a dumb gun
Than a dumb man with a smart gun...
 
It's interesting how liberalism has changed over the last few decades. I was a liberal in the sixties, because I feared a police state under the likes of J Edgar Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Now I find that it is the conservative cause that best defends me against the police state of Clinton/Gore,
Reno, and Charles Schumer.

Dick
 
Monkeyleg - I don't believe that Liberalism has changed. What we are seeing today are Socialists calling themselves Liberals. The founding fathers were clearly Liberals and not Socialists. The Socialist major media in this society perpetuate the misnomer by continuing to allow the masquerade to go unchallenged.
 
You might be a Liberal if:

You believe that the money you work hard for belongs to the government, and they should decide how much you should have.

Geoff Ross
 
Or, in the case of Social Security, where and if that money is invested, how much of your "retirement" money you can have back, and at what age you can have it.

Dick
 
K80:

Dingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingding! :)

Monkeyleg:
I remember Ronald Reagan talking about comments about his "defection" to the Republican Party. Many asked him why he left the Democrats. His answer: "I didn't leave them, they left me."

Dems used to be Pro-America. Now they are Pro-Amerika.

jth

------------------
Don't give me a "smarter" gun.
Make me a smarter shooter :D
 
"It seems like most conservative politicians don't care if you're armed as long as you behave as they want: & it seems like most liberal politicians don't care how you behave as long as you're not armed."

Very well said. I've voted both Dem and Rep in the past, but have tended to vote Dem because I finally figured out that when the Democrats are in charge, the poor get richer and the middle class gets screwed, but when the Republicans are in charge, the rich get richer and the middle class gets screwed :-(

So since I'm getting screwed either way I figured those less fortunate may as well get something out of it. Also I get tired of politicians (of all people) lecturing me about my morals. I mean really. I also don't like somebody ramming religion down my thoat and I don't think the government should be involved in abortion (what really torqed me was when the Republicans started calling people with that opinion "pro-abortion").

That said, I'm about as disgusted with the Dems.This time I'm going to have to vote Republican. Why? My guns. The Constitution. Mess with either & I won't vote for you regardless.

One final note; I find certain Republicans willingness to amend the Constitution over abortion to be nearly as offensive as those who would ignore it over guns. We don't need to messing around with the Constitution.
None of those who are so fast to propose amendments are fit to walk in the shadow of those who wrote it and that includes Alan Keyes.
 
Phil, I used to vote Democrat years back, in part because Milwaukee is a Democrat stronghold and their voice is all you hear, and also in part because I was too lazy to pay attention. But my first realization that the conservative cause was to be mine was when I bought my _own_ gun in the early 80's.
Then, when I opened my own business, my days as a Democrat voter vanished. The abortion issue has always been cloudy for me, but people like Bauer and Keyes are bringing me around. The Democratic party of the 1990's is nothing like that of Hubert Humphrey. In fact, I think their ideas would have been more suited to the Communist party of the 1960's.

Dick
 
Phil, don't forget the flag burning amendment. In the 17th century the Sapniard, Balthasar Graciana·n, wrote "He is an insufferable ass who would regulate everything according to his ideas."

"Know the stillness of freedom,
Where there is no more striving"
- The Dhamapadah
- Buddha 563-483 B.C.

Tony.
 
Dick
I was raised in a middle class, blue collar, UAW family in Detroit and old habits do die hard. I have to admit that had it not been for the Union and the Dems, we would not have been nearly so well off. As it was my Dad worked 12 hours a day, 7 days a week a lot, to make a decent living. This will stay with me forever so....if its a toss up I tend to go Democrat. In the eighties I tended to vote republican, but it was more because of the choices offered by the Dems (Mondale? Dukakis? are you serious?).

I also work in the environmental field and don't trust the Republicans when it comes to the environment. OTOH the regulations have gone way too far with no science or rational reason to back them up. We do need environmetal regulations, I've seen too much abuse and too much improvment to the environment as a direct result of the regs to ever think otherwise, but as with most things one has to strive for a balance of needs/desires.

I must agree with you however, the Democrats definitely seem to be way over the edge of rationality on many issues. Some of the current environmetal regs ignore logic and balanced thinking to the same extent that the proposed gun laws do: i.e.poorly thought out knee jerk reactions based on fear and emotion.

I've done more than a 360. I think I'm up to a 450 degree turn now :-)

Call me fickle.
 
Phil

The poor should get poorer and the rich should get richer when there is less redistribution of wealth. And it's not necessarily a bad thing either. I know someone will think of an exception, but in general poor people are poor because of choices they make. Instead of rewarding or encouraging the kinds of choices which create individual prosperity, too many politicians seek to give handouts. This money can only come from those who have achieved a greater financial status. Socialists (or most Democrats, IMHO) try to justify this with the "winner of life's lottery" rationale. This is the belief that chance, and not our decisions/actions, is the greatest determinant of financial success or that wealth can only be illgotten. I'm not sure what your definition of rich is, but almost everyone who lives in the US of A has had the opportunity for a comfortable life. If when one enters the workforce he/she saves & invests as little as twenty dollars a week (assuming something like a 7% average return) they could be a millionaire by the time they reach retirement age. (This information recently made news after a poll revealed most Americans thought the only way they would ever be worth a million dollars would be to win the lottery.) Also, may I suggest you read the book "All the Trouble in the World" by libertarian P.J. O'Rourke. It is very entertaining and informative.
 
Hi JackNkoch

I'd have disagree. A friend of mine owed a small bar in a very small town. He worked 70-80 hours a week and made an ok living, but if you worked it out on an hourly basis it was probably less than min wage. Anyway then he had some minor health problems which needed to be taken care of. Wiped out his savings and put him in debt. He didn't have to sell the bar, but did eventually and went to work for somebody else just to get health benefits for him and his wife.

I understand your point, but I'd say half the people I know don't have health insurance because at $4000/yr they quite simply can't afford it (that was the cheapest my friend could find it for him & his wife). These are all gainfully employed hard working people. If they get sick, through no fault of their own, they are basically screwed financially.

I don't want to turn this into a debate about health costs, I just used it as an example that just because somebody doesn't have any money, it may not be strictly due to their own decisions. I guess you could say it is if you consider that they decided to try their own business, or failed to get a law degree, or become a yuppie investing in the market, but I hope you get my point. Its more involved than just saying somebody doesn't want to work and expects a handout. Wish I had all the answers - then I'd be rich :-)
 
Phil

Don't want this to get too personal, but what was your friend's health problems? Since he ran a bar, can I assume he drank? Did he smoke? Did he exercise? Was he overweight? What were his eating habits? What were his sleeping habits? Did he abuse prescription drugs or any other drugs? I don't really need an answer. I'm sorry for your friend. We all make choices everyday, however, that affect us financially in the long term. I know I'm starting to sound preachy, but I'm just defending my original statements. I really do not want to start a flame war, especially one involving a friend of yours I know nothing about.
 
JackNKoch

No problem. I guess we're getting pretty far off topic here. My point was only that sometimes circumstances beyond your control interfere. I could have relayed the story of another friend of mine who was dog bit, it got infected and it took her a year to pay off the hospital bill. No lawyer would take the case on contingency and she couldn't afford one otherwise, and the county animal control office refused to pursue the dog owner who was allowing the dog to roam free in violation of the leash ordinance, but that's another story :-)

I don't like government handouts or people who won't help themselves so I don't think we're as far as part as it seems.

BTW he worked to much to drink more than a couple of beers at a time (it was a 3.2 bar, no liquor - bizzaro liquor laws) and is a skinny little guy. He got well.

Regards
Phil
 
Back
Top