| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | Wiseguy (50)
04/06/2008 | We're seeing what too much liberalism is doing to our country, and the perception of what other countries think.
The
debate has found new legs since 911. Watch MTV or VH-1 lately? We're
being entertained by people who eat cock roaches. I've said this
before; the cultural left has fostered a decadent American culture that
enrages and repulses traditional societies, this is why radical Muslims
hate Liberals more than Bush and conservatives. Muslims don't want liberal values shoved down their throats. Is our decadent freedom the
one we want to impose on Iraq? Its no wonder many Iraqi's are
saying...no thanks!
(4 voted this helpful, 7 funny and 0 agree) |
 | lmorovan (18)
04/06/2008 | As so many other political systems, liberalism looks good on paper, but can be dangerous and destructive if applied. The error is that most political ideologies seem to be based on the ignorance of the basic unit of society: the individual. You can please some, all the time. You can please all, sometimes. But you can never please all, all the time.
(4 voted this helpful, 7 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Binniethebloodybooh (16)
04/03/2008 | Thanks to everyone for exercising your liberal rights in expressing your opinions.
(3 voted this helpful, 1 funny and 0 agree) |
 | James76255 (23)
02/22/2008 |  Like Communism, it looks good on paper. Unlike Communism there are some merits, but the general practice is not a good one. The United States survived and worked so well for years because we didn't really have a single form of government or economic ideology. We had Federalism on a base of Democracy, with Capitalism "fueling the fire", so to speak. This worked fine for the first 170 years before Liberalism slowly started to replace Federalism. Liberalism and Capitalism don't always work well together, especially as we approached our bicentennial and the Liberalism slowly started taking on a more Fascist tone.
I think the biggest misconception about this poitical philosophy is the fact that many confuse Liberalism with a liberal idea. A liberal idea is essentially a call for radical change and really has nothing to do with ideology or any kind of political affiliation. For example: It may be hard to comprehend now, but for the first 144 years of our existence women could not vote in this country. A Constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote was a liberal idea that was long overdue. More than 50 years later we have an example of Liberalism. Through manipulation of the Constitution rather than an amendment of it, Roe vs. Wade took abortion laws out of the hands of the people on a state by state basis and legislated through the courts. It was a decision made by a handful of people in the right position, one that many (including myself) feel is unconstituional in itself. Another example is the liberal idea of doing away with "seperate but equal is okay" in our school system, compared to the Liberalism that gave us the Department of Education and a government controlled educational system that is now in shambles.
Liberalism is made to sound like sunshine and rainbows by the people that promote it, but by itself is not viable. Add a core of leftist Fascism, infecting others through extremist left wing websites and childish "laundry lists" of sterotypes about those that oppose it, and it is a death march.
(2 voted this helpful, 3 funny and 0 agree) |
 | numbah16tdhaha (156)
10/03/2007 | I dunno, it seems like you ask a liberal why they are a liberal and what it means to be one and you can't get a straight answer. Its almost like they identify as one to not be one of those guys on the right. I still can't get one of those campus monster shouters to give a clean definition or reason for being one and all I get from the right is that its some form of mental illness. Now they got some good ideas like the polar opposite to them does and lately I've just been trying to go with whatever position on a given issue that I think makes good sense, but I also notice that since my version of sense goes with the right more than the left "liberals" relegate me to an evolutionary status somehow infreior to theirs, so I cannot bring myself to give this "liberalism" more than a two since its practitioners continue to judge me while claiming enlightenment.
(9 voted this helpful, 3 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Mathew Russo (10)
10/01/2007 |  For Louie,
1. I'm a liberal. No one does my talking for me.
2. I have plenty of ideologies, derived from ideas, which are for the most part--my own.
3. I don't base anything on conspiracy--I prefer data,
documentation, and fact. On a side note, didn't the notion of
Jesus start out as a conspiracy? Or do we have proof of
that? Hmm.
4. Fox news may be hurting CNN, but it cannot hold a candle
to Hardball. And even Olberman is begining to trump Bill
O'Lie-ly. I better not say that too loud, or Billo might threaten
to come to my home and kick my A**. Ha.
5. I'm not a left radical tree hugger or whatever else
generalization you made. My ideas are more centrist.
www(dot)MathewRusso(dot)com. One letter t is correct. It
stinks that you think you can damn all liberals on your warped views of
them. Your post is purely opinion, no sources, facts, or
declarations of issue views. Maybe -you- don't have any. :
) Your text comes off as if it were written by Rush
Limbaugh--rather ironic since you accuse liberals of not being original.
6. Which is worse? That 'media nonsense' you refer to but
cannot cite? Or your post? Answer: tough
decision. I'll let other readers decide. Even if I was a
right-wing nutjob, I still could not support your post--it doesn't have
anything not only credible, but it fails to radiate any sense of grip
on reality, bipartisanship, or source citation or pointers to sources.
7. Your post has the tone of a conspiracy theorist's post.
I think that's personally amusing, and I'll credit you for at least
that humour and sense of irony.
Bravo.
Sincerely, Mathew.
(14 voted this helpful, 4 funny and 1 agree) |
 | louiethe20th (78)
08/09/2007 | *Update* Some of the posts below can't even defend liberalism without having a video of someone else to do their talking for them.
Ideologies are derived from ideas which the liberals have none of. At least they have no new ones or ones they truely care to tell the American people. Because if they were to tell the people their true agenda they know they would never even come close to winning another election. They base everything on conspiracy, and character attacks because they cannot beat the right-wing at the ballot box with their radical views. Why is Fox News crushing CNN in ratings? Why does Rush have 20 times the listeners than does Air America? Very simple, most people do not think like the radical left, tree hugger, wackos. They want to hear stimulating, thought provoking talk and not the same mindnumbing nonsense that the mainstream media offers. The media used to be able to sway people, but now there are too many outlets to what is really going on out there!!!
(8 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | GoinDownSlow (27)
08/07/2007 | A terminal illness affecting the logic center of the brain. There is no known cure.
A more horrific intellectual death cannot be imagined...that is unless you believe Dennis Kucinich is presidential material in which case you've entered the tertiary stage of the disease and death is imminent. Bye, bye...
(6 voted this helpful, 1 funny and 0 agree) |
 | freemantle6 (1)
06/23/2007 | I recommend reading this author's description of what liberalism is from a liberal's perspective.
Thom Hartmann's Overview of Progressive Liberal values
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | rok100 (6)
04/09/2007 | This is a brief movie of one of my favorite liberals, the highly-decorated, two-time Medal of Honor winner and genuine certified True American Hero, the Marine Corp General Smedley Darlington Butler -
Now THIS is "semper fidelis" EXEMPLIFIED. In this case, it's not just a window-sticker on a pick-up truck to take-up some blank space beside the NRA sticker. This is what I'd call "Protecting the US Constitution from all enemies - both foreign AND DOMESTIC."
The historic video of a fellow conspiracy theory nut, telling the truth and getting bashed for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PUmMC5P8IE
(9 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | 928S4GOD (0)
03/16/2007 | Liberals make speeches about global warming, but you don't see their 6 car motorcades of gas guzzling SUVs that drop them off.
Liberals make a huge deal of Darfur but say we shouldn't be in Iraq. Think about that one.
Liberals want to tax those who work and make more at a greater extent, so they can support those who don't work.
Liberals want national healthcare, but WILL NOT pass a bill to link health insurance to tax cuts for families.
In my opinion, Liberalism is just complete hypocracy in motion.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Conservatism (5)
03/11/2007 | Im pretty sure that the majority of our founding fathers did not believe in Liberalism but Conservatism. Radical liberals are destroying the very foundation of what this country was built on!
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
 | ColtSeries70 (14)
03/05/2007 | True liberalism can actually be a good thing. What it has turned into is a Marxist, NRDC style group that talks a lot about free speech yet forces political correctness on us. I f you look at what liberalism truly is in the common idea of the American mind, it helps societies go above and beyond, and helps people get the liberties endowed to them. It gives us equal rights, dignity, liberty, happiness, and huminitarianism. Progressiveness. Only reason i give it 4 stars is because it is making a turn towards socialism and slicing up pieces of the constitution like in Animal Farm by George Orwell. JFK-One of the greatest presidents ever!!!
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Victor83 (41)
01/30/2007 | It is true that liberalism, as it used in the 2007 American lexicon, has little if anything to do with the above definition. In fact, the modern American left forwards an agenda that is very nearly the antithesis of this.
American leftists of today do not believe in progress- they live in the past, pining away for the good old days of "hell no we won't go". It is inconceivable that they believe in the goodness of the human race, as they thrive off of division and the victim mentality. They MOST CERTAINLY do not believe in the autonomy of the idividual. They forward an agenda that fosters the perceived need for big brother government, in which the only "good" is a supposed collective good. And finally, they only believe in civil liberties to the extent abortion can be used as a means of birth control and illegals can suck off of the American welfare system.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | DrEntropy (40)
01/11/2007 |  Since Liberalism is so often misrepresented, it is worth repeating the definition quoted above: "A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."
The idea of (non-material, long-term) progress and the essential goodness of the human race seems pretty doubtful to anyone familiar with human history in general and 20th history in particular. The autonomy of the individual and the protection of political and civil rights, on the other hand, are principles that nearly all Americans agree on. It is ironic that so many people attack Liberalism, when they are at least 50% Liberal themselves....To be fair, most criticism of contemporary Liberalism is directed at its overly confident belief in historical progress, and its misguided trust in general human goodness. Carried too far, such principles can lead to fraud, foolishness and even anarchy (in domestic affairs), or the appeasement of tyranny abroad; such was the case in the 1970s. The more commonly cited Liberal theorists (e.g. Rawls, Dahl) tend to over-theorize, sometimes bordering on scholasticism. The work of lesser-known scholar Albert Hirschman are more convincing. His books 'Voice, Exit, Loyalty' and 'The Rhetoric of Reaction' present an eloquent defense of Liberalism against Conservative slanders and stereotypes.
(8 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | jj_frap (0)
03/15/2006 | If I were American, I would definitely be on the left side of what they call "liberalism". Unfortunately, this gets 1 star because the word "liberal" can refer to so many different ideologies in so many different jurisdictions that it is more or less useless without a qualifier like "social", "market", or "classical".
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Drummond (60)
02/20/2006 | To respond to Louiethe20th, conservatives are the primary consumers of television news. More conservatives watch not only Fox, but also MSNBC, and CNN, than liberals. Liberals have routinely identified their primary source of news as newspapers. You can draw your own conclusions about the cause and effect, but the fact is that 48 percent of the population voted for somebody who identified himself openly as a liberal, and 50 percent voted for someone who was pegged as a liberal in 2000 (though he didn't admit being one). That is the test of a political ideology, not consumption of infotainment.
When liberals turn on the radio, they usually turn it on for music. When they watch TV (and according to the available, they don't watch as much TV as the rest of the country), they watch movies. Liberals aren't generally in the market for blather and gossip, whether they agree with it or not. Hence Air America's difficulties. We'd much rather listen to an interview by Terry Gross, or Prairie Home Companion. Unfortunately, we'll never know how well NPR does because Arbitron refuses to rate non-commercial stations.
(14 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | JohnSpina (18)
02/17/2006 | TRUE liberalism(freedom of the press,respect for all people,economic freedom,religious liberty,etc)is a fine ideology.What I have a problem with is politically correct,neomarxist,quasi anti American bull hockey that a few left wing idiots pass off as enlightened thought.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| rateroo (0)
01/18/2006 | The concept of liberalism has resulted in the greatest social advances in history.
Minorities would still be in the kitchen, cotton fields or closets if it weren't for society accepting ideas that challenged their unjust perceptions of "normal" (Liberalism).
Slaves would still serve under masters like dogs, and barbaric legal penalities would still be in place.
It's understandable for a wealthy, white, Christian, English speaking male to be against liberalism in the current and past social climate as it threatens the dominance of this demographic. However without liberalism, there would be no constitution or renaissance and ignorance under the guise of 'tradition' would control our lives.
If you were born a black gay woman, liberalism has given you your deserved equal rights and dignity.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | ScamBot (0)
12/02/2005 | I tried to have a discussion with some self-described liberals about evolution. I agreed with them about evolution, as a matter of fact. But they couldn't discuss the theory of evolution without bringing up GW and the war in Iraq. It's like a doll where you pull the string in the back, and there are maybe 2 pre-recorded messages it says?
"How about the president?"
>"Bush lied people died!"
"And the economy?"
>"Attack Iraq? No!"
"And evolution?"
">Bush lied people died!"
sigh...
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | odbtx (9)
11/25/2005 | What a bunch of pansies! If I could stomach the thought of raping the environment, sucking at the teat (that's right, I said teat!) of big business, and making sure your neighbor isn't some kind of pervert, I would make the glorious conversion from liberal to conservative. All seriousness aside, these are some of the stereotypes that some conservatives like to foster about liberals, rather than viewing them as usually rational beings who disagree with them because they have different but no less benevolent desires as themselves. Alas, many fellow liberals help to bring this upon us with their own stupid rhetoric. I've found that small groups of intelligent people can usually come to a good mutual agreement about a specific topic regardless of their political/moral bent. Unfortunately, our elected scumbags can't agree about squat because they are (a) stupid, and (b) unduly influenced by special interests. Go, Cowboys!
(6 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | ProgrammerRingo (18)
11/01/2005 | You know, I think that many criticisms here are unfair.
For one, everyone seems to be lumping all liberals together as though we all act as a singular unit. Listen, Ann Coulter, who is probably one of the most right-wing people I know, doesn't speak for all conservatives! Is it not reasonable to also conclude that Michael Moore (who, in my opinion, is an extremist who makes other more moderate liberals look bad) doesn't speak for all liberals?
Case in point: someone quoted Ann Coulter as saying something about abortion. I don't believe in abortion! I was formerly pro-choice, but when I thought about it, it didn't make sense that I'd be anti-war (mainly because of the killing of innocents that happens during a war) and pro-choice at the same time. Don't assume.
Secondly, you all act as though it is only liberals who are hypocrites and political opportunists. Not true. Conservatives do NOT have a corner on the morals market; they are human beings and therefore equally susceptible to faults as liberals are.
I HATE the fact that 'liberal' has become a dirty word. It is horribly unfair. I'm a liberal because liberals best fit my moral values concerning the death penalty, war, and other issues. I shouldn't have to exclaim "I'm moral too!"; people should assume that the reason behind my interest in politics is because I have a personal set or morals. But in this politically-fractured time of ours, we're more interested in insulting the opposing party or political bloc than trying to find common ground.
I don't hate any of you because you are conservative. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Why are you so ready to dismiss me as "amoral" and a "Marxist" simply because I'm a liberal?
(15 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Dwain (0)
10/31/2005 | Guilt-ridden capitalists who are to greedy and weak-willed to change it.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | disgust4PCness (19)
10/18/2005 | Liberals wear many masks, but none as dangerous as the mask of virtue.
(adapted by me from a Washington Irvin quote)
(8 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | derekgorgonstar (1)
09/15/2005 | This is a group that feels sorry for the terrorists we have in custody.
Not all women are liberals, but all liberals are women.
P.S. John Kerry is a pelican-faced Frankenstein.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| musicprof (1)
08/14/2005 |  Do not take this word Liberalism to mean Libertarian or Democratic. It is merely a component of each of them. The biggest component. The worst one. I truly believe in individual and personal responsibility. Liberalim does not. It wants to hold the government responsible for providing for, teaching, and raising your children. How can they deny this? Liberals want the teachers to teach their children but not to punish them. They make no effort to teach their children self control, yet blame the schools for the child's behavior problems. They teach that it is wrong to spank a child but complain that the child misbehaves. The want to raise the minimum wage but complain when the cost of products go up because the companies have to offset their rising labor costs. They want federal funded medical care, yet complain that government run hospitals have a lower level of service than private facilities. Go figure..... Why do we not just go back to the old ways when your parents whipped your backside for screwing off and you actually worked for what you got instead of asking for handouts. Liberalism has took the drive and desire to succeed out of most Americans. Now the majority seems to want the government to give them everything we used to work for. There is a conservative movement, but I am afraid the liberal media and Bush's pr mistakes make squash it in 2008. Heaven help us if it does.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | cstang57 (0)
07/30/2005 | It's the only way to truly rule a society perfectly. Conservatives spread hate and turn their head to the major problems in our country. Liberalism favors the people that need to be favored.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | CanadaSucks (50)
07/21/2005 | Should spend a liiiiitle less money. . .also suffers from a over-sensitive case of protection from responsibility in certain areas. . .but an inclusive ideology that handles challenges and adaptations well. . .definitely more academic and philanthropic than some ideologies.
(6 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 2 agree) |
| mahjong (0)
07/15/2005 | When did liberals get fixed with communists? I'm not working for the man. Wait a second I'll provide another fallacy for you, it's ripe too: Liberals are all libertines. And they're all elitist. Maybe, just maybe, they don't accept one way, as the only way. Maybe that's the entire premise. Progress is horrible isn't it? Let's stick doggedly to those 18th century philosophies. If anyone is going to protect free speech, it won't be the conservative.
(11 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| samjung23 (4)
07/13/2005 | You know what, I love free speech and I feel everyone should have their say, including liberals. However, I have noticed a disturbing trend among them as of late that has probably always existed. On a number of internet message boards, I have been banned or humiliated by moderators for my moderate/conservative views. When I was at the University of Michigan, I was at first a Democrat until I found much reason to disagree with the liberal consensus at that university. Nevertheless, my POV was not welcome in class. I find many liberals elitist and condescending to poor people, highly contradictory to their beliefs. They were not nice to others, even in their own town. They found reason to howl against the Iraq and Afghan wars, even though it fit in with their humanitarian efforts. Needless to say, I think liberalism as of right now is pathetic. They are the biggest threat to free speech our country has ever had. The DNC needs to change before I support them again, because if anyone thinks Democrat=better economy, you should remember Carter.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Inmyopinion (10)
07/07/2005 | liberalism: n. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority; tolerant and free of bigotry............... Sounds great to me. Of course, there are extreme liberals who take things way to far and give the whole idea a bad name. True liberalism, at least in my opinion. Is being tolorant to anything and everything, as long as nobody is being victimized. That included religion. Liberalism DOES NOT mean devoid of religion, not in the least. Some people, even those who practice liberalism, take it that way. But that isn't how it is. Lincoln was a liberal.
(7 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| kar54 (1)
06/02/2005 | A political philosophy flawed by unintended consequences. There are some rational, level-headed liberals out there who are open to divergence of opinion. However, most have become seething Bush-bashing vitriolic-spewing haters of true free speech. Just LISTEN to Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, et al. Oh, theyll preach tolerance, diversity and compassion. But that appears only to apply to skin color, sexuality and non-European cultures. Challenge their points of view on subjects such as religion, homosexuality, patriotism or morals and see how tolerant most are. If you dont believe like they do, act like they do, dress like they do and live where they do youre either ignorant, hateful, a red-neck, a racist a homophobe or worst of all a Christian. 21st century American liberalism is Orwellian in nature. Its always been socialist in basic belief, but it's now evolved into communism-light.
(7 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | asskickingboots (17)
05/23/2005 | There are naturally good things about liberals and bad things about liberals. I generally view liberals as people with good intentions that sometimes don't worry about results. They want to give mothers the right to choose, all the while forgetting that they are killing a child (logic tells me from the moment of conception the child has it's own DNA strand, so it's not hers to kill). They want to give the guilty the right to live, all the while forgetting that that person denied someone else that right. They want to give to the poor, all the while making others poor as well through high taxes (even if you somehow only taxed the rich, they'll hire less people if they are heavily taxed). I don't want to live a life where everyone is equally miserable. I want to be given the chance to achieve something great. Everyone should be given equal oppurtunity, not forced into an equal result.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | 37102002 (2)
03/31/2005 | justice, compassion, equality and freedom is what liberalism stands for at its core. govt should be involved in promoting these values. however one would never know that from listening to the all too present right wing haters out there.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | irishgit (151)
01/24/2005 | Classic liberalism involves the elevation of reason over dogma. The biggest problem with too many modern liberals is that they have forgotten (if they ever knew) this foundation.
(14 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| eleutheromaniac (0)
01/23/2005 | Neither liberalism nor conservatism can be maintained for long periods of time. Liberalism is similar to nihilism, in that it wants to do away with anything 'established' and any traditions in favour of reform and new ideas, because, as GC Lichtenberg said, I cannot say whether things will get better if we change; what I can say is that things must change if they are to get better. The problem is that sometimes a society isn't ready for change, or a change can be so drastic that society needs some time to adjust, and this is where a conservative period is necessary to counter-balance a period of liberalism.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Pardalis (0)
01/07/2005 | Tough a good philosophy at the core. Liberalism has in many ways lost sight of the core philosophy, which is partially the reason of its decreased popularity. Whilst it does not hold the last word in economic matters (no philosophy does as economy is dynamic and thus requires a careful adaptive handling rather then adherence to any singular basic political view.) Liberalism, with its love for the equality of human beings and their right to pursuit of happiness IS a good philosophy. It is often associated with impopular concepts such as political correctness, which it has partially embraced, even though this is an anti-liberal concept. (Freedom of speech should be fundamental, if people say unacceptable things, it will only render them unacceptable, but they must have the right to say it. And therefor be seen as what they are.) And much as the radical-right seems to have a frightening influence on the conservatives, so did some radical-left views occasionally enter into mainstream liberal views. To make liberalism work properly one needs to think in the long term for risk of alienating people who cannot keep up with too fast a pace of progress. But progressive movement must never cease for society to flourish, and therefor, even though it has not done well lately. Liberalism is a good thing. And would earn four or five stars if not for its current flaws. and personally I am inclined to still give it the fourth star. Though I feel that logically I simply can't under current conditions.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | LanceRoxas (41)
11/22/2004 | Liberalism is a failed ideology and the problem is facts are talking but theyre not hearing! One of the most ironic scenarios in all political discourse is how liberal academics dismiss conservative viewpoints out of hand. You see these, the enlightened geniuses of our campuses and media, are the beholders of knowledge you cannot comprehend or at best not made yourself privy to. I cannot tell you how many liberal professors have suggested that I read this or that particular author of their liking (usually some quasi-Marxist)- I mean, that would surely set me straight, right? You see, the irony is they actually cant hear me when Im speaking or writing. Nor can they hear any other conservative. Theyre brains are hard-wired and fixed to a perception of the world that extends their empiricism into a vastly complex deontological ideology. When data is submitted contrary to their lexicon there exists an outer worldly rectification of such data or one is created (see: theories the civil war was fought for simply economic reasons or minority representation in certain particular arenas). The intrinsic dilemma of their problem is that their ideology flows from the viewpoint that all positive law flows from human desire. Human desire exists as one component of conservative thought but is structurally only a component within a teleological understanding of human life. Conservatism builds upward upon moral axioms and the existence of certain absolute truths i.e. I am alive. I have life given to me by a Creator and life is good. Liberalism builds horizontally in a vastly complex justification of its original principle: human desire. This inherent fault obfuscates the liberal himself from realism even when it is smacking him in the face. They will even sometimes argue that everything is relative, even their own existence, to wiggle out of an argument. I simply chuckle knowing its actually me who understands them fully and they who are stuck in a box. UPDATE: WISEMAN?? YEEK! That's not exactly what I would call you. i wish that this whole liberal conservative left wing right wing thing would just end. So you wish all discourse would end to avoid dividing us? And a monolithic ideology would then be consistent with a fecund democracy? Or is it actually the antithesis of democracy? WiseMan must have missed out on the Federalist Papers- how ridiculouse!
(11 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | WiseManSays (0)
11/22/2004 | Personaly, i wish that this whole liberal conservative left wing right wing thing would just end. It divides our country more so than the mississippi river, race, and income. the word is used wrong, and all these half minded people that keep saying liberal as a bad word should really look it up on dictionary.com, its not a bad word at all, in fact, if everybody were a liberal as the dictionary defines it, we would be a damn near perfect world. People think that liberals aren't religious and that conservatives are hard core christians, THEY'RE BOTH WRONG!!! most liberals do practice religion and faith, and most conservatives do do other things besides pray and throw bibles at anybody they don't like. this is just ridiculouse people!!!
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Anonymous (1)
10/30/2004 | One definition of liberal on Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary is an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights. Liberals realize how important it is to protect people's essential civil liberties and believe that the oppressed and those being discriminated against should have rights. We think that everyone is equal. You would find that a surprising number of Americans lean more to the left than to the right. It shows how far things have gone that George Bush and others use liberal like it's fascist. They just don't believe in everyone being free and having equal rights.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Mr.Political (20)
10/06/2004 | There is nothing wrong with liberalism. After all, our four fathers were somewhat liberals. However, the liberals our four fathers were, were nothing like the liberals of today. Our four fathers believed that denying people essential freedoms was wrong, but they also knew that there are a certain level of morals that must be met in order to have a respectable society. Many of today's liberals have given up on this concept and as a result, we live in a society that has lost it's way on many issues.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | EschewObfuscation (70)
09/26/2004 | If ever an ideology had every conceivable opportunity to prevail on the forum of popular opinion, it is America's current version of liberalism, however accurately you perceive it or describe it. When a certain ideology controls the vast majority of the educational infrastructure, the mainstream media, nearly the entire entertainment medium, most editorial pages in the major, influential metropolitan centers and an entire political party, boasting nearly 40% of all registered voters, and still has to resort to the childishly amateurish manipulations of which Dan Rather's current fiasco is a single, representative example, it's time to admit that it doesn't work. How many other stories, exposees and character profiles were similarly jaded over the course of this ideologue's career (as if he were the only example, or the most flagrant example) should now be laid open to review. How many previous elections were swayed by the last-minute manipulations of an ideologically slanted media, with pure machiavellian brass, with absolutely no review or evaluation? What do you want from the people entrusted with uncovering, interpreting and delivering to you the precious information you need to make important decisions? If you think that the current rathergate is not an enormous problem in an important area, or that it's an isolated incident, then you probably agree with recently emancipated Russians who, unaccustomed to seeing how messy a government by the people can be, conclude that Americans just have too much freedom. (This a direct quote from a russian co-worker of mine, after she had spent nine years in the US. ) Dan Rather wants John Kerry elected. Look at the unethical and illegal depths to which he will stoop to deceive lazy, inattentive undecided voters to HIS cause. The objective journalist just telling a story. How can liberals not be outraged?
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Tinyam (0)
09/19/2004 | My Body belongs to me. Children are fine-but,i don't want any. I have abortions because i want to be single and free. I don't need children to feel whole. I have the law on my side. and i have the right. i'm better than most who don't think like me.Because,My Choices are Legal.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| CapAnson (1)
08/23/2004 | Change for change's sake seems rather pointless... like organized anarchy..
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| ernesta (2)
07/31/2004 | The liberalism espoused today is going to get us all killed. Liberals see too much gray area. There are such things as right and wrong. If you want to have your country decline elect a liberal. He or she will surely vote to cut defense, demoralize the police and nominate activist judges who allow pervs and violent criminals to stay on our streets to terrorize our children.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | scarletfeather (53)
07/29/2004 | Afropath, you recently emailed me (I get cards! I get letters!) berating me about my views on Cold Mountain, The Passion of the Christ and your heroes, Rush. I apologized to you for causing you such consternation and suggested if you found me so distressing that perhaps you should ignore little old me. (And please take my suggestion seriously!) Yet now it is my turn to express consternation. You denigrate liberalism because it promotes free thinking and free speech. You claim to believe in the Bill of Rights yet you don't comprehend that freedom of expression is the backbone of This Great Nation. Perhaps you would prefer a country where the Thought Police censor any thought deemed unconstructive by Big Brother. Perhaps you would prefer a country where friends, children, neighbors, and so-called friends are urged to report dissenters. It sounds like you might be happy in a Fascist regime with an omnipotent dictator.
(8 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| afropath (0)
07/29/2004 | Liberalism is the single most important reason for our country's moral and social deline. It advocates free thinking, thus advocating every insane, evil idea that most people would dismiss as ideological babble. And free speech? What is it when it is used to advocate the legal slaughter of millions of unborn children and the spreading of hatred towards our gpvernment and all forms of civilization? I am an American who firmly believes in the Bill of Rights and all the freedoms that the document stands for. Unfortunately, the modern liberal has used the Bill of Rights against religious and moral ideals.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Emilia Fulci (0)
07/23/2004 | True liberalism is libertarianism, or classical liberalism. What is thought of today as 'liberal' is actually libertarianism with a bit of social and economic authoritarianism; what is thought of now as 'conservatism' is actually liberalism with a bit of social authoritarianism. When you break down these ideologies, they are not separate entities but merely combinations of libertarianism and authoritarianism. ~ There is no 'left' or 'right', only authoritarianism and libertarianism! ~ The degrees of revolutionism/ reactionism (advocating rapid change) and conservatism (advocating slow change) and idealism vs. pragmatism/realism also contribute to ideologies, though to a lesser extent than libertarianism and authoritarianism.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
|