I am sure that many liberals see what I have said as dumb - although you have chosen to personalize it and call *me* dumb - and that's fine since I have no doubt that you see me that way. But you only prove my point. Liberals cannot think. You only know what you have been trained to know. Giving serious, intelligent thought to my post and trying to rebut it with intelligence is beyond you, so you simply dismiss it. I have proven that I have studied your viewpoints very carefully and thoroughly, and having done so, know why I reject them. You have shown that you simply reject what you don't want to believe.

In short, you are a New Left liberal.

Larry,

No one would ever accuse you of being a "doctor in economy" after reading you post--great job.

You are again pointing out the difference between me and a liberal. As a liberal, you have brought up the race card. What does race have to do with it? Did the man commit the crime? Do you think that because he has black skin he should get off? How do you know that all 12 of these white jurors weren't liberals who just happened to believe he was guilty?

You are correct. We Conservatives don't care what color one's skin is. Liberalism has made slaves out of black and white alike. It has stunted the education of all people across the board. We think a man who commits rape and is proven guilty should pay the price for it. What color he is has nothing to do with it. I suppose though, since you brought it up, that you are telling me that as a liberal you feel we should check to see what color he is before we determine what we'll do with him, even if found guilty.

And thanks by the way.

Thank you Tom.

In what way? Are you of the opinion that results *shouldn't* be equal for all - that those who put in more effort should be *more* successful? If so, you hold a Conservative viewpoint.

Or is it wrong because you feel that what I said isn't the liberal position? If you're saying it isn't the liberal position, then you need to learn a little more about the philosphy you subscribe to.

Do you have any concrete evidence to show why I shouldn't?

And you wonder why banshees come wailing to decapitate you? Then you do a "Rodney King", and ask why can't we all just get along?

Doctor of Economy, and attorney, my eye. If that's true, there's hope for the U.S. public school system, yet! :rolleyes:

Larry,

if I understand you correctly you are saying that

1. since race doesn't matter for you and shouldn't matter for other conservatives, it actually doesnt matter?

Or is it,

2. race shouldn't matter but if it does matter it's the liberals fault?

No 1 is like "if I don't look it isn't there", and no 2, well, let's just say that I don't buy it.

So, back to reality! If race matter, no matter who's fault it is, and I'm pretty sure that most intelligent people would admit that racism still unfortunately exists, then the case with the black man and the white jury stinks nevertheless. This was just and example I read in a newspaper a couple of month ago, and I don't know the details, but you seem to find it totally acceptable.

I sure hope that your view on things isn't that common among conservatives in the US...

Thank-you Larry...great post!!! I usually stay out of conservative vs. liberal arguments.(sends my blood pressure up!)
I'm "dumb" right along with you.

Oh, I think Larry does pretty good.

Postmodernism, celebrates the idea of fragmentation, provisionality, and incoherence. The world is meaningless? Let's not pretend that science or art can make meaning then, let's just play with nonsense. He captures the idea of that inter-subjective nicely.

Wow, you're a fast poster larry.

The liberals you describe don't exist, or mayby a handful. I'm saying that isn't the general liberal position, of course effort and hard work should pay of.

But if your earning 10 billion dollars a year, it do think that it's not unreasonable to have a somewhat higher tax rate than someone earning minimum wage. By the way, no need to comment on that last part, I know what you think....

I'm not the religious type, but I find it hard to take someone serious that think the old testament is not only a true story, but a story that tells us how we shall live our lives.

It reminds me of the famous episode in the "white house" TV-show (the one with martin sheen as the president), when he is discussing with a fundamental christian radiohost who has been bashing gays. And being the son of a priest if I recall correctly, he confronts her with a large amount of obscene, crazy or utterly ridicoulus statements from the old book of wisdom....

The problem with bashing The Old Testament, is that there exists more archeological proof supporting it, than it does refuting it.

I'd like to explore the racism vs conservatism comments a bit more.

Like Larry, and Dr. King, we ought to be judging men by the content of their character, and not the color of their skin. In other words, by your fruit, ye shall be known.

And if that fruit is murder, why does it matter what color your skin was?

Larry, Jolly,

I don't get it. If I lived by the bible and followed some of the more barbaric advices given in the old testament, I would be arrested, and in the US I could probably be executed as well. You are raging against the fundamental muslims but seem to be fundamental christians yourself. Ok, I admit that there are considerably fewer terrorist among the cristians but the crusades in gods name wasn't exactly a walk in the park.

Oh well, I have been writing to much tonight so I just leave it here. So long.

One last comment Jolly,

of course me, you and everyone should follow mr Kings advice and not look at the color, but sometimes you know, things don't happen just because we want it to be that way. It's called reality...

I don't waste my time arguing about straw men others construct. Arguing about straw men is a waste of time. There is nothing to be gained.

Why would I do what a liberal does, since I meet few if any of the criteria you have set up to describe a liberal? Thus, I must not be one. But then, I have never defined myself as one anyway.

I don't believe there are any such things as a liberal tenets or conservative tenets that hold any weight or that can be applied to large groups of people.

I particularly do not see them as having any validity when they are defined primarily in the political, as you have done, because in this country these terms have simply been co-opted by those with a political agenda in order to divide the society for the purpose of gaining votes.

Yes, there are those who define their own tenets as either liberal or conservative, but generally there are others who consider themselves in the same group who will disagree on many of the tenets defined by that individual.

There are also those who think they can define other people's tenets, as you did Larry. Seldom do those who are in either camp agree with the tenets someone else applies to them.

I personally find it far more educational and worthwhile to discuss what a specific person believes than to label them and place everyone into some sort of predefined box -- usually predefined by the person doing the labeling.

Feel free, Larry and others, to assume you can define someone's entire belief system as well as their means of developing that system based on what you read on here. I see no benefit in creating an "us" versus "them" mentality or to use such a basis in discussions.

So, I will continue to see people as individuals, capable of defining themselves and capable of expressing themselves. I will also continue to assume that everyone on here if far more multi-faceted as human beings than what can be gleaned in this forum.

benedict--

Nice post. I will refrain from adding my 2c here, because it's simply too frustrating to "discuss" these things over the internet.

Yes, I am prepared to get the lecture from some about how I am not arguing with facts. You miss the point: I'm not arguing with anyone. Just complimenting benedict on a well-written post.

Nina

Then no one should be wasting their time arguing with you, should they? Many more straw men out of you and we're going to need a hay baler brought in.

But I don't think you're telling the truth here. I've seen you argue your own points, and they are all straw men, so you obviously are willing to to so......

No, I think you simply don't know how to answer.

Oh no - they exist in spades. I suggest you take a little time and get a little closer to what the ideology you espouse holds as truth. You may find you aren't as much of a liberal as you think.


But if your earning 10 billion dollars a year, it do think that it's not unreasonable to have a somewhat higher tax rate than someone earning minimum wage. By the way, no need to comment on that last part, I know what you think....[/b][/QUOTE]

There are a couple of things wrong with what you've said. First, anyone earning a high income (let's do away with the 10b figure and substitute 100K for the sake of discussion) *is* paying a higher tax rate than someone earning minimum wage. Second, the guy making minimum wage is not paying any taxes to start with.

Here is a little research job for you. Minimum wage is $5.15 I believe. A workweek for most people is 40 hours. That's 206.00 per week, 10,712.00 per year if they don't take any vacation. Find out how much income tax a married man pays who makes this amount of money per year, and let us know the figure.

LP non-answered: Seldom has so much been written, with so little being said. Ya'll wanted a post from Larry, and you received something that should make you think. However, that is apparently something you are unwilling to do. If it does not conform to your liberal view of the world, it is beneath contempt, and certainly not worth the time of the intelligentsia to answer.

We may be shocked, and it may be awful, but it has little to do with the war in Iraq. :p

Nice post, Larry. These are your beliefs, and you state them well.

Do you think it possible for educated, moral individuals to believe in some principles from each side?

Steve

“Do you think it possible for educated, moral individuals to believe in some principles from each side?”

Does education give an individual common sense?
I think that it makes them knowledgable in their area of study, but not necessarily capable of making rational decisions in general

What do you consider is a moral individual?
Could an athiest that believes in abortion, legalizing drugs, is avid anti government, and is against punishing criminals, be a moral individual?

I think that most individuals choose, but not necessarily believe in, principals from each side. What makes them comfortable and fits their agenda are the principles they choose. Education and morality has nothing to do with it.

lb

Lets go through one last time on this argument and well... if it doesn't work... it doesn't work...

"This post is not meant as an attack on liberals, though I'm sure many of you will not believe that... I said that when liberals run out of facts they resort to calling conservatives mean spirited..."

Fair enough.

"I said liberals like to think of themselves as intellectually superior to conservatives and argue that they look at the shades of gray while
conservatives only see things in black and white. "

To say liberals (in general) "think of themselves as intellectually superior to conservatives" is looking at things in black and white...

"It is meant to try and educate some of you, and get you to see a few things. So read it with an open mind, with the understanding that no harm is
meant... Then I said both of these things stem from the same basic flaw. The flaw is this: most liberals do not think nearly as deeply as they like to tell themselves."

Now that would be akin to me saying ("I'm not trying to offend any of you") all conservatives are mean sprited...which would be a statement based on personal beliefs/meanings...

"They base their beliefs on *feelings*, then fit the facts to those feelings."

I won't say all conservatives do, but you do.

"We have seen this right here on this board, over and over. The belief that they are examining gray areas is often nothing more than the confusion
that results from going with feelings rather than concrete fact. As long as they stay within a group of likeminded people, these "feelings" are stroked and they are happy. They believe the whole world should "feel" the same way about an issue that they do. "

Gathering all liberals into one category cannot work (It's like saying all conservatives- extremist and moderate, are all equal and alike).
Larry... you would obviously go with your feelings aided by fact. If you went with facts alone without personal bias it would make you a regurtitator- thinking only in black and white, which you do not do.

"Anyone - *anyone* who dares challenge these "feelings" will get labeled an extremist conservative, called mean spirited, and accused of only thinking in black and white."

I will not speak for other liberals, as contrary to your statements, we are not all equal. However, I will say that our opinions greatly differ, and that I

don't believe you think only in black and white just because you state something which I don't agree on(although that statement is very unfair). An

extremist conservative (a word riddled with negative connotations) is really just a firm believer in the values of the present, which may or may not be a bad thing (Although I would disagree with a conservatives' viewpoint generally).

The thought never occurs to them that maybe this "extremist conservative" may have looked at the gray areas also, and then done something with
the information gleaned from it. The "extremist conservative" doesn't really reveal much. Otherwise they'd all be the same. You'll find that a moderate conservative person may have some liberal thoughts (like reducing tree logging) and may have some extremist conservative thoughts (like outlawing all forms of abortion). It's all within the realms of possibility.

"The conservative is like water. Water has a goal. Water is on its way to somewhere. If water runs into an obstacle that stops it from getting there, it will pool up until it can find another way to get where it's going. The instant it finds it, it will go. Water can do something a liberal cannot do.

Water can make a decision."

Some conservatives are decent people, aspirational people who look forward to advance society, whilst remaining within current frameworks. That is honourable. Some conservatives are simply resistant for the reason of being resistant (like liberals being liberals because they want change for the
sake of change or so). Today, in democratic nations like the U.S.A. and Australia, the gap between political left and right is no longer large.

You could loosely define a liberal as someone who believes in the values of advancing society (just like a conservative) but willing to change, to try new things. Both ways have their merits. Change isn't always good. But most liberals will hope it will be for the better.

Conservatives and Liberals are people. There is no significant difference, other than a few opinions which may conflict. But to derive the conclusion
that Liberals are significantly inferior- directionless- from this small difference is rather ignorant (at least in my viewpoint, you may beg to differ...)

The left doesn't make decisions as a whole because everyone is different, and though the conservatives may disagree, their opinions on issues would
certainly have issues. (Larry I know this is a personal feeling, but I'm fairly confident you and say for example Jolly wouldn't have EXACTLY the same
thoughts on every issue).

"Conservatives can make a decision too. That's why liberals see us as thinking in only black and white - they are still going with their "feelings" - still
searching around in those gray areas, telling themselves that this makes them an "intellectual" - and conservatives, being more grounded in reality,
have finished examining the gray areas and made a decision."

Being a liberal doesn't impair you in any way (as you seem to suggest with the Liberal taking forever to decide stereotype). Liberals are dreamers?
Some perhaps, but I think I (and a lot of others) have a fairly firm grip of reality. We'd love to save trees, but we know we can't ban logging because
of adverse affects on economy, social society etc. A conservative viewpoint may be allowing all the trees to be cut for the sake of jobs, and more
money which may be put into research into the environment. I'm sure there's a lot of crossover, but when you get down to it, some liberals may take
the conservative stance on that issue, and vice versa, but it doesn't really matter. As long as people are taking a stand on issues.

"To liberals, moving out of the gray area is bad. You must continue to examine every angle. All possibilities must stay on equal footing with all other
possibilities - to do anything else would not be the "intellectual" thing to do. "

Gross generalisation which is fairly inaccurate. I think my State Labor government has done a lot less talking and a lot more action then my Federal
Liberal (The Conservatives- which really just goes to show the thin line separating conservatives and liberals, when a bunch of conservatives can
proudly call themselves liberals).

"This also causes liberals to redefine where the center is. To most liberals, the center is located between left and extreme left. Anyone to the right
of left is a fanatic not worth paying attention to."

Actually the centre [No, I'm not going to surrender to U.S. spelling ] is between the left and the right, thus called the centre... Examples of
extremists/fanatics would include Shooters' party (far right) and The Greens (far left)... both have merits although some of their opinions are
fanatical in my viewpoint, but they all deserve to be heard, and not written off categorically. Enter political diversity...

"Anyone who actually stops examining the gray areas and makes a decision that doesn't agree with the group "feelings" is mean spirited, extremist, a
fanatic, and most likely stupid. Don't believe me? Just read back through the responses I get from liberals."

Yay. You base your wonderful political factual research on a piano forum. Isn't that a bit like going with your feeligns (nothing wrong with that, mind
you). You'd like to portray your viewpoint as "getting on with the job" and willing to tackle the hard issues, but isn't that really just a euphamism of
unpopular policy? But anyhow, the black/grey/white analogy is extremely difficult to work with. Rather, I believe everyone is simply trying to work
their way to a solution for whatever issue that is workable for everyone.

"Liberals stereotype anyone they view as a conservative - and especially so if the person actually embraces the term conservative."

I actually feel I could be categorised as Liberal or Conservative... the gap between them is so small it's incredibly difficult to tell the difference.
Larry, I said I might be a conservative. Shoot me.

"Since they have redefined the center and all conservatives are now fanatics, you get all kinds of things attached to you."

Such as? Beeing labelled a firm believer in your views? Willing to stand up for what you think is right?

"You, the conservative, now fit a picture. You drive a truck, you live in the South, you don't have an education, you're a "fundamentalist Christian"
Bible thumping snake handling speaking in tongues religious fanatic who has a rifle in the back window of your truck, you don't take baths, your
favorite pastime is hunting 'possums and going to chicken fights, etc. "

Fact: The North Shore line (Australia's pinnacle of education and wealth) votes conservative federally, and liberal state. Nobody really cares. Nobody
fits into a set stereotype and does as people tell them to do. You just believe in what you find is right. And if my favourite past time is going to
chicken fights, I have every right to that.

"There's only one problem with this..... everyone I've ever met who fit that description was a Democrat."

I don't know about U.S. politics in depth, but well... you haven't met enough Republicans/you've met too many Democrats.

"Most of you who call yourself a liberal don't even know what the term "liberal" means. As I explain to you why I am not a liberal, it is my hope that
some of you see what being a liberal really means, and you choose to find a new label for your position. At the very least, I hope some of you finally
figure out the difference in a new liberal and a Classic liberal."

No, I have a general idea what liberal is (being impossible to "definitively" define). And I don't care if you think I don't.

"Here is why I am labeled a Conservative, even though (and I've mentioned this before) I am a Classic Liberal:
1. I believe the strength of our nation lies within the individual. Therefore, I believe each person's dignity, freedom, ability, and responsibility must be
honored.
2. I believe in equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, or disability.
3. I believe in free enterprise. I believe that encouraging individual initiative has brought this nation opportunity, economic growth, and prosperity.
4. I believe the proper role of government is to perform for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals of private
organizations. Thus I believe that the best government is the one that governs least.
5. I believe the most effective, responsible, and responsive government is government closet to the people.
6. I believe Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong, while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of
changing times.
7. I believe Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom, and human rights
throughout the world. "

They are all values that Liberals AND Conservatives can share. Just because you've attached yourself to the Republican Party... it doesn't mean
you've lost all your humanity :p Joking...
As I said earlier, all decent people across the political spectrum keep at heart the values they believe in... equal rights, liberalism (in the other sense
of the word, individuality), capitalism/socialism, etc. Larry, I could see you in the street, and I wouldn't know if you were liberal or conservative

(Until viewing your numerous I hate Clinton badges). People just see different ways of strengthening what they believe in...

Example
Equal Rights
Some might view more laws as strengthening order, and the right to be safe and free. Some might view weakening laws as more the essence of
equal rights, with everyone entitled to act upon personal moral beliefs.

"Because liberals have redefined the center, I am a now labeled a Conservative - with all the stereotypical stuff attached to me when they think of
me that I've already mentioned."

What's wrong with conservatism? However, you call yourself a liberal... and you seem to dislike liberalism... please elaborate.

"A check of past threads will show that I have even had this said to me. Even though I do believe that people who need help should get it, even
though I do value life, even though I do want peace in the world, and even though I do look at all the gray areas..... I am dismissed by the New Left
(not real liberals) as a gun toting, possum hunting redneck fanatic who can't think. "
The New Left is just a fancy name for a bunch of people in offices who have nothing better to do than draw crowds to protest on anything and
everything.

"The New Left has been assigned the term Liberal by default also. You on the Left use the term, but you don't deserve it. True liberalism does not
contain the Marxist and Socialist ideology that has crept into your ranks. This is where I hope some of you who call yourselves liberals will decide to
reevaluate the label you are embracing. A true liberal is to the right of the New Left."

It's not for you to decide what a liberal is. I can state my views, and say that I"m a liberal. You could say in general what a Liberalist believes in. But
you can't set the restraints for liberalism. (Although of course you can disagree).

"Since I now fit into the description of a Conservative, let's look at what being a Conservative means.
Conservatism as a philosophy does not produce a laundry list of policy recommendations, nor does it represent the interests of this or that class or
special interest. Nor is conservatism grounded in a reflective reaction to change, nor in a nostalgic attachment to the past. Rather, it begins by
rejecting what C. S. Lewis called "chronological bigotry": the foolish notion that contemporary thinkers have a monopoly on the truth, simply because
they are alive today and not in an earlier, "less enlightened" era.
However, Conservatives do draw on the accumulated wisdom of the past to form a comprehensive and coherent view of the world, from which we
derive certain principles essential to the promotion of the common good. As every philosophy has certain basic propositions upon which everything
else is based."

In other words, drawing on the strenghts of the current situation to build the future. What I said earlier.

"Conservatism envisions a society in which each human being, no matter how humble in origin or apparently ordinary in talents, is treated with sacred
respect. We see the drama of each unfolding human life as rich in meaning and significance. Consequently, we treat each person's life as inviolable
and are unwilling to sacrifice the few for the good of the many. "

So is liberalism.

"Conservatives affirm the existence of natural law, defining and protecting the natural rights of each person. These rights are inalienable and
endowed to us by our Creator. They are, therefore, not subject to revision or repeal by any political coalition, no matter how powerful.
True Conservatives are not swayed by transitory intellectual fashions of the "enlightened elite". Confidence in the power and reliability of common
sense translates into stable, consistent and effective social policy.
Conservatives look for opportunities to strengthen the good that remains in existing institutions. Like Hippocrates, conservatives remember the
wisdom of the principle: first, does no harm."
"We must always resist the temptation to launch large-scale untested schemes for reform. "

Let's not have tax cuts. We've never had them before.

"Atheism and materialism -- the notion that human life is the accidental and meaningless result of mindless material processes. "

I believe in religion, and I label myself liberalist. Crossover... line is very thin indeed.

"'Racism and chauvinism -- that certain races or classes of people are inherently superior in ultimate value.
Collectivism -- the thesis that individuals are important only as parts of society, that their lives have no significance or meaning beyond that
assumed to them by their society.
Secular humanism -- that we human beings must define the meaning and purpose of our own existence.
Deep ecology -- the belief that the labor and technical achievements of mankind are inherently evil, and that only the undisturbed wilderness is
good.
Animal rights anti-humanism -- that non-human animals, despite their lack of will or conscience, are on equal moral standing with human beings by
virtue of their capacity for pain and pleasure.
Relativism -- that what is good or right varies fundamentally from time to time or place to place, that there are no universal truths of morality and
politics.
Constructivism -- that what is right and just is nothing more than the product of social forces and historical accidents.
Subjectivism -- that what is good or right for an individual is determined simply by that individual's feelings or inclinations.
Cultural determinism -- that human nature is infinitely malleable by culture.
Nominalism -- that nothing has any definite nature, other than that which we ascribe to it through our invention of words or concepts.
Post-modernism -- that science is merely the expression of political ideology, and that the difference between good and bad science, or between
science and pseudo-science, has no objective validity.
Scientism -- that there is no knowledge outside science, and that nothing is real that is not scientifically verifiable.
Empiricism -- that nothing exists beyond what can be verified by our five senses.
Skepticism -- that we know nothing with certainty.
Utopianism -- belief in the infinite perfectibility of man.
Positivism -- the denial of the fundamental reality of evil, attributing all human evil to superficial causes, such as poverty, maladjustment, lack of
education, or distorted socioeconomic conditions.
Pessimism or cynicism -- the view that mankind is so corrupted that there is no hope for relative progress or improvement.
Ethical dualism -- attributing evil exclusively to some particular group or class (i.e. the Descendents of White Europeans, the Fundamentalist
Christians, the bourgeoisie, Jews, the corporate elite, etc. etc.)."

You may or you may not believe in that.

"Liberalism, on the other hand, leans in the direction of a morally relativistic secular humanism and atheism. Many Liberals today have also embraced
the occult, neo paganism, earth worship, and other so called "New Age" beliefs, which, according to my research, constituted the religion
of the Nazis."

Get better research.

"A fundamental tenet of the New Left Liberal is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. This unproven theory, wrapped in the sophistries of scientific
certainty, claims that man somehow miraculously evolved from primordial ooze and is nothing more than an advanced animal. Liberalism seeks to
replace God's immutable law with moral relativism, which is to say that individuals, acting in the place of God, decide what constitutes good and evil.
They seek to supplant God's law and its absolute truths, with the politically correct fashions and whims of an allegedly enlightened elite who claim a
scientific, superior wisdom. They view the State as an instrument to enforce their self-serving experiments. This is the essence of the sin of the
Garden of Eden. The conservative, on the other hand, is more inclined to recognize the sovereignty of God, not some earthly experts. To understand
this is to understand why conservatives are not as easily controlled by the machinations of government. "

You don't have to believe in God if you don't want to. I do, I'm roman catholic. I'd love it if you were too. But I'm not going to impose my religion on
others.

"Conservatism supports that most conservative of all documents, the Constitution of the United States of America. The Declaration of Independence
states that "We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The
Constitution stands as a beacon of human progress, by the true meaning of the term, as it honors the ability of a moral people to exercise self-rule.
Great progressive movements such as the labor, civil rights, and women's movements, sprang from the desire to obtain the individual and property
rights guaranteed by the Constitution but not fully realized. The authoritarian minded left perverted these conservative movements, to a certain
degree, with their cult of victimization and their dialectic of class and race hatred. They turned genuine conservative movements into cannon fodder
in their war against American notions of limited government and freedom. Liberalism contends that rights emanate from the State. The benevolent
liberal expert, acting they tell us, for the common good, covets the right to decide which rights are granted to his neighbor and to what degree.
They hold as a gauzy ultimate goal a centralized New World Order. They believe that this is inevitable, and they speak of a time when there will be
world peace, an end of poverty and hunger, de facto equality etc. In their public utterances, the Nazi's also employed this same type of rhetoric.
Just turn over your rights and property to us, the Nazi's promised, before they suspended the Constitution and confiscated firearms, and we will
usher in a utopian paradise. This was the big lie then, and it remains the big lie today. "

Typical anti everything that I don't agree with rant.

"Here is what is *wrong* with the New Left (what is called Liberalism):
1. Believes in a government with a large role. This typically includes, but is not bound to, support of: income redistribution, social legislation, and a
"big government" role in the economy and fiscal matters.
2. Liberalism takes a very passive side to most moral issues. Certain criminal law, for example anti drug laws, are often questioned and disapproved of
by the left. The far left often adheres to what can be termed an "if it feels good, do it" policy.
3. Role of society is thought of as a basis. The "it takes a village" proverb and a society as a whole often take precedent to individual rights.
4. Results should be equal for all. Those who put in more effort should be no more successful than those who don't. "

1:The fact is that the original values are still cherished, it's just a change in method. If you believe in it, go ahead. If you don't you don't. Income
redistribution is fair IMHO but you might not agree. (Provided not TOO redistributing :p )
2: Go to whitehouse.org and see Dept. Faith. anti masturbation policy You'll have a nice laugh I hope. I don't believe in punishing little kids. I think
educating them is the way. You may not agree.
3: Liberalism and Conservatism have nothing to do with belief in personal worth and identity. (In the left-right context we are in).
4: No, people work more and get more. But those who do succeed do so with the help of society, and a few donations to the less lucky wouldn't go
astray

"I’ve heard a story repeated by many people who use it to illustrate futility: a man on the shore of a river jumps in and rescues a drowning man, then
another, and then another; he is so busy rescuing people that he never goes upstream to see who is throwing them into the river. "

That's nice. I heard a story of a man drowning himself throwing himself into a whirpool to save a man. Go figure.

"Since liberal ideology has taken over America, it’s caused what I call the “capitulation of the poor” – and this capitulation seems to have happened
in my lifetime. Not from any one factor, but the issues pile up on top of each other. The welfare state has rigged life so that it pays more to stay
poor than to try to succeed in many cases, and the subsequent welfare reform has set it up to where people going along with the system are then
reduced to absolute despair as their support is cut off. "

I've lived in poverty years before. I agree with you slightly. Welfare means a lot to those who need it- food coupons and government housing to those people
who think they can filch the system. If you live poor, you'll see it pays to work Larry, and living on welfare is not a nice way to live. Welfare needs a slant to education IMHO, but again, only IMHO.

"The gulf is no longer between the rich and poor as much as it is between those who have a chance and those who have no chance. An impossible,
almost unapproachable government bureaucracy stacks everything against them in every area of their lives. The decline in education has assured
that these poor people don’t understand the true odds against them. This capitulation is not from any one factor, but the crushing weight of them
all. Liberal ideology tries to pull people out of the river, but does not stop people from being thrown into the river, as our historical experiment of
remaking America into a strongly liberal nation has shown."

Slash welfare spending and triple education... Pity it's political suicide (funnily enough, I subscribe to that idea). I don't see how liberalism has
anything to do with the decline in education funding. It's just an incredible boost in offence spending (and welfare to those who DON'T need it).

"I am not mean spirited. I do think. I do look at the gray areas. You liberals do not have a corner on this, even though it is a requirement that you
think so. I am an educated man, the same as you. I have feelings, just like you. I care for the poor, and want to help them, just like you. But you
cannot stay in the gray areas forever. Instead of hitting me with the "extremist" label, or painting me into a pickup truck with a shotgun in the
window, why not open your mind and examine my post. You may find that many of the things the New Left (currently labeled "Liberal") stands for
really don't fit with your views. If you do, it is OK to come out of the cult. It is OK to think for yourself."

I know you have feelings. I do agree with you on many things. I also disagree. But I don't think conservatives are aliens, I think new Liberalism has
some virtues, but at the end of the day we are all striving for the same values. I urge you to think about that Maybe liberalism isn't a disease?

Our viewpoints not be a world apart.

Cheers

arrrgh
copying from notepad has horrible formatting
Sorry!

David J,

You can edit you post by using the icon with a pencil and paper at the top of your post.

But please, make it shorter or splitting in several posts.
It is so difficult to read posts that are as long as "War and peace".

How's life in Australia anyway ?

ksk,

I am curioius, which ones are you referring to? The 10 commandments perhaps? Frankly, I have to wonder if you really know what you are talking about or if you are just spouting off something you heard someone else say.

Ryan

That Swedish dude said:

Yeah, it would be much better if we got an all-black jury to try this guy, is that what you're saying? How ridiculous and racist that is, to think that people can't make an intelligent decision about a case, no matter what their color. You know what happened in the O.J. Simpson case, don't you? That was a frightening combination of poorly informed/educated jurors and a skummier-than-average defense lawyer playing a ridiculous race card. Surely you don't want to see that travesty of justice occur again.

I'd guess he's referring to something like Deut 21:18-21. Picking and choosing verses like those, however, makes the point that the quoter doesn't understand what s/he is quoting. That was the law of the land at that time. Now our law is primarily there to maintain the social order. That was not the primary purpose of Mosaic law but was a secondary purpose.

Yes.