I'm willing to do my best to make the world better. That's my goal, is making the world better - via a non agressive path.

I believe you.  I think that most liberals want to make the world a better place. I just don't think they have the capability to actually do anything tangible to achieve that objective.

Achievement is more than hard work. It often takes a paradigm shift in thinking that most people just can't reach.

Liberals tend to wish really really hard and wish that was enough. Social conservatives tend to pray really really hard to the same results.  The people who actually make things happen in a tangible way have to ACT and that's often a very messy thing.

I'm a Democrat. I'm not pissy...and I have glasses so I have vision.

Maybe I'm just a rarity.

~Zoo

Here we go for a nice challenge, name some great world shaking things that liberals have created and made a difference in the world.

Amen. They used to believe they were "morally" superior, but they've all become whiny bastards. (I say this being one of them) the problem is, it's all become a word game. You say you're "liberal" when you want to be different. It's become an empty phrase, a useless term, that simply means "I don't want to be like you". The few of us who are genuinely more liberal rarely use that label for ourselves. Do I come barging all over the politics pages here screaming "I'M LIBERAL! I'M LIBERAL!" Nope. Because it doesn't matter one little bit. I like a lot of the people on this site, and it is dominated by conservative viewpoints. So what? I'm not going to shove my (albeit mild) liberalism in their faces. So, Candy Land sucks. Look at the world the way it is, not through rosy lenses, Lucas.

I admit, when i finally (reluctantly) realized that i am liberal, i did boast. For that i apologize. Is it because "i dont want to be different," ? Bull shit. It's who i am. Deal with it.

I live my life the best i can, if that comes off as "morally superior," then deal with it.

It doesn't?

Oh, tell that to the conservatives, the libertarians, etc.... tell that to those who bash liberals, just cause they are liberal.

*sighs*

Ya know, I'm just banging my head against the wall with this, and getting my bp high. So I'm bowing out, but let me do so saying one final thing...


Quit hating, hate is baggage.


Adios~

I certainly don't hate liberals.

Heck, I don't hate anybody.

I think it's fine that if someone's liberal as long as they don't try to tell me how I should be living my life (Same goes for conservatives).

I think it's fine that if someone's liberal as long as they don't try to tell me how I should be living my life (Same goes for conservatives).

I wouldn't be the liberal type that would do it. The only thing I would do is make sure you can live your life the way you wish. (of course, within the law)

Reply By: little-whipPosted: Saturday, December 02, 2006 Ooh ooh, can I make a generalization about the far right? Lucas, Head of the Generalizations Gestapo. He only does this crap because he can think of nothing meaningful to add.

yer beatin a dead critter whip... when yer gonna stop?

 

Reply By: DraginolPosted: Friday, December 01, 2006 Silent Poet seems incapable of dealing with generalities

yes he does.

That's why in the real world -- leaders almost always are conservatives. Regardless of the field -- even politics

Gee I was expecting one the dumb liberals to come in here with a list of great liberal leaders.

Reply By: MasonMPosted: Friday, December 01, 2006 The Left's sole purpose in life is to bitch and complain about all of the things that are wrong with the world, the system, or whatever. If everything was going well they would cease to have any reason to exist.

yer left out whine and put down anyones idea that does not match their twisted view of the world

Gee I was expecting one the dumb liberals to come in here with a list of great liberal leaders.

Outside a handful of US Presidents, they would have a very VERY short list. Outside the occasional politician, it's difficult to find liberals who are leaders.

Hey mod, sorry for the late reply. I've tried to post this, but wouldn't work until now. I found the trick, post any long replies in pieces/chunks.


So, without further adieu...a list, by a "loony leftie."

Here we go for a nice challenge, name some great world shaking things that liberals have created and made a difference in the world.

Hmmm, lemme think....


Abolishment of slavery

Founding of USA (They 'were' liberals)

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) ~ Take a guess...

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) ~ Wrote the US Declaration of Independence

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882–1945) ~ Led america through WW2, CCC, New deal, etc...

Harry Truman (1884-1972) - Same as above

John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) ~ Stopped the missled crisis

Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968) ~ Hmm, take a guess.

Also, liberalism has helped drive...

Individual rights
Individualism
Liberal democracy
Liberal neutrality
Negative & positive Liberty
Free market
Mixed economy
Open society


~L

Hmmm, lemme think.... Abolishment of slavery Founding of USA (They 'were' liberals) Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) ~ Take a guess... Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) ~ Wrote the US Declaration of Independence Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882–1945) ~ Led america through WW2, CCC, New deal, etc... Harry Truman (1884-1972) - Same as above John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) ~ Stopped the missled crisis Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968) ~ Hmm, take a guess.

1 - Wrong
2 Wrong
3 - Wrong
4 - wrong

5, 6, 7 and 8 would die if they saw what a liberal was today.

At best, and that is stretching things, you get 50%. Last I checked, that is a failing grade in any school, except of course the liberal school of new speak.

Back at you. Name the presidents responsible for the 3 biggest tax cuts.

Name the presidents who did not yell for a cut and run.

Now, name any liberal today that is not yelling for wiping out tax cuts, and cut and run.

Dude........

b'ah...

Franklin 'was' a liberal.

Jefferson, look at how he adopt the ideas of John Locke, which are the basis for liberalism.

A majority of liberals, helped form the US. You know why? At that time, the conservative factions were the ones loyal to britain. The liberals, were intent on forming a new nation.

As for slavery...let me go find that refute i wrote for Brad on another thread.

Perhaps they would, but...as modman said...."name some great world shaking things that liberals have created and made a difference in the world."

I did so.


Presidents: Reagan, Clinton (I don't remember him ever saying anything about "cut and running."), GWB 41, Carter(?), and erm...Ford(?).


Kennedy, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton?

A liberal that is not " yelling for wiping out tax cuts, and cut and run."

Me...for 1) i prefer tax cuts 2) It's called an honorable defeat, and keeping what integrity our gov't has.

"Cut and run," is a propagandic term devised by the hard core of the war supporters to lambaste/slander those individuals calling for an exit from the war. Plain and simple.

Dude........

Dude you cant count. Franklin was 5, not 4. And the first 4 were not liberals, but conservatives. Dont rewrite history. ANd it was JFK who enacted the first of the 3 big tax cuts - hardly in the liberal lexicon today. And it was Truman and FDR who would not cut and run in those wars - thankfully not condeming thousands of Americans to useless deaths.

So that leaves you with MLK - and some say he was a republican. But whatever his affiliation, one thing is for certain. He did not agree with the current democrat platform as his central theme was "that all men be judged by the quality of their character and not the color of their skin".

So I am going to have to change your score to a big fat 0.

Dude you cant count. Franklin was 5, not 4. And the first 4 were not liberals, but conservatives.

Okay, prove it...

Also,

My apologies, i counted slavery and founding america in the counting.

ANd it was JFK who enacted the first of the 3 big tax cuts - hardly in the liberal lexicon today. And it was Truman and FDR who would not cut and run in those wars - thankfully not condeming thousands of Americans to useless deaths.

and they were liberals! Just because they were different flavors, does not deny that they WERE liberals.

So that leaves you with MLK - and some say he was a republican. But whatever his affiliation, one thing is for certain. He did not agree with the current democrat platform as his central theme was "that all men be judged by the quality of their character and not the color of their skin".

He may not have, but im not talking about democrats dude. Yet again, you lump us all together. In case you hadn't realized: "Not every liberal is democrat, and not every democrat is liberal."

Reply By: Zoologist03Posted: Friday, December 01, 2006 I'm a Democrat. I'm not pissy...and I have glasses so I have vision. Maybe I'm just a rarity. ~Zoo

 

you nailed it zoo... a sane democrat, fast becoming extinct.

Reply By: SilentPoetPosted: Monday, December 04, 2006 Hey mod, sorry for the late reply. I've tried to post this, but wouldn't work until now. I found the trick, post any long replies in pieces/chunks. So, without further adieu...a list, by a "loony leftie." Here we go for a nice challenge, name some great world shaking things that liberals have created and made a difference in the world. Hmmm, lemme think.... Abolishment of slavery

  Linclon was a republican.

The rest are old school moderate democrats.

Okay, prove it...

You made the slur, you prove it.

Linclon was a republican. The rest are old school moderate democrats.

Yes, you're correct, my apologies. He was a moderate republican, and was a good "friend" (at times/when it suited them) to the radical republicans who became th democrats, who then evolved into what we have today.

By the standards/measure, at the time, he was very liberal/progressive. For what means, who knows. For all we know, he could've freed the slaves, and done other things just because he wanted political power, who knows.

You made the slur, you prove it.

Slur....wtf?

You made the slur, you prove it. Slur....wtf?

You are the one casting aspersions, so back it up.

Lincoln was a republican. The rest are old school moderate democrats. Yes, you're correct, my apologies. He was a moderate republican,

Lincoln moderate? geez Lucas... he suspended habeas corpus, he got us involved in the bloodiest civil war ever. He tore the country in two much worse than any other President.

The rest are old school moderate democrats.

That's me! I'm an old-school Democrat. Pick me to be one of those.

I don't identify with the current Democratic party - I am an FDR, Truman, JFK-style Democrat.

And besides, you know you love me anyway.

(Citizen)San ChoninoDecember 5, 2006 12:32:13

That's me! I'm an old-school Democrat.

Yes I have noticed the sane democrats have little in common with the loons of the party.

you, shades, deference, kingbee to name a few

he suspended habeas corpus,

As did Bush, see following:

The November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order gave the President of the United States the power to detain non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as an enemy combatant. As such, that person could be held indefinitely, without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus, and the United States Bill of Rights. The case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld re-confirmed the right of U.S. citizens to habeas corpus even when declared an enemy combatant. (While the case contained many opinions, eight of the nine justices affirmed the basic principle that habeas corpus of a citizen could not be revoked.) The issue of aliens has been more complicated. In the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, argued before the United States Supreme Court in March 2006, Salim Ahmed Hamdan petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the lawfulness of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's plan to try him for alleged war crimes before a military commission convened under special orders issued by the President of the United States, rather than before a court-martial convened under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. On June 29, 2006, in a 5-3 ruling the Supreme Court of the United States rejected Congress's attempts to strip the court of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at Guantánamo Bay, although Congress had previously passed the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which took effect on December 30, 2005: "Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742. Section 1005 does provide, however, a limited habeas corpus process: "The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on any claims with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of whether the status determination ... was consistent with the standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense for Combatant Status Review Tribunals (including the requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and allowing a rebuttable presumption in favor of the Government's evidence), and to the extent the Constitution and laws of the United States are applicable, whether the use of such standards and procedures to make the determination is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States." §1005(e)(2), 119 Stat. 2742. On 29 September 2006, the U.S. House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a bill which would suspend habeas corpus for any alien (noncitizen) determined to be an "unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States"[2][3] by a vote of 65-34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48-51.[4]) President Bush signed the Military Commissons Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006. With the MCA's passage, the law altered the language from "alien detained ... at Guantanamo Bay": "Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742. Under the MCA, the law restricts habeas appeals for only those aliens detained as enemy combatants, or awaiting such determination. Left unchanged is the provision that, after such determination is made, it is subject to appeal in U.S. Court, including a review of whether the evidence warrants the determination. If the status is upheld, then their imprisonment is deemed lawful; if not, then the government can change the prisoner's status to something else, at which point the habeas restrictions no longer apply. Wikinews has news related to: President Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006There is, however, no legal time limit which would force the government to provide a Combatant Status Review Tribunal hearing. Prisoners are legally prohibited from petitioning any court for any reason before a CSRT hearing takes place.

WWW Link">Link

he got us involved in the bloodiest civil war ever.

He got us involved for several reasons:

1) To keep the Union together.

2) To fight slavery (for whatever reason).

3) To keep the south from hurting the north economically.

etc...


However, he also tried several times to keep us out, to prevent the civil war

Including almost signing the Corwin Amendment.

[link="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_amendment"]WWW Link

he suspended habeas corpus,