21 Steps to becoming a good liberal

[SRISER]

1. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of
federal funding.

2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about s**.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of the Chinese & North Koreans.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.

8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression, and governments create prosperity.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E.Lee, and Thomas Edison.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hellary Klinton is normal and really a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and s** offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese government is somehow in the best interest of the United States.

21. You have to believe that this post is part of a vast, right-wing
conspiracy.

[ronin]

long live the conspiracy!

13 is definitely my fave

[island911]

ha! . . Sam; now there's a creative 21-step program.

perhaps put another step in for Lynn: '22. never learn anything from a conservative.'

[Overpaid Slacker]

23: "Anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh is by definition an ideologue incapable of being correct or objective about anything, but people who uncritically parrot what is said by NBCABCCBSTimeWarnerCNN are enlightened."

24: "When you can't defeat the message, attack the messenger."

25: "Do not act patriotic, but self-righteously lament frequently, loudly (and falsely) that your patriotism is being questioned."

Who, honestly gives a cold, brittle turd whether W (or any other Pres) reads the newspaper. I think if something of note or consequence comes up in *any* periodical or other news source, someone will bring it to his attention. More Liberal elitist condescension.

JP

[304065]

JP, I am surprised at you! Why wouldn't the President want to derive his information and politicial ideology from reading The New York Times?

Certainly, the NYT does a better job of obtaining intelligence information than CIA, DIA, JCS, NSA, MI-5, Mossad (help me here I'm runnin' out of intelligence agencies), STASI, KGB, GRU, MGD, GHB . . .

And after all, aren't the positions taken in the editorial pages what Americans REALLY think?

Hey, I just had a hilarious thought. What if he had to run the country, but he could only rely on one newspaper for his news and policy, and that newspaper were The New York Post?

Scene: The White House Press Room

Mr. President: "Libs No Good. Osama Must Die!"

FADE

[SRISER]

Yep, I am sure W relied on the articles written by Jayson Blair...

[tabs]

I also thought Liberals were fond of little furry animals...like Gerbils

[Overpaid Slacker]

Newspapers Schmoozepapers. There are a variety of information sources available -- periodical, classified, open, covert, etc. Why fetishize newspapers? I don't read newspapers on a daily basis; yet I've yet to be accused of being uninformed about the topics relevant to my profession and opinions. AND I don't have legions of staff, intel or other analysts combing all possible sources of news to get to me what I need to know.

I'd say that you couldn't be an informed leader of a country w/o meeting with your DCI on a daily basis; an essential tradition canceled during the Interregnum.

I don't care what your particular affiliations are; to flippantly deride Bush for not reading "newspapers" with the implied patrionizingly superior slap at his intellgence is typical Liberal condescension; whatever your political stripe.

JP

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
Why fetishize newspapers?

because they look good in french maid uniforms?

ooops...I opened the door to a new round of anti-french comments. Silly me...

I think the correct title for the thread would be "21 steps to becoming a stereotypical, dumb-ass liberal", although I know most of you think that is the only kind in existence.

[tabs]

Originally posted by LynnsABCs

What I am is a gun owner, and an early 911 owner

Well anyone who is a GUN OWNER is allright in my book even if he is an R Gruppe member!

[tabs]

Well NoStatus...you do seem to fit the sterotype to a T...so if the shoes fit you must convict...

[lendaddy]

Gotta add Sing's famous:

26. You must believe that electricity comes from moonbeams.

Almost wet myself

[SRISER]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Gotta add Sing's famous:

26. You must believe that electricity comes from moonbeams.

Almost wet myself

ROFLMA!!

[Superman]

I think both these matching threads are fairly amusing. And I have a suggestion. And comment, of course. Some of you are using sarcasm. Most of you know, or will discover, that since Internet communication contains no voice inflection or facial expressions, sarcasm is much more difficult to identify. Using it will often confuse your audience (particularly dimwitted liberals like myself), regardless of the topic or audience.

Sarcasm, when you can pull it off, can underscore your argument. I think that's what tempts us to use it. It adds a little power to the message. Sort of like Nitrous. In the paragraph above, I'm suggesting you keep your messages clear, rather than use Nitrous, because non-sarcastic posts are more clear. In this paragraph I'd like to point out that a good idea needs no sarcasm. The power of your argument should be right there on its face.

And finally, I notice that we liberals are accused of sidestepping the issues, and focusing on personal attacks. I think some folks have said that liberal talk show hosts do this. Ahem. First, I'd like to know of a liberal talk show. I don't believe there are many, and none in my (fairly liberal) area. There are a few conservative ones, but none liberal. In my observation, the opposite is true. In my experience, the name-calling is done by the Limbaughs of the world (and others of his ilk), and the more serious fact-laden discussions involve liberal commentators. American voters like their radio shows like their food - quick and cheap. "Liberal" talk shows are uncommon because they would be boring discussions of facts. Anyway, I just wanted to make that comment. I can tell you I was dumbfounded when I first started seeing my conservative fellow-Pelicanheads accuse liberals of name-calling and unwillingness to focus on facts instead of soundbites. Truly dumbfounded. Because clearly, clearly, conservative radio talk shows are festivals of soundbites and name-calling. In my humble view.

[island911]

Originally posted by Superman
. . . (unrelated)bla bla bla, Sarcasm,
. . ..bla bla bla your doing it wrong
. . .bla bla bla bla . . .

And finally, I notice that we liberals are accused of sidestepping the issues, and focusing on personal attacks.
. . bla bla bla. In my experience, the name-calling is done by the Limbaughs of the world (and others of his ilk),
bla bla bla. . .my conservative fellow-Pelicanheads accuse liberals of name-calling and unwillingness to focus on facts instead of soundbites. . . .

I can't imagine why liberals are accused of sidestepping the issues, and focusing on personal attacks.

pssstt. . .sarcasm. ;-)

Now what where we typing about?

[nostatic]

Originally posted by tabs
Well NoStatus...you do seem to fit the sterotype to a T...so if the shoes fit you must convict...

hmmm...nice balestra however your fleche was weak, although you're more likely trying a finta in tempo. Be careful when you in quartata though...you know how us flaming liberals like the backside attack...

[nostatic]

ok...I'll try not to sidestep the issue or respond with ad hominem attacks.

1. The AIDS epidemic clearly has a complex set of medical and socio/cultural issues associated with its spread, and is country/culture-dependent. For instance in Africa it has to do with opression of women and deep seated history of denying basic rights. In the US the spread was helped (in part mind you...not the only reason) by the puritanical attitudes of public and private sector agencies (along with reckless behavior).

2. How about we try and get teachers who could do both? Or I'd settle for reading IF sex was dealt with in the home (which by and large it isn't).

3. I think they both are dangerous.

4. When a culture or society dies (which they always do), the only thing left is the art. While art certainly existed before federal funding, what is wrong with trying to support the arts and arts education?

5. There are smart people on both sides of this debate. I think both factors are at play. But given that we have a finite amount natural resources, is it wrong to try and slow the pace of consumption?

6. I believe that there is a difference between genders, but I also don't believe in "pre-determined" roles. You would be hard pressed to argue that in the past women were actively disuaded from pursing certain careers. I think that is wrong. Can you go too far in the equality thing? If it involves denying the existence of *any* difference, then I would say yes.

7. I'm not decided on capital punishment...mixed feelings. I don't like abortion but I don't think it is my right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. This isn't an easy topic, and to trivialize it and polarize it using language like "abortion on demand" just fuels the fire. Sorry...I don't have a black and white answer here.

8. I believe that both business and government have the ability to create both oppression and prosperity. The trick is finding the balance that encourages both to favor prosperity while minimizing oppression. Easy to say, difficult to do becuase in a certain sense they are mutually exclusive for ceertain parts of the population.

9. I know hunters that care deeply about nature, and think that loony activists are just that. But I know activists that have my respect for standing up for what they believe in, and their unwavering position to protect what they see as attacks on nature. I don't hunt, never will, but I don't think that I have a right to tell people that they can't. As long as we're not wiping out the species, have at it.

10. I think this one is a BS acusation, but I suppose there are people who focus on the self-esteem part and forget the rest. I could argue that being born money enables some people to have inflated self-esteem without ever having done anything for themselves.

11. The military industrial complex, maybe. The military start wars? Who has said that? It is always rich white men in political positions that make the decision to send young people off to war.

12. Both organzations have their good and bad points. I don't believe in every cause the ACLU stands up for, but I'm glad they exist. Without extremes ON EITHER END you get drift.

13. How about if rich people pay higher ATM fees? Is that a good compromise?

14. They all have their place.

15. Again, this is a gross trivialization of the issue. I don't necesarily believe in quotas or set-asides, but they are designed to correct (in part) for problems in past (and current) testing structures. This is another really difficult problem that you can only begine to understand when you delve into the complexities of social anthropology.

16. I've never met her. She seems smart.

17. Socialism can work as well as any other system...but in fact none of them can work since there is no pure system and the envinronment is too complex. At best you have a hodgepodge of "types of government". Again, this isn't black and white.

18. Ridiculous argument/statement. Next please.

19. I think that both should be legal as long as *I'm* not paying for them.

20. Nope...that was way wrong. But so is almost all campaign funding.

21. Naw...I don't really give the rw that much credit. Maybe more of an accidental conspiracy...

[Superman]

Ah HAH! Just what I expected. A thoughtful reponse from Nostatic.

I know many (if not all) of you have considered the truth behind this little quip but here is (probably) a repeat: If wars were fought by mature men (let's say middle-age and higher), diplomacy would be much more effective and war would end.

[djmcmath]

Supe, if one of us decided to declare the minimum age for military service to be 35, we'd get trompled all over by the militaristic tyrants who have no qualms about sending their little boys off to die. Rather than asking "What if we had a war, and nobody showed up," rather ask the more entertaining question -- "What if we had a war and [b]everybody[b] showed up?"

Dan

[nostatic]

How about the children of politicians are required to serve active duty...and not in the stateside national guard. And the politicians and generals have to go *in person* to give families the bad news when their son and/or daughter have been killed. And when they do it there can be no photographers there...ie it isn't a photo op.