http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/2...5399/996/460724

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

Damn right I'm a liberal

Dan Kurtzman, who keeps the political snark fires burning over at About.com, wrote a terrific piece for his recent book, How to Win a Fight with a Conservative. We present it here with the author's kind permission:

Liberal Manifesto

Liberals believe in clean air, diplomacy, stem cells, living wages, body armor for our troops, government accountability, and that exercising the right to dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

Liberals believe in reading actual books, going to war as a last resort, separating church and hate, and doing what Jesus would actually do, instead of lobbying for upper-class tax cuts and fantasizing about the apocalypse.

Liberals believe in civil rights, the right to privacy, and that evolution and global warming aren’t just theories but incontrovertible scientific facts.

Liberals believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment that (1) prohibits another Bush from ever occupying the White House, and (2) prevents George W. Bush from ever becoming baseball commissioner before he does to our national pastime what he did for America.

Liberals believe in rescuing people from flooded streets and rooftops, even if they’re too poor to vote Republican.

Liberals believe that supporting our troops means treating our wounded vets like the heroes they are, and not leaving them to languish in rat-infested military hospitals under the outsourced management of incompetent cronies who think they’re running a Taco Bell franchise.

Liberals believe in pheromones, sex ed, solar panels, voting paper trails, the common good, and that, no matter how fascinating a story it may be, a president should never sit around in a state of total paralysis reading "My Pet Goat" while America is under attack.

And above all, liberals believe that it’s time to come together as a country and put a collective boot in the ass of shameless conservative fearmongers, hate merchants, and scapegoaters who are sucking the freedom out of all our souls.

Laced up! Ready to go!

We'll see how strak you are about that when you're in power. Does that include the right to dissent from liberal orthodoxy?


Too bad. I was kind of hoping for a secular government that would leave Jesus in the church where he belongs, and get on with running the country.


Which proves they don't understand what a theory is.


Beats democracy, I guess. It also reflects the liberal attitude that they know what's best, and the American people can't be trusted.


Liberals also suffer the mass delusion that only rich people vote Republican.


Exactly what makes a wounded vet a hero? I'm one, and I don't consider myself a hero. And since when are military officers, who ran and still run Walter Reed, "outsourcing?" You were calling them heroes a second ago.


Don't you mean "the liberal definition of the common good," or is this more of the "only we know what's right" philosophy?


You mean you want to "come together" with the people you've just insulted and branded as evil?



Nice rant. Short on logic, long on hate. Good liberal.

pfffffffftttt. Trolly McTrollerson

Thank you for your prompt admission that you have no rebuttal. I saves ever so much time.

This sure beats the angry white men rant and that other one about to be a democrat means... one.

I'm now thinking of buying this guys book.

I've been looking for this website www.fightconservatives.com for absolute ages, thank you very much for linking it, I'd found the link while randomly surfing and promptly lost it again.

Edit: You know the guy's got a book called how to win a fight with a liberal too right?

I have stood tall as a proud liberal among conservatives when being a liberal was so very uncool.
I wear my "L" with pride, and always have!

All in all, I was not exactly happy with the "Manifesto," it needs some serious work. But seeing as how most people I know don't tend to goose step together very well, I'd expect that to occur post haste.

The primary problem for me is with the term: liberal. Which of the many definitions floating around is he referring to? Classical liberalism includes many branching definitions, including modern conservatism, which tends towards what's now being called "neoliberalism" in some circles. I have a tendency to exclude Neoconservatives almost completely because of their fundamental attraction to Machiavellianism.

Some good first catches from Jubal, though.

Lol:



nice retort, Jubal, but not really a "proof" in the formal sense, I fear. But I agree, what we call the discipline of science is not about fact, it's about questioning, hypothesizing and theory, ongoing discovery, but never dogmatic knowing, which truly separates science from fundamentalist belief systems. I suspect the ranter might recognize his own misuse of hyperbole if that were called to his attention. Or perhaps he slept through his science classes. But that's really the next step, not claiming proof. Language and semantics are the problem here. I would move towards a rhetorical examination on that issue to come up with some better responses. But good call!



As in: lobbying for upper-class tax cuts and fantasizing about the apocalypse? Not sure what you mean there...



Well, democracy is pretty well beat already, as I see it, but wouldn't a constitutional amendment be sort of one of those examples of something done in the fashion of democracy? Of course it depends on how the thing defines a "George W. Bush" as to just what it might accomplish. I think it's a dumb gesture myself, and for me, George W. Bush is just an icon for the unification the bureaucracy with the executive branch, along with the exclusion of the oversight of the other branches, especially the messy Congress, and I find that most folks, including Ron Paul, are trying to find some way to make that very complicated issue into a sound bite, so it's: "George W. Bush." But I suppose it could be: "Dick Cheney," just as well.

As I see it, everybody thinks they know what's best. That's the nature of classical liberal individualism and why it came into being out of Renaissance thinking. Whatever majority happens to get the say is the one that "knows best" at moment in the sense of democracy. But I don't get the part about "the American people can't be trusted." "Trusted" how? To govern themselves, or to choose what's best for me? How does that connect. Why would I trust someone else to know better than me about what I need?



It's a very poorly worded attempt at hyperbolic humor, it seems to me, but the quipped conclusion drawn from it is even worse, I'm afraid, with its inaccurate generality about "liberals." So, tit for tat on that quip I'd say. I think what the statement might have been intended to imply, if he'd bothered to ask anyone he might be referring to as "liberals," is that Republican elite suffer from the mass delusion that only the rich that vote Republican are important. The guy needs a new speech writer. Good to catch that, but I think it could use a little more than a worse quip to correct the problem.



I think he's probably hoping they'll be a minority.

I'll just steer clear of the veteran's issues since I'm one and I have my own thoughts that go way off from most people's now.

In general I didn't feel like the rant was giving me much to work with one way or another. Such things make me uncomfortable to begin with. Too much generality, not enough definition. I don't have enough of the same definitions for the words he uses, perhaps, that would make it possible to dialog with the statements.

Trusted not to elect another Bush. That's why the authors want a Constitutional amendment. They want to make sure that no descendant of Prescott Bush is eligible for the Presidency. Of course, as the generations roll on, that will eventually come to be a majority of the population of the United States.

Some day I hope to sit down and gather up links to all of the instances on this forum where you've expressed your liberal/progressive viewpoint. It happens quite often. The only person you are fooling is yourself.

I'm a classic conservative, with some modifications. It's not surprising that there are issues upon which liberals/progressives and I agree.

And before you go too far off the diving board, I can think of a number of incidents where I've expressed a viewpoint that I don't actually hold with.

I'm in agreement with Jubal on this one. That "manifesto" is simply awful, and is a major reason why conservatives level the types of attacks they do.

Way I read it, following all the links, the guy has produced two very similar books, the only difference being a few minor revisions in each alternative, the tone and nature of each is the same its combat politik for people who want to fight and there's a quiz in each to see how important identity is in determining your politics (or vice versa if you like).

Personally I think its fine, conservatism has been like this for a long time, I think American conservatism even more so and its how its remained popular while all alternatives have been laughed or bullied out of town, unlike the UK were conservatism and the Conservative Party are still reeling from the total rejection of their radicalism by the public.

There are finer details and points which could be made clear, differences over faith, science, support/natural constituency but so far as the basics go of contemporary liberalism I think it just about covers it.

I concur, I've never been a huge fan of responding to some of the rights angry garbage with the same. I think (at least I hope) this is meant to be humorous, not actual political dialog.

But hold on, most of the material on this site, the merchandise and pictures which have been photoshoped is considered on most conservative websites as indecent, angry, affronts.

I'm just not sure because I come from the Abbie Hoffman school of thought in political struggle personally, if people want to be calm, reasonable and sincerely enquiring that's one thing but if all you're encountering are combative types who need an enemy to rumble with you need to save the level headed reasoning for again.

And I consider the things on the sight to be quite funny, but not effective politics (sorry TJ).
I actually define my self as a moderate. I'm to boring to be a liberal.

Right, because there was such persecution of Conservatives under Carter and Clinton.



If the article said that Liberals believe that government should do Jesus' work, your point would not be nonsense. Oh, look, it doesn't.



Which explains why so many scientists voted for Bush. Also, you're implying that the common English definition of "theory" is less valid than the technical definition used in the sciences.



Wow, that's a strange reaction to a joke.



I'll take mass delusions over depraved indifference any day.



Outsourcing blamed for Walter Reed Scandal



Do conservatives not believe that there is any common good? Or are they just so egalitarian that they don't bother to pursue their version of it?

Can't you just see Bush? "In my opinion, the common good requires the Superdome to be evacuated. But I don't want to impose my view of the common good on anyone, so I'll just let someone else worry about it."

No, it's a good thing Bush is no elitist.



No, just the people who aren't happy with fearmongering and scapegoating. Seventy percent would be enough of a majority, I think.



Because liberals should never get angry. Nothing worse than an angry liberal.

I'm here to testify to the truth of this statement!
Jubal is not as big and bad or rough and tough as he lets on.


edit to add.....



Any liberal manifesto should not be a reaction to the attacks by blind conservative idologes.
Liberals need to stop jumpiung through conservative hoops, and become pro-active pro-gressives

We only care what conservatives do and say because eventually we'll have to pick up the mess.

Yeah, probably the conservative ones, Libby!

Edit to add: Nice attempt at a save.

One example: gun control. I'm not saying I agree with banning handguns (I own several), just that doing so would take care of the huge majority of gun homicides. That's a fact. Whether it's worth it or not would be my opinion, or position on the subject.

Another example: the budget. As far as I'm concerned, this is the single most important issue today (even more than the war). Many, many progressives agree with me (at least the ones who can do simple arithmetic).

Oh certainly, real liberals and conservatives pretty much share the same ideals, just differing ways of achieving them. (That's why we like you). I think the first time your liberal/progressive leanings came out was when we were talking about American Indian issues. But I'm not going to point anything out specifically, so you don't go back and changing your posts, East coast tree-hugging bleeding heart liberal.

Now who's trolling?

He's not trolling, he's poking me with a stick.


He was a brave man.

WAS

If I write a book it'll be damn right I'm a socialist.

"who's a hermeticist?"

I think that was Hermiticist

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

a discussion about getting out of the house?
Hermit icist.





I'm just kiddin with the wordage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism

Hermeticism as a religion
Not all Hermeticists take a religious approach, some consider it to be a philosophical system only. In Hermetic religion the supreme Deity, or Principle, is referred to variously as 'God', 'The All', or 'The One'. Many Hermeticists also align their beliefs and mystical ideas with other religions, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, mainstream Paganism, or Islam. Many hold that all great religions have equivalent mystical truths at their core, and that all religions share an understanding of esoteric tenets with Hermeticism.

Tobias Churton, scholar of obscure religious movements, states that "the Hermetic tradition was both moderate and flexible, offering a tolerant philosophical religion, a religion of the (omnipresent) mind, a purified perception of God, the cosmos, and the self, and much positive encouragement for the spiritual seeker, all of which the student could take anywhere."[11]

I dont understand what that's got to do with socialism or liberalism.

I believe it is a post reacting to my comments about Christianity.
It's a tangent that has nothing to do with Socialism or Liberalism.

It's a good tangent though and I expect the thread will not stray far for long.

A "theory" in Science is also known as a law.
It appears recently, that a "law" in government is nothing but a theory!

Well said!