I'm a liberal and I'm here to learn

[rogerv]

Hi, gang,

I was a regular contributor to the Kerry Online Forum and am now a regular contributor to the Common Ground Common Sense forum. I am a liberal, but I'll be the first to admit, I don't have all the answers. In fact, many of hte questions that matter to me probably matter to you too. I'm concerned with questions about how to tame power, whether governmental or corporate. I'm concern with the rule of law and how we can get the powerful to take it seriously. I'm concerned with the erosion of civil liberties. And yes, I am concerned about some things you may associate with liberalism--social safety nets and taking care of those who fall through the institutional cracks.

I'm here because I think agreement is overrated and that critics can be your best friends: they keep you from getting sloppy or careless. At any rate, I think there are things I can learn from you. I don't expect you are all agreed on anything--I expect there is a lot of diversity of opinion here. If you are interested in what I have said over at Common Ground Common Sense, I'm using the same handle both places, and you should feel free to come over and look around.

Anyway, I'm new here. Anybody care to give me a tour?

[risk]

Between you and me, I'd like to keep it that way!

I have a hypothetical question for you. Let's say that your civil liberties were being eroded significantly, and those of many of your neighbors, friends, and relatives.

What would you do about it?

Now stop and consider who is trying to revoke your natural, inborn, second amendment-guarded right to own military-grade semi-automatic weapons. It's not President Bush. It's not Attorney General Ashcroft. It's not even The Evil Vice President Cheney or Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.

It's a lot of liberals in and out of government who claim to be defending your human rights.

This is the stuff holocausts are made of.

[Puckster]

"I am prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter."

Sir Winston Churchill

If you could be so humble, you might qualify for a conservative.

[weegee]

google searched...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x108750

I've also found google to help in searching for older FR threads as too often keywords are disappearing and older threads are not coming up even with ARCHIVE selected...

[subterfuge]

He he. I'd say "Freeptard" would be a badge of honor. ; ^)

[SenatorWhite]

This sucks. People here blast the left for being hateful, and here comes this guy - polite and upfront about his politics. He didn't go on a rant. He didn't go and zot anyone. He's asking questions. Would it kill us to be decent to him? Respect is a two way street people. Welcome to Free Republic rogerv. I'm happy that you're willing to learn firsthand what the other side thinks without taking it spoonfed from those who want to keep you aligned with them.

Agreed.

I urge everyone to act responsible, be strong and exhibit self-control.This kid is reaching the age where he is becoming naturally curious about conservativism. We should welcome him to our party, and reward his courage by sharing with him our values and wisdom.

Fire away kid.

[rogerv]

Thank you SenatorWhite, and all the rest of you. I have now read all 845 replies, plus all your personal messages. I have now learned to post vanities sparingly! I can see some of you aren't sure you trust me, and there is no good reason you should. You don't know me. That is part of the problem: liberals and conservatives don't know each other and in the absence of contact imagine the worst about each other. I can assure you that the people I talk with back at the liberal site don't trust you any more than you trust them. That's too bad. I think partisanship has divided our country and harmed us. I think you would be surprised how many liberals love their country, their families, support the military--indeed, have served in the military.

I have to apologize for something. A couple of the guys I talk to regularly heard me say I was coming over here to talk to you, and they said "great idea!" and came over here as well. And of course, they got themselves booted for bad behavior. While I can't control other peoples behavior, I did tell them that this wasn't an ego thing. I honestly do want us to understand each other better. We may not agree with each other on much, although I think we will agree on more than we suspect. After all, we read the same Constitution and Declaration of Independence too, and some of us even read the Bible. And beyond what we have in common as Americans, we are all human beings. I'm trying to look at the big picture here.

I have written Jim to ask if it is OK if I stay. I will say what I honestly believe and abide by the rules of this website.

I cannot possibly answer all the questions you have asked satisfactorily in a brief space, and I don't even know the answers to some of your questions. But I do think it worthwhile to give a general response to some of the concerns. First. I didn't come here to convert anyone to liberalism, nor do I think it likely I will convert to conservatism. I have come here to better understand our differences and see if we can get to the point where we respectfully disagree. That may seem small potatoes to some, but in my view, it would be a big improvement over what we have now. I don't think civil war, even a bloodless one, is good for the country. We work together, our kids go to cub scouts and school together, and play baseball together. We have common interests. We need to talk about those. We need to work for what Orwell called basic human decency. Second, I think some of the issues that concern me cross partisan lines. I hope to post them in the 'philosophy' topic. I hope you will join me on those if those issues concern you.

Next point, I only intended this thread to say 'hello'. That's it. So I apologize to those who wanted to engage me on substantive issues here. I would be glad to engage any of you on the issues. But I hope to introduce topics that are reasonably focused individually rather than have one big 'everything and the kitchen sink' thread. I have threads on another site that might work here. I have no doubt the discussion will be very different here, but that is the point of coming here in the first place. You look at these questions differently, to some extent, than the other people I talk with. I can learn from you.

[woofie]

Bump to you rogerv
I hope someone else sees this

[Sally'sConcerns]

I didn't even think to use google to look up the DU thread where the Bev Harris banning and explanation were posted. Since the tread along with all of the comments are there, here's where the google'd info can be found (as well as the responding comments).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x108750

I knew I could search google for FR, just never even considered googling DU!

[Sally'sConcerns]

rogerv,

Much earlier in this thread, I also pinged Jim Robinson (owner of FR) as well as the admin moderator and the sidebar moderator. I requested you be allowed to stay as long as you were well mannered, not disruptive and didn't exhibit any troll like behaviour.

In reading your responses on this thread, you appear to want to find out how we are alike as well as how we are different. Many of us have lurked on DU and have come away horrified by their stances and the hate they have (as well as misconceptions) for "repugs, repukes and other names they like to refer to us as. Based upon the polite manner you've responded to as many of us as you have, don't be surprised if you end up tombstoned at the other site you frequent. The only apology you have to offer to us is that you posted over there that you were coming here. You aren't responsible for those trolls actions and/or their decisions to come troll FR.

I have high hopes JR or any of the mods will not ban you as long as you maintain your professionalism, good manners and an openness to learn about us. I know there were some on this thread who agreed with me.

I'm sure you never expected to have such a large response to your original post and I think you've done well in answering some of the questions asked in a timely manner.

I believe it's been mentioned upthread that we don't always agree with different members here on FR. I'm a republican with some libertarian leanings and a very few liberal leanings.

Welcome to FR and I look forward to sharing in our agreememts as well as debating any differences we might stumble across.

Sally

[rogerv]

Thank you, Sally'sConcerns. I'm glad to be here.

[Melas]

I agree with you. However, something caught my eye. You mentioned that you were horrified and then mentioned that they call us "repugs" over at DU. Is that really any different than "Rats" and other names for them, here?

[maine-iac7]

Maybe it's just my naturally suspicious nature, but I sense a soft probe from a stealth troll. Over 300 posts and not a single response of substance

was reading away and chuckling - wondering how long it would take for someone to notice this - ;o)

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE

[A CA Guy]

Partisanship isn't dividing us. This is a battle for the direction of the country. The left has just jumped off the edge of the world, seeking all kinds of never before used ways to block and sabotage votes in the Senate and doing other things. Historically, Republicans are pretty well behaved people who believe in the rule of law and tradition.

Granted "in general perhaps" all sides "believe" they want all good things for the country, but let us "define what that means to each side of the isle".

I think for conservatives, it means we are a strong capitalist nation with lots of self reliance, smaller government with temporary safety nets in society only.

I was from a Democrat family. The party and it's affiliation left the common people and us. We saw so much dirty stuff we could no longer handle it.

I view the Democrat party of today as liberals wishing to turn America into a European styled form of socialism.

I see a philosophy of everything through the government, and I find that unacceptable and a poor venue to funnel most things in every case.

I believe in collective bargaining, but also feel unions are out of whack today.
Business and rich people are not the enemy. They are the ones who take the risk, provide and sometimes lose their life savings and create jobs.

America is NOT a bottom up society.

Dependence on a political party, entity or government in general has proven over 40 years to be fruitless and debilitating.

Conservatives view all people as the same. We think how far people go and where they go is highly based on their being self-prepared for the opportunities in life.
Many suffer thier parents and have far more obsticles we can never fix.

So on and so on... I can go on and on regarding the differences.

[Godebert]

"I'm a republican with some libertarian leanings and a very few liberal leanings."

Hmm...care to elaborate? What views do you hold that you consider liberal?

[Sally'sConcerns]

I have no problem with the denizens of DU calling us repugs since it's obviously a play on the word repugnant.

Being called fascist, repukes, pukes and other like names go over the line because it makes their view of us as something less than human. If you care to find out what other names they like to bestow on us, I'd suggest you go take a look for yourself.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

PIMP MY BLOG

[rogerv]

Thank you. This is good. This is the start of a conversation I would actually like to continue over in the 'philosophy' topics, if you don't mind. A very brief response, but just enough to let you (and others) know that this is a subject I have been thinking about for some time). It think that it has become a power struggle precisely because we have lost the ground on which we could conduct a sensible civilized debate. Perhaps politics has always been rough and tumble. I don't know. But I do think there was a time when liberals and conservatives could debate these issues (the direction of the country issues) without rancor and excessive name-calling. Now, maybe those were the days when as Grover Norquist put it, the conservatives were a minority and knew they didn't have the power for a showdown, so they were polite out of necessity, not choice. Maybe that was the case. But maybe people were simply more civil in their disagreements then.

I've been reading Karl Popper's two volume work "Open Society and it Enemies". The thread I posted at commongroundcommonsense.org, "In Defense of Open Society" was inspired by that work. I'd like to start a thread with the same name here because I see this as an important problem that crosses partisan lines. In a nutshell, the central question is this: how can we rationally institute changes in our society? Changes take place whether we consciously bring them about or not, and some changes are threatening to some people. Popper charts some of the philosophers who have tried to tame change--Plato, Hegel and Marx--by suggesting laws of history (what he calls 'historicism')--but such ideologies led to totalitarian societies where society was forced, like Procrustes bed, to fit a revolutionary or essentialist mold, attended by great bloodshed and misery. Popper's question, and mine, is how do we bring change under rational control, so that we can improve things and minimize the advserse effects? Popper's claim is that society is best when it considers its beliefs open to revision in the light of evidence, like scientific theories, conjectures subject to refutation. Next, we do best if we introduce change in small increments, and monitor the effects--what he calls 'piecemeal social engineering'. This rules out grand Utopian schemes--but that is just as well, because most of those have been disasters. As a reformist liberal who follows John Dewey, Popper's suggestions make sense to me. But, as for everything else, the important questions lie in the details. Anybody care to come over to the 'philosophy' topic area and discuss this with me?

[A CA Guy]

Marx was not somebody you would call a philosopher, he was a thug on a good day.

Most on this side of the isle actually do know exactly what they think, express it well and if you read them here you will learn the direction they want to take the country.

The DIVISION in this country is more one sided from the left as I see it. The left had perceptions in the past that there was very little division only because they had all the power and ran the show. They saw no problems with that.

Today, I think things are closer to fair and balanced. The internet allows few lies and we see the mainstream press as being outed as a mostly enabling arm of the DNC.
It is my opinion and the opinion of others that if J F Kerry had not had all the one sided MSP for free (worth about a billion in advertising alone), he would have lost by not 3.75, but 12 points.
The MSP the last couple of elections have paid a high price for being an arm of the DNC. They are more and more rendering themselves "NON ESSENTIAL" to the public. Their viewership and readership are way down now and they will get weaker with their influence as they keep spouting leftist views as news. (Editorials I can understand, pushing it off as news has turned off America more and more.)

I think if you look at the left and right, far more of the divisiveness and lies IMO are from the left.
Every election I tell all my liberal pals the Democrats will do the same thing. Steal signs, tell old people Republicans are stopping their Social Security and of course play the race card and illegally pander in black churches with no problem.

The left has done some historic stuff these last few years. Never before Democrats had there been a requirement in the Senate to require a 60 vote majority in order to take an up or down 50+1 vote. That is Democrat shenanigans, not Republicans.
My state of California suffers Democratic control of the state legislature for decades and we are in the dumps over it. They are non-business and lack common sense.

Philosophy on this side of the isle isn't needed at this point for conservatives. We arrived to this point after ALREADY going through tons of philosophy and ethics considerations. We are the end result, not people in need of a discussion to be honest.

As I said, we like smaller government, few temporary safety nets, a strong military and friendly business laws.
Many of us would like to slip more back towards a government more based on what the Constitution says.

We do not want socialism, communism, atheism, humanism or marxism.

Prepare your own life for success down the road. Make yourself prepared for the opportunities of life and grab them when they come up later.
Work hard, and expect a reward based on your merits, risks involved and so forth.
Don't expect the government to be your daddy. That is kind of a mini view of what many here might have though of as philosophy.

Regarding minorities, liberals need them, but we want them. Forty or more years of failure with liberals should wake people up at some point. We would love minorities to be Republicans more, have a bigger voice and to gain with Republicans a philosophy of self sufficiency that will lead to bettering of their life.

"Everything through the government is bad.
People relying on themselves mostly and not the government for their life is good"
That's it in a nutshell.

Another good discussion could be, "Why is PBS being funded by the public when all it's political/news programing is far left?" If it is using tax dollars, how come it isn't equally mixed?

[TruthWillWin]

Link to Rogers new thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1302731/posts

[Senior Chief]

A little dissonance, or perhaps a 7th?