I am a Liberal. Before you BAN me, please read.

Well, I agree with you, but there are those who say that brining up the Wright issue was in itself a racist act.

There are some who say the earth is flat.

Regardless of the rev,'s skin tone, he hates America, and he is Obama's mentor, and preacher.

Whether black, white, green, red, purple, orange, fusia, or midnight blue, any American who thinks that way needs to be shunned.

He certainlt shouldn't be advising a candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

Perhaps I missed the sarcasm?

Thank you for the welcome.

You're quite welcome; my pleasure :-)

Although I honestly wonder how long you will feel that way.

Forever, unless you become belligerent, uncouth, slanderous or stoop to name-calling or personal attacks.

Stoats have sharp teeth, but that doesn't mean that it's always appropriate to use them in a Family website setting such as Free Republic. :-)

There are many points on which we would agree, but many more in which we will vehemently disagree.

Such is the case among Conservatives as well. Conservatism is The Big Tent; we have innumerable competing ideas and points of view.

However, I do have an open mind to reason. Reason is one of my “religious” tenets and is partially that which I believe makes us divine in essence.

It sounds as though you have potential for being a proud, lifelong Conservative Freeper :-)

Well, it does exist, and it involves speaking unintelligible words while holding the tip of your tongue.
Though the tapioca pudding vat, jumper cables, and midget idea is inspiring.

The socks are always in effect.
(Fire for effect! *propane sock cannon blast*)

I love the liberal/Marxists here on this forum. They add to the fun.

They're so easy to knock down and drag around, aren't they.

I always have trouble saying "socks" while holding the tip of my tongue.

Night folks. :-)

LOL, okers.
I have to head back out myself.
Hopefully I’ll be in working trim tomorrow after the root canal.

Boy, this is ironic.

Personally--and on this topic--the opposite of you (although have not been banned yet). Of the opinion that Obama--even with all his stupidity making comments about bombing Pakistan when that country was in political turmoil, even with his shortsighted idea about withdrawing from Iraq when success there is the linchpin to bringing peace and progress to the Islamic world and striking a mortal blow to islamofascism, even with his support for murdering the unborn, even with his proposed economic policies which could lead the economy into a collapse--made a great speech about 'race' yesterday and explained things from both a 'black' and 'white' perspective.

As with many freepers, you latch onto his criticism of some 'whites'' views while you seem deaf to his criticism of some 'blacks'' views. You feel he is attacking you and siding with 'blacks.'

Wonder whether some freepers are shocked that they have something in common sociopolitically with a liberal..... (and freepers, if any you call this guy a racist leftist, what does that make the freepers who have opinions exactly the same as him? Just typing, personally DO NOT consider his views to be racist--though opine that they are inaccurate--but some here are quick to jump on Democrat 'racism' which is also manifested here among freepers).

I have liberal in my name too. I call myself definitelynotaliberal because notaliberal was taken. I’m a former liberal. My issues were civil rights and the environment. When George W. Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, I studied that document. And what I read shocked me and stripped me of all my assumptions. Then I studied other environmental issues. And I found that my party had not just done nothing in that arena, but that it had comported itself perversely. All protected land is protected because of Teddy Roosevelt, the EPA was founded during the administration of Richard Nixon.

Nixon’s administration also started Affirmative Action because Woodrow Wilson was elected to the Presidency in 1912, and in 1913 fired all blacks from all federal positions. He (WW) appointed James McReynolds to the Supreme Court. McReynolds refused to be photographed with Louis Brandeis because Brandeis was Jewish. That pushed me to study the civil rights movement, after which I was so disgusted by Democrats, I had no choice but to switch.

Civil rights and the environment are still my issues. And it’s not necessary to read history to know how hideous Democrats are. It’s sufficient only to keep your eyes open to what is going on right now. Observe how the Democrats treated Miguel Estrada when the President wanted him to be Chief Justice. How they comported themselves was just hideous. So the President turned around and gave them the white ME, Mr. John Roberts. And they had no problem with him. Mr. Estrada lived in Honduras till he was 17, mastered English when he came here to live with his mother, attended Columbia Law School, graduated at the top of his class and worked at the Office of the Solicitors General during the administration of Clinton. Harry Reid sanctimoniously declared that he wanted our Supreme Court ‘to look like America’. But have Democrats ever been or are they now able to see beyond the color of anyone’s skin? No, they showed us recently that they are not.

I’m not white, and I’m not a native speaker of English. In other words, to dummycrats and the democrap that they elect, I will never be an American. Therefore, I will not be voting Democrat for the next 40 years. And it is not a shame for me to be using liberal in my screen name anymore than it is so for pdxliberal. I do it by way of penance. Pdx is being honest. You will concur that it is a rare trait for a liberal. If he is also intellectually honest, he won’t be a liberal much longer.

An obviously heartfelt and well-stated post, thank you.. I can't find any points that I disagree with, and you're obviously far too intelligent and thoughtful to be a Democrat.

Regarding my statement about the word 'liberal' in the screen name of pdxliberal, what I was trying to convey (and apparently doing a poor job of) was that his (?) specific screen name does not include an obvious denunciation of liberalism, which yours does. In my view, that places your screen names worlds apart. After seeing some of his posts here, I gather that pdxliberal is short for "Portland Ex Liberal", but I would have never known that without reading his (?) posts, and that's the point that I was making, that he would have to be continually explaining himself with that particular name, which you of course do not because the denunciation is crystal clear in your chosen screen name. I've seen others here with 'liberal' included or other words which suggest an ideological transition (some of us would say 'healing'...."snicker") such as 'nuconvert', and it's usually quite clear.

I was merely confidently looking ahead to the time when pdxliberal is a proud and longtime FReeper and STILL has to answer endless questions and challenges about his screen name when he would prefer to be discussing other significant issues of the day....I doubt that anybody would want to be saddled with such a distraction. :-)

I expect society at-large to operate on a reward-shun schema.

he should have long ago been shunned to the point of finding social acceptance among none but a handful of like minded sociopaths hiding out in some remote wilderness compound.

Those statements (actually this entire post) agree 100% with my viewpoint. Deviation from social norms should lead to society shunning the offender. Our problem is that the deviators are celebrated by the media and extremists rather than shunned in our society.

Never let government regulate individual behavior...this is a function properly served by society as a whole. The pendulum should swing the other way by and by.

The socks rule is always in effect.

I've been here a while, and I've never heard of the socks rule. My tag line used to be "Pajamas are for wimps...Freep naked". Is is related to that?

Educate me.

...I was new.

*pat-pat-pat*

It's OK Sis...we were all new, once.... ;o]

The socks rule is always in effect.

I've been here a while, and I've never heard of the socks rule.

And Freud said "Sometimes a sock is just a sock"

Say this fast three times :

Your mother sews socks that smell!

Your mother sews socks that smell!.

Your Sioux soeur sews socks that smell so sour!

“You must have a SEVERELY foul mouth.”..

You just have to whine a lot!

Is it a full moon?

I expect society at-large to operate on a reward-shun schema.

Agreed. No question.

I am not speaking of patriotic dissent here.

I understand, but think about it: All dissent must be allowed. That is the nature of free speech. Short of the whole "fire in a movie theater" thing, we must be prepared to defend the right of everyone to say anything. You have the key to the whole thing with the shun comment above.

There are lines in the sand, however, that encourage us to be socially responsible.

"A line in the sand" implies government intervention. But WE are the government, and the government should have no comment (or law or policy) on what is political, what is patriotic, or what is appropriate speech. It's the only way it can work. There is no law against using the N-word (well, maybe it falls under some hate speech law), but anyone who uses it now is shunned by a huge portion our society. (I almost typed it in here, but couldn't bring myself to actually use the offensive word.)

Rev. Wright's congregation did not shun him because he convinced them they are victims. Being a victim breeds the hope and eventually the expectation of a payback or a reparation. The congregation was led to believe they are going to get something. Money, unearned status, revenge, whatever. From whom? From the government, of course.

When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you always have the support of Paul.

Welcome, as long as you are civil, we can listen to other points of view.

I don’t know that they planned this, but the Obama camp is certainly playing the hand they were dealt quite well. It won’t get him into the White House (The majority of US voters don’t like being told over and over again that they’re all racist scum.), but it will go a long way toward winning the nomination. This tactic will make a lot of Dem superdelegates afraid to “go against the Black guy”, lest they be accused of racism.

...and welcome to FreeRepublic.