Posted on 03/21/2005 9:59:18 AM PST by tryon1ja
To the editor:
The term "liberal" has been used to defien the "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party. What does the term actually stand for? Her is my definition.
A "liberal" is:
One who believes that it is acceptable to murder unborn children and yet wants to save the lives of convicted serial killers and rapists on death row.
One who is in favor of affirmative action, but vehemently opposed the nomination of a black American to the Supreme Court of the United States.
One who alleges he or she is in avor of equal rights for women, but denigrates the career and accomplishments of Securetary of State Dr. Condoleeza Rice.
One who severely criticized the conduct of our government in protecting us from 9/11, but at the same time opposes the efforts of our government to prevent future acts of terrorism by opposing the Patriot Act.
One who is in favor of diversity but wants only liberal professors and teachers hired at our colleges and universities.
One who professes support for our troops but who trumpets every mis-deed of a small group of soldiers and totally ignores the heroic and helping acts of the overwhelming majority of the almost 150,000 soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan in an effort to demoralize the troops.
One who wanted to delay the vote in Iraq because the country was too unstable for such an important democratic practice, but now claims that the successful election is insignificant and meaningless.
One who believes that Al Jazeera, the Arab fundamentalist TV network, reports the news more accurately and is less biased than Fox News.
One who says he or she endorses free speech but makes sure that on our university campuses only politically correct utterances are allowed.
One who argues that Christian fundamentalist are worse than Arab fundamentalists.
One who complains about unemployment while at the same time is objecting to industrial development in this country because of pollution.
One who decries the price of gasoline and our trade deficit but at the same time opposes drilling for oil in federal lands.
I am sure there are more examples that could be listed, but I believe that the foregoing gives you an idea. The good news for Republicans is that liberals, such as Howard Dean, are about to assume the organizational helm of the Democratic Party. It can only be hoped that Mr. Dean will rely on the likes of Sen. Kennedy, Boxer, Levin and Clinton to formulate the Democratic platform, for that will assure a Republican victory.
bump
The term 'liberal' is too nice sounding for what they really are and they are being given a pass. They define themselves as liberals and we are all too willing to accomodate their sugar-coated label.
They are communists, sometimes socialists, vile, disgusting, evil human beings.
Liberal: IQ < heart rate?
I'm just listening to a "liberal" on the radio who called Rush. Naturally, the guy has a prissy voice, you can tell what they're going to say before they say it. I have a fair number of friends who vote Democrat, but they don't like to be called "liberals," somehow they shy from the word -they still follow the party line from TV, though.
The term 'liberal' is too nice sounding for what they really are and they are being given a pass. They define themselves as liberals and we are all too willing to accomodate their sugar-coated label.
They are communists, sometimes socialists, vile, disgusting, evil human beings.
AMEN!
Can we all just stop using the word "liberal" to describe the "Enemy Within" that's carrying on the mission of the KGB Active Measures Directorate 14 years after the demise of the USSR?
There's nothing "liberal" about communism.
And, don't forget "clueless".
Simply put,
A liberal is a person who's just confused -- because he can't discriminate one thing from anything else.
This sounds like an excuse and I, for one, wouldn't want to let them off this easy.
That is a very good one to add. They always are after MY money and not their own.
Is there a link to this? I'd like to share it with some of my liberal friends
No! I typed this in by hand from our local newspaper. I did correct a couple of errors and add one name. This I claim for myself.
My understanding is that socialists deliberately began referring to themselves as "liberals" with the intent to decieve. They have been successful, IMO. Previously "liberal" was a term used for those who favored limited government.
You have it closest, IMO, in stating that they're confused. While I agree that liberals tend to support all those things listed in the essay, I think most of them don't have any guiding principles at all, how else could they endlessly support contradictory positions?
I think "liberal" is a person who automatically opposes anything a conservative proposes or stands for. Since they flip flop so often, like JFK, I can find no other reason for their negative disposition.
Amen! to that
A liberal possesses an unnatural fear of self-reliance - in anyone.
A liberal wants to "tax the rich" yet hide their tax returns on their own riches.
A liberal believes starvation and dehydration are "painless" and "dignified" - yet screams foul in the case of Abu Graib, death row felons, or any terrorist prisoners.
A liberal has designer babies that are lovingly chronicled in ultrasound images - but only the ones didn't abort.
(Forgot to show what I was replying to) Amen! to that
While I agree with what you wrote, my observation is that the hallmark of Liberals is HYPOCRISY.
A great example is Howard Dean: While outwardly declaring that Blacks need affirmative action, he hires none.
This is very true. Don't know exactly how this relates to your statement but this is what came to my mind when I read your comment: "I once knew a liberal person who was for welfare funded abortions because it was cheaper to fund an abortion than to raise the child." This was that person's type of remedy . He was pro choice but not for the woman's choice but for his pocketbook.
"Liberal: A power-worshipper without power."
Or a dragon without fire, a ship without a rudder, a mission without a mandate, responsibility w/o authority.
I was always taught that the one true test of having power is having the ability to say "no". If you can't say no, you don't have the power.
I do not know of any liberal who ever said no at the right time.
Well, if FreeRepublic is any indication, the above definition will do just fine for conservatives, too. I'm series, actually.
We give them way more credit than they deserve. They LOVE it that we JUST call them liberals.
The term 'liberal' is too nice sounding for what they really are and they are being given a pass. They define themselves as liberals and we are all too willing to accomodate their sugar-coated label.
Hey, I agree! They remind me of people to go to the opera or another high society function not for the pleasure of being at the opera and hearing and seeing the performance but they are there to be seen by others and spend all their time looking for who is noticing their being there and thus missing the real reason for being there. It's that "look at me" approach to life. The whatever feels good approach.
I love your picture.
Clueless??
the faces are familiar but those women would kill to have a body like the one you gave them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.