It'll be interesting to see if President Obama's more liberal supporters are able to muzzle themselves or if they'll let their "freak flag fly" so to speak. lol.

I'd reccomend tamping the liberal rhetoric down if they want President Obama to be re-elected. I think it would be a HUGE mistake to automatically assume all the people that voted for him are as liberal as the MoveOn.Org/George Soros crowd. No, Obama supporters aren't raging Sean Hannity right winger types. But many of them ARE middle of the road folks with fairly conventional, even traditional, American values. They're just dissapointed with Bush's Republican Party and are desperate for change.

The liberals shouldn't make the mistake of believing Obama's victory is a victory of liberal ideology (in particular social liberalism) over conservative ideology. Rather, it should be read as a huge defeat of the governing style of George W. Bush as well as the political machinations of the Republican Party under his leadership. We'll see if the Obamamites heed my warning or if they help create a renewed conservative backlash. Hmm...

Health care coverage, white collar crime, the war -- Obama will have enough to do addressing Republican disasters. The mistake the Republicans made was to assume the batshit crazy fear after 9/11 was a permanent victory for conservative ideology.

Tversky:

It'll be interesting to see if President Obama's more liberal supporters are able to muzzle themselves or if they'll let their "freak flag fly" so to speak. lol.

I'd reccomend tamping the liberal rhetoric down if they want President Obama to be re-elected. I think it would be a HUGE mistake to automatically assume all the people that voted for him are as liberal as the MoveOn.Org/George Soros crowd. No, Obama supporters aren't raging Sean Hannity right winger types. But many of them ARE middle of the road folks with fairly conventional, even traditional, American values. They're just dissapointed with Bush's Republican Party and are desperate for change.

The liberals shouldn't make the mistake of believing Obama's victory is a victory of liberal ideology (in particular social liberalism) over conservative ideology. Rather, it should be read as a huge defeat of the governing style of George W. Bush as well as the political machinations of the Republican Party under his leadership. We'll see if the Obamamites heed my warning or if they help create a renewed conservative backlash. Hmm...

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the definition of "Liberal" before you continue to embarrass yourself.

• Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
• Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
• Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
• Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

We respect the Constitution of the USA and our Bill of Rights. I might also add that the ACLU mission statement also follows the same credo. We question authority openly. We do not fear opposition.

So you might want to lose the Rove-Fox imaginary "Lib" Scarecrow unless, of course, your level of cognitive dissonance is such that you find yourself utterly empty of hate and you lose your mind. Then I would recommend a psychiatrist.

I have serious doubts about parts of your definitions, for instance:

"Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry."

Some of the biggest bigots I know are liberals, especially the ones who use the term "trailer trash." Gee, I thought liberals were supposed to CARE about the poor. Instead they run them down. And then there's this one:

"Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."

No liberal I know is tolerant of the ideas of conservatives. They CLAIM they are only intolerant of intolerance, the biggest lie they tell. They are INTOLERANT of my religious beliefs, my opposition to abortion, and my support of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Oh, and if I don't vote for Obama, that proves I'm a racist. Yeah, real tolerant of those that don't agree with them.

It's not about being poor. Millions of poor people take responsibility for their actions, live with good values, and choose to not engage in antisocial behaviors. Rather, it's about being trash. That's a moral condition, not really an economic one. Personal responsibility, self-control, and living in a sanctified, noble way... are these too much to ask? Impulse control would be a start. So would the ability to own the outcomes of their choices, as would displaying the ability to delay gratification. Perhaps they could try having higher goals in life than base, primitive satisfactions (screwing anything they can catch, a ready supply of recreational drugs, fighting, etc.)

If they lived in an appropriate way, rich or poor, they wouldn't be called trash.

As it is... if the shoe fits, they can wear it. :P

I'm all for calling a spade a spade (or trash trash), but if it's about personal responsibility, could you please explain to me the connection between personal responsibility and welfare? Social Security? Single payer health care? I know the Republicans have betrayed their principles on many occasions, and moreso recently, but the Democrats are the ones whose platform is explicitly about helping people avoid taking personal responsibility for the consequences of their choices.

Welfare is not about avoiding personal responsibility. It's about helping your fellow man when he's down, which is why it does need to be mated to rehabilitation and creating opportunities. Help prevent him from falling completely, and help him regain his dignity and livelihood - even if it's a new livelihood via retraining - so that he can return to being a productive member of society who doesn't need welfare.

Welfare becomes overburdened - and is regarded as "helping people avoid taking responsibility" - when people are not equipped with the basic knowledge or skill to avoid a situation. If you refuse to teach teens about safe sex and contraceptives (if you really think telling teens not to have sex works in aggregate, you're a fool), then you will overburden the welfare system with underage moms who have no life skills, no education and no income. And that's just one example.

The truth is, welfare works, but only as part of an overall social strategy aimed at equipping people. The critical failing of the extreme right is its judgmental refusal to recognize that people face challenges and need real help - not to mention being ideologically wedded to impractical and implausible religious fixations. Yes, it would be great if minors never had sex. Unfortunately, they do.

So, please. Recalibrate your notion of welfare's role, and expand yourself to the liberal notion of economic and social interventionist policy as only one tool in the box.

etymologue:

I'm all for calling a spade a spade (or trash trash), but if it's about personal responsibility, could you please explain to me the connection between personal responsibility and welfare? Social Security? Single payer health care? I know the Republicans have betrayed their principles on many occasions, and moreso recently, but the Democrats are the ones whose platform is explicitly about helping people avoid taking personal responsibility for the consequences of their choices.

I think you've got it 100% correct.

Progressives believe that society should provide a safety net for individuals, so that through accidents of chance or bad judgement, no-one winds up crushed by the wheels of capitalism.

Conservatives obviously believe that the individual is expendable, but that society must provide a safety net for corporate entities, so they don't wind up crushed by the wheels of their own hubris.

Ripley:

I have serious doubts about parts of your definitions, for instance:

"Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry."

Some of the biggest bigots I know are liberals, especially the ones who use the term "trailer trash." Gee, I thought liberals were supposed to CARE about the poor. Instead they run them down. And then there's this one:

"Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."

No liberal I know is tolerant of the ideas of conservatives. They CLAIM they are only intolerant of intolerance, the biggest lie they tell. They are INTOLERANT of my religious beliefs, my opposition to abortion, and my support of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Oh, and if I don't vote for Obama, that proves I'm a racist. Yeah, real tolerant of those that don't agree with them.

Perhaps your confusing, again, as to what a real Liberal is and what I defined as the Rove Scarecrow, which doesn't exist. You see, Rove, with the help of his collegues at Fox and Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. created this "Lib" and hung it around the necks of Democrats. Democrats are not Liberals, they are Democrats. Just like a 'faggot' is not a homosexual, it is a piece of wood. But hey, you like to pick and choose so have at it. The first amendment allows you to as it does me. I am a registered Independent who embraces the positive aspects of both parties with a Liberal tolerance and respect for all Americans. I hunted and fished in my earlier years and I still own 2 handguns and one shotgun. I'd love to buy a nice pre 64 Winchester 30-30 and an AK-47 because they're fun to shoot. I'd also like to get a Sig P210 and a Sig Sauer .22 Mosquito. I am a firm believer in the second amendment and I don't care WHO it is who is president, there are probably more guns in private collections and the hands of citizens than exist in the combined US Armories. How in the hell could they confiscate them all? That would make one huge mountain of lethal metal. I am against illegal guns of any sort. All for confiscating the guns of criminals and imposing tough screening for the purchase of handguns and assault weapons. I mean, do you need a MAC-10 or AK for squirrel control? Are NRA members such lousy marksmen that they need an assualt rifle to tag a deer? Please.