posted February 17, 2004 09:50 PM              

Like what? Saving the environment? Caring for women and their children? Global harmony? Trying to prevent the massacre of innocents from war?

posted February 18, 2004 08:18 AM              

hmmm pid, sounded to me like he was poking FUN at "liberals"
this guy writes fashion and pop reviews that poke fun at just about everything...
i'm sure you could tell your boss "no thanks,i have no sense of humor"
but whatever you do, dont go here, you might crack a condescending ann coulter type smile and shatter your makeup....
http://www.hankstuever.com/jacko.html

personally i prefer browsing whitehouse.gov to tickle my funnybone,
its like bush jr has a Freudian problem saying certain things like "shame on me"

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
-george bush jr
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020917-7.html

again....BUT why would the audience think this was SO FUNNY?

"There was certainly a very strong sentiment that we're on the right track when it comes to holding people to account who lie, steat or cheal -- lie, cheat or steal (laughter) who defraud people by cooking the books."

posted February 18, 2004 10:36 AM            

I work for a semi-large corporation. We have to attend classes once a year on harrassment and sign a document stating we will not say "offensive things" and that includes going into people's offices and discussing politics. Working for the government is even stricter on that policy.

Now, as to your question, yes they are intolerable. EVERY meeting I attend (and they are Biotech meetings where we are supposed to discuss our research, business plans and current marketing strategy) invariably the CEO or Director of science will bash on Republicans and the Bush Administration. I have had to walk away from the CEO yelling about how liberals should run the country because of how stupid the republicans are as well as how can anyway be so mentally challenged as to follow a conservative.

Now combine that with their absolute hatred towards religion. I have to hear how anyone that believes in a higher sourse, whether it be astrology, christianity, judaism, etc....is a complete moron.

TINK, I would feel the same way if I worked for conservatives that bashed on liberals. I feel as follows "Do it in your own home, but do not use your authority to push your views on me."

Funny thing too, I ran that article by conservatives without telling them the reason behind it... you know just passed it along and asked them what they thought. All agreed (and even a couple of liberals here) that it was promoting a liberal agenda. Only the die-hard libs, like some of the comments here, said "Well, I don't see anything at all poltical about it." LOL..

posted February 18, 2004 10:38 AM            

So, what you are then saying is that to be a Conservative or not promote the liberal agenda then we 1) Hate the environment, 2) Hate women and children and 3) Enjoy murdering innocent people?

posted February 18, 2004 07:55 PM              

Oh don't pick on poor, poor Rush, people, especially now since he has to spoon under the covers with the ACLU and endure that scratchy stubble on their unshaven legs, I mean, after bashing them for so long What a nice bunch of Birkenstock-wearing Marxists to help him keep his medical records all safe and sound from getting out to the big, scary Birkenstock-wearing Marxist press. Whadaya know, sometimes Birkenstock-wearing Marxists can actually be helpful to a poor, poor conservative

what's this? Oh neato, I just got this cool email...I guess I should pick up the phone tomorrow and be a good Birkenstock-wearing Marxist...

Dear MoveOn member,

This is a key week in our campaign for Censure. Our Senators and
Representatives are home from DC on recess, so it’s a great time to call their
local offices. They've got to hold President Bush accountable for deliberately
hyping and distorting the facts about Iraq's supposed WMDs.

To make an impressive show of support for Censure, we need everyone to help out.
Can you please call your Senators and Representative now?

Please call them, at:

Congresswoman Watson
Local Phone: 323-965-1422

Senator Feinstein
Local Phone: 310-914-7300

Senator Boxer
Local Phone: 415-403-0100

Make sure their staffers know you're a constituent. Then urge your
representatives to Censure President Bush. Let them know, politely but firmly,
why it's important to you that he be formally reprimanded.

Please let us know you're calling, at:
http://www.moveon.org/callmadeall3.html?id=2357-3893234-hBcBFbSNsIQ.xp0UxuRYhw

We're organizing calls all this week, but we'll only ask you to call once, and
we've timed the arrival of this email to make it as likely as possible that
you'll get through, if you call now.

Our Censure campaign has picked up incredible momentum. Already, more than half
a million MoveOn members have signed onto our petition calling on Congress to
censure President Bush for misleading us into war.

We're advertising in the Washington Post and on radio stations around the
country, and we've written letters to our newspaper editors. Now it's time to
call.

Americans are outraged. A new poll says "a majority of Americans believe
President Bush either lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence that Iraq
possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify war." [1] A recent
Newsweek cover asks "Will Anyone Pay?" [2]

Even Fox News' Bill O'Reilly is now admitting that Bush misled us, saying, "I
was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be
concerned about this." [3]

The fact is, President Bush was planning for war with Iraq from his first days
in office. [4] Having made that decision, he ran a campaign of misinformation,
hype and hysteria that led us into war.

Before the war, Bush was repeatedly told there was no definitive evidence that
Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. [5] He knew Iraq was not a nuclear
threat. [6] He knew there was no Iraq connection to 9/11. [7] Iraq posed no
imminent danger to the United States. There was no case for a pre-emptive war.

Yet Bush relentlessly led us into a war that has cost 500 American lives, left
3,000 seriously injured, and wasted tens of billions of dollars. Thousands of
Iraqis have been killed as well.

President Bush has betrayed our trust, and there must be consequences.

Please call your Senators and Representative now.

Thank you, for all you do.

Sincerely,

--Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn.org Team
February 18th, 2004

P.S.: If you haven't already signed the petition for censure, please do, at:

http://www.moveon.org/censure/

Notes:

[1] Washington Post, "Most Think Truth Was Stretched to Justify Iraq War",
2/13/04: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37340-2004Feb12.html

[2] Newsweek, Cover, 2/9/04: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20040201/NYSU006

[3] O'Reilly on Good Morning America, as quoted in Reuters, "Pundit O'Reilly Now
Skeptical About Bush", 2/10/04: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4325220

[4] Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, 60 Minutes, 1/11/04: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

[5] "The Selling of the Iraq War: The First Casualty," The New Republic,
6/30/03: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm
and Defense Intelligence Agency Report, 6/13/03: http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Pentagon/us-dod-iraqchemreport-060703.htm

[6] International Atomic Energy Agency Report, 10/8/98: http://www.nci.org/i/iaea10-8-98.htm
and Washington Post, "Bush Aides Disclose Warnings from CIA", 7/23/03.

[7] Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "Bush: No Link to 9/11 Found", 9/18/03: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html

hmmm...interesting, and so well documented, I mean just look at those sources...gee, even Ann Coulter would be proud

posted February 19, 2004 09:05 PM              

As far as the "liberal agenda"....when I posted, I was wondering just WHAT that agenda is.

Its not LIBERALS usurping the Constitution.
Its not LIBERALS gutting the Clean Air Act and lowering standards for the amount of allowable sewage (yes, human sh!t) in our drinking water.
Its not LIBERALS frothing at the mouth to send American troops off to die for lies.

So, I am asking...just what is the "liberal agenda?"

Here's a fun link...a little editorial on what's driving the current political schism..
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2004/02/13/notes021304.DTL

What Are You So Afraid Of?
Sex? Gays? Terrorists? God? In BushCo's fear-drunk world, only one question really matters

posted February 20, 2004 12:02 AM              

and speaking of dittoheads, ya'll belles will love this:

posted February 21, 2004 09:08 AM              

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0220-07.htm

posted November 18, 2005 03:31 PM              

i really didnt think theres anything wrong with being liberal until i came to the US and started seeing the connotation ppl associated with it. I considered myself a moderate leaning ever slightly towards the liberal side, so far as my religious and cultural beliefs are, also political. but people here looked at me like i was a freak when i said that. and thats southern california, no everyone here is not liberal, esp not in orange county...hm.

anyways conservatives can say anything theyd like about liberals. i was hoping some moderate would shed light on the situation. personally i am in the same boat where i dont see why its such a bad word. like being a feminist. whats wrong with it. there are so many men i know who appreciate the fact that i would like to be treated well. equally shmequally is not the issue its respect and dignity personally after seeing such intelligent men embrace the womens rights i would never go for a neanderthal chauvinist

posted November 18, 2005 04:19 PM            

My problem is this:

These conservatives I know always refer to that good old "one nation, under God" to defend the fact that religion should not be pushed aside in our country. However, they really mean that the Christian religion should not be pushed aside.
But 'God' is not a name ... it's a job description. We are not one nation under Jehovah or Allah or Vishnu or Aphrodite or any other God figure.
Then these folk I know argue that the founding fathers were Christian and it's natural and right to assume they meant 'God' as in the Christian God ... after all, they did capitalize the first letter of the word.

Then, when I mention the First Amendment they get uppity and say that of course people have the right to their own religion, but America is a Christian country and should espouse Christian morals, etc.

"Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state. Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendment

What in the world are these conservatives I know talking about?

GRANTED, the liberals that I know that are not Christian often complain about having Christian morals, beliefs, ideas, etc. constantly shoved in their face. But I haven't heard them complain that this country should be Buddhist or Wiccan or Hindu or Agnostic or anything else. Nor have I heard them say that anyone who doesn't believe as they do is damned for all eternity or that they are Un-American or Communists or anything else of the sort. Nor have I heard them suggest that our nations laws should be tailored to suit their own personal religious beliefs.

What's the deal?

I still haven't figured it out. When I asked one of my conservative friends what the issue was with other religions he said that America is a Christian country and that anyone who does not believe that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Saviour is going to hell. And, I quote, "Ghandi is roasting".

I understand that he is entitled to his personal beliefs and that he is entitled to share them. I don't have a problem with that.

But the idea that America should be a Christian nation is blatantly at odds with our Constitution (see First Amendment).

Any thoughts?

posted November 18, 2005 04:25 PM              

sorry. that was my first thought.

posted November 19, 2005 02:27 PM            

This might sound ridiculous but gosh, I've missed you!
How are you?

posted November 24, 2005 09:43 AM              

Hopefully, yes he will. Hey, I'm working on it. It's only been a month of trying.