About liberals

[dampscribbler]

Did you know that "liberals" are all about "having fun right now"? The cute young blond at the next table at dinner last night shared that with her dinner date. "What I don't like about liberals," she said, "is that whole 'have fun now' attitude. Maybe they're having fun now, but how much fun will it be when they have 20 STDs and several kids out of wedlock?"

Yes, that is what she said. I feel so enlightened. Also, as a liberal, I wonder if my orgy invitation got lost in the mail.

Comments

[wardo68.livejournal.com]

I'm still miffed about how Bush I made "liberal" a dirty word in 1988, probably still smarting from being labeled as such in 1980.

And while I try to enjoy myself, I wouldn't say being a liberal has been "fun".

[dampscribbler.livejournal.com]

Bush I may have turned "liberal" into a dirty word, but he's had lots of help from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and oh so many others. I still can't understand why one is supposed to be ashamed of being liberal, but I guess that's because my definition of it is different than theirs.

I'm missing out on the "fun" part, too. Meanwhile, Republican Jack Ryan seems to have tried to have his fun, and had to pay for it....

[(Anonymous)]

Then "W" must be a liberal - spending $500 billion you don't have ain't exactly conservative.
-Bob U.

[dampscribbler.livejournal.com]

But I'll bet he had fun!! And he won't even have to pay the price in the future -- the rest of us will!

LOL

[chgriffen.livejournal.com]

That would be so funny, if it wasn't so sad.

Ah, what the heck, it is funny :)

As an outsider, I really had a hard time getting used to this whole liberal/conservative thing. Apparently, there are many Americans who think that their country can be neatly divided into two camps, and theirs happens to be the good one.

Then I realized that people actually make some distinctions. Like neo-cons and secular humanists being more radical subgroups on either side.

It really is sad that "liberal," "welfare," "union" and so many other important concepts have been twisted and demolished to a point where they're used as insults.

And don't even get me started on Ann "should be shoved off a high cliff" Coulter...

Re: LOL

[dampscribbler.livejournal.com]

What amazes me is that many Americans seem to think that the country should be neatly divided into two camps. Because, you know, more than two types of thought, well, how is that possible? Like, pro-choice Republicans, they can't be serious right? I mean, you're either with us or against us, right, so you can't be both. Which is it????

I never even hear about Libertarians or Socialists anymore. Watching the TV talking heads repeatedly refer to Kerry and Edwards as two of "the most liberal" members of the Senate, Eric said "these people wouldn't know a liberal if they saw one -- where's Noam Chomsky when you need him?"

As for the young lady at the next table, I wonder what her real political inclinations are, if she has any. I can't imagine anyone making less than $1million a year thinking that the Bush administration represents their values. Yet somehow Bush has managed to sell himself that way. I find it all very confusing....

Re: LOL

[chgriffen.livejournal.com]

Both you and Eric make some excellent points there.

Personally, I believe that in part, the electoral college system has screwed up the politics in this country. If there is no room in the electoral system for anything other than two big parties, people tend to either become apathetic, radical, or aligned with one of two camps. I was really hopeful that the current outrage would lead us to a stronger, more visionary demnocratic candidate (like Kucinich or even Dean, who's at least passionate about making a difference), but we ended up with the bland husband of one of the richest women in the world. I'm going to be really surprised if he actually comes through and does kick special interests out.

This system, by the way, is also why people like Nader are important. When a large group of people have no representation, and no chance of getting a new party elected, the only way to make a difference in politics is to take away votes from the big parties in order to make them change their attitudes to gain those votes back.

I just wish people would get less caught up in this taking sides thing, in order to think things through on their own, have positive discussions, and maybe come to some kind of understanding. I, too, see way too much of this with-us-or-against-us syndrome, which hurts this society immensely.

Re: LOL

[dampscribbler.livejournal.com]

For some reason, I tend to forget about the role of the electoral college until actual elections take place. Certainly it seemed to screw up the last election -- without the electoral college, would the supreme court decision re: Florida have even been required?

I remember learning about Germany's coalition government some years back, and while it's not perfect, either, there certainly are elements that would probably be great to incorporate into our own system.

While I agree that folks like Nader are necessary, I'm afraid that candidates like Bush make the guys like Nader even harder to take seriously. I don't feel like I've had many opportunities to vote for a candidate since I've been voting -- my vote against another is too important. I did vote for Nader in 1996, though.

I fear that most voters in this country don't want real conversations on the issues. If they did, we would have had a McCain-Bradley race in 2000, instead of the Gush-Bore race we got. Most people, for whatever reason, seem to want their politics as simple as possible. It's a damn shame.