Bah... liberal. It's all relative. When Oliver Willis bites your and Jeff Jarvis's heads off as frequently as he does, you're ok, IMO.

One reason I like reading Pennywit is that it isn't... vehement. You respectfully disagree and post your views in a much readable manner.

I look forward to reading you here.

Welcome, etc.

Now would you please post some nuddie photos like the other guy did? Pronto.

And stop sounding so reasonable.

So Pennywit, what exactly is a liberal anyway? It used to be a person with a broad-minded political perspective. I don't see this definition encompassing many on the left.

An alternative term many on the left use is "progressive". In what sense are these people progressive? Many of them are still stuck in the civil rights conflict of the 1960s and show no signs of wanting to leave it.

Don't get me wrong: I have met my share of right-wing narrow-minded stick-in-the-muds. But with the current center-right coalition, I see a lot more dynamism on the right-side of the aisle than on the left.

Finally, a matter of principle. What is it exactly that the left is fighting for, instead of just against? Mostly, I see the left as actively obstructing the Republicans and preventing the passage of nearly any bill which comes forward in Congress. Is there any place they are actually trying a constructive approach to government?

Anyway, these are serious questions, if also difficult ones: 1) what is a liberal, 2) what is a progressive, 3) how does the left fit into either of these definitions, and 4) what is it exactly that the left is fighting for? I'd be interested in you posting on these questions, if you have time of course.

Thanks for the offer Pennywit, but I for one don't need it; I've already got a very nice old bridge in Brooklyn.

Hmmm... are you defining "interesting" via an old Chinese curse?

:-)

Looking forward to your posts. Now excuse me while I go sharpen a few knives.

Pennywit,

Welcome and good luck! I look forward to reading your posts. Liberal...Conservative..bah. :)

Nevertheless, I recognize the opportunity to build peace and harmony between conservatives and liberals, to create a bridge over the ideological divide, to unite, not divide.

As naive as it may sound, in these days of the Ann Coulter conservatives vs. the Michael Moore liberals, I think that some ideological bridge making is very much in order. I personally dont feel that the two sides need to be as vitriolic toward one another as they are. And I also dont believe in the idea that they are polar opposites, as much as people like to go along with that idea...

I am friends with people who are very liberal and very conservative, and they arent as different as they tend to imagine.

Alot of it, to me, is fabricated and then acted out by people who think such a paradigm of difference really exists.

/rose colored glasses

Welcome to Wizbang!

As a semi-regular reader and commentor, I wish you the best of luck with your time here. I'm sure there will be some fun times and some nasty backroom brawl type fights(The kind with love, not hate!) with a Liberal posting here, It'll be a great experience for all.

Pennywit, I'm sure the Kos Kids and the rest would call you a self-hating liberal, but it's always refreshing to be able to argue something with someone who is rational.

I am, for lack of a better word, liberal.

The first step is admitting you have a problem...;-)

Seriously. This should be interesting. I try to build bridges and they keep getting burned. I hope you have better luck!

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WOULD NOT BE AS STRONG AS IT IS IF WERE NOT FOR THE SUPPORT THEY RECIEVE . NOT BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN OPPOSITION.....

EVERYONE CANT HAVE THE BLUE & WHITE COLLAR JOBS THAT THE REPUBLICANS " SEEMINGLY " SUPPORT.....AND SINCE THE REPUBLICAN SO-CALLED TAKEOVER , THERE HAS BEEN A SERIOUS DECLINE IN THOSE AREAS.....

THE REPUBLICANS SUPPORT 3 THINGS THAT I DO NOT SEE THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS BENEFITTING FROM.....

1) NO MORE OVERTIME
2) THE PATRIOT ACT
3) OUR CURRENT WAR

NO MORE OVERTIME LIMITS BUYING POWER FOR THE PEOPLE....ESPECIALLY IN THE BLUE COLLAR AREA . THE PATRIOT ACT DOES NOTHING MORE THAN MAKE RACIAL PROFILING AND HOME INVASION BY AUTHORITIES LEGAL . OUR CURRENT WAR BENEFITS BIG OIL BUISINESS AND BIG OIL ONLY .

THE CURRENT WAR.....WHILE PEOPLE ARE PUTTING BUSH IN THE SAME BOAT AS HITLER.....ONLY TELLS US THAT THERE IS MUCH MORE WRONG WITH THIS WAR THAN RIGHT..

HOW ANY WORKING TAX-PAYING PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY COULD SUPPORT REPUBLICAN VALUES IS BEYOND ME....

IT ONLY TELLS ME THAT FREEDOM OF CHOICE IS NOT DEAD.....HOPEFULLY TRUE FREEDOM WONT BE LOST BEFORE BUSH AND HIS REPUBLICAN SUPPORT ARE FINISHED .

POINTMAN

Yo, Pointman, please dont use caps.

As for overtime, I think your explanation is very generic. I work overtime every day. I put in about an extra 20 hours a week OT and I get the extra pay.

Hmm...seems more like a gauntlet thread than anything else.

As in, what's the anticipated response?

It's an issue that's impossible to discuss, is my point, unless you're anticipating and soliciting gratuitous and/or pejorative content.

I'm a tad bored with both...

The lesson of the Lion's Den, however, is probably contrary to the scenario used here, this thread.

For whatever non political reasons, however, let it be remembered with gratitude to God that the lions in said den did not harm Daniel.

And that Daniel was a servent of God, sent into the lion's den by Romans who decried his devotion and faith in God.

I'm thinking that, perhaps, the metaphor to the benefit of today's "liberal party" in the U.S. is a wrongful application, and that probably, most conservatives are more like Daniel and that more liberals are more like...well...suggestive of the oppressive Romans of that time.

Sorry, forgot to conclude:

So, if you identify with Daniel, then you should also identify with faith in God, as did Daniel.

Thus, there's nothing here to fear. Rather, fear lack of faith.

I'm looking forward to reading your work.

As I understand it, a liberal is one who believes in:

"- an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,
- the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,
- the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and
- the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions."

We can always use more of that!

Quote taken from http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/essay.html

Politics IS a lot like Iraq. The first step in building a bridge is to stop tossing grenades.

This is a good first step. The next step is to condemn the statements from Boxer, Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, and the like that are way, way out of line...

Lions are an interesting bit of symbolism. I wasn't thinking of myself as Daniel that much ... in fact, foremost on my mind was a wman in the D.C. area who, about ten years ago, jumped into the lion enclosure at the National Zoo at night. And lions being lions ...

BTW, Thanks for the welcome, all. Now ... let's see if we can stir the pot a little bit.

--|PW|--

Welcome! From the other comments, it seems I'll enjoy your discussions. I concede I might not agree with them, but I do love a well-reasoned argument.

Now I've got to find your other comments.

Well, I will admit to being a conservative. And one of the things that I like about wizbang is the occassional glimpses of where I grew up, now that I live 1200 miles away. (I grew up in MA and CT. I worked for 18 months in Boston, 3 years in Hartford) I even lived in Cow Hampshire.

So, please throw in a good barb against either Senator from MA, and we will be fine.

(Note to all, I have relatives who still live in MA, and NOT one of them voted for either of those Senators to either retain their present jobs, or for the one who ran for president. Also note, that while working in Boston, I was living in Cow Hampshire, so I never got to vote there).

Liberal. Conservative.

Feh.

"Let these two asses be set to grind corn."

I must say that it looks like some Republicans are so busy looking left for radicals that they can't see how far right their leaders have gone. Turn your heads occasionally and see what's going on.

The top 3 supposed leaders in this country (Frist, Delay and Bush) are so far to the right, I don't think they can even see the center. When "Drs." Dobson and Falwell are major players in the party, and the White House supports the malicious rhetoric of Rove, I don't think there's much hope of building many bridges.

"the malicious rhetoric of Rove" Ahhh, the truth hurts. Let's put this in perspective Howard Dean.

Oh, FTLOG claims I must say that it looks like some Republicans are so busy looking left for radicals that they can't see how far right their leaders have gone. Turn your heads occasionally and see what's going on.

You need to put down the Party koolaid for a moment and recognize that the 51% majority voting for Bush was composed of a number of groups. This starts with the religious right, but includes South Park Republicans, libertarians, pro-war independents" and others.

The fact is that the religious right did not win the election for Bush: They simply maintained the same percentage of turnout as they did in 2000. It was the increase in support from moderates, which swung Bush from a slight minority in 2000 to a 3% majority in 2004.

HOR members are very responsive to their political base, whether they be Republicans or Democrats. You are a complete fool if you really think they consult with Dobson, Falwell or other "agents of evil" before deciding how to vote.

The trollage in this thread helps illustrate why Pennywit is one of the good ones.

WOW! That was fun!

True, a vast array of people helped re-elect W...even some decent ones. =)

Now, in all seriousness, my point is simple: the fundamentalist Christians have, in my modest opinion, made themselves much too comfortable in Washington. Watching what has happened in Washington the first half of this year, one would think our nation's biggest problems were whether 2 loving adults of the same gender should be allowed to marry and whether a husband has the right to make medical decisions for his wife. Hmmmm. I wonder whose agenda those issues top?

Strengthening our borders, ports, nuclear plants, etc., against terrorists; soaring oil prices; a floundering world-wide reputation; crime and punishment. Gosh, why deal with those when the self-righteous on Capitol Hill (Dems included) can pander to the almighty Christian-right by clammoring for a chance at the podium to profess to know what's best for one poor, brain-dead woman.

Why don't we try doing what's best for the country during the second half of the year?

Now, anyone for some Kool-Aid? =)

ps - believe it or not, I'm a regular wizbang reader. I like the variety of views I read here.

Posted by PW [June 29, 2005 - 11:58 PM]
Actually, I feel a bit like I'm venturing into the lion's den, with only my rapier wit, my knowledge of fact and politics, and my rhetorical skills as my only defense.

One question: How's your hyperbole? Now, lemme git my pointed stick... just in case.

POINTMAN loudly surmises, THE CURRENT WAR.....WHILE PEOPLE ARE PUTTING BUSH IN THE SAME BOAT AS HITLER.....ONLY TELLS US THAT THERE IS MUCH MORE WRONG WITH THIS WAR THAN RIGHT..

Hmmm... Well I'm going to sit back and call you Hitler now. I want to see you squirm in your own shallow logic explaining that one away.

Oh, FTLOG said, The top 3 supposed leaders in this country (Frist, Delay and Bush) are so far to the right, I don't think they can even see the center.

Really? Heh. What makes these guys "so far to the right"?

Watching what has happened in Washington the first half of this year, one would think our nation's biggest problems were whether 2 loving adults of the same gender should be allowed to marry...

Excuse me,...but who brought that issue up? I'd also suggest paying just a bit more attention to Washington if you believe that this is one of the biggest issues.

...and whether a husband has the right to make medical decisions for his wife.

Correction: you mean death decisions, not "medical" decisions.

Oh, FTLOG:

I am a Republican.

I'm a conservative on fiscal and defense issues who thinks that the budget deficits and swiss cheese borders are obscene. And I'm under no illusions as to who's to blame for both (Bush and the majority leadership in the House and Senate).

I'm a social libertarian who thinks that it's not really the job of government (federal, state or local) to decide whether such activities as drug use (with a few exceptions), gambling or prostitution should be legal.

Finally, I'm an atheist, who believes (a little more firmly some days than others) that gods are a myth, created to explain that which we cannot explain in any other way (yet).

Oh, FTLOG:

The point to my last post is that not all Republicans fit your preconceived notions of who and what we are . The subject of homosexual marriage would be a non-issue for me, except that the state DOES have a vested interest in insuring that marriage take place between two people capable of producing and caring for healthy children. Granted, you don't have to get married to have kids. But children raised by a man and a woman who have made a commitment to each other still, IMHO, have a better head start in life than those raised in any other kind of "family".

As for your disdain for "Drs." Dobson and Falwell, why? Are you suggesting that because they're religious leaders that their First Amendment rights be abridged? (anymore than they already are, that is). It's been my experience that those who attempt to help others out of religious convictions--i.e. Faith Based Initiatives--rather than for the paycheck are generally (not always) more caring and more effective. And most such people are not as conservative in their faith as "Drs." Dobson and Falwell.

Oh, FTLOG:

As for Terry Schiavo, speaking only for myself, it never mattered to me whether or not she had any chance of recovery. My concern was that the state of Florida, in the person of Judge Henry Greer, seemed determined to kill her based on the hearsay testimony of her husband (who had several personal and financial conflicts of interest) and his brother and wife. Or to put it bluntly, Terry Schiavo was murdered by her husband. And the Florida state and federal judiciaries sanctioned it.

Now if she had left an Advance Directive, that would have been different. It wouldn't have been what I'd do, but it would have been her decision, not mine. And not her "husband's" either.