Dear Republicans: Liberal Is America. Deal with It.
Dear Republicans,
We've allowed you to use the word liberal as an insult for way too long. We've decided to take that word back. Liberals founded this country, designed it, built it, and saved it. We can no longer allow you to encourage the hypocritical, hate-mongering, war-loving, color-hating, bottom-feeding, gun-fetishizing, intellect-detesting, hold-us-back, right-wing fascist, pseudo-Americans to take over your party and hold our country hostage.
You talk about how the terrorists "hate us for our freedom," yet every time you encourage these people to spit hate and fear from their frothing mouths, you only prove that you're the ones who hate us for our freedom. When you allow them free reign over your party, you only provide the world with a real reason to hate us. You've spent eight years shutting down, shutting out, and shutting up every single thing that makes this country great and, frankly, we've had enough.
You talk about the party of Lincoln, yet your candidates now seethe the kind of filth that caused the very divided nation that Lincoln saved. You call our leaders "liberals" as an insult, though liberalism happens to be at the heart of the very Constitution you claim to defend.
By definition, liberals are more "American" than any of the thugs you're giving voice to at your rallies. Where do you think the root of the word "liberal" comes from? Lib-er-ty. Liberals believe in individual liberties. And what does liberty mean? Freedom. So, exactly which freedoms are you so worried we're taking from you?
Freedom of speech? The hate coming from your campaign? Protected by liberals.
Freedom of the press? You love your Fox News? Sean Hannity? Bill O'Reilly? You'll be shocked to know that even if that terrorist Obama became President, those disgraceful thugs stay on the air. I might not like it, but that's liberalism for ya.
Freedom of religion? Liberal.
Freedom to assemble? Liberal.
Freedom to own a gun? You guessed it. Liberal.
Private property? Liberal.
Free Markets? Yup, liberal.
Ironically, it's LIBERAL VALUES that allow you to gather your hate rallies under the auspices of democracy. It's LIBERAL VALUES that allow you to vote for Senator Magoo and Governor Wile-E-Coyote. It's LIBERAL VALUES that tolerate that putrid venom that the worst of you are spewing, as your leaders smile smugly in the hope that some unbridled rage could save their empty campaign. It's even LIBERAL VALUES that allow you to question other Americans patriotism and even our very humanity, as you insult your country and all it stands for.
Well, we have news for you. You can stomp your feet, spit your poison, cry, lie, sigh or die, but it won't change the fact that eight years ago a robbery occurred and a country was stolen from its rightful owners. But now there's a new sheriff in town. And he's taking it back.
xo
The Liberals
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If American have a common fault, it's our tendance to suffer from historical amnesia. To many of us have forgotten, or never learned, what kind of country America was under the conservative rule that proceeded the century before liberal reform. The ones we now take for granted.
If your workplace is safe, if your children go to school rather than being forced into labor; if you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a 40 hour work week and our allowed to join a union, you can thank liberals. If your food is safe and not poisoned and your water is drinkable-you can thank liberals. If you or your parents are eligible for social security and Medicare, you can thank liberals. If our rivers and lakes are getting cleaner and the air isn't black with pollution, thank liberals. If people of all races can share the same public facilities; if everyone has the right to vote; if couples can fall in love and marry regardless of race, you can thank liberals.
The country we know and love today was built by those victories for liberalism-with the support of the American people.
From Big Lies
Joe Conoson
Well stated. You are spot on. Keep it up. And consider me . . .
a PROUD liberal!
My screen name will tell you how I feel about your post! Couldn't have said it better myself. BTW, I live in Montgomery, AL and see the hated "liberal" label in tv political ads daily. The announcer's voice almost DRIPS with disgust each time.
Excellent post! I'm proud to be a liberal. I think the word liberal is one of the most beautiful ones in the dictionary. It has been distorted badly by ignorant republicans. My Mac dictionary says:
liberal |ˈlib(ə)rəl|
adjective
1 open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values : they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people.
• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform
• (of a person) giving generously
ORIGIN Middle English : via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free (man).’ The original sense was [suitable for a free man,] hence [suitable for a gentleman] (one not tied to a trade), surviving in liberal arts.
Thesaurus
liberal
adjective
1 the values of a liberal society tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened; permissive, free, free and easy, easygoing, libertarian, indulgent, lenient. antonym narrow-minded, bigoted.
2 a liberal social agenda progressive, advanced, modern, forward-looking, forward-thinking, progressivist, enlightened, reformist, radical. antonym reactionary, conservative.
5 a liberal coating of paint abundant, copious, ample, plentiful, generous, lavish, luxuriant, profuse, considerable, prolific, rich; literary plenteous. antonym scant.
6 they were liberal with their cash generous, openhanded, unsparing, unstinting, ungrudging, lavish, free, munificent, bountiful, beneficent, benevolent, bighearted, philanthropic, charitable, altruistic, unselfish; literary bounteous. antonym careful, miserly.
The framers of the United States Constitution were absolutely liberals (except for slavery). They were children of the Enlightenment school of thought. In the 18th century, only " liberals" would have suggested forming a country with freedom of the press, freedom of and from religion, the right to assemble, and yes, the right to bear arms. Conservatives by their very nature like things the way they are, and that's OK. They've had they're turn, now it's ours. God only knows we couldn't possibly screw it up more than they have.
"The framers of the United States Constitution were absolutely liberals (except for slavery) ... only " liberals" would have suggested ...freedom of the press, freedom of and from religion, ..."
With all due respect, the origional framers of the Constitution did not suggest adopting the freedoms identiifed in the Bill of Rights (or the first 10 amendments). The origional framers were generally known as Federalists who did not include such enumerated freedoms. The adoption of the Bill of Rights was pushed by the Anti-Federalists. http://en.
Some framers can rightfully be called liberals, with no exception for slavery. Some were in favor of the basic freedoms without owning slaves and they were opposed to slave ownership.
Your statement, "Conservatives by their very nature like things the way they are," sounds sensible and I only wish that were true. It seems more likely that conservatives have a great fondness for double-speak.
As a fellow McIntosh I contend that while we may disagree politically you are nonetheless obligated to support me in my efforts to raise money for the Susan G Komen Foundation. Can't we all get behind and support a great set of boobs?
08.the3day
God, that was good!
Beautiful! Yes! Well Said. Say it loud! I'm Liberal and I'm Proud!
Context is everything.
Would Mr Seitzman think the Fairness Doctrine is liberal?
Yes. your point?
Yes, you Lout
The RWer's have some curious ideas about freedom/liberty.
In almost every case they want to keep it for themselves but deny it to others.
When liberals demand that everybody have the same rights, the RW'ers accuse us of re-interpreting the Constitution, and rant about persecution.
But we all know what they really mean. Equal rights are only for "real" Americans, which includes only those who agree with their narrow view of the world. They insist gov't get out of their way, but they demand it intrude on the lives of "the others".
Great article.
Amen..
The problem is that the rabid ones try and have succeeded in making broad statements that paint all liberals with the same brush. If you're liberal you must want to ban guns; you must be a tree hugger, etc. In reality while liberals share a basic world view they also are very different from each other. Perhaps now is the time we should be speaking up about that. I call myself a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Yes I know skitzo. We should start challenging that broad brush. Yes, I am a liberal and I own guns (not really) We should ask them why it's ok to watch someone die for lack of health care. When they make fun of tire gauges or claim living green means giving up technology, ask them for their source. Have we ever done that as a group? In my experience liberals don't like conflict and tend to walk away from the rabid ones as not worth the response. I do that. I was wrong. They need to be challenged. So, from now on I am asking very nicely for their source when they make fun of whatever they are sneering at that day. Telling them they are wrong is useless. Make them prove their position. They can’t, and won’t, but at least they will know people are on to them.
The Conservatives/GOP Labeled whomever they didn't like "Liberal".
The Rabid GOP dupes are tribal. Logic will not work.
I understand. That's why I only intend to ask them to produce their sources. It won't change them but they will be uncomfortable.
Liberals defend freedom? Please please give examples.
Freedom to own a gun? Isn't the Democratic party the one that wants to ban guns? Didn't a democratic president sign a bill prohibiting the production of 19 assault rifles? Help me out when the NRA is choosing a candidate to endorse which party do they normally endorse because that party will fight for our freedom to own a gun?
Private property? Weren't liberals the ones sitting in a tree on that mecca of liberalism the UC Berkley? Who owns that tree the school or some people who aren't enrolled there but like the tree anyway? Isn't it the Democratic party that passes such severe open spaces laws and limits on construction that drive rents and cost of living so high in places like San Francisco?
Free Markets? Hold on now isn't the Democratic party the one that wants national healthcare? Wouldn't that be the anti-thesis to a free market?
FREE MARKET with health care is just like Bush saying we should be DOCTORS ourselves,,, does that make any sense to you? THE AMA would have a COW if we practiced medicine ourselves, ask any Nurse Practioner
AND This FREE MARKET did nothing for seniors and that is how we ended up with Medicare, the most efficient health insurance program and the best regulated in the country...
I haven't heard of anyone wanting to ban all guns, just certain assault rifles. I have heard about proposals regarding safety additions to hand guns because of children being hurt or killed when they find their parents guns. Some people probably do want to ban all guns. But don't paint all dems with the same brush. Biden owns guns he is a liberal. Obama says he is not in favor of banning guns. What is your solution to the violence that results in people wanting to ban guns?
Does your second comment mean we should have no laws regarding stewardship of the earth? There are foolish people who would ban all growth everywhere. But, are you saying we should allow the total distruction of the earth. There are foolish people on the other side who would distroy life on earth. What is your solution?
"I haven't heard of anyone wanting to ban all guns, just certain assault rifles. "
Actually, there are some.
I believe it should be legal to own any firearm a person wishes. It is the use of that fire arm that should be restricted. By simply ownership of a weapon no one is harmed, it is the use that can harm someone. I believe if more people owned firearms there would be a reduction in crime. I believe criminals would be scared off more often and I believe some would end up dead which I am also ok with.
I believe that if someone owns some property it should be theirs and they should be free to do with their property what they wish. If I own some land and I want to cut down all my trees, well those are my trees why shouldn't I be able to? Now I don't believe it should be totally unfettered. If I pour chemicals into a stream and that stream runs off my property and onto yours and does damage to your property then I have committed a wrong and you should be compensated. I believe it is wrong to tell me what I can and cannot do with my property when the action I take harms no one.
A national health care service is the hallmark of a civilized society, and America is the only developed western country that does not have one.
A national healthcare system is the hallmark of socialist leaning countries that then withhold services from those that need them because of the lack of providers. Again, do you want the government telling you uwhat you can or cannot do? That sounds like liberty to me.
Absolutely WERBA -
As a nurse, I don't ever want to have tell a 26 year old college educated patient that he has to sign a form to leave the hospital against medical advice ever again. He was suffering a ruptured appendix, was too old for his parents policy, but hadn't entered the job market yet to qualify for a policy thru his employer and couldn't afford an individual policy because he was $80K in debt from grad school. This young man was so terrified of the fact that he would be facing bankruptcy after 24 hours in the hospital (approximately $30K after tests and preop workup), but to get up and leave would make him a candidate for septicemia. This is how we treat our fellow American's? What if this was my son? or what about your mom or dad? The insurance lobby is the most powerful in Washington, and they are AMUCK! No wonder they are trying to terrify the right with BS tales of socialized medicine..
This is the position of the Democratic Party on guns.
Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
If you're so concerned about the production ban on assault rifles being reinstated, stop crying about it and go buy one before the ban is reinstated. It's just that easy.
Okay...I have to ask you...what is wrong with you? You ask "Isn't the Democratic party the one that wants to ban guns?" Well, NO. The Democratic Party and liberals in general think that gun owners should get a license. Do you think your state wants to ban automobiles because they require owners to register their cars, and drivers to prove they know how to drive safely?
You ask if liberals oppose private property. Are you kidding? Do liberals own houses? Does Obama own one house? -- you know, the one that that Chicago bad guy helped him buy.
Do liberals oppose free markets? No. Does George Bush? Bush supported free markets when big profits were being made. Now, when investment banks and commercial banks are losing money, Bush supports infusing government capital in those banks -- to have to US gov't take some ownership stake in banks. What would you call that, Righty?...
I believe it starts with small steps. The Democratic party today isn't calling for the prohibition of gun ownership but decades ago no one was calling for the ban on smoking that we see today. It started with reasonable little steps. No smoking on trans-continental flights, then no smoking on domestic flights and restaurants must have a separate section for smokers. Then it was no smoking in restaurants at all and no in some states it is illegal to smoke outside or even in your own car and in CA there is a push to ban smoking in a person's own home if they live in an apt. Why can't individual businesses make these decisions of to allow smoking or not and their customers will decide if they want to shop there or not?
I believe this is a similar baby steps move to prohibiting gun ownership altogether. It starts with what seems reasonable and gets more and more invasive.
Do liberals oppose free markets? I believe some do. Personally I believe the government has no business bailing out anyone but I also believe government has no business requiring banks to loan to high risk areas or people.
"So, exactly which freedoms are you so worried we're taking from you?"
They're referring to the freedom to choose how they spend or invest their income as individuals rather than ceding a portion of it to spend or invest collectively. They reject the idea of taxes, dispute the existence of a public interest, and believe that our economy effectively and rightfully benefits hard-working white Christians.
They think that social safety nets are demeaning to poor people and that progressive taxation is a disincentive to pursue wealth. The believe that public education indoctrinates children into facts, theories, and values with which they do not personally agree. They remember that when private organizations finance weapons and terror, government comes to the rescue, but forget that it's also there for us when private organizations finance debt and depression.
The most essential difference between the liberal and conservative world-view is their respective visions of the American Dream: Liberals aspire to a comfortable but modest middle-class lifestyle whereas conservatives want to get rich or die trying. When liberals vote, they envision themselves becoming poor. When conservatives vote, they envision themselves becoming rich.
Liberals can't fathom why millions of poor Americans oppose the estate tax. What we don't understand is that these people operate under premise that they'll be rich some day.
Idiotic. I am a liberal and do not envision myself as becoming poor. Nor do I turn my back on those in our society who cannot help themselves, as the Republicans do.
Okay, let me rephrase: liberals envision what it must be like to be poor. They empathize with the poor more than they admire the rich.
One thing that always amuses me about you "remove the social safety net, survival of the fittest!!!" types is that to the man, you are almost always soft pink doughboys who are entirely unfit and as such would not survive 5 minutes if the safety net of civilization was removed. You're prey. You like the parts of the social safety net that protect your vulnerabilities, but you don't want it extended to protect vulnerabilities other people have that you, usually by the grace of where and to whom you were born, just so happen to not display.
Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just providing my take, as a self-described libertarian socialist, on the populist appeal of conservative ideology. I believe that safety nets are social imperative, although I believe that collective resource allocation should be administered in a radically more decentralized and participatory manner.
Great post, jsarets.
"...disput
Their Christianity is not the Christianity taught by Jesus.
The right-wing frequently excuses not helping the poor by quoting Jesus when he said, "The poor will always be with you." They obviously don't read the Bible. Jesus was quoting the Old Testament, "The poor will always be with you because some of you are hard of heart." He didn't see the need to include the whole quote because he knew his audience at the time were familiar with that passage of scripture.
Bravo! Bravo! Well said, and very true. During WWll, my family was given a curfew and labled enemey aliens ('Secret' of WWII: Italian-Americans forced to move. Were branded 'enemy aliens' © 1997 Cable News Network, Inc.) by Roosevelt. Why? My Italian immigrant parents had not yet be naturalized. The interesting part is my uncle (Mom's brother who was born here and served in the military at the same time won a purple heart. My concern is with Palin's lies about Obama and her schemes aimed at inciting a similar fear in the hearts of uneducated and uniformed voters.
Bravo! I'm so glad I've marked you as a "favorite.
Thank you legalgirl. I actually have a friend of over fifty years who thinks Palin is "a breath of fresh air." This is an informed and educated man who believes the rubbish. We have a lot of work to do! One republican at a time...
Do people remember back during the Cold War, when it was the Communist Russia government that was the iconic UnAmerican Government?
Sure, Nixon was a dirty politician, but the Republican party as a whole still, in those days, stood for American values.
That began to change with Reagan. The change was accelerated by the Bush family. With the passage of time, the tactics of the Republican party have tapped more and more into the most evil political tactics known. Taking page after page out the books of the Soviets and every other evil political organization you can think of.
We thought it had peaked with Karl Rove. But that was only because we couldn't imagine things getting worse. McCain and Palin have helped us to stretch the boundaries of our imaginations.
"Sure, Nixon was a dirty politician, but the Republican party as a whole still, in those days, stood for American values."
Nixon gave an excellent impression of standing for American values.
He had a war policy which was un-American. He secretly expanded the war in Southeast Asia beyond Viet Nam after winning an election which was based, in part, upon a promise to end the war. He defeated Humphry who would not distance himself from LBJ and make a similar promise.
Nixon also had an un-American, anti-union trade policy which resulted in the transfer of middle-class manufacturing jobs to China and elsewhere in Southeast Asia.
In addition, Nixon established, tolerated, and rewarded un-American political activities. You mentioned Karl Rove. He was actively involved in Nixon's campaign, and he was a protégé of the origional dirty-trickster, Donald Segretti.
Let's not give Nixon a pass.
This is exactly what I've been saying. Who do those McPa lin people believe yelling out "hussein" and "terrorist" resonates with? The millions of first, second, and third generation immigrants to the USA from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia? The thousands of African Americans in the Nation of Islam and the other hundreds of thousands of black people who may not be in NOI but who are related to members? The millions of educated white people who understand the world is bigger than these four walls? Gimme a break.
America ain't the place it used to be. Get used to it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
