Those Who Hate "Liberals" Really Hate a Free America

Those Who Hate "Liberals" Really Hate a Free America

by Harvey Wasserman

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0601-01.htm

The rightist "conservative" media moguls who hate "liberals" actually hate a free America.

Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, Hannity and O'Reilly, the Weekly Standard and Wall Street Journal---they all rant at some unspecified species allegedly left of center.

But right from its birth, America has been the very definition of a liberal nation.

Today's Foxist ditto-heads would have hated all America's founders: Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Madison,

Adams, Paine, and even the father of the modern corporate state, Alexander Hamilton.

All were liberals, both classic and modern. The documents they wrote---the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights---all were the definition of liberal. Rush's "conservative" rightists would have hated them then. And though they won't admit it, they hate them now.

As for ending slavery, Ann Coulter would have SCREAMED at Abe Lincoln. The Emancipation Proclamation would have INFURIATED Hannity. The Gettysburg Address would have ENRAGED O'Reilly. And don't even MENTION the environmentalism of U.S. Grant or Teddy Roosevelt.

But lets start with Ben Franklin, the true father of our country. This ultimate Enlightenment genius was the western world's most famous citizen. The man who defined electricity was America's leading writer, publisher, diplomat and humorist. "Poor Richard's Almanac" was one of the world's most influential publications. Franklin helped found so many institutions---public libraries, post offices, insurance companies---and made so many inventions---like the lightning rod and Franklin stove---that his vita fills whole books. He was the only man to sign the Big Three: The Declaration, the Treaty of Paris (which sealed the Revolution's victory) and the Constitution.

Ben Franklin was also the ultimate liberal. He signed the first abolitionist petition to Congress. Supremely tolerant, he loved beautiful women, fine food, and the French. He believed in freedom, diversity, the Enlightenment, and progress. He spoke with amusement of the wild oats he sowed as a youth, and of "the ladies" he courted while seducing France into helping the young America free itself from the British. Can you hear Rush's blood boil? Can you taste Ann Coulter's venom spewing through the centuries?

Then there's Tom Jefferson: brilliant, learned, master architect, ultimate phrase turner, Lockean liberal. Nobody stoked the leftist rhetoric of revolution and democracy, equality and progress better than Jefferson. He was a slave-owner, which the right would have liked. But he also consorted with one, the spirited Sally Hemmings, with whom he had at least three children. Can you hear Jerry Falwell SCREAM!!!

Then that shrimpy James Madison, spouting off about human liberties, combing the state constitutions to draft that ultimate liberal screed, the Bill of Rights. Hannity would have declared it "obsolete" at birth. If there's one document the conservatives hate most of all, it's Jamie Madison's Ten Commandments of civil rights and liberty.

Even George Washington, the ultimate war hero, stood his ground on a free America. When offered the dictatorship, he refused, saying America should remain a republic. Can you imagine George Bush, who never saw battle, doing the same?

To top it off, the master of Mount Vernon took enormous pains to make sure his slaves were freed and well cared for upon his death. What a bleeding heart!

As for Hamilton, the darling of the early corporations was born a ****. He was a monarchist, which the National Review would have liked. He set the foundation for the modern American industrial state, from which Murdoch still profits.

But like Bill Clinton, Hamilton was also forced to admit to an extra-marital affair. And---can you believe it---he was an abolitionist! He opposed slavery!! Fox News is howling!!!

Even John Adams, staunch federalist, distruster of the people, supported the Bill of Rights. When Haitian slaves staged the world's second anti-imperial revolution, Adams stood by them. He even made national headlines by having a man of color to dinner! The Wall Street Journal edit page would have gone ballistic!

And that feminist wife of his, that Hillary....er Abigail Adams. Rush would have branded her the ultimate femi- nazi.

Throw in Abe Lincoln, that liberal ACLU-type lawyer, fighting a war to free black people, telling the southerners they can't secede. A damn totalitarian, right O'Reilly?

Then U.S. Grant, who established Yellowstone Park, and Teddy Roosevelt who fought for so many more like it. Wimps! Greenies!! Bleeding hearts!!! Eco-Terrorists!!!!

Put it all together and you have a group of pointy-headed liberal geniuses whose Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Emancipation Proclamation, national parks and much much more remain the liberal bulwark of world freedom---unless the America-haters can destroy them. Unless the new George III can use the sword of terror to stab America's liberal heart.

The word "Christian" does not appear in the Constitution, no matter what Pat Robertson says. Most of the founders were Deists. They believed a divine being set this world in motion and then set the laws of nature free to work their magic.

Most of all the Founding Fathers hated---UNANIMOUSLY---the idea of an official church, or a bunch of self- appointed bigots telling everyone else what to believe. They bitterly opposed theocrats like Falwell and Robertson who forever preach that those who question the corporate state are traitors. In the Foxist world, diversity itself is intolerable.

But it was precisely that diversity the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights protect.

In short, they were LIBERALS. And the nation they so successfully spawned has always been just that--- LIBERAL.

So when we hear extremists like Limbaugh and Coulter, Hannity and O'Reilly howling away, we know it's not just liberals they hate. It's the free, diverse, tolerant nation the Founding Fathers created. The one whose liberal Bill of Rights lets even Foxist America-haters make oxy-morons of themselves all day, everyday.

That's how Ben and Tom and his liberal pals wanted it. May it always be thus.

HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES is available at www.harveywasserman.com. He is co-author, with Bob Fitrakis, of GEORGE W. BUSH VERUS THE SUPERPOWER OF PEACE (www.freepress.org).

Agitprop.

From the perspective of one Mr. Marcus J. Goldman.

"It's one thing to support the president but an entirely different matter to have a Bush bumper sticker on your car." And so it began -- my wife's initiation into the loving, tolerant fold of liberal women acquaintances. She had declined an offer to help finance John Kerry's campaign. What a firestorm! My poor wife had thought that liberal Democrats epitomized free speech, the civil exchange of ideas, diversity and inclusion. Rather than intellectual discourse, however, she found a light show of censorship, revulsion and hate. In a show of incredulous hostility, they swarmed around her, called her names and then left her to sit by herself. In recounting the day's events, she told me she had contracted "You-are-a-fascist-and are-alone-iosis."

I confessed that I too had gotten the bug -- my boss yelled at me and called me a fascist. I think the kids have it too. Their elementary school newspaper carried an informal poll of well-informed students (K through 5) which listed reasons to love John Kerry and hate George Bush. Deep within the network of caves buried under our community, a conspiracy is afoot to quarantine us. Rightly so. Who wants this disease?

The creation of an illusion that support for the president is aberrant, is unsettling . . . but not surprising. My wife's pals represent a microcosm of liberal fantasy made real. Of course, her secret connections to Halliburton are well known. She is milking the Iraqi people. She hates poor people and offers snide remarks about the handicapped. Beneath the various mysteries contained in every woman's purse, fitted snugly next to her lipstick and Nazi identity card, are her machine gun and Confederate flag. My wife staunchly supports marching off to any war without reason. She is delighted when we suffer casualties. She advocates unsafe abortion and hates gay people. Because she supports the Patriot Act, she hates free speech. A cross hangs over the bed, even though she is Jewish. She despises clean water. Saddam's spider hole briefcase hangs on her wall. She supports right-wing conspiracies of all shapes and sizes. But now that "You-are-a-fascist-and are-alone-iosis" has been confirmed by laboratory rats, what to do? She requires an emergent eight point plan of treatment:

1) She is right to feel alone, even if Republicans control both houses of Congress, 2/3 of governorships (including our state's governorship) and, oh yes, the presidency. She should hang her head in shame.

2) She is a fascist -- she should just go with it.

3) She has a right to support the president, as long as she keeps it to herself. She has to lose the bumper sticker.

4) She should self-censor her thoughts and ideas: Her friends are far too busy with their social agendas to continuously provide this important service.

5) She is exclusive and intolerant -- even more so since Republicans freed the slaves and outvoted Democrats in support of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. She should crawl into a hole.

6) She must not take a black eye for her beliefs: With all her war-like aggression, who has time? She must put a bag over her head.

7) She must give all of her money away -- after all, her friends give their money away...to their children and their brokers.

8) For her views -- whatever they are, she should be arrested, isolated, convicted and sentenced. After all, that is the hallmark of judicial activism.

What do I really tell her? Liberal thought defies reality. Ideas are impulse driven, emotional and certainly in the case of my wife, shamefully wrong and hypocritical. In fact, she has the anti-disease. Accusations leveled against her are simply intolerable projections of her friends' own shortcomings. They loathe free speech -- unless it is their own, are well connected, have plenty of money, speak ill of others less fortunate. Their notion of diversity is superficial. Their censorship skills are finely honed. I tell my wife that feelings of isolation are a contrived illusion -- a smokescreen created by those who have no true core beliefs. I tell her that liberals are collections of small clumps of desperate groups with varied agendas who emerge en masse to fruitlessly scream and protest at rallies. But the stakes are truly great. How ironic, I tell her, that the appeasing Bush hating "why can't we all get along" party of Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy dream of world involvement in our nation's affairs and wish to be guided by a bouquet of warring Third World nations . . . yet are so completely devoid of any ability to tolerate differing views on even the most local community level. The party of civility and inclusion is truly the party of shrieking instability, unabashed anger, inequality and emotionality.

My wife will not be financing John Kerry's election bid. Who would want the support of someone with "You-are-a-fascist-and are-alone-iosis" anyway?

Dr. Marcus J. Goldman is a psychiatrist and author of "The Joy of Fatherhood."

An op-ed

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040601-101401-8926r.htm

But like Bill Clinton, Hamilton was also forced to admit to an extra-marital affair. And---can you believe it---he was an abolitionist! He opposed slavery!! Fox News is howling!!!

Was he impeached? Was he accused of rape by multiple woman? Did he lie under oath, and purger himself? Did he try to rid our right to bare arm's?

And that feminist wife of his, that Hillary....er Abigail Adams. Rush would have branded her the ultimate femi- nazi.

By the way, is hillary still consulting with Elanor Roosevselt for advise?

All were liberals, both classic and modern. The documents they wrote---the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights---all were the definition of liberal. Rush's "conservative" rightists would have hated them then. And though they won't admit it, they hate them now.

Is that why they have to constantly defend the constitution from the lib's?

Sound's to me like you found the word liberael in the archhives, and decieded it applies to today's lib's. As if the term democrat of 40 year's ago remotly resembles the word democrat of today, If you read our constitution, you will see it's not liberal.

It's kind of funny, this country came about because of the high taxes levied by the brit's. and the fight against that, yet all the lib's want to do is fight to raise taxes, but if you say thier liberal's, I guess they are liberal's.

wow jonathan:

What parts of that do you actually believe are true?

ALL of it? Part of it? None of it?

You do conceid the "republicans freed the slaves" and over-rulled the democrats in the "civil rights act" correct? or doesnt that really matter?

You do realize GOD was put all over the founding fathers as it was stated without Morality Democracy is doomed to fail.

You do realize Hate seems to only come out of the mouth of "really, really, really, really, really far leaning leftist types".

99% of the people don't HATE because of a differing of opionion on something as trivial as "Politics" and "Politicians".

Originally posted by offiss

Was he impeached? Was he accused of rape by multiple woman? Did he lie under oath, and purger himself?

Just some minor points for those Fox-watchers who may be, shall we say, factually impaired, when it comes to Bill Clinton. (Somehow, I assume that's who you're talking about):

Was he impeached? Yep. The Senate just isn't reall shure of what crime he was impeached for. But, as they successfully pointed out, the Constitution isn't real specific as to what kinds of reasons you have to have for an impeachment.

Was he accused of rape by multiple women?. Yep. And, obviously, being accused of a heinous crime by multiple people (all of whom just happen to be accepting huge chunks of money from an opposition political party) clearly means he's a BAD GUY, no trial necessary.

Did he lie under oath, and purger himself? No, he didn't. See, that's one of those funny things the GOP seems to think they can make true, if the 'liberal' media will just repeat it often enough.

If you'll remember, Clinton was accused of perjury, but the charge was dismissed by the judge. Now, IANAL, but as I understand the law, the only basis a judge can use for tossing a prosecution's case without letting it go to a jury is the judge ruled that what Clinton did wasn't illegal. (In our court system, juries rule about facts, like "did he do it?", but judges rule about laws, like "is it illegal?".) (I didn't pay too much attention to the details. I think the ruling was that a BJ didn't fit that states' definition of 'sex', or some such.)

(FWIW, yes, I think what Clinton did fits my definition of "lie". He definatly set out to create a false impression in the minds of the american people. OTOH, I also think he was in a situation where a person has the right to lie. But, that's another discussion.)

I feel sorry for all the guys mentioned in that articial, instead of being attacked for what you beleive, what this guy THINKS you would have beleived in the past.

The founding fathers were by today's standards Libertarian, not Liberal. Take Jefferson, for example. He warned our country would be doomed from the moment its government decided to tax us for the express purpose of having money to spend to try and help us. Sounds real liberal... not. Lest we forget, the founding fathers specifically put language in the constitution to prevent the institution of any federal income taxes - something which lasted until Democrat Woodrow Wilson managed to get a constitutional amendment through to undo our founding fathers' work (hence the reference "Taxman, Mr. Wilson..." in the Beatles song). Gee, no income taxes. Sounds like a bunch of far-left liberals to me. I can just see Ted Kennedy introducing that sort of legislation today, can't you?

As for Lincoln, this is the President who SUSPENDED several of the basic civil rights guaranteed under the constitution (As did Adams under the Alien and Sedition Acts), most notably the writ of habeas corpus. Gee, which side of the political spectrum has been protesting Bush's proposal for military tribunals (a practice which was begun and granted Supreme Court approval by every Liberal's champion FDR - the same guy who brought you Japanese Internment Camps... you remember those, those concentration camps tailor made for US citizens based solely on their race...).

This article does nothing but prove the writer's utter ignorance or simple disregard for basic American history. (Although I will agree the prosecution against Clinton for Monicagate was absolutely silly, especially compared to past leaders' indiscretions.)

Jonathan,

This is the most pathetic "article" I've ever seen posted here. I really do think the forthright liberals on this board (ie not chomerics) will concede the absolute lunacy of this man's views. It reminds me of a a thread from months ago:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56922

I believe any unbiased person who has studied the founding generation at any length knows that the tripe in the article above is completely revisionist history. I don't even know where to begin, and because it is so terrible, it probably isn't worth the time-- it's like correcting a 3rd graders book report.

Originally posted by riggo-toni

The founding fathers were by today's standards Libertarian, not Liberal.

That makes the most sence to me.

Did he lie under oath, and purger himself? No, he didn't. See, that's one of those funny things the GOP seems to think they can make true, if the 'liberal' media will just repeat it often enough.

If you'll remember, Clinton was accused of perjury, but the charge was dismissed by the judge. Now, IANAL, but as I understand the law, the only basis a judge can use for tossing a prosecution's case without letting it go to a jury is the judge ruled that what Clinton did wasn't illegal. (In our court system, juries rule about facts, like "did he do it?", but judges rule about laws, like "is it illegal?".) (I didn't pay too much attention to the details. I think the ruling was that a BJ didn't fit that states' definition of 'sex', or some such.)

(FWIW, yes, I think what Clinton did fits my definition of "lie". He definatly set out to create a false impression in the minds of the american people. OTOH, I also think he was in a situation where a person has the right to lie. But, that's another discussion.)

This doesn't,

I don't mean that it doesn't make sence to me how someone could think like this, I mean I don't understand what is trying to be said hear.

Originally posted by Thiebear

You do conceid the "republicans freed the slaves" and over-rulled the democrats in the "civil rights act" correct? or doesnt that really matter?

Bear, your taking political parties and equating them over centuries of time with no platform changing.

Your Southern Democrat, would be considered a right wing republican now and you Northern Republican would be considered a liberal now.

You do realize GOD was put all over the founding fathers as it was stated without Morality Democracy is doomed to fail.

As well as the seperation of church and state right? Only GOD can teach Morality right? Don't get me started on this subject.

You do realize Hate seems to only come out of the mouth of "really, really, really, really, really far leaning leftist types".

99% of the people don't HATE because of a differing of opionion on something as trivial as "Politics" and "Politicians".

Yea, the nazis and KKK are real left wing groups :laugh: Hate is a left trait right? Yep, they hate gays, abortionists, jews, Arabs, the list goes on and on. . .

On a side note, they were libertarians, not liberals. They didn't believe in a large controlling government, but a small centralized federal government governed by the people and for the people.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was all the government was initially to provide for it's citizens. I agree broad definitions, but difinitions non the less.

We the people in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the Unites States of America.

Libertarian views, not liberal.

Originally posted by riggo-toni

The founding fathers were by today's standards Libertarian, not Liberal. Take Jefferson, for example. He warned our country would be doomed from the moment its government decided to tax us for the express purpose of having money to spend to try and help us. Sounds real liberal... not. Lest we forget, the founding fathers specifically put language in the constitution to prevent the institution of any federal income taxes - something which lasted until Democrat Woodrow Wilson managed to get a constitutional amendment through to undo our founding fathers' work (hence the reference "Taxman, Mr. Wilson..." in the Beatles song). Gee, no income taxes. Sounds like a bunch of far-left liberals to me. I can just see Ted Kennedy introducing that sort of legislation today, can't you?

As for Lincoln, this is the President who SUSPENDED several of the basic civil rights guaranteed under the constitution (As did Adams under the Alien and Sedition Acts), most notably the writ of habeas corpus. Gee, which side of the political spectrum has been protesting Bush's proposal for military tribunals (a practice which was begun and granted Supreme Court approval by every Liberal's champion FDR - the same guy who brought you Japanese Internment Camps... you remember those, those concentration camps tailor made for US citizens based solely on their race...).

This article does nothing but prove the writer's utter ignorance or simple disregard for basic American history. (Although I will agree the prosecution against Clinton for Monicagate was absolutely silly, especially compared to past leaders' indiscretions.)

Agreed

Ahh Chomerics...

Forgot about the "really really really really really right wingers" They are exactly the same as the etc.. etc.. left wingers...

The Seperation of Church and State was: Congress shall not promote ONE religion OVER another.. NOT we shall not have religion..... big difference...

Reference to GOD is the same thing as Santa Clause, he has many names in many countries and there are variations to the exact defination of what he does but it basically boils down to the same thing....

Thus i go back to: GOD was all over the founding fathers documents....

wern't the Nazis and communist liberal ideals when they came out?

Originally posted by panel

wern't the Nazis and communist liberal ideals when they came out?

The Nazi's used socialism to gain power, but once in power, turned government into a facist totolitarianism form of government. Hitler despized socilists, although a lot of his platform had grass roots there ie. enviornmental conservation.

Can we at least agree that this article is absolute bunk, and its author is an intellectually dishonest psuedo-historian?

If you'd agree with is about equal to the crap that Newsmax puts out daily.

Originally posted by Thiebear

Ahh Chomerics...

Forgot about the "really really really really really right wingers" They are exactly the same as the etc.. etc.. left wingers...

The Seperation of Church and State was: Congress shall not promote ONE religion OVER another.. NOT we shall not have religion..... big difference...

Reference to GOD is the same thing as Santa Clause, he has many names in many countries and there are variations to the exact defination of what he does but it basically boils down to the same thing....

Thus i go back to: GOD was all over the founding fathers documents....

Reference to GOD is of christianity, not of other religons and it is not the same thing as santa clause!!! The seperation of church and state had to do with promoting religon and when you use the word god, you are in fact promoting christianity. A big hypocracy in our Constitution we often fail to look at.

God is only referded to the lord in christianity. In all other religons, there is another name for their god, so it doesn't work as you say santa clause does. If you want it to work that way, use a different word, otherwise why don't we replace the word god with allah? After all, we're we're not promoting one religon over another.

Reference to GOD is the same thing as Santa Clause, he has many names in many countries and there are variations to the exact defination of what he does but it basically boils down to the same thing....

The big difference is that more people have died in the names of their god than for any other reason down through history. Small syntactical/or ideological differences can be ignored when discussing Santa Claus but small ideological differences have been the causes of major wars historically when pertaining to GOD.

The founding fathers didn't make the government GOD neutral to protect Budists, Moslems and Jews from Christians. They did so to protect Christians from other Christians!....

Not the same at all as Santa Clause..

Originally posted by riggo-toni

The founding fathers were by today's standards Libertarian, not Liberal.

Bunk!..The founding father came from many different points on the political spectrum. They reached agreement through majority on what they could and they agreed to disagree on some of the most contentious issues of the day. They compromised and they fought like cats and dogs.

Took them almost a decade to agree on a constitution after the bill of rights was signed. At least two of them Arron Bur and Alexander Hamleton later in life advocated outright counter revolution so they could get their way on issues which they disagreed with. George Washington our first president was an military and diplomatic isolationist who didn't have any problem with taxes, passing new laws, hardly a libertarian. John Adams our second president was an anti slavery, pro civil rights liberal who once defended British troops who fired on American protesters during the Boston Massacre. Heck all these civil rights which Bush is carving up or ignoring would have set off Patrick Henry..."Give me liberty of give me death.."... 2 years in jail for American citizens without trial, charges or lawyers? Now that's a violation of liberty. There were conservatives too such as Hamilton who wanted a strong federal government and central bank. The issues were different but their was the dynamic between what was old and known and what is new and promising; giving up personal freedom and perserving it.

No the founding fathers were not monolithically from any political philosophy rather they represented many differing viewpoints on just about every topic.

Then there's Tom Jefferson: brilliant, learned, master architect, ultimate phrase turner, Lockean liberal. Nobody stoked the leftist rhetoric of revolution and democracy, equality and progress better than Jefferson. He was a slave-owner, which the right would have liked. But he also consorted with one, the spirited Sally Hemmings, with whom he had at least three children.

Classic Liberal slant here. Scientific evidence indicates A JEFFERSON MALE was the father of Sally Hemming's children. At the time the children were conceived, there were 10-13 Jefferson males living at Monticello or visiting from the surrounding area.

I was recently at Monticello and the guide stated TJ's responsibility in conceiving Sally's children. I spoke up in front of a crowd of 50 and cited the above, for which the guide turned red and stammered and stuttered. I said until you can prove definitively that it was indeed TJ and not another Jefferson male, stating that claim is both misleading and irresponsible. I was pulled from the group and asked not to interrupt the tour. I told them I was a Jefferson decedent, my grandmother a Jefferson, and that I could not stand by and watch representatives of the Monticello foundation falsely represent the life of Thomas Jefferson via inuendo and inaccurate indefinitive science.

Do I have a problem with TJ fathering Sally's kids, absolutely not. I have a problem with people or organizations misrepresenting history to further push a political agenda.

Jefferson was no Liberal.... he wanted a small relatively powerless Federal govt. unable to intefere in people's lives. He believed states should have the power to govern it's people.

Originally posted by Thiebear

You do conceid the "republicans freed the slaves" and over-rulled the democrats in the "civil rights act" correct? or doesnt that really matter?

The question here is where those republicans considered to be liberal or conservative? I know I support liberal republicans over conservative democrats.

"or doesnt that really matter?"

One cable channel has liberals worried.

Why?

You have the NY Times USA today, LA Times, Washington post, frisco chronicle, Boston papers, ABC,CBS, NBC,CNN,MSNBC and even the BBC.

Liberals are the ones that are mindnumbed robots especially my people who foolishly vote one way no matter what.

DC has been voting democrat and liberal issues forever and the place still sucks. High crime, taxes, HIV, pitiful education, loss of a moral base, illigetimate births still high.

A classic test case of why liberalism is not the answer.

KKK, Communism were cosidered far left and today liberals use the codeword Neo Con to point out the rights alignment with Israel and Jews.

We also have ELF and other disinformation groups that try to indoctrinate the children in elementary which I decided to stop by talking directly to the children and telling them that their teachers are wrong and they were lying about the GOP hatng blacks and that you dont blindly vote one way.

Blacks would be voting if not for the GOP and algore's dad was against the bill coming into law and lets not forget one of the most powerful "liberal democrats" Sen Byrd wore a sheet while Teddy and RFK tried to find dirt ie Adultery to bring down MLK.

Liberal programs like planned parenthood was found all over the hood so they could keep the black population in check because "we want YOU People to to have children when you can take care of them." out of the branch managers mouth at minnesota avenue DC in 82.

The Agenda of todays Liberals would bring down America, socially spiritually/morally and economically.

Conservative democrats are usually the patriotic types while the liberal republicans you have to call into question their moral compass.

Originally posted by Cskin

Jefferson was no Liberal.... he wanted a small relatively powerless Federal govt. unable to intefere in people's lives. He believed states should have the power to govern it's people.

You mean like letting states decide for themselves what drugs will be legal, and whether or not to allow patients to end their own lives?

Hate to break it to you but the days of conservatives wanting a weak federal goverment are over. If anything the conservative right has been fighting to vastly INCREASE the power of the fed.

No its not.

The GOP gameplan is obvious.

Take away the issues from the Democrats by implementing them in a better fashion using a combination of government and private sector.

Both parties do p1ss me off when a federal program has run its course or is worthless but they wont elimnate it.