Mike Pence ?

[Roadog]

quote mr. Pence "Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media class, smoking doesn't kill". WTH?  He denies evolution, thinks creationism should be taught in schools, doesn't believe most scientists agree climate change is happening.  two possibilities to explain those views.  1. He's in the pocket of big business or 2. He's nuts or so egotistical that he believes because he thinks something, it absolutely true.
I could never support a candidate so out of touch with reality of Science.

SOOO, I can just toss down a screw and a piece of crystal and a spring and in a billion years I will have a watch, a rolex even...THAT is EXACTLY the logic of evolution.   And yes I do  'think' I am right...just like you.   

[Gavin_Sons]

I never heard of him. Like I said here a few weeks ago, Trump will never get a serious politician who wants a future for himself to be his VP pick.  It's got to be a has been, a never was or some desperate wannabe. 

never heard of him? Looks like you became an expert real quick.  
Never heard of a guy but lets read about him for 5 minutes and form an opinion I know most will hate so I can bait these people again.  

Oh yeah this will also make you not like him even more, he's against gay marriage.  

[MP]

quote mr. Pence "Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media class, smoking doesn't kill". WTH?  He denies evolution, thinks creationism should be taught in schools, doesn't believe most scientists agree climate change is happening.  two possibilities to explain those views.  1. He's in the pocket of big business or 2. He's nuts or so egotistical that he believes because he thinks something, it absolutely true.
I could never support a candidate so out of touch with reality of Science.

Well, our current POTUS, and the Democrat want to be, Hillary, both have stated they believe that men be allowed to use girls restrooms and showers, because if they "think" they are a girl, then they really are, and that is good enough for them.  So, don't put them into the rocket scientist catagory either! They are TRULY out of touch with Science!

[Willow]

"Awash in liberalism" You make it sound so dirty. 

Oh?  Then I did get my point across.   

My oft repeated statement that I am not a liberal falls on deaf ears alas. I don't know where it's written that because I believe in Physics and the scientific method instead of stories written thousand of years ago by humans just recently gathering into tribes and living on the edge of extinction mired in ignorance and superstition, makes me a liberal.  Nor does wanting intelligent and experienced people who apply logic and reasoning to their actions instead of people I believe will reason with emotion and appeal to emotion.  Going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it? Come on! I do wish Biden had run but he didnt so that leaves us with what we have.  Mrs. Clinton has flaws but I still prefer her over the other choice.  Like Ruth Bader Ginsburg I regret saying anything.  I've done a good job the last couple of weeks avoiding political topics. Gotta get better at it.  No point to it. We are from different tribes.

I was likely a little more harsh than I needed to be.  Let me try to communicate from where I come.  Whether one calls himself a liberal or not is not what makes one a liberal.  The continued assumption of agreement with liberal perspective does.     I hope I don't make you feel too badly about my belief in your liberalism.  Truthfully, almost everyone who frequents this board is more liberal than I.  I guess it just depends upon where you choose to draw the line.

Science?  By my understanding science involves demonstrable proofs of theories.  I have benefited repeatedly from medical science.  I am pleased with the advancement of mechanical sciences and I know that mathematical science can stand up.  "Science" in regard to evolution, and let's throw in human impact on global warming, as near as I can tell is a wide stretch of speculation based upon a preaccepted theory.  Perhaps the presence of one or a few fossils of transitional forms would help.  They're not there.  In my personal opinion if something like macro evolution were in fact active we should have a myriad of transitional forms of life both evidenced in the past and present today.  I don't see it.  I'm pretty sure I don't make my decisions based upon emotion but it appears to me that a lot of folks who insist upon the "facts" of macro evolution do.     Someone wiser than I once said, "If I'm right we'll both know for sure someday.  If you're right we'll neither one ever know for sure." 

As to my political choices, I do wish Biden had run but he didn't.  Mr. Trump has some very serious flaws but I still prefer him over the other choice.     

[Rams]

As to my political choices, I do wish Biden had run but he didn't.  Mr. Trump has some very serious flaws but I still prefer him over the other choice.     

Whoa!   There's another choice?     Haven't seen an acceptable alternative as yet.   

[Valkorado]

As to my political choices, I do wish Biden had run but he didn't.  Mr. Trump has some very serious flaws but I still prefer him over the other choice.     

Whoa!   There's another choice?     Haven't seen an acceptable alternative as yet.   

Black and white.  And very likely the most important vote in our lifetimes.

[DK]

LOL!  Sounds like my kind of guy.  I think anyone who believes in evolution as it is taught has to be out of touch with his logical skills.  I believe that creationism should be taught in schools as one explanation of how things came to be.  It make more sense than something came from nothing.  I believe climate changes takes place, but to accept that it is caused by human beings one has to disconnect with a rather large chunk of evidence.  I believe most true scientists would agree with me.  I do think everything I believe is true.  If I thought any of it were not true I would change my mind.  Isn't that what believe means?

I'm going to accept outright that CI_borg and lots of other people awash in liberalism will not vote for Mike Pence.  That does nothing but improve my respect for him.

     

Extremely well said and I so agree and I would have to add I am as sure of the things that Carl has written as science is of what they have extrapolated. What makes you think CI Borg that the ones in office now are not going by emotion?

http://www.christianpost.com/news/world-renowned-scientist-finds-proof-god-created-the-universe-165511/

Dr. Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist and co-founder of the highly regarded String Field Theory, has created a stir in the scientific community by saying he believes there is evidence that the universe was created by a higher intelligence and not by accident.

"I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence," the scientist said in an an article published in the Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies, according to ForcesMente. "Believe me, everything that we call chance today won't make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."

                

Eldon Musk:
"The idea that we may be living in a computer simulation is not new. It seems that it just got more support as Eldon Musk, one of the greatest visionaries and inventors of our time, said in a recent interview that we could actually be characters in a highly advanced civilization’s video game."

[Rams]

Eldon Musk:
"The idea that we may be living in a computer simulation is not new. It seems that it just got more support as Eldon Musk, one of the greatest visionaries and inventors of our time, said in a recent interview that we could actually be characters in a highly advanced civilization’s video game."

If true, then I have no doubt who's playing Yosemite Sam.    

All of a sudden, I'm feeling like Elmer Fudd. 

 

[mike72903]

Evidently we are experiencing a semantics problem with what constitutes a liberal.  To me liberalism smacks of universal fairness and equality. That has never been so and never will be.  It's in our DNA to compete for survival and advantage. Life will never be fair. So I don't see myself as a political, social or economic liberal. Perhaps you might explain your definition.

Macroevolution is simply microevolution over great time periods.  Indeed, a very incomplete fossil record shows hundreds of transitional life forms.

I heard it, "better to believe and be wrong, than not believe and be wrong."  That from a humanities professor at a religious diploma mill I went to.

Yes, I have read of the intelligent design ideas that we may be a computer simulation.  Also, one that says that our reality exists smeared across the event horizon of a black hole.  There's the multiverse theory and the theory that because math explains the physics of what we know of the universe so well, that we and everthing in the universe are nothing more than math equations.  These will or will not stand up to scientific examination.  If any data continues to support their possible validity they will continue to exist as theories just as the Big Bang and evolution continue to exist because physical facts, data, fossils records and math continue to support it.  If not, then they will fall by the wayside of scientific theories just as creationism was dropped from science books.

[doubletee]

quote mr. Pence "Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media class, smoking doesn't kill". WTH?  He denies evolution, thinks creationism should be taught in schools, doesn't believe most scientists agree climate change is happening.  two possibilities to explain those views.  1. He's in the pocket of big business or 2. He's nuts or so egotistical that he believes because he thinks something, it absolutely true.
I could never support a candidate so out of touch with reality of Science.

    Well,  then you will have the option of voting for Hillary. She has a long record and I suspect you are are well aware of what she believes and her level of integrity. I actually believe you could apply both possibilities, 1 and 2 to Hilliary as a matter of fact I'm sure of it!

There is a 3rd choice! It's doesn't have to be the lesser of two evils between Hillary and Trump. 

[Robert]

  To me liberalism smacks of universal fairness and equality.

Wow have not seen this either with the liberals especially with the name calling
I think the better name is subversives that better describes the so called liberal tendencies

As for fossil records they do not support evolution without a stretch and the problem of suddenly appearing species and the fact that frogs and lizzards have fossils that are millions of years old and there have been no changes is a problem for evolution.

The other thing is schools taught we are from apes, well now science has more tools and has found this not to be true as the monkey trial changed teaching in our schools to better reflect science. It can be said that this was done for control not for educational purposes since we have now concluded that man is not neanderthal. The ACLU was instrumental in bringing these type of cases up and defending the teachers who were teaching evolution.

[The emperor has no clothes]

  To me liberalism smacks of universal fairness and equality.

Wow have not seen this either with the liberals especially with the name calling
I think the better name is subversives that better describes the so called liberal tendencies

As for fossil records they do not support evolution without a stretch and the problem of suddenly appearing species and the fact that frogs and lizzards have fossils that are millions of years old and there have been no changes is a problem for evolution.

The other thing is schools taught we are from apes, well now science has more tools and has found this not to be true as the monkey trial changed teaching in our schools to better reflect science. It can be said that this was done for control not for educational purposes since we have now concluded that man is not neanderthal. The ACLU was instrumental in bringing these type of cases up and defending the teachers who were teaching evolution.

Name calling ? Where ? Are you saying Serk is 4% non human ?

[Willow]

...  Indeed, a very incomplete fossil record shows hundreds of transitional life forms.
...

Indeed?  If you know of some you need to present them to the researchers.  They're not aware of them.  All of the transitional life forms I've seen were essentially artists' renderings based upon a bit here or there.

...
I heard it, "better to believe and be wrong, than not believe and be wrong."  That from a humanities professor at a religious diploma mill I went to.
...

It seems to miss the point but it does sound like it combines with what my father once told me.  "Son," he said, "even if there is no heaven to gain or hell to shun the Christian life is still the most rewarding and best way to live."  I have come to agree with my father.  He was raised non-Christian, by the way. 

...
The other thing is schools taught we are from apes, well now science has more tools and has found this not to be true ... since we have now concluded that man is not neanderthal.

Name calling ? Where ? Are you saying Serk is 4% non human ?

 

I'm fairly certain that the Serk is less than completely human.   

[Pete]

  To me liberalism smacks of universal fairness and equality.

Wow have not seen this either with the liberals especially with the name calling
I think the better name is subversives that better describes the so called liberal tendencies

As for fossil records they do not support evolution without a stretch and the problem of suddenly appearing species and the fact that frogs and lizzards have fossils that are millions of years old and there have been no changes is a problem for evolution.

The other thing is schools taught we are from apes, well now science has more tools and has found this not to be true as the monkey trial changed teaching in our schools to better reflect science. It can be said that this was done for control not for educational purposes since we have now concluded that man is not neanderthal. The ACLU was instrumental in bringing these type of cases up and defending the teachers who were teaching evolution.

Liberalism is none of what it wants everyone to think it is.
Liberalism is not liberal it is collective progressive social repression.
As for proof look at the current democratic platform and watch the actions of the current democratic party especially the so called leaders.

Support of a particular political party implies that you identify with that party more so than the other party. (no I am not real happy with the choices either, but they are what they are)

And while neither choice is perfect, I cannot understand the logic of those choosing Hillary.
Seems like a self inflicted death wish choosing a proven lying, morally corrupt, criminally corrupt, un-indited politican.

As for VP pick Pence, I know very little about him so no comment on him, but as of right now NO politician stands very high on my list for anything other than as an export item to some third world hell hole prison.

[MP]

...  Indeed, a very incomplete fossil record shows hundreds of transitional life forms.
...

Indeed?  If you know of some you need to present them to the researchers.  They're not aware of them.  All of the transitional life forms I've seen were essentially artists' renderings based upon a bit here or there. 

With lots of fossils recovered, and millions of years of so called "evolution", the almost complete LACK of transitional fossils is amazing!  There are essentially NONE!  There should be LOTS of intermediate forms, yet, they do NOT exist at all!  The complete LACK of transitional fossils, essentially shows that they did NOT exist.

[The emperor has no clothes]

"Seems like a self inflicted death wish choosing a proven lying, morally corrupt, criminally corrupt, un-indited politican."
I think the exact could applied to the opponent very effectively. 

[Pete]

"Seems like a self inflicted death wish choosing a proven lying, morally corrupt, criminally corrupt, un-indited politican."
I think the exact could applied to the opponent very effectively. 

Perhaps some could and perhaps they are, but then one must apply "degree of" and clearly Hillary wins that contest going away.

Nice try "no sale"

[therapist]

Pence may have done some good things in Indiana, yet the May polls showed the Governor race to be neck and neck, mostly because of Pence's embarrassing social policies.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/19/latest-poll-race-governor-remains-tight/84616830/

[solo1]

If you mean that Pence took a stand as a Christian, that wasn't socially embarrassing to me.

[The emperor has no clothes]

"Seems like a self inflicted death wish choosing a proven lying, morally corrupt, criminally corrupt, un-indited politican."
I think the exact could applied to the opponent very effectively. 

Perhaps some could and perhaps they are, but then one must apply "degree of" and clearly Hillary wins that contest going away.

Nice try "no sale"

Well now, "degree of" would be pretty subjective . 

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

I've been very happy with Pence's performance as Governor. Financially, our state is doing well I think. We seem to do pretty well attracting industry to our state. Our state properties seem to be in good shape. We have many opportunities for recreation, boating and hunting in our state. The status of our wild animals such as deer, turkey, otters, eagles, bobcats etc is mostly improving yearly although we've thinned our deer herd a little more than I would like. 

As far as personal freedom, we have it good here. Our civil rights, in-particular our 2nd Amendment rights are very well protected. We don't have constitutional carry (not sure that I want it) but we can buy a lifetime carry permit for less than $200 and we recognize all other state's carry permits. We can own and hunt with suppressors as long as all Federal laws are followed.

To my knowledge we have never had "motorcycle only checkpoints" along our roads. I'd like to see us institute a $500 -$1000 fine for littering and I have a few other nitpicks but for the most part I wouldn't live anywhere else.

When I've been concerned about issues my E mails to the Governor have always been answered. Indiana doesn't show any sign of having the corruption problems some other states seem to continuously have.

All in all, I've been very happy with the Governor and I think he will make a great vice president for several reasons. Most importantly, because he would be capable of taking over for the next president if it's needed.  With all the hate and violence being directed against Trump and his supporters (and more sure to come outside the convention I'm afraid) the importance of having a vice president who could competently assume the reins can't be overestimated.

As far as his religions convictions, if they don't include murdering, enslaving or raping those of other faiths then I'm not concerned about them. Although I personally believe in God and evolution I know many smart  (and some extremely smart) people who do not accept the theory of evolution. I don't need them to agree with me about it and they have no need for me to agree with them concerning it either. I'm OK with that. If we were all just alike, it would be a boring world.

Because my philosophy is that of a libertarian I would be happier if he was less of a social conservative, but again, I can live with it.

[therapist]

If you mean that Pence took a stand as a Christian, that wasn't socially embarrassing to me.

I should have put that in quotes, as it came from the article. Enough Indiana voters must have disapproved, looking at the poll numbers. I think that is why he jumped at the VP job...he saw the writing on the wall.

[mike72903]

I don't know where some people get their science knowledge from.  

Actually, Serk and everyone one else here is less than completely modern human.  That is unless they are a native African.  Every person in the world, Asian, European Inuit, whatever has up to 3 percent of Neanderthal DNA.  When modern humans left Africa they interbred with at least two humanoid forms that had migrated from Africa thousands of years earlier.  This makes native Africans the only pure modern human.

The fossil record of transitional life forms exists, and is well documented in science with actual fossils.  

Simply put conservatives want to maintain the status quo.  Liberals are open to change. Strict adherence to either philosophy would be chaotic and disastrous in the long term. Thus, I am a moderate, neither embracing change for changes sake or so staid that I am not open to what I perceive as personal or socially positive ideas.   Since many here say electing Hillary would be a continuation of the status quo and politics as usual, and they want drastic political change, exactly who is the liberal here?  We're the founders liberals for advocating change?

Heck of a dual between Stenson and Mickleson at the British Open going on.

Of course our society benefits from generations of laws and social mores from history.  Only a fool would argue that.   But many biblical customs and laws we would consider barbaric today.  Let's call it social evolution.  Perhaps some approve of child labor and slavery. Stoning anyone?  Maybe change can be positive

[Romeo]

quote mr. Pence "Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media class, smoking doesn't kill". WTH?  He denies evolution, thinks creationism should be taught in schools, doesn't believe most scientists agree climate change is happening.  two possibilities to explain those views.  1. He's in the pocket of big business or 2. He's nuts or so egotistical that he believes because he thinks something, it absolutely true.
I could never support a candidate so out of touch with reality of Science.

LOL!  Sounds like my kind of guy.  I think anyone who believes in evolution as it is taught has to be out of touch with his logical skills.  I believe that creationism should be taught in schools as one explanation of how things came to be.  It make more sense than something came from nothing.  I believe climate changes takes place, but to accept that it is caused by human beings one has to disconnect with a rather large chunk of evidence.  I believe most true scientists would agree with me.  I do think everything I believe is true.  If I thought any of it were not true I would change my mind.  Isn't that what believe means?

I'm going to accept outright that CI_borg and lots of other people awash in liberalism will not vote for Mike Pence.  That does nothing but improve my respect for him.

     

once again, Willow hits the nail on the head.

[solo1]

I should have put that in quotes, as it came from the article. Enough Indiana voters must have disapproved, looking at the poll numbers. I think that is why he jumped at the VP job...he saw the writing on the wall. QUOTE by Therapist

Polls depend on how questions are asked and what people are asked. One voting day is worth a thousand "expert' polls.

Pence's Democrat opponent , Greg, didn't strike me as able to win over Pence. Greg looks like a typical pol, walrus mustache, down home attempted attitude, promising everything, essentially a Democrat in name and mind. etc.  Now Greg is in a quandary, all his derogatory ads about Pence have accomplished nothing.  Indiana is primarily a Republican state.  Many of us don't like the Democratic platform.  

[f6gal]

Truthfully, almost everyone who frequents this board is more liberal than I. 

I do wish Biden had run but he didn't.       

Now, talk about conflicting statements! WTH?

[Pete]

"Seems like a self inflicted death wish choosing a proven lying, morally corrupt, criminally corrupt, un-indited politician."
I think the exact could applied to the opponent very effectively. 

Perhaps some could and perhaps they are, but then one must apply "degree of" and clearly Hillary wins that contest going away.

Nice try "no sale"

Well now, "degree of" would be pretty subjective . 

Actually it is not, by simply researching the MSM (not exactly a non interested party) Hillary corrupt by a landslide.

[Pete]

 

Simply put conservatives want to maintain the status quo.  Liberals are open to change. Strict adherence to either philosophy would be chaotic and disastrous in the long term. Thus, I am a moderate, neither embracing change for changes sake or so staid that I am not open to what I perceive as personal or socially positive ideas.   Since many here say electing Hillary would be a continuation of the status quo and politics as usual, and they want drastic political change, exactly who is the liberal here?  We're the founders liberals for advocating change?

Liberals are not liberal now and have not been in my lifetime, they are socialistic repression..ist. If they were a  religion they would be religious cult. Liberals are only open to their change never to change from anywhere else.  As for conservatives at least they support - Hillary - for prison, that is a change.

[Willow]

Truthfully, almost everyone who frequents this board is more liberal than I. 

I do wish Biden had run but he didn't.       

Now, talk about conflicting statements! WTH?

Joe Biden would've been easier to beat.  He was actually Barack Obama's insurance against the possibility of an assassination.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Truthfully, almost everyone who frequents this board is more liberal than I. 

I do wish Biden had run but he didn't.       

Now, talk about conflicting statements! WTH?

Joe Biden would've been easier to beat.  He was actually Barack Obama's insurance against the possibility of an assassination.

I knew if you dangled that out there long enough you'd get some nibbles. 

[Pete]

Truthfully, almost everyone who frequents this board is more liberal than I. 

I do wish Biden had run but he didn't.       

Now, talk about conflicting statements! WTH?

Joe Biden would've been easier to beat.  He was actually Barack Obama's insurance against the possibility of an assassination.

I thought so also, but Hillary is changing m mind with her ineptitude and scandals.

[mike72903]

 

Simply put conservatives want to maintain the status quo.  Liberals are open to change. Strict adherence to either philosophy would be chaotic and disastrous in the long term. Thus, I am a moderate, neither embracing change for changes sake or so staid that I am not open to what I perceive as personal or socially positive ideas.   Since many here say electing Hillary would be a continuation of the status quo and politics as usual, and they want drastic political change, exactly who is the liberal here?  We're the founders liberals for advocating change?

Liberals are not liberal now and have not been in my lifetime, they are socialistic repression..ist. If they were a  religion they would be religious cult. Liberals are only open to their change never to change from anywhere else.  As for conservatives at least they support - Hillary - for prison, that is a change.

Pete, your going to have to explain what "socialistic repression..ist" is to me  To me it congers someone repressing or fighting socialism i.e. Communism.  I'm pretty sure that's not what you're saying. Just curious. Thanks

[Pete]

 

Simply put conservatives want to maintain the status quo.  Liberals are open to change. Strict adherence to either philosophy would be chaotic and disastrous in the long term. Thus, I am a moderate, neither embracing change for changes sake or so staid that I am not open to what I perceive as personal or socially positive ideas.   Since many here say electing Hillary would be a continuation of the status quo and politics as usual, and they want drastic political change, exactly who is the liberal here?  We're the founders liberals for advocating change?

Liberals are not liberal now and have not been in my lifetime, they are socialistic repression..ist. If they were a  religion they would be religious cult. Liberals are only open to their change never to change from anywhere else.  As for conservatives at least they support - Hillary - for prison, that is a change.

Pete, your going to have to explain what "socialistic repression..ist" is to me  To me it congers someone repressing or fighting socialism i.e. Communism.  I'm pretty sure that's not what you're saying. Just curious. Thanks

A progressive liberal tends to resolve and implement socialistic solutions to issues (problems or not) rather than allow individuals freedom of choice and freedom of solution.  They are currently not communist but are headed that way and will eventually get there if not stopped (whether or not they realize it, some do and some do not).

The progressive liberal repression-ist  is going to save you from whatever in spite of yourself because in their view they are always right, never wrong and you should be forced under color of law to conform. Your resources must be taken and used as they see fit because you will not voluntary submit to the robbery.

And they wonder why any resist their actions, if left to their current path they will unknowingly and unwittingly bring on a civil war. Because there are folks in this world who will resist, revolt and fight to prevent it. No one knows what the final straw will be to cause the conflagration but they will push until they find it. And then be surprised it happened.   

Of course this is all for you own good, according to them. Of course it is bull they are control freaks the exact opposite of true liberal freaks.

A real true liberal values freedom in all things the exact opposite of progressive liberal. They are not progressive liberal they are by their actions socialistic repression-ist.

Yes it is serious stuff with serious consequences and anyone with any sense would avoid it if possible.

Hope this helps, I tried to be brief and to the point rather than all encompassing.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Since the topic has drifted to the definition of Liberals and Conservatives I'd like to give mine.  

Liberals no longer exist. And, I'm speaking as one who was called a Liberal 40 years ago when Liberalism stood for freedom.

There was a time (JFK's time) when Liberal meant you stood for freedom of expression, freedom of speech, the 2nd Amendment, freedom of religion, and a colorblind society. Now liberal means you are against all of our civil rights. Now liberal means everything must be defined by race, by nationality or any possible way to divide our citizens into hateful little groups. Liberal now means corruption and protecting criminals in and out of government. Liberal now means squashing, bankrupting, attacking, or even killing those who are brave enough to speak if they don't agree with present day Liberal dogma.

Liberal was once a title of honor among those who loved our country and the freedom it represented. Now, modern day liberalism is all about hate, socialism, totalitarianism and resentment. Modern day liberalism is the new KKK, the new Nazism. Only the Libertarian Party and to an extent the Republican party still support the old liberal values of personal freedom, personal responsibility, civil rights and a color blind society. To call modern day Liberals who call for "pigs in a blanket", who want to import 65,000 refugees, many of whom support human slavery and terrorism "progressive" is Orwellian double-think at it's best.

In the past 50 or so years the terms Liberal and Conservative have virtually swapped definitions. How it can be that many of those around my age have stuck with the Liberals while they have slowly changed into what we once so loathed is a mystery I will never understand.

[Jess from VA]

I'm with you five by five Mike.   

I was also somewhat liberal in my youth.  What liberal meant then.  Personal rights, liberty and freedom for each citizen. 

It does not mean the same thing today.  Fascist political correctness would be the more accurate term today.

As I have said before, I understand the Free Sh!t Army.  I don't like them, but it is easy to understand their self interest above all else (indeed they are not really liberal or conservative, they would vote with whoever continues giving out the most free sh!t).  What I will never understand is the well educated, affluent left.  I like them considerably less than the Free crap Army.   

[The emperor has no clothes]

Well then. I guess I'm not a liberal as I've been labeled here after all. It is kind of amusing how it has been defined in such stark contrasting terms. Almost like the evil and the righteous in the Bible. In reality I doubt many of us are so pigeon holed into these terms. I know I am liberal on some things and conservative on others.

[Valkorado]

Since the topic has drifted to the definition of Liberals and Conservatives I'd like to give mine.  

Liberals no longer exist. And, I'm speaking as one who was called a Liberal 40 years ago when Liberalism stood for freedom.

There was a time (JFK's time) when Liberal meant you stood for freedom of expression, freedom of speech, the 2nd Amendment, freedom of religion, and a colorblind society. Now liberal means you are against all of our civil rights. Now liberal means everything must be defined by race, by nationality or any possible way to divide our citizens into hateful little groups. Liberal now means corruption and protecting criminals in and out of government. Liberal now means squashing, bankrupting, attacking, or even killing those who are brave enough to speak if they don't agree with present day Liberal dogma.

Liberal was once a title of honor among those who loved our country and the freedom it represented. Now, modern day liberalism is all about hate, socialism, totalitarianism and resentment. Modern day liberalism is the new KKK, the new Nazism. Only the Libertarian Party and to an extent the Republican party still support the old liberal values of personal freedom, personal responsibility, civil rights and a color blind society. To call modern day Liberals who call for "pigs in a blanket", who want to import 65,000 refugees, many of whom support human slavery and terrorism "progressive" is Orwellian double-think at it's best.

In the past 50 or so years the terms Liberal and Conservative have virtually swapped definitions. How it can be that many of those around my age have stuck with the Liberals while they have slowly changed into what we once so loathed is a mystery I will never understand.

Bravo! 

[mike72903]

Well then. I guess I'm not a liberal as I've been labeled here after all. It is kind of amusing how it has been defined in such stark contrasting terms. Almost like the evil and the righteous in the Bible. In reality I doubt many of us are so pigeon holed into these terms. I know I am liberal on some things and conservative on others.

sure leaves me out too Rob.  Thank you Pete.  And Frye for your definitions. not sure what to say about that except it certainly sounds terrible as a political philosophy and I doubt it's actual existence as a movement.  I'm sticking with my definition of liberal and conservative which places me squarely in the moderate middle ground where I believe most people reside as Rob points out, with small leanings left or right dependent on the particular issue.

[Robert]

Great article describing the change from true liberal to socialist while keeping the appearance.


http://freedomoutpost.com/when-did-the-democratic-party-become-socialist/

The 1960's proved to be just what was ordered for the Socialists in the United States, and it was here that the New Left got its beginning. This new party idea did get as popular as they wanted until one certain radical seemed to alter their tactics so they would work well within a certain political party. This magical figure for the Socialists was Saul Alinsky, a very good friend of Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton. Saul Alinsky stated that to change a society, one had to first infiltrate the major institutions, the school, the media, the churches, the entertainment industries, the labor unions, and the three branches of government, and then it would have the power to implement policies.

The Democratic Party of today is very far-left and the top parts of the Democratic party are have been infiltrated by a vast number of Socialists/Communists, which is why the DNC could not differentiate between the Democratic Party and the Socialist Party.

"Shadow Party" is used specifically to refer to the network of non-profit activist groups organized by George Soros and others to mobilize resources -- money, get-out-the-vote drives, campaign advertising, and policy initiatives -- to advance Democratic Party agendas, elect Democratic candidates, and guide the Democratic Party ever-further towards the left.

It was in the 1972 elections that the Democratic Party, through the use of the old New Left, made the final move by effectively eliminating its opposition--the centrist liberals who had viciously opposed Communist totalitarianism. Once the Centrists in the Democratic Party were eliminated, the New Left took over the Democratic Party and incorporated the "liberalism" word it had destroyed through earlier elections. It was here that Socialism began its move into the depths of the Democratic Party, with Hillary Rodham Clinton actually writing letters to Saul Alinsky telling him how great his work was and that his ideas were working well.

Also inside the Democrats are this group

http://www.cpusa.org/
 76 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The Communist Party has publicly referred to the Progressive Caucus as its allies. The Progressive Caucus speaks for itself. These individuals certainly aren't proponents of free markets or individual economic freedom."

[Pete]

Great conservation folks, good dialog.
I suspect that most of us are both conservative and liberal using the real definitions accurately and that only a few are so far to the left or right that they are dangerous to America.

Far left progressive liberals (social repression-ist) and far right (what ever the are called) should never be left in control of anything as they will destroy it or cause its destruction.