home

Taking Pride in Being a Liberal

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 11:08:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Actor George Clooney defends being a liberal on Huffington Post. He reminds us there is no shame in being a liberal, in fact, it's a source of pride. It's not just our right to question authority, it's our duty.

For those of us who have been questioning authority our entire adult lives, professionally and personally, Clooney's words are very welcome. I hope some Senators and Congresspersons take his words to heart. Liberal values are American values.

< Ned Lamont to Announce Run Against Joe Lieberman | Another Abu Ghraib Soldier Goes on Trial >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Taking Pride in Being a Liberal | 43 comments (43 topical)
    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 11:21:07 PM EST
    Thank God we have celebrities to tell us sh*t we already know.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 03:56:59 AM EST
    I've always liked the Bertrand Russell quote in the banner of The Anonymous Liberal Blog:
    "The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment." -Bertrand Russell
    Of course it's a source of pride. It's being able to learn and grow and embrace new knowledge. It's lack of fear of the world, and especially of fear itself. It's being appreciative of the differences in peoples and enjoying them for who they are, not judging them for what they are not. In fact the only things I can think of that liberals won't tolerate are intolerance, hate, and bigotry, and people who try to pass them off as "points of view" deserving of equal consideration.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 04:02:40 AM EST
    ... and the inability or unwillingness to understand Russell's statement.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#4)
    by aw on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 04:55:08 AM EST
    Liberals haven't done anything to be ashamed of. "Liberal" and "shame" don't belong in the same sentence.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 06:33:19 AM EST
    Definition of liberal from the thefreedictionary.com
    Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
    Sounds like a lot to be proud of!!!!

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 06:37:24 AM EST
    Posted by AsinineAmerican March 13, 2006 12:19 AM
    Thank God we have celebrities to tell us sh*t we already know.
    Evidently, 34 percent of the Country is a bit slow on the uptake. They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings steal a little and they'll throw you in jail steal an election and they'll make you a king Sorry, Zimmy.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 07:43:29 AM EST
    American ideals, by definition, are liberal ideals. Unfortunately, America has been hijacked and thrown terribly off course.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 07:50:59 AM EST
    Clooney is right, of course. There is nothing at all wrong with a liberal viewpoint in and of itself. It's coming to a liberal viewpoint based on a complete disinterest in the facts and with no concern for the consequences, that is something to be ashamed of. I don't think George Clooney has fallen into that trap, but plenty of others have. debbiehammil offers us a rather self-serving definition of liberal, but how many of today's (or yesterday's) liberals can meet the definition? "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism." Not limited to authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas? By that standard alone there are very few liberals in this country and almost none here at TalkLeft. The liberal left is dogmatic beyond all reason on a woman's right to choose, just to name one example. I happen to support that right, but that doesn't make it any less of a dogmatic viewpoint. The War on Terror, George W. Bush, anything associated with a conservative viewpoint, energy resources, and global warming are all issues where there is a standard liberal dogma as well. Free from bigotry? Since when? The liberal left shows its bigotry every time a person who is both religious and conservative dares to say anything provocative, resorting to name calling and denunciations as a matter of course. And let's not forget the left's frequent reference to all nonliberal blacks as "Uncle Toms" or "whites in blackface". Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress? Oh really? Then why the constant refusal to even look at real Social Security reform? Or Medicare reform? Or Welfare reform? Every time these issues are brought up the left denounces the messenger as an extremist and refuses to admit there is even a problem with any of these programs. Bill Clinton, the poster-boy of the 90s for liberalism, had to be forced to sign Welfare reform. Tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others? Right. As if. The mythological liberal in this definition might be tolerant, but very few self-professed liberals alive today are. Breathe one word that does not fit the current liberal dogma on any issue and you are immediately branded a "winger" or a "neocon" or whatever that day's derogatory catchphrase is and dismissed out of hand. Personally, I wish more liberals did fit this definition. If that were the case, there would be more hope for this country and for the prospect of undoing some of the damage that has been done over the last 14 years. Sadly, it ain't so.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 07:57:54 AM EST
    I'd like to hear his views on Kelo, School choice, gun control, gov't spending, abortion, UN, Israel, taxes, welfare, medicaid, SUVs, citgo, windpower off Nantucket, profiling arab companies or arab for that matter, campaign reform. If disagreeing with going into Iraq makes one a liberal, then I must be liberal. But I doubt it.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#10)
    by Lww on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 08:23:52 AM EST
    I love taking my cues from the Limo liberal crowd. You know the kind. Living in houses that contain a hundred murdered trees, with a Sierra Club sticker on the garage. Sending the kids to private school while defending the public schools as the best in the world. Staunch gun control advocates living in gated communities, with armed security and all the other protections us poor shlubs don't have. Please Barbra, should I turn my AC to 80 degrees this summer and hang my clothes on the line? I know you do.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#11)
    by Peaches on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 08:24:43 AM EST
    JP, I am not going to start an argument with you, because in principle, I agree with much that you say. That is in principle. We will not agree with much, however, in pragmatic results. When we think of liberalism as the definition provided by DebHam, we have to realize this as something to strive for or as something that we wish to achieve, even if this goal seems unattainable at times. This is the tradition of America, which was set up as an experiment based on enlightenment principles when liberalism was synonymous with enlightenment. When we fall short of these ideals, we cannot take this as a reason to abandon the princples of liberalism. So, what are these principles. DebHam provides a succint definition, but a better understanding can be gained by a more comprehensive reading. One could start with philosophy beginning with the ancient Greeks. But, to get the American flavor, the Declaration of Independence, and the constitution also provide some of the basic tenets of liberalism. From there, Thomas Paine, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, Abe Lincoln, Wiliam James, John Dewey, Franklin Roosevelt up to madern thinkers, such as Richard Rorty, will give one an understanding of what it means to be a liberal. But, America, also has a long history of conservatism that is a necessary balance to the idea of liberalism, although perhaps not as rich and plentiful in ideas. Using DebHams source, Conservatism is:
    Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. Traditional or restrained in style Moderate; cautious.
    and
    Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources
    These are also ideals that republicans don't adhere to any more often than democrats adhere to liberal ideals. But, they would be wise to strive for. Likewise conservatism has a long history in America as a viable philosophy to strive for or achieve. The list of readings to gain an understanding of these ideals would include: Henry David Thoreau, Aldo Leopold, Sigurd Olsen, Wendell Berry, and my favorite modern conservative thinker--John Taylor Gatto.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 08:57:26 AM EST
    Gee, now that I've stopped laughing hysterically and cleaned the bagel bits and black coffee off the monitor, I have a few thoughts on the matter I'd like to share. Evidently, it's OK for a woman to have a right to choose unless she exercises it. Interesting take. Furthermore, it's OK to be a liberal if you arrive at the position through a conservative-approved thought process. That's big of 'em. Talk about your ignorant, bigoted, self-serving, BS. You can be against the War in Iraq and the policies of the Bush Administration as long as you're for them and as long as you're tolerant of the religious beliefs of fundamentalist Christians while realizing they're under no obligation to respect your religious beliefs because God's on their side, you can stay if you behave yourself, keep quiet and don't make any waves. Gee, what nice folks.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#13)
    by swingvote on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 09:22:43 AM EST
    Thanks Charlie. I knew I could count on you to provide a first-class example of just the sort of close-minded, intolerant, and bigoted "liberal" I was talking about. As usual, your comment is pure, unadulterated BS. Who said anything about a woman having the right to choose but not the right to exercise that choice? Only you. Could this be a classic case of projection? Who said anything about a conservative-approved thought process? Again, only you. All I said was that liberalism is fine when it is the end product of a thought process rather than the swallowing wholesale of the sort of dogma you so frequently preach here. You know, the same way you came to your "liberal" views. "Talk about your ignorant, bigoted, self-serving, BS." That's exactly what I was doing, Charlie. Talking about your bigotry, your ignorance, and your self-serving BS. I'm glad you understood. As for: "You can be against the War in Iraq and the policies of the Bush Administration as long as you're for them and as long as you're tolerant of the religious beliefs of fundamentalist Christians while realizing they're under no obligation to respect your religious beliefs because God's on their side, you can stay if you behave yourself, keep quiet and don't make any waves." Just more of the usual tripe. Nobody has said any such thing; you are once again projecting your own views, through a mirror, onto others. Which is what makes you such a great example of the majority of today's "liberals". You not only will not grant any consideration to another's point of view, you can't even be bothered to present it honestly. You misrepresent what people say to give yourself another soapbox opportunity, then you stand on your newest soapbox and verbally masturbate for your own amusement. It reminds me of John Kerry in 2004, which probably explains why you are such a fan of his. Thanks Charlie, it's always a pleasure.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 10:03:23 AM EST
    I'm a proud Liberal. And I'm a proud Conservative. The hatemongers and warmongers cannot marginalize moi because I'm a Realist Idealist. RealistIdealist.com

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 10:13:28 AM EST
    Darn, I keep messing that up and typing Ideal[ist] instead of Ideal[ism]. Here's the actual link: RealistIdealism.com It forwards you to Bush allegedly taking the oath of office. Enjoy. It sums up his presidency quite succinctly in my view. If you agree, pass it on.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 10:30:36 AM EST
    Narius, I'm not going to revive the debate, but Bush did not get 50% of the vote in 2000. He got the vote of the Supreme Court.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#18)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 11:12:39 AM EST
    Jesus JP what a bunch of hypocritical BS. A few pearls: The liberal left is dogmatic beyond all reason on a woman's right to choose, just to name one example. Yes we stand up for freedom. Seems reasonable to me. Got a problem with that? Sorry but the definition of liberal does not include passive. Bill Clinton, the poster-boy of the 90s for liberalism, had to be forced to sign Welfare reform Part of the contract on america? Repug congress? Hello? You don't have to be liberal to fight that trash. Just sane. current liberal dogma Catchy yet meaningless. I hope you got it all out of your system.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#19)
    by roy on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 11:18:49 AM EST
    Some confusion here stems from the fact than the Left is not consistently "liberal" when it comes to making policy. There's a big "political perfectionist" streak as well. Problems arise when we forget the difference, as we're doing in this thread. Bigger problems arise when people vote for a Democrat thinking they'll get a liberal who'll question authority, but they really get a political perfectionist who uses authority to make others do what he thinks they should want to do, or a Leftist who has team loyalty but no ideals. I regurgitated that point from some blog, btw, but I can't remember which. If you really want to question authority, become a libertarian. It's a sweet deal, we don't have to worry about winning elections or anything like that.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#20)
    by swingvote on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 11:25:07 AM EST
    Che, standing up for a right, and blacklisting those who disagree with you about whether it is an absolute right, are two very different things. The first is a good position; the second is a dogmatic response. Just ask Joe Liebermann. The issue was not the sanity of the matter at stake, Che. The issue was the claim that liberals are in favor of reform. Welfare, Social Security, and Medicare prove otherwise. Catchy yet meaningless. On the contrary. You have joined Charlie in proving my point. Your call yourself a liberal, yet you meet none of the definition provided. Does that mean you are a progessive or should we just call it "liberal" and leave it at that? Liberalism was a good thing when it stood for something; nowadays, judging from most "liberals", it only stands against things. Tag an idea, any idea, with a link to Bush or a known conservative, and you can be counted on to show up to oppose it. What will you do come 2009 when Hillary takes the Oval Office? You won't have anything to oppose anymore.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#21)
    by Peaches on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 12:00:58 PM EST
    What will you do come 2009 when Hillary takes the Oval Office? You won't have anything to oppose anymore.
    JP, You have been around here long enough. The people on this site will always have something to oppose. Many will oppose you, or people like you. Others will oppose Charlie, TL, TChris, SD, or any other person they identify as liberal. You should decide if you attacking people or liberalism? If you can demonstrate when someone is not being true to liberal ideals, though, you should have a better grasp of what liberalism is. Instead, you attempt to take a definition of liberalism and twist it to fit your own dogmatic, entrenched and extremist position. To defend welfare, social security, and medicare against all calls for reform is dogmatic. However, to wish to preserve the programs so they can serve their intended purposes is at root liberal--and is something all true liberals will always fight for. When liberals interpret life, liberty and the pursiut of happiness they want this dream to include as many Americans as possible. This means providing the economic means to do so to the sick, elderly, and the economic downtrodden. Detemining the best way to achieve this objective should always be open to discussion. Abandoning these programs completely, or stripping them of any ability to function in order to achiever thier purposes through the Right wing dogmatic mantra of privitization (which really means gov't contracts and subsidies benifitting the wealthy elite at expense of the intended recipients of these programs) should be fought for with extreme prejudice (and I mean the intensity of the above vocabulary--because liberal ideals are worth dying for).

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#22)
    by Peaches on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 12:04:38 PM EST
    should be fought for with extreme prejudice
    should be should be fought against with extreme prejudice

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    Peaches: When liberals interpret life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness they want this dream to include as many Americans as possible. This means providing the economic means to do so to the sick, elderly, and the economic downtrodden. Very, very well put Peaches. The mindset is one of finding ways to create a win-win society that includes the least priviliged, rather than a system in which many must 'lose' for a few to 'win'. This is not a game, nor is it 'communism', as it is often derogatorily labelled. It is simply a recognition that no one can lift themselves by forcing or holding others down, and that everyone benefits by offering a hand-up rather than a hand-out to those less fortunate. In a real sense it is self-interest rather than selfishness that drives true liberals since the ultimate aim is for everyone to be surrounded on all sides by people doing well. Idealism? Yes, of course. The existence of America stems from idealism, and America has no future without it. You get what you give.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 01:49:00 PM EST
    Since when did strong public disagreement become synonomous with "blacklisting" and "reform" with eradication? Probobly around the same time that opposition to privatisation meant being "opposed to everything." and being a liberal meant believing in the papal infallibility of the Clintons. From Rush's a** to j.p to us.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 02:37:04 PM EST
    Actually, I think this discussion is all about degrees and maybe the government's role. Yes, we have gvt-provided social programs and yes they help people, but when do they stop being a hand-up and start being a hand-out? At what point are the minimum economic means met for one to have life & liberty and be able to pursue happiness? I think very few, if anyone, actually advocates that no-one should help anyone else, just as very few, if anyone, advocates full-on communism. So the argument, it seems, to a large part, is over the degree of social programs. And, although I can't speak for them, I'd bet the libertarians feel that should there should be no gvt social programs, and in their absence more people would find a way to do for themselves, and those that couldn't would be given a hand-up from private sources.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#26)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 02:44:51 PM EST
    JP, Same tired rhetoric. You talk a lot, but you don't say anything new. We're not on the Galapagos islands anymore. We've evolved (or most of us have). Money is just money. It's all about power and you think it's the powerless people that are responsible for society's ills. That's the funhouse lookinglass world of libertarianism.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 02:47:58 PM EST
    Sarc, I think you're a liberal in disguise. ;-) Seriously though, Most of us, myself included, are to liberal in some senses and conservative in some senses, so we are in agreement that the argument, it seems, to a large part, is over the degree of social programs.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 02:49:33 PM EST
    How many fortunes made by self styled libertarians or thier allies were expedited by a symbiotic relationship with government? Speaking of "social programs."

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 03:28:41 PM EST
    As the bumper sticker reads "If you are not completely appalled you haven't been paying attention". While I agree that we don't need "celebrities" telling us what we already know, at least they get a microphone and audience more readily than we do and sometimes our fellow Americans with their heads up their a** and in the sand actually start to pay attention.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 04:45:31 PM EST
    edger, I have more liberal leanings than I care to admit, although any time a "celeb" - from either end of the spectrum - gets on a soapbox and starts pontificating about politics my eyes just sort of glaze over... But I think JM is savvy enough to realize that there are many Americans who do give a "celeb's" opinion extra weight.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 05:05:40 PM EST
    Sarc, there are probably more things we agree on then disagree over... As stoptalkingandosomething said of celebrities: at least they get a microphone and audience more readily than we do. Songs, for example, are some of the most powerful memes, and can spread ideas and opinions very quickly. Virally, in fact. We saw it happen in the sixties. We may see it happen again... And they came from everywhere To the great divide Seeking a place to stand Or a place to hide --The Last Resort

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 06:15:29 PM EST
    AssinineAmerican writes:
    Thank God we have celebrities to tell us sh*t we already know.
    True. But You Must Understand. Clooney is a High School Graduate With No Experience Beyond Mouthing Words Written By Someone Else While Acting As If He Is Someone Else. I mean really. It is obvious that he is a superior being. Besides, as the ladies use to say, and probably still do, in the easter part of the state.. "He sure is pretty..." Peaches writes:
    To defend welfare, social security, and medicare against all calls for reform is dogmatic. However, to wish to preserve the programs so they can serve their intended purposes is at root liberal--
    As a senile old man, I agree. The question is, how do we preserve and improve. Certainly not by standing pat.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#33)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 07:34:45 PM EST
    The question is, how do we preserve and improve. Certainly not by standing pat. Sell it off to the highest bidder. Let them worry about it. Not my problem anymore. Wash my hands. Lower my tax. Leave gov. to become highest bidder.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#34)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 06:45:35 AM EST
    George Clooney is not a liberal he's a european progressive. Stick him in Italy or France or even Spain and that's what George Clooney would like to see this country strive for. An elitist class of people who know better and tell the rest of us what to do and promise to make sure that while we'll never go hungry we'll never progress to "their" level of excellence. Because in their veiw most of us are not worthy. Thankfully most of the TL bloggers do not subscribe to this theory. Most of you IMO are more the true believers say a Howard Dean or Russ Feingold. I disagree with you but as sarc states it's really a matter of degree not a completely different vision of what America should stand for. Next time someone like Clooney starts talking and representing "liberals" think to yourself..."Do I really believe what he believes?" If i was liberal I wouldn't be putting George Clooney at the front of the line to represent me. Id claim Bill Mahuer.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#35)
    by Peaches on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 06:47:12 AM EST
    As a senile old man, I agree.
    Don't worry Jim, as a liberal, I will still fight for your dignity and make sure your are being bathed, clothed and fed at the nursing home. Even, though you are senile- the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness also applies to you. ;)

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#36)
    by Peaches on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 06:52:21 AM EST
    If i was liberal I wouldn't be putting George Clooney at the front of the line to represent me. Id claim Bill Mahuer.
    And If I called myself a conservative, I wouldn't be putting W., Rove, O'reilly, Rush, or Fox at the front of the line to represent me. I'd claim Wendell Berry.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#37)
    by Peaches on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 07:03:36 AM EST
    George Clooney is not a liberal he's a european progressive.
    Same thing Slado. Our liberal roots can be traced back to Europe and the age of enlightenment. Guys like Rossouea, Voltaire, Locke, Smith... We took their ideas and put them to with a little thing called the Declaration of Independence. Nothing wrong with a little European Progressiveness.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 07:40:29 AM EST
    Whereas slado, jim and the rest of the deadenders can trace their philosophical and literal origins back to the primordial ooze from whence they came. Sophisticated carbon dating techniques trace their origins back to either Tuesday Afternoon or Wednesday Morning of last week. Either way, they've got nothing to do with America and everything to do with Amerika. T'is a pity they still can't grasp the difference. Oh, well. Goodnight, and good luck. For the record, Jim, which is the easter part of the state. Is it covered with colored eggs? Do the people hop like bunnies? Did they go big for shrub?

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 07:47:03 AM EST
    What is it precisely that Clooney believes that you find so objectionable, slado? Or is it just the fact that he doesn't embrace your beloved fuhrer like Jim. Clearly, that's a hangin' offense with him. How about you? Just what is it that Clooney believes, or doesn't believe, that you find so troubling?

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 08:01:58 AM EST
    I am a liberal. Fire away. --George Clooney
    ---
    Spirits rise. And their dance is unrehearsed. --Barbara Streisand


    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 09:11:54 AM EST
    From Rush's a** to j.p to us. Jondee provides yet another example of the "thinking" of too many of today's "liberals": Anything he disagrees with must have come from the feared Rush Limbaugh. Sorry to disappoint you, Jondee, but I don't listen to Rush, don't read Rush, and have no interest in doing so. I don't rely on commentators, blogs, or politicians to do my thinking for me. As for: Since when did strong public disagreement become synonomous with "blacklisting" and "reform" with eradication? Strong public disagreement is one thing, Jondee. Denying any voice to any Democratic politician who is in any way pro-life is another. "Liberal" dogma says that a woman has a right to an abortion at any time, and no liberal politician is permitted to say otherwise. When the Democrats allow a pro-life liberal to mount the stage at the Democratic convention and speak his or her mind, you'll have laid the grounds for a discussion based on strong public disagreement; until then, you've got blacklisting. Welfare wasn't eradicated, Jondee. I know that isn't the "liberal" line on things, but it's still the truth. If it were, no one would be collecting it today, which they are. By why the focus only on Welfare? What about Social Security? During the Clinton Administration, it was openly acknowledged that Social Security was in serious financial trouble, even though, as usual, nothing was done about it. Now that we have the Bush Administration willing to propose doing something about it, the "liberals" can't even be bothered to argue about what should be done (which might indicate a willingness to discuss reform, as per the definition provided). Instead, they now deny there is a problem at all. The same holds for Medicare. Sorry Jondee, but all you've done is help prove again that "liberals" are no longer liberals. It's all Bush-bashing, all the time; no looking toward the future, no proposals to solve the problems they keep harping about, no acknowledgment of the many problems they used to harp about when they knew a "liberal" President would protect them from having to deliver. Look at it this way: It's 2006, the Republicans are down but not yet out, Bush will very soon be a lame duck president, assuming he isn't in fact successfully impeached, in which case Cheney will be a lame-duck president. The Democrats are in the best position they've been in since 1994 to offer a positive agenda for this country, but all you "liberals" can do is whine about how being liberal isn't anything to be ashamed of. Now is the time for some serious open-mindedness, some real reform efforts, and a true show of willingness to honestly engage those who disagree with you. Instead, all you offer is more of the same tired crying and accusations about people listening to Rush. Rush isn't running, Jondee. Neither is Bush, or Cheney, or even Condi. Are you?

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#43)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 12:33:59 PM EST
    Charlie I'd love to have real discussion with you but i'm too busy oozing out of my rock that I was found under. Make arguments instead of insults please. Peaches. True enough the people you mentioned are great examples of what we should strive for. I compared Clooney to today's europeans. See Chriac, Schroeder and the other progressives that are slowly running Europe into the ground. Clooney would have us average folk subjected to rule by government while he jets back and forth from his LA compound to his Villa in Italy (where they fillemd Ocean 12). I just can't take anything he says seriously.

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 12:39:14 PM EST
    Clooney would have us average folk subjected to rule by government... I just can't take anything he says seriously. Since when is Bush spelled c-l-o-o-n-e-y?

    Re: Taking Pride in Being a Liberal (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 01:06:51 PM EST
    j.p - I said "Rush" because like him you apparently cant see the word liberal in print without going into conniptions about welfare, social security and Hillary Clinton (whom you, Rush and O'Reilly seem to believe all "liberals" bow down to.) The fact that people just barely holding on by thier fingernails recieve govt assistance to continue holding on by thier fingernails continues to gall and gnaw at you while others who are the beneficiaries of multi-billion dollar govt contracts, tax-breaks, and "incentives" perpetually, magically, escape your notice just about says all that needs to be said about you. Keep kissin up and kickin down; it works for Joe and Zell. Sorry, Hillary made me say that.

    Taking Pride in Being a Liberal | 43 comments (43 topical)