A Day In the Life of Joe Republican

[Satori]

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid
commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical
insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing
industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to
stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating
liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

 

[Foxtrot Uniform]

Makes me feel all warm on the inside.

 

[byp]

humour with just the right amount of sarcasm and attention (or is it intention?)

i dont know about jo...

but sure enough, you sound like the kind of woman i could love...(to meet)
(see other thread...)

 

[Satori]

humour with just the right amount of sarcasm and attention (or is it intention?)

i dont know about jo...

but sure enough, you sound like the kind of woman i could love...(to meet)
(see other thread...)

Yes, I've already seen that thread. Thank you very much!!

 

[Maciamo]

Sorry to contradict but in Europe liberals may fight for better health, safety standards, bank insurance or take more rational and intelligent decisions (than the conservatives), but that is the socialista who fight for social security, unemployment benefits, national medical insurance, minimum working standards, etc. The Greens fight for environmental issues and most of the above too.

The point is that in Europe the main parties are either socialist or liberals nowadays. Conservatives are becoming rarer and rarer. So one sides support more government spending, while the other wants a better lifestyle with less government spendings. The Greens are usually on the socialist side (leftist). Liberals are considred rightists and conservative are centrists (they don't want to change anything). Liberals want more privatization, more economic efficiency, etc. Both EU liberals and socialists are usually for a clear separation of state and religion. Only conservatives have opened Christian influence.

In the US, I'd say that Republicans are a mixed of European conservatives and neo-nazis (extreme-right), while Democrats are halfway between liberals and socialists. What you cite above as "Liberals" sounds more like the Greens, actually.

Incredible of the same words can have so different meanings accross the Atlantic ! Then you have Tony Blait who is a Socialist in name (Labour Party), but a true Liberal in heart.

 

[Satori]

Oh, I completely agree with you! What I posted was really talking more about what we consider over here to be socialist or democratic socialist--basically, very left wing. The democrats are moving more and more towards the center, and the republicans are moving so far right, they don't even know where center is anymore! The liberals in other countries would be the equivalent of our conversatives, while our liberals are considered left over here, and the far rightwingers would be considered practically Nazis. I have noticed the difference in terms between countries. Liberal in this country means something completely different than in other countries. And you are so right about the republicans here in the U.S. Gee, using the European definition of liberal, maybe the rightwing neo-cons are correct when they claim that The New York Times, CNN, etc. are all "liberal!" Of course, they are merely trying to imply that they are socialists. Yeah, right. Corporately owned and controlled by mega conglomerates. Those people really need to get a clue.

Incredible of the same words can have so different meanings accross the Atlantic ! Then you have Tony Blait who is a Socialist in name (Labour Party), but a true Liberal in heart.

I know!! That's so true.

 

[Maciamo]

I guess that "liberal" has come to mean "socialist" in the US, because "socialist" has come to mean "communist" (and communist = "nazi" or "enemy of the US" during the Cold War). It always feels funny when I hear some Americans say that Eastern Europe was "socialist" before 1990. No European would call them that when most European government were governed by their respective "Socialist Party" (or equivalent, like Labour, Social-Democrat, etc.).

 

[TwistedMac]

Sorry to contradict but in Europe liberals may fight for better health, safety standards, bank insurance or take more rational and intelligent decisions (than the conservatives), but that is the socialista who fight for social security, unemployment benefits, national medical insurance, minimum working standards, etc. The Greens fight for environmental issues and most of the above too.

The point is that in Europe the main parties are either socialist or liberals nowadays. Conservatives are becoming rarer and rarer. So one sides support more government spending, while the other wants a better lifestyle with less government spendings. The Greens are usually on the socialist side (leftist). Liberals are considred rightists and conservative are centrists (they don't want to change anything). Liberals want more privatization, more economic efficiency, etc. Both EU liberals and socialists are usually for a clear separation of state and religion. Only conservatives have opened Christian influence.

In the US, I'd say that Republicans are a mixed of European conservatives and neo-nazis (extreme-right), while Democrats are halfway between liberals and socialists. What you cite above as "Liberals" sounds more like the Greens, actually.

Incredible of the same words can have so different meanings accross the Atlantic ! Then you have Tony Blait who is a Socialist in name (Labour Party), but a true Liberal in heart.

*supports statement*
it's dead-on for sweden anyway.

 

[Satori]

I guess that "liberal" has come to mean "socialist" in the US, because "socialist" has come to mean "communist" (and communist = "nazi" or "enemy of the US" during the Cold War). It always feels funny when I hear some Americans say that Eastern Europe was "socialist" before 1990. No European would call them that when most European government were governed by their respective "Socialist Party" (or equivalent, like Labour, Social-Democrat, etc.).

To most of us here in the U.S. who consider ourselves left wing, liberal and socialist would be similar, although the democrats seem to be moving further away from socialist and towards centrist these days. For instance, most democrats in office support Homeland Security, Three Strikes Law, etc. These days the Greens would be more likely representatives of socialism, since the democrats don't seem to consistently have a backbone in that area. The far rightwing republicans in this country, however, view liberal to not only mean socialist but communist as well. Some have even accused the left wing as being nazis, if you can believe that. They get their fear buttons pushed and all they hear is socialist = communist = nazi. They truly don't have a clue, and it is one of the reasons they don't even recognize the fact that their leader and our present administration are operating like a bunch of nazis. Communism was the big fear word in this country for many years (still is, to some); however, it has now been replaced with the new fear word--terrorism. Same dynamics, though. Say that you are fighting communism or terrorism, and people will allow you to do anything in their name.

What's interesting to me is the fact that there has never been a true democracy or true Marxism, yet both are really quite similar. However, mention the word Marxism to any rightwing republican here in the U.S., and they'll cry communist and nazi! They truly don't even understand the difference between socialist and communist, and they somehow equate both of those terms with the nazis.

Lately in this country liberal, with its meaning of left wing not right wing or conservative, has been made into a bad word. So that anyone who cares about social issues, such as workers' rights, healthcare, the environment, etc., is then branded as unpatriotic and possibly even a communist. That's why it's so difficult to push through any type of decent government-sponsored healthcare in this country. Anyone who tries is branded as a socialist/communist, when in reality they aren't even the same thing. I am just amazed at how ignorant the American people are at times. We've become a society of T.V. junkies, who no longer think things through but buy whatever views are being sold to us by some commentator on T.V. I've noticed that especially while discussing politics with conservative Americans. Not all conservatives are far rightwingers, but the ones who are have been unbelievably brainwashed by T.V. commentators. Their arguments are the same old rhetoric that some T.V. commentator on Fox News has espoused, and it hardly ever varies. The problem I have with the Fox News commentators, in particular, is that they are so hateful and their comments are designed to get others stirred up and feeling hateful as well. Of course, it's mainly because they don't have a firm grasp of the issues at hand, so they resort to personal attacks on people. Case in point: the Fahrenheit film. Most of the arguments against the film are old and tired and mainly directed at Michael Moore, not the facts of the film. And Fox News has been one of the worst culprits for spreading disinformation in this country in order to support the Bush administration, even to the point of calling anyone who does not support Bush's war unpatriotic and -- you guessed it -- a communist or terrorist! Basically, the "enemy." And let's not forget Bush's own words, "If you're not for us, you're against us." I'm just appalled at how many people don't see through that B.S. around here.

There are a lot of intellectuals in this country who do question and think things through, but with the corporately-dominated media, it's difficult for their voices to be heard. Instead, we are all fed far right propaganda, denouncing anyone who is liberal, i.e. tolerant and open-minded, not the way liberal is referred to in Europe. I noticed that the Liberal party in Australia is the opposite of the way Americans use the term liberal too. Liberal over there is like our rightwing conservative party, and they even used the same tactics. For years Robert Menzies played upon the fear factor of a communist inspired Asian invasion in order to remain in office. And Prime Minister John Howard, who Bush endorses, has been in with Bush with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't know if John Latham of the Labor party has a chance. It's another scary election, that's for sure.

I am so thankful for the internet these days. It has been my lifeline to fellow political thinkers, as well as to Europeans who are used to using their brains and seeing through the B.S. that is going on in this country.

 

[den4]

Fox News, the "liberal" news...in the end of the day, they are all after the same thing....ratings...doesn't matter to them where the ratings come from...or the $$

Kerry of Bush or all of their supporters....
it's like what Max Headroom said back in the day....

"When can you tell when a politician is lying to you? When his lips move...."

This year, don't vote for a lesser evil...vote in Cutethulhu!

 

[Maciamo]

I noticed that the Liberal party in Australia is the opposite of the way Americans use the term liberal too.

I think this thread has shown how brainwashed the whole American society has become so has to completely change the meaning of words. Because in fact, all these political terms had the same meaning in the States as in Europe or Australia. Before WWII, when the US was still viewed as an enviable country of peace and freedom, the UK and US were viewed in the international community as the Liberal Democracies of the world. Would the US government still call itself liberal after changing its meaning so much ?

As I said before, the US now remind me of 1930's Germany or Italy where people couldn't listen to reason (due to economic factors at the time, after WWI's defeat + the 1929 crash) and just supported the first seemingly strong leader that wa going to show the world how strong their country is, and call all other parties communists or unpatriotic. But why do half of the American people spontaneously act like that ? Is it due to the high insecurity or poverty level ? Is it due to an inferiority complex compared to Europe (shorter history, no real empire, less equality, etc.) ?

There are a lot of intellectuals in this country who do question and think things through, but with the corporately-dominated media, it's difficult for their voices to be heard.

Well, I think the US does not have any non-commercial state-financed TV channel, does it ? Most European countries (except France, again more similar to the US ), most Western European countries have (BBC, RTBF/BRT, Rai, TVE, etc.). Japan has NHK. The US probably needs a more objective, independent and non-commercial form of media (hopefully not controlled by the government).

 

[Lina Inverse]

Very good post, Satori! :haihai:

Sorry to contradict but in Europe liberals may fight for better health, safety standards, bank insurance or take more rational and intelligent decisions (than the conservatives), but that is the socialista who fight for social security, unemployment benefits, national medical insurance, minimum working standards, etc. The Greens fight for environmental issues and most of the above too.

Not quite true for Germany. Essentially, we have no Liberal party. The two big parties we have are SPD (socialdemocrats, clearly left) and CDU, so-called "christ-democrats", which aren't christian however, much less democrats, they're clearly right/far-right conservatives. Conservatives are always right to far right here. Then we have the PDS which is somewhat smaller and also social-democrats, but more towards the center. There's no good blood between SPD and PDS. Then we have also a Green Party, which is also clear socialist left and usually sides with the SPD. The last noteworthy party is the FDP, "Free German Party". They used to call themselves "liberal", but aren't in the least. They're clear right-wing conservatives, like the CDU, and usually side with them. Because of that, if you asked a German, he would probably place "liberal" in the right/far-right corner.
Then there are some small parties left, like the extreme right-wing DVU ("German Poeple Union"). They practically have the same ideas like the Nazis back then and luckily normally don't get enough voices to get a foot on the ground.

If the Australian "Liberal" Party is really that right-wing, is sounds a lot like our FDP which also has claimed to be "liberal" (I haven't seen them doing it recently... perhaps they realized no one falls for the crap and gave up on it).

 

[Satori]

Would the US government still call itself liberal after changing its meaning so much ?

That's an interesting question. In the last election here in the U.S. the big outcry was over the ACLU, which is probably one of the most American organizations there is. But because it has that word "union" that so many rightwingers find so reprehensible, they attacked anyone connected with the ACLU as being a communist. Can you imagine someone running for office and attacking the very thing this country was founded on--civil liberties?! What's also interesting is that anyone who is a member of the ACLU is instantly placed on an FBI list. :eek2: Nothing like living in the "land of the free," eh? The rightwing religious leaders preach to the masses that the ACLU is a communist organization that is anti-religion. However, what they don't explain (or probably even understand) is that the ACLU would be the first organization to come to the defense of anyone's religious liberties in this country--Christian, atheist, or otherwise.

As I said before, the US now remind me of 1930's Germany or Italy where people couldn't listen to reason (due to economic factors at the time, after WWI's defeat + the 1929 crash) and just supported the first seemingly strong leader that wa going to show the world how strong their country is, and call all other parties communists or unpatriotic. But why do half of the American people spontaneously act like that ? Is it due to the high insecurity or poverty level ? Is it due to an inferiority complex compared to Europe (shorter history, no real empire, less equality, etc.) ?

I absolutely agree with this, and it's what I find so frightening about the U.S. right now. I have a German heritage, so I have a nazi Germany background and I am currently living in nazi America. :eek2: Now that's scary!

As to why half of this country goes along with these things, I'm not really sure. I can certainly speculate, but I have to admit, I am truly puzzled by the entire situation. A lot of these people are not stupid. Uninformed, yes, but not stupid. Yet why they don't see through what is going on in this country and its politics is beyond me. I truly think it is due to fear. Fear is probably the most powerful motivating force there is. And let's not forget the words of Hermann Goering:

Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacificists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. ~ Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall at the Nuremberg Trials after WWII

In addition to the events of 9/11, the so-called "terror alerts" have been played up to the hilt in this country, and interestingly enough, every time Bush and his policies have been criticized. See "Timeline of Terror Alerts" here: JuliusBlog

I used to sit back and say to people, "How much do you want to bet that in the next day or so, the bin Laden videotape is going to magically appear again?" And sure enough, the next day the headlines would show a picture of bin Laden with some blurb about the video. Then the news shows would report that our country's terror alert level was now at orange or something ridiculous. And it was always on the heels of Bush's actions being criticized!

I don't know if you've read this interview with Noam Chomsky:

"It's Extremely Easy to Frighten People":

chomsky.info : The Noam Chomsky Website

It's an old interview from 2002, but as Chomsky explains:

It's extremely easy to frighten people -- it's hard to explain to them, to get people to understand that the fear is manufactured. ... When Rumsfeld gets up on television and says we have definitive intelligence that al Qaeda is working with Iraq, how is an ordinary citizen supposed to react? They won't tell you the evidence, and when anyone asks, they say, "Well, you know: It's secret. ...

In my opinion, the American public has been manipulated by the present administration every step of the way, and it's very disheartening to see.

Add to that the fact that the corporately-owned media in this country that now dominates the airwaves has been manipulating what the public sees and hears, even to the point of promoting its preferred political candidate who will, in turn, serve their interests. To me, that's the scariest thing of all--that big money interests are really running things.

Right-wing conservatives view the media as liberal (left wing) because they don't agree with the viewpoints presented. It's as though they want it both ways. They want to monopolize the media, which they are all successfully doing, unfortunately, through MSNBC, Clear Channel, etc.; and when people don't agree with them, then this very same media that they all monopolize are suddenly "liberal" and biased. The very same media that is corporately owned by big money fails to report the truth of what is going on in the world, but then when the independent journalists break the story, they end up having to report the same news or else they will look like the slackers or manipulators that they are. And that's when the right-wingers start whining about the media being "liberal." Funny how the media isn't "liberal" when reporting what they agree with, though.

And who would have ever thought the day would come that France would ever be an issue for anyone, you know?! I love France and the French people and always will. They were attacked in the press over here simply because, like other countries and some of us here in the U.S., they are intellectuals and obviously saw through Bush & Co.'s B.S.! First the Afghanistan fiasco, then Iraq (which we all knew was coming next), and now it appears Iran (which I also knew was coming; however, I'm hoping they won't get away with it this time). Other countries' coverage of what has been happening in the world was objective, straight-forward, and extensive, as opposed to all of the propaganda that we in the U.S. were constantly exposed to, so how could they not see what was really going on? I love the Le Monde newspaper too, as well as The Guardian in England, and of course the BBC for interesting and accurate news sources. Frankly, I get most of my news from the internet, where I can explore and research the issues myself and stay informed.

Well, I think the US does not have any non-commercial state-financed TV channel, does it ? Most European countries (except France, again more similar to the US ), most Western European countries have (BBC, RTBF/BRT, Rai, TVE, etc.). Japan has NHK. The US probably needs a more objective, independent and non-commercial form of media (hopefully not controlled by the government).

As far as television, we only have PBS (Public Broadcasting System), but even some of the programs on PBS are now being bought out by private, for-profit media conglomerates. In the past, it received major funding from corporations like AT&T and others, but now these corporate conglomerates are buying the programs themselves. See "The Public Broadcasting System":
http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/pbs.html

MSNBC owns Fox news, and MSNBC is owned by Microsoft and G.E., so news that runs contrary to their interests tends to be excluded. Corporate conglomerates focus almost exclusively on attaining higher ratings - not delivering critical information that the American public needs to make informed decisions. Fox News is most definitely biased, and the problem with Fox News is that liberals (again, left wing) are given 20% airtime, while conservatives are given 80%. As we all know, any news show that does not provide 50/50 airtime for both sides is slanted. True journalism is not supposed to take sides; rather, it is supposed to merely report the news. And that's something we see less and less of these days, unfortunately.

Here is an interesting site on this issue:

"What's Wrong With the News?"

http://www.fair.org/media-woes/media-woes.html

Also, "Meet the Myth-Makers":

http://www.fair.org/extra/9807/myth-makers.html

I suppose the only unbiased T.V. news source these days is C-Span. But any news shows with commentators or discussion groups are more and more slanted to the far right, I'm afraid.

Here is one more interesting link:

Who Owns What:

Columbia Journalism Review - The voice of journalism

☝

 

[bossel]

It always feels funny when I hear some Americans say that Eastern Europe was "socialist" before 1990. No European would call them that when most European government were governed by their respective "Socialist Party" (or equivalent, like Labour, Social-Democrat, etc.).

Actually, in Germany it's not quite like that. The German Social-Democrats call themselves socialist in their party program, but they would almost never openly state that they are a socialist party. I don't know about the rest of Europe, maybe in Germany it's a special situation. The GDR was ruled by the SED, which means something like Socialist Unified Party (because socialists & communists merged in the GDR after WWII). That's probably the reason why many Germans have a problem with the term socialist.

But for what I know, both socialism & communism are not clearly defined, anyway. Hence it's no wonder when people get confused. If I remember correctly, socialism existed right from the beginning in 2 varieties.

Not quite true for Germany. Essentially, we have no Liberal party. The two big parties we have are SPD (socialdemocrats, clearly left) and CDU, so-called "christ-democrats", which aren't christian however, much less democrats, they're clearly right/far-right conservatives. Conservatives are always right to far right here. Then we have the PDS which is somewhat smaller and also social-democrats, but more towards the center. There's no good blood between SPD and PDS. Then we have also a Green Party, which is also clear socialist left and usually sides with the SPD. The last noteworthy party is the FDP, "Free German Party". They used to call themselves "liberal", but aren't in the least. They're clear right-wing conservatives, like the CDU, and usually side with them. Because of that, if you asked a German, he would probably place "liberal" in the right/far-right corner.

Are you sure you live in Germany? PDS more to the center than SPD? :?
(for those of you who don't know: the PDS is the former SED, ruling party of the GDR)
& if the CDU is not democratic, what is it? Or did you mean that conservatism is not democratic? Which would be just as ridiculous as the above.
CDU & SPD are actually pretty interchangeable, no matter which one rules it doesn't change very much. There are only minor differences.

Right wing / left wing depends of course on the definition, but calling the FDP conservative is ridiculous, they are far more liberal than any other of the major German parties (although, once a liberal society would be established, liberals could be conservative as well). If you'd take a look at their website you would also find that they clearly call themselves liberal. BTW, FDP means Free Democratic Party, not F German P.

They would actually join any coalition, whether SPD or CDU doesn't matter very much (slight preference for CDU, but if they don't have enough votes, who cares), as long as they would be part of the government. Just as with most parties, what counts is power.

I absolutely agree with this, and it's what I find so frightening about the U.S. right now. I have a German heritage, so I have a nazi Germany background and I am currently living in nazi America. :eek2: Now that's scary!

Pretty common human behaviour. If people feel insecure they look for someone or something that gives (or only promises) security or stability. Not necessarily connected to nazism.

 

[Reiku]

That first post was pretty funny, but I was sorry to see things decend into a discussion about political terms therafter--this is the humor section after all...

...but then I saw this:

This year, don't vote for a lesser evil...vote in Cutethulhu!

Thanks den4, I needed a good laugh!

You know, I was planning on just kicking back and watching the show this election--but now I think I will vote for Cthulhu. Squid-headed horrors from the netherworld have been opressed for too long in this country.

BTW: Follow these links for "Cthulhu for President" campaign kits--

1996 Campaign

2004 Campaign

>walks away humming the tune to "St. James Infirmary"<

 

[Satori]

That first post was pretty funny, but I was sorry to see things decend into a discussion about political terms therafter

Well, I wasn't. I really enjoyed my discussion with Maciamo. Yes, this is the humor section, but occasionally humor enters into the serious threads, so if a serious discussion ensues from a joke in the humor section, I really don't see a problem with it. (Of course, it can always be moved to a more serious section.)

What's interesting to me is that I found the joke posted above at an equestrian forum I frequent occasionally. When I saw the joke, there were a few responses of smiley faces, indicating people liked it. I brought the joke over here, and then had a very interesting discussion with Maciamo about the differences between countries and their use of the word liberal. Later, I returned to the thread over at the equestrian forum, only to discover, to my shock and horror, that it had devolved into a knock down, drag out political fight! A bunch of neo-cons were accusing the liberals of being slackers and freeloaders, who they were always having to support ... yadda, yadda, yadda. But instead of finding it upsetting, I couldn't help but chuckle to myself, remembering the discussion I had just had with Maciamo on the word liberal. I have to say that brought a smile to my face, indeed! ;-)

Unfortunately, the thread was deleted by the administrator of the site, who then posted this:

If you folks can't keep political topics within civil bounds, I'll have to start taking actions. these kind of topics should not become a polarizing problem on a DRESSAGE forum. let's not post about republican vs democrats like its an english vs western conflict.

Some of you become very scary and ugly people when you talk about politics.

What makes that especially funny is that the board is comprised of mostly doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, police officers, teachers, etc.--and quite a few people with Ph.Ds!! And this wasn't some type of ankle-biter thread either. This one was a "you-bit-me-on-the-*ss-so-I'll-claw-your-eyes-out" thread. <growl snarl roar>

So complain all you want, but personally, I think our thread was much better than theirs any day!!

And I recently found the following on liberalism, which I think sheds even more light on the subject:

Liberalism:

Liberalism - Wikipedia

 

[Reiku]

That actually sounds quite funny--I wish I'd seen that...

...as far as my comment--I was half joking. I developed a distinct loathing for political discussions years ago, but it doesn't really bother me that much to see other discuss such things--in fact I find it rather funny.