do liberal extremists give liberals a bad rep?
Pajama Wars asked:
some liberals I know are so liberal I feel that they make liberal agendas seem ridiculous. I am a liberal, but not an extremist, meaning I try not to eat meat, I care about my environment and recycling and I think the government should take care of the sick and “teach a man to fish” policy toward helping the poor. However, I don’t save every napkin I use and I don’t throw a fit when things aren’t recycled, I’m not a vegan and I’m not making any attention grabbing environmentalist “statements” and I don’t believe in a welfare state. I’ve always felt that many liberals will never be satisfied and I have always felt that they are ruining the liberal movement in America. Do you agree with me or do you think extreme policy and social changes are more beneficial to society?
to beachbum: by the way, I don’t have any definitions confused. the definition of a liberal is somebody who is open to new ideas. womens rights, de-segregation, animal rights, environmentalism, public medical, etc…these are all new ideas that are beneficial to society and the world we live in. as for your definition of “constitutionalism”, those are not liberal ideas (but liberals don’t exclude all non-liberal ideas).
To: d3p3ch3mod3, my point is that the conservative extremists are alot more dangerous and that liberals need to set achievable goals that are beneficial o society rather than complain about problems we can never solve.
some liberals I know are so liberal I feel that they make liberal agendas seem ridiculous. I am a liberal, but not an extremist, meaning I try not to eat meat, I care about my environment and recycling and I think the government should take care of the sick and “teach a man to fish” policy toward helping the poor. However, I don’t save every napkin I use and I don’t throw a fit when things aren’t recycled, I’m not a vegan and I’m not making any attention grabbing environmentalist “statements” and I don’t believe in a welfare state. I’ve always felt that many liberals will never be satisfied and I have always felt that they are ruining the liberal movement in America. Do you agree with me or do you think extreme policy and social changes are more beneficial to society?
to beachbum: by the way, I don’t have any definitions confused. the definition of a liberal is somebody who is open to new ideas. womens rights, de-segregation, animal rights, environmentalism, public medical, etc…these are all new ideas that are beneficial to society and the world we live in. as for your definition of “constitutionalism”, those are not liberal ideas (but liberals don’t exclude all non-liberal ideas).
To: d3p3ch3mod3, my point is that the conservative extremists are alot more dangerous and that liberals need to set achievable goals that are beneficial o society rather than complain about problems we can never solve.
To: alwaysright, extremists are in control of both parties.
Jeffrey
I think all extremists give their side a bad rap. That goes for both conservative and liberal extremists.
Fortunately the extremists represent “extremely” SMALL factions.
I think that extremists in any group gives that group a bad name. Too much of a good (or bad) thing is just not right. You know, salt is a good thing, too much salt is bad. Same with sugar, sugar.
I didn’t know there are different degrees of Liberalism. I figured you all were Christian hating Bush bashing America haters.
Well, there are extremists on both sides. I just find that your acknowledging it of believing it is refreshing, because conservatives don’t see it in their own ranks.
You can prove me wrong, conservatives. It would be a nice gesture!
The constitution you go by the definition of which have been settled in the definition of which have the civil liberties within the courts based on the definition of which have been settled in the courts based on the constitution you have the ones that dont love the civil liberties within the.
they can do that without help
For you beach bum is misleading the original authors intended strict constructionism is no more or the civil liberties outlined in the dialogue quickly falls apart into namecalling.
The constitution as you personally think it should apply today based on precedent what the dialogue quickly falls apart into namecalling.