I'm going to be a senior this year, and i havent found any schools id be crazy about going to yet. I know I want to go to a liberal arts school. As of now, I plan on going into journalism or psychology. I'd prefer a smaller school in a rural area, but right now I'll take anything i can get =). Do you have any suggestions? Thanks so much!Any good liberal arts schools in the midwest?
Well, for one there's University of Chicago. Not so small and not rural, but definitely primo liberal arts school, and in the Midwest.
For smaller, less urban options: Grinell (already mentioned,) Carleton already mentioned,) Oberlin, Beloit...Any good liberal arts schools in the midwest?
LxG, those are liberal arts colleges.
LACs are a much better educational experience than large universities, I wish more people would realize it!
Check out Macalester (MN), Carleton (MN), Knox College (IL), Grinnell College (IA), Kenyon (OH), Wooster (OH), Dennison (OH).
best: grinnell, kenyon, carleton, macalester.
expand your search!!! new england has the best LACs (amherst, williams, middlebury, bowdoin, etc.) california has pomona, claremont mckenna, etc. good luck!
Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana
Friday, February 12, 2010
In debating liberal Christians with modern theological ideas, don't you think THIS is the best question to ask?
I talk to people with all sorts of theologies. Many are very liberal and take much of the Bible as metaphorical, allegory, etc. And there are many different views regarding what or who God is and who Jesus is.
One question, if answered, in my mind, resolves a lot of issues:
';What happens to us after we die';?
Because you answer to this says a lot about your personal theology.
Doesn't it?In debating liberal Christians with modern theological ideas, don't you think THIS is the best question to ask?
Yes. A person's answer to that question tells you who is saved, and who isn't. It eliminates the arguments about what is necessary to be saved. For, the only belief necessary to be saved is that Jesus, who is God, died for our sins on the cross and rose from the dead, and by this belief we are eternally secure.
It is important to be right about other things, but the other things aren't matters of eternal heaven or hell.In debating liberal Christians with modern theological ideas, don't you think THIS is the best question to ask?
For me, the more important question is, ';What do you believe the nature of Deity is?';
Asking that question will at least give you a good idea of how educated and open-minded the other person is, so you might have a foundation for debate. Granted, asking what happens after we die would give similar information.
Asking what happens to us after we die seems to me an adjunct to that. My personal answer would be, ';Our bodies decompose. I don't know what happens to our minds.';
In spiritual terms, I think that our minds rejoin 'God' if we are capable of feeling love--but I have no basis for that belief.
Yeah, of course you could still get metaphorical answers. Bill Craig was debating John Crossan one time, and he pressed him on the issue of God's existence. Crossan kept avoiding the question. Finally, Craig asked, ';During the Jurassic period, did God exist?'; Crossan said, ';Meaningless question,'; but he eventually admitted that he didn't think God existed in any objective sense. God was just a theological construct that Crossan superimposed on the universe. ';God'; for Crossan is just a way of looking at the universe, but apart from anybody looking at the universe that way, God doesn't exist.
Because I fought tooth and nail to become a Catholic, I just say ';I am a Catholic, a real, believing Catholic'; And if they have a problem, they have it with the Church and not with me. I know what is essential and what isn't.
In things essential, unity; in doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity. ST AUGUSTINE
Oh, who knows. There are states of being. Dead is one of them. Alive here in the flesh is another. The spirit does not die, so there is also Heaven with spirits and Hell with spirits. The spirits of the dead are sleeping. They know nothing of what is going on. I'd like to skip that and go right to Heaven.
OK, I am a liberal Christian. I do think much of the Bible is metaphorical and allegory. God is the creator of all things. Jesus is God in human flesh. God became flesh and dwelt amongst us. What happens after we die is
We go to be with God.
Absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.
We are refined and purified For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.
Not if you don't mind replies full of Bible quotes or the Bible says or you gotta have faith and other crap like that
I agree kool Aid. Excellent post. God bless !
I need to get a life size cross that I can carry around on Halloween because I am going to be Jesus on Good Friday...where can I get on?
we will stop breathing and get buried first.....then await judgment or quickening...
One question, if answered, in my mind, resolves a lot of issues:
';What happens to us after we die';?
Because you answer to this says a lot about your personal theology.
Doesn't it?In debating liberal Christians with modern theological ideas, don't you think THIS is the best question to ask?
Yes. A person's answer to that question tells you who is saved, and who isn't. It eliminates the arguments about what is necessary to be saved. For, the only belief necessary to be saved is that Jesus, who is God, died for our sins on the cross and rose from the dead, and by this belief we are eternally secure.
It is important to be right about other things, but the other things aren't matters of eternal heaven or hell.In debating liberal Christians with modern theological ideas, don't you think THIS is the best question to ask?
For me, the more important question is, ';What do you believe the nature of Deity is?';
Asking that question will at least give you a good idea of how educated and open-minded the other person is, so you might have a foundation for debate. Granted, asking what happens after we die would give similar information.
Asking what happens to us after we die seems to me an adjunct to that. My personal answer would be, ';Our bodies decompose. I don't know what happens to our minds.';
In spiritual terms, I think that our minds rejoin 'God' if we are capable of feeling love--but I have no basis for that belief.
Yeah, of course you could still get metaphorical answers. Bill Craig was debating John Crossan one time, and he pressed him on the issue of God's existence. Crossan kept avoiding the question. Finally, Craig asked, ';During the Jurassic period, did God exist?'; Crossan said, ';Meaningless question,'; but he eventually admitted that he didn't think God existed in any objective sense. God was just a theological construct that Crossan superimposed on the universe. ';God'; for Crossan is just a way of looking at the universe, but apart from anybody looking at the universe that way, God doesn't exist.
Because I fought tooth and nail to become a Catholic, I just say ';I am a Catholic, a real, believing Catholic'; And if they have a problem, they have it with the Church and not with me. I know what is essential and what isn't.
In things essential, unity; in doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity. ST AUGUSTINE
Oh, who knows. There are states of being. Dead is one of them. Alive here in the flesh is another. The spirit does not die, so there is also Heaven with spirits and Hell with spirits. The spirits of the dead are sleeping. They know nothing of what is going on. I'd like to skip that and go right to Heaven.
OK, I am a liberal Christian. I do think much of the Bible is metaphorical and allegory. God is the creator of all things. Jesus is God in human flesh. God became flesh and dwelt amongst us. What happens after we die is
We go to be with God.
Absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.
We are refined and purified For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.
Not if you don't mind replies full of Bible quotes or the Bible says or you gotta have faith and other crap like that
I agree kool Aid. Excellent post. God bless !
I need to get a life size cross that I can carry around on Halloween because I am going to be Jesus on Good Friday...where can I get on?
we will stop breathing and get buried first.....then await judgment or quickening...
Is the liberal media always THIS judgmental toward pregnant teenage girls?
Or is it only when the teenage girl is the daughter of a prominent conservative?
.Is the liberal media always THIS judgmental toward pregnant teenage girls?
No, if she were the daughter of a prominent Liberal she would be celebrated for having an abortion.Is the liberal media always THIS judgmental toward pregnant teenage girls?
I think the reason this is getting so much attention is because Sarah Palin has the possibility of being the next VP. As we all know, candidates are always scrutinized to the highest leve...as they should be, since they will lead our country, whether Dem or Rep.
It just looks bad for her since she is such a champion of abstinence etc etc. All opinions aside, she also doesn't have too much experience. I guess we will see in Nov!
Liberals run from one BS headline to another like a bunch of hungry dogs after the weenie mobile. They have no clue what is going on anywhere in the world because all they read is the headlines and not the story and the headlines are written to sucker in the stupid and liberals fall for it everytime.
Only when they are not judging certain conservatives for not doling out more money to help the teenage girls they just got done judging :-)
If that makes sense...
and it shouldnt!
You've asked these kinds of questions alot. Why keep stirring it up? You repubs have asked us to quit so what are you doing? Trolling?
Exactly
Unmarried ones, yes, So is God.
I will take door number 2 for 5 million Jenny.sexy myspace
.Is the liberal media always THIS judgmental toward pregnant teenage girls?
No, if she were the daughter of a prominent Liberal she would be celebrated for having an abortion.Is the liberal media always THIS judgmental toward pregnant teenage girls?
I think the reason this is getting so much attention is because Sarah Palin has the possibility of being the next VP. As we all know, candidates are always scrutinized to the highest leve...as they should be, since they will lead our country, whether Dem or Rep.
It just looks bad for her since she is such a champion of abstinence etc etc. All opinions aside, she also doesn't have too much experience. I guess we will see in Nov!
Liberals run from one BS headline to another like a bunch of hungry dogs after the weenie mobile. They have no clue what is going on anywhere in the world because all they read is the headlines and not the story and the headlines are written to sucker in the stupid and liberals fall for it everytime.
Only when they are not judging certain conservatives for not doling out more money to help the teenage girls they just got done judging :-)
If that makes sense...
and it shouldnt!
You've asked these kinds of questions alot. Why keep stirring it up? You repubs have asked us to quit so what are you doing? Trolling?
Exactly
Unmarried ones, yes, So is God.
I will take door number 2 for 5 million Jenny.
How do characterize a self-proclaimed liberal who is not actually liberal?
Some people say they are liberal and others will argue their beliefs are not actually liberal. What does this mean? What's a fake liberal?How do characterize a self-proclaimed liberal who is not actually liberal?
I would say he is confused. Or the person saying said liberal isn't a a liberal is confused. I would not characterize the person as a fake liberal unless he indeed knew what a liberal was and was intentionally trying to make others think he believed in the libereal cause when indeed he absolutely did not and tried to hide the fact that he did not.How do characterize a self-proclaimed liberal who is not actually liberal?
';Liberal'; is used by many different people to mean many different things -- and frequently used by people who are not liberal to mean ';anything I don't like';.
Liberal -- by the dictionary -- means one who favours a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties, and who favours an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets.
Very few people seem to actually use the word the way the dictionary defines it -- so your mileage may vary,
It means we have become way, way, way too hung up on labels.
Hillary Clinton
A Neo-Conservative !
LINO, DINO, CINO AND RINO.
liberal, democrat, conservative, or republican
IN NAME ONLY
But you also have to face the possibility that they are liberal.. it's your views of them that are off... but who am I to judge.
A swing voter?
I would say he is confused. Or the person saying said liberal isn't a a liberal is confused. I would not characterize the person as a fake liberal unless he indeed knew what a liberal was and was intentionally trying to make others think he believed in the libereal cause when indeed he absolutely did not and tried to hide the fact that he did not.How do characterize a self-proclaimed liberal who is not actually liberal?
';Liberal'; is used by many different people to mean many different things -- and frequently used by people who are not liberal to mean ';anything I don't like';.
Liberal -- by the dictionary -- means one who favours a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties, and who favours an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets.
Very few people seem to actually use the word the way the dictionary defines it -- so your mileage may vary,
It means we have become way, way, way too hung up on labels.
Hillary Clinton
A Neo-Conservative !
LINO, DINO, CINO AND RINO.
liberal, democrat, conservative, or republican
IN NAME ONLY
But you also have to face the possibility that they are liberal.. it's your views of them that are off... but who am I to judge.
A swing voter?
How do I set up a debate stating that the media does not have a liberal bias?
How do I set this debate up? I don't know where to start? I am supposed to debate that the media does not have a liberal bias. What points should I make?How do I set up a debate stating that the media does not have a liberal bias?
You may be able to frame the debate by stating far right headlines and substantiation of the reports (corroboration from other unrelated sources).
Then contrast the so-called ';liberal'; point of view and the corroborating evidence or support of the facts.
The far right creates a distrust of the mainstream media by positioning themselves as truth, but the facts to support their positions are vague and unsubstantiated (he said, she said), supposition and implied conclusions derived from faulty perspectives.
The unwitting mainstream plays into this trap by skewing their news more to the right, instead of digging in and showing their history of unbiased reporting.
This will be a difficult assignment, as many people have a bias that may bolster or support their skewed perspective of the world, primarily using fear and isolationism, ignorance and misplaced patriotism.
Good luckHow do I set up a debate stating that the media does not have a liberal bias?
***** **** ****** boobs **** whore ******* dick, get me banned idc. you're all ******* *****. ight?
It's hard to prove a negative. The burden of proof should be on the other side to prove that the media DOES have a liberal bias. However, I would start by admitting that SOME media does in fact have a liberal bias -- for instance National Public Radio -- but they represent small minority, and are balanced by media like Fox News which has a conservative bias. Then talk about the majority in the middle -- your job is to show that they try to be accurate and simply describe things as they see them. Why would they distort things? What's in it for them? And can anyone really be objective?
Spring Leaf, you are in deep trouble. Does you teacher hate you, or just want to make a fool of you?
If you can pull this off, you have one hell of a career waiting for you in Washington.
But only if you can stomach being a hypocrite, sorry.
(Baby, in all good conscience I can not bring myself to help in this project, it just hits too close to home, truly sorry)
You may be able to frame the debate by stating far right headlines and substantiation of the reports (corroboration from other unrelated sources).
Then contrast the so-called ';liberal'; point of view and the corroborating evidence or support of the facts.
The far right creates a distrust of the mainstream media by positioning themselves as truth, but the facts to support their positions are vague and unsubstantiated (he said, she said), supposition and implied conclusions derived from faulty perspectives.
The unwitting mainstream plays into this trap by skewing their news more to the right, instead of digging in and showing their history of unbiased reporting.
This will be a difficult assignment, as many people have a bias that may bolster or support their skewed perspective of the world, primarily using fear and isolationism, ignorance and misplaced patriotism.
Good luckHow do I set up a debate stating that the media does not have a liberal bias?
***** **** ****** boobs **** whore ******* dick, get me banned idc. you're all ******* *****. ight?
Report Abuse
It's hard to prove a negative. The burden of proof should be on the other side to prove that the media DOES have a liberal bias. However, I would start by admitting that SOME media does in fact have a liberal bias -- for instance National Public Radio -- but they represent small minority, and are balanced by media like Fox News which has a conservative bias. Then talk about the majority in the middle -- your job is to show that they try to be accurate and simply describe things as they see them. Why would they distort things? What's in it for them? And can anyone really be objective?
Spring Leaf, you are in deep trouble. Does you teacher hate you, or just want to make a fool of you?
If you can pull this off, you have one hell of a career waiting for you in Washington.
But only if you can stomach being a hypocrite, sorry.
(Baby, in all good conscience I can not bring myself to help in this project, it just hits too close to home, truly sorry)
Can some liberal explain to me how a public option health care plan is deficit neutral?
We will just give it away or do you plan on jacking up the taxes on the people who already pay taxes anyways. Nobody, I repeat nobody that would choose (probably the wrong word since it will be FORCED) a public option pays ANY (yes I said ANY) taxes. They might get taxes withheld, but it is all refunded.Can some liberal explain to me how a public option health care plan is deficit neutral?
nothing the government has ever done is deficit neutral, anyone who buys that hype is not studying government management techniquesCan some liberal explain to me how a public option health care plan is deficit neutral?
It is deficit neutral because it costs the same.
Of course, it will cost more if everybody receives health care ... right now, there are several million people in the wealthiest country in the world who can't afford health care. A lot of them pay taxes.
The cost of untreated health care problems is a much greater cost than the cost of treatment.
Unfortunately, the cost of curing the ignorance displayed in your question is exorbitant.
Wow seriously? I'd LOVE to get all my taxes back!! I'm sure my husband would too!
if you've been paying attention.. the plan is for the public option to have to go through the same negotiation process for their prices.. their prices are expected to be lower, but not by a lot.
You must not pay taxes then. Because even when I started out working, I never got back everything I paid in, not even 1/3. So either I'm being rubbed by the IRS, or what you said is a lie.
For some uber, are you aware of how many hospital bills go unpaid by uninsured citizens - which gaps are filled with your high tax payments now??
Insuring everyone could only save you $. Dol*.
It is deficit neutral if it is payed for by whatever means.
Deficit neutral means we won't borrow to do it.
That seems obvious.
The public option is funded like health insurance companies are, we all pay, its not a government freebie.
What are you kidding me? I'd take it, the government can't do worse then the actual insurance companies.
I pay about $30,000 a year in taxes after refunds and I would choose a public option. So, you are wrong.
no i cannot, it will be ok though
taxpayer money and budget cuts
nothing the government has ever done is deficit neutral, anyone who buys that hype is not studying government management techniquesCan some liberal explain to me how a public option health care plan is deficit neutral?
It is deficit neutral because it costs the same.
Of course, it will cost more if everybody receives health care ... right now, there are several million people in the wealthiest country in the world who can't afford health care. A lot of them pay taxes.
The cost of untreated health care problems is a much greater cost than the cost of treatment.
Unfortunately, the cost of curing the ignorance displayed in your question is exorbitant.
Wow seriously? I'd LOVE to get all my taxes back!! I'm sure my husband would too!
if you've been paying attention.. the plan is for the public option to have to go through the same negotiation process for their prices.. their prices are expected to be lower, but not by a lot.
You must not pay taxes then. Because even when I started out working, I never got back everything I paid in, not even 1/3. So either I'm being rubbed by the IRS, or what you said is a lie.
For some uber, are you aware of how many hospital bills go unpaid by uninsured citizens - which gaps are filled with your high tax payments now??
Insuring everyone could only save you $. Dol*.
It is deficit neutral if it is payed for by whatever means.
Deficit neutral means we won't borrow to do it.
That seems obvious.
The public option is funded like health insurance companies are, we all pay, its not a government freebie.
What are you kidding me? I'd take it, the government can't do worse then the actual insurance companies.
I pay about $30,000 a year in taxes after refunds and I would choose a public option. So, you are wrong.
no i cannot, it will be ok though
taxpayer money and budget cuts
What is the basic ideas behind conservative and liberal?
When it comes to certain organizations, what are the qualities and ideas behind being conservative versus liberal. How can I tell the difference between the two?What is the basic ideas behind conservative and liberal?
Very good question that more people should ask before they just accept these terms at face value.
Though as one previous answer said, the ';Conservative'; platform is supposed to favor keeping government out of public affairs and private business. In actuality, it seems that they often do just the opposite. ';Conservative'; is, I suppose, meant to refer to allegiance to traditional values, and ';free enterprise';. But realistically it is not an accurate term. Much of the ';Conservative'; agenda is actually quite radical, and enacts laws (such as the Patriot Act) which allow the government to interfere very directly in the lives of American citizens -- reading their mail, listening to their telephone conversations, and so on. It also supports the activity of corporations that do little to serve the public, and spend vast public money to gain profit. Those same corporations enjoy public tax support (Oil Depletion Allowance), and are even bailed out by the government, via your tax dollars, if they fail (Citibank).
I doubt the Founding Fathers would have much agreed with such things, whatever the pretext. So, although I do believe that all people have the right to advocate whatever they wish in a free society, including limiting freedom for the ';public good';, the word ';Conservative'; is in itself a misnomer, as it has little to do with the principles on which this country was founded.
As for ';Liberal'; -- I guess one might say that the term is more accurate. Liberals tend to vote for things that they see as upholding personal freedoms over the dictats of a majority. Abortion, for instance. Taxation for a comprehensive public health system (which most outside the United States have). Free tax-paid college education for those who qualify (ditto). The American Civil Liberties Union is a ';Liberal'; organization often attacked in the ';Conservative'; media. But it is worth noting that organization fights just as hard to allow neo-Nazis to meet and march as they do causes that they might themselves believe in.
Today, though, to be frank -- the lines are drawn. But it is a well-known aspect of Political Science that the extremes of ';Leftist'; and ';Rightist'; governments are in practice very difficult to distinguish, so much they resemble one another.
Stalin was extreme left, for instance -- Hitler extreme right. This may be the fear that drives those who wish to keep everything in the ';Private Sector';. Just as often, though, political paybacks and private interest produce exactly the opposite result: government involved in every phase of life, but making its decisions behind closed doors, rather than publicly. Who is to say which is preferable? In the end, it's this difference that distinguishes ';Republican'; from ';Democrat'; in terms of their basic idea of government. One thinks that power should be given by the public to elected officials to decide what is best, the other thinks it should be up to each person to decide on every issue. That's the true meaning of those two terms, ';Republican';, and :';Democrat'; respectively -- (which is in itself somewhat surprising and contrary to common belief of what each party represents). So once again, your question is a good one to ask.
Whichever side one subscribes to, it is a sure sign of a decadent culture when the two sides lose effective understanding and dialogue. This is sadly the case in the United States today. Whether the polarization is political or economic -- the fact that such extreme differences exist and have no regard for the opinions of the opposite side: it speaks badly of us all.What is the basic ideas behind conservative and liberal?
they are names people call each other to avoid actually debating issues.
Liberals will spend your hard-earned dollar to f*** the rich and help the poor. Conservatives will spend your hard-earned dollar to keep the poor from f*ck*ng. Independents say f*ck the liberals and the conservatives.
Liberals believe in the herd and conservatives believe in the individual.
How the herd would be controled would be by a group of people refered to as the liberal elite. The rest of the herd would have to obey orders.
The weakness for the individual is that it leaves the poor, weak and incompetents stranded to their own fate.
Liberals are idealists and think in terms of how things should be. They live in a fantasy world. They are elitist and consider themselves to be much more enlightened than the common person. Therefore they should be allowed to make the rules for the rest of us but they should not be held accountable for following the rules themselves, after all they're better than the rest of us. They're all about fairness and equality, particularly in the realm of thoughts and feelings, as long as everyone else is forced to agree with their thoughts and feelings. They want to protect the environment as long as it is the common person sacrificing, because they're elite and shouldn't have to give up their own energy consuming ways (i.e....driving SUV's, flying in private jets, etc...).
Conservatives, on the other hand, see the world as it is and they live in reality. They're all about people being responsible for themselves. Well that pretty much sums it up.
Liberals. Conservatives. Parties comprised of Politicians. Politicians are those engaged in Politics.
Politics.
Poli - a variant of Poly, meaning Many.
Tics - a variant of Ticks, meaning Blood-sucking parasites.
Politics therefore, means Many Blood-Sucking Parasites.
There really isn't much difference. Both are capable of causing endless financial headaches for the rest of us, and they don't particularly care.
I know this didn't help, but it was fun, wasn't it?
Conservatism is a minimalist government involved in your life, and lower taxes.
Liberalism means the government is responsible for all of the bad decisions people make and will pay for those mistakes with your tax dollars.
Somewhere in the past we lost our ideals, parties were formed and changed our thinking. As I grew up I voted for people who thought for the good of the nation, not for the good of the party. We begin to lose our way in the 70s, down hill all the way. Look at what each believes and you will not see that much difference. What do we have vote for; one makes us feel good, one seem to know alittle but she is a woman and one who has had a lifetime to gain knowledge.
We have had men in office with IQs over 130 yet what did they accomplish.
A conservative will say one thing and do the opposite and a liberal will lie.
Conservatives are mostly Republicans. Republicans tend to favor big business. They are against things like stem cell research and gay marriage, partly because conservatives are thought to be more religiously conservative as well. Ironically though, they support capital punishment. They're thought of as being quick to use military force and are stronger on issues of security. They're against illegal immigration. They favor tax cuts to stimulate the economy using little government assistance. Yet they also favor more government control over other aspects of life, such as security. (Patriot Act).
Examples are George Bush, McCain, and Pat Robertson.
Liberals are often democrats, and support universal health care, are more concerned with environmental issues, and thus, believe in greater regulation of big businesses. They like lower defense spending. They're also typically in favor of free trade, although, there's a large number of liberals who don't. Liberals like labor unions, support stem cell research, but are against capital punishment, favor gun control, and like higher taxes.
Examples are the Clintons, Al Gore, and Michael Moore.
This might help (about Liberalism):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bJFbWyVA鈥?/a>
Conservatives believe they can comport their own lives and spend their own money more wisely and more logically than the government can. Liberals believe everything must be regulated because people can't be trusted with their own decisions for their own lives, and that the government can spend their money more wisely and logically than they can.
A good example of money/spending would be health care. A liberal thinks the government should be handling people's health insurance for them while a conservative can see that if there were less tax money withheld from the common paycheck, the payee could afford their own health insurance.
A good example of comportment regulation would be unions. A conservative knows in his/her head that if they were left alone to run a business, they would be more than willing to pay attention to safety regulations, but a liberal believes there should be a watchdog group like a union to FORCE the safety rules that are already being adhered to.
Conservatives like getting stuff done, Liberals like complaining until others fix their problems.
Very good question that more people should ask before they just accept these terms at face value.
Though as one previous answer said, the ';Conservative'; platform is supposed to favor keeping government out of public affairs and private business. In actuality, it seems that they often do just the opposite. ';Conservative'; is, I suppose, meant to refer to allegiance to traditional values, and ';free enterprise';. But realistically it is not an accurate term. Much of the ';Conservative'; agenda is actually quite radical, and enacts laws (such as the Patriot Act) which allow the government to interfere very directly in the lives of American citizens -- reading their mail, listening to their telephone conversations, and so on. It also supports the activity of corporations that do little to serve the public, and spend vast public money to gain profit. Those same corporations enjoy public tax support (Oil Depletion Allowance), and are even bailed out by the government, via your tax dollars, if they fail (Citibank).
I doubt the Founding Fathers would have much agreed with such things, whatever the pretext. So, although I do believe that all people have the right to advocate whatever they wish in a free society, including limiting freedom for the ';public good';, the word ';Conservative'; is in itself a misnomer, as it has little to do with the principles on which this country was founded.
As for ';Liberal'; -- I guess one might say that the term is more accurate. Liberals tend to vote for things that they see as upholding personal freedoms over the dictats of a majority. Abortion, for instance. Taxation for a comprehensive public health system (which most outside the United States have). Free tax-paid college education for those who qualify (ditto). The American Civil Liberties Union is a ';Liberal'; organization often attacked in the ';Conservative'; media. But it is worth noting that organization fights just as hard to allow neo-Nazis to meet and march as they do causes that they might themselves believe in.
Today, though, to be frank -- the lines are drawn. But it is a well-known aspect of Political Science that the extremes of ';Leftist'; and ';Rightist'; governments are in practice very difficult to distinguish, so much they resemble one another.
Stalin was extreme left, for instance -- Hitler extreme right. This may be the fear that drives those who wish to keep everything in the ';Private Sector';. Just as often, though, political paybacks and private interest produce exactly the opposite result: government involved in every phase of life, but making its decisions behind closed doors, rather than publicly. Who is to say which is preferable? In the end, it's this difference that distinguishes ';Republican'; from ';Democrat'; in terms of their basic idea of government. One thinks that power should be given by the public to elected officials to decide what is best, the other thinks it should be up to each person to decide on every issue. That's the true meaning of those two terms, ';Republican';, and :';Democrat'; respectively -- (which is in itself somewhat surprising and contrary to common belief of what each party represents). So once again, your question is a good one to ask.
Whichever side one subscribes to, it is a sure sign of a decadent culture when the two sides lose effective understanding and dialogue. This is sadly the case in the United States today. Whether the polarization is political or economic -- the fact that such extreme differences exist and have no regard for the opinions of the opposite side: it speaks badly of us all.What is the basic ideas behind conservative and liberal?
they are names people call each other to avoid actually debating issues.
Liberals will spend your hard-earned dollar to f*** the rich and help the poor. Conservatives will spend your hard-earned dollar to keep the poor from f*ck*ng. Independents say f*ck the liberals and the conservatives.
Liberals believe in the herd and conservatives believe in the individual.
How the herd would be controled would be by a group of people refered to as the liberal elite. The rest of the herd would have to obey orders.
The weakness for the individual is that it leaves the poor, weak and incompetents stranded to their own fate.
Liberals are idealists and think in terms of how things should be. They live in a fantasy world. They are elitist and consider themselves to be much more enlightened than the common person. Therefore they should be allowed to make the rules for the rest of us but they should not be held accountable for following the rules themselves, after all they're better than the rest of us. They're all about fairness and equality, particularly in the realm of thoughts and feelings, as long as everyone else is forced to agree with their thoughts and feelings. They want to protect the environment as long as it is the common person sacrificing, because they're elite and shouldn't have to give up their own energy consuming ways (i.e....driving SUV's, flying in private jets, etc...).
Conservatives, on the other hand, see the world as it is and they live in reality. They're all about people being responsible for themselves. Well that pretty much sums it up.
Liberals. Conservatives. Parties comprised of Politicians. Politicians are those engaged in Politics.
Politics.
Poli - a variant of Poly, meaning Many.
Tics - a variant of Ticks, meaning Blood-sucking parasites.
Politics therefore, means Many Blood-Sucking Parasites.
There really isn't much difference. Both are capable of causing endless financial headaches for the rest of us, and they don't particularly care.
I know this didn't help, but it was fun, wasn't it?
Conservatism is a minimalist government involved in your life, and lower taxes.
Liberalism means the government is responsible for all of the bad decisions people make and will pay for those mistakes with your tax dollars.
Somewhere in the past we lost our ideals, parties were formed and changed our thinking. As I grew up I voted for people who thought for the good of the nation, not for the good of the party. We begin to lose our way in the 70s, down hill all the way. Look at what each believes and you will not see that much difference. What do we have vote for; one makes us feel good, one seem to know alittle but she is a woman and one who has had a lifetime to gain knowledge.
We have had men in office with IQs over 130 yet what did they accomplish.
A conservative will say one thing and do the opposite and a liberal will lie.
Conservatives are mostly Republicans. Republicans tend to favor big business. They are against things like stem cell research and gay marriage, partly because conservatives are thought to be more religiously conservative as well. Ironically though, they support capital punishment. They're thought of as being quick to use military force and are stronger on issues of security. They're against illegal immigration. They favor tax cuts to stimulate the economy using little government assistance. Yet they also favor more government control over other aspects of life, such as security. (Patriot Act).
Examples are George Bush, McCain, and Pat Robertson.
Liberals are often democrats, and support universal health care, are more concerned with environmental issues, and thus, believe in greater regulation of big businesses. They like lower defense spending. They're also typically in favor of free trade, although, there's a large number of liberals who don't. Liberals like labor unions, support stem cell research, but are against capital punishment, favor gun control, and like higher taxes.
Examples are the Clintons, Al Gore, and Michael Moore.
This might help (about Liberalism):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bJFbWyVA鈥?/a>
Conservatives believe they can comport their own lives and spend their own money more wisely and more logically than the government can. Liberals believe everything must be regulated because people can't be trusted with their own decisions for their own lives, and that the government can spend their money more wisely and logically than they can.
A good example of money/spending would be health care. A liberal thinks the government should be handling people's health insurance for them while a conservative can see that if there were less tax money withheld from the common paycheck, the payee could afford their own health insurance.
A good example of comportment regulation would be unions. A conservative knows in his/her head that if they were left alone to run a business, they would be more than willing to pay attention to safety regulations, but a liberal believes there should be a watchdog group like a union to FORCE the safety rules that are already being adhered to.
Conservatives like getting stuff done, Liberals like complaining until others fix their problems.
Liberals: If Specter & Schwarzenegger are moderates, what makes a Republican a liberal Republican in your eyes?
I've witnessed many Liberal Democrats on this site refer to Gov of Ca Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pa congressman Arlen Specter prior to his jumping ship to the Democrat side as '; moderate Republicans '; . Schwarzenegger and Specter both supported abortion, gay rights, global warming legislation, open border anarchy for illegals and tax and spend economics, if this is what makes a Republican a moderate in your eyes, please tell me, what would make one liberal ? Thanks in advance for your answers. God bless.Liberals: If Specter %26amp; Schwarzenegger are moderates, what makes a Republican a liberal Republican in your eyes?
If they are moderates on economic/fiscal principles and/or support more government as the answer to our problems, then they are liberal, RINO republicans.
And that makes Arnie, Specter, McCain, Bush, Crist, Pawlenty, and the vast majority of the GOP, liberal republicans.
The ideal staple of the republican party for me, is moderate on social issues and conservative on fiscal/economic issues, as well as advocating limited government principles. Much like the libertarian wing of the GOP.Liberals: If Specter %26amp; Schwarzenegger are moderates, what makes a Republican a liberal Republican in your eyes?
If their tax policies are more geared to taxing the rich then they are leaning liberally, and if their preferred tax scale is flatter, they are more conservative. I also look at their leanings on policies that affect workers and businesses--if every decision they make favors businesses, they are conservative, and if every decision they make favors workers, they are liberal. Everything else is a side issue I'd expect to see some politicians break from their party on.
Global warming is the way the left is spinning the enviroment issue to be about people rather than about animals. Anyone from California is going to be for clean air, no matter what label you put on it--so that's no surprise. Abortion and gay rights are wedge issues that have little to do with anything important in politics--they are used for rabble rousing in areas that don't like abortion or gays, and are abandoned in places that do like abortion rights and have nothing against gay people. Open borders is not a liberal rallying point (and I doubt it is something anyone really supports). Tax and spend has been done by both parties for decades. In short, the things you named don't tip the scale and make someone a liberal, they just make him lean a bit that way. Tax policy and worker relations are the big difference.
i wouldn't consider Specter a moderate. i've considered him a democrat (and apparently so has he) for a long time.
i think the term liberal generally refers to how one feels about social issues (civil rights, education, govt programs of one sort or another). SO a liberal republican would probably believe in fiscal conservatism and a strong foreign policy stance. that's non-negotiable. Maybe they'd say 'whatever' about religion issues, maybe believe in a woman's right to choose, and probably think some sort of government intervention for programs like education and infrastructure are good things.
but many people will say 'that's not republican that's independent' .
i say, it should be republican, liberal moderate or whatever.
I consider a moderate republican to be more liberal on the social issues and more conservative on fiscal issues. The reason I wouldn't call them liberal is that they are reflective of the older Republican party line where social issues didn't define the party, but economic policy did.
The party has gone far enough to the right whereas most liberal Republicans would end up in the Independent party, so they're an incredibly rare breed--especially in the national stage.
It appears that you miss understand semantics. There is no such thing as a ';liberal Republican'; because if they were ';liberal'; they would be a Democrat. Moderate in this instance is how you say ';liberal'; without injecting a contradictory term into a phrase thereby making it into an oxymoron. Maybe ';progressive'; would be a better term. Hopefully these men are a sign of the future of the Republican party. They are respectable men of reason who support freedom and are willing to accept scientific and economic reasoning based on expert consensus, something most Repubs have rejected since Reagan.
uh mitt romney.
who, as governor of massachusetts (america's most liberal state) stated he would be better for gay rights than teddy kennedy.
america's most liberal governor of the past 25 years.
Bush was a liberal republican (he was NOT fiscally conservative at all)....McCain is a liberal republican. Alot of republican's nowday are ';watered down';....this is really what is wrong with the party in general.
Well I do have friends that are moderate Republicans - but if they vote Republican then obviously they are Republicans
I believe that they exist but sadly all the airwaves and forums and things of that sort are dominated by uneducated, religious zealot republicans ( much like yourself and palin)
I have no idea what makes one though.
They aren't moderates they are liberal on the most important of issues.
There are lots of people on both sides of the aisle who are liberal on some issues and conservative on others. This tends to be true of moderates. The new GOP thinks everyone should be on the far Right on all issues.
If they are moderates on economic/fiscal principles and/or support more government as the answer to our problems, then they are liberal, RINO republicans.
And that makes Arnie, Specter, McCain, Bush, Crist, Pawlenty, and the vast majority of the GOP, liberal republicans.
The ideal staple of the republican party for me, is moderate on social issues and conservative on fiscal/economic issues, as well as advocating limited government principles. Much like the libertarian wing of the GOP.Liberals: If Specter %26amp; Schwarzenegger are moderates, what makes a Republican a liberal Republican in your eyes?
If their tax policies are more geared to taxing the rich then they are leaning liberally, and if their preferred tax scale is flatter, they are more conservative. I also look at their leanings on policies that affect workers and businesses--if every decision they make favors businesses, they are conservative, and if every decision they make favors workers, they are liberal. Everything else is a side issue I'd expect to see some politicians break from their party on.
Global warming is the way the left is spinning the enviroment issue to be about people rather than about animals. Anyone from California is going to be for clean air, no matter what label you put on it--so that's no surprise. Abortion and gay rights are wedge issues that have little to do with anything important in politics--they are used for rabble rousing in areas that don't like abortion or gays, and are abandoned in places that do like abortion rights and have nothing against gay people. Open borders is not a liberal rallying point (and I doubt it is something anyone really supports). Tax and spend has been done by both parties for decades. In short, the things you named don't tip the scale and make someone a liberal, they just make him lean a bit that way. Tax policy and worker relations are the big difference.
i wouldn't consider Specter a moderate. i've considered him a democrat (and apparently so has he) for a long time.
i think the term liberal generally refers to how one feels about social issues (civil rights, education, govt programs of one sort or another). SO a liberal republican would probably believe in fiscal conservatism and a strong foreign policy stance. that's non-negotiable. Maybe they'd say 'whatever' about religion issues, maybe believe in a woman's right to choose, and probably think some sort of government intervention for programs like education and infrastructure are good things.
but many people will say 'that's not republican that's independent' .
i say, it should be republican, liberal moderate or whatever.
I consider a moderate republican to be more liberal on the social issues and more conservative on fiscal issues. The reason I wouldn't call them liberal is that they are reflective of the older Republican party line where social issues didn't define the party, but economic policy did.
The party has gone far enough to the right whereas most liberal Republicans would end up in the Independent party, so they're an incredibly rare breed--especially in the national stage.
It appears that you miss understand semantics. There is no such thing as a ';liberal Republican'; because if they were ';liberal'; they would be a Democrat. Moderate in this instance is how you say ';liberal'; without injecting a contradictory term into a phrase thereby making it into an oxymoron. Maybe ';progressive'; would be a better term. Hopefully these men are a sign of the future of the Republican party. They are respectable men of reason who support freedom and are willing to accept scientific and economic reasoning based on expert consensus, something most Repubs have rejected since Reagan.
uh mitt romney.
who, as governor of massachusetts (america's most liberal state) stated he would be better for gay rights than teddy kennedy.
america's most liberal governor of the past 25 years.
Bush was a liberal republican (he was NOT fiscally conservative at all)....McCain is a liberal republican. Alot of republican's nowday are ';watered down';....this is really what is wrong with the party in general.
Well I do have friends that are moderate Republicans - but if they vote Republican then obviously they are Republicans
I believe that they exist but sadly all the airwaves and forums and things of that sort are dominated by uneducated, religious zealot republicans ( much like yourself and palin)
I have no idea what makes one though.
They aren't moderates they are liberal on the most important of issues.
There are lots of people on both sides of the aisle who are liberal on some issues and conservative on others. This tends to be true of moderates. The new GOP thinks everyone should be on the far Right on all issues.
How many liberal democrats does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Only one... they just hold the bulb and the world revolves around them.How many liberal democrats does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
None - they like living in the dark. That way they don't have to see all the mistakes they're making!How many liberal democrats does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
I thought that first they would have to spend a few million to do a study, if they don't agree with the study they have to pay someone the sees it the same way they do, then they have to hire a czar to be in charge of it. Now they can spend a few thousand for the bulb and a few more for the person to change it
Thats a trick question! Everyone knows that liberals are trying to get rid of light bulbs and make them illegal. So that answer would always be ';zero'; no matter what.
That is really funny. I am a republican and I find that entertaining.
wow you turned that old joke around i like it good job
NONE, they dont want to use light bulbs. since it causes global warming!sexy myspace
None - they like living in the dark. That way they don't have to see all the mistakes they're making!How many liberal democrats does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
I thought that first they would have to spend a few million to do a study, if they don't agree with the study they have to pay someone the sees it the same way they do, then they have to hire a czar to be in charge of it. Now they can spend a few thousand for the bulb and a few more for the person to change it
Thats a trick question! Everyone knows that liberals are trying to get rid of light bulbs and make them illegal. So that answer would always be ';zero'; no matter what.
That is really funny. I am a republican and I find that entertaining.
wow you turned that old joke around i like it good job
NONE, they dont want to use light bulbs. since it causes global warming!
How do Liberal feel that Obama has more corporate ties than even Bush?
Thank Obama for accepting 80 Billion from the Pharmaceutical Companies in exchange for limiting generic medicine and blocking cheaper Meds from Canada. My epilepsy medicine will still cost me an arm and a leg.How do Liberal feel that Obama has more corporate ties than even Bush?
I find it sort of amusing, considering that neocons STILL accuse him of being a socialist.How do Liberal feel that Obama has more corporate ties than even Bush?
You're absolutely right and the Obamaphiles are living in denial. The evidence is piled up sky high and yet they deny it. No use trying to convince those convicted to blind faith in a baseless creed. It may take them getting fired, foreclosed upon or otherwise ripped off by Obama's corporate sponsors. But even that may not be enough.
Ok, let's all blame the big bad pharmaceutical companies. Right?
I have news for you. There have been many mergers in the phramaceutical industry because it is harder and harder to find new drugs. Yes, money is wasted. Yes, their corporate executives are overpaid. But guess what? That is in ALL American businesses. Please name me one industry where the executives are actually paid what they are worth.
On the other hand, if it was not for the money, they could not pay the talented research scientists to do their work. Do you have any idea what it costs to equip a research lab? And, to do drug testing trials? Also, what do you expect those Phd chemists, biologists and microbiologists to earn? They just spent 8 years in college and medical school and have student loans to pay back. Do you really think they can be paid the same as a Walmart store greeter?
It's all in black and white in the government mandated and industry audited company annual reports. How much the drug companies earn and how much they invest in research and development. If we don't do it, then perhaps a country like India will be the next pipeline for drugs. It's bad enough the clothes we wear comes from overseas...will we also need to buy our lifesaving drugs from them too?
The way liberals look at it, if it costs you an arm and a leg, then you'll have two less limbs to worry about seizing up because of your epilepsy.
They only care about the COLLECTIVE. They don't give a damn about the individual at all. They just want to try to fool you into thinking they do.
He's got more then those ties that we need to worry about. All his new pals are draining whats left of the economy. I'm sure in exchange for a nice job or stock package after he leaves office.
It's interesting that some libs here aren't aware that Obama struck a back room deal with big pharma, which is now the biggest supporter of health reform. I've read that they may spend as much as $100 Million over the next few months touting Obamacare. Obama is very close to GE as well.
See video link below.
You couldn't be more wrong! Pharmaceutical companies are the ones inciting the hate campaign against health-care, they want to continue getting rich off of the sick and poor. Instead we want everyone to be taken care of medically regardless of how much money you have!
bush pushed hard to keep mexican and canadian meds from american consumers.i am not sure about this story, a quick news search will give me the story.
sounds like an 80 billion trade off.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13鈥?/a>
Actually, the pharmaceutical companies are the ones pushing the hate campaign against social healthcare.
They hate social healthcare here in Australia because the government has a monopoly on it which creates huge bargaining power for lowering prices.
Presidents don't pass laws congress does...why don't you look up who voted that way and get back to me.
Do you even know the number of the specific bill or law , in which you claim to be victimized by? Do you even know what you are talking about?
They don't seem to care b/c all they care about is POWER. The more they can get the better off they seem to be. Someone brought up that the Vietnam protesters never protested the 2.5 million people that were slaughtered after we pulled out!!
Yeah, and Pfizer just got handed a $2.3 billion dollar fine for illegally marketing some of their drugs.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries鈥?/a>
A bit miffed.
The government should by the people, of the people and FOR the people (especially for the people). At the moment not many governments are doing this.
Bush was a corporation, Obama doesnt have even close
How many exactly.
APOLLO much?
LMAO
these AIDS infested swine are lying hypocrites
Yeah, I like when he wears the blue one.
I find it sort of amusing, considering that neocons STILL accuse him of being a socialist.How do Liberal feel that Obama has more corporate ties than even Bush?
You're absolutely right and the Obamaphiles are living in denial. The evidence is piled up sky high and yet they deny it. No use trying to convince those convicted to blind faith in a baseless creed. It may take them getting fired, foreclosed upon or otherwise ripped off by Obama's corporate sponsors. But even that may not be enough.
Ok, let's all blame the big bad pharmaceutical companies. Right?
I have news for you. There have been many mergers in the phramaceutical industry because it is harder and harder to find new drugs. Yes, money is wasted. Yes, their corporate executives are overpaid. But guess what? That is in ALL American businesses. Please name me one industry where the executives are actually paid what they are worth.
On the other hand, if it was not for the money, they could not pay the talented research scientists to do their work. Do you have any idea what it costs to equip a research lab? And, to do drug testing trials? Also, what do you expect those Phd chemists, biologists and microbiologists to earn? They just spent 8 years in college and medical school and have student loans to pay back. Do you really think they can be paid the same as a Walmart store greeter?
It's all in black and white in the government mandated and industry audited company annual reports. How much the drug companies earn and how much they invest in research and development. If we don't do it, then perhaps a country like India will be the next pipeline for drugs. It's bad enough the clothes we wear comes from overseas...will we also need to buy our lifesaving drugs from them too?
The way liberals look at it, if it costs you an arm and a leg, then you'll have two less limbs to worry about seizing up because of your epilepsy.
They only care about the COLLECTIVE. They don't give a damn about the individual at all. They just want to try to fool you into thinking they do.
He's got more then those ties that we need to worry about. All his new pals are draining whats left of the economy. I'm sure in exchange for a nice job or stock package after he leaves office.
It's interesting that some libs here aren't aware that Obama struck a back room deal with big pharma, which is now the biggest supporter of health reform. I've read that they may spend as much as $100 Million over the next few months touting Obamacare. Obama is very close to GE as well.
See video link below.
You couldn't be more wrong! Pharmaceutical companies are the ones inciting the hate campaign against health-care, they want to continue getting rich off of the sick and poor. Instead we want everyone to be taken care of medically regardless of how much money you have!
bush pushed hard to keep mexican and canadian meds from american consumers.i am not sure about this story, a quick news search will give me the story.
sounds like an 80 billion trade off.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13鈥?/a>
Actually, the pharmaceutical companies are the ones pushing the hate campaign against social healthcare.
They hate social healthcare here in Australia because the government has a monopoly on it which creates huge bargaining power for lowering prices.
Presidents don't pass laws congress does...why don't you look up who voted that way and get back to me.
Do you even know the number of the specific bill or law , in which you claim to be victimized by? Do you even know what you are talking about?
They don't seem to care b/c all they care about is POWER. The more they can get the better off they seem to be. Someone brought up that the Vietnam protesters never protested the 2.5 million people that were slaughtered after we pulled out!!
Yeah, and Pfizer just got handed a $2.3 billion dollar fine for illegally marketing some of their drugs.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries鈥?/a>
A bit miffed.
The government should by the people, of the people and FOR the people (especially for the people). At the moment not many governments are doing this.
Bush was a corporation, Obama doesnt have even close
How many exactly.
APOLLO much?
LMAO
these AIDS infested swine are lying hypocrites
Yeah, I like when he wears the blue one.
What is a conservative and what is a liberal?
I've always pondered the actual difference, I have a pretty good idea what it is. Please don't be biased and say ';well liberals are cool and conservatives are chumps'; or vice versa. Thank you!What is a conservative and what is a liberal?
conservatives want less government in business and economic sectors and more government in social aspects of our life.
liberals want more government in business and economic sectors and less government in social aspects of our life.
More liberals are in the Democratic party, but still most of it's members could hardly be called that and vice versa for Conservatives in the GOP.What is a conservative and what is a liberal?
In ';The Federal Courts, Politics, and the Rule of Law,'; by John C. Hughes (published 1995), it says:
';In the contemporary political context, those who fear conformity have tended to describe themselves as liberal and have tended to applaud judicial 'protection' of human rights. Those who fear diversity have tended to call themselves conservatives and have been appalled by judicial 'usurpation' of the majority's discretion to form the kind of community it finds most conducive to its own happiness. The former tends to approve of the expansive theories of constitutional interpretation, while the latter tends to prefer the restrained theories of judicial review. These alignments are neither perfect nor inevitable, but the debate has surely been shrill.';
They are fictitious political ideologies that attempt to make connections between issues that don't exist so that power always remains out of the peoples hands.
What does abortion have to do with lower taxes? What does a strong national defense policy have to do with who should get married?
conservatives want less government (ex. taxes) and liberals want more government (ex laws supporting abortions and gun control).
conservatives want less government in business and economic sectors and more government in social aspects of our life.
liberals want more government in business and economic sectors and less government in social aspects of our life.
More liberals are in the Democratic party, but still most of it's members could hardly be called that and vice versa for Conservatives in the GOP.What is a conservative and what is a liberal?
In ';The Federal Courts, Politics, and the Rule of Law,'; by John C. Hughes (published 1995), it says:
';In the contemporary political context, those who fear conformity have tended to describe themselves as liberal and have tended to applaud judicial 'protection' of human rights. Those who fear diversity have tended to call themselves conservatives and have been appalled by judicial 'usurpation' of the majority's discretion to form the kind of community it finds most conducive to its own happiness. The former tends to approve of the expansive theories of constitutional interpretation, while the latter tends to prefer the restrained theories of judicial review. These alignments are neither perfect nor inevitable, but the debate has surely been shrill.';
They are fictitious political ideologies that attempt to make connections between issues that don't exist so that power always remains out of the peoples hands.
What does abortion have to do with lower taxes? What does a strong national defense policy have to do with who should get married?
conservatives want less government (ex. taxes) and liberals want more government (ex laws supporting abortions and gun control).
When the liberal media is done skewering Palin to the wall come November?
How much of the women's vote do you think Obama is likely to get?When the liberal media is done skewering Palin to the wall come November?
Vice President Sarah Palin might enjoy relative peace. from the rabid media after November.
McCain/Palin '08=Job growth thru energy development.
When the liberal media is done skewering Palin to the wall come November?
The liberal media skewers Palin because she's not qualified. They'd do it even if she were a he.
McCain's machine picked Palin because (1) she's a woman and (2) because of her ultra-conservative religious belief system. (1) was a hail-mary (no pun intended) attempt to win Clinton supporters and a clever, but cynical counter to the historic nature of the Obama/Biden ticket. (2) was to garner the approval of the powerful Christian religious-right voting block.
(1) is an insult to all women because McCain has effectively tokenized and objectified her. By choosing a woman who is an underqualified candidate for the role, when the ticket loses, she'll be the scape goat. When this happens, it'll make it harder in the future for qualified women to be considered for the VP or President spot as many with gender bias will wag their fingers and say, ';I told you so.';
(2) is downright scary for the vast majority of spritual moderates. Palin's recorded positions on religion and its role in political decision making is borderline looney and shows a rigidity of thought that is dangerous in a rapidly evolving world culture. The last thing we need right now is another jihad. We should be striving for a brighter, more peaceful future, not a return to the Crusades.
Palin's a much better public speaker than McCain and has a disarming, folksy delivery. But all style and no substance is not a good combination if she's just a heartbeat away from being in the role of Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation on the planet. Even if she were to have the pick of great advisors, she's convinced me that she doesn't have enough smarts, judgement and experience to choose the right ones to listen to.
Conclusion: McBush/Cheney have demonstrated that B players choose C players. Obama is showing how A players choose A+ players.
Once the republicans are done training her, and she comes out of her shell, she will become old news, and will no longer be the flavor of the week.
Then republicans will be inventing attacks on her more than they do now so people don't forget her
People who talk up ';liberal media'; seriously have their head in their backside.
EDIT: Had a few paragraphs and it just isn't worth it. People who don't ';get it'; seriously need to get out more.
Sorry but Palin proved to be a Lemon
I know you HATE Obama but my God if McCain dies in his first term we in Trouble
Matt Damon thought the same thing
LINK:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk
I think that there are many women who aren't going to vote for a candidate because of their genitals.
Palin has already begun to shoot herself in the foot. She wants to go to war with Russia.
10 pct. The alcoholics who drink the Kool-Aid, thinking it's really got alcohol in it!!!
ooohhh me thinks the lady doth protest too much LOL :)
he'll get mine
Vice President Sarah Palin might enjoy relative peace. from the rabid media after November.
McCain/Palin '08=Job growth thru energy development.
When the liberal media is done skewering Palin to the wall come November?
The liberal media skewers Palin because she's not qualified. They'd do it even if she were a he.
McCain's machine picked Palin because (1) she's a woman and (2) because of her ultra-conservative religious belief system. (1) was a hail-mary (no pun intended) attempt to win Clinton supporters and a clever, but cynical counter to the historic nature of the Obama/Biden ticket. (2) was to garner the approval of the powerful Christian religious-right voting block.
(1) is an insult to all women because McCain has effectively tokenized and objectified her. By choosing a woman who is an underqualified candidate for the role, when the ticket loses, she'll be the scape goat. When this happens, it'll make it harder in the future for qualified women to be considered for the VP or President spot as many with gender bias will wag their fingers and say, ';I told you so.';
(2) is downright scary for the vast majority of spritual moderates. Palin's recorded positions on religion and its role in political decision making is borderline looney and shows a rigidity of thought that is dangerous in a rapidly evolving world culture. The last thing we need right now is another jihad. We should be striving for a brighter, more peaceful future, not a return to the Crusades.
Palin's a much better public speaker than McCain and has a disarming, folksy delivery. But all style and no substance is not a good combination if she's just a heartbeat away from being in the role of Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation on the planet. Even if she were to have the pick of great advisors, she's convinced me that she doesn't have enough smarts, judgement and experience to choose the right ones to listen to.
Conclusion: McBush/Cheney have demonstrated that B players choose C players. Obama is showing how A players choose A+ players.
Once the republicans are done training her, and she comes out of her shell, she will become old news, and will no longer be the flavor of the week.
Then republicans will be inventing attacks on her more than they do now so people don't forget her
People who talk up ';liberal media'; seriously have their head in their backside.
EDIT: Had a few paragraphs and it just isn't worth it. People who don't ';get it'; seriously need to get out more.
Sorry but Palin proved to be a Lemon
I know you HATE Obama but my God if McCain dies in his first term we in Trouble
Matt Damon thought the same thing
LINK:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk
I think that there are many women who aren't going to vote for a candidate because of their genitals.
Palin has already begun to shoot herself in the foot. She wants to go to war with Russia.
10 pct. The alcoholics who drink the Kool-Aid, thinking it's really got alcohol in it!!!
ooohhh me thinks the lady doth protest too much LOL :)
he'll get mine
Why do Liberal states consider the murder of a pregnant woman a double homicide?
I thought Liberals didn't think it was a person until outside the womb.Why do Liberal states consider the murder of a pregnant woman a double homicide?
Because they talk out of both sides of their @ss.
Locking someone up for life means more government dollars are required.Why do Liberal states consider the murder of a pregnant woman a double homicide?
If that's true it's probably because they don't want to push they probably don't want to raise that issue until after the elections. Either that or they don't really care because he is violating her choice.
And some liberals do have a brain the do realize that a child is a child at least by a certain time frame, even if they still haven't correlated the fact that they are still taking somebody's chance for a long full life away, and it doesn't really matter at what stage they are at because any stage would continue to develop, provided we had the technology even separate from the mother.
I wonder that myself. And not in a crazy, uber pro life way. But, it's weird that a woman can have an abortion in an state. But, let's say someone poison's a woman so she miscarriages, it's considered murder. While I appreciate the laws protecting a fetus in those cases, don't understand how abortions are legal. It's just confusing, I guess.
Make up your mind! You should be happy instead of bitching about it, shouldn't you?? Idiots, it's because the murderer also took away the choice of the woman - and in a violent way. I see nothing wrong with maximizing the punishment for killers, but you apparently do.
i would say because it was NOT the choice of the woman and unless she was murdered as she lay on a table in preparation for an abortion, NAY in the process of having an abortion ( after all in preparation STILL gives her time to change her mind) ... any one with a single brain cell of commonsense would assume that she was going to go through with the pregnancy and give birth ,,,,
don't be so dumb ...
LIberals have a twisted way of thinking. They believe that the woman's ';choice'; determines whether it's murder or not.
Liberals are actually insane and they need to be committed to institutions. Guaranteed, they'll destroy our nation if they get their Barack Hussein Obama elected.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article…
Liberals know good and well a fetus is a person, that's why a pregant woman murdered is a double homicide.
The difference is the CHOICE involved: the criminal can't choose to kill the unborn baby, only the woman can do that.
that is a damned good question. should we raise funds so you get the chance to ask Obama that? i think i have a few dollars around here i can spare. It would be well worth it to watch him try to look to his writers for an answer before doing the fake choking and changing the subject.
Because liberals are nothing but rats. They are the reason our justice system is not feared; ultimately the ones paying the price are the innocent victims.
Yeah that is a little wierd. I mean the unborn doesn't really have rights if you're working in an abortion clinic. Choice? I really have no idea.
Why do they call the United states, ';United'; if we have two opposing parties in politics
Great question. I am pro choice but I'll tell you what, the late term and living birth options are sick.
Because they talk out of both sides of their @ss.
Locking someone up for life means more government dollars are required.Why do Liberal states consider the murder of a pregnant woman a double homicide?
If that's true it's probably because they don't want to push they probably don't want to raise that issue until after the elections. Either that or they don't really care because he is violating her choice.
And some liberals do have a brain the do realize that a child is a child at least by a certain time frame, even if they still haven't correlated the fact that they are still taking somebody's chance for a long full life away, and it doesn't really matter at what stage they are at because any stage would continue to develop, provided we had the technology even separate from the mother.
I wonder that myself. And not in a crazy, uber pro life way. But, it's weird that a woman can have an abortion in an state. But, let's say someone poison's a woman so she miscarriages, it's considered murder. While I appreciate the laws protecting a fetus in those cases, don't understand how abortions are legal. It's just confusing, I guess.
Make up your mind! You should be happy instead of bitching about it, shouldn't you?? Idiots, it's because the murderer also took away the choice of the woman - and in a violent way. I see nothing wrong with maximizing the punishment for killers, but you apparently do.
i would say because it was NOT the choice of the woman and unless she was murdered as she lay on a table in preparation for an abortion, NAY in the process of having an abortion ( after all in preparation STILL gives her time to change her mind) ... any one with a single brain cell of commonsense would assume that she was going to go through with the pregnancy and give birth ,,,,
don't be so dumb ...
LIberals have a twisted way of thinking. They believe that the woman's ';choice'; determines whether it's murder or not.
Liberals are actually insane and they need to be committed to institutions. Guaranteed, they'll destroy our nation if they get their Barack Hussein Obama elected.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article…
Liberals know good and well a fetus is a person, that's why a pregant woman murdered is a double homicide.
The difference is the CHOICE involved: the criminal can't choose to kill the unborn baby, only the woman can do that.
that is a damned good question. should we raise funds so you get the chance to ask Obama that? i think i have a few dollars around here i can spare. It would be well worth it to watch him try to look to his writers for an answer before doing the fake choking and changing the subject.
Because liberals are nothing but rats. They are the reason our justice system is not feared; ultimately the ones paying the price are the innocent victims.
Yeah that is a little wierd. I mean the unborn doesn't really have rights if you're working in an abortion clinic. Choice? I really have no idea.
Why do they call the United states, ';United'; if we have two opposing parties in politics
Great question. I am pro choice but I'll tell you what, the late term and living birth options are sick.
What are the basic priciples of the contemporary liberal movement?
No need to pontificate, just to the best of your knowledge and in your own words, thanksWhat are the basic priciples of the contemporary liberal movement?
Deception. Just read Saul Alinsky's ';Rules for Radicals'; and you can learn all about how to destroy a free Republic.
Deception. Just read Saul Alinsky's ';Rules for Radicals'; and you can learn all about how to destroy a free Republic.
What are some good scholarships for an aspiring liberal arts student?
I don't qualify for any of the extreme-need programs, but I still find myself unable to pay the horrendous college tuition costs. Any scholarships that you know of would be very helpful to me.
(It may also be important to know that I am a high school sophomore...)What are some good scholarships for an aspiring liberal arts student?
You can get info about such college scholarships and grants online here - careers.scienceontheweb.netWhat are some good scholarships for an aspiring liberal arts student?
Well, it's never too late to start looking for college scholarships What I'd suggest you do is first, ask your guidance department at your school what kinds of local scholarships are available to you. Many organizations such as charities, fire or police departments, even local businesses will offer small but significant scholarships to local students. Sometimes so few people even know about these that you are guaranteed to get them just because so few people apply!
Another easy way is to just sign up at freecollegescholarships... it's the first site in my source list, and its free and no risk... just fill in the required info and once a month they draw names to see who gets the $10,000 scholarship, every month. You can get it even if you're a sophomore.
Hope this was helpful!sexy myspace
(It may also be important to know that I am a high school sophomore...)What are some good scholarships for an aspiring liberal arts student?
You can get info about such college scholarships and grants online here - careers.scienceontheweb.netWhat are some good scholarships for an aspiring liberal arts student?
Well, it's never too late to start looking for college scholarships What I'd suggest you do is first, ask your guidance department at your school what kinds of local scholarships are available to you. Many organizations such as charities, fire or police departments, even local businesses will offer small but significant scholarships to local students. Sometimes so few people even know about these that you are guaranteed to get them just because so few people apply!
Another easy way is to just sign up at freecollegescholarships... it's the first site in my source list, and its free and no risk... just fill in the required info and once a month they draw names to see who gets the $10,000 scholarship, every month. You can get it even if you're a sophomore.
Hope this was helpful!
Why does liberal America reward incompetence and punish achievement?
America used to be a place where dreams could be realized based on ones efforts to be successful. Why has this been changed?Why does liberal America reward incompetence and punish achievement?
Because incompetence doesn't make any taxable income!Why does liberal America reward incompetence and punish achievement?
If you are good at what you do and are successful and make decent money you make the worthless uneducated incompetent liberals (or as I call um, Communists) look like they can't compete with the true Americans and that hurts their cause, which is to trick the middle class into hating their bosses and voting for the Communist left like Obama.
The middle class and the affluent are a team. They work together. It's the ones that don't work that cause the problems. If you are the problem, you can't seek a solution, because you will always try to help yourself first.
Because Democrats make decisions based on emotion rather than logic.
The logical thing would be to reward success, but the emotional thing is to accuse the successful of having gotten that way by stepping on the little guy, not by working hard or having ingenious ideas. That would be just plain unfair...
(And as a conservative, I'm still perplexed as to unfair... to WHAT...)
The President and Congress need to focus on the economy rather than creating costly new entitlements.
The economy is in shambles, unemployment is increasing, the deficit is rising, the debt is outrageous, and Congress is spending money like it is Monopoly money. President Obama promised that the stimulus spending would create up to 4 million jobs over the next two years. Assuming that the promise could be fulfilled, with the rising unemployment it will take 4 million jobs to break even. But the economy doesn't seem to be Congress's primary concern. Congress is working on legislation that will increase energy and health care costs 鈥?exactly what the economy doesn't need.
The Waxman-Markey climate bill is chasing the CO2 bogeyman. The Government Accounting Office has reminded us that the European Union has already gone down this road with less than impressive results. As currently described, the cap and trade scheme would auction some carbon credits and give chosen industries and businesses carbon credits for free. This is a classic example of government picking winners and losers and perverts the concept of the free market. The cap and trade scheme currently under consideration is nothing more than a hidden tax to the consumer. If applied equally, the lower income brackets will be hit the hardest. Sheltering the poor from the increased energy cost will create another entitlement by shifting the increased energy cost to the rest of the taxpayers. Even if implemented to perfection it will cause a dramatic increase in energy costs and all of the country will suffer.
The particulars of the healthcare bill are still unknown, but all indications are it will be a Trojan horse for socialized medicine. President Obama's plan has been described as an expanded version of Medicare. That shouldn't inspire anyone since Medicare will soon be insolvent and will require a massive tax increase to survive. The federal government doesn't have a good record in creating grandiose programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are good examples, NASA would be an exception. President Obama says that his healthcare plan will insure the 47 million uninsured and save money. Before we accept this fuzzy math, remember Vice President Joe Biden said, ';everyone guessed wrong at the time the (stimulus) estimate was made . . ..';
A single-payer healthcare plan puts the government between you and your doctors. Bureaucrats will decide if you deserve the healthcare you need. Your care may be determined by age, weight, or a plethora of other factors. Those with chronic expensive medical problems like cancer, heart disease, HIV/AIDs, etc. may be denied care. Everyone should be very afraid of the federal government in charge of your healthcare. By law, nobody in the U.S. is denied health care so nationalizing healthcare is fixing a non-problem. Washington insiders predict that government healthcare will add trillions of dollars to our debt.
Rather than play to political constituencies, Congress should be concentrating on stabilizing the economy before creating new entitlements. The official unemployment rate is reported to be approaching 10%. But the number of unemployed is actually much higher. Government unemployment statistics do not count the thousands of small businesses that have been crushed by the falling economy and nobody dares to count the homeless during a Democrat administration. But when those groups are added, the actual unemployment rate could be over 20%.
The fiscal problems of the U.S. are no secret. Before the current financial crisis occurred, David Walker, the former Comptroller of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), warned that the current level of federal spending is unsustainable. Walker compared all the federal government's income and compared it to all of the liabilities and future obligations. Those liabilities and future obligations exceed $53 trillion. Walker stated the obvious, ';We have a huge implicit mortgage on every household in America . . ..';
President Obama's spending plans will require borrowing additional billions which will exacerbate the problem. Our creditors also know this. We cannot borrow ourselves to prosperity. If the economy is not fixed soon the impact could exceed the Great Depression. The President and Congress need to focus on the economy rather than creating costly new entitlements.
No. Socialism does, until the people cry out for justice, then it blames someone else and uses the anger of the people to overthrow the government in favor of socialist saviors. The saviors then crack down, make everyone work, rob the rich, and enslave the rest.
It's happening in your life-time, folks. Enjoy.
If you make people dependent on the government, then it gains real control of its citizens. Successful people are less dependent on government programs and there for have a greater freedom when voting. If someone depends on welfare, food stamps, etc. i can guarantee what party they are going to vote for.
This way they always look like saviors to the victims they enable. If they were to reward personal accountability, they'd be out of a job, power and money. It serves them to keep others down through their policy decisions.
Because liberalism is for losers. When you put liberals in power they punish success and reward failure. Liberals punish responsible behavior and reward irresponsible behavior.
Reagan let the Soviets bankrupt themselves, but the Ghost of the Third ComIntern had already started to infect the Shining City on the Hill.
So sad.
because liberals are obviously retarded. its ok though. they are losing alot of ppl. i think taht if there were to be another election today obama would lose hands down.
If they rewarded achievement and punished incompetence, they would be conservatives.
We award laziness. Welfare has been turned into a career choice. The democrats like that because it holds people down and increases their numbers.
Successful small business owners will NOT vote for a socialists government. Lazy bums will.
';No one loses, no one fails'; has screwed up a whole generation, and now we are seeing the results.
They are nothing if not consistent, they do things half baked and backward.
Why be so egotistic?
They don't.
They just don't share your vision of ';winner take all';.
Because incompetence doesn't make any taxable income!Why does liberal America reward incompetence and punish achievement?
If you are good at what you do and are successful and make decent money you make the worthless uneducated incompetent liberals (or as I call um, Communists) look like they can't compete with the true Americans and that hurts their cause, which is to trick the middle class into hating their bosses and voting for the Communist left like Obama.
The middle class and the affluent are a team. They work together. It's the ones that don't work that cause the problems. If you are the problem, you can't seek a solution, because you will always try to help yourself first.
Because Democrats make decisions based on emotion rather than logic.
The logical thing would be to reward success, but the emotional thing is to accuse the successful of having gotten that way by stepping on the little guy, not by working hard or having ingenious ideas. That would be just plain unfair...
(And as a conservative, I'm still perplexed as to unfair... to WHAT...)
The President and Congress need to focus on the economy rather than creating costly new entitlements.
The economy is in shambles, unemployment is increasing, the deficit is rising, the debt is outrageous, and Congress is spending money like it is Monopoly money. President Obama promised that the stimulus spending would create up to 4 million jobs over the next two years. Assuming that the promise could be fulfilled, with the rising unemployment it will take 4 million jobs to break even. But the economy doesn't seem to be Congress's primary concern. Congress is working on legislation that will increase energy and health care costs 鈥?exactly what the economy doesn't need.
The Waxman-Markey climate bill is chasing the CO2 bogeyman. The Government Accounting Office has reminded us that the European Union has already gone down this road with less than impressive results. As currently described, the cap and trade scheme would auction some carbon credits and give chosen industries and businesses carbon credits for free. This is a classic example of government picking winners and losers and perverts the concept of the free market. The cap and trade scheme currently under consideration is nothing more than a hidden tax to the consumer. If applied equally, the lower income brackets will be hit the hardest. Sheltering the poor from the increased energy cost will create another entitlement by shifting the increased energy cost to the rest of the taxpayers. Even if implemented to perfection it will cause a dramatic increase in energy costs and all of the country will suffer.
The particulars of the healthcare bill are still unknown, but all indications are it will be a Trojan horse for socialized medicine. President Obama's plan has been described as an expanded version of Medicare. That shouldn't inspire anyone since Medicare will soon be insolvent and will require a massive tax increase to survive. The federal government doesn't have a good record in creating grandiose programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are good examples, NASA would be an exception. President Obama says that his healthcare plan will insure the 47 million uninsured and save money. Before we accept this fuzzy math, remember Vice President Joe Biden said, ';everyone guessed wrong at the time the (stimulus) estimate was made . . ..';
A single-payer healthcare plan puts the government between you and your doctors. Bureaucrats will decide if you deserve the healthcare you need. Your care may be determined by age, weight, or a plethora of other factors. Those with chronic expensive medical problems like cancer, heart disease, HIV/AIDs, etc. may be denied care. Everyone should be very afraid of the federal government in charge of your healthcare. By law, nobody in the U.S. is denied health care so nationalizing healthcare is fixing a non-problem. Washington insiders predict that government healthcare will add trillions of dollars to our debt.
Rather than play to political constituencies, Congress should be concentrating on stabilizing the economy before creating new entitlements. The official unemployment rate is reported to be approaching 10%. But the number of unemployed is actually much higher. Government unemployment statistics do not count the thousands of small businesses that have been crushed by the falling economy and nobody dares to count the homeless during a Democrat administration. But when those groups are added, the actual unemployment rate could be over 20%.
The fiscal problems of the U.S. are no secret. Before the current financial crisis occurred, David Walker, the former Comptroller of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), warned that the current level of federal spending is unsustainable. Walker compared all the federal government's income and compared it to all of the liabilities and future obligations. Those liabilities and future obligations exceed $53 trillion. Walker stated the obvious, ';We have a huge implicit mortgage on every household in America . . ..';
President Obama's spending plans will require borrowing additional billions which will exacerbate the problem. Our creditors also know this. We cannot borrow ourselves to prosperity. If the economy is not fixed soon the impact could exceed the Great Depression. The President and Congress need to focus on the economy rather than creating costly new entitlements.
No. Socialism does, until the people cry out for justice, then it blames someone else and uses the anger of the people to overthrow the government in favor of socialist saviors. The saviors then crack down, make everyone work, rob the rich, and enslave the rest.
It's happening in your life-time, folks. Enjoy.
If you make people dependent on the government, then it gains real control of its citizens. Successful people are less dependent on government programs and there for have a greater freedom when voting. If someone depends on welfare, food stamps, etc. i can guarantee what party they are going to vote for.
This way they always look like saviors to the victims they enable. If they were to reward personal accountability, they'd be out of a job, power and money. It serves them to keep others down through their policy decisions.
Because liberalism is for losers. When you put liberals in power they punish success and reward failure. Liberals punish responsible behavior and reward irresponsible behavior.
Reagan let the Soviets bankrupt themselves, but the Ghost of the Third ComIntern had already started to infect the Shining City on the Hill.
So sad.
because liberals are obviously retarded. its ok though. they are losing alot of ppl. i think taht if there were to be another election today obama would lose hands down.
If they rewarded achievement and punished incompetence, they would be conservatives.
We award laziness. Welfare has been turned into a career choice. The democrats like that because it holds people down and increases their numbers.
Successful small business owners will NOT vote for a socialists government. Lazy bums will.
';No one loses, no one fails'; has screwed up a whole generation, and now we are seeing the results.
They are nothing if not consistent, they do things half baked and backward.
Why be so egotistic?
They don't.
They just don't share your vision of ';winner take all';.
Why isn't there media outrage over the liberal who shot the recruiters in Arkansas?
Why hasn't Obama made a statement about the one soldier who was killed and the other who was injured?Why isn't there media outrage over the liberal who shot the recruiters in Arkansas?
Because in Obama's world, a man who rips viable babies out of mom's womb and crushes their skulls is worth far more than the brave men and women that defend this country. God Bless the soldier that died, the one who is injured, and their families.Why isn't there media outrage over the liberal who shot the recruiters in Arkansas?
It has not been long enough to know much about the incident. You probably know that so posting a link would not serve your purpose of smearing Liberals.
By NOAH TRISTER, Associated Press Writer Noah Trister, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 21 mins ago
New Recruites shot
Military recruiter killed in Ark shooting - Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090601/ap_o…
';Police arrested Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, along a crosstown interstate moments after the shootings at the Army-Navy Career Center in a shopping center in west Little Rock.
Muhammad acted alone, the police chief said, and based on an interview with officers, the suspect ';probably had political and religious motives for the attack.'; He lived in an apartment just 1.5 miles from the recruiting center. A search warrant had been obtained for the apartment.
Thomas said Muhammad, previously known as Carlos Bledsoe, would be charged with first-degree murder, plus 15 counts of committing a terroristic act. Thomas said those counts result from the gunfire occurring near other people.';
Because when a liberal shoots someone its not really news.
they shoot each other every day around here in Chicago.
You notice most will ask if your sure it was a liberal but turn around and consider the doctor killer a radical conservative.
Now you see how liberals operate.
We just got done asking that same thing at lunch. Kills me how everything is always different when it happens to the Left...and their spin will be my proof!
EDIT: See, told ya, and the libs didnt disappoint! ; ) Spin it libs! Spin it! Spin away! WOOOHOO!!! Sheesh what a bunch of friggin hypocrits.
First off there is media coverage of the shooting, ie CNN, and second it recently happened. Not all the facts are out there yet. So be patient.
Liberals don't have guns. Liberals don't kill people. Liberals are the peaceful majority of this country.
The big news is about the MTV awards ';or'; American Idol. Since 70% of Americans are against the Iraq war then news about soldiers are low priority.
How do you know it was a liberal?
According to most people aren't liberals the ones without guns?
Chickenhawk Barry Obama has never served a day in uniform.
Some sort of “retaliation” to the killing of George Tiller over the weekend or a sole rabid anti-war protester.
The details aren't quite clear yet. Either way - awful stuff.
Because the Obama people don't see a political opportunity in it.
I'm sure there was outrage in Arkansas... was that shooting politically motivated?
Simply and solely because the victims in this case weren't fellow vapid liberals.
Why don't you provide proof that the shooter was a liberal first?
I didn't hear about that. Maybe the President didn't either. Anyways, we need to bring back the draft.
Liberals hate the military. They have been trying to get rid of recruitment centers and ROTC programs for years.
How do you know he was a Liberal?
because a lib/dem shoots someone everyday, case in point - gangbangers
First I heard of it. Sad on all counts.
it doesn't fit into there ';Agenda';.
That was a Radical Extreme Leftist, not a Liberal who shot the recruiters.
I am a long time liberal member of the Democratic Party for over 40 years.
Liberals like myself are of the opinion that The United States of America is worth fighting for and support the use of Military Force against the enemies of The United States of America.
The Radical Extreme Leftists blame The united States of America for most, if not all of the problems in the world and want to destroy the ability of The United States of America to use Military Force
.
Liar...not ONE article says it was a Liberal..(he was driving an SUV so chances are he's a Conservative...DUH!!!!)
Because in Obama's world, a man who rips viable babies out of mom's womb and crushes their skulls is worth far more than the brave men and women that defend this country. God Bless the soldier that died, the one who is injured, and their families.Why isn't there media outrage over the liberal who shot the recruiters in Arkansas?
It has not been long enough to know much about the incident. You probably know that so posting a link would not serve your purpose of smearing Liberals.
By NOAH TRISTER, Associated Press Writer Noah Trister, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 21 mins ago
New Recruites shot
Military recruiter killed in Ark shooting - Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090601/ap_o…
';Police arrested Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, along a crosstown interstate moments after the shootings at the Army-Navy Career Center in a shopping center in west Little Rock.
Muhammad acted alone, the police chief said, and based on an interview with officers, the suspect ';probably had political and religious motives for the attack.'; He lived in an apartment just 1.5 miles from the recruiting center. A search warrant had been obtained for the apartment.
Thomas said Muhammad, previously known as Carlos Bledsoe, would be charged with first-degree murder, plus 15 counts of committing a terroristic act. Thomas said those counts result from the gunfire occurring near other people.';
Because when a liberal shoots someone its not really news.
they shoot each other every day around here in Chicago.
You notice most will ask if your sure it was a liberal but turn around and consider the doctor killer a radical conservative.
Now you see how liberals operate.
We just got done asking that same thing at lunch. Kills me how everything is always different when it happens to the Left...and their spin will be my proof!
EDIT: See, told ya, and the libs didnt disappoint! ; ) Spin it libs! Spin it! Spin away! WOOOHOO!!! Sheesh what a bunch of friggin hypocrits.
First off there is media coverage of the shooting, ie CNN, and second it recently happened. Not all the facts are out there yet. So be patient.
Liberals don't have guns. Liberals don't kill people. Liberals are the peaceful majority of this country.
The big news is about the MTV awards ';or'; American Idol. Since 70% of Americans are against the Iraq war then news about soldiers are low priority.
How do you know it was a liberal?
According to most people aren't liberals the ones without guns?
Chickenhawk Barry Obama has never served a day in uniform.
Some sort of “retaliation” to the killing of George Tiller over the weekend or a sole rabid anti-war protester.
The details aren't quite clear yet. Either way - awful stuff.
Because the Obama people don't see a political opportunity in it.
I'm sure there was outrage in Arkansas... was that shooting politically motivated?
Simply and solely because the victims in this case weren't fellow vapid liberals.
Why don't you provide proof that the shooter was a liberal first?
I didn't hear about that. Maybe the President didn't either. Anyways, we need to bring back the draft.
Liberals hate the military. They have been trying to get rid of recruitment centers and ROTC programs for years.
How do you know he was a Liberal?
because a lib/dem shoots someone everyday, case in point - gangbangers
First I heard of it. Sad on all counts.
it doesn't fit into there ';Agenda';.
That was a Radical Extreme Leftist, not a Liberal who shot the recruiters.
I am a long time liberal member of the Democratic Party for over 40 years.
Liberals like myself are of the opinion that The United States of America is worth fighting for and support the use of Military Force against the enemies of The United States of America.
The Radical Extreme Leftists blame The united States of America for most, if not all of the problems in the world and want to destroy the ability of The United States of America to use Military Force
.
Liar...not ONE article says it was a Liberal..(he was driving an SUV so chances are he's a Conservative...DUH!!!!)
Is Obama using the economic crisis to fund liberal special interest groups?
Is Obama more concerned with his Liberal agenda than the economy and rising unemployment?
Under the guise of a ';stimulus'; bill house Democrats passed an $819 billion dollar spending bill, the largest in history, that mostly funds liberal programs, welfare, and special interest groups.
The Wall Street Journal says only 12 cents of every dollar is for something that could plausibly be called stimulus.Is Obama using the economic crisis to fund liberal special interest groups?
Yes this Stimulus is nothing but payment to the people who helped him steal the election.!~!
bama Giving ACORN $5.2 Billion in Stimulus Funds
A rising chorus of GOP leaders are protesting that the blockbuster Democratic stimulus package would provide up to a whopping $5.2 billion for ACORN, the left-leaning nonprofit group under federal investigation for massive voter fraud.What if Barack Obama鈥檚 most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along? Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), the largest radical group in America. If I told you Obama had close ties with MoveOn.org or Code Pink, you鈥檇 know what I was talking about. Acorn is at least as radical as these better-known groups, arguably more so. Yet because Acorn works locally, in carefully selected urban areas, its national profile is lower. Acorn likes it that way. And so, I鈥檇 wager, does Barack Obama.
According to the law, registered voters must sign, print their name and list their address on petitions calling for a ballot initiative. It doesn't take a handwriting expert to see that many of these were filled out by the same person. (Also, see pages 30-42 and take note of the signatures 鈥?a bit odd to sign your last name first, isn't it.)
ACORN Is A Bad Seed
Something鈥檚 rotten in the state of New Mexico, and Ohio, and Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and Florida, and鈥?br>
ACORN says it is a community group, but it is really a multi-million-dollar, multinational conglomerate. Its political agenda is driven by a relative handful of anti-corporate activists. ACORN spends millions of dollars to promote economic policies (like raising the minimum wage), but has admitted that it doesn't always want to abide by them. ACORN advocates for workers' rights and runs two unions, but has in the past fought its own employees' efforts to form a union.
ACORN's history makes for pretty interesting reading. The Clinton Administration found that ACORN was misspending government grants designed to help counsel the poor. Although it seeks minimum wage increases in cities and states across the country -- ACORN sued the state of California to get out of paying its own employees the state minimum wage.
ACORN's practices have corrupted our political process as well. It has engaged in questionable election activities for years鈥攕tretching back even to the organization's founding years in Arkansas. In recent years, as its political power has increased, so have instances of fraudIs Obama using the economic crisis to fund liberal special interest groups?
Wall Street has done such a great job that we should really trust their journal.
I guess repairing infrastructure is not stimulating. Steel and concrete manufacturers, and heavy contractors, would tend to disagree.
I guess because the emphasis is off ';Faith-based'; organizations to carry out special programs, the NGO who will do them must be godless liberals... or maybe godless commies.
BINGO!!!!! He's like a kid in a candy store and he's going to ride this thing for all it's worth. He looks at this crisis as a gift! He and his backers are just trying to manage it enough to assure their socialist agenda while avoiding a complete collapse. The tricky part is milking the producers in society right up to the point of breaking and then backing off just enough to keep them in the game. Much like the farmer feeds his cows so he can milk them day after day after day.
of course he is...the 'liberals' (AKA socialists) and 'progressives (AKA stalinists) see this as their opportunity to achieve the goals that their heroes in the now-deservedly defunct soviet union could never meet due to the inherent fatal flaws in socialist ideology
After eight years of watching Bush use 9/11 to fund conservative special interest groups, it's refreshing, isn't it? Now educated, humane, and concerned people will be running the government. The American people voted for a change, so face up to it.
indubitably. it been his major concern.
YES.
Yes. This is what the call a political payoff.
Yes
Yes - that's EXACTLY what he's doing! You're right on the $$
Peace
yes
Uh....duh!!!!
You really have to ask?
No, he's not. While he may be using the Bush Depression to further certain goals, he is looking toward long term responsibilities, something no Republican can began to comprehend. Bush and his fellow Republicans have brought such devastating damage to America that any thing would be an improvement.
The Wall Street Journal is run by supply-side economists. Of course, they wouldn't think that anything much in this plan is stimulus. It's based in Keynesian economic theory.
And to the post above me, there is NOWHERE in the stimulus plan that gives ACORN $5.2 billion. There is money dedicated to community development available to non-profit organizations, not just one organization, and ELIGIBILITY FOR THESE FUNDS INCLUDES FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS.
The ACORN myth is intended for one reason only - FEAR. If someone says that ACORN is getting 5.2 billion, all of the people who have negative opinions of it from the trumped up charges in the election will #%26amp;%$ themselves like little sheep in a panic, and the right wing base will continue to be riled up. It's a ploy to keep people scared, and a pretty despicable one at that. There is no evidence that ACORN will apply for these funds, that they would be granted these funds, or if they were granted funds, how much they would get. It won't be $5.2 billion, though. That's a certainty.
What is so hard for people to understand about this bill and it's affects on the economy? The attack comes against the random collection of efforts that it promotes. It's providing money to a bunch of different governmental departments to grant money to different worthy efforts and issues. When organizations in these efforts receive money, they spend within the US economy on goods, supplies %26amp; services that they need to complete their mission. They also employ people who then spend the money through the US economy on goods and services.
Jobs are not just created by corporations who get lower tax rates and thus have more money to use to employ people. The money that's paid to employees by the government and non-profit organization spends just as well, and many of these organizations are quite stable, having been around employing people longer than Wal-Mart, some of them for a century or longer.
There are many different ways to stimulate the economy, and this bill hits on a lot of them - including over $270 billion in tax cuts/credits (like a $144 billion middle class tax credit).
The bill also seeks to save jobs, hence the money given to state and local governments who are hurting and may be facing layoffs. There's are also tax credits for businesses who are hurting and may be facing layoffs or closure.
There are many sections in the bill that will save individuals money, giving them more savings and/or spending money leading to greater prosperity for US banks and businesses through consumer saving %26amp; spending. And many of these initiatives will also save businesses money indirectly allowing them extra money to create jobs and increase output.
Just a few:
1. Cheaper, cleaner energy save individuals and businesses money
2. Health care initiatives that will lower health care costs, lowering premiums paid by both individuals and businesses
3. Better roads that will be easier on the nation's fleet, saving individuals and businesses money through greater fuel efficiency as well as less wear on vehicles
4. Improvements to public transit making it cheaper, easier and/or more convenient for more people to get to work.
5. Money to school districts and universities will improve education and make better and higher levels of education available to more people, leading to a smarter and more productive workforce
6. Tax relief to individuals and businesses which will increase cash influx into the economy, leading to more prosperity, and indirectly leading to jobs saved %26amp; created through both consumer spending and tax savings
7. Wireless and broadband grants will deliver Internet to underserved areas, giving more people access to the wealth of information that we all take for granted. It will give more of the population access to information that leads to a more-informed workforce with quicker access to jobs, education, and programs that can help them get up out of the socio-economic rut by getting to school, getting better jobs, and getting ahead in life.
Under the guise of a ';stimulus'; bill house Democrats passed an $819 billion dollar spending bill, the largest in history, that mostly funds liberal programs, welfare, and special interest groups.
The Wall Street Journal says only 12 cents of every dollar is for something that could plausibly be called stimulus.Is Obama using the economic crisis to fund liberal special interest groups?
Yes this Stimulus is nothing but payment to the people who helped him steal the election.!~!
bama Giving ACORN $5.2 Billion in Stimulus Funds
A rising chorus of GOP leaders are protesting that the blockbuster Democratic stimulus package would provide up to a whopping $5.2 billion for ACORN, the left-leaning nonprofit group under federal investigation for massive voter fraud.What if Barack Obama鈥檚 most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along? Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), the largest radical group in America. If I told you Obama had close ties with MoveOn.org or Code Pink, you鈥檇 know what I was talking about. Acorn is at least as radical as these better-known groups, arguably more so. Yet because Acorn works locally, in carefully selected urban areas, its national profile is lower. Acorn likes it that way. And so, I鈥檇 wager, does Barack Obama.
According to the law, registered voters must sign, print their name and list their address on petitions calling for a ballot initiative. It doesn't take a handwriting expert to see that many of these were filled out by the same person. (Also, see pages 30-42 and take note of the signatures 鈥?a bit odd to sign your last name first, isn't it.)
ACORN Is A Bad Seed
Something鈥檚 rotten in the state of New Mexico, and Ohio, and Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and Florida, and鈥?br>
ACORN says it is a community group, but it is really a multi-million-dollar, multinational conglomerate. Its political agenda is driven by a relative handful of anti-corporate activists. ACORN spends millions of dollars to promote economic policies (like raising the minimum wage), but has admitted that it doesn't always want to abide by them. ACORN advocates for workers' rights and runs two unions, but has in the past fought its own employees' efforts to form a union.
ACORN's history makes for pretty interesting reading. The Clinton Administration found that ACORN was misspending government grants designed to help counsel the poor. Although it seeks minimum wage increases in cities and states across the country -- ACORN sued the state of California to get out of paying its own employees the state minimum wage.
ACORN's practices have corrupted our political process as well. It has engaged in questionable election activities for years鈥攕tretching back even to the organization's founding years in Arkansas. In recent years, as its political power has increased, so have instances of fraudIs Obama using the economic crisis to fund liberal special interest groups?
Wall Street has done such a great job that we should really trust their journal.
I guess repairing infrastructure is not stimulating. Steel and concrete manufacturers, and heavy contractors, would tend to disagree.
I guess because the emphasis is off ';Faith-based'; organizations to carry out special programs, the NGO who will do them must be godless liberals... or maybe godless commies.
BINGO!!!!! He's like a kid in a candy store and he's going to ride this thing for all it's worth. He looks at this crisis as a gift! He and his backers are just trying to manage it enough to assure their socialist agenda while avoiding a complete collapse. The tricky part is milking the producers in society right up to the point of breaking and then backing off just enough to keep them in the game. Much like the farmer feeds his cows so he can milk them day after day after day.
of course he is...the 'liberals' (AKA socialists) and 'progressives (AKA stalinists) see this as their opportunity to achieve the goals that their heroes in the now-deservedly defunct soviet union could never meet due to the inherent fatal flaws in socialist ideology
After eight years of watching Bush use 9/11 to fund conservative special interest groups, it's refreshing, isn't it? Now educated, humane, and concerned people will be running the government. The American people voted for a change, so face up to it.
indubitably. it been his major concern.
YES.
Yes. This is what the call a political payoff.
Yes
Yes - that's EXACTLY what he's doing! You're right on the $$
Peace
yes
Uh....duh!!!!
You really have to ask?
No, he's not. While he may be using the Bush Depression to further certain goals, he is looking toward long term responsibilities, something no Republican can began to comprehend. Bush and his fellow Republicans have brought such devastating damage to America that any thing would be an improvement.
The Wall Street Journal is run by supply-side economists. Of course, they wouldn't think that anything much in this plan is stimulus. It's based in Keynesian economic theory.
And to the post above me, there is NOWHERE in the stimulus plan that gives ACORN $5.2 billion. There is money dedicated to community development available to non-profit organizations, not just one organization, and ELIGIBILITY FOR THESE FUNDS INCLUDES FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS.
The ACORN myth is intended for one reason only - FEAR. If someone says that ACORN is getting 5.2 billion, all of the people who have negative opinions of it from the trumped up charges in the election will #%26amp;%$ themselves like little sheep in a panic, and the right wing base will continue to be riled up. It's a ploy to keep people scared, and a pretty despicable one at that. There is no evidence that ACORN will apply for these funds, that they would be granted these funds, or if they were granted funds, how much they would get. It won't be $5.2 billion, though. That's a certainty.
What is so hard for people to understand about this bill and it's affects on the economy? The attack comes against the random collection of efforts that it promotes. It's providing money to a bunch of different governmental departments to grant money to different worthy efforts and issues. When organizations in these efforts receive money, they spend within the US economy on goods, supplies %26amp; services that they need to complete their mission. They also employ people who then spend the money through the US economy on goods and services.
Jobs are not just created by corporations who get lower tax rates and thus have more money to use to employ people. The money that's paid to employees by the government and non-profit organization spends just as well, and many of these organizations are quite stable, having been around employing people longer than Wal-Mart, some of them for a century or longer.
There are many different ways to stimulate the economy, and this bill hits on a lot of them - including over $270 billion in tax cuts/credits (like a $144 billion middle class tax credit).
The bill also seeks to save jobs, hence the money given to state and local governments who are hurting and may be facing layoffs. There's are also tax credits for businesses who are hurting and may be facing layoffs or closure.
There are many sections in the bill that will save individuals money, giving them more savings and/or spending money leading to greater prosperity for US banks and businesses through consumer saving %26amp; spending. And many of these initiatives will also save businesses money indirectly allowing them extra money to create jobs and increase output.
Just a few:
1. Cheaper, cleaner energy save individuals and businesses money
2. Health care initiatives that will lower health care costs, lowering premiums paid by both individuals and businesses
3. Better roads that will be easier on the nation's fleet, saving individuals and businesses money through greater fuel efficiency as well as less wear on vehicles
4. Improvements to public transit making it cheaper, easier and/or more convenient for more people to get to work.
5. Money to school districts and universities will improve education and make better and higher levels of education available to more people, leading to a smarter and more productive workforce
6. Tax relief to individuals and businesses which will increase cash influx into the economy, leading to more prosperity, and indirectly leading to jobs saved %26amp; created through both consumer spending and tax savings
7. Wireless and broadband grants will deliver Internet to underserved areas, giving more people access to the wealth of information that we all take for granted. It will give more of the population access to information that leads to a more-informed workforce with quicker access to jobs, education, and programs that can help them get up out of the socio-economic rut by getting to school, getting better jobs, and getting ahead in life.
What can i do with a Bachelors in liberal studies?
I wanted to teach math. However I don't think I can pass the cset single subject in math. Also I don't feel like going to school for two more years and taking all these math classes and then taking another year for my credential. What should I do? I already have my BA in liberal studies. I don't want to teach multi subjects either.What can i do with a Bachelors in liberal studies?
One has to ask why you chose that major to begin with. It's not the usual path to a math teaching career. It's well suited for teaching lower grades. Vocationally, that's about it. It's not a vocational qualifier.
The BA/BS in Liberal Studies (I have one too) is an academic degree designed to develop your ability to think, reason, analyze, synthesize, evaluate, etc... In other words, to be a scholar. It's a hugely broad degree with very little practical application on its own. You'll find that it has prepared you to be something that this society detests and won't pay for - an intellectual.
Combined with specific training/experience it can be incredibly valuable because, unlike those with a specific major, you're not confined to one field and are able to join various fields together. You could now pursue any number of technical/vocational certifications and find yourself in a management role with a little experience.
As a prerequisite for graduate or professional study it is excellent - provided your GPA is high. It's well suited for entering any number of master's fields as well as law school.
It does qualify you to apply for all the jobs (very many) that require a degree but don't specify a specific major. These include sales, management, marketing, writing, and the like at the entry-level.
What you are likely to find is that the degree doesn't immediately return on your investment but that by mid-career you begin to pass the subject specialist degree holders as a generalist.
You could always make some business cards and become a consultant. ';Generally knowledgeable guy. Liberal Studies grad. Will think for food.'; 鈽?br>
Reality is that you own a very valuable piece of the human capital pie but you need to get the rest of the pie too. You'll need some experience in something and some industry specific verification of skill (certification) and you'll have a solid resume to work with.
Add: People that don't have one will have all sorts of opinions about what you can do with it. Unless they work in HR, how would they know? It's ';this guy told me...'; - and if they do work in HR then they (statistically) have an undergrad in Liberal Arts or Social Studies. hmmmm Ask people that have one what it's good for.What can i do with a Bachelors in liberal studies?
I had a similar experience in college. I thought becoming an elementary school teacher would be a good path, but sometime midway through my Junior year I changed my mind.
It happened that I got a job in the college library (during senior year). I decided to finish up the degree and figure out my future afterwards. What eventually happened (after working a year and a half in a couple different libraries and substitute teaching) was that I decided to go to library school for a master's.
That was 1989-1990. I'm still happily employed as a librarian and my broad general knowledge and comfort in many subject areas has served me well.
There are lots of other options... Get some advice from your academic counselor, division office or faculty - explore some other career options. Whatever you decide, you've laid some good ground work and the time in college will seem like nothing ten years down the road.
Some sites of interest:
http://www.csuohio.edu/class/liberalstud鈥?/a>
http://www.csuchico.edu/careers/students鈥?/a>
';Liberal studies'; is a joke and a waste of your valuable youth and time.
you can substitute teach!
wow... what do you even have to do to teach math? calc 1, 2 maybe? sheesh...
What can you do with liberal studies? Jack sh*t.
You already spent two years on it you might as well finish it.
First of all don't get down on yourself, you at least are in college and trying your best, which is what many kids aren't even doing right now!
So take a break and realize things will still turn out okay even if you have to graduate with this degree .
And whatever you do, at least GRADUATE with some degree, don't drop out of course. But it WILL be hard to find a job with this major, it is just too generic. (GRAD school as an exception, it works fine for that yes, like the other yahoo user said!)
Maybe you could get into a career that takes people from all majors and trains them onsite, but it will still be difficult. I've sometimes seen in our paper like there was such a demand for social workers that they said you could get the job with almost any college degree as long as you took lots of social science courses like sociologoy and psychology, but for most careers this would be hard to get into them with a liberal arts degree. And unless you want to worry about employment after college, which is WHY you went to college in the first place, or at least probably the main reason you went, then you might need to take another semester to solidify a degree.
But on the opposite side of this argument I've known TONS of adults who graduated with one degree and are in a completely different line of work, so it could still work out just fine. My sister-in-law graduated with a psych. degree and had to sell cars for awhile but now she runs a head hunting company/recruiters. And she would have majored in business if she had known this, instead of psych, but it still worked out.
On a personal note (not to bore you though) I majored in business adm. and in the 80's couldn't find work as a new grad, so anyway to make a long story short, I ended up pregnant and a stay-at-home mom and then because I was at home I could help support my husband by doing daycare and then he went to grad school and became a doctor. And then because earlier in our life, when we were 26 one of my husband's companies he worked at burned down, we had to move to a completely different state, but if we hadn't moved, we wouldn't have adopted our son that was born and left up for adoption in this new state. So I guess what I'm saying is this one thing might be happening for a reason you don't even understand yet. And it might still turn out to be something unexpectedly good!
And even if all you can get is the liberal arts degree, getting most real jobs in the real world comes down to WHO YOU KNOW and how well you do in an interview. The world is still at your feet, as long as you get a college degree.
Talk to you counselors at your univeristy or college and ask for LOTS of advice, you need some help from the advisors who can look at all your classes and come up with a doable plan to get you a real major that you will enjoy. But again, don't give up, take another semsester if you have to, but I wouldn't waste the money on a whole other 3 years of something just to have a certain degree, because to be honest with you, you don't sound that sure anyway what you want to do yet, so those 3 years and thousands of dollars might just add up to you being in the same place in 3 years as you are now, but just in more DEBT.
So spend more time thinking what kind of life and career you want. Who knows after a lot of thinking, you might find you were meant to be a chef, or a photographer, or something that you aren't even taking classes for right now. Everything will be just fine, it might just take a while to find your path in life! Well good luck either way in your future! Sierra
One has to ask why you chose that major to begin with. It's not the usual path to a math teaching career. It's well suited for teaching lower grades. Vocationally, that's about it. It's not a vocational qualifier.
The BA/BS in Liberal Studies (I have one too) is an academic degree designed to develop your ability to think, reason, analyze, synthesize, evaluate, etc... In other words, to be a scholar. It's a hugely broad degree with very little practical application on its own. You'll find that it has prepared you to be something that this society detests and won't pay for - an intellectual.
Combined with specific training/experience it can be incredibly valuable because, unlike those with a specific major, you're not confined to one field and are able to join various fields together. You could now pursue any number of technical/vocational certifications and find yourself in a management role with a little experience.
As a prerequisite for graduate or professional study it is excellent - provided your GPA is high. It's well suited for entering any number of master's fields as well as law school.
It does qualify you to apply for all the jobs (very many) that require a degree but don't specify a specific major. These include sales, management, marketing, writing, and the like at the entry-level.
What you are likely to find is that the degree doesn't immediately return on your investment but that by mid-career you begin to pass the subject specialist degree holders as a generalist.
You could always make some business cards and become a consultant. ';Generally knowledgeable guy. Liberal Studies grad. Will think for food.'; 鈽?br>
Reality is that you own a very valuable piece of the human capital pie but you need to get the rest of the pie too. You'll need some experience in something and some industry specific verification of skill (certification) and you'll have a solid resume to work with.
Add: People that don't have one will have all sorts of opinions about what you can do with it. Unless they work in HR, how would they know? It's ';this guy told me...'; - and if they do work in HR then they (statistically) have an undergrad in Liberal Arts or Social Studies. hmmmm Ask people that have one what it's good for.What can i do with a Bachelors in liberal studies?
I had a similar experience in college. I thought becoming an elementary school teacher would be a good path, but sometime midway through my Junior year I changed my mind.
It happened that I got a job in the college library (during senior year). I decided to finish up the degree and figure out my future afterwards. What eventually happened (after working a year and a half in a couple different libraries and substitute teaching) was that I decided to go to library school for a master's.
That was 1989-1990. I'm still happily employed as a librarian and my broad general knowledge and comfort in many subject areas has served me well.
There are lots of other options... Get some advice from your academic counselor, division office or faculty - explore some other career options. Whatever you decide, you've laid some good ground work and the time in college will seem like nothing ten years down the road.
Some sites of interest:
http://www.csuohio.edu/class/liberalstud鈥?/a>
http://www.csuchico.edu/careers/students鈥?/a>
';Liberal studies'; is a joke and a waste of your valuable youth and time.
you can substitute teach!
wow... what do you even have to do to teach math? calc 1, 2 maybe? sheesh...
What can you do with liberal studies? Jack sh*t.
You already spent two years on it you might as well finish it.
First of all don't get down on yourself, you at least are in college and trying your best, which is what many kids aren't even doing right now!
So take a break and realize things will still turn out okay even if you have to graduate with this degree .
And whatever you do, at least GRADUATE with some degree, don't drop out of course. But it WILL be hard to find a job with this major, it is just too generic. (GRAD school as an exception, it works fine for that yes, like the other yahoo user said!)
Maybe you could get into a career that takes people from all majors and trains them onsite, but it will still be difficult. I've sometimes seen in our paper like there was such a demand for social workers that they said you could get the job with almost any college degree as long as you took lots of social science courses like sociologoy and psychology, but for most careers this would be hard to get into them with a liberal arts degree. And unless you want to worry about employment after college, which is WHY you went to college in the first place, or at least probably the main reason you went, then you might need to take another semester to solidify a degree.
But on the opposite side of this argument I've known TONS of adults who graduated with one degree and are in a completely different line of work, so it could still work out just fine. My sister-in-law graduated with a psych. degree and had to sell cars for awhile but now she runs a head hunting company/recruiters. And she would have majored in business if she had known this, instead of psych, but it still worked out.
On a personal note (not to bore you though) I majored in business adm. and in the 80's couldn't find work as a new grad, so anyway to make a long story short, I ended up pregnant and a stay-at-home mom and then because I was at home I could help support my husband by doing daycare and then he went to grad school and became a doctor. And then because earlier in our life, when we were 26 one of my husband's companies he worked at burned down, we had to move to a completely different state, but if we hadn't moved, we wouldn't have adopted our son that was born and left up for adoption in this new state. So I guess what I'm saying is this one thing might be happening for a reason you don't even understand yet. And it might still turn out to be something unexpectedly good!
And even if all you can get is the liberal arts degree, getting most real jobs in the real world comes down to WHO YOU KNOW and how well you do in an interview. The world is still at your feet, as long as you get a college degree.
Talk to you counselors at your univeristy or college and ask for LOTS of advice, you need some help from the advisors who can look at all your classes and come up with a doable plan to get you a real major that you will enjoy. But again, don't give up, take another semsester if you have to, but I wouldn't waste the money on a whole other 3 years of something just to have a certain degree, because to be honest with you, you don't sound that sure anyway what you want to do yet, so those 3 years and thousands of dollars might just add up to you being in the same place in 3 years as you are now, but just in more DEBT.
So spend more time thinking what kind of life and career you want. Who knows after a lot of thinking, you might find you were meant to be a chef, or a photographer, or something that you aren't even taking classes for right now. Everything will be just fine, it might just take a while to find your path in life! Well good luck either way in your future! Sierra
If Obama wins and Republicans say it was Liberal media bias, will they finally admit Kerry was a plant?
I admit Obama is playing the camera like crazy along with obvious wooing of the liberal youth but so what? How is choosing a bimbo for a running mate any better? Or lying about your past and pushing family values you never had? Both sides are dirty, so will Republicans admit Bush is a cheat?
I see damn well what's going on with Obama and I admit it, is the GOP Men/Women enough to do the same?If Obama wins and Republicans say it was Liberal media bias, will they finally admit Kerry was a plant?
Honey, we Democrates are able to admit when we are less than perfect, but the Republicans aren't going to ever ever ever admit to ANY wrong doing, no matter how bad it is. Bush cheated in the 2000 election, McCain picked Palin to get the Hillary votes, but it is OK as long as they get to the top and rule. They will never never ever admit the TRUTH, because Republicans are born liars.If Obama wins and Republicans say it was Liberal media bias, will they finally admit Kerry was a plant?
He can't win now, all of the voters ACORN registered for him, are being thrown out. And the FBI is going after Obama, for paying ACORN $800.00 for their criminal service. Say it with me now, President John McCain.
What kind of plant do you think he was, or is?
I see damn well what's going on with Obama and I admit it, is the GOP Men/Women enough to do the same?If Obama wins and Republicans say it was Liberal media bias, will they finally admit Kerry was a plant?
Honey, we Democrates are able to admit when we are less than perfect, but the Republicans aren't going to ever ever ever admit to ANY wrong doing, no matter how bad it is. Bush cheated in the 2000 election, McCain picked Palin to get the Hillary votes, but it is OK as long as they get to the top and rule. They will never never ever admit the TRUTH, because Republicans are born liars.If Obama wins and Republicans say it was Liberal media bias, will they finally admit Kerry was a plant?
He can't win now, all of the voters ACORN registered for him, are being thrown out. And the FBI is going after Obama, for paying ACORN $800.00 for their criminal service. Say it with me now, President John McCain.
What kind of plant do you think he was, or is?
What does it mean to be an economic liberal and a social libertarian?
I took a test on politicalcompass.org and that is what my results said. I was more socially libertarian than I was economically liberal. They put me near the Dalli Lama.What does it mean to be an economic liberal and a social libertarian?
Sounds like a Standard Liberal to me. Empower minorities, even at the expense of others, and take from those who produce to give to those who don't produce.What does it mean to be an economic liberal and a social libertarian?
Rizzo, you are right on.white hair
Sounds like a Standard Liberal to me. Empower minorities, even at the expense of others, and take from those who produce to give to those who don't produce.What does it mean to be an economic liberal and a social libertarian?
Rizzo, you are right on.
How do you tell the difference between a liberal family and a conservative family?
From looking at family backgrounds ... how can you tell the difference between someone who comes from a liberal family and someone who comes from a conservative family?How do you tell the difference between a liberal family and a conservative family?
It's slightly hard to tell.
Even by looking at their clothes... I read about a study where people tried to guess political affiliations by what they were wearing and most of them were wrong. They thought this woman in a t-shirt and jeans was a Democrat when she was really a Republican.
Your best guess is looking at picket signs, usually. Or maybe in certain areas... there will be very little Republicans in poor areas. But you can't assume at the same time a rich person is conservative.How do you tell the difference between a liberal family and a conservative family?
Hmm... Well since all of the gross generalizations on here are wrong for our family, I guess you can't really tell by looking. Both my husband and I are conservative.
Accusation #1: Conservatives don't have college degrees.
My husband has degrees in mathematics and chemistry; I have a variety of degrees in English and French with a minor in philosophy.
Accusation #2: All conservatives believe in 'fairy tales'. (I'm assuming you're referring to religion or god.)
My husband is an agnostic. I have religious leanings, but I'm not involved in any church or organized religion.
I could go on, but it's not worth it. Just don't generalize or stereotype.
From looking at family backgrounds, you can't.
Take my family for example. There are lawyers, teachers, doctors and clergy in my family. Almost all of us own at least one firearm. Most are pro-life and all of us (except one weird cousin) are liberal.
Oh i thought there was going to be a punch line. :( there is not way you can tell from there back ground if there right or left? you just have to ask them. Good luck and never trust the government.
I doubt it. Our family was conservative Democrat and Republican. There is no possible way I can think of to tell how my family is.
Liberal families believe in science. Conservative families believe in fairy tales.
Just look at those Democrate's congresspersons and their families, those are the typical example of liberal families.
You can't. Everyone is different.
Unless of course they have Obama or McCain signs in their yard.
Liberals will say they HAVE to go to work. Conservatives will say they WANT to go to work. One would rather get a handout and the other would rather make it on his own.
Conservatives have horns and a tail.
A college degree.
I can't tell. If you can please enlighten me.
can't tell all families have their own problems
I don't.
It's slightly hard to tell.
Even by looking at their clothes... I read about a study where people tried to guess political affiliations by what they were wearing and most of them were wrong. They thought this woman in a t-shirt and jeans was a Democrat when she was really a Republican.
Your best guess is looking at picket signs, usually. Or maybe in certain areas... there will be very little Republicans in poor areas. But you can't assume at the same time a rich person is conservative.How do you tell the difference between a liberal family and a conservative family?
Hmm... Well since all of the gross generalizations on here are wrong for our family, I guess you can't really tell by looking. Both my husband and I are conservative.
Accusation #1: Conservatives don't have college degrees.
My husband has degrees in mathematics and chemistry; I have a variety of degrees in English and French with a minor in philosophy.
Accusation #2: All conservatives believe in 'fairy tales'. (I'm assuming you're referring to religion or god.)
My husband is an agnostic. I have religious leanings, but I'm not involved in any church or organized religion.
I could go on, but it's not worth it. Just don't generalize or stereotype.
From looking at family backgrounds, you can't.
Take my family for example. There are lawyers, teachers, doctors and clergy in my family. Almost all of us own at least one firearm. Most are pro-life and all of us (except one weird cousin) are liberal.
Oh i thought there was going to be a punch line. :( there is not way you can tell from there back ground if there right or left? you just have to ask them. Good luck and never trust the government.
I doubt it. Our family was conservative Democrat and Republican. There is no possible way I can think of to tell how my family is.
Liberal families believe in science. Conservative families believe in fairy tales.
Just look at those Democrate's congresspersons and their families, those are the typical example of liberal families.
You can't. Everyone is different.
Unless of course they have Obama or McCain signs in their yard.
Liberals will say they HAVE to go to work. Conservatives will say they WANT to go to work. One would rather get a handout and the other would rather make it on his own.
Conservatives have horns and a tail.
A college degree.
I can't tell. If you can please enlighten me.
can't tell all families have their own problems
I don't.
How can I take advantages from the current liberal government?
I'm serious. I'm a republican but I want to take full advantage of our current government but don't know how.
Any advise? Any web site about it?How can I take advantages from the current liberal government?
Quit your job and stop paying your mortgage. Maybe refinance to get cash back or buy a much larger house than you can really afford.How can I take advantages from the current liberal government?
Hm, I see you are definitely a typical Republican trying to take advantage of things (hence their continuing desire to deregulate). How sad...
Sit on your butt in your mom's basement and post stupid questions on YA all day.
Oh, wait, you already do that.
Nevermind.
Dodge taxes. Never underestimate the power of the ';business expense'; that gets redirected to a swiss bank account.
If you were a woman you could birth a lotta babies and collect mo money mo money mo .
stop doing things, and collect.
Any advise? Any web site about it?How can I take advantages from the current liberal government?
Quit your job and stop paying your mortgage. Maybe refinance to get cash back or buy a much larger house than you can really afford.How can I take advantages from the current liberal government?
Hm, I see you are definitely a typical Republican trying to take advantage of things (hence their continuing desire to deregulate). How sad...
Sit on your butt in your mom's basement and post stupid questions on YA all day.
Oh, wait, you already do that.
Nevermind.
Dodge taxes. Never underestimate the power of the ';business expense'; that gets redirected to a swiss bank account.
If you were a woman you could birth a lotta babies and collect mo money mo money mo .
stop doing things, and collect.
Can the Liberal Democrats sneak a victory in the next UK general election?
Nobody wants New Labour back in Power and the conservatives are still a very poor party.Can the Liberal Democrats sneak a victory in the next UK general election?
I think its highly unlikely that the Liberals will win, but whatever happens its going to be a close one. Im expecting a coalition.Can the Liberal Democrats sneak a victory in the next UK general election?
Trouble is, the vote is now splitting. Lib Dem are not taking any votes from Conservative, just Labour. Which means that the tories have the majority. Conservatives will stick with what they know, even though Nick Clegg is far more right wing than the majority of his party.
So, no. I do not think this is possible. As always, it's a 2 horse race.
By the way, ';New Labour'; is considered a fairly Blairite term by most members of the Labour Party these days. It wasn't ever an official party name, but isn't used on the whole by them now.
Maybe but I have a strong feeling labour will win again. Gordon Brown is an idiot and everyone knows it but he's trying to up his game... like being the first European leader to meet Obama AND because our society it getting extremely liberal. I think Conservatives should win.
They've got more chance of winning the election than I've got of winning the jackpot on the lottery for 52 consecutive weeks. It won't happen!
I'll vote for them but I don't think they'll win, let's be honest! They could hold the balance of power in a hung parliament though.
not a chance the poltical scene is moving to the right of centre not the left of centre.
( the prime minister smiles in a sinister manner as he enjoys the thought of plans yet to come to fruition )
the structure of the British political system , im afraid to say, is against them (and deliberately so)
I wish the UK still had Tony Blair, I liked him. (besides the fact that he acted to kindly to Bush)
If Vince Cable was the leader then I think they would be in with a chance.
They have no vision for Britain. They deliver a few populist speeches which they hope may resonate with the voters, but there seems to be no depth of understanding of the real sickness that is gradually destroying this country. We must not risk our nation's future with a party that appears to be essentially no different from the failed Conservatives and Labour.
Vote BNP!
I think its highly unlikely that the Liberals will win, but whatever happens its going to be a close one. Im expecting a coalition.Can the Liberal Democrats sneak a victory in the next UK general election?
Trouble is, the vote is now splitting. Lib Dem are not taking any votes from Conservative, just Labour. Which means that the tories have the majority. Conservatives will stick with what they know, even though Nick Clegg is far more right wing than the majority of his party.
So, no. I do not think this is possible. As always, it's a 2 horse race.
By the way, ';New Labour'; is considered a fairly Blairite term by most members of the Labour Party these days. It wasn't ever an official party name, but isn't used on the whole by them now.
Maybe but I have a strong feeling labour will win again. Gordon Brown is an idiot and everyone knows it but he's trying to up his game... like being the first European leader to meet Obama AND because our society it getting extremely liberal. I think Conservatives should win.
They've got more chance of winning the election than I've got of winning the jackpot on the lottery for 52 consecutive weeks. It won't happen!
I'll vote for them but I don't think they'll win, let's be honest! They could hold the balance of power in a hung parliament though.
not a chance the poltical scene is moving to the right of centre not the left of centre.
( the prime minister smiles in a sinister manner as he enjoys the thought of plans yet to come to fruition )
the structure of the British political system , im afraid to say, is against them (and deliberately so)
I wish the UK still had Tony Blair, I liked him. (besides the fact that he acted to kindly to Bush)
If Vince Cable was the leader then I think they would be in with a chance.
They have no vision for Britain. They deliver a few populist speeches which they hope may resonate with the voters, but there seems to be no depth of understanding of the real sickness that is gradually destroying this country. We must not risk our nation's future with a party that appears to be essentially no different from the failed Conservatives and Labour.
Vote BNP!
What would you do if a brain washed liberal zombie bit your finger off?
Liberals are friken animals biting peoples body parts off!
Is this Acorn's new strategy?What would you do if a brain washed liberal zombie bit your finger off?
Have the Doctor that is sewing back on my finger to give me an aids test when he's done with his thread and needle.What would you do if a brain washed liberal zombie bit your finger off?
I think it is hilarious. Vocal louts who physically accost others should realize there is a consequence.
Too hilarious that the old man had to use his socialized insurance to remedy the problem.
I know better to put my finger near a persons mouth if I am fighting them.
You did not read the whole story did you?
If bit by a liberal zombie I think the best idea is to suicide immediately before you turn into one!
I would wonder if it the death panels considered it something that qualified for an end of life counseling session if I were his age ...
I would go to an Emergency Room, where I would be treated, whether or not I had insurance.
I would probably cut my whole arm off, because I don't want to be infected with liberalitis
Never happen.
I don't go around sticking my finger in their faces.
I have more sense than to stick my finger into a zombie's mouth. `
I would regret putting my fist in his mouth.
take him and or her and make them barf
I'm not a frail old man, so I doubt the hippie would attack me.
Is this Acorn's new strategy?What would you do if a brain washed liberal zombie bit your finger off?
Have the Doctor that is sewing back on my finger to give me an aids test when he's done with his thread and needle.What would you do if a brain washed liberal zombie bit your finger off?
I think it is hilarious. Vocal louts who physically accost others should realize there is a consequence.
Too hilarious that the old man had to use his socialized insurance to remedy the problem.
I know better to put my finger near a persons mouth if I am fighting them.
You did not read the whole story did you?
If bit by a liberal zombie I think the best idea is to suicide immediately before you turn into one!
I would wonder if it the death panels considered it something that qualified for an end of life counseling session if I were his age ...
I would go to an Emergency Room, where I would be treated, whether or not I had insurance.
I would probably cut my whole arm off, because I don't want to be infected with liberalitis
Never happen.
I don't go around sticking my finger in their faces.
I have more sense than to stick my finger into a zombie's mouth. `
I would regret putting my fist in his mouth.
take him and or her and make them barf
I'm not a frail old man, so I doubt the hippie would attack me.
Would the liberal democrats still vote for Hillary if she were married to Obama?
Honesty here is key. I don't believe Libs are as open minded as they'd like everyone to believe.Would the liberal democrats still vote for Hillary if she were married to Obama?
Are you trying to scare America to death? What a nightmare....Would the liberal democrats still vote for Hillary if she were married to Obama?
Uhm, if Obama and Clinton were married, it is highly unlikely that they would run against each other.
If you mean would I vote for a candidate who married outside his or her race, it would make absolutely no difference for me. I would make my decision based and issues and character. An interracial marriage would not have bothered me when I was a Republican. Why would it bother me now that I am a Democrat?
Liberals are not open minded they are closed minded! They think they know all the answers! When in reality they don't even understand the questions cause they don't know the facts or the history , just as Obama is- he dances around the important issues, now he knows he HAS to start answering them and we are finding out that he is just making it up as he goes along, he has NO EXPERIENCE!
Vote McCain!
That would require a double divorce. This is the major flaw with this election: focusing in on distractions not germane to the issue.
I am not interested in this degrading ';what if.....'; scenario that floats up like bubbling gasses.
The real problem is that NONE of the candidate merit being president. If you wish to expose presumed hypocrisy, it's not going to work.
let's flip the question around: Would conservatives support Mccain if he divorced his wife and married Obama's wife instead?
See how patently absurd this line of ';thinking'; is?
well i dont think so. I mean i am a republican so i would never vote for her or Barack Obama....not even if someone paid me. The liberals are not open minded at all. they just tell everyone that they are and act like they are that thats how they get votes. most republicans though on the other hand say it how it is and dont sugar coat the real issues. Like the Iraq war for instance.
oh and i like you avatar.
Part of Obama's appeal comes from his biracial background. And it's a fact that Obama's father liked white women. And HiIlary's an opportunist, so she'd probably try anything. I think people would accept it.
And Bill probably wouldn't stand in the way, since (based on his background) he's probably a little curious about Michelle.
after Obama divorce his first-time proud of USA wife and Bill and Hillary separates? That would be possible on the next election - but Hillary will be teaching him everything... I mean, everything.
Honesty here is key?
Alrighty then. No, Hillary would have probably planted poison in their wedding cake before feeding him the first bite.
it would never happen. Obama would never marry Hilary because she is white and that means he would have to embrace his white side.
Are you trying to scare America to death? What a nightmare....Would the liberal democrats still vote for Hillary if she were married to Obama?
Uhm, if Obama and Clinton were married, it is highly unlikely that they would run against each other.
If you mean would I vote for a candidate who married outside his or her race, it would make absolutely no difference for me. I would make my decision based and issues and character. An interracial marriage would not have bothered me when I was a Republican. Why would it bother me now that I am a Democrat?
Liberals are not open minded they are closed minded! They think they know all the answers! When in reality they don't even understand the questions cause they don't know the facts or the history , just as Obama is- he dances around the important issues, now he knows he HAS to start answering them and we are finding out that he is just making it up as he goes along, he has NO EXPERIENCE!
Vote McCain!
That would require a double divorce. This is the major flaw with this election: focusing in on distractions not germane to the issue.
I am not interested in this degrading ';what if.....'; scenario that floats up like bubbling gasses.
The real problem is that NONE of the candidate merit being president. If you wish to expose presumed hypocrisy, it's not going to work.
let's flip the question around: Would conservatives support Mccain if he divorced his wife and married Obama's wife instead?
See how patently absurd this line of ';thinking'; is?
well i dont think so. I mean i am a republican so i would never vote for her or Barack Obama....not even if someone paid me. The liberals are not open minded at all. they just tell everyone that they are and act like they are that thats how they get votes. most republicans though on the other hand say it how it is and dont sugar coat the real issues. Like the Iraq war for instance.
oh and i like you avatar.
Part of Obama's appeal comes from his biracial background. And it's a fact that Obama's father liked white women. And HiIlary's an opportunist, so she'd probably try anything. I think people would accept it.
And Bill probably wouldn't stand in the way, since (based on his background) he's probably a little curious about Michelle.
after Obama divorce his first-time proud of USA wife and Bill and Hillary separates? That would be possible on the next election - but Hillary will be teaching him everything... I mean, everything.
Honesty here is key?
Alrighty then. No, Hillary would have probably planted poison in their wedding cake before feeding him the first bite.
it would never happen. Obama would never marry Hilary because she is white and that means he would have to embrace his white side.
What's the difference between Social Sciences and Liberal Arts?
In terms of TAFE/University courses. Is there any difference?What's the difference between Social Sciences and Liberal Arts?
Social Sciences would be a division of Liberal Arts. Liberal Arts is a general education and would include things like Literature, Math, Art/Music, Science, Philosophy, History, etc.
Social Sciences would focus on things like Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, Communication, History, etc. It is a more narrow focus concentrating on the social life of human beings.What's the difference between Social Sciences and Liberal Arts?
Liberal arts refers to a general education with no real focus.
Social science is a field of psychology or sociology that deals with human behavior and interaction with each other.
1 is science and the other is artwhite hair
Social Sciences would be a division of Liberal Arts. Liberal Arts is a general education and would include things like Literature, Math, Art/Music, Science, Philosophy, History, etc.
Social Sciences would focus on things like Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, Communication, History, etc. It is a more narrow focus concentrating on the social life of human beings.What's the difference between Social Sciences and Liberal Arts?
Liberal arts refers to a general education with no real focus.
Social science is a field of psychology or sociology that deals with human behavior and interaction with each other.
1 is science and the other is art
What's the difference between a regular liberal and a libtard?
Also, what's the difference between a regular conservative and a neocon?What's the difference between a regular liberal and a libtard?
A regular liberal wants to give away his own hard-earned money, while a libtard wants everyone ELSE to give away theirs.
A regular conservative works for a living and pays his own way, while a neocon talks a lot, but doesn't actually vote or work.What's the difference between a regular liberal and a libtard?
A liberal believes in individualism
A libtard demands everyone to think like them.
A conservative believes in individualism
A neocon demands everyone to think like them
I am a liberal
I respect consevatives
I do not respect libtards or neocons, they are zealots.
They will resort to any means to get their agenda shoved down our throats.
Peace
Jim
.
there is no difference, as for the latter- conservative can mean several things, a neocon is someone following a specific philosophy in order to achieve certain goals.
The difference is the fear in your eyes.
Same answer for your second question.
The answer to both questions: Larry Craig in the Charlie Crist School of Tapdancing! Keep tappin!
huh i don't know
A regular liberal wants to give away his own hard-earned money, while a libtard wants everyone ELSE to give away theirs.
A regular conservative works for a living and pays his own way, while a neocon talks a lot, but doesn't actually vote or work.What's the difference between a regular liberal and a libtard?
A liberal believes in individualism
A libtard demands everyone to think like them.
A conservative believes in individualism
A neocon demands everyone to think like them
I am a liberal
I respect consevatives
I do not respect libtards or neocons, they are zealots.
They will resort to any means to get their agenda shoved down our throats.
Peace
Jim
.
there is no difference, as for the latter- conservative can mean several things, a neocon is someone following a specific philosophy in order to achieve certain goals.
The difference is the fear in your eyes.
Same answer for your second question.
The answer to both questions: Larry Craig in the Charlie Crist School of Tapdancing! Keep tappin!
huh i don't know
What is in the sleeves of the liberal democratic government?
Why the liberal democratic government say: Do not waste the crisis; it provided us a way to carry out our hidden agenda! Why don't they reveal what their agenda are by being flank with American people? Do they have right to lead the people of this great country blind-foldly? Do they print bills out-of-controledly in order to cause inflation and rob people's savings? I demand answers. We all demand answers!What is in the sleeves of the liberal democratic government?
The same as what is in their heads... NOTHING!
Republican from before she was born... and PROUD of it.What is in the sleeves of the liberal democratic government?
There is very little difference between the Dem congress and prez and Repub congress and Prez. (Flank? Blind-foldedly? Out of controledly?) The whole ';They are out to rob the citizens'; theme has been around since the first government ever. When you do not agree, it seems worse. What would be the possible benefit of bankrupting the people? How could that help them in any way?
Your spelling and grammar is atrocious. You are in no position to demand anything.
we demand coherent questions
Total control.
They don't do any of that...stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Unless you want to provide a source...
The same as what is in their heads... NOTHING!
Republican from before she was born... and PROUD of it.What is in the sleeves of the liberal democratic government?
There is very little difference between the Dem congress and prez and Repub congress and Prez. (Flank? Blind-foldedly? Out of controledly?) The whole ';They are out to rob the citizens'; theme has been around since the first government ever. When you do not agree, it seems worse. What would be the possible benefit of bankrupting the people? How could that help them in any way?
Your spelling and grammar is atrocious. You are in no position to demand anything.
we demand coherent questions
Total control.
They don't do any of that...stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Unless you want to provide a source...
Why do democrats always pick the most liberal senator furthest to the left?
Have they not figured out yet that doesn't work in the general election?Why do democrats always pick the most liberal senator furthest to the left?
Actually, according to most of the groups that rate members of Congress (including several conservative groups like the Club for Growth, Americans for Tax Relief, Concerned Women for America, etc.) Senator Obama was the most conservative or tied for the most conservative of the four current Democratic Senators running. (Because the ratings are based on votes on specific bills, it's not possible to compare House rankings to Senate rankings or previous rankings -- e.g. Richardson and Edwards -- to current ratings.)
If you want to know who was the most liberal of the candidates running, the liberal groups say Hillary Clinton and the conservative groups say Chris Dodd. Both conservative and liberal groups, overall, place Senator Obama in the middle of all Democratic Senators.
p.s. In the same rankings, liberal groups rank John McCain as one of the most conservative senators while conservative groups place him in the middle of the Republican Party.Why do democrats always pick the most liberal senator furthest to the left?
Because they are idiots. I am a democrat but I do not agree with the far left issues. 75 percent of the country does not. i am talking about gay rights and affirmative action. I going to jump ship and vote for a third party. I am sick of democrats always put these issues ahead of every thing else. They hurt me more them hope me.
Obama isn't the furtherst to the left. This is something that has been distorted by the radical right. Kucinich is more to the left than Obama.
Nope.. even after in 2006 they were smart enough to select 'moderate'; Democrats to win seats, they've tossed the idea out the door and returned to their poor selection of a Presidential candidate
More liberal than SOCIALIST senator Bernie Sanders?
That WOULD be quite an achievement!
They don't and this general election cycle is very different.
Their level of arrogance is off the charts and they will never seem to get a clue. Say hello to President McCain.
Sorry Nancy Pelosi.
I would never accuse them of being intelligent.
They have been ';hijacked'; by a non-American socialist movement entitled CHANGE!
I guess they like defeat,there are way more conservatives than liberals in this country, And that's a good thing.
you watch to much fux new channel McCain candidacy is dome in November
I guess they like to lose.
it must be some kind of death wish;; or they just cant handle winning;;
that wasn't a very funny punchline
Obama's not left. He's CENTER. He's a moderate.
He speaks on the issues that matters to Americans the most.
Not extreme policies of the religious right like John ';Bomb's Away!';-McSame.
Actually, according to most of the groups that rate members of Congress (including several conservative groups like the Club for Growth, Americans for Tax Relief, Concerned Women for America, etc.) Senator Obama was the most conservative or tied for the most conservative of the four current Democratic Senators running. (Because the ratings are based on votes on specific bills, it's not possible to compare House rankings to Senate rankings or previous rankings -- e.g. Richardson and Edwards -- to current ratings.)
If you want to know who was the most liberal of the candidates running, the liberal groups say Hillary Clinton and the conservative groups say Chris Dodd. Both conservative and liberal groups, overall, place Senator Obama in the middle of all Democratic Senators.
p.s. In the same rankings, liberal groups rank John McCain as one of the most conservative senators while conservative groups place him in the middle of the Republican Party.Why do democrats always pick the most liberal senator furthest to the left?
Because they are idiots. I am a democrat but I do not agree with the far left issues. 75 percent of the country does not. i am talking about gay rights and affirmative action. I going to jump ship and vote for a third party. I am sick of democrats always put these issues ahead of every thing else. They hurt me more them hope me.
Obama isn't the furtherst to the left. This is something that has been distorted by the radical right. Kucinich is more to the left than Obama.
Nope.. even after in 2006 they were smart enough to select 'moderate'; Democrats to win seats, they've tossed the idea out the door and returned to their poor selection of a Presidential candidate
More liberal than SOCIALIST senator Bernie Sanders?
That WOULD be quite an achievement!
They don't and this general election cycle is very different.
Their level of arrogance is off the charts and they will never seem to get a clue. Say hello to President McCain.
Sorry Nancy Pelosi.
I would never accuse them of being intelligent.
They have been ';hijacked'; by a non-American socialist movement entitled CHANGE!
I guess they like defeat,there are way more conservatives than liberals in this country, And that's a good thing.
you watch to much fux new channel McCain candidacy is dome in November
I guess they like to lose.
it must be some kind of death wish;; or they just cant handle winning;;
that wasn't a very funny punchline
Obama's not left. He's CENTER. He's a moderate.
He speaks on the issues that matters to Americans the most.
Not extreme policies of the religious right like John ';Bomb's Away!';-McSame.
What does it mean to be politically liberal?
I'm writing an essay on being politically liberal but I can't find any real information on what it means. If you could, give an example and an explanation.What does it mean to be politically liberal?
To be politically ';liberal'; means that you are pro abortion, anti gun, pro big governmant, pro amnesty for illegal aliens, you want draconion taxes imposed upon the rich, you think healthcare is a right, you think the military is evil and shouldn't be funded, and that people that do not work or are non-productive members of society should get a hand out.What does it mean to be politically liberal?
When you are a kid you think like a kid then you are a liberal. As you start discovering principles that work in all areas of life that tells you there is an absolute truth but you can't know in its fullness, then you start moving toward conservatism. Politically liberal means that there is a political truth but we can only discover ';principles'; that works. Many people don't give a hoot about truth because they are more interested on what they can earn. Many political leaders are there for their personal gain and don't care about truth. So there are librals because of ignorance and also because personal interests.
Liberal: Noun; can be used as adjective.
A way to describe a lazy person, often times a minority, that does not feel like working, but wants to live a lavish lifestyle. Main opponents of the hard working, moral conservatives.
It's common for Liberals not to know what they believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
It may scare you to find out.
I think of myself as a 1950's Liberal Modern Republican
it means you think before you open you mouth. or do something dumb. conservative USED to mean that. But that changed when they started working together against us.
It means being very generous with other people's money.
For example , charging the middle class a 14% tax on their adjusted gross income to pay for someone elses medical coverage.
Look up ';liberal'; in WikiPedia.
The answers here will be mostly garbage.
Liberal = Selfish Laziness
It can be summed up as being out of touch with reality.
It's the polite way to say brain dead.
to want others to support you while you refuse to work
To be politically ';liberal'; means that you are pro abortion, anti gun, pro big governmant, pro amnesty for illegal aliens, you want draconion taxes imposed upon the rich, you think healthcare is a right, you think the military is evil and shouldn't be funded, and that people that do not work or are non-productive members of society should get a hand out.What does it mean to be politically liberal?
When you are a kid you think like a kid then you are a liberal. As you start discovering principles that work in all areas of life that tells you there is an absolute truth but you can't know in its fullness, then you start moving toward conservatism. Politically liberal means that there is a political truth but we can only discover ';principles'; that works. Many people don't give a hoot about truth because they are more interested on what they can earn. Many political leaders are there for their personal gain and don't care about truth. So there are librals because of ignorance and also because personal interests.
Liberal: Noun; can be used as adjective.
A way to describe a lazy person, often times a minority, that does not feel like working, but wants to live a lavish lifestyle. Main opponents of the hard working, moral conservatives.
It's common for Liberals not to know what they believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
It may scare you to find out.
I think of myself as a 1950's Liberal Modern Republican
it means you think before you open you mouth. or do something dumb. conservative USED to mean that. But that changed when they started working together against us.
It means being very generous with other people's money.
For example , charging the middle class a 14% tax on their adjusted gross income to pay for someone elses medical coverage.
Look up ';liberal'; in WikiPedia.
The answers here will be mostly garbage.
Liberal = Selfish Laziness
It can be summed up as being out of touch with reality.
It's the polite way to say brain dead.
to want others to support you while you refuse to work
How did the definitions of the words ';Liberal'; and ';Conservative'; get switched to meet a political agenda?
Like the compassionate message of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, to share with and help your neighbor is now called Conservative.
And the harsh world of Big City Gangland Politics is called Liberal.How did the definitions of the words ';Liberal'; and ';Conservative'; get switched to meet a political agenda?
This is easy..The words we use can be turned around and match whatever candidate we wish it to match..what once was a full blown communitst pinko..is now a liberal Democrat..and the Republicans are ultra right conservatives..but still middle of the road? go figure
WWJD
what would Jackie Chan Do? Karate!~How did the definitions of the words ';Liberal'; and ';Conservative'; get switched to meet a political agenda?
Because the extreme right decided they had a monopoly on religion, denouncing everyone who don't follow their right-wing views as Godless and anti-religion. It is only the extreme right's way of manipulating people of faith to support their pro-elitist agenda. Muslim right-wingers do the exact same thing. That is why I think nationalists tend to be very religious.
Not saying all religious people are nationalists, but nationalists can use religion to justify many of their actions.
If you notice, the extreme right tries to make nearly a other views appear to be false religions.
It has occured throughout history, even though the true meaning of liberal and conservative has not really changed.
It's easy when, in practice, ';Conservatives'; and ';Liberals'; do almost identical things.
Jesus was a socialist.
It hasn't I don't think.
And the harsh world of Big City Gangland Politics is called Liberal.How did the definitions of the words ';Liberal'; and ';Conservative'; get switched to meet a political agenda?
This is easy..The words we use can be turned around and match whatever candidate we wish it to match..what once was a full blown communitst pinko..is now a liberal Democrat..and the Republicans are ultra right conservatives..but still middle of the road? go figure
WWJD
what would Jackie Chan Do? Karate!~How did the definitions of the words ';Liberal'; and ';Conservative'; get switched to meet a political agenda?
Because the extreme right decided they had a monopoly on religion, denouncing everyone who don't follow their right-wing views as Godless and anti-religion. It is only the extreme right's way of manipulating people of faith to support their pro-elitist agenda. Muslim right-wingers do the exact same thing. That is why I think nationalists tend to be very religious.
Not saying all religious people are nationalists, but nationalists can use religion to justify many of their actions.
If you notice, the extreme right tries to make nearly a other views appear to be false religions.
It has occured throughout history, even though the true meaning of liberal and conservative has not really changed.
It's easy when, in practice, ';Conservatives'; and ';Liberals'; do almost identical things.
Jesus was a socialist.
It hasn't I don't think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)