What is so WRONG with being a liberal?

Webster's defines liberal as 1)suitable for a free man; not restricted 2)giving freely; generous 3)large or plentiful 4) not restricted to the "literal meaning"...

I would much rather have a "lib" help me than someone who is a conservative who would make me "toe the line" in order to receive their help.

and the list goes on. Bottom line: why do we allow fundies --who are much more radical--call the shots?

feminism, patriotism, liberalism - we must learn to FIGHT BACK - WE ARE RIGHT (no pun intended)

one of Wellstone's opponents (can't remember who) called him embarrassingly liberal. I remember people walking around with "embarrassingly liberal" button on for weeks after that :)

The problem comes from the fact that liberal embraces change. And people sometimes fear change. Particularly change which can be predictable. This is actually the founding principles behind NeoCon thinking. They fear the social shifting that progressive ideals entail. They believe that such shifts in social conditions lead to the break down of society. Eventually resulting in the destruction of civilization ... in their opinion. They simply do not believe that society can adapt and incorporate changes that are done to right perceived inequities. They would rather oppression continue in the name of preserving a society that they know functions to some extent. So in the world of their ideals liberals represent social chaos and breakdown. Tearing at the foundations of society. Yay team liberal.

having a dominionist fascist with her finger on the button represents Armageddon. I get it!

I actually heard a commercial on the radio the other day derisively describing my area of CA as liberal, "with a Prius in every driveway".

And even if this were the truth, which it certainly is not, WHY THE HELL IS THIS A BAD THING?

Do only liberals care for the environment?

so authoritarian asshats can't really control us. Plus we are always having orgies, doing drugs, aborting babies and forcing gay marriage on straight people. :eyes:

Nothing wrong with liberal! It's the "wing" of liberalism that causes Democrats problems. Anybody read, What's The matter With Kansas?

Michael Lind wrote a great piece that was re-printed in the latest issue of The Progressive Populist. It was originally in Salon:

The Newer Deal: The path to a Democratic supermajority

Today's Democrats and Republicans bear little resemblance to the pre-1968 groups of the same name. The pre-1968 Republican Party was based in the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast -- the very areas that are the base of today's "blue state" Democrats. The pre-1968 Democrats were the old Jefferson-Jackson alliance of white Southern Protestants and Northern urban Catholics, plus a big chunk of Northern Progressives, many of them former Republicans. Today the Republicans are a white working-class party based in the South and much of the West with a libertarian Wall Street wing. The Democrats since the 1970s have been an alliance of college-educated white professionals from the North and West with blacks and Latinos.

Between 1932 and 1964, the Roosevelt Party won seven of nine presidential elections, losing only in 1952 and 1956. Between 1968 and 2004, the Nixon Party won seven out of 10 presidential elections, losing only three times, to Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Was this because red-state Rooseveltians were won over to supply-side economics, while blue-state blue-bloods suddenly became enamored of abortion rights and separation of church and state? No. Today's red-state Republican children of New Deal Democrats still like Social Security, and the Republican grandparents of today's blue-state Protestant Democrats were in favor of birth control -- for the Catholics, in particular. The values of these voting blocs didn't change. The issues that defined national politics changed.

The Roosevelt Party ran on economic issues, and didn't care whether voters were in favor of sex or against it on principle as long as they supported the New Deal. The McGovern Party, by contrast, has made social issues its litmus test. Economic conservatives have had a home in the McGovern Party, as long as they support abortion rights and affirmative action, but social democrats and populists who are pro-life or anti-affirmative action are not made nearly as welcome.
MORE: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/08/15/newer_deal/print.html

Think Governor Brian Schweitzer. David Sirota calls him the most astute politician of our era. If we (God FORBID) lose this election - it will be THIS MESSAGE that will be the ticket back to the White House - maybe with Schweitzer himself leading the charge.

They don't swallow whatever the government feeds them. Thus, they are the first people attacked by every despot.

Once the fascists define an enemy no matter how irrational it is, they can blame that enemy for everything that goes wrong. This way they get away with murder.