I just hope you don't think all Democrats are as brainless as the ones at your school appear to be. Goodness knows not nearly all Dems are like that.

I know Dems who are extremely bright and intellectually honest (Mr. Zell). These guys are the ones who are spoon-fed lies and fraudulant stories from the media and Michael Moore. It's time people started joining the mind gym and working out their brain muscles because until then, there shall be no heavy thinking for them. That's right.

Henry, good to have you back. I certainly don't think they're all that mindless, though I was starting to wonder. I do, however, think all liberals are that mindless. I still feel there is a separation between Democrats and liberals, and possibly one such distinction is a brain. Am I wrong?

I don't know about Sen. Miller, but what about Pres. Clinton and Carter?

I consider myself a proud liberal, though I bet you could grill me on what a liberal stands for and I'd be drowning. For me personally, I just consider myself to be:

1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others

2. politics progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual

as the dictionary says (don't get me wrong, I don't mean to say that Republicans aren't tolerant, either). If you can talk about why you think liberals have no brains, I'd be sure to respond. I think I'd learn a thing or two by that.

To respond more to Jon, re: Michael Moore: I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11, but I'll be the first to admit what almost all Democrats seem to acknowledge -- namely, that the guy is really radical and likes attention, and isn't above skewering the facts if needed to gain that attention or make a statement.

Also, Emily... maybe you can tell by now, but I'm not wicked experienced in politics. I'm still in high school. Thus my questioning of what "liberal" means to you. Also, whenever you say "lefties," I can't help but think of left-handed people. Makes me confused. ;-)

One last post for the moment (sorry for the repetition)...

It surprises me, Emily, that you're glad I'm sticking around! I say that since on Todd's blog, you said I needed to get a hobby or something... I'm "J" on his site, you see.

Trust me, I never meant to be crafty in calling myself Henry here, but I wasn't going to start posting on your blog as "J" after you said I needed a girlfriend or a hobby.

Just, for the record -- this is my hobby (not annoying people online, but trying to engage in debate). I like politics, but only because I love this country just as much as I'm sure you do. And, while I suppose a girlfriend would be nice, I'm really quite happy just being friends with people at my school. :)

Henry, that cracks me up that you're "J." I only said the girlfriend comment because it seemed that you all did nothing else other than post on Todd's site. However, I think that you are intellectually honest, and that's why I said it was good to have you back. Unfortunately, I'm working right now, so I can't respond in full to your previous posts, but I promise I will tonight because you raised some really important topics. Keep up the critical thinking!! You need to recruit more high schoolers to be like you.

I will post soon, Scout's honor.

Hi Henry, sorry I didn't get back to you last night; my internet connection was failing.

To answer your post about liberalism. To begin with, if you are tolerant of other people's opinions, then you'd be the only liberal on the planet who is. Though they spout tolerance as the highest human virtue, none practice it, as can be seen by the vicious rhetoric toward conservatives (who hold differing opinions).

Secondly, desiring democracy for other nations is antithetical to liberalism. Liberals think that "Westernizing" other nations is the greatest evil because it's "ethnocentric and bigoted." I'm not joking either. When you get to college, you'll see...every professor in your school will beat this dead horse to dust.

Third, wealth redistibution is a socialist/communist tenet, so you are liberal there.

Fourth, protecting personal freedom is a conservative value. Liberals aren't into that; just ask the ACLU what they think of Christians exercising their personal freedoms by reading a Bible or praying at lunch time.

Finally, "lefties" are a nickname given to those who are left of center, politically. So, lefties are therefore liberals. The terms are interchangeable.

To conclude, it would seem that you have a conflicting political ideology. You have some conservative thoughts, and others liberal. I'd be happy to convert you to the "right" way of thinking, if you need any help. :) But I do enjoy your posts in the meantime.

I don't see how you can talk about not being tolerant of other peoples' opinions as only a liberal thing. Well, you didn't, but you didn't mention conservatives. Intolerance is a two way street in politics, I think. I think it's absolute folly to think that all liberal-minded people have no minds and are horribly intolerant, and it's equally ridiculous to think that all conservatives are mindless and intolerant. It's a two way street, but not one that nearly ever member of either party travels on.

As for democracy in other nations... I don't know. I think that perhaps other forms of governments could work just as well as ours does, if not better. In other words, I don't think just turning a nation's system into a democracy is going to lead to better things; it has to be done successfully and at an appropriate time for it to work (Iraq, I feel, is an example of a democracy-building project gone bad).

Regarding protecting personal freedoms of the individual: to be honest, I was surprised to see that as part of the definition for "liberal," since most conservatives seem to paint liberals as anti-individual freedom. But I for one understand the value of individual freedoms. I bet all Americans, to some degree, understand that their personal freedoms are important. I'm sure that Sen. Kerry values his personal freedoms just as much as you or I. Protecting personal freedom, as you called it, is neither a conservative nor liberal value; it's an American value. Look at the Patriot Act, for example -- who are the ones who have complained the most that their personal freedoms have been violated by it (whether that's true or not)? It's Democrats.

I know what "lefties" refers to, and was just joking with you there.

I don't feel I have a conflicting political ideology. Perhaps I don't fit into the mold of either party, but why should I try to do that if I don't naturally? I'm still figuring out what I believe in, and I feel I will for my whole life. I'm not prepared to be boxed into a certain category. Also, I think it's worth noting that the "personal freedoms" bit came directy from the dictionary definition; in other words, the MSN Encarta online dictionary didn't find "liberal" and "protect the personal freedoms of the individual" to be two conflicting concepts. Indeed, going with the dictionary, it seems like they go hand in hand.

Parties and labels mean less to me than doing what I feel is best for the country. While that isn't to say that I don't think you try to do what's best for the country, I do think that sometimes, the political parties and the parties' main talking points dictate how we act, instead of vice versa.

Henry,

Regarding personal freedoms and Liberalism: The problem that exists between personal freedoms and liberalism is that the liberal left wants to increase the scope of government to include being able to intrude on innocent people's lives. One was is increasing taxes. By increasing taxes, you limit a citizen's spending power, and by doing that, you can also limit what he/she can buy. It's not a monopoly if it's government controlled.

Also, with the Patriot Act, you must ask yourself this question, "The Government affords me, and anyone else walking around in the States, certain civil liberties. Now, if the government violates one person's 'civil liberties' and saves 300 people by doing so, is it worth it?" Or better yet, "if they violate someone's civil liberies to save me, is it worth it?"

About Tolerance: Many of the liberal friends i have are very intolerant. When asked who is the better candidate, they say Kerry. When asked why, they simply say "Bush is an idiot". Not say that this is you, i'm just saying those liberals whom i've dealt with have responding in like fasion. When striking up conversatons with the liberal advocates on campus, i can hardly get a word out edgewise because "you're a conservative, and you're a moron". I have had two civilized discussions with liberals: one was with a friend of mine whom i've known for quite a while, and the other with a very nice liberal from South Carolina. The SC dem's friend, on the other hand, kept trying to shout me down or make me out to look like an idiot. There are very few, very few liberals who are tolerant of others. You can see this by the way they "help the minority" or "take up the lost cause". They promote Gay rights, and advocate a woman's right to choose, but when a group of Christians is gunned down while in a prayer group, it was their own fault. You are an exception to the rule, and i heartily applaud you for that. it is nice to have civil discourse with a fellow scholar. whether you're in high school or college, it's always nice.

Have a great day

Peter:

[the liberal left wants to increase the scope of government to include being able to intrude on innocent people's lives]

I really don't think that's true. Bigger government doesn't necessarily equal intrusion on "innocent peoples' lives." If liberals/Democrats didn't think that a government more active in helping raise peoples' quality of life, I don't think they'd be trying to make government bigger. Whether or not you agree with it, I think the reason liberals/Dems advocate a more active (and thus bigger) government is because they think that that's best for the people. To me, the "they want to be able to butt into peoples' lives" line is just an attack line by some conservatives that isn't true.

[One was is increasing taxes. By increasing taxes, you limit a citizen's spending power, and by doing that, you can also limit what he/she can buy. It's not a monopoly if it's government controlled.]

To be fiscally smart, aren't taxes necessary? I'm seriously asking that, not rhetorically. And all I've ever heard any Democrat talk about is taxing the rich, who can greater afford it. They paint the Republicans out as people who will tax the middle-class average Joe and Jane.

[About Tolerance: Many of the liberal friends i have are very intolerant. When asked who is the better candidate, they say Kerry. When asked why, they simply say "Bush is an idiot".]

[There are very few, very few liberals who are tolerant of others.]

This is just your experience, I'm guessing, and my experience has been different. I post at a message board that has a section on all stuff politics. Most members of the board are Democrats/liberals. I truly believe that most of these people aren't intolerant. They do, however, talk of conservatives just as you and Emily talk about liberals. It's ironic -- it seems like both sides hate the intolerance of the other, which leads me to wonder whether both are equally intolerant --but neither side being to blame for it. I don't know who's to blame. Would you agree with my assertion that Ann Coulter is one of the most hateful and polarizing figures in the United States today? That's the only vibe I've ever gotten from her, ever. She's just extremely radical. Perhaps it's people like her (and Democratic counterparts to her, such as Michael Moore) who are to blame for the anger of both sides, which only continues in a vicious, and senseless, cycle.

[You can see this by the way they "help the minority" or "take up the lost cause". They promote Gay rights, and advocate a woman's right to choose, but when a group of Christians is gunned down while in a prayer group, it was their own fault.]

All I can say to this is that of the liberals I've known, that's not their way of thinking.

Peter, to any liberal, or even a moderate, your post would be nothing more than hateful political rhetoric. I can tell you really believe what you're saying, but I think if you were on "the other side of the fence," you'd be outraged at your own comments. Imagine a liberal saying the stuff you said, only having it be focused on conservatives (obviously, the content would change, but the tone would not). I think there are tons of liberals out there that could say things against conservatives with that much passion and disgust, and, like you, they truly believe what they're saying. Who's right? I really don't think anybody is.

It truly dismays me reading your comments, since it seems to me that you really believe that 99% of liberals are that bad.

The people you meet who simply say "Bush is an idiot" -- I wouldn't label them liberals, or anything like that; I would, however, call them ignorant and narrow-minded. They aren't true liberals; they aren't involved enough and don't think enough on their own to be called liberals.

I don't want you to take my post the wrong way -- I'm only trying to call it as I see it. I appreciate the way you and Emily have treated me on this site very much. Thank you for that.

I'm sorry, but i can't agree with you on the Ann Coulter Issue. She's not hateful of the people, she hates the ignorance. Most Liberals just hate the republicans for not thinking their way. If you look at people like Michael Moore, he hates you for not thinking like him. Ann Coulter, on the other hand, hates people for not thinking...period.

As for the Tax issue, Reps prefer to remove as many taxes as possible, thus allowing the Economy to grow, and then the gov't increases revenue through the economy. My family benefitted from that "Wealthiest 1%" tax-cut Bush gave. Reps are against heavy taxes. Reps hate taxes (yes, Bush Sr. set kind of a bad example, i know). I don't know if you live in California or not, but We have the highest taxes around. We pay more for Gas because our state gas tax is $0.18 in itself. Within one year, tuition at my community college went from $11 a unit to $26 a unit. The reason for this was because right before Gray Davis left office, he instituted a bill to increase taxes on those who couldn't normally pay them....college students. The Ideology of the Liberal Left is to tax as much as you can, and give nothing back. Sure, Taxes help the gov't now, but when you really need the money, it's not there. If you look at Bush's current fiscal policy, where you give either tax breaks or incentives to big businesses, it improves the economy...it's only problem is that it takes a few years to kick in. The proper term for it is Trickle Down economics. Back in the days of the great depression, Hoover wanted to institute this plan, but when the general public found out it wasn't going to help them now, they kicked him out. That's when the welfare system was first seen. That's also when our country first started getting into debt. The Gov't was giving out free money, but it wasn't really free. That money came from the pockets of people who could still pay taxes.

(sorry for the econ lesson, but it's the only way i can really explain the economic policies of each party)

When you hear a candidate talk about reforming welfare/healcare in terms of improving or expanding, it means they are going to tax us more. Kerry says he wants every child in the nation covered under some health plan. Well, that's gonna take money...our money. Whenever he says "Federal Funds" he's really saying "taxpayer dollars". Bush comes right out and says "i'm going to use your tax dollars to do [such and such]". I don't know if you pay any taxes yet, but seeing that you're still in high school, most of your tax money is probably returned. I'm in my second year in high school, i have a nice job, but 24% of my paycheck i will never see again. What i don't get is if i'm paying 24% on the little i'm making, why is Kerry only paying 12.5% on the millions he's making? Bush alone paid 30% on what he earns by being president.

Kerry says he won't tax anyone who makes under the $200k line, but his tax plan starts at $146k. He also plans on incorporating small businesses in that plan, so if you own a small business that earns anything, you'll be taxed. doesn't matter if you make less than $100k a year, you'll be taxed.

as you can tell, i like my money. i want to keep my money. i don't mind paying taxes, if it's going to be used right. If i know my tax dollars are going to help children in need, or feed starving children in foriegn countries or here in the US, i'm all for it. But if it's going to someone for their unemployment money, i get pissed. why do i have to give my heard earned money to someone who's too lazy to get a job?

As for the "bush is an idiot" people, yes, they are liberals. Just because they can't form coherent though doesn't mean they're just ignorant. They're spoonfed ideology. They're told how to think, how to act, and what to say. They vote dem, and their "views" are very liberal. But what truly makes them liberal is that, in the face of truth, they still accept a lie (i'm talkin' about the left of the left here...although some "plain left" apply as well). I am willing to conceed my opinions if they're wrong. If someone comes up to me and gives me cold, hard evidence that bush did such and such, well, hey, that's news to me and i guess you're right. BUT!, if all they do is think in circles and can't even look me straight in the face and explain the economic policy of Kerry, LaRouche, or even Bush, i have to laugh. the problem with the Liberals is that they're too smart to say they're stupid. I know i'm not the smartest guy in the world, but i'm smart enough to know when i'm wrong. Most Libs can't say that.

hope this got you thinking....cause, my brain is about to shut off....it's tooo.....late...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Just want to jump in here about the tolerance issue. Watching Hardball, Crossfire, etc., and seeing the libs shout down Michelle Malkin or incessant screaming "Liar!" to John O’Neil is not what I call tolerant or intelligent debate. At least Ann Coulter practices restraint when she debates; she is polite and thus far I have never seen her shout an opponent down. As Matthews, Carville, et al are mainstream representatives of the left, it can only be concluded that the left believes free speech is only for them. Take also into account Teraaazah’s calling anyone who disagrees with her husbands policies ‘idiots’ and ‘scumbags’.

Very seldom, if ever, have I seen on conservative cable shows, or heard on talk radio a conservative moderator shouting down, name-calling or screaming at a liberal guest. Usually the opposite is true (i.e. Dennis Prager being the epitome of courtesy and respect).

I'll repeat what I said in my last comment on this post:

Peter, to any liberal, or even a moderate, your post would be nothing more than hateful political rhetoric. I can tell you really believe what you're saying, but I think if you were on "the other side of the fence," you'd be outraged at your own comments. Imagine a liberal saying the stuff you said, only having it be focused on conservatives (obviously, the content would change, but the tone would not). I think there are tons of liberals out there that could say things against conservatives with that much passion and disgust, and, like you, they truly believe what they're saying. Who's right? I really don't think anybody is.

Ann Coulter... most certainly is hateful of the people. A title such as "How to Talk to a Liberal... if You Must" -- what does that show other than that she hates people who don't think the same way she does?

[Very seldom, if ever, have I seen on conservative cable shows, or heard on talk radio a conservative moderator shouting down, name-calling or screaming at a liberal guest.]

Bill O'Reilly, anyone?

As for people such as James Carville and Chris Matthews... well, to start, Carville's show is Crossfire. What more do I have to say? The show is centered around shouting matches, as Jon Stewart is so passionate to get people to realize. Carville shouts no more loudly than Tucker Carlson or Robert Novak. And Matthews... he's just loud. He's a loud guy. I watch The Chris Matthews Show almost every Sunday, and I can tell you he's not nearly as loud on that show as he is on Hardball. He seems more focused on The Chris Matthews Show. What's also interesting to note is that he isn't a mainstream representative of the left. He isn't. His show on Sundays always has a panel of both left-leaning people, straight-up journalists, and right-leaning people. He doesn't drown out any of them simply because they have different opinions than he does.

[Most Liberals just hate the republicans for not thinking their way.]

This simply is NOT true. There are just as many Republicans -- the Bush people being the most blatant ones - who hate democrats for not thinking their way. But to say that most liberals hate the republicans for not thinking their way? It sounds as though the only one hating people for not thinking their way is you.

[The Ideology of the Liberal Left is to tax as much as you can, and give nothing back.]

I'm pretty sure if I asked any Democrat more knowledgable than me, they'd get very angry at that statement. Again, I'll repeat something from a previous post, because either you didn't give it any thought, or you didn't give it enough thought:

Bigger government doesn't necessarily equal intrusion on "innocent peoples' lives." If liberals/Democrats didn't think that a government more active in helping raise peoples' quality of life, I don't think they'd be trying to make government bigger. Whether or not you agree with it, I think the reason liberals/Dems advocate a more active (and thus bigger) government is because they think that that's best for the people. To me, the "they want to be able to butt into peoples' lives" line is just an attack line by some conservatives that isn't true.

[He also plans on incorporating small businesses in that plan, so if you own a small business that earns anything, you'll be taxed.]

In response to that, please read this from Factcheck.org, a site which Emily has a link to on her site.

http://www.factcheck.org/article265.html

Here's the headline of the page:

Are Bush and Cheney "Small Businesses?" Their Ad Counts Them As Such
A Bush-Cheney ad says Kerry would raise taxes for 900,000 "small businesses" and "hurt jobs." It's a big exaggeration.

Summary
A Bush-Cheney '04 ad claims Kerry would raise taxes on 900,000 small businesses and "hurt jobs." But it counts every high-salaried person who has even $1 of outside business income as a "small business owner" -- a definition so broad that even Bush and Cheney have qualified while in office. In fact, hundreds of thousands of those "small businesses" have no jobs to offer.

The truth is a powerful thing.

[If i know my tax dollars are going to help children in need, or feed starving children in foriegn countries or here in the US, i'm all for it. But if it's going to someone for their unemployment money, i get pissed. why do i have to give my heard earned money to someone who's too lazy to get a job?]

Why do you generalize that all unemployed people are too lazy to get a job? Could it be, perhaps, that the way Bush has handled the economy has created a net loss of jobs? Could it be a struggling father or mother of three who lost his/her job because of Bush's economic policy? Maybe.

I don't see how you can support Bush's economic policies when he's created such a huge deficit. You talk about getting into debt, and that's all I can think of. The billions of dollars used to fund the war in Iraq could have obviously been used effectively here at home, I think you can agree with that. Regardless of whether the war was justified, the money obviously could have been put to good use here. And regardless of whether the war was justified, there's no denying that if the war had been better executed/prepared for, less money would be needed to fund it.

[I know i'm not the smartest guy in the world, but i'm smart enough to know when i'm wrong. Most Libs can't say that.]

I hope you really can know when you're wrong, because you're wrong when you say that most liberals can't say that.

[If someone comes up to me and gives me cold, hard evidence that bush did such and such, well, hey, that's news to me and i guess you're right.]

I'll start to, in the form of this article, written by Ron Reagan. (Please read the article, and don't say anything about Reagan being a traitor to his father [I read a thing that had Robert Novak calling Ron's brother "the loyal one"] or just another crazy liberal. His article has facts. He doesn't need falsities to make a point. With Bush as President, I truly don't think anybody does. But at any rate, please read this article:

http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/040729_mfe_reagan_1.html