I'm a liberal that would have done the same as Zimmerman

[RottenApple]

Boy, am I glad it's not. I might be spending 10-20 myself.

So might we all.

[OldCurlyWolf]

Boy, am I glad it's not. I might be spending 10-20 myself.

So might we all.

[VMI77]

and have shot guns since my parents first voted for Nixon in 68.

Just curious, is that what got you started shooting, or just when you started shooting?

[VMI77]

OK - This is where I'm having a problem with " liberals "................or perhaps maybe I don't......

What I guess I'm trying to get at is this - I once considered myself to be a " liberal " ( 4 decades ago ) in the sense that I opposed oppressive , authoritarian policies .....that did not jive with MY logic...... which was largely formed by the public school system's presentation of our U.S. government being anchored by the U.S. Constitution.

I believe the only honest sanctuary for a " liberal " these days is the Libertarian Party. I sense that the Republican Party is beset by far too many " Bloombergs ".

Maybe those of us who cherish the U.S. Constitution can agree to meet over THERE in the Libertarian Party and carry on our " liberal " efforts in the name of LIBERTY.

Same background and experience. I'm so old that when I was in public school the Constitution was taught as the law of the land and a "colorless" society was the national objective. Liberals were hard-core Constitutionalists opposed to authoritarian government. The modern liberal is a supporter of authoritarian government --as long at that government is buttering their side of the bread anyway. But then, that was also back in the day when Barry Goldwater was allowed to run on the Republican ticket. There's no way the RINO party would allow Barry Goldwater on the ticket today.

[Dave2]

OK - This is where I'm having a problem with " liberals "................or perhaps maybe I don't......

What I guess I'm trying to get at is this - I once considered myself to be a " liberal " ( 4 decades ago ) in the sense that I opposed oppressive , authoritarian policies .....that did not jive with MY logic...... which was largely formed by the public school system's presentation of our U.S. government being anchored by the U.S. Constitution.

I believe the only honest sanctuary for a " liberal " these days is the Libertarian Party. I sense that the Republican Party is beset by far too many " Bloombergs ".

Maybe those of us who cherish the U.S. Constitution can agree to meet over THERE in the Libertarian Party and carry on our " liberal " efforts in the name of LIBERTY.

Same background and experience. I'm so old that when I was in public school the Constitution was taught as the law of the land and a "colorless" society was the national objective. Liberals were hard-core Constitutionalists opposed to authoritarian government. The modern liberal is a supporter of authoritarian government --as long at that government is buttering their side of the bread anyway. But then, that was also back in the day when Barry Goldwater was allowed to run on the Republican ticket. There's no way the RINO party would allow Barry Goldwater on the ticket today.

And when I was growing up (80s) I thought that the republicans were the "hard-core Constitutionalists opposed to authoritarian government" party. Come to find out they're nearly as authoritarian and mostly just don't want the democrats in charge.

[baldeagle]

And when I was growing up the communists were infiltrating both parties and all levels of government, and now they have control of almost everything. They sent us off to Vietnam and forgot to secure the home front. As a consequence we now see the country disintegrating before our eyes and seem almost powerless to do anything about it.

[JSThane]

And when I was growing up the communists were infiltrating both parties and all levels of government, and now they have control of almost everything. They sent us off to Vietnam and forgot to secure the home front. As a consequence we now see the country disintegrating before our eyes and seem almost powerless to do anything about it.

Goes back long before that, to pre-WWII era stuff. I blame the institution of public schools as one of the first symptoms, and exacerbating causes, of this. The educational system was heavily, heavily influenced and infiltrated by communists, going way, way, back. Once we abdicated the raising and instruction of our children to the government, instead of doing it ourselves or entrusting our kids' education to a person of our own choosing, we allowed the camel's nose under the tent. It was this that allowed the eventual perversion of our entire education system, from the ground up to post-graduate college education, and encouraged the dependency on government; after all, we give our kids to them for the most vital years of their lives, so why shouldn't we give them anything and everything else?

[VMI77]

And when I was growing up the communists were infiltrating both parties and all levels of government, and now they have control of almost everything. They sent us off to Vietnam and forgot to secure the home front. As a consequence we now see the country disintegrating before our eyes and seem almost powerless to do anything about it.

Goes back long before that, to pre-WWII era stuff. I blame the institution of public schools as one of the first symptoms, and exacerbating causes, of this. The educational system was heavily, heavily influenced and infiltrated by communists, going way, way, back. Once we abdicated the raising and instruction of our children to the government, instead of doing it ourselves or entrusting our kids' education to a person of our own choosing, we allowed the camel's nose under the tent. It was this that allowed the eventual perversion of our entire education system, from the ground up to post-graduate college education, and encouraged the dependency on government; after all, we give our kids to them for the most vital years of their lives, so why shouldn't we give them anything and everything else?

Yep, they were pretty open about it back in Wilson's day too. John Taylor Gatto gives a pretty good history of "progressive" public education in America.

“We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.”
― Woodrow Wilson

They try to keep those influences hidden these days.

[RoyGBiv]

“We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.”
― Woodrow Wilson

They try to keep those influences hidden these days.

Seems to me that Wilson quote was an accusation, a condemnation of the education system... not a statement of his preference.

I'm not a Wilson fan, but, seemed unfair to him to quote that out of context.

[VMI77]

“We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.”
― Woodrow Wilson

They try to keep those influences hidden these days.

Seems to me that Wilson quote was an accusation, a condemnation of the education system... not a statement of his preference.

I'm not a Wilson fan, but, seemed unfair to him to quote that out of context.

I had actually never seen the quote in context before now, so I looked. He clearly is not making an accusation, but stating the way he believes the system should operate. Here's the complete paragraph:

Let us go back and distinguish between the two things that we want to do; for we want to do two things in modern society. We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks. You cannot train them for both in the time that you have at your disposal. They must make a selection, and you must make a selection. I do not mean to say that in the manual training there must not be an element of liberal training; neither am I hostile to the idea that in the liberal education there should be an element of the manual training. But what I am intent upon is that we should not confuse ourselves with regard to what we are trying to make of the pupils under our instruction. We are either trying to make liberally-educated persons out of them, or we are trying to make skillful servants of society along mechanical lines, or else we do not know what we are trying to do.

Here's the entire speech: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Meani ... _Education

Out of context the meaning is pretty much the same, but the statement sounds more harsh than it does in context. I will also note that Wilson is referring to a "liberal education" in the sense it used to mean, not the nonsense foisted off on modern liberal arts majors. Wilson was referring to a broad eduction in language, philosophy, logic, mathematics, and science.

I'm not a Wilson fan either, but reading this speech, which he wrote himself, is a stark reminder of the difference between what constituted an educated man in 1909 versus the pseudo educated hucksters we have running the government now. I doubt that today there are more than five members of Congress who could write a speech like that, and I'm pretty sure Obozo couldn't do it. The gulf between the kind of educated and intelligent man that served as president 100 years ago and the venal fools in office today is like the difference between Albert Einstein and a chimpanzee.

[JALLEN]

And when I was growing up the communists were infiltrating both parties and all levels of government, and now they have control of almost everything. They sent us off to Vietnam and forgot to secure the home front. As a consequence we now see the country disintegrating before our eyes and seem almost powerless to do anything about it.

I, too, grew up in the McCarthy Era (Joe, not Gene). The Communist witchhunt, so-called, led to infiltration of the Communist Party USA by undercover FBI agents to such an extent that the Commies couldn't even stage a picnic. They had what are now called "high negatives" anyway. The doper dirtball hippies of the '60's, led by the Fondas, Kerrys, Clintons et al made common cause with the Commies over a period of years to take over the Democrat Party, which is now essentially the old Communist Party USA. Recall that Gov. John Connally switched to the GOP in the early 70's, saying, "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, it left me." A great many of the old less liberal Democrats meandered to the GOP over time, further diluting that organization's support for conservative principles.

One factor I am becoming more and more sensitive to. I just finished reading the 4th volume of Robert Caro's bio of LBJ. One of the things that struck me, not for the first time, was the implacable hatred between Robert Kennedy and LBJ. I've been aware of that feature of their relationship for many years, but now it occurs to me that even though they hated each other they and their supporters and colleagues still worked together to achieve and maintain power. The Republicans are not nearly so efficient at resolving ideological disagreements; they tend to stay home if they don't get their way, while the Dem's come up with a compromise of sorts, win the election and go on their way, figuring it is more important to get part of their program going now rather than insist on ideological purity. "I would rather be right than President" doesn't resonate in Communist minds like it does for conservatives, apparently.

[bdickens]

Absolutely.

When you demand all or nothing, nothing is what you end up with.

[bigbang]

I, too, grew up in the McCarthy Era (Joe, not Gene).

I grew up in the Jenny McCarthy era.

[sjfcontrol]

I, too, grew up in the McCarthy Era (Joe, not Gene).

I grew up in the Jenny McCarthy era.

I grew up in the Charley McCarthy era.

[drjoker]

Just wanted to add that not all libs are libtards or pacifists.

You are right. Sorry if I said that in the past. I think that there is a group of people who are in power who want to divide America for their selfish interests: divide and conquer. All that most Americans want is a good economy and a fair deal. Instead, we have to choose between abortions/gun control or pro-life/2nd Amendment. I think that if Romney had used the same strategy that he used to win the governor's mansion by not touching abortion with a 10 foot pole, he would've won the white house by winning moderate liberal votes like yours. Instead, he went pro-life and failed to choose a Hispanic running mate.

BTW, you aren't alone. Zimmerman also voted for Obama. Ironic that Obama threw Zimmerman under the bus, eh?