Richard,

>>I have been unable to confirm thise story elsewhere, and Salon leans left, but:
>>
>>http://www.salon.com/politics/wire/2000/12/02/protest/index.html
>>
>>If true, just further proof to me that neither side can claim the moral high ground.
>
>
>As a Democrat and a liberal, I want the Gore campaign to do whatever is necessary to ensure a complete and accurate count of the votes.
>
>As a liberal, I respect the rights of others to hold opposing views.
>
>As a liberal, I respect the right to peacefully picket as an important aspect of our right to free speech.
>
>As a liberal, I am disgusted with the radicals on the left who seem convinced that the moral superiority of their positions gives them the right to surpress the freedom of speech of those they oppose.

Bingo!

Nothing wrong with liberalism that a little whack on the side of the head won't fix. <g> I'm kidding of course, but many a liberal has become more conservative after being mugged. <g>

Still, IMO you put your finger exactly on the point I have been after - that is, does one's moral authority derive from one's positions or, as I believe, does one's authority derive from one's moral positions.

Seems to me the 'bad' part of today's liberal positions is exactly this: Having rejected God they now set themselves up as moral authroities - little gods. Don't dare question them or they will, to use an Islamic term, call for a jihad against you.

Why, you could be a serial liar, perjurer, adulterer, and who knows what else but if you hold liberl positions they will support you. Why? Because you worship at the alter of liberal faith.

My dad was a Democrat and today's Democratic Party is not my dad's party - that's for sure.

Does man change from the inside out or the outside in? Communism, for example, attempts to change man from the outside in. So does Socialism and IMO much of what is attempting to pass itself off as 'compassionate liberalism'. Well, actually the word 'compassionate' is really never used since only a dolt (in their minds) would presume to question whether their positions are indeed compassionate. That is also why they (the liberals) went ballistic when GW started using the phrase 'compassionate conservative'.

I think men should demonstrate compassion towards their fellow man but the minute it becomes forced it ceases to be compassion. You cannot force caring from another human being; you must lead by example and it's been a long time since I've seen a rich liberal like Teddy Kennedy give his millions away. Usually they want to give my money away.


>
>As a Jew, I would be upset at the picketing of Lieberman's home only if it were done BECAUSE it was the sabbath. The article doesn't mention if the demonstrators were there any other days. My guess is that they have been there many times in the past. Picketing a prominennt politicial (who happens to be Jewish) on Saturday among other days is no different than picketing the White House (whose occupant happens to be Christian) on Sunday. There is NO religious implication in my mind - merely a group of Americans exercising their rights.

I would also be quite offended is they picketed because Mr. Lieberman was Jewish. That's disgusting. Same for any other group or faith. I live here in LDS (Mormon) country and while I'm not one and have some largish differences with some of their religious tenents I get along fine with them as I don't try and cram those differences on them - not that I'm afraid to but I understand I cannot in my own power change their hearts.

But I reserve my right to speak my position as well as accepting their right to be wrong. <g>

IOW, disagree but do so with a clear eye towards human nature. This is the issue - who's view of human nature is more accurate?