>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>

I could not decide which way to go here... I thought maybe you had been mugged a lot, or maybe whacked on the side of the head a lot, so I finally figured you had been whacked on the side of the head a lot while being mugged. It certainly explains a lot of your answers. *bg*

>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.

I am not really sure who you are talking about here Doug. Is it Joe Lieberman, the Democratic protesters accusing the Republicans protesters of anti-semitism, or all liberals?

>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.

And where was all this moral outrage when Newt Gingrich was leading the conservative crusade? Wasn't he an adulterer? Hey, maybe I was out to lunch or something, I just didn't hear the bashing coming from the right.

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

And VFP is not your father's FoxPro. *g*

>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.
>
>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>

I agree, but do you think is appropriate to protest in front of Joe Lieberman's house on the Sabbath, something he practices?

>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?