It is a bit tongue-in-cheek. But, as with all such articles, it contains a grain of truth--in fact, a very large grain, I would argue.

Here is a little from Townhall.com:

"With yet more apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, you just might be a liberal if...

* "You blame the oil companies for high gas prices, but believe in doing everything humanly possible to keep them from drilling for more oil.

* "You'd have no problem with a Democratic President talking with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jung-Il without conditions, but would be very upset if he started seriously negotiating with Republicans over national security or energy issues.

* "You don't see a conflict between 'supporting the troops' and trying to insure that they lose the war that they're fighting.

* "You think the solution to an underperforming economy is higher taxes, more regulations, and publicly attacking businesses, but don't understand how that relates to the phrase, 'The beatings will continue until morale improves.'"

Here is the remainder: Jon Sanders :: Townhall.com :: 25 Reasons You Might Be A Liberal (Part 2)

Some are better than others (as might be expected).

Personally, I would prefer the construction, You might be a left-winger if...since "liberal" is a rather imprecise term--what it now means and what it historically has meant are two entirely different things--but that is a small point.

Comments?

You see truth in that bull s h i t?

I feel sorry for you. You're brainwashed by the extreme right wing pundits.

my goodness, it is just partisan jokes, they have them for both sides. Lighten up a little.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

Can you give me a couple of examples of that with which you disagree--preferably, from the first four points, which I quoted? (I really thought those were among the best, and most irrefutalbe.)

Well, for me, I'd disagree with 3 and part of 4.

3) Makes the assumption that leaving the nation is surrendering. I feel that it is passing the duty to those that should be bearing it.

4) I only disagree with the 2nd have of it "the beatings will continue," since the health of the economy is not just moral, that would imply that it is entirely emotional.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

I don't blame oil companies for the high gas prices. I blame the fact that we are running out of oil.

I would be okay with either of those things.

You don't see a conflict between 'supporting the troops' and leaving them out there to die.

The solution to our economy is probably making corporations stop outsourcing jobs.

Gulags are not Hitlerist constructions.

Yes, because we all know that's what patriotism is about. Wearing a flag pin and holding your hand over your heart during the national anthem.

As long as they sing songs for all the other major holidays of all the other major religions represented in the school...

Yes, that's what it would be. Would your idea involve time-travel?

If you're quoting Ann Coulter, you know you've run out of points.

I don't know anyone who believes this.

It isn't racist, but it is generally an attempt to draw attention to his "foreign" middle name.

Not I!

How is this hypocritical?

No, I am not. The ends don't justify the means.

??? Don't see the point of this one.

I don't know anyone against the imprisonment of criminals.

So? Supporting your own country all the time leads only to fascism.

That's because they aren't. And neither are Christians, unless they want to do away with separation of church and state.

Yeah.

Strawman.

Yep. And we're not particularly free, just to tell you.

Some of us would like to know why. And are you saying that retaliating is not furthering the cycle of violence?

No, I don't. Nor do I know anyone who believes that. Strawman again.

That's the very definition of hypocrite. What is a conservative's first thought when they see something like this?

Don't see anything bad about this one.

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I think that our leaving premturely--before Iraq can be fully stabilized--would indeed be tantamount to surrender, just as it was in Vietnam, when US troops exited Saigon hastily and chaotically in 1975. This would leave the country to be divvied up between two radical, anti-American (and anti-Western) groups: the Wahhabist al-Qaeda, controlling the central part of Iraq; and the Shiite-dominated Iran, controlling the southern part.

I think the purpose of the analogy (which I found to be right on point) is that beatings are just as useful for the purpose of lifting morale as rasing taxes, adding layers of new regulations, and bad-mouthing American business is for the purpose of stimulating the economy.

I won't dwell upon the obvious point (i.e. that "peak oil" theories come in a variety of timelines--take your pick). More importantly, we could help to drive down the price of oil--almost immediately, in all probability, by dampening the speculation that has driven up oil prices over the past few months (though they have fallen steadily the past few weeks)--by announcing that we will soon be drilling off coastal waters, drilling in ANWR (yes, I am aware that even Sen. McCain remains intransigent about this), and extracting oil from shale in the Western United States.

It is heartening to know that you "would be okay" with a Democratic president's "seriously negotiating with Republicans over national security or energy issues." You should be aware, however, that among left-leaning Democrats, you are clearly in a minority on this issue.

The conflict mentioned is between one's supporting our troops "and trying to insure that they lose the war that they're fighting." It has nothing to do with a desire for "leaving them out there to die," as you have attempted to spin it.

And how, exactly, would you go about accomplishing this goal?

Also, you have sidestepped the pertinent question, viz.: Do you favor "higher taxes, more regulations, and publicly attacking businesses," either in whole or in part? And, if so, how do you suppose any of these actions might benefit the economy?

Are you suggesting that Hitler was not a totalitarian? Or that totalitarians are not prone to try to silence their opposition? Or both?

Such actions fall into the "necessary, but not sufficient" category. At least, in this context. No, it is not necessary for all Americans, at all times (or at any time, for that matter), to wear a flag lapel pin, in order to demonstrate patriotism. But Sen. Obama's refusal to do so, under the circumstances, seemed rather odd. And there is no reason to ever refuse to do the hand-over-the-heart thing during the National Anthem.

What does your reply have to do with "government funded 'art' that defiles Christianity"? Moreover, your response implies a congeniality to the concept of Multiculturist America--which is a concept I reject out of hand.

Not sure what that means. The statement to which you have responded is that you might be a liberal if "[y]our idea of 'reparations for slavery' is white people who have never owned slaves giving money to black people who were never slaves, more than a hundred years after slavery ended." Are you saying that you do or do not believe in the concept of reparations for slavery, in the belief that this atrocious institution has left a "lasting legacy" of inequality that must be "redressed," in the language of its proponents?

Ann Coulter is a bit too acerbic and strident for my own tastes; so I would much prefer that someone else had been quoted on this matter. Even so, I agree with her observation that one hallmark of leftism is that those who adhere to this philosophy are prone to "assure us that deterrence will work, but when the time comes to deter, [they are] against it."

Then you haven't been paying attention.

More later.

There is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America! There is not a black America and a white America and latino America and asian America - there's the United States of America!

Say it Barack.