I finally got my first comments from people opposed to the views expressed here. They were pretty tepid.
Daniel Duffield's response to my comments on Anne Coulture were: I find that this news site is a liberal site. Here is what i say... "Ohhhh, not another one!"
My question is this: Does Mr. Duffield really think this is a news sight? This is a blog. The items here are either things I find interesting, or my personal opinion. I can't claim it as journalism or news.
It also makes me wonder at his definition of "liberal". Is it liberal to insist that we maintain the guarantees found in the U.S. Constitution? Is it liberal to insist on free and fair elections? Is it liberal to insist that the corporations that make money from this country and its citizens pay their fair share for the benefits they gather to themselves? Is it liberal to expect the wealthy to pay their share of Federal taxation?
I honestly think that other than guaranteeing our rights and some rather specific nationwide functions, government should leave us alone. That doesn't fit the typical definition of "Liberal".
I'm also left wondering what's so bad about the concept. The United States and most of Europe is generally considered to be a "liberal" democracy. Liberal meaning that we believe that all citizens have rights and that governments exist at the consent of the governed.
Posted by Chris at August 14, 2003 03:25 PMThis is not from the same Daniel Duffield believe it or not. The one terrible flaw I see in your theory above is that it's impossible for the government to leave us alone. A government for the people and by the people is impossible, and frankly unwanted. For you to have control over the government, for the government to be democratic it must have it's business as intermingled in your life as you would want your hand in it's functions. If you stick your hand in water, doesn't your hand get wet?
Posted by: Daniel Duffield on June 10, 2004 02:29 AM