The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

I’m a Liberal

September 11, 2005 | 21 Comments

I went to proselytize my life-affirming philosophy over at the Conservative Life forums on Friday, and have just received my official classification:

Subj: You have been added to this usergroup
Date: 9/11/2005 2:32:42 PM Eastern Standard Time
Sent from the Internet (Details)


You have been added to the “Liberals” group on Conservative Life.
This action was done by the group moderator or the site administrator, contact them for more information.

You can view your groups information here:

Thanks, Conservative Life Admin

Hopefully this new credential will get me unbanned from posting comments at Pandagon.


21 Responses to “I’m a Liberal”

  1. Jennifer
    September 11th, 2005 @ 3:21 pm

    Their “Liberals” list is pretty short. I would be good if each liberal person had a moniker with the quote that won them their diploma.

  2. The Libertarian Defender
    September 11th, 2005 @ 5:00 pm

    Conservatives tend to be incredibly intolerant of anybody with views other than those espoused by Rush Limbaugh. I’m a hardcore libertarian, yet when I post on conservative boards, I’m called a flaming liberal. It’s ludicrous to think that somebody like me, who supports Free Trade, illegal immigrant deportation, gun rights and abolition of publicly funded healthcare, fits the “flaming liberal” definition. I’ve given up posting on conservative discussion boards. I find them of no intellectual competence.

  3. Rob
    September 11th, 2005 @ 6:24 pm

    Hey, if the comment to “freethinker” means anything:

    (Okay “freethinker” I just want to comment on your name. I automatically assume that you are a liberal with that name. It implies that you think any adult should be aloud to do whatever they wish. That you are open to everything.),

    it means that they are proud of being closed-minded.

  4. Mookie
    September 11th, 2005 @ 8:10 pm

    Congratulations! It is an honour to be known as someone who cares about other people, the environment, and the future of humanity! Better than being a miserly, greedy, nasty, small-penised hick that hates homosexuals, non-xians, minorities, all non-americans, and people who “think too much.”

  5. Mookie
    September 11th, 2005 @ 8:24 pm

    Oh yeah, and conservatives also hate the UN for stuff like this:

    And are stupid (for two reasons) for stuff like this:,,11965-4733186,00.html

  6. Antigone
    September 11th, 2005 @ 10:45 pm

    I imagine you got banned at Pandagon for being anti-feminist. They both might not be hardline liberals (that’s somewhat of paradox), but they are hard-line feminists.

    And thank godless for it, the world needs more feminists.

  7. The Raving Atheist
    September 11th, 2005 @ 11:02 pm


    No. I was making a general political point. I was allowed one comment here (to which Amanda responded), but the following comment was blocked (you’ll have to read the post, my first comment, and the intervening replies for context):

    (1) If “the people who firmly oppose Roberts know more or less where he stands on most issues,” I’m sure the papers and television have access to that same information. I’ll stipulate that he’s with or to the right of Scalia on all issues except perhaps gay rights, although even as to that he wouldn’t support gay marriage (but neither did John Kerry, for that matter).

    (2) I doubt the general public has a much different impression than do the political junkies. I assume you mean that there’s possibly some bombshell in the papers that might turn the public against him, but you have to remember that the “general public” recently re-elected Bush so I don’t see how there’s that much risk of that kind of shift in mood no matter what turns up, unless it’s some sort of racist joke or unsolved homicide.

    (3) Let’s assume that unlike any other nominee ever to appear before the committee, he answers all questions directly and says “I’m anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-gay marriage and anti-(things you like) and pro-(things you don’t like). Would that turn public opinion against him and result in his rejection?

    (4) I thought the possibility that he was a “thinking person” — i.e., someone who reflects agonizingly about issues anew when confronted with them — would lessen the importance of his record because it means he’s willing to break with his past beliefs. My impression was that you thought he’s just going to be Bush’s lapdog and enforce the party line rather than pull out nasty surprises that disappoint his masters.

    (5) Assuming Roberts is destroyed by some bombshell, all that’ll happen is that we’ll have a different nominee who has been more secretive or discreet. But Bush is not going to nominate someone who diverges radically from his core agenda, and there are an endless number of technically qualified candidates who meet the bill.

    (6) Maybe it would be helpful to identify some sitting jurists whose records have been fully disclosed that against which think the “general public” would revolt. Would they reject another Scalia or another Rehnquist?

    Yes, I presume they perceive me as anti-feminist because my general position on abortion (which I assume they knew about from my posts at The Dawn Patrol), but that’s not what was at issue on that post.

  8. MattH
    September 12th, 2005 @ 2:25 am

    Conservative thought – I refer to the kind on those boards you link to – disgusts me. How anyone can read those things and not feel their guts churn…it frightens me to think that these people are my countrymen.

  9. hermesten
    September 12th, 2005 @ 3:08 am

    “Conservative thought” — isn’t that an oxymoron? Today’s “conservatives” are the new moral relativists, and they are powered strictly by their emotions.

  10. sternwallow
    September 12th, 2005 @ 2:35 pm

    “I’m a Liberal and I’m OK,
    I sleep all night and I work all day…”

  11. Vernichten
    September 12th, 2005 @ 3:54 pm

    I am not sure I understand what a liberal is in this context. Could some kind person explain the definition?

  12. Jennifer
    September 12th, 2005 @ 4:11 pm

    Liberal Question – MattH, why do sights like that frighten you?

  13. probligo
    September 12th, 2005 @ 10:57 pm


    Read the English dictionary definitions of “conservative” and “liberal” and write them down.

    Now, transpose “liberal ” and “conservative”.

    That is the American right definition of the two terms.

    Another definition –

    “Liberal – takes my money off me and gives it to someone else.

    Conservative – gives someone else’s money to me.”

  14. MBains
    September 13th, 2005 @ 11:14 am

    I sure do wish I knew where to get some good low cost pharmaceuticals RA. I mean, you that’s the only reason I read this site.


    Oh, and of course some feminists are anti-choice. RA makes an inimpeachable personal reason for condemning the practice. Morally, idividuals are both the chief cause of progress and the main cause of stagnation. Thus, purely individual reasoning is of little use in deciding the morality for a whole species of intellectual (whether one claims to be such or not) animals.

  15. Jennifer
    September 13th, 2005 @ 11:25 am

    MBains pull your head out of RA’s rear for a moment and give me your definition of Feminist.

  16. MBains
    September 13th, 2005 @ 11:49 am

    Mmmmmm… RA’s ass… LOL! I don’t even know what he(?) looks like!

    Feminist: one who believes in equal civil rights for both genders.

    First you need to define rights which is what Constitutions are for. Don’t forget; they’re written by men mostly, though women certainly have some say. Hopefully the men involved have an objective view of what is necessary for the species and aren’t merely focused on their particular society.

    LOL! I repeat: LOL!

  17. Oliver
    September 13th, 2005 @ 6:42 pm

    Hooray I have been added to the liberals as well – i am officially a Vegan !

  18. ferrethouse
    September 14th, 2005 @ 11:28 pm

    I’m sure you all don’t care but many of the regular posters on Conservative Life are veterans. While the ranking systems are called “conservative” and “liberal” people are classified more based on their military support (including actions in Iraq) and of Bush. We have contemplated implementing a libertarian ranking system and a special rank of “fence sitter” but are still working on the images ;)

    I am the site admin and don’t control the classification of people. That is the responsibility of the moderators. I’ve read the vitriol in SOME of the comments here and can safely safe that I don’t hate you the way you seem to hate us. Who are the intolerant ones???

  19. Jennifer
    September 14th, 2005 @ 11:38 pm

    ferrethouse, except for solitors, RA doesn’t ban. You can’t make that claim. Of course an echo chamber has a friendlier sound.

  20. Vernichten
    September 15th, 2005 @ 7:21 am

    “I’m sure you all don’t care but many of the regular posters on Conservative Life are veterans. ”

    You think we all don’t care that there are bigots in the military?

    “Who are the intolerant ones?”

    I’ll be completely honest. I don’t care what you do. I really don’t. Even if you start making judgment calls based on your religious beliefs and think that others who believe otherwise are inferior, I still don’t care. But the problem comes from the fact that it’s not enough for most bigots and religious individuals to simply state their opinion. Eventually they will attempt to impose their irrational beliefs on others. It’s inevitable.
    I guess that won’t happen here though, since you won’t even tell us what you believe. Is it a secret?

  21. jahrta
    September 15th, 2005 @ 1:37 pm


    “While the ranking systems are called “conservative” and “liberal” people are classified more based on their military support (including actions in Iraq) and of Bush. We have contemplated implementing a libertarian ranking system and a special rank of “fence sitter” but are still working on the images ;)”

    So according to you, someone who fails to mindlessly follow the lunatic ravings and outright criminal actions of a supposed “leader” is a fence-sitter? Just give me a second to choke down the bile before I rip you apart.

    ok then. Your line of “reasoning” is so severely flawed that if i follow it to its rational conclusion, it will prove to be the unraveling of any nation that was founded upon democracy. It’s very easy to rouse the idiot masses to a cause as long as they can be made to believe that there is a perceived danger from a group of people who may or may not be in any position to do any harm to anyone, even if they were of a mind to do so. This is exactly what happened in Germany during world war two. Hitler used the jews as a scapegoat to unify a depressed populace of a country still licking its ass from the reaming it got at the end of WWI. Anyone claiming to be a friend of the US armed forces should know all about it, but for some reason public schools still like to gloss over the particulars of the holocaust. Children today are so coddled and shielded from the ghastly horrors of history that they have been made into staggering idiots who know nothing about the past. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, but something tells me you wouldn’t lament the loss of six million liberals/gays/democrats/whatever.

    Bush may not be *quite* as blatant as hitler about his disregard for those who don’t believe as he does – although his own daddy was quoted as having said that atheists aren’t patriots and have no place in america, a nation “under god.” King George is the worst thing that has happened to this country since pearl harbor. His hippocrisy and madness know no limits, and it is his thirst for blood and oil that have made america the laughing stock of the world. If people like us start to listen to people like you, then there’s be no one to oppose the injustices committed by this regime, or at the very least bring them to light. I suppose it’s in your nature to follow people and concepts blindly though – you are, after all, a wannabe religious ideologue.
    I don’t stand by this idiot even if he is the president. if i were in the secret service i’d make it a point to duck often to pick up shiny pennies from the street when escorting him anywhere. He invaded a sovereign nation under false pretenses and never apologized to anyone when it became common knowledge that he ordered troops in to topple saddam using bad intelligence, even after thousands of people had died fighting his war. If you had a relative who died in iraq i wonder how you’d feel about heir bush. you wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you on the sac.

    It never ceases to amaze me how many dumb poor people are republicans. The republican party has gone out of its way to show favor to the wealthy elite while using the poor working class people as griste for the mill, grinding them into pulp to grease the cogs of big business. the way they keep them coming back for more is by telling them through the odious tool of religion that they’re “on their side.” In a lot of inner cities, enlisting is seen as the only way of escaping the piss poor living conditions that decades of republican rule and budget cuts have delivered upon them. It’s like a recipe for creating your own army: Divert funds into the armed forces and away from public education, health services, inner city planning and development; the people who live there get sick of dodging bullets and flipping burgers and join the army; lather rinse and repeat.

    If you feel so strongly about supporting “operation: steal their oil” then i suggest you volunteer to hop on over there and get your own stupid ass blown off. that way we won’t have to deal with you anymore.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links