What is a liberal?

Many of us here throw the term “liberal” around here like it was going out of style. I myself have been called a liberal on these very boards. This confuses me, being that I don’t consider myself liberal, yet I don’t consider myself conservative either, but who knows.

So, thinking about the post I see the term used in, I am going to take a guess at what liberal is.

1. Liberals are Democrats
2. Liberals hate guns
3. Liberals hate America
4. Liberals hate God
5. Liberals love national health care and welfare
6. Liberals have no monetary restraint

Hmm, strangely enough, for each one, I can think of examples contrary. Those labels are so broad that they are almost meaningless.

I am starting to think that liberals are like that monster in the closet when we where kids. You never saw it, but you knew it was there.

Anyway, can you guys help me out and tell me what a liberal is? I want to be able to point, call someone a liberal, and dismiss anything they have to say out of hand, but I want to make sure that I ID them correctly. I would hate to call any “conservative” a liberal by mistake.

Liberals want to change things that do not need to be changed.

Simple as that.

Gotta hand it to Ya-Great post! I think that I'll sit back and watch this one for awhile.
First, I'm gonna run down to my local C-Store and get some brew, smokes, and a bag of un-shelled peanuts. Hah!
This'll be more fun than watching two naked fat chicks fighting over the last maple bar!
:evil:
Biker

Liberals want to change things that do not need to be changed.

Simple as that.+1

And if you agreed to change the things, they will not ever be satisfied, and they will not ever go away...

They are the elite and know what is best for the sheeple...

I've been wondering the same thing for quite a while now.

Liberals want to change things that do not need to be changed.

Simple as that.

Like what?

Liberal=socialist

I've been wondering the same thing for quite a while now.



Like what?

The specifics Tuffpaws listed are a start. Liberals are liberal with change. They aren't happy with a static world, they feel compelled to change things "for the better," when in fact they're making things worse. It doesn't much matter what they change, so long as they change it. It should go to show you how perfect our society was when liberals had to try to change idiotic things that 5 years prior were considered the norm. They no longer had significant changes to make.

There are liberals on both sides of the political scale by the way. There just tend to be far more liberal Democrats than Republicans.

ETA: Liberals don't hate god (at least not for the most part I'm sure). They just need things to change, and changing the distinction between government and religion is just another target. They are religious too. Me personally, I'm not religious, but it makes me angry that liberals want the ten commandments down from government buildings and "in god we trust" off our currency. Is it HURTING you? Do you NEED it gone? I'm not religious and I don't care about it.

The specifics Tuffpaws listed are a start. Liberals are liberal with change. They aren't happy with a static world, they feel compelled to change things "for the better," when in fact they're making things worse. It doesn't much matter what they change, so long as they change it.

Examples?

I think liberals start with the belief that everyone is entitled to a slice of the pie, regardless of whether or not an individual actually does any work to achieve personal success or contributes to the betterment of society.

A basic liberal notion is to take money from successful individuals who've worked hard their whole lives, and distribute "benefits" to those less-fortunate individuals -- because it's not their fault that they are uneducated, drug-addicted, unemployed and have borne five out-of-wedlock welfare-dependent children from five different fathers (or have fathered five children with five different welfare-dependent mothers) ...

Examples?

Foreign policy, more gun laws, separation of church and state to name a few.

I suppose the opposing side wants things changed back to the way they were in the past, which might make them partial liberals by definition. But liberals, being the opposite of conservatives, do not value tradition.

Maybe what makes a liberal is a denial of logic and a longing to "save the children" from themselves and everything dangerous by removing the obstacles that give people character and an ability to face the unknown without support.

No one who uses the word as a noun deserves to be listened to.

No one who uses the word as a noun deserves to be listened to.

Then I suppose anyone who uses the terms Democrat or Republican as nouns doesn't deserve to be listened to either.

Far as I'm concerned, it's a verb, an adverb, a noun, and a pronoun depending on how it's used.

To put it simply, liberals believes goverment is the solution to all problem, whereas conservitives believe goverment is the problem.

There are two different types of Liberals. The first are like the founding fathers, they are now labeled classical Liberals. Who supported individial equal rights under a freely elected democraticly elected government. They believed in a liberal economics of free interprise.
Then their are modern liberals, who support social and cultural equality or now know as multiculturalism, at the expense of individial rights. They believe in a strong government control of the economy, property and people. Many are Socialist and Marxist.

To put it simply, liberals believes goverment is the solution to all problem, whereas conservitives believe goverment is the problem.

That would be Democrats and Republicans. :) Democrats want power given to big government, Republicans want power kept at the lowest levels, where it belongs. The country was founded as a Republic.

Liberals and conservatives are subcatagories.

Liberal=socialist
This is the best definition you're going to see in this thread.

"Liberal" is just a friendly and harmless sounding synonym for "communist".

Good start TuffPaws. All the rest of the answers are right too. Liberal is a unamerican that any good Constitution supportin, 2nd Amendment lovin, Pledge sayin, God lovin, flag wavin American may not be able to describe with a formal Webster definition but we sure know one when they open their mouth or draft legislation.:fire: :barf: Right gentlemen.

a liberal is someone who seeks to impose their ideas of what individuals in our society *need*, and advocates that no one is responsible for their own actions. if you can blame it on someone else, you're a liberal. if you think you can make the decisions for everyone based on your own narrow view of reality you're a liberal.
liberals mask their own hypocrisy with horrid whining and incessant crying. they may say they are 'tolerant', but count how many times they insult you with racial or sexual epiteths and you'll see just how much they really 'tolerate' minorities and those with different sexual orientations.

at the heart of liberalism is good old fashioned greed and envy. they want the money that big corporations have, and they want the prestige of being a so-called 'elite'.
liberals think that somehow they are special and deserve special privileges. they preach about eliminating things like 'personal possessions' and talk longingly about 'sharing the whole world' with one another, but in reality they desire to amass fortunes and wealth and hoard it all for themselves.
liberals tell everyone else to 'give and share' but when they are asked to share their riches, they instead have a 'charity concert' and donate a PORTION of the proceeds for whatever cause, rather than dip into their own bank accounts and get those in need the help they require immediately.
liberals want us to believe they truly care for each and every individual, but while millions are being tortured or slaughtered, they care more about whether or not they are on some blacklist they blame on the jews in hollywood.

Liberals want to change things that do not need to be changed.

Simple as that.

+1

Furthermore, once liberals have succeeded in abolishing something they find offensive, they pick something else to be offended by, no matter how miniscule or ridiculous.

What is a liberal? That's an easy one. A liberal is a strange beast from another planet. It could be a purple dinosaur, flying pig or other strange looking beast. Some of them emulate humans. The ones that look like humans are often feared, shunned or ridiculed. You don't think like me so therefore you are a liberal. I think the real meaning of a liberal gets totally lost on gun forums(thats all I read).

So MRTUFFPAWS I believe if this thread runs for 100 post you will get 100 different answers as to what a liberal is.

No one who uses the word as a noun deserves to be listened to.

+1

I'm so glad to find I'm not the only person who thinks this.

Democrats want power given to big government, Republicans want power kept at the lowest levels, where it belongs.

In that case, Bush must be a Democrat who has somehow managed to trick everyone into thinking he's a Republican.

Main Entry: 2liberal
Function: noun
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights

if you think you can make the decisions for everyone based on your own narrow view of reality you're a liberal.

Then people against gay marriage are liberals?

no alex, that topics just a little bit more complicated that how you'd like to see it.

In that case, Bush must be a Democrat who has somehow managed to trick everyone into thinking he's a Republican.

Well, that's those are the definitions of the words. There's not much of a distinction anymore.

Liberals think of themselves as people who want to maximize individual liberties and they believe no amount of government is too much to achieve that end.

the liberal and conservative labels are meaningless. This is all managed conflict, we fight each other, and the real players get away with the whole candy store when we're not looking :scrutiny:

my definition: a well-meaning person who wants to save everyone from everything, including themselves, and does not understand or care about unintended consequences as long as their action feels like the compassionate thing to do.

I wish I had saved a piece I read a few years ago regarding this very issue. It explained in great detail when and how the bastardization of the word "liberal" took place.

It was in the early part of the 20th century when a left-leaning group in the United States surmized that calling themselves "leftists" didn't sell too well with the general public. It was a woman in this group that came up with the notion that "liberal" would be far more acceptable and welcoming to your average soccer-mom, soccer-dad, soccer-son and soccer-daughter.

This is unique to the United States. Go to South America and elsewhere, a "liberal" is still regarded as a non-leftist, a person of "liberty".

For instance, in the translator's notes of "Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot" by Mendoza, Montaner & Llosa, they specifically point out that all use of the term "liberal" means "libertarian" or "classical liberal".

If you ever listen to or read David Horowitz, you will quickly sense him not playing into the word games of the left: He will, 99% of the time, refer to them as "leftists".

A leftist can attempt to euphemize themselves with "liberal" or "progressive" or "populist" all they want to, but they are still humanity's most destructive, rancid element.

Ergo, to be accurate, call them what they are: LEFTISTS

I award the kewpie doll to.........

seansean said:

the liberal and conservative labels are meaningless. This is all managed conflict, we fight each other, and the real players get away with the whole candy store when we're not looking

A "Liberal" is the bogeyman living under the bed of anyone who considers themselves "Conservative." :what:

.....and vice versa

The definitions of liberal and conservative (in relation to American politics) from a political science standpoint, are miles away from common usage. Which is why we have new terms to describe old friends...Neo-Cons, Paleoliberals, Greens, Neoliberals, Paleocons, etc., etc., ad infinitum...

What most would call a "liberal" in America...I would call a Leftist Authoritarian. :eek:

What most would call a "conservative" in America....I would call a Slightly less Leftist Authoritarian. :D

Both groups spit on individual rights, think that government and bureacracy can cure what ails ya, tax and spend, constrict the market, decry conduct outside their approved boundaries, etc.

Wikipedia has a pretty decent overview of Liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism).

This is a test. This is only a test. I am temporarily replacing a few choce words in a previous post, to see how it sounds. Please do not be alarmed. If you feel yourself becoming nauseous, just place your lap tray in the upright position, and lean back. It'll all be over soon...


A conservative is someone who seeks to impose their ideas of what individuals in our society *need*, and advocates that no one is responsible for their own actions. if you can blame it on someone else, you're a conservative. if you think you can make the decisions for everyone based on your own narrow view of reality you're a conservative.
Conservatives mask their own hypocrisy with horrid whining and incessant crying. they may say they are 'tolerant', but count how many times they insult you with racial or sexual epiteths and you'll see just how much they really 'tolerate' minorities and those with different sexual orientations.

At the heart of conservatism is good old fashioned greed and envy. They want the money that the people have, and they want the prestige of being a so-called 'elite'.
Conservatives think that somehow they are special and deserve special privileges. They preach about eliminating things like 'capitol gains taxes' and talk longingly about 'sharing resources' with one another, but in reality they desire to amass fortunes and wealth and hoard it all for themselves.
Conservatives tell everyone else to 'spend money to drive the economy' but when they are asked to share their riches, they instead 'raise prices' and claim that the money will 'trickle down', rather than dip into their own bank accounts and get those in need the help they require immediately.
Conservatives want us to believe they truly care for each and every individual, but while millions are being tortured or slaughtered, they care more about whether or not they are on some blacklist they blame on the jews in hollywood.


:p


:evil:

Liberal is to communist as corruption is to politician.

So MRTUFFPAWS I believe if this thread runs for 100 post you will get 100 different answers as to what a liberal is.


So far that is what it is coming too. ;)

But liberals, being the opposite of conservatives, do not value tradition.

See, this is what I am talking about. Generalizations so dang broad that they become meaningless. What is worse, is it is a declaration of ignorance of the past. Most tradition that we value today are relatively new.

A liberal is a socialist that likes money. A liberal wants socialism for everyone else. Liberals want to take care of the poor and needy just as long as they don't move into their neighborhoods.

See, this is what I am talking about. Generalizations so dang broad that they become meaningless. What is worse, is it is a declaration of ignorance of the past. Most tradition that we value today are relatively new.

I'm sorry, but can you argue that liberals do not value tradition?

I prefer to call them leftists.

Anyway, can you guys help me out and tell me what a liberal is?

Around here, Liberal is a pejorative epithet, like Yankee or Punk. It's not used so much to describe someone's politics as it is to disparage him.

See Also: Redneck

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTuffPaws
See, this is what I am talking about. Generalizations so dang broad that they become meaningless. What is worse, is it is a declaration of ignorance of the past. Most tradition that we value today are relatively new.


I'm sorry, but can you argue that liberals do not value tradition?

They are all for gay marriage, which, is traditionally an oxymoron

next :evil:

what are we defining anyway? the classical liberals that founded the country? or the filthy socialists that grab guns and raise taxes now??

what are we defining anyway? the classical liberals that founded the country? or the filthy socialists that grab guns and raise taxes now??Good point, which is why I call the modern kind leftists, not liberals. The leftists stole the label and don't deserve to have the root for liberty as any part of their description.

I thought it was FDR that mashed up the classic definitions of liberal and conservative?

It was in the early part of the 20th century when a left-leaning group in the United States surmized that calling themselves "leftists" didn't sell too well with the general public. It was a woman in this group that came up with the notion that "liberal" would be far more acceptable and welcoming to your average soccer-mom, soccer-dad, soccer-son and soccer-daughter.

This is unique to the United States. Go to South America and elsewhere, a "liberal" is still regarded as a non-leftist, a person of "liberty".

For instance, in the translator's notes of "Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot" by Mendoza, Montaner & Llosa, they specifically point out that all use of the term "liberal" means "libertarian" or "classical liberal".

If you ever listen to or read David Horowitz, you will quickly sense him not playing into the word games of the left: He will, 99% of the time, refer to them as "leftists".

A leftist can attempt to euphemize themselves with "liberal" or "progressive" or "populist" all they want to, but they are still humanity's most destructive, rancid element.

Ergo, to be accurate, call them what they are: LEFTISTS

A leftist can attempt to euphemize themselves with "liberal" or "progressive" or "populist" all they want to, but they are still humanity's most destructive, rancid element.

Ergo, to be accurate, call them what they are: LEFTISTS


The problem remains, you know the they are leftists, and i know they are leftists, but they think they are "liberals" and are known as such by most people in general

I agree today a liberal is a leftist. They talk about the greedy conservatives. But they forget Thy shall not steal and you will never hear them say Thy shall not COVET------- kinda like the 10th amendment to the Constitution. I can't see it, I can't see it. What they would do if they could get away with it is----------Take my paycheck and directly deposit it into the US Treasury. They would then provide me a government living place, food, medical care, transportation, clothes(as they determined I needed) they would then send me back an allowance and if I was tolerant and good I would get to keep that to spend in the government store. This store would have no religious things for sale, no guns, sharp kinives, things made of fur, fatty foods, cigarettes, chemicals that I could comment suicide with or posion the earth mother. They would allow abortion, euthansia , sexual realtions of any kind any where, and hard drugs. And if I really complained they would demand instead of capital punishemant state sponsored euthansia for my mental illness. Oh and they would care(steal ,take away) all my children to be raised as they see proper. Hillary " I am going to take things from you":what:

The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club. -- Dave Barry

;)

whereas conservitives believe goverment is the problem.
Republicans want power kept at the lowest levels, where it belongs.

Hmmmm....
Sounds like a LIBERTARIAN to me.

In that case, Bush must be a Democrat who has somehow managed to trick everyone into thinking he's a Republican.
If it looks like it and smells like it better not step in it...

To put it simply, liberals believes goverment is the solution to all problem, whereas conservitives believe goverment is the problem. You have that exactly backwards. Liberty = Less Gov, Conservation = Restriction.

Liberals want to change things that do not need to be changed.

Simple as that. Yeah those stupid founding fathers. Should have left well enough alone. UberPhLuBB, you are a Tory, plain and simple.

Liberal=socialist That doesn't even make sense. Perhaps leftists who call themselves liberals are socialists, but that doesn't mean they are liberals.

a liberal is someone who seeks to impose their ideas of what individuals in our society *need*, and advocates that no one is responsible for their own actions. if you can blame it on someone else, you're a liberal. if you think you can make the decisions for everyone based on your own narrow view of reality you're a liberal. That is pretty much the exact opposite of liberty. I suppose you think that the people shooting at our soldiers in Iraq are "Freedom Fighters" too. I mean, that is what they call themselves, so Freedom Fighters must be people who hack off people's heads on TV, right? That is the logic you are using.

no alex, that topics just a little bit more complicated that how you'd like to see it. Oh, I get it, your narrow views are okay, but other people's narrow views are wrong?:rolleyes:

Liberals think of themselves as people who want to maximize individual liberties and they believe no amount of government is too much to achieve that end. Nothing liberal about that.


It was in the early part of the 20th century when a left-leaning group in the United States surmized that calling themselves "leftists" didn't sell too well with the general public. It was a woman in this group that came up with the notion that "liberal" would be far more acceptable and welcoming to your average soccer-mom, soccer-dad, soccer-son and soccer-daughter.

Ergo, to be accurate, call them what they are: LEFTISTS +1 Yup, just as Terrorist doesn't sound as good as Freedom Fighter.

the liberal and conservative labels are meaningless. This is all managed conflict, we fight each other, and the real players get away with the whole candy store when we're not looking :scrutiny: Sadly, IAWTC



What most would call a "liberal" in America...I would call a Leftist Authoritarian. :eek:

What most would call a "conservative" in America....I would call a Slightly less Leftist Authoritarian. :D

Both groups spit on individual rights, think that government and bureacracy can cure what ails ya, tax and spend, constrict the market, decry conduct outside their approved boundaries, etc. That sounds a little more like it.

.

Liberalism is the absense of moral absolutes.

When I think of Liberal, a certain person comes to mind: George Carlin. Bitter, angry, pessimistic, anti-business, somewhat amusing but at the end of the day a sad sight to look at .

Liberalism is the absense of moral absolutes. Would that make Fascism the pinnacle of piety? Would that make our founding fathers sinners of the lowest kind?

Or maybe liberalism is just an "ism" word coined to demonize anyone who loves freedom.

Liberals want to "change" the Constitution via judicial activism.

This is grounded in the belief that the Constitution is NOT a fixed-in-concrete framework, but rather open to, umm... "contemporary trends, needs, and values"... listening to leading judicial thought in Europe, etcetera... what's blowin' in the wind, dude? Kinda like... what's hot on MTV THIS week? What's "in?" What's "out?" "What's cool?"

Liberals use sneaky tactics to change/re-interpret the Constitution because they KNOW they cannot get the Congress, Senate, and 35 states to approve the REAL Constitutional amendments they actually desire. So, they seek to empower judges who will "legislate from the bench."

The Second Amendment (and Libs' incessant attempts to circumvent/gut it) are the perfect illustration of this intellectually-bankrupt syndrome.

So, while Dr. Howard Dean proclaims that "gun control" is no longer a plank in the NATIONAL Dem-Donkey platform, leading Lib-pols in blue cities and states across the country continue their War On Guns (see city of San Francisco, states of Kolleeforniya and Illinois, etc.). And we're supposed to actually believe that when those local Lib-pol gun-grabbers grow to national stature and eventually get elected to the Congress/Senate... that they'll suddenly become Protectors Of The Second Amendment?!?

Right.

(Maybe as long as the 2A is defined as, umm, "Sportsmens' Rights To Go Duck Hunting")

"That's a helluva price to pay just for bein' stylish."
-- Dirty Harry, "Magnum Force"

Communist and/or transnational socialists (they are pretty much the same) have stolen the terms "liberal" and "progressive" to hide their agendas. "Look, we're like the Founding Fathers..."

SORRY libs. The Founding Fathers also set up a penalty for the crime Treason, something many "liberals" embrace on a daily basis. Oh, I know they skirt the issue, but they really enjoy anti-american activity that they wrap in the words "free speech". We haven't executed anyone for treason (espionage) since the Rosenbergs in 1956 AFAIK. High time we do again.

Some conservatives use the term "liberal" to refer to almost anything they disagree with. Communitarianism, for example. Bill Clinton was a communitarian, not a classical liberal, which happens to be why he was SO anti-gun (read the communitarian platform sometime). Not all communitarians are on the left, either (Bill Bennett comes to mind).

Not all liberals are socialists, and not all socialists are liberals. (Remember the National Socialist German Worker's Party? Those weren't liberals...)

I've heard some people refer to libertarians as "liberals" because libertarians support scaling back the WOsD, support the First and Fourth Amendments (like *gasp* the ACLU), and oppose the Patriot Act.

In short, the word doesn't mean much as it is used today. I wouldn't even be sure how to define it, actually.

That's sort of like asking "what is a neocon?" Which is also a term that used to mean something, but is more of a catch-all label these days.

This is grounded in the belief that the Constitution is NOT a fixed-in-concrete framework, but rather open to, umm... "contemporary trends, needs, and values"... listening to leading judicial thought in Europe, etcetera... what's blowin' in the wind, dude? Kinda like... what's hot on MTV THIS week? What's "in?" What's "out?" "What's cool?"

You said it well IMO but in simpler terms the Constitution gets in the way of liberal agendas. In today's political environment I believe we might say that there are those willing to be bound by a Constitution and those who are not.

If anyone had the chance to watch Discovery Channel's first episode of Red & Blue, you might get a pretty good picture of the differences between liberal and conservative thought. For those not aware of it, the program takes "typical" blue state and red state families and have them switch places for a period of time. In this case a family from a small farming town in Louisiana switched with a southern Calif family.

The interactions of these families within the commuity says it all.

At an informal get-together the the blue-state father asked the hostess if there was someplace he could go to have a smoke. She sent him off somewhere remote from the gathering. The whole time he was hounded by one of the other guests about how bad smoking was and how it should be outlawed. He just simply told the guy if he didn't like it to simply avoid it. When talking about guns the father said if you don't like them you shouldn't have one.

On the other side of the spectrum, the Calif. family made no secret of their distaste for certain things like smoking, church, and guns. The people in the small Louisiana farm community just generally politely nodded their heads and went about their business.

That's the difference.

However, it became pretty clear that the Calif. father was having a BLAST shooting the guns...boy did THAT irritate his wife.

hell what is a Conservative these days??

hell what is a Conservative these days??A conservative is what he has always been. He is someone who wishes to restore and preserve political liberty (i.e., get the government generally out of his business, and return internal governmental power to the States and local governments where he can have some influence over it where it interacts with his personal life and liberties, if at all). He also believes that liberty does not exist in a vacuum. In order to be sustained, it must be sustained in the atmosphere that gave it life to begin with, i.e., it must be sustained in the contexts of the traditions and institutions that gave it birth. It must also be sustained within the rigid structure of the Constitution and the rule of law. Edmund Burke was a conservative.

A libertarian similarly wishes to restore and preserve political liberty, but he doesn't understand that it was given birth to by a certain culture amid certain traditions and certain institutions. Liberty can exist in a cultural vacuum, says the libertarian. It is self-perpetuating, once correctly instituted, which, according to them, it has yet to be. I believe that Thomas Paine was a fairly pure libertarian, though they were called just plain liberals back then.

Now, the leftists have no love for liberty. They are statists, but are known to call themselves liberals so as to throw you off their trail. These are the enemies of liberty. They believe in collectivism. They believe that the individual is far less important than the state, and ought to be made to serve the needs of the state, which they worship almost like a god. Neither tradition nor liberty has any value to them. Joe Stalin was a leftist, as were Adolph Hitler and Mussolini, not to mention just about every elected Democrat, and more than a few Repubicans, in the United States.

nobrakes23 said:
That is pretty much the exact opposite of liberty. I suppose you think that the people shooting at our soldiers in Iraq are "Freedom Fighters" too. I mean, that is what they call themselves, so Freedom Fighters must be people who hack off people's heads on TV, right? That is the logic you are using.
could you make some sense of that? explain yourself further so i can give a proper response?

Actually our Founding Forefathers were Liberals too.
People always confuse the term Liberal and Leftist, often putting them together in the same group.
I think the true Liberals of yesterday are far far gone, and the term means something totally different in today's world.

A better term would be Leftist, or Bleeding Heart Leftist, usually somebody's stance on morality defines whether they are on the left or right.
-Leftists-
Support gun control
Support abortion rights
Support the removal of God from public
Think a government with more federal control is better as opposed to local laws
They think that because Richard Belzer or Hillary Clinton say it's okay then it must be.

Whatever you do my friend, don't vote Hillary Clinton into office, otherwise it probably will be civillians vs. the government because she'll try to force her Leftist will upon the people.

-"The siezure of arms will ensure that a democracy becomes a dictatorship." ~Me
-"Tune in next week for... America's Next Top Illogical!" ~Me

As near as I can tell a liberal/democrat is someone who wants the government out of your bedroom and in your office. Conversely, a conservative/republican is someone who wants the government out of your office and in your bedroom.

-Leftists-
Support gun control
Support abortion rights
Support the removal of God from public
Think a government with more federal control is better as opposed to local laws
They think that because Richard Belzer or Hillary Clinton say it's okay then it must be.

I don't see this as correct. You are defining the polarity between Democrats and Republicans more than left vs right. People have picked champions pro or con on the abortion and church state separation questions, but those are not exclusive of either the left or right...not inherent to one or the other from a political philosophy perspective. Regardless, it would not be accurate to say, for example, that Republicans were pro-life by definition. In fact, I could argue that being pro choice and against intrusion in government and public proceedings by a religion was quite conservative.

Hawkeye thats a nice little summery...you should post it at the GOP headquarters....... :rolleyes:

Beyond their propensity for bending the Constitution to achieve judicially (via "liberals" planted in the courts, etc.) what they cannot achieve legislatively, there are two additional traits that define modern Liberals:

1. CULTURAL ELITISM:
"Liberals" believe their educational credentials render their opinions/insights vastly superior to the unwashed hordes'. They think they Know What's Best for society. Deep in their hearts, they wish their votes "counted more" than the average Joe's. So, because they "know" what we really need for true "progress" and "social justice" they push agendae For The Children, i.e., turning the country into one big Day-Care Center... agendae which also just so happen to trample upon individual rights and the Constitution.

Book-signings, wine-tastings, film festivals, teach-ins, and various trendy feel-good political "demonstrations" are sure-fire places to find modern Liberals. Gun shows are not. It's pure cultural affinity.

2. PACIFISM:
"Liberals" naively believe that their cultural/intellectual "superiority" enables them -- and governments lead by them -- to achieve social and international harmony without resorting to overt conflict or war ("violence"). Such conflict is "lowering yourself to their level" and thus reprehensible, because "violence never achieved anything" (notwithstanding the lessons of history). The U.N. defines LibThink run amok. In this mindset, non-violent "conflict resolution," appeasement, and even surrender are vastly preferable to ever Taking-A-Stand... and actually (mercy!) fighting... because "Oohh, somebody might get hurt."

Thus, Self Defense (at the point of attack) is reprehensible "John Wayne vigilantilism," or "taking the law into your own hands." If you point out to a Lib that "A gun in the hand beats a cop on the phone" the Lib will go into orbit, ranting about The Common Good, blah blah, etc..

In modern LibThink...(a) "Troops" are invented primarily for "bringing home", and (b) the Second Amendment is (regrettably) solely about "sportsmens' rights" (until they can finally demonize such Neanderthal/blood-thirsty behavior out of existence). Besides, if ya Bring The Troops Home, you can (a) turn the Troops into thumb-sucking, vegetarian Bunny-Huggers, and (b) have more money for social programs that buy votes.

While some members of the Republican Party (RINOs) tend to align their votes with LibThink so they can serve disengaged or squeamish (pacifist/cultural elitist) voter constituencies -- and keep their jobs -- modern LibThink is deeply embedded in the Democrat Party.

Pacifism and Cultural Elitism: it's always what's-for-dinner at LibThink Central.

could you make some sense of that? explain yourself further so i can give a proper response?

You are clearly describing socialists and leftist, NOT liberals. You call them "liberals" because they call themselves that.

Similarly, the insurgents in Iraq don't call themselves terrorists, they call themselves "freedom fighters". You and I both know they are not fighting for freedom, but that is what they call themselves. When someone wants to tell me I can't drive an SUV, own a certain gun, or play a certain video game, they are the opposite of liberal. Leftists, Socialists and Democrats frequently clamor about what we need to ban or outlaw, and that is NOT liberal. Yet because they call themselves liberal, you go right along with it. It would be the same as using the word Freedom Fighter as a synonym for anyone who opposes us, just because some who oppose us would incorrectly describe themselves as such.

As someone who served for 8 years sword to defend the Constitution, I take personal offense when folks use the word Liberal as an epithet. People who don't believe in Liberty should move to another country.

Now if you want to talk about how leftists and socialists are ruining the country, I am right there with ya.

I agree we should start calling Modern liberals, their true name... leftist. For some reason, in this country we call leftist as liberals. They have nothing in common with traditional Liberals, who believe in democracy and Liberty. Traditional Liberals, are the people we read about in the news, who are trying to reform their countries, former communist countries or autocratic states, into democratic states that gurantee personal freedoms. Leftist are the people who reform Autocratic states into Communist or Leftist socialist states. A good example is Venuzeula, where leftist have taken control of the Government, and are restricting democracy and personal freedom in the country. But the US media calls them liberals, wether they don't know what the word means, or they are trying to confuse the liberal and leftist meanings. :what:
In this country political words have multiable meaning depending on the useage and time period. Traditionally a Republican opposes monarchies, and believes in a Free Republic( French Revolution). A Republic is not a pure Democratic state where everyone has equal votes. Today, a Republican is a Conservative. This all is very confusing.

On a side note, Democrats use to be traditional Liberals. In the 1950s leftist started to infultrate the Democrat party, by the 1970s they had moved the base of the party to the far left. In the 80s, Under Regan many Liberal democrats shifted parties to become Republicans.

In response to Nobrakes 23
Thomas Jefferson a liberal, thats a first. Thomas Jefferson was a federalist.
Right and left are recent political venue. Liberalism in todays world is socialism. In socialism goverment is god.






















r

In response to Nobrakes 23
Thomas Jefferson a liberal, thats a first. Thomas Jefferson was a federalist.
Right and left are recent political venue. Liberalism in todays world is socialism. In socialism goverment is god.


A Federalist is someone who supported a strong Federal Government, am example is Alexander Hamilton. A Liberal believes in individial Liberty protected by laws. Jefferson was not a Federalist, he was a Republican and a Liberal.

Jefferson was not a Federalist, he was a Republican Actually, Jefferson was a 'Democratic-Republican'; the party that is the root of the Democrat Party. It was the 'average man' , becoming resentful of the rich and well born, who gave rise to the Democrat-Republican party by way of Jefferson and Madison. The Federalists were almost all propertied northern merchants. George Washington and John Adams were Federalists, which later became the Republican Party.

Liberals want to "change" the Constitution via judicial activism.

What is judicial activism? Honestly, it is a buzz word that means, the SCotUS ruled against the way I think they should.


Liberals use sneaky tactics to change/re-interpret the Constitution because they KNOW they cannot get the Congress, Senate, and 35 states to approve the REAL Constitutional amendments they actually desire. So, they seek to empower judges who will "legislate from the bench."

Oh, you mean the like the FCC, which was put into place by a conservative god. Not to mention moral standards implemented by law and attempts at making things like flag burning illegal?

The Second Amendment (and Libs' incessant attempts to circumvent/gut it) are the perfect illustration of this intellectually-bankrupt syndrome.

Some of the most horrendous gutting of the 2nd was done under conservative admins. Take Bush Sr. for example.

So, while Dr. Howard Dean proclaims that "gun control" is no longer a plank in the NATIONAL Dem-Donkey platform, leading Lib-pols in blue cities and states across the country continue their War On Guns (see city of San Francisco, states of Kolleeforniya and Illinois, etc.). And we're supposed to actually believe that when those local Lib-pol gun-grabbers grow to national stature and eventually get elected to the Congress/Senate... that they'll suddenly become Protectors Of The Second Amendment?!?

Right.

Yeah, in the same way conservatives believe in smaller government, increased rights, and less spending :rolleyes:

As near as I can tell a liberal/democrat is someone who wants the government out of your bedroom and in your office. Conversely, a conservative/republican is someone who wants the government out of your office and in your bedroom.

Funny but too true for comfort

Actually, Jefferson was a 'Democratic-Republican'; the party that is the root of the Democrat Party. It was the 'average man' , becoming resentful of the rich and well born, who gave rise to the Democrat-Republican party by way of Jefferson and Madison. The Federalists were almost all propertied northern merchants. George Washington and John Adams were Federalists, which later became the Republican Party.He didn't mean to suggest that Jefferson was a member of the Republican Party. He meant that Jefferson was a "small r" republican, i.e., in the sense that Brutus was a republican, i.e., someone who advocates a republican form of government.

Webster(the dictionary)has many definitons. Here's a couple of my favorites.
1.Lacking moral restraint
2.One who is open minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways.

Expecting an answer to the question "what is a liberal" on this board would be like asking me what a conservative is. I could only answer out of my own prejudices, as I've never been one.

Here's what I, and many of the other liberals I communicate with, believe in:

1. Regulated capitalism. Unrestricted anything tends to be bad, as it magnifies the "dark side" along with the good. Without effective regulation, capitalism degenerates into the kind of ruthlessness we saw in the Industrial Revolution. I, for one, have no desire to live in the 1880s. Left to it's own devices, capitalism tends towards oligarchy and oppression. This was the one thing Marx got right. (His solutions, on the other hand, are simply nonsense.) A regulated marketplace, which serves to limit the power of any one participant, is, we think, the best way to ensure the benefits of capitalism while avoiding it's worst potential abuses.

2. Labor unions. It is only through collective action, and negotiating as a group, that workers can begin to equalize the power relationship between themselves and their employers. It is in the employer's interest to extract the maximum work for the minimum cost. It is in the employee's interest to get the maximum benefit for the work that they do. In the inevitable conflict, liberals tend to take the side of the employee.

3. Separation of Chuch and State. I want my government to be completely silent when it comes to religion. Religion is a private matter, one which the state should stay 100% out of. Theocracies are inevitably oppressive. Religion is a force of great power. So is the state. Keep them apart.

4. Universal health care. For most liberals, this is a moral issue. Poverty shouldn't be a death sentence. Human life and health are not "products", and I don't want the market deciding who lives and who dies. It's possible to argue this one on the basis of cost, as well, but for most, it's ethical, not financial.

5. Limitations on the power of money. Especially unearned money. This is where the idea of inheritance taxes comes in. Being born rich confers enormous advantages, which the individual so blessed has done nothing to gain for him/her self. This is also where ideas like campaign finance reform come from. From the liberal perspective, one's net worth shouldn't confer any greater political power than any other citizen posseses. Ideally, it shouldn't give you any advantage other than the ability to buy more stuff, but that's kinda unrealistic.

6. Equality. Essentially, the idea that, from the state's perspective, all citizens are the same. This is not "Robin Hood." It is, again, a desire to minimize power differentials whenever possible.

7. Privacy. The decisions I make, so long as they impinge on no one else's liberties, are no business of the state. What I put in my body, who I have sex with, who I live with, what I do to myself is nobody's business but my own.

8. A general distrust of absolutes. There are exceptions to this, of course, but most liberals I know get pertty suspicious of anyone claiming to have "the one true way."

9. Distrust of power, and a reluctance to use it, or see it used in our name.

10. No short description here, but most liberals I know don't subscribe to the "Shining City on the Hill" idea. Which isn't to say that we're anti-American. For the most part, we'd just rather that America minded it's own darned business. There's noting special about us, as a people. We have inherited a (mostly) great society, but there's no reason for that other than the accidents of history, and we have no right or obligation to make anyone else be like us. If they want to, fine, but I really don't care.

11. Dissent. Disagreeing with one's government is not only the right of every American, it's a duty. Those in power should not be trusted, simply because they have power. They work for us, and we need to monitor their use of the power we give them closely, or they will misuse it. The freedom to disagree is the bedrock of liberty. Without it, nothing else matters. That's why they put it first in the Bill of Rights.

And finally, most of us are patrioits. You can, of course, believe that liberal=traitor all you want, but you'd better not even think it real loud around me. Veterans tend to take that rather poorly.

You'll notice that there's nothing in here about gun control. That's because most liberals I know don't believe in it much. Now, certain politicians do, but I think that has much more to do with being "tough on crime", whatever that means, than liberalism, per se. For what it's worth, gun control hasn't been on the Democratic Party platform for a long time now, and the Party's chairman got a 100% rating from the NRA when he was a Governor.

Hope that helped.

--Shannon

This is all so confusing :confused: . I'm a classical liberal at heart, but between the two sides, feel present day conservatives best represent classical liberal ideals more than liberals. Isn't classical liberalism about the individual being able to make rational choices for themselves and while distrusting gov't accepting it as a necessary evil that should be limited in power? I see very little in today's liberals/leftists that would indicate these values? Not that the conservatives are that great either just seem a little better. I'm also a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

This is all so confusing :confused:

Here...lemme help you out a bit chickenfried:

Some folks here think that the word "Liberal" is an dirty word, and people associated with that word are to be reviled, demonized and hated. They have taken a word and made it horrible, in their minds.

Utilizing a perverted version of Orwellian wordsmithing, they will call you names, and insult members of your family and your friends by changing a word from it's original meaning into something that they can put a handle on.

Somehow this passes on the High Road, and no one is ever called on it, but feel free to join the echo chamber. A bit loud, but presumedly you already have ear protection. :rolleyes:

Me, I am a little worried about friendly fire, so i am gonna sit this one out--I like my hearing, and I would prefer to save some ammo for something that actually matters...like getting fools like Fienstein and Burdick (local anti) out of office. :cuss:

I'm also a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

:what: Er...wrong forum.

Citizen "A" wants more out of life. A better standard of living.

A Liberal will advise Citizen "A" to whine more whereas a Conservative type will advise Citizen "A" to work more.

Liberals feel that there is no problem that can't be solved by more federal spending and/or another federal agency.

Conservatives will tell you to look in the mirror for the solution to your problems.

Ted Kennedy is a Liberal.

Read Ayn Rand if you need more help figuring this one out.

I don’t consider myself liberal, yet I don’t consider myself conservative either, but who knows.



Welcome to the majority. Most of us are neither extremist liberals nor extremist conservatives. In fact both make me nervous.

Winston Churchill once said, "Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain"

But I think that as people mature they tend to become middle of the road with some conservative opinions and some liberal ones. Of course many people remain extremists, but they are not main stream.

Welcome to the majority. Most of use are neither extremist liberals nor conservatives. In fact both make me nervous.

Winston Churchill once said, "Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain"

But I think that as people mature they tend to become middle of the road with some conservative opinions and some liberal ones. Of course many people remain extremists, but they are not main stream."Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." - Barry Goldwater

Expecting an answer to the question "what is a liberal" on this board would be like asking me what a conservative is. I could only answer out of my own prejudices, as I've never been one.

Here's what I, and many of the other liberals I communicate with, believe in:

1. Regulated capitalism. Unrestricted anything tends to be bad, as it magnifies the "dark side" along with the good. Without effective regulation, capitalism degenerates into the kind of ruthlessness we saw in the Industrial Revolution. I, for one, have no desire to live in the 1880s. Left to it's own devices, capitalism tends towards oligarchy and oppression. This was the one thing Marx got right. (His solutions, on the other hand, are simply nonsense.) A regulated marketplace, which serves to limit the power of any one participant, is, we think, the best way to ensure the benefits of capitalism while avoiding it's worst potential abuses.

2. Labor unions. It is only through collective action, and negotiating as a group, that workers can begin to equalize the power relationship between themselves and their employers. It is in the employer's interest to extract the maximum work for the minimum cost. It is in the employee's interest to get the maximum benefit for the work that they do. In the inevitable conflict, liberals tend to take the side of the employee.

3. Separation of Chuch and State. I want my government to be completely silent when it comes to religion. Religion is a private matter, one which the state should stay 100% out of. Theocracies are inevitably oppressive. Religion is a force of great power. So is the state. Keep them apart.

4. Universal health care. For most liberals, this is a moral issue. Poverty shouldn't be a death sentence. Human life and health are not "products", and I don't want the market deciding who lives and who dies. It's possible to argue this one on the basis of cost, as well, but for most, it's ethical, not financial.

5. Limitations on the power of money. Especially unearned money. This is where the idea of inheritance taxes comes in. Being born rich confers enormous advantages, which the individual so blessed has done nothing to gain for him/her self. This is also where ideas like campaign finance reform come from. From the liberal perspective, one's net worth shouldn't confer any greater political power than any other citizen posseses. Ideally, it shouldn't give you any advantage other than the ability to buy more stuff, but that's kinda unrealistic.

6. Equality. Essentially, the idea that, from the state's perspective, all citizens are the same. This is not "Robin Hood." It is, again, a desire to minimize power differentials whenever possible.

7. Privacy. The decisions I make, so long as they impinge on no one else's liberties, are no business of the state. What I put in my body, who I have sex with, who I live with, what I do to myself is nobody's business but my own.

8. A general distrust of absolutes. There are exceptions to this, of course, but most liberals I know get pertty suspicious of anyone claiming to have "the one true way."

9. Distrust of power, and a reluctance to use it, or see it used in our name.

10. No short description here, but most liberals I know don't subscribe to the "Shining City on the Hill" idea. Which isn't to say that we're anti-American. For the most part, we'd just rather that America minded it's own darned business. There's noting special about us, as a people. We have inherited a (mostly) great society, but there's no reason for that other than the accidents of history, and we have no right or obligation to make anyone else be like us. If they want to, fine, but I really don't care.

11. Dissent. Disagreeing with one's government is not only the right of every American, it's a duty. Those in power should not be trusted, simply because they have power. They work for us, and we need to monitor their use of the power we give them closely, or they will misuse it. The freedom to disagree is the bedrock of liberty. Without it, nothing else matters. That's why they put it first in the Bill of Rights.

And finally, most of us are patrioits. You can, of course, believe that liberal=traitor all you want, but you'd better not even think it real loud around me. Veterans tend to take that rather poorly.

You'll notice that there's nothing in here about gun control. That's because most liberals I know don't believe in it much. Now, certain politicians do, but I think that has much more to do with being "tough on crime", whatever that means, than liberalism, per se. For what it's worth, gun control hasn't been on the Democratic Party platform for a long time now, and the Party's chairman got a 100% rating from the NRA when he was a Governor.

Hope that helped.

--ShannonIt is funny how little self-identified liberals and authentic conservatives understand one another. Half of what you advocate, an authentic conservative would applaud (though you imagine he would staunchly oppose), while the other half would, for good reason, make him sick to his stomach. I, as a conservative, find it hard to believe that you actually believe half of what you advocate, as it is so inconsistent with the other half.

Liberal is the word used to confuse peolpe from finding out that the "politically correct" crowd are really modern day fascists.

If they called themselves Fascists they wouldn't be able to confuse people.

BUt if you only accept your own ideas and want to control other peoples legal actions and beliefs what are you if not a fascist?

Gun registration and confiscation of the 20's, 30's & 40's was by communists, socialists and fascists - these so called liberals are just fascists by another name!

Some of the most horrendous gutting of the 2nd was done under conservative admins. Take Bush Sr. for example. Enlighten me Mr TuffPaws...

When I think of a liberal, I primarily think of someone obsessed with "the greater good". It's someone who can see justification for steam-rolling most any individual (except themself of course) for that intangible concept of "the greater good". In a nut shell, socialism.

I've given this a lot of thought, and have had some ideas rattling around "in there" for quite awhile...

I see the political spectrum as being circular vs. linear. In other words, if you proceed past extreme conservatism you find yourself in liberal territory. Or vice versa. It's possible that this only makes sense inside my brain housing group. I consider myself a conservative (without religious orientation), but I don't care what gays do or who has an abortion. I'm not in favor of abortion, but I recognize that half of the population is. I also know that there are going to be abortions regardless of the law. Better to have them done safely than in backrooms where those who have difficulty feel that they can't seek medical care. Unfortunately, legalization encourages the procedure...hmmm.

"Liberalism" is the bastion of "Political Correctness"...the concept that it's "Not OK" to judge someone else's actions/position/lifestyle as "Not OK"; unless they disagree with the liberal point of view..then they are definately "Not OK". OK? The difference here between conservatives and liberals, IMHO, is that the conservatives will recognize your right to your opinion while the liberals will go into attack mode over it.

I agree with a lot of the analysis that tube ee posted, except the inheritence part. It's MY LIFE and MY ASSETS...it's MY DECISION what to do with them at the end of MY LIFE. Just because I've died doesn't confer any ownership of MY STUFF to the government, collectively The People. Society, as a whole, has no right to step in and confiscate/redistribute my property upon my demise if I've decided otherwise.

Ted Kennedy...there's an interesting case study. Beneficiary of inherited political mantle/wealth/position. Poster child for Liberalism? Tossed out of college for cheating on exams, copped a pass on the death of Mary Jo Kopeckne. A total fraud who has gained the aura of respectability...kinda reminds me of my point regarding the circularity of the political spectrum.

Folks just keep throwing around terms with little concern for actual meaning. Better still, its being done in a strictly pejorative sense.

"Activist judges", "facists", "socialists", "elitists", "conservatives are the good guys...so liberals are the bad guys" etc... :neener:

Somebody mentioned that an "activist judge" was a judge who rules in opposition to your opinion. That assertion is fairly accurate :D

The very nature of the words conservative and liberal should help us reach some kind of conclusion shouldn't they? The problem is they don't anymore, because the true meanings of the words are twisted by spin doctor parrots on both sides of the fence.

If you are Hannity:
Liberal = wasteful, carefree, morally bankrupt.
Conservative = protective, traditional, morally upright. ;)

If you are Colmes:
Liberal = compassionate, forward thinking, caring.
Conservative = narrow minded, stodgy, cold-hearted. :p

Do we care about common (and inaccurate) usage? If so, then most of the slights against the dreaded blue-staters are spot on. If we are concerned with the recognized academic definition or explanation of a certain political ethos then most of the stones lobbed at "liberals" in this thread are way off base.

Fact is, if you live in modern America; regardless of which side of the fence you are on, you live in a leftist democratic republic that becomes increasingly authoritarian with each passing year. This is thanks mostly to an Executive branch that has been running roughshod over our founding principles for the last 150 years. We have state run education, we have a state-managed economy, we have state operated social programs (welfare, disability, social security, etc.), and so on. Its all sold to us in a pretty little package that says Federal "top-down" control is better and no matter what, Unky Sam can fix it all. Meanwhile the folks at the top of the heap do everything they can to keep the blue-staters scrabbling with the red-staters over issues that have nothing to do with GOVERNANCE. :mad:

rant off...

As already noted, using liberal is rather tricky, as the term was co-opted in the early part of the 20th century by the "Radical Reds" as the New York Times (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=6249) of 1920's once put it.

Anyhow, seems to me the dominant organizing principle liberalism as commonly understood in modern day America is based on is that it is the responsibility of The State to provide a "fair" environment for all "the masses" -- whether by preferential hiring/firing practices, steeply progressive taxation, citizen disarmament, or whathaveyou.

I'd argue that they just never understood "You do not make the weak strong by making the strong weak"

I'd also note that continually needing to come up with new words to describe a belief system (socialist, progressive, "economically liberal") is a sign of a failed belief system -- one that is constantly trying to fix a broken engine with a fresh paint job.

-K

As already noted, using liberal is rather tricky, as the term was co-opted in the early part of the 20th century by the "Radical Reds" as the New York Times (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=6249) of 1920's once put it.

Anyhow, seems to me the dominant organizing principle liberalism as commonly understood in modern day America is based on is that it is the responsibility of The State to provide a "fair" environment for all "the masses" -- whether by preferential hiring/firing practices, steeply progressive taxation, citizen disarmament, or whathaveyou.

I'd argue that they just never understood "You do not make the weak strong by making the strong weak"

I'd also note that continually needing to come up with new words to describe a belief system (socialist, progressive, "economically liberal") is a sign of a failed belief system -- one that is constantly trying to fix a broken engine with a fresh paint job.

-KExcellent point. If leftists actually came out and clearly stated what they actually stood for, they would never be elected to anything. This is the reason for the change in name to liberal, and then to progressive. They have to keep moving or too many people will begin to understand their positions, which will lead to their total loss of political influence. It is also why they are so desperate to retain the courts, as Americans are wising up to them in the political realm. The only way for them to get their policy preferences implemented, therefore, is through unelected courts who can simply impose those policies on the American people without being subject to removal via election.

Both liberals and conservatives range across a spectrum of political views. I assume from the opening post that we're trying to talk about the more extreme "Liberal" in the sense of the modern U.S. Liberal Democrat.

Aside from the social stuff like political correctness and strange views of word usage, what I see as a primary point is that liberals almost invariably call for more power to the central government. They generally knee-jerk-reflexively call for governmental solutions to social problems, and believe with religious fervor in the validity of the notion that intentions are more important than results. I have come to prefer the term "statist" as being more accurate in describing them.

Many other aspects can also be brought to the argument, insofar as behavior patterns and thought/philosophy patterns. Regardless, I believe the term "statist" best provides the best overall umbrella of description.

I further believe that using "statist" provides some explanation as to "RINO" types, and why some alleged conservatives aren't really all that conservative.

Art

I, as a conservative, find it hard to believe that you actually believe half of what you advocate, as it is so inconsistent with the other half.

How so? (In other words, what are the inconsistencies you're talking about?)



I'd argue that they just never understood "You do not make the weak strong by making the strong weak"


The military, through thorough training, instills into the raw recruit the basic tenet that the force (platoon, squad, squadron, etc) is only as strong as it's weakest member. This motivates the strongest recruits to help the weakest become strong themselves.

Most "liberals" I know believe in the idea that this is true for the nation as a whole. The idea that if the strongest among us help the weakest among us get stronger, then we all become more prosperous. This is the idea behind scholorships for poorer students, low interest college loans, and (believe it or not) things like "preferential hiring/firing practices". Most of these things are just misguided attempts to help our weakest become strong.

Whether they work or not is secondary... they're what our "leaders" have been able to implement. I'd wholeheartedly welcome any new ideas that would lead us in that direction. Sad to say, though, the last real changes to our social programs that had any positive effect on our country came about while Clinton was in office.



P.S... I'm right up there with ya on the inheritance tax thing. At the most, it should be considered "income" and taxed accordingly. :evil:

Modern "liberals" have as much in common with true classical liberals as a VW Rabbit has with a jack rabbit. Classic liberal thought concentrates on individual freedom, limited government, openmindedness, a williness to try new ideas, and an unwillingness to be bound by tradition and/or convention simply because "that's how it's always been."
Liberalism is an ideology, or current of political thought, which strives to maximize individual liberty through rights under law. Liberalism seeks a society characterized by free action within a defined framework. This framework is generally seen to include a pluralistic liberal democratic system of government, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, and economic competition. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the divine right of kings, hereditary status, and established religion. The fundamental principles of liberalism include human rights, especially the right to life, liberty, and property; equal rights for all citizens under the law; government with the consent of the governed as determined by open and fair elections; and transparency in government.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Most open minded people are liberals to one extent or another, but the word "liberal" was made a boogey-man by conservatives, especially during the Cold War. Liberals didn't help themselves any by allowing socialists and communists into their tent. But what most people here are describing as liberal is more properly termed social or political progressivism.This is a cluster of political, activist, and media organizations ranging from left-liberal to democratic socialism. Significant media include The Progressive magazine, and the American Prospect. Modern Left Progressivism includes several political figures including Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, and Peter Camejo. Also in this category are many leaders in the women's movement, labor movement, anti-globalization movement, civil rights movement, environmental movement, immigrant rights movement, and gay and lesbian rights movement. Other well-known progressives include Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, Greg Palast, George Lakoff, Michael Lerner, Suzanne Pharr, and Urvashi Vaid.

Media voices for the Progressive Movement in the United States include Barbara Ehrenreich, Al Franken, Amy Goodman, Thom Hartmann, Jim Hightower, Molly Ivins, Rachel Maddow, Stephanie Miller, Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes, Betsy Rosenberg, and Ed Schultz.

Modern day issues for "progressives" can include: ecology, pollution control, unicameral legislature, publicly-funded healthcare, cessation of the death penalty, affordable housing, proportional representation, instant runoff voting, fusion candidates, a vital Social Security System, alternative (sustainable) energy sources, and smart growth of urban development.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States

What is judicial activism? Honestly, it is a buzz word that means, the SCotUS ruled against the way I think they should.



Oh, you mean the like the FCC, which was put into place by a conservative god. Not to mention moral standards implemented by law and attempts at making things like flag burning illegal?



Some of the most horrendous gutting of the 2nd was done under conservative admins. Take Bush Sr. for example.


Yeah, in the same way conservatives believe in smaller government, increased rights, and less spending :rolleyes:

-------------------------------

Picky, picky, picky, Mr TuffPaws.

So, what agenda do you stand FOR?

The bottom line, sadly, is that you and your fellow-travelers will be my enemies in the NEXT Civil War.

I know that... and you know that.

Be prepared, son.

"Liberal" is a term that has been re-defined so drastically, and abused so much, that it means nothing anymore.

Classically, it meant what "libertarian" does now (aside from a few core principles of law, people leave each other alone and do what they like).
Then, it meant "communist" in the best sense (quasi-voluntary community care, wealth, and sharing).
Then, it meant "socialist" (elite busybodies confiscate wealth and redistribute it according to their view of "helping").
Then, it meant "facism" (gov't pretty much controls businesses toward a social end).
Now, it is meaning "evil" (defend criminals, punish samaritans, destroy ourselves, give aid & comfort to enemies).

Having been so abused, the term is now useless.
I've taken to using the term "Leftist", as it is the only category available devoid of other definition and indicating "as sociopolitically far from me as possible, over here on the right". Cindy Shehan, Hillary, Schumer, Michael Moore, et al are so perverted no independent objective definition can define them.

Most "liberals" I know believe in the idea that this is true for the nation as a whole. The idea that if the strongest among us help the weakest among us get stronger, then we all become more prosperous. This is the idea behind scholorships for poorer students, low interest college loans, and (believe it or not) things like "preferential hiring/firing practices". Most of these things are just misguided attempts to help our weakest become strong.

A citizen population in a free country is not a military force. A military unit is given a fixed objective, supplied with the resources to meet it, and all members of said force are expected to sacrifice their own needs and desires in order to meet said objective.

A market economy, in contrast, works precisely because each member therein is given the liberry to pursue their own needs and desires by any means they can dream up (provided they do not suppress the liberties of others in the process).

I should think the events of the latter half of the twentieth century would provide a marked example of the consequences of treating citizens as subject to the plans of the State as opposed to those of free enterprise. That so many fail to grasp such an obvious lesson contrinues to astound me.

Whether they work or not is secondary... they're what our "leaders" have been able to implement.

Please take note of Art's comment about "They generally knee-jerk-reflexively call for governmental solutions to social problems, and believe with religious fervor in the validity of the notion that intentions are more important than results."

Also please remember that the phrase "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" is no mere bumper sticker slogan. It is an observation based on thousands of years of recorded human experience.

Results Matter.


I'd wholeheartedly welcome any new ideas that would lead us in that direction.....

"You get more of what you subsidize. You get less of what you tax."

Keep that in mind, the rest will follow.

Thinking about Cindy Sheehan, Hillary, Shumer, Kennedy, Kerry, et al.....One common denominator among all of the poster children for the left...none of them ever have to be concerned about prices at the grocery store or their checking acct balance.

None of their "social engineering do-gooding" is going to negatively impact their personal enjoyment of the the high life.

Enlighten me Mr TuffPaws... GHWBush gave us the '89 import ban that was the first AWB. True it was under Clinton that the nationwide 10 year AW/EBR ban came into effect, but Bush Sr got that ball rolling.

Thinking about Cindy Sheehan, Hillary, Shumer, Kennedy, Kerry, et al.....One common denominator among all of the poster children for the left...none of them ever have to be concerned about prices at the grocery store or their checking acct balance.

None of their "social engineering do-gooding" is going to negatively impact their personal enjoyment of the the high life.

And none of them really support any of my liberties. They are all about "Ban, Impeach, Ban, Impeach, etc etc"

A citizen population in a free country is not a military force. A military unit is given a fixed objective, supplied with the resources to meet it, and all members of said force are expected to sacrifice their own needs and desires in order to meet said objective.

A market economy, in contrast, works precisely because each member therein is given the liberry to pursue their own needs and desires by any means they can dream up (provided they do not suppress the liberties of others in the process).

I should think the events of the latter half of the twentieth century would provide a marked example of the consequences of treating citizens as subject to the plans of the State as opposed to those of free enterprise. That so many fail to grasp such an obvious lesson contrinues to astound me.



Please take note of Art's comment about "They generally knee-jerk-reflexively call for governmental solutions to social problems, and believe with religious fervor in the validity of the notion that intentions are more important than results."

Also please remember that the phrase "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" is no mere bumper sticker slogan. It is an observation based on thousands of years of recorded human experience.

Results Matter.




"You get more of what you subsidize. You get less of what you tax."

Keep that in mind, the rest will follow.


None of which does anything to either refute or confirm anything I posted. I think we mostly agree on these things. I also think, though, that you want to argue against my points on the basis that they just don't sound right... I'm fully aware that our society is not based on military-style behaviors or ethics. Nevertheless, I'll stand behind what I wrote earlier. If you want to help ALL of us, then help the weakest among us become stronger. (With the caveat that this does not apply to true criminals).

Otherwise, I'm firmly in the camp of "If you've got a better idea, let's hear it." All most people want to do is backseat driving, without offering any other solutions...

I agree with a lot of the analysis that tube ee posted, except the inheritence part. It's MY LIFE and MY ASSETS...it's MY DECISION what to do with them at the end of MY LIFE. Just because I've died doesn't confer any ownership of MY STUFF to the government, collectively The People. Society, as a whole, has no right to step in and confiscate/redistribute my property upon my demise if I've decided otherwise.

There is also no good argument to tax the same money twice.

Winston Churchill once said, "Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain"

Pretty much in agreement with the rest of what you said (not quoted) only I believe that Churchill never said that.

If Churchill did say that you'd need to capitalise 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' and then realise that there was a British political party called 'The Liberal Party' and another called 'The Conservative Party'. During his career Churchill switched from the former to the latter, funnily enough just at the time that the Liberal Party was a sinking ship (Admiralty joke perhaps?)

No offence, but I really do hate it when people whip that quote out. It is used merely to imply that 'liberals' are stupid.

There is also no good argument to tax the same money twice.

they do that all the time.

If I work 1 hour and make a dollar, that dollar gets taxed.

I am left with 65 cents. I take that 65 cents and invest it in the stock market, and after bringing that money BACK up to a full dollar, I pull it out (lets leave out capital gains for a minute here). I sell the stock, and make a dollar again, right? It is then taxed...AGAIN. This same dollar has now been taxed twice.

When I die and leave my daughter my favorite pocket watch, nobody at the IRS is gonna get wiggy over it. When I die and leave my daughter my favorite pocket watch, my toyota and my vespa, they might raise an eyebrow. When I die and leave my daughter all the above, plus an estate worth millions, several business ventures worth millions, airplanes, yachts and vacations homes, I don't see much of a problem with the IRS counting it as income, and taxing it accordingly. My daughter didn't work to build all that, but she will certainly profit from it, just as if I had given her a multimillion dollar check.

I think taxes are pretty high, but I am hard pressed to figure out just who we should cut out of that largess. Kids or soldiers? Old folks who built what we now use, or folks with mental retardation? These taxes go to support a WHOLE RANGE of things, not just dreaded social programs, but also for bombs, bullets, roads, tanks, pencils, hammers, boats, cars, trucks, overpasses, tunnels, training, bomb-sniffing dogs, medicines, the CDC, the Coast Guard and other fun stuff that we really want folks that work for us to have at their disposal.

Now, if we could accurately exempt the family farms, I think we might be getting somwhere.

I sell the stock, and make a dollar again, right? It is then taxed...AGAIN. This same dollar has now been taxed twice.
No, actually you're only taxed on the gain, the difference between the amount you paid for the stock and the amount you sold it for. An example of double taxation would be dividends; they're a portion of profits distributed to shareholders but not deductable to the corporation and taxable to the recipient.

The purpose of the estate tax is to prevent another ruling aristocratic class from developing over several generations.

Actually, you still are taxed on it again... when you go to spend it. Sales tax hits softer, but more relentlessly.

Actually, you still are taxed on it again... when you go to spend it. Sales tax hits softer, but more relentlessly.

Ok...this what happens when I post from work. I apologize, and thank ceetee for pointing out the error.

I meant to mention the sales tax.

Now, Oregon doesn't have a sales tax, but I work in Washington state, which means that every time I go out for lunch, i pay a tax. Every time I go do my dry cleaning, I get hit with a sales tax. Everytime I ...you get the idea.

not to mention property tax...

First -- to the Churchill quote -- it seems you're correct inasmuch as it may be falsely attributed to him. As to the quote itself -- it rings quite true to me. In our youth, it's easy to come up with simple-sounding solutions For The Betterment of All, typically based on some kind of nice and fuzzy socialist worldview. Over time, as people see the results of that thinking, it's quite common for folks to become more politically conservative (as defined in the modern US).

That's not calling (modern American) liberals stupid.. it is noting that the (modern American) liberal has a distinct tendency to let ideology trump observation, to the detriment of all. Or as Reagan said "It's not that our liberal friends are ignorant.It's just that they know so much that just isn't so." :)

Now...


Otherwise, I'm firmly in the camp of "If you've got a better idea, let's hear it." All most people want to do is backseat driving, without offering any other solutions...

The thing is, new ideas aren't really required. Plenty of old ones work just fine. Emphasize individual responsibility, accountability, and self-reliance, and the result is a strong, properous nation. Try to solve everyone's problems for them, and you end up discouraging individual betterment both on the part of the ones you take resources from, and especially in those you give them to. The result is a slovenly culture.

You want actual policy suggestions, the books are out there. But not nearly so much will be solved with new policies so much as phasing out the old.

-------------------------------

Picky, picky, picky, Mr TuffPaws.

So, what agenda do you stand FOR?

The bottom line, sadly, is that you and your fellow-travelers will be my enemies in the NEXT Civil War.

I know that... and you know that.

Be prepared, son.

Now how did I know there would be a post like this one.

I think if there is a next civil war we will be joining ranks to get rid of our government not each other. Course I'll be long ago dead when or if that happens.

The thing is, new ideas aren't really required. Plenty of old ones work just fine. Emphasize individual responsibility, accountability, and self-reliance, and the result is a strong, properous nation. Try to solve everyone's problems for them, and you end up discouraging individual betterment both on the part of the ones you take resources from, and especially in those you give them to. The result is a slovenly culture.

You want actual policy suggestions, the books are out there. But not nearly so much will be solved with new policies so much as phasing out the old.


I never asked for a new idea. I asked for a better one... I don't have the answer. (Neither does Mr. Bush, for that matter, so I don't feel that alone.)

Assume somebody elected you President. The next four years are all yours. What do you do?

I never asked for a new idea. I asked for a better one... I don't have the answer. (Neither does Mr. Bush, for that matter, so I don't feel that alone.)

Assume somebody elected you President. The next four years are all yours. What do you do?Since I am a Constitutionalist, and the president's legitimate powers internally are few, Constitutionally there wouldn't be a whole lot I could do, other than to start functioning within the confines of the Constitution and vetoing every piece of unconstitutional legislation that comes my way. Anything that is done through the executive branch which is not authorized by the Constitution would certainly come to a stop. It would take, however, more than a conservative president to right what has been so badly wronged in this country.

One thing I would do for sure, however, would be to use the bully pulpit to educate the American people to the best of my ability regarding where our nation has gone wrong, and what is needed to place it back on the right track.

Which brings me to another point, not too far off topic, I hope. Would it be possible for a sitting POTUS to sign an executive order repealing certain gun laws, simply with a stroke of his pen?
Biker

Which brings me to another point, not too far off topic, I hope. Would it be possible for a sitting POTUS to sign an executive order repealing certain gun laws, simply with a stroke of his pen?
BikerI don't believe so. That is not within his legitimate powers, as far as I understand them. He could, however, decide not to enforce those laws during his presidency, i.e., issue an order that they are not to be enforced, since they are, in his judgment, unconstitutional.

I never asked for a new idea. I asked for a better one... I don't have the answer. (Neither does Mr. Bush, for that matter, so I don't feel that alone.)

Assume somebody elected you President. The next four years are all yours. What do you do?


Pick me! Pick me! Pick me! I know what to do. I'd do what everyone else is doing these days. Stuffing as much money in my unworthy pockets as I can and then walk away. It seems to be the in thing for government and corporations to do these days. The only thing these people are proud of is how much money they have in the bank. The people who run America these days have become a sad bunch of...... Isn't there a butt icon here?

I don't believe so. That is not within his legitimate powers, as far as I understand them. He could, however, decide not to enforce those laws during his presidency, i.e., issue an order that they are not to be enforced, since they are, in his judgment, unconstitutional.
Now that's shame in one way, but a good thing in another way, I guess. I just seem to recall Clinton making some relatively sweeping changes using the Ex. order. I could be wrong...
Thanks for the reply.
Biker

Now that's shame in one way, but a good thing in another way, I guess. I just seem to recall Clinton making some relatively sweeping changes using the Ex. order. I could be wrong...
Thanks for the reply.
BikerThe legitimate purpose of the executive order is to empower the president to execute the laws made by Congress. Clinton used them illegitimately to make new laws to his liking. You probably already knew that, though.

The legitimate purpose of the executive order is to empower the president to execute the laws made by Congress. Clinton used them illegitimately to make new laws to his liking. You probably already knew that, though.
True enough, I'm just not familiar with the legal mechanisms at work with this power, as in how far can the POTUS take it? The 'pardon power' alone baffles me.
:)
Biker

No offence, but I really do hate it when people whip that quote out. It is used merely to imply that 'liberals' are stupid. No, it also is used to imply that conservatives are heartless.

The bottom line, sadly, is that you and your fellow-travelers will be my enemies in the NEXT Civil War.
I know that... and you know that.
Be prepared, son.

OK. Thanks for the heads up! :rolleyes:

Now...where did I put that big ole roll of tinfoil. You need a hat to match mine! :evil:

Assume somebody elected you President. The next four years are all yours. What do you do?

Two parts.

Economic:
- Year 1 - balanced budget
- Subsequent years - 20% budget reduction annually
- No budget accepted unless each supporting Congressman personally signs each page of budget, indicating full review & understanding

Rights:
- Feature one BoR right every 4 months
- Commission identifies transgressing laws
- Executive order refuses executive-branch enforcement unless court rules otherwise on per-law basis

Keep it simple. Don't get caught up in minutia. Balanced budget, smaller budget, take BoR at face value, arguable rights suppression not enforced unless court approved.

- Commission identifies transgressing laws

Are you suggesting an authority higher than Congress? Care to expand this concept?

Are you suggesting an authority higher than Congress? Care to expand this concept?The last time I checked Congress was not the supreme law of the land.

Are you suggesting an authority higher than Congress? Care to expand this concept?

Like the Supreme Court, only... supremer.




(As a quick aside, who's the only President in the last few decades to set a balanced budget?)

Like the Supreme Court, only... supremer. I can't see supremer.

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"...

Like the Supreme Court, only... supremer. Like the Constitution, maybe?

I think that quote, or something like it, is more often attributed to George Bernard Shaw. He was a socialist, at least during some part of his life, and the original quote I'm familiar with is more like, (paraphrasing) Anyone who isn't a socialist by age 20 has no heart; anyone who is still a socialist at age 30 has no head.

I've always taken it to mean that it's relatively easy to have high ideals such as freedom and equality early in life when one would have little personally to lose in making risky changes with social institutions and classes. As one ages, one has life experience that teaches that, for instance, market forces are real and can't be wished away with philosophy or laws. It also means one at a later stage in life would have more vested interests to protect: property, income, etc. So on the one hand it points toward more wisdom and experience later in life, on the other hand to a form of moral cowardice that I've observed in people as they get older.

None of this has anything to do with what most people mean when they refer to liberalism or conservatism. Some so-called conservatives have just done a good job of painting any liberal position as a form of socialism, e.g: "regulated capitalism" = "communism".

:confused: How do you equate socialism with freedom and equality? :uhoh:

Assume somebody elected you President. The next four years are all yours. What do you do?

Close all foreign military bases. Skip the next war. Refuse to sign any law I can't fully read during lunch. Write my own State Of The Union speech.

Now how did I know there would be a post like this one.

I think if there is a next civil war we will be joining ranks to get rid of our government not each other. Course I'll be long ago dead when or if that happens.

Fret not. I have had that treat at least once before here. I really wonder why the mods don't clamp down on it, after all, it is a direct treat in a way. Question someone's beliefs and see what you get ;)

But as you say, OEF, the next civil war will be to the people against the government.

But as you say, OEF, the next civil war will be to the people against the government.[/QUOTE]
I'm not at all sure about that. I could see the next civil war beginning in the southwest and spreading northward, and in the not-so-distant future.
Biker

Close all foreign military bases. Skip the next war. Refuse to sign any law I can't fully read during lunch. Write my own State Of The Union speech.+1

Their agenda in a nutshell:

Abortion good
God bad

Their agenda in a nutshell:
Abortion good
God bad

MODS: I am going to tread a no-no here, but it is necessary to correct a factual inaccuracy above.

Hmmm...thats a bit simplistic. Just a wee bit.

How about this agenda in a nutshell:

Terrorism Bad
Terrorists with BIG things that go boom bad
Democracy Good!
Strong Military good
Alternative forms of energy good
Protecting our homes from enemies good
Full employment good
Equal opportunity good
Home ownership good
High wages good
American jobs good
Middle Class good
Access to health care services good
Education good
Lower crime good
Clean air/water good
Fish still in rivers good
Fewer drivers on road good

I challenge you to tell me what concept in this agenda you *don't* like, other than perhaps abortion (bowing to THR rules).

I can't find anything wrong with any of the CONCEPTS, tho I will freely admit to have trouble with the methods of implimentation for those concepts to become reality.

Thats about the democratic party agenda as I see it...and as they see it.

Don't believe me?
http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

What you seem to think is overly simplistic, and frankly insulting.

I don't know a SINGLE Dem who thinks abortion is a good thing. Not one. Not a single one. Get the point? No one LIKES abortion...not even the doctors that do it. Since you claim that which isn't true, here is the direct quote (page 38):

"Abortion should be safe, legal and rare."

Now where is "good" in that sentence?

I would also like to point out that the word "God" appears 7 times in that very document. Ok, 7 times on 6 different pages. They actually broke THR rules by invoking the name of God, and not in vain, either.

Saying that you disagree is one thing. Saying that you disagree, then providing salient evidence or intelligent discourse is better. Saying that you disagree, but then boiling down the tenets to some *incorrect* statement is just plain lazy. :banghead:

But as you say, OEF, the next civil war will be to the people against the government.
I'm not at all sure about that. I could see the next civil war beginning in the southwest and spreading northward, and in the not-so-distant future.
Biker[/QUOTE]

Sounds interesting. Tell me more.

Pink Pistol, it is not the statements of the outcomes that you're, generally speaking, in favor of, such as clean water, that are the problem. Who's against clean water? It's the underlying philosophy of leftism that is so destructive to humanity, and that we, therefore, find so abhorrent. For example, when you say that "Access to health care services is good," you don't mean that in the same way that I might mean it if I said it. When I say something like that, what I mean is that it is a good thing for medical facilities to be accessible, i.e., nearby and available. What you mean when you say that is that you will use the power of government to take money from me at, in essence, gun point, so as to provide medical care to someone else who did not take the steps in life to take care of his own needs. Not only is this wrong on its face, but the long term result is also highly destructive. It throws a monkey wrench into the economy, causing health care costs to sky rocket, for one thing, and creates a society full of permanent government dependents for another.

No one has a right to health care services in the sense that you mean it, i.e., at someone else's expense. That is something which requires money. If you are smart, you will make the right choices in life and see to your own needs. For those who do not, Americans are a very generous people when a gun is not held to their heads. Even with a gun held to their heads, they are willing to give to charities that are set up to help such people if they are made aware of the need. Take the gun away, and there will be many more such charities and donations to them.

Before the welfare state, that's the way such people received help as a matter of course. This is not destructive of property rights, and it is not destructive to the economy. We conservatives don't believe in creating a Big Brother to take care of us from cradle to grave. That is the main difference between us. In other words, whereas health care is a good thing in the abstract, socialism is a bad thing in cold hard reality. Socialism sounds nice at first glance, but in reality it amounts essentially to a stomp in the face by a jack-booted government agent.

I hear you, Old Dog. I had a couple of son-in-laws that must have been liberals. I believe in helping, but not as a lifetime project. When they have your daughters and grandkids, they think they have leverage........and I suppose they do.

Fret not. I have had that treat at least once before here. I really wonder why the mods don't clamp down on it, after all, it is a direct treat in a way. Question someone's beliefs and see what you get ;)

But as you say, OEF, the next civil war will be to the people against the government.

Count your blessings MrTuffPaws. The head cases at my other forum are fully supported by the moderator. You know who I'm talking about.

I'm not at all sure about that. I could see the next civil war beginning in the southwest and spreading northward, and in the not-so-distant future.
Biker

Sounds interesting. Tell me more.[/QUOTE]
Somehow, we got the 'quote' function FUBARed.
I believe that we're already skirmishing with the likes of MS13, Maldef, La Raza and others for control of 'Aztlan' and it will get a lot worse before it gets better thanks to Jorge Bush, at the present, and others before him.
Flame away, folks. I can take it.
:)
Biker

you try to make some good points...post #66 is a gem

What you and nearly everyone else miss is that the modern use of the word is the accepted definition, right or wrong.

I agree with your sig line, but until the Left relinquishes possession of the word, the public equates Leftist with Liberal.

Arguing it here (in the format originally presented) was a bit leading, a bit baiting,...a good place to start, but kind of like preaching to the choir...

Sounds interesting. Tell me more.
Somehow, we got the 'quote' function FUBARed.
I believe that we're already skirmishing with the likes of MS13, Maldef, La Raza and others for control of 'Aztlan' and it will get a lot worse before it gets better thanks to Jorge Bush, at the present, and others before him.
Flame away, folks. I can take it.
:)
Biker[/QUOTE]

Your obviously very wrong. MS13, Maldef, La Raza are only here to make a few dollars to feed their poor family's. Ask any dipstick in Washington that doesn't care about mexican gangs in America.

JJpdxpinkpistols:

"Strong Military good"
"Protecting our homes from enemies good"

You actually expect me to believe that these are common priorities of liberals?

ROFLMAO!

Saying that you disagree is one thing. Saying that you disagree, then providing salient evidence or intelligent discourse is better. Saying that you disagree, but then boiling down the tenets to some *incorrect* statement is just plain lazy. :banghead:


+1... or more if they'll let me.

Hawkeye -- nicely said!

As to the whole "who's who in the Civil War" side discussion.. let's not be talking about shooting each other here, eh? :)

:confused: How do you equate socialism with freedom and equality? :uhoh:
I don't equate them as they are independent of each other. Socialism, at the time the quote is supposed to have been made, was seen by many as a liberation movement against the conservative European establishments of aristocracy and constitutional monarchy. Capitalism at that time was more or less allied with the aristocracy. Of course, socialism is an economic system, and freedom and equality are more political goals. You can have capitalistic and socialist systems with very little freedom or equality, and both systems can also have those attributes.

You can have capitalistic and socialist systems with very little freedom or equality, and both systems can also have those attributes.

Incorrect.

A socialist system requires some means of forcing the haves to give to the have nots.

Ergo, it is not (economically) free.

a liberal is someone who seeks to impose their ideas of what individuals in our society *need*

I believe everyone needs god......MY god.


I just made myself a conservative
:uhoh:

Incorrect.

A socialist system requires some means of forcing the haves to give to the have nots.

Ergo, it is not (economically) free.

They why is the standard of living in many socialist countries higher than our own? Take northren Europe for instance. A high standard of living requires capitalist measures.

Democrats want power given to big government, Republicans want power kept at the lowest levels, where it belongs.
You know what? I wanted to believe that particular concept at one time in the not-too-distant past, too.

I well remember my hopes for the Republicans "Contract With America".

But, as with 99% of all political promises and manipulations - it turned out to be BS. Little more than pure BS.

I've little use for any "political party".

I don't equate them as they are independent of each other. Socialism, at the time the quote is supposed to have been made, was seen by many as a liberation movement against the conservative European establishments of aristocracy and constitutional monarchy. Capitalism at that time was more or less allied with the aristocracy. Of course, socialism is an economic system, and freedom and equality are more political goals. You can have capitalistic and socialist systems with very little freedom or equality, and both systems can also have those attributes.You pair the terms "freedom and equality" as if the two could ever, in any respect whatsoever, be made compatible. The two are, in point of fact, diametrically opposed. Under liberty, society will naturally result in gradations of wealth in accord with differing levels of talent, character and, yes, on occasion, good fortune. Equality, on the other hand, is only found under tyrannies, which deny liberty to all, with the backing of armed government agents.

Those who pair freedom and equality, as if they could ever go hand in hand, suffer from a mental illness called leftism. It is not hopeless, however. Some people have been known to grow out of it on their own, but it takes a determination to develop the capacity to think logically, and a desire to actually learn to understand human nature and the nature of governmental power.

Since socialism is an effort at using the force of armed government agents to equally distribute wealth (that is to say, my property), it is also incompatible with liberty, under which governments are instituted to preserve my right to property (property being the only real foundation of liberty). This is inescapable logic. The fact that you cannot comprehend it is a very bad indication, but there is still hope for you, assuming you are still young. As I said, you could still grow out of leftism, as many have before you.

I believe everyone needs god......MY god.


I just made myself a conservative
:uhoh:Though the desire that all believe in God is, naturally, not at all incompatible with conservatism, it does not make you a conservative. If, on the other hand, you wished to use the power of a central unitary government to enforce your desire that everyone believe in God, that would make you the opposite of a conservative, i.e., it would make you a statist, i.e., someone who wishes to use the power of a central unitary government to manipulate society and to deny individual liberty.

You know what? I wanted to believe that particular concept at one time in the not-too-distant past, too.

I well remember my hopes for the Republicans "Contract With America".

But, as with 99% of all political promises and manipulations - it turned out to be BS. Little more than pure BS.

I've little use for any "political party".You confuse political parties with political world views. Political parties can be used as vehicles of political world views, but sometimes that proves very unreliable, such as the case of the Republican Party. In the 1980s it looked like the Republican Party was beginning to transform into an acceptable vehicle for Conservatism, but then the neocons and the big tent Republicans stepped in and put the Kibosh on that.

... suffer from a mental illness called leftism.

Correctly, Hawkeye defines this entire thread as LEFTISM, not liberalism.

Always remember, a leftist hates being called a leftist. Ergo, call them LEFTISTS!

As for an excellent example of how leftism is a mental illness, review the leftover Paul Wellstone websites. These people are breathtakingly immature, juvenile, emotional and disgusting in their religious fervor for leftism and this wholly vile person.

Liberal = rubbish! :cuss:

Liberal = rubbish! :cuss:Welcome aboard. I see that you, broadly speaking, have your head on straight, but might I suggest that you read all the posts before commenting. The issue is somewhat more complicated than your equation would suggest.

Are you suggesting an authority higher than Congress? Care to expand this concept?Some of what Congress passes as law is what many consider plainly unconstitutional. The President has a duty to execute the laws according to the Constitution - if a law is plainly unconstitutional, the Executive branch cannot execute that law in good faith. The question then is: what of laws that were signed by a prior President, and are in effect?

Examples:
- W. signed McCain-Feingold (flat prohibition of political speech) with the full expectation that it would be overturned by SCOTUS. IMHO, he did so just to get the whole issue resolved and done away with. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it now. It's plainly unconstitutional, and SCOTUS won't overturn it until they see a better case, which could be a while.
- Regan signed the prohibition of machineguns 922(o). Indications are he, and much of Congress, was blindsided by it and didn't realize what was being signed; considering the subject matter and the supporting legislation, few cared to sufficiently oppose it.

Strictly speaking, these laws can't be executed. "Shall not restrict freedom of the press" is simply incompatable with "shall shut up everyone except elite media 2 months before an election"; "shall not be infringed" is simply incompatable with "soldiers can have M4s, but not citizens".

Bad law exists. It's not going away until Congress revokes it, SCOTUS overturns it, or the President neglects it.

My suggestion is that, as President (which ain't happening 'cuz I'd tick off too many people), I would form a commission to wade through the entire US Code to identify plainly unconstitutional law (a hard task, given the obfuscation), identify those laws as unexecutable because doing so would violate higher laws (Constitution), refuse to execute it (because they can't and shouldn't be executed), and let someone who actually cares enough about that law to file suit explaining why it can and should be executed.

Just because Congress and a prior President enacted the impossible doesn't mean the sitting President has to do it.

Some of what Congress passes as law is what many consider plainly unconstitutional. The President has a duty to execute the laws according to the Constitution - if a law is plainly unconstitutional, the Executive branch cannot execute that law in good faith. The question then is: what of laws that were signed by a prior President, and are in effect?

Examples:
- W. signed McCain-Feingold (flat prohibition of political speech) with the full expectation that it would be overturned by SCOTUS. IMHO, he did so just to get the whole issue resolved and done away with. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it now. It's plainly unconstitutional, and SCOTUS won't overturn it until they see a better case, which could be a while.
- Regan signed the prohibition of machineguns 922(o). Indications are he, and much of Congress, was blindsided by it and didn't realize what was being signed; considering the subject matter and the supporting legislation, few cared to sufficiently oppose it.

Strictly speaking, these laws can't be executed. "Shall not restrict freedom of the press" is simply incompatable with "shall shut up everyone except elite media 2 months before an election"; "shall not be infringed" is simply incompatable with "soldiers can have M4s, but not citizens".

Bad law exists. It's not going away until Congress revokes it, SCOTUS overturns it, or the President neglects it.

My suggestion is that, as President (which ain't happening 'cuz I'd tick off too many people), I would form a commission to wade through the entire US Code to identify plainly unconstitutional law (a hard task, given the obfuscation), identify those laws as unexecutable because doing so would violate higher laws (Constitution), refuse to execute it (because they can't and shouldn't be executed), and let someone who actually cares enough about that law to file suit explaining why it can and should be executed.

Just because Congress and a prior President enacted the impossible doesn't mean the sitting President has to do it.So, you agree with me on this then. Welcome aboard. Just need to persuade a few million more and we'll be well on our way.

Americans are essentially conservative on most issues. Modern liberals would rather change that than accurately represent our culture.

A liberal believes in no absolute set of values. He accepts no higher authority than himself. He establishes himself as the arbiter of right and wrong. He see no inherent value in tradition. He has no immutable principles. The liberal does not ordinarily believe in God, or if he does, more often than not he is paying lip service to the "notion" of God. For at the end of the day, the liberal sees himself and those of his utopian ilk as gods.

The liberal, despite his lip service to tolerance and moderation, is an inflexible misanthropic close-minded hater. He hates everyone and every thing that he perceives as better than himself. And that obviously includes nearly everyone and everything.

The liberal does in fact hate America and its traditions. And how could it not be so? For the liberal, as mentioned above, respects no tradition. Not even the traditions embodied in our sacred Constitution. The liberal "loves" all mankind but is merely engaging in moral exhibitionism. For our liberal hates all real humans.

The liberal is a utopian meddler with only his own ideas and reason to guide him. He rejects the accumulated wisdom of better men who have gone before him. The liberal rejects his humanity and the humanity of others preferring instead the his own idealized version of what humans are.

The liberal is an odious creature who rejects the concept of original sin and the imperfectability of man. He instead prefers his own notion of the perfectible man in "his" (the liberals) own image. The liberal prefers big government because it is an instrument of his own bidding. He loathes human independence and self reliance. He ridicules all men better than himself and that would include nearly everyone.

The liberal is a vacuous creature who prefers the meretricious and fatuous to that which is genuine rational and meaningful. The liberal employs sophistry trickery and deceit to support his debased ideology.

But the liberal is at his very core a miserable puny popinjay, a wretched windbag, a gaseous nincompoop, a piffling half-wit who trades in hokum and moonshine and whose only claim to excellence is in his nearly inexhaustible capacity for hatred. The liberal is a hater and a hypocrite.

In the 1980s it looked like the Republican Party was beginning to transform into an acceptable vehicle for Conservatism, but then the neocons and the big tent Republicans stepped in and put the Kibosh on that.

In order to have a base big enough to elect them (beat the Democrats).

In order to have a base big enough to elect them (beat the Democrats)."But if the salt has lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot."

A liberal believes in no absolute set of values. He accepts no higher authority than himself. He establishes himself as the arbiter of right and wrong. He see no inherent value in tradition. He has no immutable principles. The liberal does not ordinarily believe in God, or if he does, more often than not he is paying lip service to the "notion" of God. For at the end of the day, the liberal sees himself and those of his utopian ilk as gods.

The liberal, despite his lip service to tolerance and moderation, is an inflexible misanthropic close-minded hater. He hates everyone and every thing that he perceives as better than himself. And that obviously includes nearly everyone and everything.

The liberal does in fact hate America and its traditions. And how could it not be so? For the liberal, as mentioned above, respects no tradition. Not even the traditions embodied in our sacred Constitution. The liberal "loves" all mankind but is merely engaging in moral exhibitionism. For our liberal hates all real humans.

The liberal is a utopian meddler with only his own ideas and reason to guide him. He rejects the accumulated wisdom of better men who have gone before him. The liberal rejects his humanity and the humanity of others preferring instead the his own idealized version of what humans are.

The liberal is an odious creature who rejects the concept of original sin and the imperfectability of man. He instead prefers his own notion of the perfectible man in "his" (the liberals) own image. The liberal prefers big government because it is an instrument of his own bidding. He loathes human independence and self reliance. He ridicules all men better than himself and that would include nearly everyone.

The liberal is a vacuous creature who prefers the meretricious and fatuous to that which is genuine rational and meaningful. The liberal employs sophistry trickery and deceit to support his debased ideology.

But the liberal is at his very core a miserable puny popinjay, a wretched windbag, a gaseous nincompoop, a piffling half-wit who trades in hokum and moonshine and whose only claim to excellence is in his nearly inexhaustible capacity for hatred. The liberal is a hater and a hypocrite.Excellent description of the modern, so called, "liberal."

Well, that was interesting, but enough is enough.

Nothing to see here, folks, move on along.

LawDog