UberPhLuBB
Member
Alex45ACP said: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.
Alex45ACP said:In that case, Bush must be a Democrat who has somehow managed to trick everyone into thinking he's a Republican.
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
one eyed fatman said:So MRTUFFPAWS I believe if this thread runs for 100 post you will get 100 different answers as to what a liberal is.
UberPhLuBB said:But liberals, being the opposite of conservatives, do not value tradition.
MrTuffPaws said: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.
Anyway, can you guys help me out and tell me what a liberal is?
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?
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.Bigjake said:what are we defining anyway? the classical liberals that founded the country? or the filthy socialists that grab guns and raise taxes now??
Bunkster said: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 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.
If it looks like it and smells like it better not step in it...In that case, Bush must be a Democrat who has somehow managed to trick everyone into thinking he's a Republican.
You have that exactly backwards. Liberty = Less Gov, Conservation = Restriction.nfl1990 said:To put it simply, liberals believes goverment is the solution to all problem, whereas conservitives believe goverment is the problem.
Yeah those stupid founding fathers. Should have left well enough alone. UberPhLuBB, you are a Tory, plain and simple.UberPhLuBB said:Liberals want to change things that do not need to be changed.
Simple as that.
That doesn't even make sense. Perhaps leftists who call themselves liberals are socialists, but that doesn't mean they are liberals.El Tejon said:Liberal=socialist
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.spacemanspiff said: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.
Oh, I get it, your narrow views are okay, but other people's narrow views are wrong?spacemanspiff said:no alex, that topics just a little bit more complicated that how you'd like to see it.
Nothing liberal about that.R.H. Lee said: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.
+1 Yup, just as Terrorist doesn't sound as good as Freedom Fighter.Bunkster said: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
Sadly, IAWTCseansean 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
That sounds a little more like it.lysander said:What most would call a "liberal" in America...I would call a Leftist Authoritarian.
What most would call a "conservative" in America....I would call a Slightly less Leftist Authoritarian.
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.