Defining "Liberalism"

[Edgetho]

You still haven't posted links at any part of the Democrats' platform which adopts communist goals. Separation of Church and State is in the US Constitution which is why Democrats wanted references to God removed from the platform. So adhering to the Constitution, a document you claim to worship, is the best you've got?

Templar posted a long list of Communist Party goals and then tried to tie policy to those goals. Trying to say that the national parks prove government ownership of private lands has been achieved is a real stretch but at least he took on the challenge. He still couldn't provide one link to the Democratic Party platform which matched any of those goals.

And just to be clear, a single payer, government funded health care system is still not communism. Especially when doctors are in private practice and hospitals are privately owned. Single payer simply means that there is one entity billed for health care, which reduces overhead for the doctors, and costs to the system. Administration currently takes nearly 1/3 of all health care dollars expended in the US. In Canada, it's 9%.

Just changing to a single payer system would reduce health care expenditures in the US by nearly 25% without reducing $$$ spent on actual care.

But don't let's facts get in the way of your constant fear mongering and claims that everyone doesn't believe in your right wing corporatist agenda is a communist out to destroy America.

At this point, the only thing needed to destroy the US economy is to turn it over to the right wingers and let them finish the job that Bush and the Republicans started.

"Separation of Church and State is in the US Constitution which is why Democrats wanted references to God removed from the platform."

I won't say that you are a liar.
Rather you are simply too, too stupid to even create a fiction.




Pay attention.
There is no such demand or instruction in the US Constitution.

As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.




So...a simple test to see which of us has had an actual education.
If you can prove your claim...it is you.
Otherwise: Cream Pie time.....and you remain as dumb as a box of hair.

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State

We're all aware of the SCOTUS rulings.

Are you?

I doubt it.

The doctrine was introduced by Hugo Black, a former member of the KKK, an FDR appointee from the Deep South and a man who deeply HATED Catholics and their religion.

And Black, the racist KKK dimocrap Justice, took his reasoning to construct a 'wall' between Church and State from a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptist Church in 1802.

Which, even for a racist dimocrap scumbag is quite a reach.

Jefferson had NOTHING to do with writing the Constitution.

You're just another dimocrap imbecile.

Go away

 

[BlindBoo]

"Separation of Church and State is in the US Constitution which is why Democrats wanted references to God removed from the platform."

I won't say that you are a liar.
Rather you are simply too, too stupid to even create a fiction.




Pay attention.
There is no such demand or instruction in the US Constitution.

As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.




So...a simple test to see which of us has had an actual education.
If you can prove your claim...it is you.
Otherwise: Cream Pie time.....and you remain as dumb as a box of hair.

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State

And, another mistake by the Supreme Court:

"Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether slave or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[2][3] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States"
Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Wanna defend this mistake by the court, too?




"During the course of American judicial history, particularly with the landmark decision of Everson v. Board of Education, Jefferson was subtly and erroneously attributed with the remark ‘high and impregnable’ wall.

The force behind the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former Ku Klux Klan member, Justice Hugo Black: The ‘high and impregnable’ wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson’s wall; rather, it is the wall that Justice Hugo Black built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education. The full quote by Justice Hugo Black is, ‘The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.’

In essence, Justice Hugo Black with his often quoted remark conflated Jefferson’s trope of separation between church and state with the First Amendment which references the non-establishment clause and free exercise of religion. Those were two entirely separate concepts at the time in 1802."
‘Writing About Anything I Want To | because I can.



Again....there is no reference in the Constitution to any such separation.

"... the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former Ku Klux Klan member, Justice Hugo Black..."


Black was appointed by FDR.

The Dred Scott decision was overturned with the adoption of the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution in 1865 and 1868. These amendments ended slavery and established firmly the citizenship of all persons, regardless of race.

The concept of "Separation of Church and State" has been upheld numerous times since 1947.

 

[kaz]

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.

Yes, which is why liberals aren't liberal. A liberal is for personal freedom, and the biggest threat to our freedom is the State. It is libertarians in this country are truly liberal.

Those who call themselves "liberal" are authoritarian leftists, which as Whittaker Chambers accurately point out is equivalent to Communist.

Calling an authoritarian leftist a "liberal" is like calling a neocon a dove.

 

[BlindBoo]

"Separation of Church and State is in the US Constitution which is why Democrats wanted references to God removed from the platform."

I won't say that you are a liar.
Rather you are simply too, too stupid to even create a fiction.




Pay attention.
There is no such demand or instruction in the US Constitution.

As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.




So...a simple test to see which of us has had an actual education.
If you can prove your claim...it is you.
Otherwise: Cream Pie time.....and you remain as dumb as a box of hair.

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State

We're all aware of the SCOTUS rulings.

Are you?

I doubt it.

The doctrine was introduced by Hugo Black, a former member of the KKK, an FDR appointee from the Deep South and a man who deeply HATED Catholics and their religion.

And Black, the racist KKK dimocrap Justice, took his reasoning to construct a 'wall' between Church and State from a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptist Church in 1802.

Which, even for a racist dimocrap scumbag is quite a reach.

Jefferson had NOTHING to do with writing the Constitution.

You're just another dimocrap imbecile.

Go away

Yet the concept of "Separation of Church and State" continues.

 

[Edgetho]

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State

We're all aware of the SCOTUS rulings.

Are you?

I doubt it.

The doctrine was introduced by Hugo Black, a former member of the KKK, an FDR appointee from the Deep South and a man who deeply HATED Catholics and their religion.

And Black, the racist KKK dimocrap Justice, took his reasoning to construct a 'wall' between Church and State from a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptist Church in 1802.

Which, even for a racist dimocrap scumbag is quite a reach.

Jefferson had NOTHING to do with writing the Constitution.

You're just another dimocrap imbecile.

Go away

Yet the concept of "Separation of Church and State" continues.

Is that why the House and Senate open every morning with a prayer?

Is that why they take an oath that ends with, "So help me God"?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

The 'wall' is a construct of an anti-Catholic SCOTUS of the past and may very well be slapped down in the future.

FYI, I'm not especially fond of Catholics either. But I know my Constitution and this is an example of the Court legislating from the bench

 

[Foxfyre]

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.

Yes, which is why liberals aren't liberal. A liberal is for personal freedom, and the biggest threat to our freedom is the State. It is libertarians in this country are truly liberal.

Those who call themselves "liberal" are authoritarian leftists, which as Whittaker Chambers accurately point out is equivalent to Communist.

Calling an authoritarian leftist a "liberal" is like calling a neocon a dove.

Definitions change with usage. There was a time that an African-American was somebody holding dual citizenship both here and somewhere in Africa. It was not associated with a race. And now a black person is referred to as African-American regardless of where he or she was born or where his/her ancesters came here from or what other races might be included in his/her genetics. Think of how differently we look at words such as 'gay' or 'download' or 'fast food' than images such words conjured up for our grandparents.

So it follows that common usage has also changed the definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative' also, at least in the images the words create in our mind and emotional response these days. In fact the common usage has almost reversed the standard dictionary definitions

Conservative once meant rigid, unwilling to compromise, unwilling to upset the status quo, authoritarian, fixed positions, and required conformity. Such traits are far more typical of the average leftist in modern day America--such leftists who are most often labeled 'liberal'.

Liberal once meant freedom, ability to change, to move forward, to allow different points of view, to allow people their choices, options, attitudes, and ability to seek their own destiny. Such traits are far more typical of the average right-of-center person in modern day America--such rightists who are most often labeled 'conservative'.

So now 'liberal' has come to mean bigger, more expensive, more authoritarian, more intrusive government into every aspect of our lives.

And 'conservative' or 'classical liberal' has come to mean those who want minimum government to secure our rights, more individual choices, options, opportunity, and individual liberty to be whomever we choose to be and with choices to strive for whatever we aspire to be.

Pretty much a fruit basket turnover kind of thing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State

And, another mistake by the Supreme Court:

"Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether slave or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[2][3] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States"
Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Wanna defend this mistake by the court, too?




"During the course of American judicial history, particularly with the landmark decision of Everson v. Board of Education, Jefferson was subtly and erroneously attributed with the remark ‘high and impregnable’ wall.

The force behind the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former Ku Klux Klan member, Justice Hugo Black: The ‘high and impregnable’ wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson’s wall; rather, it is the wall that Justice Hugo Black built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education. The full quote by Justice Hugo Black is, ‘The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.’

In essence, Justice Hugo Black with his often quoted remark conflated Jefferson’s trope of separation between church and state with the First Amendment which references the non-establishment clause and free exercise of religion. Those were two entirely separate concepts at the time in 1802."
‘Writing About Anything I Want To | because I can.



Again....there is no reference in the Constitution to any such separation.

"... the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former Ku Klux Klan member, Justice Hugo Black..."


Black was appointed by FDR.

The Dred Scott decision was overturned with the adoption of the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution in 1865 and 1868. These amendments ended slavery and established firmly the citizenship of all persons, regardless of race.

The concept of "Separation of Church and State" has been upheld numerous times since 1947.

The question is one of whether it is correct or incorrect.

Of course, it is incorrect.
It represents one more attack by Leftist secularists on the America of the Founders.
Nothing could be more clear than these words in the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The bogus 'separation of church and state' is the very antithesis.





Here is what Chief Justice Rehnquist said of the claim:


"It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years.

Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others.

Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means."

You can find the above in WALLACE V. JAFFREE



Again:
"... nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,..."

 

[PoliticalChic]

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State

We're all aware of the SCOTUS rulings.

Are you?

I doubt it.

The doctrine was introduced by Hugo Black, a former member of the KKK, an FDR appointee from the Deep South and a man who deeply HATED Catholics and their religion.

And Black, the racist KKK dimocrap Justice, took his reasoning to construct a 'wall' between Church and State from a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptist Church in 1802.

Which, even for a racist dimocrap scumbag is quite a reach.

Jefferson had NOTHING to do with writing the Constitution.

You're just another dimocrap imbecile.

Go away

Yet the concept of "Separation of Church and State" continues.

As does evil.

 

[Sallow]

JFK was more liberal than Barack Obama, and at least as hated by the Right as is our current president.

Since when did he try to implement socialized healthcare? I freaking love JFK... he had more of a head on his shoulders than Obama does, no pun intended.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14A1zxaHpD8[/ame]

 

[Sallow]

You still haven't posted links at any part of the Democrats' platform which adopts communist goals. Separation of Church and State is in the US Constitution which is why Democrats wanted references to God removed from the platform. So adhering to the Constitution, a document you claim to worship, is the best you've got?

Templar posted a long list of Communist Party goals and then tried to tie policy to those goals. Trying to say that the national parks prove government ownership of private lands has been achieved is a real stretch but at least he took on the challenge. He still couldn't provide one link to the Democratic Party platform which matched any of those goals.

And just to be clear, a single payer, government funded health care system is still not communism. Especially when doctors are in private practice and hospitals are privately owned. Single payer simply means that there is one entity billed for health care, which reduces overhead for the doctors, and costs to the system. Administration currently takes nearly 1/3 of all health care dollars expended in the US. In Canada, it's 9%.

Just changing to a single payer system would reduce health care expenditures in the US by nearly 25% without reducing $$$ spent on actual care.

But don't let's facts get in the way of your constant fear mongering and claims that everyone doesn't believe in your right wing corporatist agenda is a communist out to destroy America.

At this point, the only thing needed to destroy the US economy is to turn it over to the right wingers and let them finish the job that Bush and the Republicans started.

"Separation of Church and State is in the US Constitution which is why Democrats wanted references to God removed from the platform."

I won't say that you are a liar.
Rather you are simply too, too stupid to even create a fiction.




Pay attention.
There is no such demand or instruction in the US Constitution.

As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.




So...a simple test to see which of us has had an actual education.
If you can prove your claim...it is you.
Otherwise: Cream Pie time.....and you remain as dumb as a box of hair.

Oh sure there is..

You are getting in to Christine O'Donnell exact word silliness that make you folks look foolish.

The government MAY NOT ADVOCATE for any religion.

At ALL.

This is a bedrock principle of this country.

 

[Dragonlady]

Conservative once meant rigid, unwilling to compromise, unwilling to upset the status quo, authoritarian, fixed positions, and required conformity. Such traits are far more typical of the average leftist in modern day America--such leftists who are most often labeled 'liberal'.

Liberal once meant freedom, ability to change, to move forward, to allow different points of view, to allow people their choices, options, attitudes, and ability to seek their own destiny. Such traits are far more typical of the average right-of-center person in modern day America--such rightists who are most often labeled 'conservative'.

So now 'liberal' has come to mean bigger, more expensive, more authoritarian, more intrusive government into every aspect of our lives.

And 'conservative' or 'classical liberal' has come to mean those who want minimum government to secure our rights, more individual choices, options, opportunity, and individual liberty to be whomever we choose to be and with choices to strive for whatever we aspire to be.

Pretty much a fruit basket turnover kind of thing.

I would say that conservatives pretty much meet the definition which you consider outdated. They certain oppose change and are determined to hold onto failed ideas from the Bush Administration. They continue to impose their authoritarian will on women's health matters, and promote intrusive government under the NSA. Conservatives cling to economic policies which increase wealth for the top 20% of Americans and large multi-nationals and refuse to see the overall damage such policies have caused for the remaining 80% of the population, instead blaming the poor for their loss of spending power, when it is the wealthy who have most benefitted.

Government institutions have consistently grown under Republican/conservative administrations and shrunk under the two Democrat Presidents. Liberals favour personal choice in reproductive matters, gay marriage, supporting programs which would improve public education and public infrastructure spending.

Your definition of liberal is not anyone I know who votes for Democrats or favours liberal programs. Liberals favour opportunity for ALL, and liberals want to see such opportunities expanded and assisted. Conservatives want to tie two rocks to the feet of the poor, throw them overboard and tell them to sink or swim, but they sure don't want their tax dollars going to provide educational or economic opportunities for them.

YOU don't get to define us, because you have no idea who we are or what we believe.

 

[BlindBoo]

We're all aware of the SCOTUS rulings.

Are you?

I doubt it.

The doctrine was introduced by Hugo Black, a former member of the KKK, an FDR appointee from the Deep South and a man who deeply HATED Catholics and their religion.

And Black, the racist KKK dimocrap Justice, took his reasoning to construct a 'wall' between Church and State from a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptist Church in 1802.

Which, even for a racist dimocrap scumbag is quite a reach.

Jefferson had NOTHING to do with writing the Constitution.

You're just another dimocrap imbecile.

Go away

Yet the concept of "Separation of Church and State" continues.

As does evil.

Only in the Hearts or Souls of men.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You still haven't posted links at any part of the Democrats' platform which adopts communist goals. Separation of Church and State is in the US Constitution which is why Democrats wanted references to God removed from the platform. So adhering to the Constitution, a document you claim to worship, is the best you've got?

Templar posted a long list of Communist Party goals and then tried to tie policy to those goals. Trying to say that the national parks prove government ownership of private lands has been achieved is a real stretch but at least he took on the challenge. He still couldn't provide one link to the Democratic Party platform which matched any of those goals.

And just to be clear, a single payer, government funded health care system is still not communism. Especially when doctors are in private practice and hospitals are privately owned. Single payer simply means that there is one entity billed for health care, which reduces overhead for the doctors, and costs to the system. Administration currently takes nearly 1/3 of all health care dollars expended in the US. In Canada, it's 9%.

Just changing to a single payer system would reduce health care expenditures in the US by nearly 25% without reducing $$$ spent on actual care.

But don't let's facts get in the way of your constant fear mongering and claims that everyone doesn't believe in your right wing corporatist agenda is a communist out to destroy America.

At this point, the only thing needed to destroy the US economy is to turn it over to the right wingers and let them finish the job that Bush and the Republicans started.

"Separation of Church and State is in the US Constitution which is why Democrats wanted references to God removed from the platform."

I won't say that you are a liar.
Rather you are simply too, too stupid to even create a fiction.




Pay attention.
There is no such demand or instruction in the US Constitution.

As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.




So...a simple test to see which of us has had an actual education.
If you can prove your claim...it is you.
Otherwise: Cream Pie time.....and you remain as dumb as a box of hair.

Oh sure there is..

You are getting in to Christine O'Donnell exact word silliness that make you folks look foolish.

The government MAY NOT ADVOCATE for any religion.

At ALL.

This is a bedrock principle of this country.

The question at issue is the DumbLady's statement:
"Separation of Church and State is in the US Constitution which is why Democrats wanted references to God removed from the platform."


Is it in the Constitution?

Or is your post one of the dumbest in a long line of dumb posts?

 

[kaz]

The question at issue is the DumbLady's statement:
"Separation of Church and State is in the US Constitution which is why Democrats wanted references to God removed from the platform."


Is it in the Constitution?

Or is your post one of the dumbest in a long line of dumb posts?

Sure it's in the Constitution. As the Constitution states, it can be amended by vote of 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices. So it was validly amended and now we have separation of church and State. Get it?

My favorite liberal argument on this is quoting Jefferson's letter to the Danbury ministers. He was assuring them that the church would be protected from government, not that the church would be kept out of government.

Personally, I'm not religious. But the idea of separation of any Americans from government is not what happens in a free country. Besides, if religion is really going to be kept out of government, let's start with the most corrupt, thought controlling religion of them all. Liberalism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The question at issue is the DumbLady's statement:
"Separation of Church and State is in the US Constitution which is why Democrats wanted references to God removed from the platform."


Is it in the Constitution?

Or is your post one of the dumbest in a long line of dumb posts?

Sure it's in the Constitution. As the Constitution states, it can be amended by vote of 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices. So it was validly amended and now we have separation of church and State. Get it?

My favorite liberal argument on this is quoting Jefferson's letter to the Danbury ministers. He was assuring them that the church would be protected from government, not that the church would be kept out of government.

Personally, I'm not religious. But the idea of separation of any Americans from government is not what happens in a free country. Besides, if religion is really going to be kept out of government, let's start with the most corrupt, thought controlling religion of them all. Liberalism.

"Sure it's in the Constitution. As the Constitution states, it can be amended by vote of 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices. So it was validly amended and now we have separation of church and State. Get it?"

I sure hope that that was tongue-in-cheek.....

 

[kaz]

The question at issue is the DumbLady's statement:
"Separation of Church and State is in the US Constitution which is why Democrats wanted references to God removed from the platform."


Is it in the Constitution?

Or is your post one of the dumbest in a long line of dumb posts?

Sure it's in the Constitution. As the Constitution states, it can be amended by vote of 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices. So it was validly amended and now we have separation of church and State. Get it?

My favorite liberal argument on this is quoting Jefferson's letter to the Danbury ministers. He was assuring them that the church would be protected from government, not that the church would be kept out of government.

Personally, I'm not religious. But the idea of separation of any Americans from government is not what happens in a free country. Besides, if religion is really going to be kept out of government, let's start with the most corrupt, thought controlling religion of them all. Liberalism.

"Sure it's in the Constitution. As the Constitution states, it can be amended by vote of 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices. So it was validly amended and now we have separation of church and State. Get it?"

I sure hope that that was tongue-in-cheek.....

Even ignoring all the other posts I've written, it seems like the rest of my post confirms it was tongue in cheek.

 

[Foxfyre]

Conservative once meant rigid, unwilling to compromise, unwilling to upset the status quo, authoritarian, fixed positions, and required conformity. Such traits are far more typical of the average leftist in modern day America--such leftists who are most often labeled 'liberal'.

Liberal once meant freedom, ability to change, to move forward, to allow different points of view, to allow people their choices, options, attitudes, and ability to seek their own destiny. Such traits are far more typical of the average right-of-center person in modern day America--such rightists who are most often labeled 'conservative'.

So now 'liberal' has come to mean bigger, more expensive, more authoritarian, more intrusive government into every aspect of our lives.

And 'conservative' or 'classical liberal' has come to mean those who want minimum government to secure our rights, more individual choices, options, opportunity, and individual liberty to be whomever we choose to be and with choices to strive for whatever we aspire to be.

Pretty much a fruit basket turnover kind of thing.

I would say that conservatives pretty much meet the definition which you consider outdated. They certain oppose change and are determined to hold onto failed ideas from the Bush Administration. They continue to impose their authoritarian will on women's health matters, and promote intrusive government under the NSA. Conservatives cling to economic policies which increase wealth for the top 20% of Americans and large multi-nationals and refuse to see the overall damage such policies have caused for the remaining 80% of the population, instead blaming the poor for their loss of spending power, when it is the wealthy who have most benefitted.

Government institutions have consistently grown under Republican/conservative administrations and shrunk under the two Democrat Presidents. Liberals favour personal choice in reproductive matters, gay marriage, supporting programs which would improve public education and public infrastructure spending.

Your definition of liberal is not anyone I know who votes for Democrats or favours liberal programs. Liberals favour opportunity for ALL, and liberals want to see such opportunities expanded and assisted. Conservatives want to tie two rocks to the feet of the poor, throw them overboard and tell them to sink or swim, but they sure don't want their tax dollars going to provide educational or economic opportunities for them.

YOU don't get to define us, because you have no idea who we are or what we believe.

Sure I do, just as you get to insert "Republican" and "Democrat' into the mix despite the fact that I did not because political parties are not necessarily synonymous with definitions of liberal or conservative, then or now.

Further I have yet to find any modern day statist/liberal/progressive/leftist/political class or any combination of these who can or will state what he or she believes. He will point to and accuse, ridicule, demean, diminish, and/or demonize the other guy, but s/he will not answer a direct question about what he/she believes on most specific issues. And he/she will invariably change the subject when anybody tries to pin him/her down on an answer.

In short somebody else has to define you because you won't or can't do it for yourself.

Let's test it:

Does your belief in 'opportunity for all' include Sarah Palin running for President?

Does it include a corporate executive drawing a multi-million dollar salary?

Does it include a Rush Limbaugh speaking his mind about a female lobbyist?

Does it include the people of a state voting to support traditional marriage or limit abortion beyond a certain number of weeks?

Does it include the people of a community choosing to place a creche on the courthouse lawn for Christmas?

Does it include a business laying off employees because the employer cannot afford to accommodate Obamacare mandates?

Does it include requiring people to qualify for the jobs or salaries they want instead of somebody mandating that they receive them whether they qualify for them or not?

Does it include allowing people to treat every person exactly the same with impunity regardless of their race, creed, ethnicity, gender etc. including the words they use?

Does it include expecting and teaching people to educate themselves, stay away from illegal activities, be able to support themselves and get married before they have children, learn a trade, spend their time in low paying jobs to develop experience, work ethic, and references so that they can succeed as those who are already successful have done?

Does it include teaching and encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves?

Does it include allowing all people to experience the consequences of their own choices?

Or does it include allowing me to choose what I will do with what I have earned and requiring everybody to expect to contribute what they can for what they get?

And I'm going to guess that you can't or won't answer a single one of those questions with a simple yes or no.

I can.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sure it's in the Constitution. As the Constitution states, it can be amended by vote of 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices. So it was validly amended and now we have separation of church and State. Get it?

My favorite liberal argument on this is quoting Jefferson's letter to the Danbury ministers. He was assuring them that the church would be protected from government, not that the church would be kept out of government.

Personally, I'm not religious. But the idea of separation of any Americans from government is not what happens in a free country. Besides, if religion is really going to be kept out of government, let's start with the most corrupt, thought controlling religion of them all. Liberalism.

"Sure it's in the Constitution. As the Constitution states, it can be amended by vote of 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices. So it was validly amended and now we have separation of church and State. Get it?"

I sure hope that that was tongue-in-cheek.....

Even ignoring all the other posts I've written, it seems like the rest of my post confirms it was tongue in cheek.

Agreed.

Just wanted to make sure it wasn't misconstrued.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yet the concept of "Separation of Church and State" continues.

As does evil.

Only in the Hearts or Souls of men.

Good to see you refer to souls.

 

[kaz]

Liberalism is a pain free solution to all our problems based on the inherent truth of humanity that all people are good and want to work hard if only given a fair chance and they are treated with equality and respect.

Except Republicans.