Defining "Liberalism"

[TemplarKormac]

You have no idea what JFK stood for. It's a popular rightwing myth that JFK was not a liberal -

it's a myth that makes perfect sense to rightwing propagandists; they know how beloved a figure JFK is, so of course the right wants to claim him as somehow one of theirs.

It's preposterous.

Read JFK's agenda:

New Frontier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While JFK sought to further our goals in space exploration, Obama decided to end the Shuttle Program. Funny, I was right all this time. JFK put people on the moon, Obama puts people in the poor house.

That was retarded the first time you posted it. Now it's retarded and redundant.

Retarded because you have no rebuttal. Redundant because it's the truth. Care to expound on your ad hominem a bit?

 

[NYcarbineer]

But true.

I'm quite sure plenty of Liberal Looney's will gladly define the conservatives in the same manner.

Repeating my earlier post:

Considering that modern day American liberals are generally agreed that:
1. The rich should pay more so that the poor will have more
2. It is right and good that government take from some and give to others.
3. It is necessary for government to order society and regulate the work place, wages, products, education, and living conditions
4. Justice demands control over speech, attitudes towards disadvantaged people, and punishment for those who don't toe the political correctness bible
5. Property should be more communal than private

. . . can anybody honestly say that these are not components of Marx's method for wresting power from the haves and transferring to the have nots until his vision of utopian communism is achieved?

In contrast:

Conservatives believe charity should be a matter of consicence and choice, not something done by government.

Conservatives believes it violates every principle the Constitution was founded on to take property from one citizen and give that property to another.

Conservatives believe the Founders intended the federal government to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of society we wished to have. Such is the very definition of liberty.

Conservatives believe that political correctness is a scourge of liberalism and the primary method of government to pull off a bloodless coup and deny all concepts of unalienable rights.

Conservatives believe that property is an unalienable right and should be untouchable by the federal government so long as nobody's unalieanble rights are violated.

Very different from what liberals preach don't you think?

(Note: Both 'liberal' and 'conservative' here are used in the context of how most people define them in America at the current time.)

Conservatives support taking billions from individuals and giving to defense contractors.

Conservatives support constitutional amendments to ban abortion and gay marriage.

 

[PixieStix]

There is liberalism, then there is progressiveness, and on the far end, there is obamunism

The left has taken the word liberalism and turned it into their own. Again the left steals what belongs to someone else, they will do anything to "win"

Saul Alynsky taught them well

 

[NYcarbineer]

While JFK sought to further our goals in space exploration, Obama decided to end the Shuttle Program. Funny, I was right all this time. JFK put people on the moon, Obama puts people in the poor house.

That was retarded the first time you posted it. Now it's retarded and redundant.

Retarded because you have no rebuttal. Redundant because it's the truth. Care to expound on your ad hominem a bit?

It was an attack on what you posted, not on you, because what you posted was irrelevant and meaningless,

aka, in the common language of the day,

retarded.

 

[BlindBoo]

But true.

I'm quite sure plenty of Liberal Looney's will gladly define the conservatives in the same manner.

Repeating my earlier post:

Considering that modern day American liberals are generally agreed that:
1. The rich should pay more so that the poor will have more
2. It is right and good that government take from some and give to others.
3. It is necessary for government to order society and regulate the work place, wages, products, education, and living conditions
4. Justice demands control over speech, attitudes towards disadvantaged people, and punishment for those who don't toe the political correctness bible
5. Property should be more communal than private

. . . can anybody honestly say that these are not components of Marx's method for wresting power from the haves and transferring to the have nots until his vision of utopian communism is achieved?

In contrast:

Conservatives believe charity should be a matter of consicence and choice, not something done by government.

Conservatives believes it violates every principle the Constitution was founded on to take property from one citizen and give that property to another.

Conservatives believe the Founders intended the federal government to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of society we wished to have. Such is the very definition of liberty.

Conservatives believe that political correctness is a scourge of liberalism and the primary method of government to pull off a bloodless coup and deny all concepts of unalienable rights.

Conservatives believe that property is an unalienable right and should be untouchable by the federal government so long as nobody's unalieanble rights are violated.

Very different from what liberals preach don't you think?

(Note: Both 'liberal' and 'conservative' here are used in the context of how most people define them in America at the current time.)

Just more of the same. For example. The progressive tax system is much more complicated than your Robin Hood BS (1 and 2).

America's circus has corrupted the words, as Cato aptly describes.....

Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution — individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law — call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism — the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known — as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" fails to capture the contemporary vibrancy of the ideas of freedom.

"Liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world — the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina tend to be supporters of human rights and free markets — but its meaning has clearly been altered in the contemporary United States.

The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

This vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, recognizing that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is — or used to be — the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.

Libertarians have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We applaud the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people, especially to women, African-Americans, religious minorities, and gay and lesbian people. Our greatest challenge today is to continue to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.

Cato's Mission | Cato Institute

 

[NoNukes]

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.

I doubt if you are stupid enough to believe this, although the possibility exists, so why are you posting it.

Again, a vapid post....no substance, no rebuttal, no data nor documentation.

Why post if you have nothing to bring to the table?

Be honest....it's that lack of ability thing, isn't it.

We all know that you were near the top of your class at Cuyahoga Community College, but that is nothing to brag about.
When someone posts something that stupid, why bother bringing anything to the table? Your reply would be a failed attempt at humor.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm quite sure plenty of Liberal Looney's will gladly define the conservatives in the same manner.

Repeating my earlier post:

Considering that modern day American liberals are generally agreed that:
1. The rich should pay more so that the poor will have more
2. It is right and good that government take from some and give to others.
3. It is necessary for government to order society and regulate the work place, wages, products, education, and living conditions
4. Justice demands control over speech, attitudes towards disadvantaged people, and punishment for those who don't toe the political correctness bible
5. Property should be more communal than private

. . . can anybody honestly say that these are not components of Marx's method for wresting power from the haves and transferring to the have nots until his vision of utopian communism is achieved?

In contrast:

Conservatives believe charity should be a matter of consicence and choice, not something done by government.

Conservatives believes it violates every principle the Constitution was founded on to take property from one citizen and give that property to another.

Conservatives believe the Founders intended the federal government to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of society we wished to have. Such is the very definition of liberty.

Conservatives believe that political correctness is a scourge of liberalism and the primary method of government to pull off a bloodless coup and deny all concepts of unalienable rights.

Conservatives believe that property is an unalienable right and should be untouchable by the federal government so long as nobody's unalieanble rights are violated.

Very different from what liberals preach don't you think?

(Note: Both 'liberal' and 'conservative' here are used in the context of how most people define them in America at the current time.)

Just more of the same. For example. The progressive tax system is much more complicated than your Robin Hood BS (1 and 2).

America's circus has corrupted the words, as Cato aptly describes.....

Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution — individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law — call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism — the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known — as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" fails to capture the contemporary vibrancy of the ideas of freedom.

"Liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world — the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina tend to be supporters of human rights and free markets — but its meaning has clearly been altered in the contemporary United States.

The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

This vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, recognizing that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is — or used to be — the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.

Libertarians have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We applaud the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people, especially to women, African-Americans, religious minorities, and gay and lesbian people. Our greatest challenge today is to continue to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.

Cato's Mission | Cato Institute

I'm not arguing the definitions themselves BB. I am arguing the characteristics assigned to the terms conservative and liberal as they are most commonly used in modern day America. I even included a disclaimer explaining that. Try to focus here.

Do you have a problem with the characteristics that I have assigned to each in that narrowly defined context? If so what problem do you see? And why?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Would you care to read the links you post, Carbine?



New Frontier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What?! That JFK supported Medicare in 1961 somehow proves he WASN"T a liberal??

Are you insane?

When did I ever claim he "wasn't a liberal"? Are YOU insane?

When you tried to claim he never supported 'socialized medicine'.

"Since when did he try to implement socialized healthcare? I freaking love JFK..."

And since you refuse to read his New Frontier platform, very little of which would you ever support.

 

[BlindBoo]

While JFK sought to further our goals in space exploration, Obama decided to end the Shuttle Program. Funny, I was right all this time. JFK put people on the moon, Obama puts people in the poor house.

That was retarded the first time you posted it. Now it's retarded and redundant.

Retarded because you have no rebuttal. Redundant because it's the truth. Care to expound on your ad hominem a bit?

JFK sought to counter the Soviets in the Weapons Race.

NASA unveils new spacecraft to replace shuttles - Video on NBCNews.com


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-lK40P88t8]The Doors - Ship Of Fools (Lyrics, in the description.) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have long argued the point that the modern American liberal aka leftist aka progressive aka statist aka political class is:

1. Incapable of focusing on a concept or principle.

2. Will instead focus on the messenger or find something or somebody else to criticize, accuse, ridicule, or demonize.

3. Cannot defend their own values or beliefs with anything acceptable even to themselves, and therefore must make sure the discussion is derailed or shifted to something else.

Nothing I have seen in this thread shakes my faith in my opinion about that whatsoever.

You would think there would be at least one thinking liberal out of the whole group who could take at least one statement from the OP and show how it was in error. But liberals, as we define them in America these days, don't do that do they? Nope. Attack PC. Attack conservatives. Attack Republicans. Attack any rightwing concept. But by gosh don't discuss the OP.

Sigh.

It would be helpful if you would learn to read. I challenged the OP to prove that I, a liberal,

am a Communist, because that is the central theme of the OP.

Go read it.

 

[BlindBoo]

Repeating my earlier post:



In contrast:

Conservatives believe charity should be a matter of consicence and choice, not something done by government.

Conservatives believes it violates every principle the Constitution was founded on to take property from one citizen and give that property to another.

Conservatives believe the Founders intended the federal government to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of society we wished to have. Such is the very definition of liberty.

Conservatives believe that political correctness is a scourge of liberalism and the primary method of government to pull off a bloodless coup and deny all concepts of unalienable rights.

Conservatives believe that property is an unalienable right and should be untouchable by the federal government so long as nobody's unalieanble rights are violated.

Very different from what liberals preach don't you think?

(Note: Both 'liberal' and 'conservative' here are used in the context of how most people define them in America at the current time.)

Just more of the same. For example. The progressive tax system is much more complicated than your Robin Hood BS (1 and 2).

America's circus has corrupted the words, as Cato aptly describes.....

Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution — individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law — call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism — the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known — as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" fails to capture the contemporary vibrancy of the ideas of freedom.

"Liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world — the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina tend to be supporters of human rights and free markets — but its meaning has clearly been altered in the contemporary United States.

The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

This vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, recognizing that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is — or used to be — the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.

Libertarians have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We applaud the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people, especially to women, African-Americans, religious minorities, and gay and lesbian people. Our greatest challenge today is to continue to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.

Cato's Mission | Cato Institute

I'm not arguing the definitions themselves BB. I am arguing the characteristics assigned to the terms conservative and liberal as they are most commonly used in modern day America. I even included a disclaimer explaining that. Try to focus here.

Do you have a problem with the characteristics that I have assigned to each in that narrowly defined context? If so what problem do you see? And why?

Your 5 are comically broad in that they reduce complex issues into a few words that are then misinterpreted to form a completely partisan conclusion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just more of the same. For example. The progressive tax system is much more complicated than your Robin Hood BS (1 and 2).

America's circus has corrupted the words, as Cato aptly describes.....

Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution — individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law — call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism — the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known — as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" fails to capture the contemporary vibrancy of the ideas of freedom.

"Liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world — the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina tend to be supporters of human rights and free markets — but its meaning has clearly been altered in the contemporary United States.

The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

This vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, recognizing that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is — or used to be — the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.

Libertarians have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We applaud the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people, especially to women, African-Americans, religious minorities, and gay and lesbian people. Our greatest challenge today is to continue to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.

Cato's Mission | Cato Institute

I'm not arguing the definitions themselves BB. I am arguing the characteristics assigned to the terms conservative and liberal as they are most commonly used in modern day America. I even included a disclaimer explaining that. Try to focus here.

Do you have a problem with the characteristics that I have assigned to each in that narrowly defined context? If so what problem do you see? And why?

Your 5 are comically broad in that they reduce complex issues into a few words that are then misinterpreted to form a completely partisan conclusion.

So you too reinforce my belief that modern day American liberals are incapable of focusing on and discussing a principle, concept, or conviction. Their ONLY argument will be ad hominem, partisan, ridiculing or denigrating or demonizing some individual or group and, more often than not, they will throw out red herrings or straw men in an attempt to change the subject to something they don't have to defend but can cheerfully attack.

The thing that mystifies me, is that they don't appear to be embarrassed by this.

 

[NoNukes]

There is liberalism, then there is progressiveness, and on the far end, there is obamunism

The left has taken the word liberalism and turned it into their own. Again the left steals what belongs to someone else, they will do anything to "win"

Saul Alynsky taught them well

How many conservatives are really conservatives? Does not appear to be many left.

 

[NoNukes]

I thought PC had been banished forever.

Obviously her hiatus as a an in-patient at the Manhattan Institute for the Bewildered did not produce the therapeutic benefits one might anticipate.

Why was she banished? There are plenty of stupid, obnoxious people in the boards. She fits right in with them and she is harmless. She cannot even get off a good insult, for fucks sake.

 

[NoNukes]

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.

I doubt if you are stupid enough to believe this, although the possibility exists, so why are you posting it.

I figured you'd be smart enough to post a rebuttal. Alas, here you are with your childish name calling. Typical liberal debate tactics.

Only a fool would attempt to debate with such idiocy.

 

[NoNukes]

But true.

I'm quite sure plenty of Liberal Looney's will gladly define the conservatives in the same manner.

Did ya' see post #9?

Ever hear this: "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands."

Say 'quack.'

Anyone else notice she is sounding more and more like Sarah Palin?

 

[Foxfyre]

Repeating one more time, in the context of the liberal community's response to the OP, (and elsewhere):

So you too reinforce my belief that modern day American liberals are incapable of focusing on and discussing a principle, concept, or conviction. Their ONLY argument will be ad hominem, partisan, ridiculing or denigrating or demonizing some individual or group and, more often than not, they will throw out red herrings or straw men in an attempt to change the subject to something they don't have to defend but can cheerfully attack.

The thing that mystifies me, is that they don't appear to be embarrassed by this.
__________________

 

[TemplarKormac]

That was retarded the first time you posted it. Now it's retarded and redundant.

Retarded because you have no rebuttal. Redundant because it's the truth. Care to expound on your ad hominem a bit?

It was an attack on what you posted, not on you, because what you posted was irrelevant and meaningless,

aka, in the common language of the day,

retarded.

So in essence you attacked my argument with no argument of your own. Calling it "retarded" without proving why. That's retarded, Carbine.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm quite sure plenty of Liberal Looney's will gladly define the conservatives in the same manner.

Did ya' see post #9?

Ever hear this: "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands."

Say 'quack.'

Anyone else notice she is sounding more and more like Sarah Palin?

If she's using Sarah Palin as a role model, more power to her! Better than Hillary.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I doubt if you are stupid enough to believe this, although the possibility exists, so why are you posting it.

Again, a vapid post....no substance, no rebuttal, no data nor documentation.

Why post if you have nothing to bring to the table?

Be honest....it's that lack of ability thing, isn't it.

We all know that you were near the top of your class at Cuyahoga Community College, but that is nothing to brag about.
When someone posts something that stupid, why bother bringing anything to the table? Your reply would be a failed attempt at humor.

Columbia University....

....Dean's List, baby.....




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVsXseZJPg0]Columbia University Fight Song: Roar, Lion, Roar! - YouTube[/ame]



You have yet to post anything directed at the OP.


Same comment: 'works to ability'