How EVIL is liberalism anyway?

[oreo]

I have long been acquainted with liberalism and use to find them kind of adorable in a naive, idealistic, immature, yapping lapdog kind of way, bitching about freedom, hating the U.S. Constitution, and insisting that whatever anyone else had they somehow deserved at least half of, if not more.

Well, now we have a blend of liberalism and communism that many people confuse with 'true' liberalism, but it is NOT liberalism. For instance, John F. Kennedy was adamant that lowering taxes was the only way to get a stagnant economy back on track. In addition, he famously stated in a speech "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". However, anybody today who express those John F. Kennedy liberal views is labeled by the left as "radical". Radical. It is "radical" in the minds of the modern day unhinged lefties to lower taxes or ask people to sacrifice for their country, rather than the country sacrificing everything for them. It is the putrid ideology from the mind of an evil avowed atheist escapee from the Soviet Union who had no use for love or charity or God. All modern day liberals want is rampant sexual deviance, the total destruction of a civilized society, and the permanent destruction of God. The deepest thought they are capable of producing is simpleton and irrational arguments for why they don't have to produce but have every right to be a parasite to society.

Modern day liberals have been completely exposed for the loveless and evil bitches that they are deep in their dark and disturbing souls. None of them will share what they have. None. Place a liberal on a polygraph and ask if they ever paid for the health insurance policy for an uninsured child and the answer will unequivocally be a resounding "no" each and every time. Likewise, ask them if they ever went without a meal to ensure that their fellow man had a hot meal, and once again the answer will unequivocally be a resounding "no" each and every time. Yet they will sit all day in a forum (such as USMB), refusing to work, refusing to hold a job and be a productive member of society, pretending to care sooo deeply about their fellow man. But as history has already proven and many have pointed out - the modern day liberal is quite generous with someone else's money. When it comes to their own, they won't share a damn thing.

Today's modern day liberal sells communism under the guise of liberalism - and it is not only rotting liberalism from the inside, like a cancer, but it's doing the same thing to America. $19 trillion in debt (on the verge of collapse). More people on food stamps than any time in U.S. history. Detroit - under total Democrat rule (both mayor and city council) for 60 years and now bankrupt. Just like the U.S.S.R. before, ignorant left-wing policy is collapsing the country, creating decay, dilapidation, poverty, and misery.

The take over of the Democrat Party movement by socialists/marxists/communists is a real disaster for the America as we enter a new age of technology in which jobs can easily and quickly be moved overseas because of ignorant liberal policies creating taxes and regulations too costly to keep the jobs here in America. Liberals pretend to care for other Americans, but at the end of the day, focus on brining everyone down into poverty because they are envious of anyone who has more than they do or does better than they do. It has never been about others for them - it has always been envy driving them to undermine and harm their fellow man.

America, if she is to survive, must find a way to shed itself of these useless evil parasites that are a pimple on America's ass or the America will die the well deserved death of wicked heresies ($19 trillion in debt and massive loss of freedoms because of communist liberalism has proven as much).

Agree--this country is center, it always has been, it always will be. That's why Sanders got creamed--he's much more than a liberal--he's a socialist with communist leanings.

But the Reich wing is just as bad. They hijacked the Republican party. It is no longer the party of Lincoln or Reagan--it is now the party of Trump.

So take your socialists and your Reich wing nut cases--and they are both bat shit crazy and really have no business being in politics.

Trump is a great lesson for the Democrat party. Don't let radicals take over your party. Keep your candidates in the middle, that's how they win. The Tea Party has destroyed the Republican party.

After this slaughter, it would probably be a good idea for the Republican party to add in some Super Delegates of their own--so they cannot be manipulated into another Donald Trump disaster.

As have millions of other Republicans.

 

[Andylusion]

Okay, so source the historical origin that says liberalism = liberty.

John Stuart Mill - Liberal Thinkers - Liberalism

Are you always this stupid? It's rather annoying.

Skimmed through it.

Where in does it say liberalism = liberty?

You really are stupid. From my link.

"Mill's greatest fear was that people become transformed into mere “industrious sheep” and that “collective mediocrity” would gradually strangle originality and individual gifts. Being a consistent defender of individuality, he asserted: The only legitimate restriction to individual freedom was harm to others."

How does praying in schools, harm others? Is preventing that, promoting liberty, or promoting control?

The kids can pray all they want to, as long as it's not disruptive to others or the school, and not mandated by the authorities, meaning the state or those who, like the teachers, work for the state. This is a secular nation without a state religion.

Pray away, as long as you are at liberty to do so or not do so as you damn well please. Salute the flag or don't? Say the Pledge or don't? Your call. That's liberty, that's liberalism, that's right.

Boy Suspended from School For Reading Bible During Recess

School Employee Tells Five-Year-Old She Can't Pray for Lunch - Breitbart

Yeah, apparently 'liberty' is getting suspended for praying to a 'liberal'.

 

[Andylusion]

Whoa -- what a morass this is:

The confusion is because the definition of the word liberalism, and the political reality of liberalism, are two very different things.

If you take the text book definition of liberalize... it is to reduce control, and thus increase freedom.

In the United States of America, the political philosophy of liberalism, is the very opposite of the definition of liberalism.

That is absurd. You want a word to mean the opposite of itself. That's impossible.
I already pointed this out. Doublethink is a concept in a novel. You can't actually DO it.

This is why I will typically refer to those of that political ideology, not as "liberals" which is a contradiction, in favor of calling them "leftists", "left-wingers" and so on.

Now you've got it. Much better. Too many armchair wags here think "Liberal" is the same as "leftist". It ain't. There are Liberals on the left and there are Liberals on the right.

And the reason again, is that American Liberals, are the exact opposite of liberal.

And now you're right back to the paradox of a word being its own opposite.

I gotta wonder if summa y'all ever read what you just wrote. SMH.

LOL... I don't 'want' the word to mean the opposite of what it does.

The actions, policies and beliefs of self-proclaimed 'liberals' are in fact the opposite of what the word 'liberal' means. I'm not changing anything. I'm stating the facts. Self-proclaimed "liberals" in the America, are not "liberal" according to the definition of the word.

You are not a vegetarian because you say "I am a vegetarian". You are not one, because you got a shirt, hat, or drive a car with "vegetarian" written on it.

The only way that you are a vegetarian, is if you actually don't eat meat. Now you can go to court, and have your name changed to "Vegetarian". And we would have to call you Vegetarian, because that would be your legal name. But if you eat meat... you are not a Vegetarian, no matter what we call you.

There are no "liberals" who practice "liberalism" on the left. Haven't met one yet that wanted to eliminate controls on religion, controls on business, deregulate the banks, deregulate guns, health care, and so on.

But they are still called Liberals here in the US. I can't change that. I'm just pointing it out.

What left-winger, would you point to, that was actually "liberal" in the true meaning of the word?

 

[Pogo]

Whoa -- what a morass this is:

The confusion is because the definition of the word liberalism, and the political reality of liberalism, are two very different things.

If you take the text book definition of liberalize... it is to reduce control, and thus increase freedom.

In the United States of America, the political philosophy of liberalism, is the very opposite of the definition of liberalism.

That is absurd. You want a word to mean the opposite of itself. That's impossible.
I already pointed this out. Doublethink is a concept in a novel. You can't actually DO it.

This is why I will typically refer to those of that political ideology, not as "liberals" which is a contradiction, in favor of calling them "leftists", "left-wingers" and so on.

Now you've got it. Much better. Too many armchair wags here think "Liberal" is the same as "leftist". It ain't. There are Liberals on the left and there are Liberals on the right.

And the reason again, is that American Liberals, are the exact opposite of liberal.

And now you're right back to the paradox of a word being its own opposite.

I gotta wonder if summa y'all ever read what you just wrote. SMH.

LOL... I don't 'want' the word to mean the opposite of what it does.

The actions, policies and beliefs of self-proclaimed 'liberals' are in fact the opposite of what the word 'liberal' means. I'm not changing anything. I'm stating the facts. Self-proclaimed "liberals" in the America, are not "liberal" according to the definition of the word.

You are not a vegetarian because you say "I am a vegetarian". You are not one, because you got a shirt, hat, or drive a car with "vegetarian" written on it.

The only way that you are a vegetarian, is if you actually don't eat meat. Now you can go to court, and have your name changed to "Vegetarian". And we would have to call you Vegetarian, because that would be your legal name. But if you eat meat... you are not a Vegetarian, no matter what we call you.

There are no "liberals" who practice "liberalism" on the left. Haven't met one yet that wanted to eliminate controls on religion, controls on business, deregulate the banks, deregulate guns, health care, and so on.

But they are still called Liberals here in the US. I can't change that. I'm just pointing it out.

What left-winger, would you point to, that was actually "liberal" in the true meaning of the word?

I wouldn't. I just got done saying they're not the same thing. Until you figure that out, this goes nowhere. They are not synonyms.

To continue your vegetarian analogy above, a person (or an entire group) is not "vegetarian" simply because you go on a message board and declare that they have self-declared as such -- when it's nothing more than you hanging a label on them.

 

[Pogo]

John Stuart Mill - Liberal Thinkers - Liberalism

Are you always this stupid? It's rather annoying.

Skimmed through it.

Where in does it say liberalism = liberty?

You really are stupid. From my link.

"Mill's greatest fear was that people become transformed into mere “industrious sheep” and that “collective mediocrity” would gradually strangle originality and individual gifts. Being a consistent defender of individuality, he asserted: The only legitimate restriction to individual freedom was harm to others."

How does praying in schools, harm others? Is preventing that, promoting liberty, or promoting control?

The kids can pray all they want to, as long as it's not disruptive to others or the school, and not mandated by the authorities, meaning the state or those who, like the teachers, work for the state. This is a secular nation without a state religion.

Pray away, as long as you are at liberty to do so or not do so as you damn well please. Salute the flag or don't? Say the Pledge or don't? Your call. That's liberty, that's liberalism, that's right.

Boy Suspended from School For Reading Bible During Recess

School Employee Tells Five-Year-Old She Can't Pray for Lunch - Breitbart

Yeah, apparently 'liberty' is getting suspended for praying to a 'liberal'.

That source has a new name btw. It's now called "Alt-Rightbart".

Hee hee.

 

[Andylusion]

Whoa -- what a morass this is:

The confusion is because the definition of the word liberalism, and the political reality of liberalism, are two very different things.

If you take the text book definition of liberalize... it is to reduce control, and thus increase freedom.

In the United States of America, the political philosophy of liberalism, is the very opposite of the definition of liberalism.

That is absurd. You want a word to mean the opposite of itself. That's impossible.
I already pointed this out. Doublethink is a concept in a novel. You can't actually DO it.

This is why I will typically refer to those of that political ideology, not as "liberals" which is a contradiction, in favor of calling them "leftists", "left-wingers" and so on.

Now you've got it. Much better. Too many armchair wags here think "Liberal" is the same as "leftist". It ain't. There are Liberals on the left and there are Liberals on the right.

And the reason again, is that American Liberals, are the exact opposite of liberal.

And now you're right back to the paradox of a word being its own opposite.

I gotta wonder if summa y'all ever read what you just wrote. SMH.

LOL... I don't 'want' the word to mean the opposite of what it does.

The actions, policies and beliefs of self-proclaimed 'liberals' are in fact the opposite of what the word 'liberal' means. I'm not changing anything. I'm stating the facts. Self-proclaimed "liberals" in the America, are not "liberal" according to the definition of the word.

You are not a vegetarian because you say "I am a vegetarian". You are not one, because you got a shirt, hat, or drive a car with "vegetarian" written on it.

The only way that you are a vegetarian, is if you actually don't eat meat. Now you can go to court, and have your name changed to "Vegetarian". And we would have to call you Vegetarian, because that would be your legal name. But if you eat meat... you are not a Vegetarian, no matter what we call you.

There are no "liberals" who practice "liberalism" on the left. Haven't met one yet that wanted to eliminate controls on religion, controls on business, deregulate the banks, deregulate guns, health care, and so on.

But they are still called Liberals here in the US. I can't change that. I'm just pointing it out.

What left-winger, would you point to, that was actually "liberal" in the true meaning of the word?

I wouldn't. I just got done saying they're not the same thing. Until you figure that out, this goes nowhere. They are not synonyms.

To continue your vegetarian analogy above, a person (or an entire group) is not "vegetarian" simply because you go on a message board and declare that they have self-declared as such -- when it's nothing more than you hanging a label on them.

Are you suggesting that the people I have seen declare themselves liberals, for decades now, have not done so?

Michael Moore, called himself a liberal.
Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore’s conservative neighbors gawk, revel in his messy divorce

Mother Jones, is self-described liberal.
Should liberals be concerned about liberal bias at Facebook?

Do you think I'm attaching the label "liberal" to people who have not taken the label themselves?

 

[Andylusion]

Whoa -- what a morass this is:

The confusion is because the definition of the word liberalism, and the political reality of liberalism, are two very different things.

If you take the text book definition of liberalize... it is to reduce control, and thus increase freedom.

In the United States of America, the political philosophy of liberalism, is the very opposite of the definition of liberalism.

That is absurd. You want a word to mean the opposite of itself. That's impossible.
I already pointed this out. Doublethink is a concept in a novel. You can't actually DO it.

This is why I will typically refer to those of that political ideology, not as "liberals" which is a contradiction, in favor of calling them "leftists", "left-wingers" and so on.

Now you've got it. Much better. Too many armchair wags here think "Liberal" is the same as "leftist". It ain't. There are Liberals on the left and there are Liberals on the right.

And the reason again, is that American Liberals, are the exact opposite of liberal.

And now you're right back to the paradox of a word being its own opposite.

I gotta wonder if summa y'all ever read what you just wrote. SMH.

LOL... I don't 'want' the word to mean the opposite of what it does.

The actions, policies and beliefs of self-proclaimed 'liberals' are in fact the opposite of what the word 'liberal' means. I'm not changing anything. I'm stating the facts. Self-proclaimed "liberals" in the America, are not "liberal" according to the definition of the word.

You are not a vegetarian because you say "I am a vegetarian". You are not one, because you got a shirt, hat, or drive a car with "vegetarian" written on it.

The only way that you are a vegetarian, is if you actually don't eat meat. Now you can go to court, and have your name changed to "Vegetarian". And we would have to call you Vegetarian, because that would be your legal name. But if you eat meat... you are not a Vegetarian, no matter what we call you.

There are no "liberals" who practice "liberalism" on the left. Haven't met one yet that wanted to eliminate controls on religion, controls on business, deregulate the banks, deregulate guns, health care, and so on.

But they are still called Liberals here in the US. I can't change that. I'm just pointing it out.

What left-winger, would you point to, that was actually "liberal" in the true meaning of the word?

I wouldn't. I just got done saying they're not the same thing. Until you figure that out, this goes nowhere. They are not synonyms.

To continue your vegetarian analogy above, a person (or an entire group) is not "vegetarian" simply because you go on a message board and declare that they have self-declared as such -- when it's nothing more than you hanging a label on them.

Try this.....

The most influential US liberals: 100-81

Top influential US liberals. Which one on that list, is a "right-winger" in your view? Robert Byrd? Jesse Jackson?

And at the same time, which liberal on there, actually stood for "a removal or loosening of restrictions?"

 

[P@triot]

Wow...so we caught you in another lie? You claimed you were Australian.

I have never claimed that. I live in Australia....

What they pretty much makes you Australian, dumb-fuck. I don't care where your great-grandparents migrated from. I don't even care if you yourself were born in another country. Worry about your own country. It's a shit hole. Stop trying to bring the U.S. down to your miserable level because you have nation-envy.

 

[P@triot]

Would there be a USA but for liberals?

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and the rest are the farthest things from "liberals" imaginable. They believed in liberty and the individual. Not government and the collective.

So why did those individuals create a government that had more power than what they had before?

They didn't. You need to study your history.

They are the founders who created the Article of Confederation. Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed the federalist movement. It was Alexander Hamilton and others like him that wanted to strengthen the federal government. And even still - all of them were very clear that anything beyond the 18 enumerated powers delegated to it by the states was unacceptable. The founders unilaterally reject everything you stand for today.

And just what is that?

You should not live in a liberal nation, it will just annoy you and the liberals who stand for things like - liberty. A patriot who denounces liberalism? That's North Korea not America.

Liberals do not stand for liberty, stupid. They stand for oppression. Again - try studying history some time. Forcing the American people to carry health insurance (as Obamacare does) is the exact opposite of liberty, stupid. Forcing people into Social Security is the exact opposite of liberty, stupid. Forcing people into paying for welfare is the exact opposite of liberty, stupid. Forcing people into paying for Medicare & Medicaid is the exact opposite of liberty, stupid. Do you see a pattern here? Liberals believe in force - which is the exact opposite of liberty. It's really sad that you need that explained to you. Clearly the liberal public school systems have failed you as much as they have failed the rest of your liberal brethren.

 

[P@triot]

Agree--this country is center, it always has been, it always will be. That's why Sanders got creamed--he's much more than a liberal--he's a socialist with communist leanings.

Yet another cute left-wing false narrative. Bernie Sanders wasn't "creamed" at all. He was one of two finalists for the nominee of the Dumbocrat Party. And he only finished second because the Dumbocrats did what they always do - they rigged the election (which the WikiLeaks e-mails proved).

The fact that a self-admitted socialist finished second for your party (and probably would've won had it not been rigged) shows how your side has been hijacked by extremists. Your party looks nothing like the party of John F. Kennedy. He was on record stating over and over that lowering taxes is necessary for a robust economy (money belongs in the hands of the people - not the government). And yet anyone who advocates for JFK's same policies today is labeled but you bat-shit crazy libtards as "Tea Bagging extremists".

This country is far from "center". Not sure how you "agree" with me on that when I never said it. The U.S. Constitution is center. In other words, the Tea Party is centrist. They are ground zero. They only advocate for Constitutional government. Nothing less. Nothing more. The Dumbocrats are so extreme now - even a life long liberal like Donald Trump is considered to be too offensive and too radical for you guys. You can only elect devout marxists like Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Hitlery Clinton.

 

[P@triot]

But the Reich wing is just as bad. They hijacked the Republican party. It is no longer the party of Lincoln or Reagan--it is now the party of Trump.

No argument here. But you know what is frightening? The Republican Party is exclusively made up of JFK liberals. What does it say about you and your party that JFK-era liberalism is "Reich Wing" in your mind? That true liberalism isn't left enough? Donald Trump spent his entire life as a dedicated liberal. He donated money to Harry fucking Reid for God sakes. He donated money to Hitlery Clinton and said she would make a great president. Conservatives rightly reject him because he's a hard core liberal. What does it say about you and your bat-shit crazy Dumbocrat pals that you reject him?

The Constitution Party and the Tea Party are the party's of Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln. All they advocate for his lawful government. How sad that you find following the law to be "scary" and "unacceptable".

 

[P@triot]

Trump is a great lesson for the Democrat party. Don't let radicals take over your party. Keep your candidates in the middle, that's how they win. The Tea Party has destroyed the Republican party.

Yeah...because Donald Trump sure is a Tea Party candidate. Die hard conservative that one.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Liberals founded this nation

Conservatives sided with the king

And the Progressive Marxists are destroying your handiwork.

 

[oreo]

Agree--this country is center, it always has been, it always will be. That's why Sanders got creamed--he's much more than a liberal--he's a socialist with communist leanings.

Yet another cute left-wing false narrative. Bernie Sanders wasn't "creamed" at all. He was one of two finalists for the nominee of the Dumbocrat Party. And he only finished second because the Dumbocrats did what they always do - they rigged the election (which the WikiLeaks e-mails proved).

The fact that a self-admitted socialist finished second for your party (and probably would've won had it not been rigged) shows how your side has been hijacked by extremists. Your party looks nothing like the party of John F. Kennedy. He was on record stating over and over that lowering taxes is necessary for a robust economy (money belongs in the hands of the people - not the government). And yet anyone who advocates for JFK's same policies today is labeled but you bat-shit crazy libtards as "Tea Bagging extremists".

This country is far from "center". Not sure how you "agree" with me on that when I never said it. The U.S. Constitution is center. In other words, the Tea Party is centrist. They are ground zero. They only advocate for Constitutional government. Nothing less. Nothing more. The Dumbocrats are so extreme now - even a life long liberal like Donald Trump is considered to be too offensive and too radical for you guys. You can only elect devout marxists like Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Hitlery Clinton.

Bullshit--the popular vote says differently. Hillary Clinton kicked Bernie Sanders ass by 3,775 437 popular votes. In comparison Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in 2008, by a mere 41,622 popular votes. And no one claimed that the election was rigged for Obama--LOL
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Democratic Popular Vote
2008 Democratic Popular Vote | RealClearPolitics

This country is center, it always has been, it always will be & that's why Sanders got his ASS kicked. This country will NOT elect far left or far right candidates, much less a recognized and confirmed socialist--with leanings that look communism.

In this we find another commonality between the Reich wing and the Left Wing. If something doesn't go the way they want it too, you can count on them turning to endless conspiracy theories.

 

[P@triot]

Agree--this country is center, it always has been, it always will be. That's why Sanders got creamed--he's much more than a liberal--he's a socialist with communist leanings.

Yet another cute left-wing false narrative. Bernie Sanders wasn't "creamed" at all. He was one of two finalists for the nominee of the Dumbocrat Party. And he only finished second because the Dumbocrats did what they always do - they rigged the election (which the WikiLeaks e-mails proved).

The fact that a self-admitted socialist finished second for your party (and probably would've won had it not been rigged) shows how your side has been hijacked by extremists. Your party looks nothing like the party of John F. Kennedy. He was on record stating over and over that lowering taxes is necessary for a robust economy (money belongs in the hands of the people - not the government). And yet anyone who advocates for JFK's same policies today is labeled but you bat-shit crazy libtards as "Tea Bagging extremists".

This country is far from "center". Not sure how you "agree" with me on that when I never said it. The U.S. Constitution is center. In other words, the Tea Party is centrist. They are ground zero. They only advocate for Constitutional government. Nothing less. Nothing more. The Dumbocrats are so extreme now - even a life long liberal like Donald Trump is considered to be too offensive and too radical for you guys. You can only elect devout marxists like Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Hitlery Clinton.

Bullshit--the popular vote says differently. Hillary Clinton kicked Bernie Sanders ass by 3,775 437 popular votes. In comparison Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in 2008, by a mere 41,622 popular votes. And no one claimed that the election was rigged for Obama--LOL

It's always cute how the liberals just can't accept reality over ideology. There are no claims here junior. There is only fact. And the Dumbocrat e-mails released by WikiLeaks proves it. Furthermore, the fact that your party even had a socialist openly running and finishing second shows how radicalized you guys have become. That would be like the Republican Party having someone running as a Sovereign Citizen.

 

[Pogo]

But the Reich wing is just as bad. They hijacked the Republican party. It is no longer the party of Lincoln or Reagan--it is now the party of Trump.

No argument here. But you know what is frightening? The Republican Party is exclusively made up of JFK liberals. What does it say about you and your party that JFK-era liberalism is "Reich Wing" in your mind? That true liberalism isn't left enough? Donald Trump spent his entire life as a dedicated liberal. He donated money to Harry fucking Reid for God sakes. He donated money to Hitlery Clinton and said she would make a great president. Conservatives rightly reject him because he's a hard core liberal. What does it say about you and your bat-shit crazy Dumbocrat pals that you reject him?.

Oh Hunior please. Donald Rump is not a "Liberal". Donald Rump is not a "conservative". Donáld Rump is a Class A Narcissist. A whore with no ethics at all who will say anything, pay anything or play anything to get what he wants, which is an endless fix of Attention For Numero Uno. He has no "left", "right" or "center". All he has is "self".

Why don't you try eBay. Maybe you can sell bullshit there.

 

[Pogo]

Would there be a USA but for liberals?

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and the rest are the farthest things from "liberals" imaginable. They believed in liberty and the individual. Not government and the collective.

So why did those individuals create a government that had more power than what they had before?

They didn't. You need to study your history.

They are the founders who created the Article of Confederation. Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed the federalist movement. It was Alexander Hamilton and others like him that wanted to strengthen the federal government. And even still - all of them were very clear that anything beyond the 18 enumerated powers delegated to it by the states was unacceptable. The founders unilaterally reject everything you stand for today.

And just what is that?

You should not live in a liberal nation, it will just annoy you and the liberals who stand for things like - liberty. A patriot who denounces liberalism? That's North Korea not America.

Liberals do not stand for liberty, stupid. They stand for oppression. Again - try studying history some time.

BULLSHIT. Liberty is the essence of Liberalism. Just as stupidity is the essence of your posts.

Forcing the American people to carry health insurance (as Obamacare does) is the exact opposite of liberty, stupid.

Agreed. But what in the flying fuck does that have to do with "Liberalism"?
Are you genuinely so dense that you go around painting labels on people because you don't know any better ---- and then point to everything and anything they do as "Liberal", based on the label you yourself put there?? Really, is that how you come up with this intellectual pus?

How stupid IS Buttsoiler anyway?

 

[SYTFE]

Did Patriot -- an authoritarian fascist if there ever was one -- ever figure out just how evil liberalism is in his mega thread of douchebaggery?

 

[regent]

Difficult to stop progress and change, but conservatives keep trying. Think of the changes just in the last 100 years in America. The real question is America changing too fast or too slow, but it keeps moving forward.

 

[Pogo]

Whoa -- what a morass this is:

The confusion is because the definition of the word liberalism, and the political reality of liberalism, are two very different things.

If you take the text book definition of liberalize... it is to reduce control, and thus increase freedom.

In the United States of America, the political philosophy of liberalism, is the very opposite of the definition of liberalism.

That is absurd. You want a word to mean the opposite of itself. That's impossible.
I already pointed this out. Doublethink is a concept in a novel. You can't actually DO it.

This is why I will typically refer to those of that political ideology, not as "liberals" which is a contradiction, in favor of calling them "leftists", "left-wingers" and so on.

Now you've got it. Much better. Too many armchair wags here think "Liberal" is the same as "leftist". It ain't. There are Liberals on the left and there are Liberals on the right.

And the reason again, is that American Liberals, are the exact opposite of liberal.

And now you're right back to the paradox of a word being its own opposite.

I gotta wonder if summa y'all ever read what you just wrote. SMH.

LOL... I don't 'want' the word to mean the opposite of what it does.

The actions, policies and beliefs of self-proclaimed 'liberals' are in fact the opposite of what the word 'liberal' means. I'm not changing anything. I'm stating the facts. Self-proclaimed "liberals" in the America, are not "liberal" according to the definition of the word.

You are not a vegetarian because you say "I am a vegetarian". You are not one, because you got a shirt, hat, or drive a car with "vegetarian" written on it.

The only way that you are a vegetarian, is if you actually don't eat meat. Now you can go to court, and have your name changed to "Vegetarian". And we would have to call you Vegetarian, because that would be your legal name. But if you eat meat... you are not a Vegetarian, no matter what we call you.

There are no "liberals" who practice "liberalism" on the left. Haven't met one yet that wanted to eliminate controls on religion, controls on business, deregulate the banks, deregulate guns, health care, and so on.

But they are still called Liberals here in the US. I can't change that. I'm just pointing it out.

What left-winger, would you point to, that was actually "liberal" in the true meaning of the word?

I wouldn't. I just got done saying they're not the same thing. Until you figure that out, this goes nowhere. They are not synonyms.

To continue your vegetarian analogy above, a person (or an entire group) is not "vegetarian" simply because you go on a message board and declare that they have self-declared as such -- when it's nothing more than you hanging a label on them.

Try this.....

The most influential US liberals: 100-81

Top influential US liberals. Which one on that list, is a "right-winger" in your view? Robert Byrd? Jesse Jackson?

And at the same time, which liberal on there, actually stood for "a removal or loosening of restrictions?"

I scrolled through your list and I don't see a list of "Liberals" there, regardless what a conservative-leaning paper from another country uses for a mass-readership headline; I see basically a list of Democrats, people who work with or support Democrats, and leftists. None of those equates to "Liberal". I even see some fairly conservative names there (Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh) who still qualify on the basis that they're "Democrats".

But that's a political party, not a philosophy. A given political party runs the gamut of philosophical spectrum within its ranks, a good example being that same party, which counted anti-Liberal Southern far-right conservatives in its ranks at the same time it comprised Liberal Northerners.

I think what they've got there is a list of Democrats and/or leftists. And frankly the only aspect that seems to qualify them as "top", whatever that hack term means, is that a lot of people have heard of them.