What God Thinks About Liberals In His Own Words

[gtarguy921]

Irony: Lying, conservative "christian" hatemonger spokespeople for God.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Different meaning, different time, different translation.
Back in biblical times, being a liberal meant being generous, helpful.
Today a liberal means being an immoral, lazy degenerate.
See the difference?

No the meaning of "liberal" hasn't changed much, it's just that the party of "mine", is in denial of their selfishness and greed.

You could't be more wrong.
You could try to be, but you wouldn't be successful.


The name 'Liberal' as used today was co-opted by the communist John Dewey who convinced the Socialist Party to adopt that as its name.

So...you are proud Socialist.



"How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
by Jim Peron

1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
2. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
3. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.
4. In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book Individualism Old and New argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
   1. But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
5. Peter Witonski, in his essay The Historical Roots of American Planning said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
   1. The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book Liberalism and Social Action, Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
6. Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
7. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism. "

http://orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/liberal_confusion.htm

Democracy & free markets vs socialism

Right wing Hollywood - Rotten Tomatoes Forum

You know what they say about opinions?

BTW, Denmark is socialist and they have a higher standard of living than the US.

I said earlier that you couldn't be more wrong....but I see you've tried.....


"BTW, Denmark is socialist and they have a higher standard of living than the US."


You really need to update your bumper-stickers......the Nordic Model is now conservative.

"The Economist: The Nordic countries are reinventing their model of capitalism, says Adrian Wooldridge
Feb 2nd 2013 |From the print edition

1. THIRTY YEARS AGO Margaret Thatcher turned Britain into the world’s leading centre of “thinking the unthinkable”. Today that distinction has passed to Sweden….Sweden has reduced public spending as a proportion of GDP from 67% in 1993 to 49% today…. It has also cut the top marginal tax rate by 27 percentage points since 1983, to 57%, and scrapped a mare’s nest of taxes on property, gifts, wealth and inheritance. This year it is cutting the corporate-tax rate from 26.3% to 22%.
2. Sweden has also donned the golden straitjacket of fiscal orthodoxy with its pledge to produce a fiscal surplus over the economic cycle. Its public debt fell from 70% of GDP in 1993 to 37% in 2010, and its budget moved from an 11% deficit to a surplus of 0.3% over the same period.
3. Most daringly, it has introduced a universal system of school vouchers and invited private schools to compete with public ones. Private companies also vie with each other to provide state-funded health services and care for the elderly….Sweden is pioneering “a new conservative model”…
4. …Sweden’s quiet revolution has brought about a dramatic change in its economic performance. The two decades from 1970 were a period of decline: the country was demoted from being the world’s fourth-richest in 1970 to 14th-richest in 1993, …The two decades from 1990 were a period of recovery: GDP growth between 1993 and 2010 averaged 2.7% a year and productivity 2.1% a year, compared with 1.9% and 1% respectively for the main 15 EU countries.
5. For most of the 20th century Sweden prided itself on offering what Marquis Childs called, in his 1936 book of that title, a “Middle Way” between capitalism and socialism…As the decades rolled by, the middle way veered left. The government kept growing: public spending as a share of GDP nearly doubled from 1960 to 1980 and peaked at 67% in 1993.
   1. Taxes kept rising. The Social Democrats (who ruled Sweden for 44 uninterrupted years from 1932 to 1976 and for 21 out of the 24 years from 1982 to 2006) kept squeezing business. “The era of neo-capitalism is drawing to an end,” said Olof Palme, the party’s leader, in 1974. “It is some kind of socialism that is the key to the future.”
6. The other Nordic countries have been moving in the same direction,… Denmark has one of the most liberal labour markets in Europe. It also allows parents to send children to private schools at public expense and make up the difference in cost with their own money. Finland is harnessing the skills of venture capitalists and angel investors to promote innovation and entrepreneurship.
7. But the new Nordic model begins with the individual rather than the state. It begins with fiscal responsibility rather than pump-priming: all four Nordic countries have AAA ratings and debt loads significantly below the euro-zone average. It begins with choice and competition rather than paternalism and planning.
   1. The leftward lurch has been reversed: rather than extending the state into the market, the Nordics are extending the market into the state.
8. “The welfare state we have is excellent in most ways,” says Gunnar Viby Mogensen, a Danish historian. “We only have this little problem. We can’t afford it.”
9. ….they have reached the future first. They are grappling with problems that other countries too will have to deal with in due course, such as what to do when you reach the limits of big government and how to organise society when almost all women work.
10. … the new Nordic model is proving strikingly successful. The Nordics dominate indices of competitiveness as well as of well-being. Their high scores in both types of league table mark a big change since the 1980s when welfare took precedence over competitiveness.”

http://www.economist.com/news/speci...einventing-their-model-capitalism-says-adrian


a. reduced public spending as a proportion of GDP
b. cut the top marginal tax rate
c. scrapped a mare’s nest of taxes on property, gifts, wealth and inheritance.
d. cutting the corporate-tax rate
e. pledge to produce a fiscal surplus
f. public debt fell from 70% of GDP in 1993 to 37% in 2010
g. budget moved from an 11% deficit to a surplus of 0.3%
h. a universal system of school vouchers
i. invited private schools to compete with public ones.
j. Private companies also vie with each other to provide state-funded health services and care for the elderly


the new Nordic model begins with the individual rather than the state.
Sweden is pioneering “a new conservative model”…

“The welfare state we have is excellent in most ways,” says Gunnar Viby Mogensen, a Danish historian. “We only have this little problem. We can’t afford it.”

 

[PoliticalChic]

Different meaning, different time, different translation.
Back in biblical times, being a liberal meant being generous, helpful.
Today a liberal means being an immoral, lazy degenerate.
See the difference?

No the meaning of "liberal" hasn't changed much, it's just that the party of "mine", is in denial of their selfishness and greed.

You could't be more wrong.
You could try to be, but you wouldn't be successful.


The name 'Liberal' as used today was co-opted by the communist John Dewey who convinced the Socialist Party to adopt that as its name.

So...you are proud Socialist.



"How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
by Jim Peron

1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
2. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
3. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.
4. In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book Individualism Old and New argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
   1. But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
5. Peter Witonski, in his essay The Historical Roots of American Planning said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
   1. The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book Liberalism and Social Action, Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
6. Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
7. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism. "

http://orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/liberal_confusion.htm

Democracy & free markets vs socialism

Right wing Hollywood - Rotten Tomatoes Forum

You know what they say about opinions?

BTW, Denmark is socialist and they have a higher standard of living than the US.

"You know what they say about opinions?"

1. It appears I was remiss in not welcoming you to the board.

2. What is the opinion to which you refer?

3. I appreciate the way you phrased the quote above....many on the Left would have used the more usual, vulgar iteration.

We'll meet again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Irony: Lying, conservative "christian" hatemonger spokespeople for God.

To whom are you addressing this, and toward what reference?

Try to be more articulate....unless a limited education is being borne out by your post.

 

[MrFritz]

Different meaning, different time, different translation.
Back in biblical times, being a liberal meant being generous, helpful.
Today a liberal means being an immoral, lazy degenerate.
See the difference?

No the meaning of "liberal" hasn't changed much, it's just that the party of "mine", is in denial of their selfishness and greed.

You could't be more wrong.
You could try to be, but you wouldn't be successful.


The name 'Liberal' as used today was co-opted by the communist John Dewey who convinced the Socialist Party to adopt that as its name.

So...you are proud Socialist.



"How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
by Jim Peron

1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
2. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
3. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.
4. In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book Individualism Old and New argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
   1. But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
5. Peter Witonski, in his essay The Historical Roots of American Planning said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
   1. The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book Liberalism and Social Action, Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
6. Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
7. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism. "

http://orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/liberal_confusion.htm

Democracy & free markets vs socialism

Right wing Hollywood - Rotten Tomatoes Forum

You know what they say about opinions?

BTW, Denmark is socialist and they have a higher standard of living than the US.

I said earlier that you couldn't be more wrong....but I see you've tried.....


"BTW, Denmark is socialist and they have a higher standard of living than the US."


You really need to update your bumper-stickers......the Nordic Model is now conservative.

"The Economist: The Nordic countries are reinventing their model of capitalism, says Adrian Wooldridge
Feb 2nd 2013 |From the print edition

1. THIRTY YEARS AGO Margaret Thatcher turned Britain into the world’s leading centre of “thinking the unthinkable”. Today that distinction has passed to Sweden….Sweden has reduced public spending as a proportion of GDP from 67% in 1993 to 49% today…. It has also cut the top marginal tax rate by 27 percentage points since 1983, to 57%, and scrapped a mare’s nest of taxes on property, gifts, wealth and inheritance. This year it is cutting the corporate-tax rate from 26.3% to 22%.
2. Sweden has also donned the golden straitjacket of fiscal orthodoxy with its pledge to produce a fiscal surplus over the economic cycle. Its public debt fell from 70% of GDP in 1993 to 37% in 2010, and its budget moved from an 11% deficit to a surplus of 0.3% over the same period.
3. Most daringly, it has introduced a universal system of school vouchers and invited private schools to compete with public ones. Private companies also vie with each other to provide state-funded health services and care for the elderly….Sweden is pioneering “a new conservative model”…
4. …Sweden’s quiet revolution has brought about a dramatic change in its economic performance. The two decades from 1970 were a period of decline: the country was demoted from being the world’s fourth-richest in 1970 to 14th-richest in 1993, …The two decades from 1990 were a period of recovery: GDP growth between 1993 and 2010 averaged 2.7% a year and productivity 2.1% a year, compared with 1.9% and 1% respectively for the main 15 EU countries.
5. For most of the 20th century Sweden prided itself on offering what Marquis Childs called, in his 1936 book of that title, a “Middle Way” between capitalism and socialism…As the decades rolled by, the middle way veered left. The government kept growing: public spending as a share of GDP nearly doubled from 1960 to 1980 and peaked at 67% in 1993.
   1. Taxes kept rising. The Social Democrats (who ruled Sweden for 44 uninterrupted years from 1932 to 1976 and for 21 out of the 24 years from 1982 to 2006) kept squeezing business. “The era of neo-capitalism is drawing to an end,” said Olof Palme, the party’s leader, in 1974. “It is some kind of socialism that is the key to the future.”
6. The other Nordic countries have been moving in the same direction,… Denmark has one of the most liberal labour markets in Europe. It also allows parents to send children to private schools at public expense and make up the difference in cost with their own money. Finland is harnessing the skills of venture capitalists and angel investors to promote innovation and entrepreneurship.
7. But the new Nordic model begins with the individual rather than the state. It begins with fiscal responsibility rather than pump-priming: all four Nordic countries have AAA ratings and debt loads significantly below the euro-zone average. It begins with choice and competition rather than paternalism and planning.
   1. The leftward lurch has been reversed: rather than extending the state into the market, the Nordics are extending the market into the state.
8. “The welfare state we have is excellent in most ways,” says Gunnar Viby Mogensen, a Danish historian. “We only have this little problem. We can’t afford it.”
9. ….they have reached the future first. They are grappling with problems that other countries too will have to deal with in due course, such as what to do when you reach the limits of big government and how to organise society when almost all women work.
10. … the new Nordic model is proving strikingly successful. The Nordics dominate indices of competitiveness as well as of well-being. Their high scores in both types of league table mark a big change since the 1980s when welfare took precedence over competitiveness.”

http://www.economist.com/news/speci...einventing-their-model-capitalism-says-adrian


a. reduced public spending as a proportion of GDP
b. cut the top marginal tax rate
c. scrapped a mare’s nest of taxes on property, gifts, wealth and inheritance.
d. cutting the corporate-tax rate
e. pledge to produce a fiscal surplus
f. public debt fell from 70% of GDP in 1993 to 37% in 2010
g. budget moved from an 11% deficit to a surplus of 0.3%
h. a universal system of school vouchers
i. invited private schools to compete with public ones.
j. Private companies also vie with each other to provide state-funded health services and care for the elderly


the new Nordic model begins with the individual rather than the state.
Sweden is pioneering “a new conservative model”…

“The welfare state we have is excellent in most ways,” says Gunnar Viby Mogensen, a Danish historian. “We only have this little problem. We can’t afford it.”

Again, all you have done is copy and past opinions. Now for some facts.

Here is how the country stacks up the US on a number of important social indicators.

The Poor
Here are the overall poverty rates for the two countries:

Here are the child poverty rates for the two countries:

Lest you think I am pulling some kind of "relative poverty" trick, here is per-capita income of the 5th, 10th, and 20th percentiles in Denmark and the US, displayed in 2005 PPP-adjusted dollars:

This measure will tend to understate the standard of living in Denmark as well because it only includes cash and cash-like benefits, but does not include public services provided in kind such as free college, free/subsidized child care, and free health care.
Here is the same graph, but for per-capita income of children, a population Denmark focuses special welfare attention on:

Inequality
Here is the level of income inequality in each country, as measured by the Gini coefficient:

Under this measure, Denmark is the most equal country in the world. Among countries for which there is OECD data, the US is the third most unequal behind Turkey and Mexico.

Health Care
Here is the percentage of citizens lacking health insurance in the two countries:

Paid Parental Leave
Here are the number of weeks of publicly-funded paid parental leave you receive for the birth of a child:

Guaranteed Vacation
Here are the weeks of guaranteed vacation you receive each year:

Work Hours
Here are the average hours worked by workers:

More leisure, more time with friends and family.

Welfare Expenditures
Here are welfare expenditures overall and on certain topics as a percent of GDP. Welfare expenditures are defined here as public social expenditures, per the OECD:

This is the sort of stuff that gets the low-poverty, low-inequality goods. Most of the categories are self-explanatory. ALMP refers to active labor market policies. These are policies like public employment services, retraining, and employment subsidies that help unemployed people get back into work. Denmark spends twice as much on ALMP than the US spends on unemployment benefits and ALMP combined.

Employment Rates
Here are the percentage of prime-age people (ages 25-54) who are employed in the two countries:

Denmark is ahead overall, among males, and especially among females. It turns out generous welfare is compatible with high employment levels. Perhaps spending 2.2% of your GDP on active labor market policies and providing robust child care and paid leave benefits can actually make it easier for people to remain in the labor force.
Taxes
How do you afford all these great welfare benefits and the low poverty and low inequality that they bring. You levy taxes of course. Here is government revenue as a percent of GDP:

At 56% of GDP, Denmark's government revenue is the highest in the world.

Government Debt
Here is government debt as a percent of GDP and government financial networth (government financial assets minus government financial liabilities) as a percent of GDP:

Growth
Comparing growth can be difficult because different countries make different labor/leisure trade offs. Denmark is much more likely to use its growth gains to reduce the amount of work they do than the US is. The best way to account for growth in a way that is sensitive to differences in labor/leisure decisions is to track it in terms of GDP per hour worked (as I discussed earlier). Here is the cumulative percent change in GDP per hour worked (using 2005 $PPP):

Innovation
Directly measuring innovation is a tricky (and arguably impossible) thing to do. Nonetheless, Denmark does quite well on common innovation indicators.
Here is the number of triadic patents (patents filed in the US, EU, and Japan) per million inhabitants:

Here is venture capital as a percent of GDP:

Here is the number of researchers per 1000 employees:

 

[PoliticalChic]

Different meaning, different time, different translation.
Back in biblical times, being a liberal meant being generous, helpful.
Today a liberal means being an immoral, lazy degenerate.
See the difference?

No the meaning of "liberal" hasn't changed much, it's just that the party of "mine", is in denial of their selfishness and greed.

You could't be more wrong.
You could try to be, but you wouldn't be successful.


The name 'Liberal' as used today was co-opted by the communist John Dewey who convinced the Socialist Party to adopt that as its name.

So...you are proud Socialist.



"How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
by Jim Peron

1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
2. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
3. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.
4. In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book Individualism Old and New argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
   1. But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
5. Peter Witonski, in his essay The Historical Roots of American Planning said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
   1. The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book Liberalism and Social Action, Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
6. Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
7. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism. "

http://orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/liberal_confusion.htm

Democracy & free markets vs socialism

Right wing Hollywood - Rotten Tomatoes Forum

You know what they say about opinions?

BTW, Denmark is socialist and they have a higher standard of living than the US.

I said earlier that you couldn't be more wrong....but I see you've tried.....


"BTW, Denmark is socialist and they have a higher standard of living than the US."


You really need to update your bumper-stickers......the Nordic Model is now conservative.

"The Economist: The Nordic countries are reinventing their model of capitalism, says Adrian Wooldridge
Feb 2nd 2013 |From the print edition

1. THIRTY YEARS AGO Margaret Thatcher turned Britain into the world’s leading centre of “thinking the unthinkable”. Today that distinction has passed to Sweden….Sweden has reduced public spending as a proportion of GDP from 67% in 1993 to 49% today…. It has also cut the top marginal tax rate by 27 percentage points since 1983, to 57%, and scrapped a mare’s nest of taxes on property, gifts, wealth and inheritance. This year it is cutting the corporate-tax rate from 26.3% to 22%.
2. Sweden has also donned the golden straitjacket of fiscal orthodoxy with its pledge to produce a fiscal surplus over the economic cycle. Its public debt fell from 70% of GDP in 1993 to 37% in 2010, and its budget moved from an 11% deficit to a surplus of 0.3% over the same period.
3. Most daringly, it has introduced a universal system of school vouchers and invited private schools to compete with public ones. Private companies also vie with each other to provide state-funded health services and care for the elderly….Sweden is pioneering “a new conservative model”…
4. …Sweden’s quiet revolution has brought about a dramatic change in its economic performance. The two decades from 1970 were a period of decline: the country was demoted from being the world’s fourth-richest in 1970 to 14th-richest in 1993, …The two decades from 1990 were a period of recovery: GDP growth between 1993 and 2010 averaged 2.7% a year and productivity 2.1% a year, compared with 1.9% and 1% respectively for the main 15 EU countries.
5. For most of the 20th century Sweden prided itself on offering what Marquis Childs called, in his 1936 book of that title, a “Middle Way” between capitalism and socialism…As the decades rolled by, the middle way veered left. The government kept growing: public spending as a share of GDP nearly doubled from 1960 to 1980 and peaked at 67% in 1993.
   1. Taxes kept rising. The Social Democrats (who ruled Sweden for 44 uninterrupted years from 1932 to 1976 and for 21 out of the 24 years from 1982 to 2006) kept squeezing business. “The era of neo-capitalism is drawing to an end,” said Olof Palme, the party’s leader, in 1974. “It is some kind of socialism that is the key to the future.”
6. The other Nordic countries have been moving in the same direction,… Denmark has one of the most liberal labour markets in Europe. It also allows parents to send children to private schools at public expense and make up the difference in cost with their own money. Finland is harnessing the skills of venture capitalists and angel investors to promote innovation and entrepreneurship.
7. But the new Nordic model begins with the individual rather than the state. It begins with fiscal responsibility rather than pump-priming: all four Nordic countries have AAA ratings and debt loads significantly below the euro-zone average. It begins with choice and competition rather than paternalism and planning.
   1. The leftward lurch has been reversed: rather than extending the state into the market, the Nordics are extending the market into the state.
8. “The welfare state we have is excellent in most ways,” says Gunnar Viby Mogensen, a Danish historian. “We only have this little problem. We can’t afford it.”
9. ….they have reached the future first. They are grappling with problems that other countries too will have to deal with in due course, such as what to do when you reach the limits of big government and how to organise society when almost all women work.
10. … the new Nordic model is proving strikingly successful. The Nordics dominate indices of competitiveness as well as of well-being. Their high scores in both types of league table mark a big change since the 1980s when welfare took precedence over competitiveness.”

http://www.economist.com/news/speci...einventing-their-model-capitalism-says-adrian


a. reduced public spending as a proportion of GDP
b. cut the top marginal tax rate
c. scrapped a mare’s nest of taxes on property, gifts, wealth and inheritance.
d. cutting the corporate-tax rate
e. pledge to produce a fiscal surplus
f. public debt fell from 70% of GDP in 1993 to 37% in 2010
g. budget moved from an 11% deficit to a surplus of 0.3%
h. a universal system of school vouchers
i. invited private schools to compete with public ones.
j. Private companies also vie with each other to provide state-funded health services and care for the elderly

Again, all you have done is copy and past opinions. Now for some facts.

Here is how the country stacks up the US on a number of important social indicators.

The Poor
Here are the overall poverty rates for the two countries:

Here are the child poverty rates for the two countries:

Lest you think I am pulling some kind of "relative poverty" trick, here is per-capita income of the 5th, 10th, and 20th percentiles in Denmark and the US, displayed in 2005 PPP-adjusted dollars:

This measure will tend to understate the standard of living in Denmark as well because it only includes cash and cash-like benefits, but does not include public services provided in kind such as free college, free/subsidized child care, and free health care.
Here is the same graph, but for per-capita income of children, a population Denmark focuses special welfare attention on:

Inequality
Here is the level of income inequality in each country, as measured by the Gini coefficient:

Under this measure, Denmark is the most equal country in the world. Among countries for which there is OECD data, the US is the third most unequal behind Turkey and Mexico.

Health Care
Here is the percentage of citizens lacking health insurance in the two countries:

View attachment 94925
Paid Parental Leave
Here are the number of weeks of publicly-funded paid parental leave you receive for the birth of a child:

Guaranteed Vacation
Here are the weeks of guaranteed vacation you receive each year:

Work Hours
Here are the average hours worked by workers:

More leisure, more time with friends and family.

Welfare Expenditures
Here are welfare expenditures overall and on certain topics as a percent of GDP. Welfare expenditures are defined here as public social expenditures, per the OECD:

This is the sort of stuff that gets the low-poverty, low-inequality goods. Most of the categories are self-explanatory. ALMP refers to active labor market policies. These are policies like public employment services, retraining, and employment subsidies that help unemployed people get back into work. Denmark spends twice as much on ALMP than the US spends on unemployment benefits and ALMP combined.

Employment Rates
Here are the percentage of prime-age people (ages 25-54) who are employed in the two countries:

Denmark is ahead overall, among males, and especially among females. It turns out generous welfare is compatible with high employment levels. Perhaps spending 2.2% of your GDP on active labor market policies and providing robust child care and paid leave benefits can actually make it easier for people to remain in the labor force.
Taxes
How do you afford all these great welfare benefits and the low poverty and low inequality that they bring. You levy taxes of course. Here is government revenue as a percent of GDP:

At 56% of GDP, Denmark's government revenue is the highest in the world.

Government Debt
Here is government debt as a percent of GDP and government financial networth (government financial assets minus government financial liabilities) as a percent of GDP:

Growth
Comparing growth can be difficult because different countries make different labor/leisure trade offs. Denmark is much more likely to use its growth gains to reduce the amount of work they do than the US is. The best way to account for growth in a way that is sensitive to differences in labor/leisure decisions is to track it in terms of GDP per hour worked (as I discussed earlier). Here is the cumulative percent change in GDP per hour worked (using 2005 $PPP):

Innovation
Directly measuring innovation is a tricky (and arguably impossible) thing to do. Nonetheless, Denmark does quite well on common innovation indicators.
Here is the number of triadic patents (patents filed in the US, EU, and Japan) per million inhabitants:

Here is venture capital as a percent of GDP:

Here is the number of researchers per 1000 employees:

1. Do you have a problem with 'copy and paste'? Then why did you do it?

2. I provided the facts from the Economist.
I always provide the source, links and documentation
You should learn from that.

3. You tried to boast of Denmark being Leftist....I proved you wrong, and drove home the point thus:
"...the new Nordic model begins with the individual rather than the state.
Sweden is pioneering “a new conservative model”…

“The welfare state we have is excellent in most ways,” says Gunnar Viby Mogensen, a Danish historian. “We only have this little problem. We can’t afford it.”


a. Socialism, one of the shameful six:
Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Fascism, Progressivism, and Nazism.
All worship the collective.


Conservatism honors the individual.

Educate yourself.

 

[norwegen]

Different meaning, different time, different translation.
Back in biblical times, being a liberal meant being generous, helpful.
Today a liberal means being an immoral, lazy degenerate.
See the difference?

No the meaning of "liberal" hasn't changed much, it's just that the party of "mine", is in denial of their selfishness and greed.

To add to PC's John Dewey post:

A recent trend in academia is to treat the founding as a leftist movement. In their 2010 essay, The Progressivism of America’s Founding, Conor Williams and John Halpin “explore the progressive nature of the Founding Era.” They assert that the classical liberalism of John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Adam Smith is the modern liberalism of Theodore Roosevelt, Frank Goodnow, and Woodrow Wilson. Progressives took on the moniker liberal and began to equate their brand of liberalism with the classical liberalism of the founding era. The new challenge for them, then, was to rationalize benevolence programs, government expansion, the dispensation of rights, and, of course, the purpose of the Progressive Movement itself.

Liberals like Williams and Halpin have yet another challenge: to rationalize the Progressive Era school that says that the classical liberalism of Locke, Paine, and Smith is not the modern liberalism of Roosevelt, Goodnow, and Wilson. Progressives like John Dewey were critical of a liberalism that “valorizes private property and is concerned to constrain the use of state power.” Classical liberalism, they argued, “undermines the communal dimension of democracy,” while “new liberalism” elucidates “the social conditions for the flourishing life,” as the collective ought to assume responsibility for freeing “the potentiality of individuals.”[ii]

But that's what liberals do. They double-talk. To build a society on theory rather than on experience is to invite contradictions.


https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/10/pdf/progressive_traditions5.pdf


[ii] Melvin L. Rogers, editor, and John Dewey, The Public and its Problems: An essay in Political Inquiry, University Park, PA, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012, 2-3.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Different meaning, different time, different translation.
Back in biblical times, being a liberal meant being generous, helpful.
Today a liberal means being an immoral, lazy degenerate.
See the difference?

No the meaning of "liberal" hasn't changed much, it's just that the party of "mine", is in denial of their selfishness and greed.

To add to PC's John Dewey post:

A recent trend in academia is to treat the founding as a leftist movement. In their 2010 essay, The Progressivism of America’s Founding, Conor Williams and John Halpin “explore the progressive nature of the Founding Era.” They assert that the classical liberalism of John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Adam Smith is the modern liberalism of Theodore Roosevelt, Frank Goodnow, and Woodrow Wilson. Progressives took on the moniker liberal and began to equate their brand of liberalism with the classical liberalism of the founding era. The new challenge for them, then, was to rationalize benevolence programs, government expansion, the dispensation of rights, and, of course, the purpose of the Progressive Movement itself.

Liberals like Williams and Halpin have yet another challenge: to rationalize the Progressive Era school that says that the classical liberalism of Locke, Paine, and Smith is not the modern liberalism of Roosevelt, Goodnow, and Wilson. Progressives like John Dewey were critical of a liberalism that “valorizes private property and is concerned to constrain the use of state power.” Classical liberalism, they argued, “undermines the communal dimension of democracy,” while “new liberalism” elucidates “the social conditions for the flourishing life,” as the collective ought to assume responsibility for freeing “the potentiality of individuals.”[ii]

But that's what liberals do. They double-talk. To build a society on theory rather than on experience is to invite contradictions.


https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/10/pdf/progressive_traditions5.pdf


[ii] Melvin L. Rogers, editor, and John Dewey, The Public and its Problems: An essay in Political Inquiry, University Park, PA, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012, 2-3.

Thanks very much, wegie...I added that note to my files.

And....there is this:

1. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=


2. “Once the war is on, the conviction spreads that individual thought is helpless, that the only way one can count is as a cog in the great wheel. There is no good holding back. We are told to dry our unnoticed and ineffective tears and plunge into the great work.” From a Randolph Bourne essay published in June 1917, “The War and the Intellectuals.”


3. Dewey reveled in the thought that the war might force Americans to “give up much of our economic freedom…we shall have to lay by our good natured individualism and march in step.” http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-goldberg20jan20,1,3087455.column

 

[Dot Com]

Oh great, another Cross Groveler thread guno

Sent from my VS415PP using Tapatalk

 

[turzovka]

God makes liberal's souls fat.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. -- Proverbs 11:25

And since having a fat soul is sure sign of righteousness in the eyes of God, liberals are righteous people.

The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree ... they shall be fat and flourishing. -- Psalm 92:12-14


Liberals are not vile, villainous, hypocrites that steal from the poor and hungry.

The vile person shall be no more called liberal ... For the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy ... to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail. -- Isaiah 32:5-6


Liberals distribute wealth from the rich to the poor.

For your liberal distribution ... unto all men ... Thanks be unto God. -- 2 Corinthians 9:13-15

And lastly, liberals devise and stand for liberal things.

The liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand. -- Isaiah 32:8

Semantics.

It bears no resemblance or connection to Barack Obama, Hillary, Pelosi or Harry Reid.

Unless you found the words republican or GOP in other verses, then maybe I could be wrong.

 

[MrFritz]

God makes liberal's souls fat.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. -- Proverbs 11:25

And since having a fat soul is sure sign of righteousness in the eyes of God, liberals are righteous people.

The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree ... they shall be fat and flourishing. -- Psalm 92:12-14


Liberals are not vile, villainous, hypocrites that steal from the poor and hungry.

The vile person shall be no more called liberal ... For the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy ... to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail. -- Isaiah 32:5-6


Liberals distribute wealth from the rich to the poor.

For your liberal distribution ... unto all men ... Thanks be unto God. -- 2 Corinthians 9:13-15

And lastly, liberals devise and stand for liberal things.

The liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand. -- Isaiah 32:8

Semantics.

It bears no resemblance or connection to Barack Obama, Hillary, Pelosi or Harry Reid.

Unless you found the words republican or GOP in other verses, then maybe I could be wrong.

Face it, God prefers Liberals and scripture proves it. When the Bible was written there were no political parties but there were liberals like Jesus and CONservatives like Ciaphas and Satan.

 

[320 Years of History]

And lastly, liberals devise and stand for liberal things.

The liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand. -- Isaiah 32:8

Remarking only on the translation you've chosen to cite -- King James -- one must be very careful when using that version of the Bible because its language is that of the Renaissance. Recalling the etymology of "liberal," one finds that in King James' time, "liberal" referred to being of free birth or being unfettered in expression or being noble or generous. The term lacked the ideological context that we today ascribe to it.

I haven't checked the other passages for representational faithfulness in their application to the context of "liberal" as we in the 21st century use that term in politics. Have you provided the KJV version from Proverbs too? If so, the remarks above apply again.

References:

• Online Etymology Dictionary
  
• Definition of LIBERAL
  
• The Origin of 'Liberalism'

Please, going forward, apply a considerably more rigorous degree of circumspection to the inferences and conclusions you draw from what you read in the Bible and then attempt to correlate to American politics. Or don't...It's up to you as to how credible you care to be seen.

 

[turzovka]

Face it, God prefers Liberals and scripture proves it. When the Bible was written there were no political parties.

Liberal Catholicism, perhaps. I.E. not bound by legalism.

Liberal has many definitions, one being "without moral restraint."

When it comes to modern day liberal beliefs in this nation I tend to favor that definition. God would not approve.

 

[Anathema]

God is a liberal and Satan is alt-Right and the Bible proves it. God's Words not mine.

That's a large part of why your God and I parted company 15 years ago.

 

[MrFritz]

And lastly, liberals devise and stand for liberal things.

The liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand. -- Isaiah 32:8

Remarking only on the translation you've chosen to cite -- King James -- one must be very careful when using that version of the Bible because its language is that of the Renaissance. Recalling the etymology of "liberal," one finds that in King James' time, "liberal" referred to being of free birth or being unfettered in expression or being noble or generous. The term lacked the ideological context that we today ascribe to it.

View attachment 94940​

I haven't checked the other passages for representational faithfulness in their application to the context of "liberal" as we in the 21st century use that term in politics. Have you provided the KJV version from Proverbs too? If so, the remarks above apply again.

References:

• Online Etymology Dictionary
  
• Definition of LIBERAL
  
• The Origin of 'Liberalism'

Please, going forward, apply a considerably more rigorous degree of circumspection to the inferences and conclusions you draw from what you read in the Bible and then attempt to correlate to American politics. Or don't...It's up to you as to how credible you care to be seen.

The scripture stands on its own and this from the KJV. It speaks for itself. You may not like it but the Word of God is clear on this point. God is a liberal.

When the "Grand Old Party" came into existence in President Lincoln's day, can you imagine that Jesus would not have wanted his followers to be "Republicans" (not to be confused with the party that bears that name today), and to participate energetically in that party's heroic campaign to eradicate the scourge of slavery from the United States of America? Actually, as we show at JesusWouldBeFurious.Org/BibleBeltChristianity.html, there are still Christian Conservatives in the Bible Belt who believe that segregation and even slavery are called for by "the Word of God'. That misquided way of interpreting the bible would certainly move its adherents to embrace today's conservative Republican Party over the more liberal Democratic Party.

Teddy Roosevelt was another great "Republican" President, whom Jesus might well have recognized as a man after his own heart. Not only did Teddy fight to preserve vast areas of the country from those who were bent on exploiting the public's land, water and air for their own selfish gain, but he also fought on behalf of oppressed working people for many of the reasons that would later be embraced by the Democratic Party under his even more liberal cousins, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.

 

[TooTall]

Galatians 1:8 ESV

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

worth repeating.

Your off topic misuse of scripture puts you on the HELL train with a one way ticket. All aboard those of you who twist scripture!!

The FACT that God prefers liberal bears repeating to the alt-Right dishonorable FALSE Christians.

God makes liberal's souls fat.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. -- Proverbs 11:25


And since being fat is is sure sign of righteousness in the eyes of God, liberals are righteous people.

The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree ... they shall be fat and flourishing. -- Psalm 92:12-14


Liberals are not vile, villainous, hypocrites that steal from the poor and hungry.

The vile person shall be no more called liberal ... For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy ... to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail. -- Isaiah 32:5-6


Liberals distribute wealth from the rich to the poor.

For your liberal distribution ... unto all men ... Thanks be unto God. -- 2 Corinthians 9:13-15


And lastly, liberals devise and stand for liberal things.


The liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand. -- Isaiah 32:8

Jesus knows Trump is unredeemable.

How do you know what Jesus knows or doesn't know. I'm waiting.

I guess you have never heard of the Holy Spirit.

Of course I have, but for some reason he never mentioned alt-Right dishonorable FALSE Christians to me. I consider you a complete fake in case you are interested.

 

[320 Years of History]

And lastly, liberals devise and stand for liberal things.

The liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand. -- Isaiah 32:8

Remarking only on the translation you've chosen to cite -- King James -- one must be very careful when using that version of the Bible because its language is that of the Renaissance. Recalling the etymology of "liberal," one finds that in King James' time, "liberal" referred to being of free birth or being unfettered in expression or being noble or generous. The term lacked the ideological context that we today ascribe to it.

View attachment 94940​

I haven't checked the other passages for representational faithfulness in their application to the context of "liberal" as we in the 21st century use that term in politics. Have you provided the KJV version from Proverbs too? If so, the remarks above apply again.

References:

• Online Etymology Dictionary
  
• Definition of LIBERAL
  
• The Origin of 'Liberalism'

Please, going forward, apply a considerably more rigorous degree of circumspection to the inferences and conclusions you draw from what you read in the Bible and then attempt to correlate to American politics. Or don't...It's up to you as to how credible you care to be seen.

The scripture stands on its own and this from the KJV. It speaks for itself. You may not like it but the Word of God is clear on this point. God is a liberal.

When the "Grand Old Party" came into existence in President Lincoln's day, can you imagine that Jesus would not have wanted his followers to be "Republicans" (not to be confused with the party that bears that name today), and to participate energetically in that party's heroic campaign to eradicate the scourge of slavery from the United States of America? Actually, as we show at JesusWouldBeFurious.Org/BibleBeltChristianity.html, there are still Christian Conservatives in the Bible Belt who believe that segregation and even slavery are called for by "the Word of God'. That misquided way of interpreting the bible would certainly move its adherents to embrace today's conservative Republican Party over the more liberal Democratic Party.

Teddy Roosevelt was another great "Republican" President, whom Jesus might well have recognized as a man after his own heart. Not only did Teddy fight to preserve vast areas of the country from those who were bent on exploiting the public's land, water and air for their own selfish gain, but he also fought on behalf of oppressed working people for many of the reasons that would later be embraced by the Democratic Party under his even more liberal cousins, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Red:
Bless your heart....Okee dokee...You have a good rest of your life and may God bless you. Ciao.

 

[TooTall]

Different meaning, different time, different translation.
Back in biblical times, being a liberal meant being generous, helpful.
Today a liberal means being an immoral, lazy degenerate.
See the difference?

No the meaning of "liberal" hasn't changed much, it's just that the party of "mine", is in denial of their selfishness and greed.

You could't be more wrong.
You could try to be, but you wouldn't be successful.


The name 'Liberal' as used today was co-opted by the communist John Dewey who convinced the Socialist Party to adopt that as its name.

So...you are proud Socialist.



"How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
by Jim Peron

1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
2. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
3. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.
4. In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book Individualism Old and New argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
   1. But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
5. Peter Witonski, in his essay The Historical Roots of American Planning said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
   1. The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book Liberalism and Social Action, Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
6. Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
7. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism. "

http://orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/liberal_confusion.htm

Democracy & free markets vs socialism

Right wing Hollywood - Rotten Tomatoes Forum

You know what they say about opinions?

BTW, Denmark is socialist and they have a higher standard of living than the US.

Only by babykilling commie standards.

Another lie pushed by evil men who wish to normalize depravity and pervert the Word of God and misrepresent Christianity.

I put MrFritz in the false prophet category and put him on ignore

 

[PoliticalChic]

God makes liberal's souls fat.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. -- Proverbs 11:25

And since having a fat soul is sure sign of righteousness in the eyes of God, liberals are righteous people.

The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree ... they shall be fat and flourishing. -- Psalm 92:12-14


Liberals are not vile, villainous, hypocrites that steal from the poor and hungry.

The vile person shall be no more called liberal ... For the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy ... to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail. -- Isaiah 32:5-6


Liberals distribute wealth from the rich to the poor.

For your liberal distribution ... unto all men ... Thanks be unto God. -- 2 Corinthians 9:13-15

And lastly, liberals devise and stand for liberal things.

The liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand. -- Isaiah 32:8

Semantics.

It bears no resemblance or connection to Barack Obama, Hillary, Pelosi or Harry Reid.

Unless you found the words republican or GOP in other verses, then maybe I could be wrong.

Face it, God prefers Liberals and scripture proves it. When the Bible was written there were no political parties but there were liberals like Jesus and CONservatives like Ciaphas and Satan.

"Face it, God prefers Liberals and scripture proves it."

There is absolutely no basis for Socialism in the Bible.

1. An accurate understanding of the Bible requires the distinction between 'redistribution' and 'generosity.'

"Some people conclude from these verses that the Bible supports government-enforced wealth redistribution. But what these verses really show is that the Bible advocates generosity.

These are two very different concepts.
Generosity springs from free will....not force, coercion, or threats.
The motivation to give and share originates in compassion, as 1 John 3:17 indicates—but there is choice involved.

2. With socialism, it is the opposite.
Redistribution of wealth is always by force of government. The government simply uses its overwhelming power to take what it thinks is “fair” from the “givers.” Is God a Socialist?



3. Generosity is based on choice....on free will....the cornerstone of Judeo-Christian tradition.
Not so with any of these six: Socialism, Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, or Progressivism



4. And this is the face of government coercion.....
Under the Bolsheviks, the dynasty with which Franklin Roosevelt felt comradeship, slaughter was so omnipresent that corpse-disposal actually became a problem.

There was resistance to the Left's mandate of collectivism, especially in the Ukraine.
September 11, 1932, Stalin wrote to his assistant, 'We must take steps so we do not lose the Ukraine.' So, 1932-1933, all food supplies in the Ukraine were confiscated.

Those who tried to leave were shot, those who remained, starved to death. Men, women, children. They died tortuously slowly.
NKVD squads collected the dead. They received 200 grams of bread for every dead body they delivered; often they didn't wait until the victim was dead.


a. 'Lazar Kaganovich (together with Vyacheslav Molotov) participated with the All-Ukrainian Party Conference of 1930 and were given the task of implementation of thecollectivization policy that caused a catastrophic 1932–33 famine known as theHolodomor. He also personally oversaw grain confiscations during the same time periods.

'Similar policies also inflicted enormous suffering on the Soviet Central Asian republic ofKazakhstan, the Kuban region, Crimea, the lower Volga region, and other parts of the Soviet Union. As an emissary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, Kaganovich traveled to Ukraine, the central regions of the USSR, the NorthernCaucasus, and Siberia demanding the acceleration of collectivization and repressions against theKulaks, who were generally blamed for the slow progress of collectivization.'
Lazar Kaganovich - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia




5. Coercion, forced 'giving,' .....governmental theft.....is hardly the basis for charity.
Religion...the Judeo-Christian ones, at least, are based on free will.....not submission.


Don't repeat your error.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Face it, God prefers Liberals and scripture proves it. When the Bible was written there were no political parties.

Liberal Catholicism, perhaps. I.E. not bound by legalism.

Liberal has many definitions, one being "without moral restraint."

When it comes to modern day liberal beliefs in this nation I tend to favor that definition. God would not approve.

The colloquial usage of 'Liberal' is identical with 'Socialism.'