what is a liberal and which historical leaders were liberals?

[g5000]

Geez, I must be a conservative that has been walking around suffering from the delusion that I am liberal because I think the DHS, TSA, Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, and torture are bad things.

President Obama doesn't think those things are bad. He supports the DHS and the TSA, reauthorized the Patriot Act, signed the NDAA and while Obama called for more oversight of extraordinary rendition, he certainly did not end it. Similarly, Obama spoke out against 'water-boarding' but didn't seem to mind that "enhanced interrogations" lead to the finding Bin Laden.

I see what you did there. There is no evidence torture led to the finding of OBL. This attitude also is a fallacy of the excluded middle which assumes torture was the only way to find Obama.

And the reason Obama is continuing the mad levels of spending on DHS and the DoD is because he is scared shitless of being blamed by the right wing nutheads for the next terrorist attack.

Such an attack is inevitable, and the nutheads won't hesitate to blame anyone who had the stones to cut defense spending which is at a level not seen since WWII.

Last I checked we are not in a world war.

 

[francoHFW]

#38-Well, dumbazz, the Pubs wouldn't let him do any more, and he's using them as little as possible.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Fallacy of the excluded middle. Try again."?

Huh? The Principle of Excluded Middle asserts that any statement is either true of false

You're correct, I didn't and don't understand you.

 

[emilynghiem]

Whoa Whoa Whoa Wry Catcher
You had a good start cby larifying that not all liberals think the same in lockstep.
But then you made the mistake of assuming that of conservatives! Clearly there is a broad range there, and if you look at even just the msgs after Obama's re-election you can see it! Some want to go centrist and stay in the middle, others want to stop selling out to the moderate views and go back to the far right and stay there!!

Feminists are also wide in range, from liberal to patriarchal/Biblical Feminists who are conservative in comparison. Anarchists and socialists also have their own ranges from left to right. I've met all kinds of atheists who are nowhere near the same; it is true of any group!

I can't answer all your points below, but it is not right to say all conservatives are like LaPierre of NRA, and it is not their point to control women! I've met some who did not want to make prolife a women's issue but only wanted to focus on babies; while I've met many more who don't think that way and actively want to help women have more choices to get rid of abortion! See Mary Cunningham Agree of Nurturing Network who is prolife but not anti choice, her resources and organization have done more to give women choice than the prochoice groups I know, especially those who support ACA which is anti-choice and controlling health care not only for women but ALL people forcing them under federal mandates.

So it is not fair to say these things as if they are true for all conservatives.
If you look at them now, suddenly more conservatives are screaming for prochoice and anti-ACA while the democrats and liberals are suddenly silent on this. So who is prochoice now?

(l)iberal thought is not easily defined and anyone who claims all liberals/progressives/Democrats think in lockstep is wrong. The set of liberalism is, in a nut shell, the set of those with an understanding of the past and the hope for a better future. Subsets within the 'liberal' community are many and as varied as are their faces; some pragmatic, some idealistic, some utopian.

Contrasted with the 'conservative' focus one immediately sees the difference; single issue conservatives see civil rights with a narrow focus, they want their right to bear arms but are willing to suppress the rights of gays and lesbians to walk arm in arm together in matromony; they want to take away a women's right to control her own health care; they eat their own, make every member of the GOP a RINO if that person strays from the current dogma.

The 'libeal' sees rights as did Jefferson, the 'conservative' sees rights as does Wayne LaPierre; the former sees rights as universal, the latter as only a Randian could.

Througout history 'conservatives' have defended the status quo and 'liberals' have challenged it. Therein maybe the greatest difference between the two. However, today's 'conservatives' seem to have lost a vision that a better future is possible, they are seek a return to the past, when things they want us to believe were perfect.

 

[emilynghiem]

"Fallacy of the excluded middle. Try again."?

Huh? The Principle of Excluded Middle asserts that any statement is either true of false

You're correct, I didn't and don't understand you.

What is that tactic called then, to attach an assumption and exclude the other possible explanations or conditions otherwise. Is it more like a strawman argument? Where you define the situation in a false way to begin with, just to strike it down or in this case argue that people are being hypocritical about it when it may not have happened that way?

 

[ZimothyTahn]

i'd like someone to actually explain to me what the similarities really are between obama and hitler, stalin and marx. i mean, without saying, "cuz they r commies, duh, libturd." because for anyone who isn't a fucking idiot, that comparison is ridicu-fucking-liciously stupid.

 

[eflatminor]

Geez, I must be a conservative that has been walking around suffering from the delusion that I am liberal because I think the DHS, TSA, Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, and torture are bad things.

President Obama doesn't think those things are bad. He supports the DHS and the TSA, reauthorized the Patriot Act, signed the NDAA and while Obama called for more oversight of extraordinary rendition, he certainly did not end it. Similarly, Obama spoke out against 'water-boarding' but didn't seem to mind that "enhanced interrogations" lead to the finding Bin Laden.

I see what you did there. There is no evidence torture led to the finding of OBL. This attitude also is a fallacy of the excluded middle which assumes torture was the only way to find Obama.

While neither of us could really know for sure, I based my statement on what was said by a member of the US Senate Intelligence Committee in an interview with CNBC:

“The information that eventually led us to this compound was the direct result of enhanced interrogations; one can conclude if we had not used enhanced interrogations, we would not have come to yesterday's action”

And the reason Obama is continuing the mad levels of spending on DHS and the DoD is because he is scared shitless of being blamed by the right wing nutheads for the next terrorist attack.

Perhaps. Though what the right thinks doesn't seem to stop him in any other area.

Such an attack is inevitable, and the nutheads won't hesitate to blame anyone who had the stones to cut defense spending which is at a level not seen since WWII.

Blame is what Washington does!

Last I checked we are not in a world war.

True that.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Hitler built the Autobahn.

It was an 'infrastructure project'...

 

[Wry Catcher]

In my deranged and wandering mind, a modern liberal (as opposed to the classical liberal) is someone who believes in government growth and an increasing intrusion and widening scope of government power into our lives. A liberal is a nascent totalitarian.

Well, it seems this paragraph is evidence of the truth of your first phrase, only a deranged and wandering mind would believe the modern liberal is a nascent totalitarian.

I recommend you read The Road To Serfdom to see where liberalism is going.



Fallacy of the excluded middle. Try again.



Problems need solutions. Liberals believe problems need government solutions. As the great man said, "Government IS the problem".

If there is one characteristic which is a critical ingredient of the liberal recipe, it is the idea that an emergency measure which was created to address a crisis must be made permanent after the crisis is past. That could be a tax increase or it could be defense spending at a level not seen since WWII.

(l)libeals didn't seem too interested in keeping troops in Germany for the past 75 years or invading Vietnam. Unless you are making the argument all those hippies marching in the streets in '60's had a big government agenda. The same can be said for the marchers protesting the Iraq war and the Cccupy Wall Street Movement.

I think your thinking is muddled; the R's who today are either RINO or conservative don't want to cut defense - do they? (provide proof if you say they do).

You also misunderstood me on this point, as Borillar did. I am a strong advocate for cutting defense spending.

You're correct, I have no idea what point you struggle to make. As to, "I recommend you read The Road To Serfdom to see where liberalism is going", I must ask why? I've read Ayn Rand - three novels and one or two essays and firmly believe Randians are members of the idiot fringe. I suggest you read, "Lord of the Flies" to see where the far right is going.

 

[Redfish]

In my deranged and wandering mind, a modern liberal (as opposed to the classical liberal) is someone who believes in government growth and an increasing intrusion and widening scope of government power into our lives. A liberal is a nascent totalitarian.

So, for example, when some madmen kill some people, a liberal will demand the government immediately expand and more closely monitor and control the group of people to which they can pigeonhole the madmen. That could be the "Muslim" pigeonhole, or it could be the "gun owner" pigeonhole, doesn't matter.

Or, for another example, when there is some kind of crisis, the liberal will demand the government create a whole new cabinet department with overreaching powers, or assign some kind of "czar" to the problem, but most especially the liberal will scream for as many dollars to be borrowed to throw at the problem as possible. That could be the "cancer lady health care" problem, or it could be the "Muslim terrorist under my bed" problem.

If there is one characteristic which is a critical ingredient of the liberal recipe, it is the idea that an emergency measure which was created to address a crisis must be made permanent after the crisis is past. That could be a tax increase or it could be defense spending at a level not seen since WWII.

So that's my idea of the totalitarian wannabes affectionately known as "liberals". Believe it or not, some liberals walking around today are suffering from the delusion they are conservatives!

thank you for a thoughtful post. I agree with you 100%. modern "liberals" do not know that they are really facists and tyranists.

 

[Redfish]

If we bother to study history we see that Obama is following the pattern of some of the great "liberals" of the past----demonizing wealth, growing govt, high taxes, demonize religion, create racial unrest, divide the people by race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

He is following Alinsky to the letter. Is this what you obama supporters really want?

 

[Redfish]

Well, it seems this paragraph is evidence of the truth of your first phrase, only a deranged and wandering mind would believe the modern liberal is a nascent totalitarian.

I recommend you read The Road To Serfdom to see where liberalism is going.



Fallacy of the excluded middle. Try again.



Problems need solutions. Liberals believe problems need government solutions. As the great man said, "Government IS the problem".

(l)libeals didn't seem too interested in keeping troops in Germany for the past 75 years or invading Vietnam. Unless you are making the argument all those hippies marching in the streets in '60's had a big government agenda. The same can be said for the marchers protesting the Iraq war and the Cccupy Wall Street Movement.

I think your thinking is muddled; the R's who today are either RINO or conservative don't want to cut defense - do they? (provide proof if you say they do).

You also misunderstood me on this point, as Borillar did. I am a strong advocate for cutting defense spending.

You're correct, I have no idea what point you struggle to make. As to, "I recommend you read The Road To Serfdom to see where liberalism is going", I must ask why? I've read Ayn Rand - three novels and one or two essays and firmly believe Randians are members of the idiot fringe. I suggest you read, "Lord of the Flies" to see where the far right is going.

I have read Atlas Shrugged and Lord of the Flies. To equate either with liberals or conservatives is really a strech. One talks to individual responsibility and freedom, the other talks about anarchy and class warfare. But if you insist, I would reverse your conclusions about which represents our two ideologies.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If we bother to study history we see that Obama is following the pattern of some of the great "liberals" of the past----demonizing wealth, growing govt, high taxes, demonize religion, create racial unrest, divide the people by race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

He is following Alinsky to the letter. Is this what you obama supporters really want?

I know!! Those liberals are always battling us conservatives when we try to bring all people together.

Why......just yesterday my liberal neighbors called the cops on me for hosting an interracial, bisexual swinger orgy on my front porch. We had a couple of priests, an Imam and a Rabbi there and everything! We conservatives are always persecuted for seeking freedom for everyone!

 

[Two Thumbs]

I would like to hear from both sides on this.

My definition of a modern day liberal is someone that wants a big intrusive controlling government, someone who wants wealth and income redistribution, someone who wants abortion on demand but does not want the 2nd amendment upheld, someone who wants to punish success and reward failure, someone who is comfortable being a slave to the government and wants an active thought and speech police.

Your definition is not accurate.

It's dead on.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I would like to hear from both sides on this.

My definition of a modern day liberal is someone that wants a big intrusive controlling government, someone who wants wealth and income redistribution, someone who wants abortion on demand but does not want the 2nd amendment upheld, someone who wants to punish success and reward failure, someone who is comfortable being a slave to the government and wants an active thought and speech police.

Yep, this is YOUR definiton which does not have any basis in reality. I know of many liberals who are strong supporters of the 2nd amendment and I know some who are pro choice. I know of no one that wants abortion on demand or wants to punish success or reward failure. I'm surprised you didn't add what you said in your intro thread that they just want to live on Government handouts or get more people onto welfare which is also completely untrue. Do some research.

I know of many liberals who are strong supporters of the 2nd amendment names plz, b/c it would be political death and I know some who are pro choice. utter bullshit I know of no one that wants abortion on demand total fucking lie or wants to punish success or reward failure. another lie I'm surprised you didn't add what you said in your intro thread that they just want to live on Government handouts or get more people onto welfare which is also completely untrue. Do some research.

your leaders want more people on welfare. search pics of when clinton signed welfare reforme, you will see Cloward or Piven on stage with him. proving it was a bad an idea as it turned out to be was known ahead of tiem

 

[jasonnfree]

I would like to hear from both sides on this.

My definition of a modern day liberal is someone that wants a big intrusive controlling government, someone who wants wealth and income redistribution, someone who wants abortion on demand but does not want the 2nd amendment upheld, someone who wants to punish success and reward failure, someone who is comfortable being a slave to the government and wants an active thought and speech police.

Corporations want big intrusive controlling governments to broker trade deals, protect intellectual property rights, and have our military protect their "interests" across the globe. I guess their using our court systems and being able to tie up judgments against them in appeals courts for decades (like the Exxon-Valdez case)until a ruling comes along that suits their fancy and knocks the original ruling against them way way down in dollar amount, could be included as corporations being liberals.
Corporations used big intrusive government (supreme court) to rule that they were citizens even!! They're for sure liberals, don't you think?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Central planners that are just SURE they know what's best for everyone else.

right, you get the gold star..

liberal leaders from history: lets see-------

marx, lenin, mao, castro, chavez, for sure

hitler---more of an angry racist dictator but liberal in wanting to destroy wealth

You are wrong on all counts but keep trying. Maybe you'll get one eventually. How are these people ALL Liberals again?

supported and had a strong central ever growing government.

like what liberals support now

 

[Two Thumbs]

right, you get the gold star..

liberal leaders from history: lets see-------

marx, lenin, mao, castro, chavez, for sure

hitler---more of an angry racist dictator but liberal in wanting to destroy wealth

You are wrong on all counts but keep trying. Maybe you'll get one eventually. How are these people ALL Liberals again?

Hitler built the Autobahn.

to support his war efforts

 

[Two Thumbs]

The modern democrat party has drifted so far to the socialist left that the term "liberal" doesn't apply anymore. JFK was a liberal. Can you imagine president Hussein saying "ask not what your Country can do for you".

KaBoom

 

[jasonnfree]

I would like to hear from both sides on this.

My definition of a modern day liberal is someone that wants a big intrusive controlling government, someone who wants wealth and income redistribution, someone who wants abortion on demand but does not want the 2nd amendment upheld, someone who wants to punish success and reward failure, someone who is comfortable being a slave to the government and wants an active thought and speech police.

Corporations want big intrusive controlling governments to broker trade deals, protect intellectual property rights, and have our military protect their "interests" across the globe. I guess their using our court systems and being able to tie up judgments against them in appeals courts for decades (like the Exxon-Valdez case)until a ruling comes along that suits their fancy and knocks the original ruling against them way way down in dollar amount, could be included as corporations being liberals.
Corporations used big intrusive government (supreme court) to rule that they were citizens even!! They're for sure liberals, don't you think?

But what I don't understand is why conservatives are always pushing for lower taxes and even no taxes for these liberal freeloading citizen corporations. Shouldn't they pay for all the services rendered them by our politicians, courts, and military?