Why do people hate Liberals?

[Pogo]

True and unfortunate. But for most people, 'liberal' means Democrat and 'conservative' means Republican. Neither of these is accurate, so it makes these discussions confusing at best. Are we talking about real 'liberal' values, or the authoritarian/corporatist ideology of the Democrats?

That is why, in my opinion, being able to define the terms is so critical. Most modern conservatives aka classical liberals can define the terms. Very few, maybe none, of the modern American liberals can or will even try.

I have asked, begged, offered, goaded our liberal friends here to provide a coherant definition of modern American liberalism, and so far not one has been able to do so. They throw out vague terms and fuzzy feel good phrases, but not a single thing that could be a guiding principle for what laws and regulation should apply and what should not. (Or perhaps they actually can write a description, but would be embarrassed at how it would look written down?)
If the goal is to return to a set of fundamentals of liberty, it is not necessary to trash other groups or individuals or political parties or whatever. You know what you want to accomplish and the Founders gave us the prnciples to use to do that and to measure every function and action of government against. Conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians want to return to those principles. Most liberals ignore them and/or shrug them off as irrelevent or unimportant.

If the goal is to force everybody into a prescribed preconceived mold of what society is supposed to be and demand that everybody toe specific acceptable language, mindset, and fuzzy concepts of collectivism under the authority of an authoritarian central government, then you are describing a liberal. The American liberal/leftist is the statist, the political class, that demands strict controls on what society must and must not tolerate, and looks to a monarch or other authoritarian government to enforce it. It is the antithesis of liberty. And that is why the conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians abhore liberalism.

But I wonder if Pogo can write a reasonably short and coherant definition of the differences he sees between the American left and the American liberal? I figure if anybody can, he can.

Foxy, I do hope you aren't holding your breath. Without catch phrases these people would be mute.

CandySlice, thanks for quoting this - I totally missed it. And Foxy, thanks for the flattering invitation.

I'm still constrained with things to do and this is a topic worthy of time and thought, but allow me to transfer some stuff from another thread, where it's not at all on topic:

{begin paste 1}
I guess first thing, I'm not sure why posters here seem to insist on redefining Liberalism as "classical" Liberalism. I suspect it's a way of driving a wedge into the word so it can then be demonized. And that's kinda weird.

When I say "Liberalism founded this country" I refer to the philosophy, new and revolutionary at the time, that sees the common populace as the driver of the vehicle, as opposed to the hierarchical structure of church/state/aristocracy that had held sway before that point in history. That concept of Liberalism comes under fire from both the left and the right for their own purposes of power-hungriness.

To revert to a previous example: the idea of egalitarianism, the "all men are created equal" plank of the platform and vital artery of our Constitution, is in every sense a Liberal concept. The idea of Affirmative Action, where the State actually takes action to make that happen --rather than letting it happen and refraining from influencing it, that is a Leftist concept. That's what I mean by the difference between them. Liberal leaves it to grow by itself; Leftist takes action to make it happen. So does Right, with its obsession with gay marriage and the like.

As far as I remember the term "Liberal" first began to be demonized in the presidential election of 1988 when it became a staple of the Bush stump speech against Dukakis. H.W. would use the term as if it were an insult. It was a deliberate dumbing-down that ignored the entire history of our nation for the sake of a cheap sound bite. Had Bush and his Lee Atwater guru chosen an honest path they might have instead insisted "Dukakis is no Liberal" as a strategy. But noooo...

I might have missed some rhetorical dynamic before that time but that's when I noticed it.

And it seems to be (this is a theory) part of some grand scheme to redefine "Liberal" -- the concept we're born on -- as a political "side", deliberately conflated with a concoction of Leftist Authoritarians so that that demonized group can then be Eliminated, which then turns everything over to the Rightist Authoritarians (the fascists), who are the entity driving the dumb-down for that purpose.

That's what it looks like to this observer anyway.

{end paste 1, begin paste 2}

1988 is what I remember because at the time watching the way H.W. spat the term it struck me as quite odd and I thought, "is that going to work"? Then I remembered the observation of H.L. Mencken and realized that it probably would

That the left, or more accurately the "Democrats", called themselves liberals is understandable given their legacy of association with the commoner classes; after all when they oppose e.g. gay marriage laws in favor of letting gay couples be, they are practicing Liberalism. OTOH when they start legislating affirmative action or banning big sugar drinks, that's Leftism. Passive versus active to oversimplify it.

Republicans practice Liberalism too when they stand for certain (but not all) deregulation, e.g. of small businesses. And they should be proud to tout it when they do.

Of course, some amount of regulation is necessary in any society, unless we want anarchy (which is what I associate the term "libertarian" with and why I don't use it). You can't have a system of roads, and yet oppose the idea of traffic lights. If your business is, say, food production, there must be some authority in place to ensure you're not disseminating e coli or something. That's where we need the balance of left and right on top of a Liberalist framework. A minimal boundary line set by the people, for the people. But not no boundary lines at all.

But to dichotomize right and left into a vast swamp of heroes and monsters so that we can eliminate the monsters, is a competitive rather than cooperative philosophy, and benefits no one except those who see politics not as a vehicle not for sociopolitical philosophy but for a meaningless football game. That's why I oppose these linguistic distortions.

{end paste}

 

[Foxfyre]

That is why, in my opinion, being able to define the terms is so critical. Most modern conservatives aka classical liberals can define the terms. Very few, maybe none, of the modern American liberals can or will even try.

I have asked, begged, offered, goaded our liberal friends here to provide a coherant definition of modern American liberalism, and so far not one has been able to do so. They throw out vague terms and fuzzy feel good phrases, but not a single thing that could be a guiding principle for what laws and regulation should apply and what should not. (Or perhaps they actually can write a description, but would be embarrassed at how it would look written down?)
If the goal is to return to a set of fundamentals of liberty, it is not necessary to trash other groups or individuals or political parties or whatever. You know what you want to accomplish and the Founders gave us the prnciples to use to do that and to measure every function and action of government against. Conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians want to return to those principles. Most liberals ignore them and/or shrug them off as irrelevent or unimportant.

If the goal is to force everybody into a prescribed preconceived mold of what society is supposed to be and demand that everybody toe specific acceptable language, mindset, and fuzzy concepts of collectivism under the authority of an authoritarian central government, then you are describing a liberal. The American liberal/leftist is the statist, the political class, that demands strict controls on what society must and must not tolerate, and looks to a monarch or other authoritarian government to enforce it. It is the antithesis of liberty. And that is why the conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians abhore liberalism.

But I wonder if Pogo can write a reasonably short and coherant definition of the differences he sees between the American left and the American liberal? I figure if anybody can, he can.

Foxy, I do hope you aren't holding your breath. Without catch phrases these people would be mute.

CandySlice, thanks for quoting this - I totally missed it. And Foxy, thanks for the flattering invitation.

I'm still constrained with things to do and this is a topic worthy of time and thought, but allow me to transfer some stuff from another thread, where it's not at all on topic:

{begin paste 1}
I guess first thing, I'm not sure why posters here seem to insist on redefining Liberalism as "classical" Liberalism. I suspect it's a way of driving a wedge into the word so it can then be demonized. And that's kinda weird.

When I say "Liberalism founded this country" I refer to the philosophy, new and revolutionary at the time, that sees the common populace as the driver of the vehicle, as opposed to the hierarchical structure of church/state/aristocracy that had held sway before that point in history. That concept of Liberalism comes under fire from both the left and the right for their own purposes of power-hungriness.

To revert to a previous example: the idea of egalitarianism, the "all men are created equal" plank of the platform and vital artery of our Constitution, is in every sense a Liberal concept. The idea of Affirmative Action, where the State actually takes action to make that happen --rather than letting it happen and refraining from influencing it, that is a Leftist concept. That's what I mean by the difference between them. Liberal leaves it to grow by itself; Leftist takes action to make it happen. So does Right, with its obsession with gay marriage and the like.

As far as I remember the term "Liberal" first began to be demonized in the presidential election of 1988 when it became a staple of the Bush stump speech against Dukakis. H.W. would use the term as if it were an insult. It was a deliberate dumbing-down that ignored the entire history of our nation for the sake of a cheap sound bite. Had Bush and his Lee Atwater guru chosen an honest path they might have instead insisted "Dukakis is no Liberal" as a strategy. But noooo...

I might have missed some rhetorical dynamic before that time but that's when I noticed it.

And it seems to be (this is a theory) part of some grand scheme to redefine "Liberal" -- the concept we're born on -- as a political "side", deliberately conflated with a concoction of Leftist Authoritarians so that that demonized group can then be Eliminated, which then turns everything over to the Rightist Authoritarians (the fascists), who are the entity driving the dumb-down for that purpose.

That's what it looks like to this observer anyway.

{end paste 1, begin paste 2}

1988 is what I remember because at the time watching the way H.W. spat the term it struck me as quite odd and I thought, "is that going to work"? Then I remembered the observation of H.L. Mencken and realized that it probably would

That the left, or more accurately the "Democrats", called themselves liberals is understandable given their legacy of association with the commoner classes; after all when they oppose e.g. gay marriage laws in favor of letting gay couples be, they are practicing Liberalism. OTOH when they start legislating affirmative action or banning big sugar drinks, that's Leftism. Passive versus active to oversimplify it.

Republicans practice Liberalism too when they stand for certain (but not all) deregulation, e.g. of small businesses. And they should be proud to tout it when they do.

Of course, some amount of regulation is necessary in any society, unless we want anarchy (which is what I associate the term "libertarian" with and why I don't use it). You can't have a system of roads, and yet oppose the idea of traffic lights. If your business is, say, food production, there must be some authority in place to ensure you're not disseminating e coli or something. That's where we need the balance of left and right on top of a Liberalist framework. A minimal boundary line set by the people, for the people. But not no boundary lines at all.

But to dichotomize right and left into a vast swamp of heroes and monsters so that we can eliminate the monsters, is a competitive rather than cooperative philosophy, and benefits no one except those who see politics not as a vehicle not for sociopolitical philosophy but for a meaningless football game. That's why I oppose these linguistic distortions.

I take this as an honest but polite way of saying that you can't or won't write a definition of modern American liberalism either.

We use the term 'classical liberalism' to distinguish the liberalism of the Founders from the modern American liberalism of today that has virtually no common ground with late 18th century liberalism. True libertarians (small "L") bear little resemblance to Libertarians (large "L") who are leftists in the sense that they would use the government to enforce a form of anarchy rather than allow the people to form the society they wish to have. As Americans understand them and use them, the definitions of the 17th Century are vastly different from the defintions of the 21st Century.

Take your example of regulating foodstuff.

An enforcable regulation that contaminated foodstuffs may not be brought into the country or transported across state lines with impunity meets the definition of protection of unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It addresses what the states themselves cannot do to prevent violation of unalienable rights via physical, environmental, or economic violence. Ditto the states have no reasonable means of regulating shared water sources, shared air, shared communications on the airways, etc. and it is reasonable that federal regulations protect rights of all by necessary regulation of such things. That is a modern American conservative, rightist, classical liberal, libertarian (little "L") concept and something they condone. So do the Leftists/liberals/statists/political class, but they aren't willing to leave it at that.

When the federal government presumes to tell us what we must feed the school children, regulates how we organize and run our businesses, presumes to dictate how we must or must not use our property, dictates who we must subsidize, or uses our resources for its own comfort or increase, we have left the Founders' principles in the distant dust and have entered the realm of statism and oppressive authority that they intended to prohibit with the Constitution.

Modern American leftists/liberals/statists/political class want or condone or defend government intrusion into many areas the Founders never intended.

Modern American rightists/conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians (little "L") do not.

 

[Pogo]

Foxy, I do hope you aren't holding your breath. Without catch phrases these people would be mute.

CandySlice, thanks for quoting this - I totally missed it. And Foxy, thanks for the flattering invitation.

I'm still constrained with things to do and this is a topic worthy of time and thought, but allow me to transfer some stuff from another thread, where it's not at all on topic:

{begin paste 1}
I guess first thing, I'm not sure why posters here seem to insist on redefining Liberalism as "classical" Liberalism. I suspect it's a way of driving a wedge into the word so it can then be demonized. And that's kinda weird.

When I say "Liberalism founded this country" I refer to the philosophy, new and revolutionary at the time, that sees the common populace as the driver of the vehicle, as opposed to the hierarchical structure of church/state/aristocracy that had held sway before that point in history. That concept of Liberalism comes under fire from both the left and the right for their own purposes of power-hungriness.

To revert to a previous example: the idea of egalitarianism, the "all men are created equal" plank of the platform and vital artery of our Constitution, is in every sense a Liberal concept. The idea of Affirmative Action, where the State actually takes action to make that happen --rather than letting it happen and refraining from influencing it, that is a Leftist concept. That's what I mean by the difference between them. Liberal leaves it to grow by itself; Leftist takes action to make it happen. So does Right, with its obsession with gay marriage and the like.

As far as I remember the term "Liberal" first began to be demonized in the presidential election of 1988 when it became a staple of the Bush stump speech against Dukakis. H.W. would use the term as if it were an insult. It was a deliberate dumbing-down that ignored the entire history of our nation for the sake of a cheap sound bite. Had Bush and his Lee Atwater guru chosen an honest path they might have instead insisted "Dukakis is no Liberal" as a strategy. But noooo...

I might have missed some rhetorical dynamic before that time but that's when I noticed it.

And it seems to be (this is a theory) part of some grand scheme to redefine "Liberal" -- the concept we're born on -- as a political "side", deliberately conflated with a concoction of Leftist Authoritarians so that that demonized group can then be Eliminated, which then turns everything over to the Rightist Authoritarians (the fascists), who are the entity driving the dumb-down for that purpose.

That's what it looks like to this observer anyway.

{end paste 1, begin paste 2}

1988 is what I remember because at the time watching the way H.W. spat the term it struck me as quite odd and I thought, "is that going to work"? Then I remembered the observation of H.L. Mencken and realized that it probably would

That the left, or more accurately the "Democrats", called themselves liberals is understandable given their legacy of association with the commoner classes; after all when they oppose e.g. gay marriage laws in favor of letting gay couples be, they are practicing Liberalism. OTOH when they start legislating affirmative action or banning big sugar drinks, that's Leftism. Passive versus active to oversimplify it.

Republicans practice Liberalism too when they stand for certain (but not all) deregulation, e.g. of small businesses. And they should be proud to tout it when they do.

Of course, some amount of regulation is necessary in any society, unless we want anarchy (which is what I associate the term "libertarian" with and why I don't use it). You can't have a system of roads, and yet oppose the idea of traffic lights. If your business is, say, food production, there must be some authority in place to ensure you're not disseminating e coli or something. That's where we need the balance of left and right on top of a Liberalist framework. A minimal boundary line set by the people, for the people. But not no boundary lines at all.

But to dichotomize right and left into a vast swamp of heroes and monsters so that we can eliminate the monsters, is a competitive rather than cooperative philosophy, and benefits no one except those who see politics not as a vehicle not for sociopolitical philosophy but for a meaningless football game. That's why I oppose these linguistic distortions.

I take this as an honest but polite way of saying that you can't or won't write a definition of modern American liberalism either.

Oh no you don't. I made that pasted-post before you made this request. It wasn't what I was addressing as I didn't have time (and still don't) to address it directly so I pasted previously existing material that may have touched on it. It will have to do for now. Suffice to say you're still lumping "liberals" in with "leftists" and so-called "classical liberals" (a term I will not accept) with "conservatives", and neither lump is accurate.

Will have to explore this later; I shouldn't even be writing this. People like you who take the time to actually think about this stuff and challenge others to, oh you're just a bad influence.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ah, Pogo rejects the term "classical liberal". Fortunately those who have studied this in depth, including academia, do not.

Okay so he won't accept my definition of Classical Liberal. I wonder if he will also thumb his nose at these (emphasis is mine):

Definition of Classical Liberalism

Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government. It developed in 18th-century Europe and drew on the economic writings of Adam Smith and the growing notion of social progress. Liberalism was also influenced by the writings of Thomas Hobbes, who argued that governments exist to protect individuals from each other. In 19th- and 20th-century America, the values of classical liberalism became dominant in both major political parties. The term is sometimes used broadly to refer to all forms of liberalism prior to the 20th century. Conservatives and libertarians often invoke classical liberalism to mean a fundamental belief in minimal government.
Definition of Classical Liberalism | Chegg.com

What is Liberalism

What is Liberalism?. It is a political orientation which favors the social progress by implementing law and reform rather than revolution. It is the belief in the importance of equal rights and liberty. This ideology began in the 18th century, which was a movement to self government and away from aristocracy. The ideology includes: The primacy of the individual or the nation, ideas of self determination, opposed to the state, family, economy and politics. Aristocracy is a government form in which the best qualified rule.

What is liberalism fundamental idea?. This political movement supports such fundamental ideas which are the following: Liberal democracy, human rights, constitutionalism, fair and free elections, freedom of religion and free trade. It is known that these ideas are accepted widely and by political groups that do not profess a liberal ideological orientation. An ideological orientation is an orientation which characterizes the thinking of a nation or group. Liberalism includes several traditional and intellectual trends. Its most dominant variants are: Social and Classical liberalism.

What is classical liberalism?. Classical liberalism was developed in the 18th century and became very popular in the Americas and Western Europe. Is defined as a philosophy, which is committed to the ideology of limited government, freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press and free markets. It advocated a specific kind of government, public policy and society required as a result of the urbanization and industrial revolution. Classical liberalism was known to be a dominant political theory on the United Kingdom during the 18th century until the First World War.


What is social liberalism?. Also known as Modern liberalism, it is the belief of having social justice included on this ideology. It believes that the legitimate role of the state includes: Unemployment, health care, addressing economic and education. Social liberalism views the good of the community as harmonious with the freedom of all individuals. This ideology parties and ideas tend to be considered centre left or centrist. Centrism also known as centre left is the practice or ideal to promote policies which stands different from the standard political right and political left. This ideal tends to focus on policies such as: Human rights, civil liberties; social and economic liberalism.
What is Liberalism; Modern, Social, Classical and Economic Liberalism Definition and Principles

Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.

On the left of the political spectrum, things are more complicated. The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the economic sphere, then, almost anything goes.
What Is Classical Liberalism? | NCPA

In order to assign consistent terms in this study, I must first define classical liberalism. Scholars have offered different interpretations of this term. For example, E. K. Bramsted, co-editor of the monumental anthology Western Liberalism: A History in Documents from Locke to Croce (1978), asserts that the classical liberal champions the rights of individuals (with careful attention to the more endangered rights of minorities), the right of property in particular, the government's obligation to protect property, limited constitutional government, and a belief in social progress (36). John Gray broadens this description in Liberalism (1986) to include philosophies demonstrating individualism, egalitarianism, and universalism (x). In Liberalism Old and New (1991), J. G. Merquior argues that the theories of human rights, constitutionalism, and classical economics define classical liberal thought.

These scholars and others actually agree far more than they differ concerning the philosophy's components. For the purpose of this chronology and analysis, I shall apply a broad set of criteria to determine if an idea or individual fits within this intellectual tradition.

In this context, classical liberalism includes the following:
◾an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,
◾the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,
◾the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and
◾the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.
The Rise, Decline, and Reemergence of Classical Liberalism

 

[thanatos144]

You know what classic liberal means to me???? Ron Paul racist fucks trying to act the conservative.

 

[Pogo]

Foxy, I'm sorry you went to all that trouble for nothing. Ever hear the expression, "opinions are like assholes"? I couldn't be less interested in dueling links for this term or that one. I'm not even going to bother reading it. It's a waste of time.

My point, I'll have to make it quick, is that floating a term like "classical Liberalism" is an attempt to redefine the word "Liberalism" and dichotomize it into good and evil witches -- you set Liberalism aside as "classical" and claim it for yourself, then you get to demonize the one the other team uses. In other words I'm not interested in who defines it which way -- I'm interested in WHY they're going out of their way to redefine it at all.

I'm not going to play that game, I don't care if you get a link from some wag at every university in the world plus the town librarian in Toledo. That's a pissing contest and it's part and parcel of the decline of discourse. So save your typing fingers. It's irrelevant.

Back later.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You know what classic liberal means to me???? Ron Paul racist fucks trying to act the conservative.

What is a "Ron Paul racist fuck?" If Paul ever said anything racist, I missed it.

 

[thanatos144]

You know what classic liberal means to me???? Ron Paul racist fucks trying to act the conservative.

What is a "Ron Paul racist fuck?" If Paul ever said anything racist, I missed it.

You didnt get his news letters?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You didnt get his news letters?

Is there a secret code or "dog whistle" reviving the KKK in them?

 

[thanatos144]

You didnt get his news letters?

Is there a secret code or "dog whistle" reviving the KKK in them?

Google them... They are eye openers unless you are a Paulbot then it doesn't matter cause you will refuse to see anything bad against Paul. But actually Paul has little todo with the racist part in my statement.....I was talking about the paulbots themselves. Some are not racist but most are confederate loving slaver worshipers.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Google them... They are eye openers unless you are a Paulbot then it doesn't matter cause you will refuse to see anything bad against Paul. But actually Paul has little todo with the racist part in my statement.....I was talking about the paulbots themselves. Some are not racist but most are confederate loving slaver worshipers.

You seem to have confused that fact that a voluntary union must, by necessity include the right of member states to secede, with a support for slavery. These are two distinct propositions.

 

[thanatos144]

Google them... They are eye openers unless you are a Paulbot then it doesn't matter cause you will refuse to see anything bad against Paul. But actually Paul has little todo with the racist part in my statement.....I was talking about the paulbots themselves. Some are not racist but most are confederate loving slaver worshipers.

You seem to have confused that fact that a voluntary union must, by necessity include the right of member states to secede, with a support for slavery. These are two distinct propositions.

Yes because the confederates were all about slavery and nothing to do with secession. If it was just that they wouldn't have started a war.

 

[Foxfyre]

You didnt get his news letters?

Is there a secret code or "dog whistle" reviving the KKK in them?

Google them... They are eye openers unless you are a Paulbot then it doesn't matter cause you will refuse to see anything bad against Paul. But actually Paul has little todo with the racist part in my statement.....I was talking about the paulbots themselves. Some are not racist but most are confederate loving slaver worshipers.

Perhaps you could name one or two who are. You can google just about any subject you want and find hundreds if not thousands or even millions of hits that you can use to back up whatever you wish to believe or prove. In fact there are those who have made it a huge hobby to insert as much misinformation, propaganda, specific code phrases, etc. etc. etc. into the data base as they can find time to do, and willing idiots soak it all up and repeat it even more on message boards and blogs all over the internet.

Choosing CREDIBLE sites out of the huge number of those hits is a bit more difficult, but it is something that honorable people do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxy, I'm sorry you went to all that trouble for nothing. Ever hear the expression, "opinions are like assholes"? I couldn't be less interested in dueling links for this term or that one. I'm not even going to bother reading it. It's a waste of time.

My point, I'll have to make it quick, is that floating a term like "classical Liberalism" is an attempt to redefine the word "Liberalism" and dichotomize it into good and evil witches -- you set Liberalism aside as "classical" and claim it for yourself, then you get to demonize the one the other team uses. In other words I'm not interested in who defines it which way -- I'm interested in WHY they're going out of their way to redefine it at all.

I'm not going to play that game, I don't care if you get a link from some wag at every university in the world plus the town librarian in Toledo. That's a pissing contest and it's part and parcel of the decline of discourse. So save your typing fingers. It's irrelevant.

Back later.

You won't play the game of using real information from highly credible sources rather than your own biased opinion? A pity. I did not redefine anything. It is what it is. And if you refuse to educate yourself about that, then discussion is rather pointless on the subject isn't it. But an unwillingness to have an open mind and/or be educated is why we Ameicans spend most of our time accusing and blaming people instead of focusing on solutions.

So I will look to others to have the discussion of the thread topic. I love you anyway.

 

[thanatos144]

Is there a secret code or "dog whistle" reviving the KKK in them?

Google them... They are eye openers unless you are a Paulbot then it doesn't matter cause you will refuse to see anything bad against Paul. But actually Paul has little todo with the racist part in my statement.....I was talking about the paulbots themselves. Some are not racist but most are confederate loving slaver worshipers.

Perhaps you could name one or two who are. You can google just about any subject you want and find hundreds if not thousands or even millions of hits that you can use to back up whatever you wish to believe or prove. In fact there are those who have made it a huge hobby to insert as much misinformation, propaganda, specific code phrases, etc. etc. etc. into the data base as they can find time to do, and willing idiots soak it all up and repeat it even more on message boards and blogs all over the internet.

Choosing CREDIBLE sites out of the huge number of those hits is a bit more difficult, but it is something that honorable people do.

This isnt new.... For fuck sake go look yourself! The racist news letters has been known about for well over a decade.

 

[Foxfyre]

Google them... They are eye openers unless you are a Paulbot then it doesn't matter cause you will refuse to see anything bad against Paul. But actually Paul has little todo with the racist part in my statement.....I was talking about the paulbots themselves. Some are not racist but most are confederate loving slaver worshipers.

Perhaps you could name one or two who are. You can google just about any subject you want and find hundreds if not thousands or even millions of hits that you can use to back up whatever you wish to believe or prove. In fact there are those who have made it a huge hobby to insert as much misinformation, propaganda, specific code phrases, etc. etc. etc. into the data base as they can find time to do, and willing idiots soak it all up and repeat it even more on message boards and blogs all over the internet.

Choosing CREDIBLE sites out of the huge number of those hits is a bit more difficult, but it is something that honorable people do.

This isnt new.... For fuck sake go look yourself! The racist news letters has been known about for well over a decade.

If it has been well known about for well over a decade, then you shouldn't have any problem naming a couple of the racists and linking to one of those newsletters. You made the claim. What do you base it on that you can verify?

You see my observation is that liberals often tend to make criticisms, complaints, and allusions to stuff and trash people and concepts and then refuse to even consider any valid rebuttal or context or mitigating information about that.

I'm giving you an opportunity to prove me wrong about that at least in this case.

 

[Pogo]

Foxy, I'm sorry you went to all that trouble for nothing. Ever hear the expression, "opinions are like assholes"? I couldn't be less interested in dueling links for this term or that one. I'm not even going to bother reading it. It's a waste of time.

My point, I'll have to make it quick, is that floating a term like "classical Liberalism" is an attempt to redefine the word "Liberalism" and dichotomize it into good and evil witches -- you set Liberalism aside as "classical" and claim it for yourself, then you get to demonize the one the other team uses. In other words I'm not interested in who defines it which way -- I'm interested in WHY they're going out of their way to redefine it at all.

I'm not going to play that game, I don't care if you get a link from some wag at every university in the world plus the town librarian in Toledo. That's a pissing contest and it's part and parcel of the decline of discourse. So save your typing fingers. It's irrelevant.

Back later.

You won't play the game of using real information from highly credible sources rather than your own biased opinion? A pity. I did not redefine anything. It is what it is. And if you refuse to educate yourself about that, then discussion is rather pointless on the subject isn't it. But an unwillingness to have an open mind and/or be educated is why we Ameicans spend most of our time accusing and blaming people instead of focusing on solutions.

So I will look to others to have the discussion of the thread topic. I love you anyway.

Look Foxy -- and this is just a refreshment break-- here's your congintive failure: I just said I will not accept the term, and you came back with "well what about this guy, what about that definition, wait look over here..."

What part of "I will not accept the term" is sailing over your head here? I will not accept the term, period. I don't care what definition either of us comes up with. It's not a question of the term's definition; it's a question of its very existence. There is an agenda behind pushing that very existence, and I will not accept that agenda. Period. Not a question of your definition, my definition, his her or its definiton.

OK?
Again, just a refreshment break. Will expound under cover of darkness and/or fatigue, later.

Love ya Foxy.

And PS if you're suggesting above that Thenatos is a "liberal", then it just underscores my point that the term as you're using it has no meaning. Stop trying to pick fights with anything that moves.

 

[Foxfyre]

Geez. I might as well say that I don't believe there was ever a debate on global warming or that a Flat Earth Society ever existed or there is no such thing as quantum physicis so don't bother me with any evidence that any or all exist or ever existed. And how do we know whether Thanatos or anybody else is a liberal if we can't come to an agreement on what the defintion of liberal is? I love you too, Pogo.

 

[dblack]

There's certainly an element of futility in any discussions of 'liberal' or 'conservative' values without first squaring off against all the confusion regarding what the terms themselves mean. If you want even bigger challenge, try talking to people about 'corporatism'.

 

[Foxfyre]

There's certainly an element of futility in any discussions of 'liberal' or 'conservative' values without first squaring off against all the confusion regarding what the terms themselves mean. If you want even bigger challenge, try talking to people about 'corporatism'.

I would actually love to discuss corporatism but on a different thread. Dealing with the topic on this one is complicated enough, most especially as you say, we can't get anybody to focus on the definitions. And I'm about to throw in the towel on that for that very reason. When you have people who absolutely are NOT interested in the concepts but are rather interested in blaming or trashing somebody, no producive discussion is going to take place.

You and I are often on different pages on this stuff dblack, but I never put you in the category of the trashers and bashers, both left and right, but you are dubbed a worthy debater who is now and then capable of looking past partisan ideology and rhetoric and pesonalities and can see the principle involved.