1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

When is a liberal a liberal?

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Techie2000, Jan 2, 2003.

  1. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    I've been doing lots of reading here, and it seems that many people are incorrectly using the word liberal. You will know who you are after this post is over. Anyways first lets establish a definition of liberal. According to dicationary.com:

    Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
    Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

    In a nutshell:
    A person who wants things to change, and is accepting of the ideas of others. Nowhere does it say everybody has to be 100% equal. That is called socialism. According to dictionary.com:


    \So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme.

    Not all liberals are socialists, and not all socialists are liberals. However it seems that more than a few members here have been using the terms interchangeably. I just wanted to clairfy this to everyone. I am not a socialist. Thank you for your time.


  2. Ravenink

    Ravenink Veteran Member

    what I believe you fail to realize techie is that the word liberal has been redefined in the political arena. your defition of liberal is undoubtably correct, but fails to encompass modern political thought.
  3. yazdzik

    yazdzik Veteran Member

    Dear Techie,
    Thank you for that.
    Political philosophy is one of those things people like to label.
    A well known pundit, Buckley, told me once that I was so conservative I appeared to be liberal. I asked how he knew that I was not so liberal I appeared to be conservative.
    He quipped, "Bow tie and pipe."
    Liberalism, in the Jeffersonian sense, has died out completely. There are right wing socialists in this country, and left wing socialists, but real strict constructionist constitutionalists do not exist.
    The values of that kind of conservatism, to wit, Jeffersonian liberalism, compassion and protection for the civil rights of all, has been abandoned in the new puritanism. Both sides of breast beaters want their views, either god and the fifties, or pot and the sixties, the be socially required.
    A true liberal, who would be, by today's standards, a true conservative, would be for the existence of those laws which conserve the constitution, thus, tolerating all things not prohibited by statute.
    We needed a word to describe the "Bring back Beaver" crowd, where the cops are always right, and nice people do not wear long hair, so we took conservative. We needed a word to describe the other kind of puritan, those who feel having money and fun are bad, being successful is evil because it's fun, and called them liberals.
    What we have is neither. We have two groups of puritanical socialists. The first, called conservatives, hates sex and pleasure, the second, called liberals hates money and pleasure.
    Real political diversity is non-existant. Anyone watching the debate between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee would have realised that three hair shirted bigots, Bush, Gore, and a third unknown would eventually determine the fate of the next decade. The unknown turned out to be a spoilt rich kid, whose mommy and daddy bought him a country, so he could have a bloody theocracy and blow up innocents.
    Now, had he been at the debate instead of in the caves, I wonder, like a robed Nader, would he have have just been another face. I guess he appeals to everyone, since he wants a theocracy like Bush, poverty like Nader, to be spoilt and bratty like Gore. I suspect, had he been on the ballot instead of on the rampage, a whole lot of people would have voted for him, not out of conviction, but confusion.
    That is what is frightening. There are no opposing points of view, just hysterical children wanting the mother's milk of one comfortable prejudice or its convers to be offered at the teat of television, without interrupting ER.

    Whiningly yours,
  4. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Well, I was about to answer but the two gentlemen in front of me got it quite nicely.

    BTW, Techie, I've yet to hear anyone using the "popular" definition of Socialism on this forum. Socialism is a great model, but can not work in a country like the US which has too many spoiled people who EXPECT to be serviced and who will undoubtedly abuse the system.
  5. HaYwIrE

    HaYwIrE Banned

    One must first know the difference between liberal and a Liberal. I admit that I didn't differentiate the two for the longest time, but I think I have it straight now.

    But let's look at what the dictionary has to say, shall we?

    <i>A) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.</i>

    Not sticking to tradition. Always changing something even if it works perfectly well the way it is, and usually f****** it up. The "free from bigotry" part is a crock of shit. Liberals will call someone a bigot as if it's a bad word, but will bigot themselves the very next minute. Every time.

    <i>B) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.</i>

    Again, a crock of shit. This is what they will claim... "<i>tolerance for one and all</i>"... but will absolutely not tolerate any opinions differing from their own.

    <i>C) Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
    D) <b>Liberal</b> Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.</i>

    <i>A) Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
    B) Generous in amount; ample</i>

    Giving everything to those who don't want to work for it?

    <i>Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.</i>

    As in nothing is black and white with these people. There are no right or wrong answers to anything... rather differentiating opinions which we all know to be a crock. And let's not forget the Liberal translation of the Holy Bible.

    <i>Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.</i>

    Note that it says liberal education as opposed to the Liberal education we talked about in the thread that I assume prompted you to start this one.

    My view of it?

    Liberals want to play the Robin Hood... take from the rich and give to the poor. Nevermind that the vast majority of the rich had to work for all they have and don't owe a dime to someone else who isn't willing to do the same.

    To be a true Liberal is to be the most blatant and obvious kind of hypocrite as is evidenced in their beliefs on Capital punishment, abortion, and now cloning. They further display their hypocrisy claiming to love and be tolerant of everyone, and then create their labels of hatred for those who oppose their agenda.

    Liberals are all about me, ME, <b>ME</b> and gimme, GIMME, <b>GIMME</b>. They fight for the so-called civil and human rights of the freeloaders who are too rotten lazy to get off of their asses and make it on their own, and blame their problems and the problems of the freeloaders on Conservatists and Conservatism.
    Abused by those people who will not strive to get ahead in this country like most of us do, or Liberals who have abused the civil and human rights thing right into the ground.
  6. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Techie, what you have just experienced here if you really read what has been told to you is the difference between information and real-life experience. It is also the difference between definition and actual. If the post just made you mad or if you want to refute them, just re-read them and think about them, if you can wrap your mind around them at your age and understand them you will be ahead of the game.
  7. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    Great, now I'm not even a liberal!

    I would like to define what a liberal should mean - forget everyone's elses definition.

    Robert Kennedy said, Some people see the world as it is and say why. I see the world as it could be and say why not

    We can argue back and forth but no progress will be made until everyone realizes we want the same things.

    Another liberal said "For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breath the same air. We all cherish our childrens futures and we are all mortal."

    For any one person to think there is an organized movement to erode family values, tear down the freedoms we have worked to build and ruin this country is a laughable form of treason.

    We are the people who welcome peace, not through firepower because we recognize firepower is only superior for fleeting moments. We understand the communication and understanding of all human beings is of paramount importance. We realize that all views must be tolerated and that all people have a right to live out their life, free from harassment in a dignified, respectful and violence free world. We believe in tolerance for most but look forward to the day the warriors have realized that war never solved anything but that peace always did. I feel pity and disbelief for anyone who can't comprehend this.
  8. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    Well, I'll tell you this much. I work my ass off. I work extra jobs, overtime, and I pay my bills on time, so as to have upstanding credit, so I can then obtain low interest loans and have nice things.

    The second I'm told all my work goes into a generic melting pot, I quit.

    And that's my take on socialism.
  9. HaYwIrE

    HaYwIrE Banned

    Tell that to the Jews of the Holocaust.
  10. midranger4

    midranger4 Banned

    GOD DAMN !!!! I thought I was the only one who thought that !!
  11. -Ken

    -Ken Guest


    Perhaps the Jews understand it was not the liberal, peaceful people of the world but the mighty German warriors who were pumped full of hate.

    Once again, you have confused the liberals with the conservatives. I don't believe anyone would consider the Nazi party liberal.

    Now would you please, get a clue.
  12. HaYwIrE

    HaYwIrE Banned

    And they would dominate Europe possibly even today were it not for the United States going over there and kicking their asses.

    My point is that war <b>does</b> solve things. Peace on a planet as "diverse" as Earth is impossible. But that's another subject.
  13. midranger4

    midranger4 Banned

    I define socialism as sharing the wealth. This does not necessarily mean he who works harder is not rewarded more than one who doesn't work.

    Let's be honest here, is it not absolutely ludicrous to be paying company executives MILLIONS of dollars a year to drive a company into bankruptcy? Then to top it off hand them a golden parachute to *leave quietly*?

    Is it not also ludicrous to expect anyone to be able to provide for a family at the unskilled labor rates being paid to people in this country? Socialism does not mean the same for everybody but it would mean leveling the playing field to a point that everyone would at least be able to live above the poverty line.

    Will it ever happen? Hell no. The word alone has a stigma attached to it that is unjustified because IN THEORY the concept is a good one.

    I read something somewhere and I forget the exact figures so I hope someone will refine my guesstimate here :

    The United States represents less than 10% of the land mass on earth yet consumes 80% of the natural resources worldwide.

    Call me crazy but if accurate the above statement should make us absolutely ashamed of ourselves.
  14. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    HaYwIrE, let's be careful not to confuse democrats with liberals. It is not liberals who wants to play Robin Hood - it is the democrats. While many, if not most, democrats may happen to be liberals as well, they are not one and the same. There are conservative democrats just as there are liberal republicans. While I don't fit any of these labels completely, I am much more a liberal republican than anything else.

    I am very liberal on many issues, as I'm sure you already know. However, I get just as disgusted as you at the abuses of our welfare, SSI, etc. systems that are in place. I think it is a total crock of crappola that people who have children pay less in taxes than somebody else who doesn't have kids but is paid an equal salary.

    NEWSFLASH: Many things can be changed for the better!

    Arguing in favor of tradition and no change 100% of the time would have made our social progress impossible. We'd still be burning witches and stringing up negroes with that type of attitude. There is nothing wrong with the idea of change. How would you like it if some crazy preacher insisted that we all stop using telephones, televisions...heck, electricity! What if he were to argue that these changes should never have been made and that we should live in a more traditional way the way people did two hundred years ago? I think we'd all tell him to take his ultra-conservative nonsense and stick it.

    Bottom line - oftentimes, change is good for society. You just don't like a few of the things that are changing, and you wish everyone would just go back to living in the 50's, and you'd freeze time if you could. Well, I know this may seem hard for you to understand, but many people's lives are easier now than they would have been fifty years ago.

    Sometimes tradition sucks.

    You win this one on a technicality. By the definition of tolerance, nobody can be tolerant of every opinion. Liberals push for tolerance of people's cultures, religions, lifestyles, etc. But to tolerate those who will not tolerate the aforementioned would be counter to their goals.

    You are right, liberals do not tolerate every opinion because nobody possibly can. Extreme conservatives CERTAINLY don't.

    You are referring to the democrats - not liberals. It has been my observation that democrats wish to redistribute finds. Not all democrats are liberals.

    And besides, this particular definition could be applied to any political group. For examples, conservatives are very liberal with their intolerance of others.

    Hehe...I agree with you on the Bible part. The Bible is full of hatred, and any translations which imply otherwise are liberal, to say the least. And besides, why should you worry how somebody translates the Bible? I thought you didn't even believe it anyway? Does it upset you that some people translate a book of, what you and I consider, fiction contrary to tradition?

    You say that nothing is black and white as if that is a bad thing? Sometimes it is best to give each situation special consideration. I think <A HREF="http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5588">Barry Siegel's article</A> demonstrates that rather well.

    No, you are referring to the democrats. Democrats are generally the ones who back these programs. As for the vast majority of the rich having had to work hard to get where they are, I think you are delusional. While there certainly are an abundance of "rags to riches" stories, it seems that most wealthy people I know or hear about were born into money. Rich people generally have rich children. Even if those children had to work hard to take over daddy's business, they still had the opportunity handed to them on a silver platter.

    HaYwIrE, you are not one to talk when it comes to labels. You are the Labelmaster 3000 of label makers.

    Isn't it about time to get a new punchline? Many conservatives are just as much about me, me, me, me, me.
  15. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Techie, you know how judges in many contests throw out the high and low scores. It works in forums, too.
  16. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    Well Haywire,

    I'm tired of the same old rant. You have no clue what a liberal is other than a another word for a punching bag. What I find most amusing is that many of your views would be considered liberal if you understood the difference.

    Due to ever increasing boredom brought on by monotony, I am going to bed.

    Good night all,

  17. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Personally, I like the older definition of liberal from m-w.com:
    <small>ducking for cover</small>
  18. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Ooooooooooooo. I like it!
  19. midranger4

    midranger4 Banned

    ROFL Coot! That is too funny !
  20. HaYwIrE

    HaYwIrE Banned

    Damn. All that effort I put into it and you go and find the perfect definition in five damned words! LOL! :)

Share This Page