Can someone show me ONE liberal ideal that has actually worked?

[Foxfyre]

There is no 'modern definitions of liberalism'. The definition of Liberalism remains the same as it always has:

(1)(From the Latin liberalis, "of freedom; worthy of a free man, gentlemanlike, courteous, generous): one who believes in liberty

(2) An adherent of Liberalism

Can't speak for the Liberals, but this Leftist has been referring you to their love of Locke for some time now.
Conservatives, by definition have no ideals. Conservatives, by definition have no common ideology but are merely the reactionary forces which seek to preserve the status quo or restore the status quo ante, whatever it might be. Conservatives in American history have included the Tories, the KKK, and those who bombed the Freedom Riders bus.

If you claim to adhere to Liberalism, then you are claiming to be a Liberal- and yet you attack Liberalism and scream bloody murder when someone points out that the FF were Liberals.

If you claim that a given person or party does not adhere to the Liberal ideology or one of its subsets, then why do you call them Liberals instead of accusing them of not being Liberals at all?

Baloney.

Those are the definitions of the words. Those are the facts. Deal with it.


No, they don't. Nor did did they ever nor can they ever, for such things are contrary to Liberal ideology. Anyone supporting what you describe is, by definition not a liberal.

Words have real meanings. Someone is not a doctor merely because they call themselves a doctor. They are a doctor by definition if they hold a doctorate (or equivalent degree), practice or practiced medicine or are a teacher (doctoris) and the term is being used in the archaic sense (such as to refer to ancient 'doctors' prior to the introduction of the familiar education and merit system).

Modern American conservatism by contrast loves its country, respects the flag as the symbol of the blood and treasure that went into its creation, and holds inviolate the God given unalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Sounds like Nationalism and the Religious Right more than anything else.

And both have little or no relationship to dictionary terms

So the meaning of words is unimportant when reality gets in the way of your hackery? I referred you to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy-0 I suggest you give it a look.

Well you can continue under the delusion that the dictionary definition defines the ideologies and I am more than willing to debate the individual components of my own personal definitions as posted. And though those definitions are my own opinion, I am prepared to back up and defend every statement. What something 'sounds like' to you is not necessarily an endorsement of accuracy of the definition, however.

For instance, can we begin by agreeing that those on the 'left' in this country are by definition modern American liberals? If not, please explain in what way they are conservative.

And if we can agree that those on the left more often than not describe themselves as liberals or progressives (interchangeable terms in modern vernacular), please explain in what way they have demonstrated that they support smaller, less intrusive government or support those who are intentionally working to reduce the size, power, and influence of the federal government.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Well you can continue under the delusion that the dictionary definition defines the ideologies

1) It's not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia- from Stanford.

2) The definition of an ideology, by definition, defines the ideology

You sound like Clinton trying to spin the definition of the word 'is' in order to avoid admitting that you're wrong.

and I am more than willing to debate the individual components of my own personal definitions as posted.

Your personal definitions don't matter. You don't get to redefine words however you please to suit your own purposes. If everyone did that, communication would be impossible. Words have meanings and you don't get to change them at will to suit your partisan hackery.

And though those definitions are my own opinion,

Your opinion means nothing when you're trying to redefine words to suit your own ends. The words already have established meanings.

For instance, can we begin by agreeing that those on the 'left' in this country are by definition modern American liberals?

No, because that's simply not true. First, you must define 'Left'. Left of whom or what? The Left, as the term is commonly used, generally includes Liberals, Communists/Socialists, Anarchists, and others- not to mention the nitty gritty subcategories that explain rather specific ideological differences between socialist democrats and democratic socialists or between Liberals and the closely related Libertarians and et cetera.

If not, please explain in what way they are conservative.

The opposite of Liberal is not Conservative. The opposite of Liberal is totalitarian. Conservatism is not an ideology. Conservatism is reactionism, nothing more.

If you're incapable of discussing the matter intelligently and you can't break the sad partisan mindset in which you're stuck, then there's no point bothering with you since your willful ignorance prevents you from having a clue.

And if we can agree that those on the left more often than not describe themselves as liberals or progressives

I don't care what words they try to coopt. I don't care if they call themselves Liberals- if they're not Liberals, they're not Liberals. If Hitler had called himself a humanitarian, would he suddenly have been a humanitarian? Would you have called him a humanitarian?

The socialist remains a socialist, Lucifer remains a created being, and the conqueror remains a conqueror.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're right. I don't get to define the terms but neither do you. And I am confident that I am more right in how I define modern American liberalism and conservatism than you are trying to defelect from those definitions.

When you show me encyclopedia definitions for Modern American Conservatism and Modern American Liberalism, then we can talk about your definitions.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Right.. you make shit up and I link to in-depth analysis of what Liberalism is and you declare yourself correct?

When you show me encyclopedia definitions for Modern American Conservatism and Modern American Liberalism

You demand an encyclopedia article on terms you made up?

 

[Foxfyre]

Right.. you make shit up and I link to in-depth analysis of what Liberalism is and you declare yourself correct?

When you show me encyclopedia definitions for Modern American Conservatism and Modern American Liberalism

You demand an encyclopedia article on terms you made up?

I demand that if you're going to use encylopedia articles to defend your opinion, that you use them to defend your opinion about the actual concept and not something that does not apply in any way.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You never read the encyclopedia entry, did you?

 

[Foxfyre]

I glanced at it sufficiently to see that it did not apply to liberalism and conservatism as those terms are understood in America today.

You didn't bother to do any research about liberalism and conservatism as those terms are understood as ideologies in America did you?

 

[JScott]

I glanced at it sufficiently to see that it did not apply to liberalism and conservatism as those terms are understood in America today.

You didn't bother to do any research about liberalism and conservatism as those terms are understood as ideologies in America did you?

You are truly out of your league.

 

[Foxfyre]

I glanced at it sufficiently to see that it did not apply to liberalism and conservatism as those terms are understood in America today.

You didn't bother to do any research about liberalism and conservatism as those terms are understood as ideologies in America did you?

You are truly out of your league.

You wouldn't be the first to think that. But at least I know that my definitions are probably pretty much on target. Which is probably why some of you are working so hard to deflect attention away from them.

 

[JScott]

I glanced at it sufficiently to see that it did not apply to liberalism and conservatism as those terms are understood in America today.

You didn't bother to do any research about liberalism and conservatism as those terms are understood as ideologies in America did you?

You are truly out of your league.

You wouldn't be the first to think that. But at least I know that my definitions are probably pretty much on target. Which is probably why some of you are working so hard to deflect attention away from them.

So everyone is wrong and youre right? No, youre out of your league.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Appeasement? Did Iran and North Korea destroy us?

Also, if Chamberlain never made the deal with Hitler, Hitler would of easily had destroyed Britain at the time since they were not ready for a war and the only one willing to go to war with them was France.

Oppose Hitler when he occupies the Rhineland in 36. Nazi's halted, no WWII, win all around. But they appeased Hitler by letting him militarize Germany.

The OP's mistake is in equating Liberalism with the Democratic party.

Liberal Idea - Human beings have an inherent set of rights.
Liberal Idea - People do not need kings to make policy for them.
Both ideas were once the forefront of liberalism, and both are defensible.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I glanced at it

Try actually reading it.

You didn't bother to do any research about liberalism and conservatism as those terms are understood as ideologies in America did you?

There is no such ideology as 'conservatism'. Every time the con$ try to claim an ideology, they always end up trying to call themselves liberals. Every single time. Without exception. Every last one of you idiots starts babbling about the FF and John Locke and trying to call yourself Liberals. Hence your ideology (or at least the ideology you claim to adhere to) is Liberalism.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are truly out of your league.

You wouldn't be the first to think that. But at least I know that my definitions are probably pretty much on target. Which is probably why some of you are working so hard to deflect attention away from them.

So everyone is wrong and youre right? No, youre out of your league.

NO actually you are wrong and Foxfyre is spot on.
Sorry.