For The Chronically Confused -

[Billy_Kinetta]

Democrats, pay special attention. You seem confused.

8DX

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Progressivism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Socialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Communism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yeah, I know. Wiki. But I don't have all day for this.

 

[Pogo]

Everybody has access to Wiki. What's your point?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Everybody has access to Wiki. What's your point?

I've always been fascinated by modern-day Democrats' requisition of the term "liberal" to describe themselves, and claiming the Founding Fathers were "liberal" in order to present a connection with them and the current politically ill-named liberalism. That the opposition went along with it and adopted the term is equally fascinating.

Indeed, the Founding Fathers were liberal - in the classic definition. Modern-day "liberalism" is about as close to that classic definition as Voyager 1 is to Altoona, Pennsylvania, and is more akin to the various degrees of socialistic and totalitarian thought that fucked up a large part of the 20th Century and is threatening a repeat performance, this time where one would have least expected it.

Hence the assorted references.

 

[Pogo]

Everybody has access to Wiki. What's your point?

I've always been fascinated by modern-day Democrats' requisition of the term "liberal" to describe themselves, and claiming the Founding Fathers were "liberal" in order to present a connection with them and the current politically ill-named liberalism. That the opposition went along with it and adopted the term is equally fascinating.

Indeed, the Founding Fathers were liberal - in the classic definition. Modern-day "liberalism" is about as close to that classic definition as Voyager 1 is to Altoona, Pennsylvania, and is more akin to the various degrees of socialistic and totalitarian thought that fucked up a large part of the 20th Century and is threatening a repeat performance, this time where one would have least expected it.

Hence the assorted references.

Ummm --- that isn't who's been misusing the term. Go look up "Red Scare". Go look up "Joe McCarthy". THAT is where the conflation of "Liberal" as being some kind of synonym for either "left" or "Democrat" goes back to. Those demagogues trafficked in bullshit and deserve nothing from us in the way of attention. "Liberal" has nothing to do with "totalitarian thought". It really has nothing to do with "left" either. A Liberal may be a Democrat, a Republican, some other party, or like me no party at all.

My simple example: A Liberal says "all men are created equal". A leftist tries to make it happen through "Affirmative Action". They are not the same thing.

Much more here, for your edification.

Next time try to put a cogent thought together if you're gonna make a thread. Have a point in mind.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Democrats, pay special attention. You seem confused.

8DX

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Progressivism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Socialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Communism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yeah, I know. Wiki. But I don't have all day for this.

I found your spirit animal junior:

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Everybody has access to Wiki. What's your point?

I've always been fascinated by modern-day Democrats' requisition of the term "liberal" to describe themselves, and claiming the Founding Fathers were "liberal" in order to present a connection with them and the current politically ill-named liberalism. That the opposition went along with it and adopted the term is equally fascinating.

Indeed, the Founding Fathers were liberal - in the classic definition. Modern-day "liberalism" is about as close to that classic definition as Voyager 1 is to Altoona, Pennsylvania, and is more akin to the various degrees of socialistic and totalitarian thought that fucked up a large part of the 20th Century and is threatening a repeat performance, this time where one would have least expected it.

Hence the assorted references.

> Ummm --- that isn't who's been misusing the term.

I never said misused. There is a modern re-definition. The classic definition does not apply to modern-day Democrats. The Democrats like to obfuscate that.

> Go look up "Red Scare". Go look up "Joe McCarthy".

The "Red Scare was diminished by those whom it attacked, and despite McCarthy's excesses, he was correct in the main. One need only follow the path of the Democratic Party and the political and social changes wrought by it since that time to confirm it.

> THAT is where the conflation of "Liberal" as being some kind of synonym for either "left" or "Democrat" goes back to.

As I said, the 20th Century.

> Those demagogues trafficked in bullshit and deserve nothing from us in the way of attention.

That rather depends upon which side of the coin forms one's POV.

> "Liberal" has nothing to do with "totalitarian thought". It really has nothing to do with "left" either.

Indeed, the classic definition does not. My point precisely.

Also interesting is that one can see the Democrats, who have increasing trouble mixing the definitions, throwing out the term "Progressive" more often as they begin to slide away from the modern "liberal" tag.

> A Liberal may be a Democrat, a Republican, some other party, or like me no party at all.

True of both definitions. I myself have no party, and am liberal in the classic sense. However, NO ONE would in this time call me a liberal.

> My simple example: A Liberal says "all men are created equal". A leftist tries to make it happen through "Affirmative Action". They are not the same thing.

No, they are not under the classic definition. Under the current definition, the most used and the most accepted, they most assuredly are.

> Next time try to put a cogent thought together if you're gonna make a thread. Have a point in mind.

That you are unclear the classical and modern definitions differ in both meaning and use is not my fault.

 

[Pogo]

Everybody has access to Wiki. What's your point?

I've always been fascinated by modern-day Democrats' requisition of the term "liberal" to describe themselves, and claiming the Founding Fathers were "liberal" in order to present a connection with them and the current politically ill-named liberalism. That the opposition went along with it and adopted the term is equally fascinating.

Indeed, the Founding Fathers were liberal - in the classic definition. Modern-day "liberalism" is about as close to that classic definition as Voyager 1 is to Altoona, Pennsylvania, and is more akin to the various degrees of socialistic and totalitarian thought that fucked up a large part of the 20th Century and is threatening a repeat performance, this time where one would have least expected it.

Hence the assorted references.

> Ummm --- that isn't who's been misusing the term.

I never said misused. There is a modern re-definition. The classic definition does not apply to modern-day Democrats. The Democrats like to obfuscate that.

> Go look up "Red Scare". Go look up "Joe McCarthy".

The "Red Scare was diminished by those whom it attacked, and despite McCarthy's excesses, he was correct in the main. One need only follow the path of the Democratic Party and the political and social changes wrought by it since that time to confirm it.

> THAT is where the conflation of "Liberal" as being some kind of synonym for either "left" or "Democrat" goes back to.

As I said, the 20th Century.

> Those demagogues trafficked in bullshit and deserve nothing from us in the way of attention.

That rather depends upon which side of the coin forms one's POV.

> "Liberal" has nothing to do with "totalitarian thought". It really has nothing to do with "left" either.

Indeed, the classic definition does not. My point precisely.

Also interesting is that one can see the Democrats, who have increasing trouble mixing the definitions, throwing out the term "Progressive" more often as they begin to slide away from the modern "liberal" tag.

> A Liberal may be a Democrat, a Republican, some other party, or like me no party at all.

True of both definitions. I myself have no party, and am liberal in the classic sense. However, NO ONE would in this time call me a liberal.

> My simple example: A Liberal says "all men are created equal". A leftist tries to make it happen through "Affirmative Action". They are not the same thing.

No, they are not under the classic definition. Under the current definition, the most used and the most accepted, they most assuredly are.

> Next time try to put a cogent thought together if you're gonna make a thread. Have a point in mind.

That you are unclear the classical and modern definitions differ in both meaning and use is not my fault.

I'm not "unclear" on jack shit. You however don't even have a reply showing here.

Figure out how the site works first and make a proper response, then we'll get chew a edumacation on whatever your point might be. I'm not wading through that morass.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I'm not "unclear" on jack shit. You however don't even have a reply showing here.

Figure out how the site works first and make a proper response, then we'll get chew a edumacation on whatever your point might be. I'm not wading through that morass.

While I may not have yet figured out the niceties of editing here, there certainly is a reply showing, which you had to have "clicked to expand" in order to have responded to the statement regarding your clarity, or lack thereof.

 

[Pogo]

I'm not "unclear" on jack shit. You however don't even have a reply showing here.

Figure out how the site works first and make a proper response, then we'll get chew a edumacation on whatever your point might be. I'm not wading through that morass.

While I may not have yet figured out the niceties of editing here, there certainly is a reply showing, which you had to have "clicked to expand" in order to have responded to the statement regarding your clarity, or lack thereof.

I just told you, I have no lack of clarity. I am compelled to reiterate what I said upon entry here ---f you have a point, post it. We're not mindreaders.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I just told you, I have no lack of clarity. I am compelled to reiterate what I said upon entry here ---f you have a point, post it. We're not mindreaders.

The point could not be more clear. What part don't you understand?

And who is this "we" of whom you speak?

 

[Pogo]

I just told you, I have no lack of clarity. I am compelled to reiterate what I said upon entry here ---f you have a point, post it. We're not mindreaders.

The point could not be more clear. What part don't you understand?

And who is this "we" of whom you speak?

Hmm. Good point. Nobody but me even bothered to crack this nut.

I left you a link (yesterday). Try actually reading it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I just told you, I have no lack of clarity. I am compelled to reiterate what I said upon entry here ---f you have a point, post it. We're not mindreaders.

The point could not be more clear. What part don't you understand?

And who is this "we" of whom you speak?

Hmm. Good point. Nobody but me even bothered to crack this nut.

I left you a link (yesterday). Try actually reading it.

Oh, I skimmed through it. An interesting POV, but hardly definitive. The real nonsense started here -

"Liberalism views government like a referee, whose job is to maintain a level and equal playing field for individuals, ideas, businesses and institutions. Government is not to take sides or support any given view or organization."

Now, given the obvious behavior of the American Left - we'll call them Democrats for reality's sake - to force various views or organizations which agree with their peculiar political and social bents into the front of the line in terms of influence as forwarded by their pocketed media allies clearly indicates that they do not fall into the classic definition of liberal, even that somewhat awry version noted above.

It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words, eh? The constant redefining, and accompanying ham-handed attempts to remain somehow connected with the original meaning in order to confuse.

“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten."

 

[Pogo]

I just told you, I have no lack of clarity. I am compelled to reiterate what I said upon entry here ---f you have a point, post it. We're not mindreaders.

The point could not be more clear. What part don't you understand?

And who is this "we" of whom you speak?

Hmm. Good point. Nobody but me even bothered to crack this nut.

I left you a link (yesterday). Try actually reading it.

Oh, I skimmed through it. An interesting POV, but hardly definitive. The real nonsense started here -

"Liberalism views government like a referee, whose job is to maintain a level and equal playing field for individuals, ideas, businesses and institutions. Government is not to take sides or support any given view or organization."

Now, given the obvious behavior of the American Left - we'll call them Democrats for reality's sake - to force various views or organizations which agree with their peculiar political and social bents into the front of the line in terms of influence as forwarded by their pocketed media allies clearly indicates that they do not fall into the classic definition of liberal, even that somewhat awry version noted above.

Correct, they don't. Which is why you should stop conflating them. Which is my point. Perhaps you should have done more than "skim". As you should have lifted a finger to articulate your point in the OP in the first place.

It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words, eh? The constant redefining, and accompanying ham-handed attempts to remain somehow connected with the original meaning in order to confuse.

Um... when you're using a term to mean the opposite of what it means, you are the confused entity.
Do you just genuflect and accept whatever some 1950s partisan demagogues dictate? I sure as hell don't. Try thinking for yourself.

“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten."

-- is that what you're going for here? Wiping out concepts by perverting definitions?

Because that's what the Red Scare hacks were going for. Eliminationism is not exactly a worthy model to follow.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Now, given the obvious behavior of the American Left - we'll call them Democrats for reality's sake - to force various views or organizations which agree with their peculiar political and social bents into the front of the line in terms of influence as forwarded by their pocketed media allies clearly indicates that they do not fall into the classic definition of liberal, even that somewhat awry version noted above.

Correct, they don't.

Thank you. We're making real progress here.

Which is why you should stop conflating them.

Of course I am not.

Perhaps you should have done more than "skim".

I don't know why. He made my point early.

It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words, eh? The constant redefining, and accompanying ham-handed attempts to remain somehow connected with the original meaning in order to confuse.

Um... when you're using a term to mean the opposite of what it means, you are the confused entity.

But I am not using a term to mean it's opposite, so it would seem that you are the confused one here.

“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten."

-- is that what you're going for here? Wiping out concepts by perverting definitions?

Of course not. Just pointing out that it is clearly what the Left is doing. You DO recognize quotes from Nineteen-Eighty Four, yes? They are most apropos here.

Here's a link for you. It certainly leans no more than the link you left me.

Liberal redefinition - Conservapedia

 

[Pogo]

Now, given the obvious behavior of the American Left - we'll call them Democrats for reality's sake - to force various views or organizations which agree with their peculiar political and social bents into the front of the line in terms of influence as forwarded by their pocketed media allies clearly indicates that they do not fall into the classic definition of liberal, even that somewhat awry version noted above.

Correct, they don't.

Thank you. We're making real progress here.

Which is why you should stop conflating them.

Of course I am not.

Perhaps you should have done more than "skim".

I don't know why. He made my point early.

It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words, eh? The constant redefining, and accompanying ham-handed attempts to remain somehow connected with the original meaning in order to confuse.

Um... when you're using a term to mean the opposite of what it means, you are the confused entity.

But I am not using a term to mean it's opposite, so it would seem that you are the confused one here.

“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten."

-- is that what you're going for here? Wiping out concepts by perverting definitions?

Of course not. Just pointing out that it is clearly what the Left is doing. You DO recognize quotes from Nineteen-Eighty Four, yes? They are most apropos here.

Here's a link for you. It certainly leans no more than the link you left me.

Liberal redefinition - Conservapedia

Thank you. That didn't take long. From the site's link to the definition:

"A liberal supports an increase in government spending, power, and control, as in ObamaCare. By contrast, a conservative favors limited government, individual freedom, personal responsibility, and moral values.
​

--- which is Bullshit, Bullshit , Bullshit. But I do appreciate when an entity that's about to shoot itself in the foot does so in its opening line, wasting no time. At least there's that.

(just have a look at the "talk page" tab of that page --- it articulates profusely what I'm talking about with myriad complaints about the fatal definitional flaws. It also notes the page is locked and the Bullshit can't be edited --- which makes it no more than a disingenuous blog)

You want a 1984 term, try Doublethink. It's exactly what that bizarre statement is doing. Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" oxymoron is another one, made into an entire book for the Gullible's Travels crowd.

Here's where this kind of deliberate idiocy leads --- I've had a poster on this forum, with a straight face, try to tell me that the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" is the size of government. I am not making that up, I could prolly find a link to it. Like anything over a size 7 government would be "liberal".

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Thank you. That didn't take long. From the site's link to the definition:

"A liberal supports an increase in government spending, power, and control, as in ObamaCare."
​

--- which is Bullshit, Bullshit , Bullshit.

How interesting. The link was presented tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps you can explain your rationale as to how the modern liberal does NOT support expansion of government in light of the last six years?

Be sure to have another look at the definition of classical liberalism, which is the basis of my point here.

 

[Pogo]

Thank you. That didn't take long. From the site's link to the definition:

"A liberal supports an increase in government spending, power, and control, as in ObamaCare."
​

--- which is Bullshit, Bullshit , Bullshit.

How interesting. The link was presented tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps you can explain your rationale as to how the modern liberal does NOT support expansion of government in light of the last six years?

Be sure to have another look at the definition of classical liberalism, which is the basis of my point here.

If I could make coherent sense out of this post I'd answer it. If it's even a question.

There's no such thing as "classical" Liberalism. Liberalism simply is. That "classical" appendage was made up by dishonest hacks who caught themselves in a contradiction of trying to define a term as its own opposite, then find themselves forced to explain it away with "uh, well that's 'classical'". Bull Shit.

If you're saying above that Conservapedia is a satire site, thanks I did not know that.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If I could make coherent sense out of this post I'd answer it. If it's even a question.

I'll assume you mean this, from my response:

"How interesting. The link was presented tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps you can explain your rationale as to how the modern liberal does NOT support expansion of government in light of the last six years?"

Now, you can't understand that sentence? How odd. I'm sure your community offers remedial English classes. You should avail yourself of them.

There's no such thing as "classical" Liberalism. Liberalism simply is. That "classical" appendage was made up by dishonest hacks who caught themselves in a contradiction of trying to define a term as its own opposite, then find themselves forced to explain it away with "uh, well that's 'classical'". Bull Shit.

I see. What an interesting viewpoint.

Liberalism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

If you're saying above that Conservapedia is a satire site, thanks I did not know that.

Of course, I did not say that. I said the site was no more bent than the link you provided me.

 

[Pogo]

If I could make coherent sense out of this post I'd answer it. If it's even a question.

I'll assume you mean this, from my response:

"How interesting. The link was presented tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps you can explain your rationale as to how the modern liberal does NOT support expansion of government in light of the last six years?"

Now, you can't understand that sentence? How odd. I'm sure your community offers remedial English classes. You should avail yourself of them.

No need -- I'd be the one teaching that class.

I can't make sense of it because you've got a paradox there. Liberalism has nothing to do with "expansion of government". Liberalism is minimal government. The question doesn't make any sense. If that ain't simple enough -- I can't help ya. Even with my superior English teaching skills.

There's no such thing as "classical" Liberalism. Liberalism simply is. That "classical" appendage was made up by dishonest hacks who caught themselves in a contradiction of trying to define a term as its own opposite, then find themselves forced to explain it away with "uh, well that's 'classical'". Bull Shit.

I see. What an interesting viewpoint.

Liberalism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

If you're saying above that Conservapedia is a satire site, thanks I did not know that.

Of course, I did not say that. I said the site was no more bent than the link you provided me.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No need -- I'd be the one teaching that class.

Hence the need for the raise to $15.00 per hour at McDonalds.

I can't make sense of it because you've got a paradox there. Liberalism has nothing to do with "expansion of government". Liberalism is minimal government. The question doesn't make any sense. If that ain't simple enough -- I can't help ya. Even with my superior English teaching skills.

Well, Stanford University ain't exactly chopped liver and they, being quite liberal, say otherwise, along with others of high scholarship.

"The greatest braggarts are generally the merest cowards."
- Jean Jacques Rousseau