Its Hard to Believe what being a Liberal Once Meant.

[ihopehefails]

Its hard to believe that at one time being a liberal meant you were someone who valued freedom and freedom of the individual and at one time most Americans considered themselves liberal because it meant being someone who believed that the best route to this was a society where government intervened very little. It believed people's rights were on the individual level only where every person could pursue their own interest whether that be economic, religious, or political without being made to be a cog in the societal machine. Its the kind of liberalism that 80% of Americans would go for in a minute if it was espoused by our politicians but unfortunately both parties are progessive to a certain degree and that was not a liberal movement at all. Most progressives believed that individualism of any kind of was bad for society and had to be stomped out so it was not liberal at all but it has stolen the term "liberal" in order to cover up its true intentions.

I like liberalism or at least the classical kind and because of that I get called "conservative". That is fine with me because I believe that that kind of liberalism has to be restored in this country and progresivism has to be wiped off the political map.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Progressive liberalism is the correct path of classic liberalism. Libertarian liberalism is a cul de sac in which corporatists destroy the freedom of individuals. ihef either is ignorant or is malignant. The difference are clear cut and easily distinguished.

 

[KittenKoder]

Modern liberals annoy the shit out of me and make me ashamed to admit I am actually a liberal, but I am a classic liberal, less government and more freedom and all. The problem is that as a country we have become followers and nothing more, putting too much faith and power to the politicians, so now I am independent by choice, I support no politician.

 

[California Girl]

Modern liberals annoy the shit out of me and make me ashamed to admit I am actually a liberal, but I am a classic liberal, less government and more freedom and all. The problem is that as a country we have become followers and nothing more, putting too much faith and power to the politicians, so now I am independent by choice, I support no politician.

Indeed. It's sad that the progressives are afraid of their image so have stolen the liberal label.

Classic liberalism

Progressive liberalism

 

[JakeStarkey]

CG demonstrates that she is ignorant about the subject or is engaged in deception. Excuse me, I need to go make my next million or two.

 

[KittenKoder]

CG demonstrates that she is ignorant about the subject or is engaged in deception. Excuse me, I need to go make my next million or two.

Seriously? This is where you fail, she is quite accurate in her statement actually.

 

[Si modo]

CG demonstrates that she is ignorant about the subject or is engaged in deception. Excuse me, I need to go make my next million or two.

Seriously? This is where you fail, she is quite accurate in her statement actually.

Holy doubletake! You're not taking Jake seriously?

 

[California Girl]

CG demonstrates that she is ignorant about the subject or is engaged in deception. Excuse me, I need to go make my next million or two.

*Please sit down, the lecture is about to start*

Ladies and gentlemen, here we have a classic example of Alinski's 'Rules for Radicals' style of what passes for 'debate'.

In a nutshell, it is to attack the messenger. This classic method is used when there is no real substantive argument or constructive comment to be made in opposition to the message.

However, because these 'rules' have been around for quite some time and have been widely read by Americans who are not left wing radical whackjobs, these methods rarely work. Unfortunately, for the idiot left, they have nothing else to counter legitimate argument with and, therefore, fall back on the 'attack or ridicule' the messenger method.

The best response to this 'attack' is to laugh at them.

*Lecture ends. Please leave quietly*

 

[editec]

The liberalism you guys admire was the liberalism that was sinking the concept of monarchism in favor a a democractic form of GOVERNMENT.

Those liberals didn't think that government was the problem, they thought democratic republicanism would be the solution to the objectivist libertarianism conclusion that inevitably resulted in MONACHISM. (basically objectist libertarianism is the concept that private property might makes social right)

That's why the Floundering Fathers forged a government of the people in the first place!

The conservatives in their day were called MONARCHISTS and they believed that everybody but the KING was a subject. (read basically that everybody was the PROPERTY of the KING)

But consider, much of what you cosnervatives believe today, the floundering Fathers did NOT believe.

FREE TRADE for example, something that every conservative I know thinks the Floudering Fathers believed in?

They didn't believe in that, AT ALL. (neither did Adam Smith, BTW)

In fact, they ran their entire government on the revenues of the tariffs they charged for imported goods.... for nearly 150 years!

I can't help but notice that the history most Americans believe, and history that actually happened tend to be wildly different things.

 

[rightwinger]

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." [JFK September 14, 1960]

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Modern liberals annoy the shit out of me and make me ashamed to admit I am actually a liberal, but I am a classic liberal, less government and more freedom and all. The problem is that as a country we have become followers and nothing more, putting too much faith and power to the politicians, so now I am independent by choice, I support no politician.

Indeed. It's sad that the progressives are afraid of their image so have stolen the liberal label.

Classic liberalism

Progressive liberalism

Bingo.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Excuse me, I need to go make my next million or two.

You are of course referring to braincells and suicide ?

 

[California Girl]

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." [JFK September 14, 1960]

Unfortunately, that is not what 'liberals' of today are.

JFK has probably been spinning in his grave over the past few months. Kennedy was a great, great man. Obama and his cronies are not fit to walk in his shadow.

 

[rightwinger]

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." [JFK September 14, 1960]

Unfortunately, that is not what 'liberals' of today are.

JFK has probably been spinning in his grave over the past few months. Kennedy was a great, great man. Obama and his cronies are not fit to walk in his shadow.

JFK would be very proud of Obama

His brother sure was

 

[xsited1]

Progressive liberalism is the correct path of classic liberalism. Libetarian liberalism is a cul de sac in which corporatists destroy the freedom of individuals. ihef either is ignorant or is malignant. The difference are clear cut and easily distinguished.

You have some of the best troll posts!

 

[concept]

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." [JFK September 14, 1960]

Unfortunately, that is not what 'liberals' of today are.

JFK has probably been spinning in his grave over the past few months. Kennedy was a great, great man. Obama and his cronies are not fit to walk in his shadow.

JFK would be very proud of Obama

His brother sure was

What a crock.

JFK is not his brother. He would be ashamed of the current liberal democrat party.


And apparently, so are you dumbasses. I mean, you are so ashamed to be labeled a liberal that you have tried to get a name change to 'progressives'.


JFK would be a republican today, he would be hated by you dopey libs.

 

[California Girl]

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." [JFK September 14, 1960]

Unfortunately, that is not what 'liberals' of today are.

JFK has probably been spinning in his grave over the past few months. Kennedy was a great, great man. Obama and his cronies are not fit to walk in his shadow.

JFK would be very proud of Obama

His brother sure was

The Kennedy family are the epitome of the phrase 'the good die young'. Teddy was a mere cardboard cutout of the men who really owned that name. He may have been of the same bloodline, but there the comparison ends.

And, might I say, to have to resort to using JFK to support Obama is, in my opinion, the sign of a lost argument.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Today's Liberals are no longer true Liberals. They are now Socialists. There is a big difference between the two. For example,most of today's Democrats consistently cheerlead for Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. This despite the fact he's currently shutting down all opposition Media. No real Liberal would ever support such brutal suppression of Free Speech. Hugo Chavez is a National Socialist just like Adolf Hitler was yet most current Democrats continue to kneel to lick his boots. I think more & more people are beginning to realize that today's Liberals who also call themselves Democrats,are no longer true Liberals. It's no different than calling today's NeoCons "Conservatives." It's time to reassess these old labels. True Liberals probably have more in common with true Conservatives than with the Socialists. Hmm?

 

[rightwinger]

Unfortunately, that is not what 'liberals' of today are.

JFK has probably been spinning in his grave over the past few months. Kennedy was a great, great man. Obama and his cronies are not fit to walk in his shadow.

JFK would be very proud of Obama

His brother sure was

The Kennedy family are the epitome of the phrase 'the good die young'. Teddy was a mere cardboard cutout of the men who really owned that name. He may have been of the same bloodline, but there the comparison ends.

And, might I say, to have to resort to using JFK to support Obama is, in my opinion, the sign of a lost argument.

Hmmm....lets see

"someone who cares about the welfare of people-their health" like caring that people have healthcare?
"their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties " sounds like Obama "Indoctrinating" again
"someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad" you mean like a Nobel Prize winner? someone who has reached out to one quarter of the worlds population...someone like that?

JFK would be proud of Obama. Just like his own daughter and brother were

 

[California Girl]

JFK would be very proud of Obama

His brother sure was

The Kennedy family are the epitome of the phrase 'the good die young'. Teddy was a mere cardboard cutout of the men who really owned that name. He may have been of the same bloodline, but there the comparison ends.

And, might I say, to have to resort to using JFK to support Obama is, in my opinion, the sign of a lost argument.

Hmmm....lets see

"someone who cares about the welfare of people-their health" like caring that people have healthcare?
"their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties " sounds like Obama "Indoctrinating" again
"someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad" you mean like a Nobel Prize winner? someone who has reached out to one quarter of the worlds population...someone like that?

JFK would be proud of Obama. Just like his own daughter and brother were

LOL.... Nobel Prize winner. Yea, ok.

Fact is none of us can speak for what JFK would or would not think.

Would he approve of the socialist agenda that has become the DNC. I think not. You think he would. Neither of us will change our minds on it so it's not worth debating it.