Liberals and reality

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Freedom Lover
Let us quit calling these people liberals and refer to them exactly what they are. They are socialists pure and simple.

read a dictionary lately?

lib·er·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr--lzm, lbr-)
n.
The state or quality of being liberal.

A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
Liberalism
A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

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.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal 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.

Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

n.
A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

so·cial·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lst)
n.
An advocate of socialism.
often Socialist A member of a political party or group that advocates socialism.

adj.
Of, promoting, or practicing socialism.
Socialist Of, belonging to, or constituting a socialist party or political group.

Now that you have the proper definitions you can stop being a
propagandist

\Prop`a*gan"dist\, n. [Cf. F. propagandiste.] A person who devotes himself to the spread of any system of principles.

prop·a·gan·da ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prp-gnd)
n.
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.

and quit spreading crap all over the place

 

[rtwngAvngr]

DK. You know what liberals are. Quit acting a fool. Liberals are socialists who lie about who they are. Is that good for you?

 

[DKSuddeth]

is that anything like 'compassionate conservatives' are 'fascist neo-cons' who lie about who they are??

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
is that anything like 'compassionate conservatives' are 'fascist neo-cons' who lie about who they are??

but as you know fascism is nothing like the free market capitalism we espouse. So that part is just wrong. I accept I am for the most part a neocon. I don't try to take any descriptive term for my general beliefs off the table so that I cannot be referred to for criticism. Nice try though.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I was being facetious anyway :

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I was being facetious anyway :

Damn you, DK! Slippery as an eel.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
DK. You know what liberals are. Quit acting a fool. Liberals are socialists who lie about who they are. Is that good for you?

but as you know fascism is nothing like the free market capitalism we espouse. So that part is just wrong. I accept I am for the most part a neocon. I don't try to take any descriptive term for my general beliefs off the table so that I cannot be referred to for criticism. Nice try though.

Question:
Do you see the political spectrum in terms of black and white, Communists and Neo-Conservatives?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Question:
Do you see the political spectrum in terms of black and white, Communists and Neo-Conservatives?

I see the political spectrum in terms of fuscia and teal, fag.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I see the political spectrum in terms of fuscia and teal, fag.

C'mon, let's lay off the attacks. Isaac is a good guy and has always been respectful of other members.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by jimnyc
C'mon, let's lay off the attacks. Isaac is a good guy and has always been respectful of other members.

Ok. I see the political spectrum in terms of fuscia and teal, good Isaac.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Ok. I see the political spectrum in terms of fuscia and teal, good Isaac.

Much better

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Ok. I see the political spectrum in terms of fuscia and teal, good Isaac.

I've always wondered what political philosophies fuchsia and teal entail? I figuess you attended the Elton John School of Political Science!

In all seriousness, i'm trying to understand your train of thinking. From your posts boardwide, I interept that you tend to take a very polaristic view of things. I'm just asking you to confirm and define the two poles.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I've always wondered what political philosophies fuchsia and teal entail? I figuess you attended the Elton John School of Political Science!

In all seriousness, i'm trying to understand your train of thinking. From your posts boardwide, I interept that you tend to take a very polaristic view of things. I'm just asking you to confirm and define the two poles.

Whatever. I'm not going to help you paint me into a corner. WHat about you isaac? You haven't responded to any of my posts lately. What don't you lay some of your enlightenment on us? People have claimed your not a lib, from all i've seen, you basically are, though you run from the label, hence, I suppose, your piqued interest when I said liberals were socialists who aren't honest about what they believe, and try to masquerade their beliefs as some kind of enlightened mindset, though actually it's merely a widely discredited dangerous mindset based on envy and satisfaction of envy through violence.

 

[kcmcdonald]

DK and RWA,
a little late but i'ld like to throw some feul on the fire of political affliations. i was reading a book by Dinesh D'Souza. "Letters to a young concervative."
He defines the two terms we use most on this board "Liberal" and "conservative" in two very different deffinitions.
First in american politics when discussing Liberal and Conservative you can't liken these terms to there 18th century European deffintions. In terms of american politics we are all liberal, in the sence of the deffintion. However, when you think of a liberal in america they are a realitivity new form of political ideology. As are conservatives because as our name entails we are a reaction to teh liberals. The liberals in this country have adopted a social doctrine of politics. In the form of the same European style of socalism. Now it is not to say that the "liberal" is nesasarilly a socalist. He does however believe that the Govt should take an active role in the "welfare of the body politic." This type of policy has been around since the 1930's when it was orginally introduced by FDR "the New Deal Policies" of Govt taking an active role in the "welfare of the body politic." Conservatism as we now it today arived out of this era, when reactionaries to FDR's policy arouse. Today the modern conservative is a political believe that the idivudaul is responsible for them selves. That the govt should only get invovled in areas of defence and economy. That most "Welfare Programs" should be alloted to the individual and that the government's role should be very little. Now I know that most conservatives don't follow this ideology to a T but with the nature of the american system no politicain would advocate such policies.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Whatever. I'm not going to help you paint me into a corner. WHat about you isaac? You haven't responded to any of my posts lately. What don't you lay some of your enlightenment on us? People have claimed your not a lib, from all i've seen, you basically are, though you run from the label, hence, I suppose, your piqued interest when I said liberals were socialists who aren't honest about what they believe, and try to masquerade their beliefs as some kind of enlightened mindset, though actually it's merely a widely discredited dangerous mindset based on envy and satisfaction of envy through violence.

I'm not painting you into any corner. I just asked a simple question, to which you replied with another question. If I neglected one of your questions, I'm quite sorry and I'd be happy to answer it.

Your statement piqued my interests because I've always be confounded by people who believe, and do correct me if i am misinterpretting you, that politcal ideas are either entirely right or entirely wrong despite clear historical and current evidence that dictate otherwise (Think the different systems of Switzerland, Canada, USA, Sweden which have a wide variety of "socialist" policies). I'm not trying to convert you, I'm trying to understand you.

You obviously paint me as a liberal. If you choose to label anything that isn't your specific brand of conservatism, liberalism, than I suppose I am indeed a liberal. Though, I have as much in common with a lefty-flower child-activist as I do with you.

Dangerous mindset? Envy? Satisfaction of Envy through violence? How? I hardly believe liberal democracies with social welfare such as Canada, Sweden, Norway, Singapore can fit your description. They may not be efficient systems and perhaps offer to much handouts for my liking, but they're hardly dangerous.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Question:
Do you see the political spectrum in terms of black and white, Communists and Neo-Conservatives?

Dont know anyone else. I see two sides. the side of Freedom, and the Side that encompasses all opposings views, IE Neocommunist liberals, Fascists, Tyrants, dictators, Terrorists etc.

I dont buy the liberal conservative specrtum.

 

[kcmcdonald]

hey that sounds good to me.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Dont know anyone else. I see two sides. the side of Freedom, and the Side that encompasses all opposings views, IE Neocommunist liberals, Fascists, Tyrants, dictators, Terrorists etc.

I dont buy the liberal conservative specrtum.

But can liberalism not be synonomous with freedom? The original tenets of Democracy were defined as Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. While liberty and equality I believe are self-explanatory, fraternity loosely translated referers to the natural bonds of brotherhood existing between man. Liberty and Equality I believe are done reasonably well in conservative democracies such as the USA, but not so with Fraternity.

Communism on the other hand, in theory, embraces fraternity and equality though at the extreme expense of Liberty. Fascism, view simplistically embraces Freedom and Fraternity at the expense of equality.

Liberal thought of Fraternity often suggests that fraternity suggests that there be a basic cooperation and support that exist between men and hence the roots of your basic welfare system. Of course how successful a given system is on acheiving that goal is open for debate. However the liberal democracy is one that tries to embrace the three tennets of democracy.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I'm not painting you into any corner. I just asked a simple question, to which you replied with another question. If I neglected one of your questions, I'm quite sorry and I'd be happy to answer it.

Your statement piqued my interests because I've always be confounded by people who believe, and do correct me if i am misinterpretting you, that politcal ideas are either entirely right or entirely wrong despite clear historical and current evidence that dictate otherwise (Think the different systems of Switzerland, Canada, USA, Sweden which have a wide variety of "socialist" policies). I'm not trying to convert you, I'm trying to understand you.

You obviously paint me as a liberal. If you choose to label anything that isn't your specific brand of conservatism, liberalism, than I suppose I am indeed a liberal. Though, I have as much in common with a lefty-flower child-activist as I do with you.

Dangerous mindset? Envy? Satisfaction of Envy through violence? How? I hardly believe liberal democracies with social welfare such as Canada, Sweden, Norway, Singapore can fit your description. They may not be efficient systems and perhaps offer to much handouts for my liking, but they're hardly dangerous.

Simmer down, Mr. Snooty McBetterthanyou.

Accusing conservatives of black and white thinking is the oldest ruse around. It's not black and white thinking. It's not simplemindedness. It's being willing to make decisions and take actions, instead of succumbing to the inevitable entropological phenomenon whereby inaction and the avoidance of associated risk is institutionally rewarded.

Did you read kcm's description of basic modern american political differences? It's about what I think.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Simmer down, Mr. Snooty McBetterthanyou.

Accusing conservatives of black and white thinking is the oldest ruse around. It's not black and what thinking. It's not simplemindedness.

I'm not accusing conservatives of anything, nor am I trying to committ a ruse, I'm simply asking questions for which I would like to know answers, nothing more, nothing less.

I've met many conservatives that do not share your point of view and ironically, I've many liberals who also share your point of view on the political spectrum or coin, in your case.

Is kcm's description of basic modern american political differences the one in his post on this thread or elsewhere?

It's being willing to make decisions and take actions, instead of succumbing to the inevitable entropological phenomenon whereby inaction and the avoidance of associated risk is institutionally rewarded.

Your definition of conservatism, while quite rightly defining the forces driving the free market, does not necessarily equate the human factor. While pure free market societies without regulation indeed provides a motive to acheive success though risk, it does not provide support for individuals who fail in their pursuit. Pure free market societies also cater to posterity which create economic problems where eventually the majority of individuals fall into poverty as seen in the early days of capitalism.

Such is what happened in England in the 19th century before social reforms. Social reforms open the gates of the capital trickle down, eventually allowing for the vast improvement of quality of life for the average englishment. Is it economically "fair", not strictly speaking, but was it socially "fair", perhaps. Now some liberals take that idea too far and want there not only be a net for the poor, but TV's, DVD's and pool tables. I, however, do not share that opinion and believe a welfare net must present, but earned.