What are Liberals trying to Liberalize?

[zeke]

The neoliberal wants the government to fix all the problems in society by introducing totalitarian legislation that forwards the agenda of A) freeing the chains of economic/fiscal constraint and B) to force others to comply with their version of "liberty". Which is not liberty at all. It is the exact opposite.

OK, where do people come up with this bull shit? You need to learn to say "plutocracy".
That is the form of goverment we live under. For the rich, by the rich. Look it up.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

People like you are going to make November so much more enjoyable. Do you have early voting in your state? Wanna come down to Florida for a few days of fishing and camaraderie during election week? I'll buy you a beer when the race is called.

Like last November?

That was fun....

Yeah....it truly is amazing....what all those rookies have accomplished....sittin'-around, cheering the cage-match (between John Boner & "Sweet" Eric Cantor) for The Speaker's seat.

*

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I know what a plutocracy is. That isn't quite where we are at in todays political/economic climate.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What are Liberals trying to Liberalize?

The tiny, closed in minds in indoctrinated extremist Republicans. Obviously. I thought everyone knew.

Uh huh. And you want to do this by force and increase laws and regulation to meet this objective? How does that meet the definition of "liberal?" Don't you think if your ideas were any good they could stand on their own and influence people by virtue of your ideas being logical and plausible? Since they apparently aren't you are willing to force your ideas onto people through laws and punishments? Doesn't that show that you succumb to defeat and that your ideology is a flop? How does forcing others to believe what you believe meet the definition of "liberal?"

wow.....you folks haven't recovered, much....since 2008....at ALL!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxDgRr_Ynvc&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLA11972639E54C010]Right America Feeling Wronged pt1 - YouTube[/ame]

.

.

.

.

.

 

[Liberty]

Would any "liberal" answer any of the questions I have proposed? Or do you only have ad hominems, red herrings, and appeal to emotion (which by the way when you use, you basically are forfeiting the debate)?

I challenge any liberal to write something coherent and understandable on the relation of the definition of the term "liberal" and the practice of the modern liberal in the United States today in defense of the idea that they are one and the same. Defend your ideology. Defend your liberalism.

 

[bobcollum]

Would any "liberal" answer any of the questions I have proposed? Or do you only have ad hominems, red herrings, and appeal to emotion (which by the way when you use, you basically are forfeiting the debate)?

I challenge any liberal to write something coherent and understandable on the relation of the definition of the term "liberal" and the practice of the modern liberal in the United States today in defense of the idea that they are one and the same. Defend your ideology.

A debate on what the term liberal means and how it's applied to modern day politics?

Why? It's mostly subjective anyway.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

liberal: (adj) : marked by generosity : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.

Exactly. The liberals of today are going on a feeling. They neglect economics in reality in favor of one dreamed up and that is unchained from reality.

oooooooooooooooooooooooo....."unchained from reality".....how poetic!!

Yeah.....here's your Reality.....

*

*

*

*

 

[Liberty]

Shaman, would you please stop posting off topic nonsense in my thread? Seriously.

 

[Liberty]

Would any "liberal" answer any of the questions I have proposed? Or do you only have ad hominems, red herrings, and appeal to emotion (which by the way when you use, you basically are forfeiting the debate)?

I challenge any liberal to write something coherent and understandable on the relation of the definition of the term "liberal" and the practice of the modern liberal in the United States today in defense of the idea that they are one and the same. Defend your ideology.

A debate on what the term liberal means and how it's applied to modern day politics?

Why? It's mostly subjective anyway.

Well, if you asked a libertarian, objectivist, anarcho-capitalist, etc. to explain how they practice the definition of the term, I am sure they could. Why can't a liberal do the same? For example, in the definition it says economic freedom. How has the modern liberal ideology imposed or proposed ideas that promote economic freedom?

 

[Full-Auto]

Yeah, it's easy to point the finger...but can you tell me what Conservatives are trying to conserve, and how you expect improvement out of the front-running neo-con corporate cronies?

Bet you can't...

Just curious, you seem to give off the illusion that you're all knowing.

The Tea party comes instantly to mind.

But I suppose you will want to sidetrack that with some of the things individual chapters have come out for.

 

[Polk]

Would any "liberal" answer any of the questions I have proposed? Or do you only have ad hominems, red herrings, and appeal to emotion (which by the way when you use, you basically are forfeiting the debate)?

I challenge any liberal to write something coherent and understandable on the relation of the definition of the term "liberal" and the practice of the modern liberal in the United States today in defense of the idea that they are one and the same. Defend your ideology. Defend your liberalism.

Your question started from a false premise. Namely, that laws and regulations are harmful to liberty.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

See? Like I said, backwards, upside down and inside out.

Liberty
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
5. permission granted to a sailor, especially in the navy, to go ashore.


Law
a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : common law b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : litigation (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe


The laws put forth under the constitution were designed to keep the powwer of government in check, protect the individual rights of the citizens and promote liberty.
It could be argued that arbitrary laws that do not protect the liberties of the citizens, are well, harmful to liberty. Like mandated health insurance for example. With that said, can you answer the question or is this just a way to deflect?

 

[Liberty]

Would any "liberal" answer any of the questions I have proposed? Or do you only have ad hominems, red herrings, and appeal to emotion (which by the way when you use, you basically are forfeiting the debate)?

I challenge any liberal to write something coherent and understandable on the relation of the definition of the term "liberal" and the practice of the modern liberal in the United States today in defense of the idea that they are one and the same. Defend your ideology. Defend your liberalism.

Your question started from a false premise. Namely, that laws and regulations are harmful to liberty.

Actually, the premise is accurate. Every single law is a limitation on liberty. Some are obviously more just than others, but the definition of "liberal" does not include that in which the modern liberal seeks. If I am wrong...prove it.

 

[Polk]

Would any "liberal" answer any of the questions I have proposed? Or do you only have ad hominems, red herrings, and appeal to emotion (which by the way when you use, you basically are forfeiting the debate)?

I challenge any liberal to write something coherent and understandable on the relation of the definition of the term "liberal" and the practice of the modern liberal in the United States today in defense of the idea that they are one and the same. Defend your ideology. Defend your liberalism.

Your question started from a false premise. Namely, that laws and regulations are harmful to liberty.

Actually, the premise is accurate. Every single law is a limitation on liberty. Some are obviously more just than others, but the definition of "liberal" does not include that in which the modern liberal seeks. If I am wrong...prove it.

To some extent, sure, but the aggregate effect can be to increase overall liberty. Consider laws that prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations. While it does reduce the liberty of racist shopkeepers, it also have a positive impact on the liberty of the vast number allowed to move about more freely.

 

[UpAndAbout]

What are Liberals trying to Liberalize?

The tiny, closed in minds in indoctrinated extremist Republicans. Obviously. I thought everyone knew.

Uh huh. And you want to do this by force and increase laws and regulation to meet this objective? How does that meet the definition of "liberal?" Don't you think if your ideas were any good they could stand on their own and influence people by virtue of your ideas being logical and plausible? Since they apparently aren't you are willing to force your ideas onto people through laws and punishments? Doesn't that show that you succumb to defeat and that your ideology is a flop? How does forcing others to believe what you believe meet the definition of "liberal?"

And if their ways are so perfect, why do they desparately attempt to shut down any voice of opposition? If their way was so wonderful, everyone, EVERYONE would ignore the opposition any way. The way I ignore anything on MSNBC.

 

[Dragon]

So...how is a liberal today in any way associated with promoting liberty?

You will never understand the answer to that question, until you understand first that government is not the only, or today even the main, threat to liberty.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Another nonanswer. Shocking.

 

[Liberty]

Your question started from a false premise. Namely, that laws and regulations are harmful to liberty.

Actually, the premise is accurate. Every single law is a limitation on liberty. Some are obviously more just than others, but the definition of "liberal" does not include that in which the modern liberal seeks. If I am wrong...prove it.

To some extent, sure, but the aggregate effect can be to increase overall liberty. Consider laws that prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations. While it does reduce the liberty of racist shopkeepers, it also have a positive impact on the liberty of the vast number allowed to move about more freely.

Fine. That is simply not what I am arguing though and do not appreciate the red herring. I want to know how a liberal justifies calling themselves liberal based on the definition.

 

[Dragon]

Fine. That is simply not what I am arguing though and do not appreciate the red herring. I want to know how a liberal justifies calling themselves liberal based on the definition.

You are employing a distortion of fact in which any infringement on the freedom of anyone to do anything is an infringement of "liberty," even if it results in an increase in liberty in the aggregate. That makes no sense, and is ultimately self-serving. By that reasoning, the abolition of slavery made us less free. I don't think you'll find many African-Americans who would agree with that.

 

[Liberty]

Fine. That is simply not what I am arguing though and do not appreciate the red herring. I want to know how a liberal justifies calling themselves liberal based on the definition.

You are employing a distortion of fact in which any infringement on the freedom of anyone to do anything is an infringement of "liberty," even if it results in an increase in liberty in the aggregate. That makes no sense, and is ultimately self-serving. By that reasoning, the abolition of slavery made us less free. I don't think you'll find many African-Americans who would agree with that.

I am doing no such thing. Mr. Shaman, the kind hearted troll, was quick to post a definition. I do not see how that definition accurately reflects that of a modern liberal. I am simply asking for some evidence to justify the label and ideology. Don't overthink it.