Billy's post was anything but "loony". Indeed, it was quite intelligent.
That you can't differentiate says volumes about you!
Billy posted the traditional historical definition of "liberal".
His point that it has nothing to do with the modern American "liberal" is completely true.
YOu ignored that fact to attack a strawman.
That was dishonest and cowardly of you.
I called you on your bullshit, and instead of responding seriously or honestly, you doubled down on your dishonest and cowardly behavior.
As to be expected from a Clown.
That you don't care how this reflects on you says volumes about YOU.
That you suffer from the same dementia that affects the other poster is not my problem.
Neither of you has the requisite authority to redefine the term liberal.
Deal with it.
We are not "redefining" the term, you are.
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom withrepresentative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.[1][2]
Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[3] Notable individuals whose ideas have contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law,[5] utilitarianism,[6] and progress.[7]
In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, neo-classical liberalism advocated Social Darwinism.[8]Right-libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism"
So, if you were a serious or honest person, you would admit that you were wrong on this minor point, and that would be the end of it.
But instead, you are a Clown, and you cannot be anything but dishonest and rude.