Its Hard to Believe what being a Liberal Once Meant.

[rightwinger]

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.

can you explain specifiacally that "socialist agenda" ??

 

[California Girl]

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.

can you explain specifiacally that "socialist agenda" ??

Christ on a bike!!! You support his policies. You really shouldn't need someone to explain this shit to you.

Go inform yourself. Look at Europe.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Today's Liberals are no longer true Liberals. They are now Socialists. My God,this really isn't too hard to see. Just talk to your average so-called "Liberal" Democrat and it wont take long before you're bombarded with Hugo Chavez praise and adoration. No true Liberal could ever support a cretin who is currently shutting down all opposition Media. What kind of "Liberal" could support such brutal suppression of Free Speech? The answer is...A phony Liberal who has now become a Socialist. There really is a big difference between Liberalism & Socialism. I think more & more people are beginning to realize this.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

can you explain specifiacally that "socialist agenda" ??

Christ on a bike!!! You support his policies. You really shouldn't need someone to explain this shit to you.

Go inform yourself. Look at Europe.

I knew you were just spouting right wing nonsense. But to give you the benefit of the doubt, I thought I would ask

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think there is a lot of mischaraterization going on here. Having a conservative "explain" what liberals believe is like asking a satan worshipper to explain Christianity to you.

It may fit their own political agenda to "paint a picture", but that picture certainly bears no resemblence to the truth.

It's not just conservatives trying to paint liberalism in the most unsympathetic light possible - it is also the case that liberals paint as unattractive a picture as possible of conservatives.

If you can't look beyond all the jingoism, then you cannot hope to have a clear picture.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

This is a fabricated lie on your part. I suspect you can't stand the idea that individuals have rights independent of others, society, and the government so you have to destroy or occupy the same spot of any political idealogy that proclaims liberlism since you know most people in this country would not accept your kind of thinking openly.

Its like proclaiming to be something that most people like like being liberal (in the classical sense) but doing the very thing that liberalism is suppose to hate and then project that onto your opponents. This is like the proverbial wolf in sheeps clothing but this time the wolf is yelling that the wolf is in the other heard so no other sheep get wise to your crappy disguise. I think one day the sheep will start looking around and realize that you don't smell like one of them or even sound like one of them and I also suspect that is beginning to happen.

Goodbye Communist Wolf!

PS
Corporation are incapable of taking away your rights since most of their interactions with the public are on a voluntary basis. You voluntarily buy products from them and they voluntarily sell them to you. Its an envirerment that maintains the mutual choice making ability of everyone. You can either say yah or nah to whatever they are offering to you so how can you say they are taking away your "rights" when they have no power to compel you to interact with them?


I suspect this is another way for the communist left in this country to falsely project all threats to liberty away from themselves and onto one of their own enemies and that is big business.

 

[kwc57]

Today's Liberals are no longer true Liberals. They are now Socialists. My God,this really isn't too hard to see. Just talk to your average so-called "Liberal" Democrat and it wont take long before you're bombarded with Hugo Chavez praise and adoration. No true Liberal could ever support a cretin who is currently shutting down all opposition Media. What kind of "Liberal" could support such brutal suppression of Free Speech? The answer is...A phony Liberal who has now become a Socialist. There really is a big difference between Liberalism & Socialism. I think more & more people are beginning to realize this.

I'm a conservative libertarian amd I think you're talking shit. Please substaniate your claim that most Democrats or your average Democrat praise, adore and lick the boots of Chavez. I know a good many Democrats and they are nothing like what you claim.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Today's Liberals are no longer true Liberals. They are now Socialists. My God,this really isn't too hard to see. Just talk to your average so-called "Liberal" Democrat and it wont take long before you're bombarded with Hugo Chavez praise and adoration. No true Liberal could ever support a cretin who is currently shutting down all opposition Media. What kind of "Liberal" could support such brutal suppression of Free Speech? The answer is...A phony Liberal who has now become a Socialist. There really is a big difference between Liberalism & Socialism. I think more & more people are beginning to realize this.

I'm a conservative libertarian amd I think you're talking shit. Please substaniate your claim that most Democrats or your average Democrat praise, adore and lick the boots of Chavez. I know a good many Democrats and they are nothing like what you claim.

EXACTLY - just BS "labeling" in an attempt to earn a few cheap political points.
Both sides do it - doesn't make it right.

 

[Skull Pilot]

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/whatisclassicalliberalism.pdf

 

[California Girl]

can you explain specifiacally that "socialist agenda" ??

Christ on a bike!!! You support his policies. You really shouldn't need someone to explain this shit to you.

Go inform yourself. Look at Europe.

I knew you were just spouting right wing nonsense. But to give you the benefit of the doubt, I thought I would ask

Lots of his crap has been tried (and failed) in Europe. I don't think you have any real idea about Obama's policies.... Did you vote for him 'because he's black?' or 'because he's not Bush'?

 

[Modbert]

Conservatives or Republicans of today would hate JFK. Remember what JFK did to U.S steel? If Obama did that today, you Republicans would cry Communist.

JFK was for abolishing the Death Penalty. He was for programs to help others. He wanted more money put into education. He didn't believe that Government was part of the problem.

So while Republicans would like to wish that JFK would be one of their kind today, that's about as likely as Jim DeMint becoming a Liberal.

 

[Si modo]

I think there is a lot of mischaraterization going on here. Having a conservative "explain" what liberals believe is like asking a satan worshipper to explain Christianity to you.

It may fit their own political agenda to "paint a picture", but that picture certainly bears no resemblence to the truth.

It's not just conservatives trying to paint liberalism in the most unsympathetic light possible - it is also the case that liberals paint as unattractive a picture as possible of conservatives.

If you can't look beyond all the jingoism, then you cannot hope to have a clear picture.

"Jingoism"? I think partisanship is the more accurate word for what you describe. JMHO.

 

[Si modo]

Conservatives or Republicans of today would hate JFK. Remember what JFK did to U.S steel? If Obama did that today, you Republicans would cry Communist.

JFK was for abolishing the Death Penalty. He was for programs to help others. He wanted more money put into education. He didn't believe that Government was part of the problem.

So while Republicans would like to wish that JFK would be one of their kind today, that's about as likely as Jim DeMint becoming a Liberal.

JFK was a neocon, really.

 

[REVxERIK]

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.

same here sister...or brother hell i don't fuckin know

 

[Wry Catcher]

Too much ignorance!

A Glossary of Political Economy Terms - Dr. Paul M. Johnson

The above link is to a glossary of terms, if we all agreed on definitons, something might be accomplished on this forum.

Example:

Anarchism
Any of a variety of ideologies sharing the fundamental belief that the state and all similar forms of governmental authority are unjustified and oppressive and illegitimate and therefore ought to be abolished, with future social and economic cooperation to be carried out only by means of voluntary relationships and consensual agreements under conditions of perfect legal equality.

by Dr. Paul M. Johnson
Oligarchy
Any system of government in which virtually all political power is held by a very small number of wealthy but otherwise unmeritorious people who shape public policy primarily to benefit themselves financially through direct subsidies to their agricultural estates or business firms, lucrative government contracts, and protectionist measures aimed at damaging their economic competitors — while displaying little or no concern for the broader interests of the rest of the citizenry. “Oligarchy” is also used as a collective term to denote all the individual members of the small corrupt ruling group in such a system. The term always has a negative or derogatory connotation in both contemporary and classical usage, in contrast to aristocracy (which sometimes has a derogatory connotation in modern usage, but never in classical).

 

[ihopehefails]

Too much ignorance!

A Glossary of Political Economy Terms - Dr. Paul M. Johnson

The above link is to a glossary of terms, if we all agreed on definitons, something might be accomplished on this forum.

Example:

Anarchism
Any of a variety of ideologies sharing the fundamental belief that the state and all similar forms of governmental authority are unjustified and oppressive and illegitimate and therefore ought to be abolished, with future social and economic cooperation to be carried out only by means of voluntary relationships and consensual agreements under conditions of perfect legal equality.

by Dr. Paul M. Johnson
Oligarchy
Any system of government in which virtually all political power is held by a very small number of wealthy but otherwise unmeritorious people who shape public policy primarily to benefit themselves financially through direct subsidies to their agricultural estates or business firms, lucrative government contracts, and protectionist measures aimed at damaging their economic competitors — while displaying little or no concern for the broader interests of the rest of the citizenry. “Oligarchy” is also used as a collective term to denote all the individual members of the small corrupt ruling group in such a system. The term always has a negative or derogatory connotation in both contemporary and classical usage, in contrast to aristocracy (which sometimes has a derogatory connotation in modern usage, but never in classical).

Bullshit! Anarchy is a state of no government not any belief that government authority is evil and an Oligarchy is rule by a few so stop trying to alter definitions of terms so you can label your political opponents with them.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

same here sister...or brother hell i don't fuckin know

I would vote democrat if they would drop the communist garbage they spew out of their mouth.

 

[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.

*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*

 

[midcan5]

For me liberalism is essentially a state in which each individual can review a set of conditions that apply to all. These conditions allow individual freedom and the possibility of it meaning something to each person but they are constantly under scrutiny and adjustment. Liberalism, as Jeremy Waldron writes, is about a social order that is acceptable to the people living under it. That almost seems too simple but consider ceos who make millions while the workers make minimum wage and you find few who would gladly accept this state of things.

=======

'What it means to be a liberal' By Geoffrey R. Stone

"For most of the past four decades, liberals have been in retreat. Since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, Republicans have controlled the White House 70 percent of the time and Republican presidents have made 86 percent of the U.S. Supreme Court appointments. In many quarters, the word "liberal" has become a pejorative. Part of the problem is that liberals have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe. As a liberal, I find that appalling.

In that light, I thought it might be interesting to try to articulate 10 propositions that seem to me to define "liberal" today. Undoubtedly, not all liberals embrace all of these propositions, and many conservatives embrace at least some of them.

Moreover, because 10 is a small number, the list is not exhaustive. And because these propositions will in some instances conflict, the "liberal" position on a specific issue may not always be predictable. My goal, however, is not to end discussion, but to invite debate.

1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that "time has upset many fighting faiths." Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.

2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)

3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion expansion of the franchise; the elimination of obstacles to voting; "one person, one vote;" limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech. They believe, with Justice Louis Brandeis, that "the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people."

4. Liberals believe "we the people" are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind. It is liberals who have defended and continue to defend the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge the government, the protection of individual privacy from overbearing government monitoring, and the right of individuals to reproductive freedom...."

rest here
What it means to be a liberal - Chicago Tribune

=========

"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.'" President John F Kennedy on September 14, 1960

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Sheesh, JFK would be very proud of President Obama. As would President Theodore Roosevelt. And President Franklin D. Roosevelt.