Marijuana legalization?

[bkeating]

The definition of liberal is "willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas,"

What a load of horseshit.

LMAO A load of horseshit? Really? That's the dictionary definition. Are you making up your own definitions now, Archie?

Your right, lol. I'm hung up on it because I look like an idiot.

 

[Esmeralda]

Why are you getting personal? Its a discussion board, and unlike you, (I'm assuming your a closed minded liberal democrat) I look out for what is good for ALL of America. (Regardless whether more not it is a drug, we will have to agree to dis-agree on that, my BIG PICTURE point remains) You make good points, ill give you that, but I can not sit here and sys hat I agree with ALL of them. I believe that I make good points as well. I do know what I am talking about, and to say that your opinion I better than mine is very closed minded and ignorant; besides, I am going off of multiple facts and information and you are going off of a simple debate whether or not marijuana is ma "drug" or not, don't nit pick t my post and pick what you want to disagree or agree with, take ALL or what I said and THEN make an argument. It is uneducated people like you that make me furious when it comes to elections. Uneducated voters are going to be the worst thing for future elections, just like it has been and will always be. That is why there needs to be some sort of way to pick out and discard the uneducated voter by giving a quiz on SIMPLE politics before idiots walk into the polling station. Baffles me that some people voted for Obama just because he was black and didn't know what he stood for or believed, and called him "the black guy" when asked who they are voting for, inane. I know fully well what I am talking about. Educate yourself.

"Close minded liberal" is a contradiction in terms. The definition of liberal is "willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas," which is the opposite of 'close minded.' An uneducated person would, of course, not know the meaning of liberal, which seems to be the case with you.

If you believe we end up with the officials we end up with because voters are uneducated, then you must believe G.W.Bush was elected because the voters were uneducated.

And do you understand the aphorism about people who live in glass houses while at the same time calling others uneducated and idiots?

It's not THE definition of liberal, it's ONE definition of liberal.

However the poster you quoted may have been painting with a broad brush, making uninformed assumptions, or simply wrong, you are just being silly to ignore the commonly used political definition of liberal. Clearly there can be and are close-minded liberals, just as there are close-minded conservative and libertarians and any other political ideology.

I can't tell if you did it intentionally and I missed the sarcasm or not.

EVERY definition of liberal excludes the concept of close mindedness.

 

[Harry Dresden]

You think that's personal? You and your ass-umptions can go **** yourselves. NOW it's personal.

You don't know the first thing about my politics, my education, who I vote for or whatever point I haven't made. So take your assumptions, sprinkel liberally with the ignorance you pulled out of Harry Anslinger's 1937 racist mindless "gateway drug" bullshit, roll it up in a nice paper, set it on fire, inhale deeply and cram it up your ass.

I don't know about your education. But its very, very obvious that you are closed minded, and getting more and more obvious that you are just another pot head who doesn't want anything to interfere with their precious plant being legal. Obviously you have not studied psychology or sociology, because if you did you would know all about human nature and people's natural and instinctual curiosity. I'll let you attempt to read in Breen the lines on that one, lets see if you can.

I don't read Breen. I'll do English, French German or Portuguese. Breen is right out.

the Breen are a Member of the Typhon Pact in Star Trek....their language was a series of garbled electronic sounds....just a little tidbit...

 

[Pogo]

..not to mention it IS a gateway drug.

If such a thing as a "gateway" drug existed?

It would be CHOCOLATE or possibly coffee for most Americans.

However there is no such animal as a gateway drug, Lad.

The concept is preposterous.

Good point, that most people have made on this post and it made me reconsider. Maybe it is not a 'gateway' drug so to speak, but more of a drug that increases the chances of doing other drugs. All that I am saying is that it is human nature to become curious about other things, that is how we became what we are today. I would say that would be a fair statement, maybe not marijuana in itself, but the sole fact that people are getting high, then people (maybe not all) will get curious about other highs of other drugs. Do you agree? Listen, I'm trying to see your point, try to see mine.

As I said when I started here, the only thing cannabis has in common with actual street drugs (narcotics, depressants, stimulants) is that it's illegal.

That's significant.

It's significant because it obliges the budding (pun intended) marijuana experimenter to go to the same black-market source that might also be dealing actual drugs. That dealer might have reasoned, "if I'm taking the risk with cannabis I might as well take the risk with coke". That puts that casual cannabis-curious user in close proximity to actual harmful substances, for no good reason.

Again, that doesn't make it a "gateway". It does nudge that kid closer to the access to the hard stuff. Because any search the kid had to do to find something more severe is no longer necessary if his source for cannabis already has it. So if, for whatever reason, the kid does elect to take on the harder substances, the illegality of cannabis has greased the wheels of addiction -- simply by placing it in the same setting. For no reason other than Harry Anslinger having nothing to do with his time after Prohibition was repealed, along with racism. That's no basis on which to make law.

And by basing that law on a blatant lie, once that lie is discovered, it's logical for that budding user to assume that laws against actual drugs have also been based on lies.

By the same token, that addictive personality who might naturally gravitate to an artificial physical stimulant or depressant might, out of the same convenience, incidentally try the cannabis, even though it's really not what he was looking for. Again, that's law mixing apples and oranges.

Cannabis has nothing in common with street drugs. It's not addictive, not physical, and cannot be lethal no matter what the "dose". None of that can be said of speed, heroin, coke or even alcohol. Or even tobacco for that matter. One class has nothing to do with the other. To pretend that it does is just dishonest.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I don't need to junior, because unlike you I know what I'm talking about. This ain't my first rodeo on this topic.

Why are you getting personal? Its a discussion board, and unlike you, (I'm assuming your a closed minded liberal democrat) I look out for what is good for ALL of America. (Regardless whether more not it is a drug, we will have to agree to dis-agree on that, my BIG PICTURE point remains) You make good points, ill give you that, but I can not sit here and sys hat I agree with ALL of them. I believe that I make good points as well. I do know what I am talking about, and to say that your opinion I better than mine is very closed minded and ignorant; besides, I am going off of multiple facts and information and you are going off of a simple debate whether or not marijuana is ma "drug" or not, don't nit pick t my post and pick what you want to disagree or agree with, take ALL or what I said and THEN make an argument. It is uneducated people like you that make me furious when it comes to elections. Uneducated voters are going to be the worst thing for future elections, just like it has been and will always be. That is why there needs to be some sort of way to pick out and discard the uneducated voter by giving a quiz on SIMPLE politics before idiots walk into the polling station. Baffles me that some people voted for Obama just because he was black and didn't know what he stood for or believed, and called him "the black guy" when asked who they are voting for, inane. I know fully well what I am talking about. Educate yourself.

"Close minded liberal" is a contradiction in terms. The definition of liberal is "willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas," which is the opposite of 'close minded.' An uneducated person would, of course, not know the meaning of liberal, which seems to be the case with you.

If you believe we end up with the officials we end up with because voters are uneducated, then you must believe G.W.Bush was elected because the voters were uneducated.

And do you understand the aphorism about people who live in glass houses while at the same time calling others uneducated and idiots?

The definition of liberal is "willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas,"

maybe the more Moderate or Conservative ones ....but not ones like Dean,Truthmatters,Black Label or No_Reply_Jones.....those types....no way....

 

[Pogo]

For those of you concerned about what message legalizing pot sends to the children, approximately 10% of school-age children in the US have been prescribed Ritalin for ADHD. What kind of message does that send the kids about drugs?

What about smoking and drinking, sleeping pills, tranquilizers and Viagara. You have an entire drug industry which advertises on TV every single day. You think the idea that there are drugs for every occasion has never crossed the minds of children viewing these ads?

Pot is a very beneficial drug for treatment of insomnia, pain, cataracts, and loss of appetite in cancer patients. Not to mention the potential for tax revenues.

Just get the sale of pot out of the hands of criminals would be a boon.

I see what you mean, very true. However, those drugs are prescribed by your doctor (I know your going to say that so will medical marijuana, which I am all for just NOT recreational use) and kept under watch. The main point I'm trying to make here is that our whole lives, for most, have been told that marijuana is a drug and a bad one and to never do it; yet here we got the generation that enforced that upon us making recreational marijuana legal in Colorado, which is very contradicting and if I were a child I would think 'wow, its now legal, let me try it.' ** they try it ** and then they think to themselves, 'well, this is not as bad as they said, so I wonder what else my parents lied about, what about acid! I'll try heroin too!' So that is all I am saying, I'm trying to be more open minded about peoples points, as I can be very bad at that, so all I ask is you try to see my point as well.

Exactly. That's the point about the folly of dishonest law trying to pretend cannabis is a "schedule one narcotic". It's complete bullshit. When you have a law based on bullshit, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that it's not the only law so based. Solution: don't base laws on bullshit in the first place.

 

[Montrovant]

"Close minded liberal" is a contradiction in terms. The definition of liberal is "willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas," which is the opposite of 'close minded.' An uneducated person would, of course, not know the meaning of liberal, which seems to be the case with you.

If you believe we end up with the officials we end up with because voters are uneducated, then you must believe G.W.Bush was elected because the voters were uneducated.

And do you understand the aphorism about people who live in glass houses while at the same time calling others uneducated and idiots?

It's not THE definition of liberal, it's ONE definition of liberal.

However the poster you quoted may have been painting with a broad brush, making uninformed assumptions, or simply wrong, you are just being silly to ignore the commonly used political definition of liberal. Clearly there can be and are close-minded liberals, just as there are close-minded conservative and libertarians and any other political ideology.

I can't tell if you did it intentionally and I missed the sarcasm or not.

EVERY definition of liberal excludes the concept of close mindedness.

Maybe every definition you are willing to accept in this thread.

Are you trying to say that liberal is not commonly used to define the political ideology of the Democrats, or the left, in this country?

Are you trying to say that all of these definitions :
adjective

1willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas:liberal views towards divorce
favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms:liberal citizenship laws
(in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform:a liberal democratic state
(Liberal) relating to Liberals or a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party: the Liberal leader
Theology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

2 [attributive] (of education) concerned with broadening a person’s general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training: the provision of liberal adult education

3(especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal:they could have given the 1968 Act a more liberal interpretation

4given, used, or occurring in generous amounts:liberal amounts of wine had been consumed
(of a person) giving generously:Sam was too liberal with the wine

noun

a person of liberal views: a concern among liberals about the relation of the citizen to the state
(Liberal) a supporter or member of a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) a Liberal Democrat.

taken from the Oxford dictionary, exclude the concept of close mindedness?

Are you just trolling?

 

[Pogo]

It's not THE definition of liberal, it's ONE definition of liberal.

However the poster you quoted may have been painting with a broad brush, making uninformed assumptions, or simply wrong, you are just being silly to ignore the commonly used political definition of liberal. Clearly there can be and are close-minded liberals, just as there are close-minded conservative and libertarians and any other political ideology.

I can't tell if you did it intentionally and I missed the sarcasm or not.

EVERY definition of liberal excludes the concept of close mindedness.

Maybe every definition you are willing to accept in this thread.

Are you trying to say that liberal is not commonly used to define the political ideology of the Democrats, or the left, in this country? <snip>

"Liberal" is not "left". That conflation is common around here and in the right wing demonization noise machine; that doesn't make it accurate.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If a Liberal can feel it he thinks its right.

 

[Montrovant]

EVERY definition of liberal excludes the concept of close mindedness.

Maybe every definition you are willing to accept in this thread.

Are you trying to say that liberal is not commonly used to define the political ideology of the Democrats, or the left, in this country? <snip>

"Liberal" is not "left". That conflation is common around here and in the right wing demonization noise machine; that doesn't make it accurate.

When a word or phrase use becomes common enough, it does become accurate. I feel confident that were you to do a search through these boards, the word liberal would be used the vast majority of the time to describe the political 'left' in the US. If you were to perform a poll of the country, I think that the majority would equate liberal with the political left.

Besides, no matter what political ideology liberal entails, it does not prevent the possibility someone can be a liberal and be close minded. Unless you are saying that open mindedness is a political ideology?

 

[Pogo]

Maybe every definition you are willing to accept in this thread.

Are you trying to say that liberal is not commonly used to define the political ideology of the Democrats, or the left, in this country? <snip>

"Liberal" is not "left". That conflation is common around here and in the right wing demonization noise machine; that doesn't make it accurate.

When a word or phrase use becomes common enough, it does become accurate. I feel confident that were you to do a search through these boards, the word liberal would be used the vast majority of the time to describe the political 'left' in the US. If you were to perform a poll of the country, I think that the majority would equate liberal with the political left.

Besides, no matter what political ideology liberal entails, it does not prevent the possibility someone can be a liberal and be close minded. Unless you are saying that open mindedness is a political ideology?

Of course personal traits have nothing to do with political ideology. That should be a no-brainer although that fallacy too is rampant around here ("Republicans are intolerant"; "Democrats are angry"; "the left/right/center is racist" etc). Again common use doesn't make it either honest or accurate.

I could bring back literally thousands of posts using it's where its is meant. Doesn't make that accurate either. All around us people use the expression "I could care less" when they mean the exact opposite. Common use does not make for accuracy and never will.

These misconceptions don't suddenly become fact just because a lot of people share the same error. "French toast" is unknown in France. Decimate does not mean "to wipe out". Nero did not play a fiddle. He just didn't.

This conflation of "liberal" with "left" dates back to McCarthyism and the Red Scare, when extremists of his ilk were trying to paint their opponents on the left with the "communist" label. It wasn't accurate then, it isn't accurate now, and it won't be accurate tomorrow.

The difference illustrated: The "Liberal" says "all men are created equal". The "left" comes up with affirmative action to force the concept into existence.

I couldn't care less how many posters get it wrong, "Liberal" does not mean "left". Period.

(/off topic)

 

[Montrovant]

"Liberal" is not "left". That conflation is common around here and in the right wing demonization noise machine; that doesn't make it accurate.

When a word or phrase use becomes common enough, it does become accurate. I feel confident that were you to do a search through these boards, the word liberal would be used the vast majority of the time to describe the political 'left' in the US. If you were to perform a poll of the country, I think that the majority would equate liberal with the political left.

Besides, no matter what political ideology liberal entails, it does not prevent the possibility someone can be a liberal and be close minded. Unless you are saying that open mindedness is a political ideology?

Of course personal traits have nothing to do with political ideology. That should be a no-brainer although that fallacy too is rampant around here ("Republicans are intolerant"; "Democrats are angry"; "the left/right/center is racist" etc). Again common use doesn't make it either honest or accurate.

I could bring back literally thousands of posts using it's where its is meant. Doesn't make that accurate either. All around us people use the expression "I could care less" when they mean the exact opposite. Common use does not make for accuracy and never will.

These misconceptions don't suddenly become fact just because a lot of people share the same error. "French toast" is unknown in France. Decimate does not mean "to wipe out". Nero did not play a fiddle. He just didn't.

This conflation of "liberal" with "left" dates back to McCarthyism and the Red Scare, when extremists of his ilk were trying to paint their opponents on the left with the "communist" label. It wasn't accurate then, it isn't accurate now, and it won't be accurate tomorrow.

The difference illustrated: The "Liberal" says "all men are created equal". The "left" comes up with affirmative action to force the concept into existence.

I couldn't care less how many posters get it wrong, "Liberal" does not mean "left". Period.

(/off topic)

So definitions never change? Phrases never take on new meanings over time?

In US politics, liberal = left. It's why people often use classic liberal instead of simply liberal to describe a certain ideology; a liberal of today is not the same thing as a liberal from 100 years ago.

To use one of your examples, while decimate may have begun as simply killing or destroying one of every ten, today it has more than one definition. That includes to destroy a large portion of.

French toast may not be French, but it is still called French toast.

How about ain't? It doesn't make any sense. It's not a contraction of any actual words. Yet, thanks to common use, it has become accepted as a valid word.

The origin of a word or phrase and the current meaning of a word or phrase do not have to remain the same.

And all of this started because someone else claimed that all definitions of liberal are antithetical to being close minded.

 

[Iceman]

I think those who think you should be locked in a cage for possessing a plant should be locked in cages and see how they like it.

 

[Katzndogz]

I think those who think you should be locked in a cage for possessing a plant should be locked in cages and see how they like it.

You equate being in full control of one's faculties with being stoned out of your mind. Interesting. It has to make sense to a pothead.

 

[Iceman]

I think those who think you should be locked in a cage for possessing a plant should be locked in cages and see how they like it.

You equate being in full control of one's faculties with being stoned out of your mind. Interesting. It has to make sense to a pothead.

No.

You should be locked in a cage to have your head set straight, see how you like it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ft

I think those who think you should be locked in a cage for possessing a plant should be locked in cages and see how they like it.

You equate being in full control of one's faculties with being stoned out of your mind. Interesting. It has to make sense to a pothead.

No.

You should be locked in a cage to have your head set straight, see how you like it.

Putting someone in a cage doesn't set their head straight. There is no cure, They have to be disposed of. Although execution is still best, China does treat drug addicts very humanely. As a medical condition.

 

[Pogo]

When a word or phrase use becomes common enough, it does become accurate. I feel confident that were you to do a search through these boards, the word liberal would be used the vast majority of the time to describe the political 'left' in the US. If you were to perform a poll of the country, I think that the majority would equate liberal with the political left.

Besides, no matter what political ideology liberal entails, it does not prevent the possibility someone can be a liberal and be close minded. Unless you are saying that open mindedness is a political ideology?

Of course personal traits have nothing to do with political ideology. That should be a no-brainer although that fallacy too is rampant around here ("Republicans are intolerant"; "Democrats are angry"; "the left/right/center is racist" etc). Again common use doesn't make it either honest or accurate.

I could bring back literally thousands of posts using it's where its is meant. Doesn't make that accurate either. All around us people use the expression "I could care less" when they mean the exact opposite. Common use does not make for accuracy and never will.

These misconceptions don't suddenly become fact just because a lot of people share the same error. "French toast" is unknown in France. Decimate does not mean "to wipe out". Nero did not play a fiddle. He just didn't.

This conflation of "liberal" with "left" dates back to McCarthyism and the Red Scare, when extremists of his ilk were trying to paint their opponents on the left with the "communist" label. It wasn't accurate then, it isn't accurate now, and it won't be accurate tomorrow.

The difference illustrated: The "Liberal" says "all men are created equal". The "left" comes up with affirmative action to force the concept into existence.

I couldn't care less how many posters get it wrong, "Liberal" does not mean "left". Period.

(/off topic)

So definitions never change? Phrases never take on new meanings over time?

In US politics, liberal = left. It's why people often use classic liberal instead of simply liberal to describe a certain ideology; a liberal of today is not the same thing as a liberal from 100 years ago.

To use one of your examples, while decimate may have begun as simply killing or destroying one of every ten, today it has more than one definition. That includes to destroy a large portion of.

French toast may not be French, but it is still called French toast.

How about ain't? It doesn't make any sense. It's not a contraction of any actual words. Yet, thanks to common use, it has become accepted as a valid word.

The origin of a word or phrase and the current meaning of a word or phrase do not have to remain the same.

And all of this started because someone else claimed that all definitions of liberal are antithetical to being close minded.

It may be a stretch to apply a political term to a personal trait, but inasmuch as the political Liberal means "laissez faire", it's not inaccurate. You can't very well take that attitude with less than an open mind.

That "classical Liberalism" term is a piece of bullshit conjured up in an attempt to force the historical revisionism. It requires that we first accept the McCarthyist redefinition of Liberal into something it has never meant. And it's as nakedly mendacious as that demagoguery that came up with that association for no other purpose than to demonize one party in elections. That's certainly no basis for rewriting the dictionary. Without looking it up I suspect the term "classical liberalism" probably emanates from Jonah Goldberg, who penned a Doublethink screed about what he imagined to be "liberal fascism". Which is like saying "original copy".

Obviously we can't have the same word meaning entirely different things. So this equation of Liberal with left just doesn't work. Because that isn't what it means, and never was.

 

[Iceman]

Ft

You equate being in full control of one's faculties with being stoned out of your mind. Interesting. It has to make sense to a pothead.

No.

You should be locked in a cage to have your head set straight, see how you like it.

Putting someone in a cage doesn't set their head straight. There is no cure, They have to be disposed of. Although execution is still best, China does treat drug addicts very humanely. As a medical condition.

No, executing you would be too harsh.

 

[Montrovant]

Of course personal traits have nothing to do with political ideology. That should be a no-brainer although that fallacy too is rampant around here ("Republicans are intolerant"; "Democrats are angry"; "the left/right/center is racist" etc). Again common use doesn't make it either honest or accurate.

I could bring back literally thousands of posts using it's where its is meant. Doesn't make that accurate either. All around us people use the expression "I could care less" when they mean the exact opposite. Common use does not make for accuracy and never will.

These misconceptions don't suddenly become fact just because a lot of people share the same error. "French toast" is unknown in France. Decimate does not mean "to wipe out". Nero did not play a fiddle. He just didn't.

This conflation of "liberal" with "left" dates back to McCarthyism and the Red Scare, when extremists of his ilk were trying to paint their opponents on the left with the "communist" label. It wasn't accurate then, it isn't accurate now, and it won't be accurate tomorrow.

The difference illustrated: The "Liberal" says "all men are created equal". The "left" comes up with affirmative action to force the concept into existence.

I couldn't care less how many posters get it wrong, "Liberal" does not mean "left". Period.

(/off topic)

So definitions never change? Phrases never take on new meanings over time?

In US politics, liberal = left. It's why people often use classic liberal instead of simply liberal to describe a certain ideology; a liberal of today is not the same thing as a liberal from 100 years ago.

To use one of your examples, while decimate may have begun as simply killing or destroying one of every ten, today it has more than one definition. That includes to destroy a large portion of.

French toast may not be French, but it is still called French toast.

How about ain't? It doesn't make any sense. It's not a contraction of any actual words. Yet, thanks to common use, it has become accepted as a valid word.

The origin of a word or phrase and the current meaning of a word or phrase do not have to remain the same.

And all of this started because someone else claimed that all definitions of liberal are antithetical to being close minded.

It may be a stretch to apply a political term to a personal trait, but inasmuch as the political Liberal means "laissez faire", it's not inaccurate. You can't very well take that attitude with less than an open mind.

That "classical Liberalism" term is a piece of bullshit conjured up in an attempt to force the historical revisionism. It requires that we first accept the McCarthyist redefinition of Liberal into something it has never meant. And it's as nakedly mendacious as that demagoguery that came up with that association for no other purpose than to demonize one party in elections. That's certainly no basis for rewriting the dictionary. Without looking it up I suspect the term "classical liberalism" probably emanates from Jonah Goldberg, who penned a Doublethink screed about what he imagined to be "liberal fascism". Which is like saying "original copy".

Obviously we can't have the same word meaning entirely different things. So this equation of Liberal with left just doesn't work. Because that isn't what it means, and never was.

Again, many words either change or add meanings over time. Liberal is such a word. I don't understand why you are so adamant to refuse to acknowledge that.

It doesn't mean that the origin of the word is the same as it means today. It doesn't mean there can't be multiple definitions. It doesn't mean you have to use it as it is popularly defined.

It is, however, easy enough to show various words with different current meanings than those they began with, including an example which you gave. Why can the same not be true of the word liberal?

 

[Pogo]

So definitions never change? Phrases never take on new meanings over time?

In US politics, liberal = left. It's why people often use classic liberal instead of simply liberal to describe a certain ideology; a liberal of today is not the same thing as a liberal from 100 years ago.

To use one of your examples, while decimate may have begun as simply killing or destroying one of every ten, today it has more than one definition. That includes to destroy a large portion of.

French toast may not be French, but it is still called French toast.

How about ain't? It doesn't make any sense. It's not a contraction of any actual words. Yet, thanks to common use, it has become accepted as a valid word.

The origin of a word or phrase and the current meaning of a word or phrase do not have to remain the same.

And all of this started because someone else claimed that all definitions of liberal are antithetical to being close minded.

It may be a stretch to apply a political term to a personal trait, but inasmuch as the political Liberal means "laissez faire", it's not inaccurate. You can't very well take that attitude with less than an open mind.

That "classical Liberalism" term is a piece of bullshit conjured up in an attempt to force the historical revisionism. It requires that we first accept the McCarthyist redefinition of Liberal into something it has never meant. And it's as nakedly mendacious as that demagoguery that came up with that association for no other purpose than to demonize one party in elections. That's certainly no basis for rewriting the dictionary. Without looking it up I suspect the term "classical liberalism" probably emanates from Jonah Goldberg, who penned a Doublethink screed about what he imagined to be "liberal fascism". Which is like saying "original copy".

Obviously we can't have the same word meaning entirely different things. So this equation of Liberal with left just doesn't work. Because that isn't what it means, and never was.

Again, many words either change or add meanings over time. Liberal is such a word. I don't understand why you are so adamant to refuse to acknowledge that.

Because Liberal is not such a word. It doesn't become such a word just because some group of demagogues decide to dump on it. No more than Adolf Hitler moves to the left just because the same revisionists declare him to be there. And I might add, for exactly the same reason.

Once you found out Nero played a lyre and not a fiddle, did you resume making allusions to "Nero fiddling while Rome burned"?

It doesn't mean that the origin of the word is the same as it means today. It doesn't mean there can't be multiple definitions.

There cannot be multiple definitions that contradict each other. Suppose the word wet could mean either "wet" or "dry"... how would we ever buy pet food?

It doesn't mean you have to use it as it is popularly defined.

I think that's what I'm saying.

It is, however, easy enough to show various words with different current meanings than those they began with, including an example which you gave. Why can the same not be true of the word liberal?

Because there's a difference between a natural evolution and an intentionally cynically engineered revisionism. This particular revisionism is as Orwellian as that author's "Ministry of Truth". Shall we read "1984" and conclude that the word truth now means both "truth" and "lies"?

Here, read the intro to this -- it's a pretty good definition and background.

We have always been at war with Oceania. Except when we haven't...