The word Liberal must be defined. Here are the definitions of some.. What's yours?

[rightnow909]

Liberal has meaning and the left adopted it because they simply adopt words they think sounds cool with no meaning behind it.

Does anyone really think the left are "liberal"? Really, mind control fucked left are liberal? Defining things such as men are women isn't liberal, it's stupidity. Leftists are stupid, now there's something with meaning.

Left are hypocrites and they project, there's something that has meaning too.

not liberal but stupid

I agree... not sure when they, as u say "adopted" the word... but somewhere along the line the word lIberal and the word Lefty became one and the same..

oh well... Everyone today seems to know what the word means... and even "liberals".. the everyday kind don't like it... (no one wants to belong to a group often referred to as "baby killers" but liberals cannot deny that that is what their party is comprised of)

i can't see '22 going well for them whatever u call the *&^%#@s

 

[initforme]

No, I've got no need to reflect on anything. I won't belong to any mon, I mean party.

 

[rightnow909]

THIS

is the part of the sited material that describes the elite Dims like Pelousi and ByeDim (or ByeDum, if you prefer)

[They] come to terms with the enemies of the Church [liberals, especially the elite ones]... [T]hey are traitors...more dreadful than avowed enemies...they divide the minds, destroy unity, weaken strengths that, instead, should be all together coordinated against the enemy... Those who have it wrong must convert to the Truth and should not try to find common ground between Truth and error.

 

[initforme]

When I can strike a nerve with a democrat or republican I know I'm in the moral place

 

[initforme]

I'm a lifelong Christian. Im tired of fellow evangelicals worshipping the wealthy. Jesus would not approve of their twist on things.

 

[rightnow909]

I'm a lifelong Christian. Im tired of fellow evangelicals worshipping the wealthy. Jesus would not approve of their twist on things.

totally agree

and i myself have problems w/ the R party, t hough I would NEVER EVER vote for a dimrat.. I cn't think of ONE thing the D party "stands" for... (what a joke there) that is not

stupid
evil
retro-gressive morally and otherwise...

 

[initforme]

I agree rightnow. I won't vote for a dem nor a Republican. Both parties are corrupt and immoral.

 

[initforme]

Someone had to say the truth.

 

[WEATHER53]

exactly... that's the part that was kinda missing from my last post...

nice when conservatives can work together... like a giant puzzle being put together and all the pieces have to be there to see the big picture... but it takes time to put them all togehter..

in other words: why can't the conservatives work together like the dimrats always seem to?

We can only voice our facts but right now it’s the feelings party that is directing traffic

 

[Pellinore]

Like everything else on this planet, if you want to know what the REAL definition of something is, look in the DICTIONARY.

There are always differing opinions on what something is. If you want a definite answer...........then hit the DICTIONARY.

If you want to see how the word is used in society, then yeah, that is what dictionaries are designed for, so that's your place.

Dictionaries, however, are terrifically bad at giving the definitions of scientific terms, because the dictionary has filtered the term through society, most of whom are not specialists in that particular science. Since political science is, after all, a science, if you're looking for the definition of a term in that context, the dictionary is therefore the wrong place to look.

Sadly, there is also no universal governing board that defines these terms, so political scientists spend a lot of time and energy flipping through scores if not hundreds of definitions put out by several centuries worth of opinionated eggheads to try and find something that works.

The best I can figure, it goes something like this: Think of every liberal you can. Not the "classical liberals" such as the Founding Fathers, who actually have more in common with modern libertarians, but I mean the modern, social-justice kind of American liberal.

Now, try to see what ideological characteristics they all have in common. I'm not talking about stances on certain issues, which may change with time or situation, but the ideological beliefs that would guide them in determining their stances on those issues. Filter out the beliefs they have in common with other left-wingers, such as anarchists or Communists, because those would be characteristics of the whole left wing, not specifically of the liberals in it. What you have left is the liberal ideology.

The best description I've ever come up with is this: A liberal is someone who prefers to make liberal changes to society in order to fix social problems. "Social problem" is, of course, subject to their own perception, as one person may view something as a problem when another wouldn't. For example, liberals saw that gays couldn't marry; they viewed that as a social problem, so they strove to change it by altering social perception and passing new laws, at which they were largely successful.

You can't have yin without yang, so the other side is that a conservative is someone who prefers to resist change to society in order to conserve the culture the way it is. The conservative view toward gay marriage was that it was less important to fix that than it was to preserve the traditional family unit, or to adhere to certain religious standards, both of which are aspects of culture. They, too, are subject to their own perceptions of "family unit" or "religious standards."

One nice thing about these definitions is that you can plug in any new issue and, even though people are sometimes more or less liberal or conservative on some subjects than others, you can predict how most liberals or conservatives would act. If, for example, a small town has music on Sunday nights in town square, the liberal would be more likely to want to change the time or venue or eliminate the concerts altogether so people can sleep, while a conservative might argue that the damage to their tradition and revenue stream would cost them more than the lost sleep would. Like that.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

 

[basquebromance]

it turns out that Americans often disagree with liberals. And they seem not to like bullies. Or, for that matter, crybabies. Interestingly, these often seem to be the same people

 

[basquebromance]

If Adolf Hitler were discovered alive and well and living in the Amazon somewhere, a Republican consultant would advise him to denounce Trump. Liberals would say, “Okay, he’s not so bad. Sure, he’s responsible for the deaths of millions of people, but he’s right about Donald Trump” The mainstream media would try to help him - maybe portray him as a
victim. Except that no one’s watching their TV shows anymore.
Perhaps there are Young Republicans who can learn. So let me stress this
point: You don’t want to be a member of their club. We are in a tooth-and-claw
battle for our nation. This is no time to parse, nuance, or clarify words. Liberals
don’t rely on words. They judge us on a jurisprudence of epithets. Fight fire with
fire. Just call them traitors and let them sort it out.