what is a liberal and which historical leaders were liberals?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's an opinion, and not a very fleshed-out one.

not fleshed out?? Why be so afraid to say exactly why you feel that way???? What does your fear tell us, liberal??

Ed's got a "special" approach to logic, so I don't bother responding either, much as Vandalshandle said.

special approach?? If its mistaken why not give us your best example for the whole world to see. What does your fear tell us about the liberal IQ and character??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Understanding why Hitler hated Liberal Tolerance will help you understand Liberalism.

actually dear, Hitler was a liberal National Socialist. Our liberals spied for him and Stalin. Is it just coincidence that our liberals spied for them??

 

[GuyPinestra]

Children born to unmarried mothers are more likely to grow up in a single-parent household, experience instability in living arrangements, live in poverty, and have socio-emotional problems.1,2,3,4 As these children reach adolescence, they are more likely to have low educational attainment, engage in sex at a younger age, and have a birth outside of marriage.5,6,7,8 As young adults, children born outside of marriage are more likely to be idle (neither in school nor employed), have lower occupational status and income, and have more troubled marriages and more divorces than those born to married parents.9

Women who give birth outside of marriage tend to be more disadvantaged than their married counterparts, both before and after the birth. Unmarried mothers generally have lower incomes, lower education levels, and are more likely to be dependent on welfare assistance compared with married mothers.10,11,12,13 Women who have a nonmarital birth also tend to fare worse than childless single women; for example, they have reduced marriage prospects compared with single women without children.

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/?q=node/196

 

[Vandalshandle]

OMG, Pogo! They travel in flocks!!!!!

 

[Pogo]

Understanding why Hitler hated Liberal Tolerance will help you understand Liberalism.

actually dear, Hitler was a liberal National Socialist. Our liberals spied for him and Stalin. Is it just coincidence that our liberals spied for them??

That's exactly what I mean about Special Ed ^^ -- here he's trying to make Hitler into a "liberal". No stretch too far on Planet Bizarro.
Apparently he takes whatever people call themselves literally as long as it suits his history revisionism. Not sure what he does when he sees a name like "The Democratic Peoples Republic in Korea".

If they travel in flocks, this is the guano. Ewww.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hitler was the ultimate romantic reactionary conservative of the worst sort: looking back to a mythical time of "Aryan" greatness that he wished to recreate in his fantasy world in Central Europe.

Many of the far right share strange fantasies of the same sort, looking back to a mythical America that never existed.

 

[ZimothyTahn]

hitler was ******* hitler. nothing is worse than dumbfucks who weren't even living, much less in germany in the 1930s and 1940s, comparing anyone to hitler. seriously. he didn't disarm his people. that's all bullshit. and neither dubya the dumbfuck nor obama the kenyan-socialist-commie-gun-grabber-BLACK are hitler either. they'll never be hitler. and the more intellectual retards compare people to hitler, the more diluted the message, the real moral of the nazi story becomes.

 

[JamesMorrison]

You can't compare today's Republican Party with past American Parties. I think the Nazi party is actually much closer.

Since the GOP has repeatedly agitated for individual political and economic freedom and less State control over individual actions by decreasing regulation and taxation, I fail to see a valid comparison between the GOP and Germany's National Socialist Party in the 1920-30s so it would fall to you to make that successful comparison. Comparing any GOP political platform to Mein Kampf or the National Socialist party platform would be a start but just throwing out the "N" bomb is insufficient proof. Remember both Hitler and Mussolini agreed with the latter's "Everything inside the State and nothing outside the State"; This is hardly a GOP talking point. Alternatively, present day 'Liberals' want to control guns, increase regulation, and completely control the health care sector; those things sound more like part of the National Socialists’ wish list then that of the GOP.

Republicans are 90% white. They want to take away citizenship of people who are the "wrong color". As you can see in my signature line, some KKK branches have even disbanded because the are no longer needed. They feel the Republican Party represents their ideals, positions and policies. That's just the truth. Too bad they feel it's "slander".

I reject this. It is well known that the overwhelming majority of segregationists (and Klansman) were Democrats and that much of the civil rights legislation (and the Emancipation Proclamation!) was achieved by conservative (i.e. Classically Liberal) Republicans pushing for them. Remember it was the Democrats in the South that passed Jim Crow Laws, required a poll tax, and passed gun control laws in an effort to suppress the black vote.

Additionally, there is not a shred of evidence that the GOP wants to or has "take[n] away citizenship of people who are the "wrong color". That is shear and pure Democratic demagoguery.

JM

Reject it all you like but all those Southern racists are Republicans now. They were only Democrats in the past due to an entrenched and corrupt system of political convenience. IOW if you weren't a Democrat you just didn't win an election.

Fast forward to today and the same thing is true with the word "Republican" substituted for "Democrat", which demonstrates that access to power for this group is far more important than alignment with any particular ideology. So it wasn't "Democrats" who passed Jim Crow laws, it was racists. That shit never had support outside the South. Your extrapolation is like observing that all the cars around you are travelling east and concluding that therefore, all cars travel east.

Notably, the DP decided to leave that solid bloc behind in the interest of civil rights, and the RP didn't mind stepping right in to take up the slack. In fact they actively cultivated it with the "Southern strategy" and euphemisms like "states rights" and Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi.

So let's not try to pass off this bullshit about one party being basically more racist. If anything one party is more opportunist. To the point of the thread, it's interesting to note which party finds it necessary to suppress voter turnout, redraw congressional lines and reverse-engineer the way states vote in the EC, as their strategy to win elections. That should tell you something about the actual wishes of the electorate.

Pogo wrote: "So let's not try to pass off this bullshit about one party being basically more racist."

But isn't that exactly what rdean attempted to do with his above Nazi/GOP comparison?

You are performing the classic slight of hand so beloved by the left: The leftist declares that X is a racist Nazi (or selfish, uncaring, greedy, etc). His conservative interlocutor presents evidence to the contrary. The leftist then declares that the conservative's mother wears army boots which, somehow the leftist feels, invalidates the conservative's facts /argument. This, however, is just an attempt to shut down the discussion when the leftist realizes his argument has failed.

So here we have leftist "A" implying the GOP is racist. When conservative "B" presents evidence to the contrary leftist "C" declares that at this moment in time the whole southern region of the U.S. is a solidly racist block of human beings or a group of party switching racists...or something. This is just another version of: "Look ...a squirrel!"

JM

 

[JakeStarkey]

JM, the fact of the matter remains that the GOP reactionary right picked up the former Dem white racists in the South after 1968. That a certain number of black racists inhabit the Dem Party does not mitigate the problem we have had with racism in the South in the GOP.

 

[Dragonlady]

It really doesn't matter if the Republicans see themselves as racist or not. What matters is that non-white minorities see the Republican Party as racist. As long as non-white minorities see the Party as racist, they won't vote for them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It really doesn't matter if the Republicans see themselves as racist or not. What matters is that non-white minorities see the Republican Party as racist. As long as non-white minorities see the Party as racist, they won't vote for them.

Just so.

 

[JamesMorrison]

I would like to hear from both sides on this.

My definition of a modern day liberal is someone that wants a big intrusive controlling government, someone who wants wealth and income redistribution, someone who wants abortion on demand but does not want the 2nd amendment upheld, someone who wants to punish success and reward failure, someone who is comfortable being a slave to the government and wants an active thought and speech police.

For those conservatives interested in an effort to explain a leftist "Wordsmith's" actions here is an interesting empirically based take by a Navy Pshyciatrist. Included: Imbedded link as to why the left hates capitalism:Two different worlds: the school room and the school yard, which does the liberal prefer? American Thinker



For those with a little more time, try Evan Sayet's Kindergarden of Eden. If you've felt that a lot of leftist opinions seem naive or obviously the opposite of common sense Evan has a theory that fits: Indiscriminationism Baby!

JM

 

[JakeStarkey]

The reactionaries substitute blinding hate for discussion and facts. The two links above by JM validate my comment.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I would like to hear from both sides on this.

My definition of a modern day liberal is someone that wants a big intrusive controlling government, someone who wants wealth and income redistribution, someone who wants abortion on demand but does not want the 2nd amendment upheld, someone who wants to punish success and reward failure, someone who is comfortable being a slave to the government and wants an active thought and speech police.

Somehow, I snese that your mind is pretty much made up about this, without depending on imput from liberals. Stick with watching Fox. They will validate all of your sound bite thoughts....

 

[JamesMorrison]

Children born to unmarried mothers are more likely to grow up in a single-parent household, experience instability in living arrangements, live in poverty, and have socio-emotional problems.1,2,3,4 As these children reach adolescence, they are more likely to have low educational attainment, engage in sex at a younger age, and have a birth outside of marriage.5,6,7,8 As young adults, children born outside of marriage are more likely to be idle (neither in school nor employed), have lower occupational status and income, and have more troubled marriages and more divorces than those born to married parents.9

Women who give birth outside of marriage tend to be more disadvantaged than their married counterparts, both before and after the birth. Unmarried mothers generally have lower incomes, lower education levels, and are more likely to be dependent on welfare assistance compared with married mothers.10,11,12,13 Women who have a nonmarital birth also tend to fare worse than childless single women; for example, they have reduced marriage prospects compared with single women without children.

Births to Unmarried Women | Child Trends Databank

Excellent post. Robert Rector at Heritage has, for decades, done excellent work in this area of poverty, etc. Here's a link to his work at heritage if you haven’t already found/researched it. The study on poverty is really quite enlightening.

Robert Rector

Don't have the time right now to search but I'll bet the percentages of black/hispanic/asian/white abortions performed over the years by or for Planned Parenthood would fulfill Margaret Sanger's hope of weeding out her "undesirables".

Wait, didn't I see a picture of the left's poster organization's (Planned Parenthood), founder (Sanger) speaking to a gathering of approving Klansman on this very thread? Why yes, yes I did! Quite the success story for the left!


JM

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I would like to hear from both sides on this.

My definition of a modern day liberal is someone that wants a big intrusive controlling government, someone who wants wealth and income redistribution, someone who wants abortion on demand but does not want the 2nd amendment upheld, someone who wants to punish success and reward failure, someone who is comfortable being a slave to the government and wants an active thought and speech police.

For those conservatives interested in an effort to explain a leftist "Wordsmith's" actions here is an interesting empirically based take by a Navy Pshyciatrist. Included: Imbedded link as to why the left hates capitalism:Two different worlds: the school room and the school yard, which does the liberal prefer? American Thinker



For those with a little more time, try Evan Sayet's Kindergarden of Eden. If you've felt that a lot of leftist opinions seem naive or obviously the opposite of common sense Evan has a theory that fits: Indiscriminationism Baby!

JM

Don't forget this one:

The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr. and M.D. (Oct 30, 2006)
(64 customer reviews)

 

[GuyPinestra]

It really doesn't matter if the Republicans see themselves as racist or not. What matters is that non-white minorities see the Republican Party as racist. As long as non-white minorities see the Party as racist, they won't vote for them.

Translation to plain English: Until Republicans start pandering to minorities with more 'free shit' than the Dems offer, they can write off ANY possible support from said minorities.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It really doesn't matter if the Republicans see themselves as racist or not. What matters is that non-white minorities see the Republican Party as racist. As long as non-white minorities see the Party as racist, they won't vote for them.

Translation to plain English: Until Republicans start pandering to minorities with more 'free shit' than the Dems offer, they can write off ANY possible support from said minorities.

since black unemployment has gone up under Barry maybe it won't matter to even black people if the mistaken perception is that Republicans are racist.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It really doesn't matter if the Republicans see themselves as racist or not. What matters is that non-white minorities see the Republican Party as racist. As long as non-white minorities see the Party as racist, they won't vote for them.

Translation to plain English: Until Republicans start pandering to minorities with more 'free shit' than the Dems offer, they can write off ANY possible support from said minorities.

Once again, building a staw man out of wet straw is foolish, it won't burn even with the large amount of hot air you are using.

The free stuff most minorities want is called freedom, until the Republican Party decides to support universal freedom they will continue to lose women voters, Hispanics voters, Blacks voters and other Americans who believe - unlike it seems Republicans - that all men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

 

[Pogo]

It really doesn't matter if the Republicans see themselves as racist or not. What matters is that non-white minorities see the Republican Party as racist. As long as non-white minorities see the Party as racist, they won't vote for them.

Translation to plain English: Until Republicans start pandering to minorities with more 'free shit' than the Dems offer, they can write off ANY possible support from said minorities.

Once again, building a staw man out of wet straw is foolish, it won't burn even with the large amount of hot air you are using.

The free stuff most minorities want is called freedom, until the Republican Party decides to support universal freedom they will continue to lose women voters, Hispanics voters, Blacks voters and other Americans who believe - unlike it seems Republicans -that all men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

That passage right there sums up the OP question in a nutshell. Liberalism is about liberty. The concept of equality. and the resultant power of the People, as opposed to the State, is (still) anathema to the essence of conservatism.