Is "Liberal" The N-Word Of The Left???

yeah, I can't believe those pinko commies that think every child should be able to get an education and at the public expense no less! It would be so much better if we had private schools so only wealthy people could attend, or even better if we had no education system at all and it was only up to parents to teach their children, that way an even smaller percentage of the population would retain any knowledge!

If "liberal" is the curse word of the left, then I guess "redneck" is the one of the right.
 
Ok, first of all, to all of you nuts that think the government is trying to take your guns: no one gives a fuck about you or your guns. The people who think that there is a conspiracy to abolish the 2nd amendment are a bunch of pussies that never do anything with them anyway. If you are a responsible "gun owner" why would the government want to punish you? Newsflash: the people who are causing problems with guns, the ones that they actually want to stop, they don't care about the 2nd amendment.

Every gun-right advocate will tell you, oblivious to any irony, that most criminals use guns that are acquired illegally and somehow in their mind that means that the plan to stop illegal guns is to make all guns illegal. If they wanted to take your guns away, you'd think that they would have done it like in the last 30 years when all the exact same shit was being said the whole time. It makes no fucking sense. get over it.

Secondly the government doesn't want to abolish capitalism and redistribute all the wealth. They would lose too much money! and the same people that own most of the guns, and the ones that are bitching about socialism would be making more money because they aren't millionaires for the most part. Once again, it makes no fucking sense. I would swear you guys were high, but then since it was "conservatives" that promoted the war on drugs for the last 30 years and all these same anti-government people voted for them, I guess not.

Also why don't you keep your fucking church out of the state if you are so opposed to government? W#hat do you call it when the government tells business what they can and can't do (such as performing medical procedures; abortions, and selling pharmaceuticals; the morning after pill) That sounds like the 'ol communism that you goddamn hypocrites claim to hate so much.

Here's a "radical" solution to liberty for you: why don't you do whatever it is you want to do, and STFU and stop telling everyone else what to do and how to think (while at the same time criticizing the government for that very same thing.)
 

Torre82

Moderator \ Jannie
Staff member
I'm a liberal. Cuz I'm cool with just about everything that can.. and does happen. I mean.. all the preventative measures taken, all the laws enacted.. all of fucking everything.. it's all a joke.

So rapes happen, do we outlaw cocks, cucumbers and dildos? Fuck no.
So guns kill people, does it help to outlaw bullets, guns or improvised weapons? Nah, wouldnt help.
So people are fucking stupid, does that mean we have to license people to procreate? Nope. But we really friggin' should. You need a license to drive a car, own a gun.. but not to indiscriminately create life. What.the.fuck.?

It's all bullshit, a big fucking lie. Does that mean we have to take it seriously? Grow bitter? Buy in or sell out? No. We just need to learn to laugh it off. None of it really matters, we're all playing our parts. Except your part sucks. ;)
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Because by definition they're illiberal ! They want government intrusion into everybody's life
because instead of learning factual history in school, they were indoctrinated by a Far left leaning education bureaucracy (Thank You Jimmy Carter)

That's just plain wrong, F. I consider myself to be as socially liberal as anyone and your qualifiers couldn't be further from the truth as far as I am concerned. I guess it depends on your perspective as it pertains to what constitutes "intrusion". A "conservative" doesn't want government intrusion into everybody's life, huh? Is that why they are so concerned about what I do in my bedroom, what drugs I may want to put into my body, deny basic human rights to certain Americans who don't share the same sexual persuasion that they do, want God and Jesus injected into our lives everywhere we go whether we believe in them or not, would tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body, etc? If that isn't intrusion, I don't know what is.

If the government acts on issues that you believe to be worthy and valid, that's responsible government. If they don't, it's intrusion.
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
The Fox News opinion shows(Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity) are fairly conservative.

Fairly conservative??? If true, who could possibly be more conservative than that trio? Maybe Genghis Khan, Mussolini and Hideki Tojo?

LOL....funniest thing I've read in weeks. Thanks.
 
No, because Self-determination is at the very core of conservatism if you do not believe in the right to improve yourself and succeed and not just sit back and be a ward of the state then you are not a conservative.

That's not what the phrase "self-determination" means. This is what I mean about some people not actually understanding what they believe in relationship to their political ideology.

The right to "self-determination" means in a free country, the right to decide what's in your personal best interests. Literally the right to determine what's best for yourself.

That is at the core of Liberalism. Libertarian Liberalism is at the core of what the US was founded on IMO.

In the political realm there have been misnomers of ideologies, people who have misapplied ideologies and people who have misassociated ideologies.

The principles of an ideology don't change because some talk show host misrepresents it or because some misinformed person misapplies it to him or herself.

What determines your association to an ideology is your adherence to the principles and tenets for which is was founded.

For example, you're not a Liberal if you believe in interfering with the right of individuals to reasonably and legally defend themselves with firearms.

I commend progressives for identifying themselves outside of the description of Liberals because they're not Liberals. They are relativists like their brethren the conservatives.
 
Fairly conservative??? If true, who could possibly be more conservative than that trio? Maybe Genghis Khan, Mussolini and Hideki Tojo?

LOL....funniest thing I've read in weeks. Thanks.

LOL
Next to them just about anything would be called Liberal/progressive.

What really gets me is this constant refrain from conservatives about liberal bias in the media.As if all these corporate owned entities (like NBC who is owned by GE) are really on the left.Some are so far right in this country (nothing new btw) that anything that does not conform to their far right view is called liberal and biased.Thats how people called Edward R. Murrow the great journalist for CBS a communist in the 50s for exposing Joe McCarthy.In time everyone saw who was telling the truth and had right on his side and it wasn't the Joe McCarthy supporters.

Further lets take some like Keith Olbermann who the right likes to hold up as an example of liberal bias.While Keith is definately on that side of the equation and is even a outright supporter of Obama and dems NBC did do something about that when they removed him as anchor for the dem convention.YOU never seee anything like that coming from the unfair and unbalanced network FOX news.Fox news idea of lefty was that wimp Combs who agreed with Hannity a lot of the time.

Thats why the return of the fairness doctrine would be good thing.Get some real lefties a chance to speak instead of just far right types and corporate america's version of the left,cause thats all you get right now.Everything in the media is filtered/censored by corporate america.

The corporate guys still run the country no matter who is in office,its not Obama telling the banks what to do but exactly the other way round.They are getting everything they want,bailouts,still giving themselves huge salarys bonuses etc.Thats not leftist or progressive IMO.
 
Most Liberal Democrats do not view the word "Liberal" as a slam against them or their views. They just get tired of hearing Conservative Republicans try to demonize the word to "rally their base" and fill their donation coffers.

Most Liberal Democrats may turn to "Progressive" as the word to use publicly because that word hasn't been demonized and also because Liberals haven't thought up a word to demonize Conservative Republicans over.

As someone mentioned above, the closest demonizing word is "redneck," but even I think that won't cut it.

Socialism, communism, fascism get "attached" to Liberals by conservatives because Conservative voters, or should I say viewers?, have no idea about anything unless BillO or Rush tells them about "it."

The days of the public intellectual conservative like William F Buckley or George Will or maybe even Barry Goldwater are long over....instead, Rush and BillO have replaced them.
 
That's not what the phrase "self-determination" means. This is what I mean about some people not actually understanding what they believe in relationship to their political ideology.

The right to "self-determination" means in a free country, the right to decide what's in your personal best interests. Literally the right to determine what's best for yourself.

That is at the core of Liberalism. Libertarian Liberalism is at the core of what the US was founded on IMO.

In the political realm there have been misnomers of ideologies, people who have misapplied ideologies and people who have misassociated ideologies.

The principles of an ideology don't change because some talk show host misrepresents it or because some misinformed person misapplies it to him or herself.

What determines your association to an ideology is your adherence to the principles and tenets for which is was founded.

For example, you're not a Liberal if you believe in interfering with the right of individuals to reasonably and legally defend themselves with firearms.

I commend progressives for identifying themselves outside of the description of Liberals because they're not Liberals. They are relativists like their brethren the conservatives.


NO..
Just No.

There is no such thing as Liberal Libertarianism it does not exist.

A liberal is someone who feels it is the states duty to care for its people in all aspects making all descisions for them, where they will go to school (if they go to school), where they will work, where they will live, what doctors they will see, how many childeren they will have. They are Left thinkers who feel that the common man can't think for himself and government must think for him. Liberalism has nothing to do with self-determination it is the exact opposite becase liberals do not feel that they are the right people to make descisions for themselfs.

A Libertarian is someone who believes in individual freedoms and the governments duty to protect individuals.

The two philosophies have nothing to do with one another, one is government taking over total care and control over a people the other is goverment limiting itself to protecting individuals.

The only way that someone could mistake liberalism as having anything to do with self-determination, or even making decisions for themselfs that they have been through the indoctrination of "The United States Department of Education" which teaches our children that socialism is actually a capitalist economic/political system by teaching them the incorrect meaning of words like welfare.
 
wrong again.

Lib⋅er⋅al
   /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]
–adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
Origin:
1325–75; ME < L līberālis of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to līber free + -ālis -al 1

But then I'm sure Boobfan thinks that the people who write dictionaries are also part of the conspiracy to destroy america and capitalism.
 
NO..
Just No.

There is no such thing as Liberal Libertarianism it does not exist.

A liberal is someone who feels it is the states duty to care for its people in all aspects making all descisions for them, where they will go to school (if they go to school), where they will work, where they will live, what doctors they will see, how many childeren they will have. They are Left thinkers who feel that the common man can't think for himself and government must think for him. Liberalism has nothing to do with self-determination it is the exact opposite becase liberals do not feel that they are the right people to make descisions for themselfs.

A Libertarian is someone who believes in individual freedoms and the governments duty to protect individuals.

The two philosophies have nothing to do with one another, one is government taking over total care and control over a people the other is goverment limiting itself to protecting individuals.

The only way that someone could mistake liberalism as having anything to do with self-determination, or even making decisions for themselfs that they have been through the indoctrination of "The United States Department of Education" which teaches our children that socialism is actually a capitalist economic/political system by teaching them the incorrect meaning of words like welfare.

Uh, no Sir.

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism, laissez-faire liberalism and market liberalism or, outside Britain, Canada, and the United States, sometimes simply liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited. The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism. Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government and object to the welfare state.

Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman, are credited with influencing a revival of classical liberalism in the twentieth century after it fell out of favor beginning in the late nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century. In relation to economic issues, this revival is sometimes referred to, mainly by its opponents, as "neoliberalism". The German "ordoliberalism" has a whole different meaning, since the likes of Alexander Rüstow and Wilhelm Röpke have advocated a more interventionist state, as opposed to laissez-faire liberals. Classical liberalism has some commonalities with modern libertarianism, with the terms being used almost interchangeably by minarchist libertarians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
 
But then I'm sure Boobfan thinks that the people who write dictionaries are also part of the conspiracy to destroy america and capitalism.

I think Boobfan will be alright if he pulls his head out of the echo chamber filled with GOPer talk show hosts and nudges his nose between the pages of a few books on the subject from time to time.
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
NO..
Just No.

A liberal is someone who feels it is the states duty to care for its people in all aspects making all descisions for them, where they will go to school (if they go to school), where they will work, where they will live, what doctors they will see, how many childeren they will have. They are Left thinkers who feel that the common man can't think for himself and government must think for him. Liberalism has nothing to do with self-determination it is the exact opposite becase liberals do not feel that they are the right people to make descisions for themselfs.

What a total load of shit this is! I know plenty of liberals who can think for "themselfs" and can make good "descisions" for their "childeren".

:rolleyes:
 
Because by definition they're illiberal ! They want government intrusion into everybody's life
because instead of learning factual history in school, they were indoctrinated by a Far left leaning education bureaucracy (Thank You Jimmy Carter) by the name of "the united states department of education" and the teachers union. In their mind the only reason why communism had failed is because it wasn't originally implemented properly.

You see, todays "progressives" are much more enlightened than before :rolleyes:


Another thing - JFK would be a far right winger if he were alive today.

No not true at all. Its the right moving more to the right. Just look at the republican party. What a joke. If Robald Ragan were alive today He would be considered a moderate. Just look at Senator Specter. The problem is all the right wingers are all religious nuts. They are like robots. Thats the problem. You have to agree 100% with that right wing social bullshit!
 
De mortuis nil nisi bonum. Do not speak ill of the dead.

but some dead deserve to be spoken ill of...like hitler, not a nice guy. and today many former liberal thinking individuals from say the 50's or 60's, would indeed be fairly conservative compared to todays liberals.
 
but some dead deserve to be spoken ill of...like hitler, not a nice guy. and today many former liberal thinking individuals from say the 50's or 60's, would indeed be fairly conservative compared to todays liberals.

Yeah. And like I said many of the conservatives would be liberal if they were alive today. Just look at Henry Ford. You really think he would be for what the pubs are for?? They are insane. With their religious agenda. Like I said robots. You must be completely right-wing or no chance of winning the republican party.
 
Top