Liberal

[Xodlirv]

Few things denote a lack of intelligence quite like the use of the word "liberal" as a pejorative. People who say "liberal" as though it were a dirty word, obviously have no idea what it means.

For the edification of those people, I offer the following, courtesy of dictionary.com:

lib·er·al . adj.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

You tell me what's wrong with that.

[Lazarus]

I happen to be of liberal beliefs as well....

I feel, in some instances, not being at least a partially liberal thinker is akin to being close-minded, or even ignorant....

[Mitchell]

Yeah, Xod! You're the man! I also detest it when people in this country view "liberal" as if it's a dirty word.
Iam a staunch Democrat, with leanings of centurist liberal. To me, Bill Clinton, with all his personal flaws that were not the American people's business as they did not affect his offical oath as president, was the best president in my lifetime. I also greatly admired presidents like Jack Kennedy, and Harry Truman, people who were truly "liberal" and cared about the plight of the lower and middle classes, something this current president doesnt seem to concern himself with. Then, of course, there was the great "liberal" president FDR, and all he did was help pull us out of a depression, and lead us through a war. In my opinion, he is probably the best president this country ever had, considering the shape this country was in when he left, and what it looked like when he died.
Iam going to make a very strong statement here, but I feel it is justified. I really believe that the reason a "liberal" is not well received in this country in 2004 is because of the media. Most media stations, most notably Fox but also CNN, are owned by huge corporations who earn billions of dollars a year, and who are financially better off with Bush in the White House. Therefore, many stations, I feel, present very Republican slanted viewpoints and commentaries, including political polls that may well be flawed, and geared towards a particular political leaning in favor of Bush. This is sad. I feel there should be a more fair spin put on the political issues in this country. As I look back, the media was far more harsh on a president being impeached for essentially lying about sex, then they are on a president who did a far more dangerous thing, miscalculating us into a war where over 1000 soldiers have died! This might sound like it's reaching for it, but it seems to me that how the media presents this campaign the rest of the way, may well determine who wins the election, especially if the race tightens in the final weeks, as it may, and the undecided voters make the difference between who wins and loses this election. "Liberal" is not a dirty word, it is merely another viewpoint against Mr George W Bush and his constituents. If we do not have "liberal" viewpoints in this country, then we do not have the two party system that the political arena in this country was constructed on. If we do not have this, we might as well give the Republicans the presidency going forward, and not even bother to have a Democratic party at all!

Mitch

[Xodlirv]

To me, Bill Clinton ... was the best president in my lifetime.

I also feel that Clinton was the best president in my lifetime. But then, I'm only 37; he doesn't have much competition in that area.

Nixon: Rei ipsa loquitor.
Ford: Most important thing he did in office was pardon Nixon.
Carter: A very nice guy. Too nice for the job.
Reagan: Demolished the economy with an unprecedented military buildup; conducted illegal arms deals; trained terrorists including but not limited to Osama Bin Laden.
Bush Sr: Reagan Lite.
Bush Jr: 1000+ dead and counting; 8 years of economic prosperity down the drain in less than 8 months; most of the rest of the world hates us.

So yes, I feel that Clinton was the best president in my lifetime. But it's not a high bar to get over.

[theshire]

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

What does this even mean? There are plenty of conservatives like that, too.

b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

What? Virtually every liberal I've ever met has a sickening intolerance of other people's views. Every time a conservative posts their opinions on this board, certain liberals become incredibly angry (just wait for the replies to THIS post). This may not be the case for everyone, but in my experience this definition should be exactly opposite to what it is.

Actually, I think the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' should be swapped with each other. It seems to make so much more sense that way.

[Haltickling]

The Latin origin of "liberal" comes from the word root "liber..." which means free. I'm always amused when I see Americans using the word liberal as if it were an insult... :rolleyes:

Just for balance, here's the dictionary defintion of "conservative":

"con·ser·va·tive Pronunciation Key (kn-sûrv-tv), adj.

1-Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2-Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3-Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4a-Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
4b-Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
5-Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
6-Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
7-Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources."

To swap the labels wouldn't make much sense; direct your attention to the definition "...tending to oppose change" as opposed to "...open to new ideas for progress...". If you wish to rename the main US parties, call the Democrats "Liberal" or "Social", and the Republicans "Conservative" or "Authoritarian". Or "Progressive" and "Reactionary"!
:devil:

[ShiningIce]

I think its funny how you conservatives complain about US getting angry when you guys at every turn try to mock and ridicule us.

[Krokus]

well said ice. i also agree with Xod, liberal is the nicest thing you can be called, actually. Im a proud liberal!! Liberate your mind! :D ;)

[venray]

Genus: A political belief system, or a person who accepts the system Differentia: To believe that the initiation of force should not be permitted in any aspect of life Comment: This definition above is the true, original definition of the term. In America the term has been changed to mean the opposite, including the left-wing and other socialists.
www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Dictionary.html


in political speech now in the U.S. a liberal is a person who believes it is the duty of government to ameliorate social conditions and create a more equitable society. Liberals favor generous spending on the welfare state; they exhibit a concern for minorities, the poor, and the disadvantaged and often see these conditions as a product of social injustices rather than individual failings.
www.ptvincivilsociety.org/glossary.htm


Favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education, or socioeconomic conditions; specifically, favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual; progressive. Liberals tend to favor greater federal power to remedy social inequities, and to support freedom of personal choice and behavior. Liberals are described as being left of center on the political spectrum. Of the two major political parties, the Democratic Party is generally regarded as being more liberal.
www.pbs.org/democracy/glossary/print.html


A person who is a proponent of liberalism (see below).
www.heritage.nf.ca/confederation/glossary.html


A person who believes that the government should actively support social reform within the existing system. Liberals stress the importance of individual rights and believe the government should promote equality in affairs of private citizens and businesses. (See CONSERVATIVE)
members.tripod.com/~tutor_me/book/glossary.htm


person whose political views favour progress and reform
www.ourheritage.net/Great_Adventures/Waterways_of_Russia/Glossary.html


In American politics, "liberals" tend to be people who are somewhat ideologically left-of-center. They tend to favor more power at the federal level and federal intervention to regulate economic issues and certain social issues, particularly social issues involving civil liberties, and the rights of minority groups. Of the two major parties, the Democrats are generally considered more liberal. Traditionally, the bases of liberal support have been among minorities, urban voters, labor unions and academics, though that is evolving as U.S. politics change. Candidates and voters commonly refer to themselves and others as conservative, moderate (or centrist), or liberal.
usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/politics/govworks/na2.htm

[theshire]

I think its funny how you conservatives complain about US getting angry when you guys at every turn try to mock and ridicule us.

Huh? I don't try to mock or ridicule the liberal point of view at all.
At least cosmo_ac (as much as I disagree with his views) provides backup for the things he says.

As of next week I'll be boycotting the P & R forum. Political debates are completely pointless anyway. Neither side is 'right'. All that happens is that someone will post some 'facts' which 'prove' something; and then someone from the other side will come along and post a different set of facts which contradict the first set. And so it goes, back and forth, blah blah blah... Which facts are true? Who knows? Probably neither.

Politics are all about ideas.

I can have perfectly respectful and civilised conversations with liberals - so long as they are willing to do so (which some aren't - ). Others obviously don't have such an open mind.

P.S. And the reason I think the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' should be swapped is:

- LIBERAL is when you are very gung-ho about something and take risks.
- CONSERVATIVE is when you take less risks over something and are more cautious.
- I believe that in this case LIBERAL describes the Right and CONSERVATIVE describes the Left.


*GR violattions edited*

[ShiningIce]

*Violations removed*

[BOFH666]

Forgive me if this isn't the most lucid post I've ever made, it's late, I'm tired and I'm trying to cut my caffenie dependency ;)

I believe the current definitions in American politics run thus:

Left = Liberal = Communist
Right = Republican = Nazi
Center = Flip-Flop
Anyone Else = Doesn't Exist.

I've said before that the current state of American politics reminds me of a football game, two teams and their supporters looking to "win". I think I'm going to change that to two vast armies camped on two identical hillsides who fight a continual war over the valley between the two. No-one can remember why the war started, no-one knows why they want the valley as there's nothing of value in it and anyone who tries to go talk to the other side gets shot by BOTH sides. So I guess there is at least a pile of corpses in the valley to be won.

Since Clinton was elected things seem to be getting worse at a frankly scary rate. The massive campaign to find something, ANYTHING, no matter how trivial to bring him down hurt America more than perhaps was realised at the time, not least of which by cripling his second term. The farce in the 2000 election, and Bush's failure to deliver on the "uniter not a divider" promise has accelerated the process.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm worried as hell about America right now. There seems to be little regard to working together from either side, situations where the truth is VITAL are being spun (specificaly the War on Terror), and it's become about one side or the other winning at all costs. At the end of the day this seems to end in one of two ways:

1) There's a collective revelation and everyone starts to chill out and work towards the best goal for everyone.

2) The Un-United States of America.

I will say this, my personal dislike for President Bush and his administration is no secret (Bush simply comes across as not the typical American but the stereotypical American, not a good thing when you're standing next to political sharks like Tony Blair) but the thing that caused that dislike to become this pronounced is simple. September 11th brought not only America but the world together as never before. There was, for one brief moment, a chance to go forward and build a better future TOGETHER. Instead, thanks almost entirely to the Iraq War and the events surrounding it, things are worse than ever.

Like him or loathe him, there is little doubt in my mind that had Clinton been in that position things would have gone differently. And that's not just an opinion pulled out of thin air, I'm basing it on the job he did in Northern Ireland which showed how a head of state SHOULD act in difficult circumstances. Now though... the world is becoming a very dark place and, though I can sometimes hardly believe it, it is America that is the main driving force behind that.And THAT is too depresing for words to express.

Liberal, conservative, democrate, republican, left, right, none of those labels mean a damn in the end. Politics is all about compromise, that is a lesson America needs to relearn, and quickly.

[Strider]

Originally posted by Xodlirv
Few things denote a lack of intelligence quite like the use of the word "liberal" as a pejorative. People who say "liberal" as though it were a dirty word, obviously have no idea what it means.

For the edification of those people, I offer the following, courtesy of dictionary.com:

lib·er·al . adj.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

You tell me what's wrong with that.

Nothing,but meanings of words change,and most people who call themselves 'liberal' today,aren't exactly what one would call disciples of John Locke and Adam Smith.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by theshire
What? Virtually every liberal I've ever met has a sickening intolerance of other people's views. Every time a conservative posts their opinions on this board, certain liberals become incredibly angry (just wait for the replies to THIS post). This may not be the case for everyone, but in my experience this definition should be exactly opposite to what it is.

Actually, I think the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' should be swapped with each other. It seems to make so much more sense that way.

The first paragraph presents a good point, but I find that BOTH sides seem to have a large contingent of intolerant mofos. I'd say the conservatives have a slightly larger group of them, but for the most part, intolerance toward differing viewpoints is kind of part of human nature. I've probably made it pretty obvious that I can be quite intolerant myself, but at least I admit to it....

As for your second paragraph, I must pose this question to you: if conservative is to be redefined as "a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry." and
"b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.", then please do me a favor and inform the Religious Right that they are no longer "conservative." The vast majority of these fundamentalists are obsessed with tradition, seem most inclined toward bigotry (mostly racism in the past, but currently, homophobia is en vogue), and extremely intolerant. As for the rest of the conservatives out there, well, I've met plenty of decent ones... even a few corporate ones I could relate to. I might disagree with them, but they can be "progressive" in their own ways....

By the way... Strider has brought up the interesting irony of economic liberalism. An economic liberal is someone who is supportive of free market policies: in other words, as little regulation as possible. Going by that definition, Libertarians are the only true Liberals in both the social AND economic senses. This means that Democrats are social liberals but economic conservatives. Republicans are simply the reverse of Democrats. Lastly, Populists (like Buchanan) are true Conservatives in both senses.

Shire's mention of the risk taking differences between liberals and conservatives is another interesting point. Personally, I find being careful to be a better way of doing things, so I guess that sort of makes me a conservative. Ironically, this also makes me anything but Republican. Maybe Bush should rally his supporters by showing more risky behavior. He could construct his own extreme sports team... First event: falling off of a segway.

[BOFH666]

Second event dog throwing?

Good point though Mac, todays Republican party seems to be, uh how to put this, drifting off message for the more conservative voter?

[the_Baron]

i always viewed FDR's legacy as the establishment of a welfare system without incentives, and therefore the creation of a perpetuating class of poverty.

that, and his most "warmhearted" and "caring" turning away of the fleeing holocoust escapees prior to the end of the war.

[Strider]

The entire left/right scale is somewhat irrelevant.You could ask 10 people to define it and get 10 different answers.And there's certain issues when it comes to who gets placed where that always produce rather contentious debates.So,in general,I try not to rely on it so much.

[drew70]

For me, the political term "liberal" represents those who believe that middle and upper income people are responsible for the well being of the lower income people. As for it being a dirty word, I have to agree. If the shoe fits....

[Xodlirv]

Originally posted by drew70
For me, the political term "liberal" represents those who believe that middle and upper income people are responsible for the well being of the lower income people. As for it being a dirty word, I have to agree. If the shoe fits....

I have to wonder if you'd feel that way if you suddenly joined the ranks of the lower income people, because your employer found it more profitable to send your job overseas or you lost your home in a natural disaster or some other circumstance beyond your control.

[drew70]

Originally posted by Xodlirv
I have to wonder if you'd feel that way if you suddenly joined the ranks of the lower income people, because your employer found it more profitable to send your job overseas or you lost your home in a natural disaster or some other circumstance beyond your control. Well, I'm very thankful that I've not been homeless due to a natural disaster. I'm all for the government stepping in and helping out there. What tends to irritate me are these welfare families, where Mom squeezes out as many puppies as she is humanly able to do because each one means more free money from the government, while I'm lucky to hang on to two thirds of my hard earned money. Mom's doing this the same way her mom did before and so on, and Dad is too lazy to get a job and actually earn a living, assuming Mom and Dad are even married. And why should Dad even want a job when he can live better on welfare? But hey, it's the liberal way.

Then you've got illegal immigrants who make out like bandits. Because they're illegal, they're bosses pay them in cash, so they don't pay taxes, yet the liberals still want to extend benefits normally requiring citizenship. In places like Montgomery County, MD, where government is about as liberal is it gets, illegal minorities actually get more benefits than do majorities. Not just emergency medical care, but I'm talking college education, dentistry, special housing, and countless other programs to which the rest of us aren't entitled. It's absolutely unbelievable.

[Xodlirv]

You seem quite convinced that the narrow-minded example you describe is indicative of all welfare recipients. If that's the case I can only pity your tunnel vision.

I readily admit that the welfare system needs restructuring. But to say that the only people whom it benefits are lazy parasites feeding off the more fortunate is unbelievably narrow-minded. It would be just as accurate to say that all Christians are members of the Ku Klux Klan, because that group chooses to use the cross as their instrument of hatred and violence.

[drew70]

No, I don't believe I said or even implied that "all" welfare recipients fall into the categories I mentioned. In fact I'm quite sure that I gave at least one example of legitimate government assistance. It's true that the scenarios I described don't apply across the board, but neither are they rare, isolated instances. To be honest, I'm not sure of your position on this. You admit there are pitfalls to the welfare system, yet label me as "narrow-minded" when I bring up specifics. Do you truly find my objections misplaced?

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by the_Baron
i always viewed FDR's legacy as the establishment of a welfare system without incentives, and therefore the creation of a perpetuating class of poverty.

that, and his most "warmhearted" and "caring" turning away of the fleeing holocoust escapees prior to the end of the war.

*claps* Wow... You should be a professional revisionist. You lie so well it sounds almost plausible... almost....

If you knew anything about The New Deal to begin with, then maybe you'd understand that the alternatives to implementing a socialized system would either involve inaction (aka - letting the masses of unemployed starve in the streets) or fascism (aka - getting rid of them a la South American style). Maybe things like Social Security and welfare seem useless nowadays, but at least educate yourself in American history before making baseless accusations....

By the way, if you want to really know why FDR turned away millions of Holocaust refugees after WWII, then maybe you should take a look at the popular Anti-Semitic attitude within America at the time. There is a reason why we let the Brits put them in what would become the modern Israel. The Nazies weren't the only Anti-Semites back then. Quite frankly, no one really wanted the burden of taking care of the Jews and the other refugees.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by drew70
For me, the political term "liberal" represents those who believe that middle and upper income people are responsible for the well being of the lower income people. As for it being a dirty word, I have to agree. If the shoe fits....

Ah yes... compassion is certainly a dirty word. I say, "Let them have cake."

[the_Baron]

mrmacphisto -

i do study history.

i still conclude thusly.

we see two sides to this. and so do countless others.


but really.......the sarcasm??????

[General Zod]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
Ah yes... compassion is certainly a dirty word. I say, "Let them have cake."

It's not so much non-compassion It's that a lot of working class people can barely afford to take care of their own families Is it really right that we have to take care of the poor as well? How many working class people can afford that?

Look I have a sister that has two different children from two different men Two years ago she moved in with our mother It was to be only for a few months Basically until she got some money saved up She gets close to $5,000 back for income tax return every year

Guess what? two years later she is still living with her two children at our mother's house She has not saved any money up She makes a little over $12.oo per hour in a full time job She still gets close to five grand back each year

She is the type who will always expect some sort of handout from someone Hell back in 2001 she spent $700 for a pet bird Sadly some people are like her

Some people need a helping hand at times I don't mind helping them out Hell out here on the road as a trucker I've given people money to buy food But what is to be done with people like my sister?

[MrMacphisto]

Very well... I shall drop the sarcasm in my response, Baron.

I'm glad that you have apparently researched these topics, but I must ask you: what would you have done in the following situations?

Situation #1: You are the president; your country is flooded with poor, unemployed laborers. Each passing year, your country receives several thousand new immigrants looking for work. Your country's economy is primarily based on manufacturing industries. Your country's banking system is in shambles, and the few people who still have a lot of money are reluctant to trust banks. Your country also has a lot of natural resources, and most importantly, your country has just suffered the worst stock market crash ever. Oh yeah, and you happen to notice that two major wars are brewing outside of your country: one in Europe and one in East Asia. What do you do? (given 1930's technology)

Situation #2: As president, you have somehow aided your Allies in Europe at defeating the Nazies, and you notice that there are millions of poor refugees to attend to. About half of them are Jewish, and you know that the majority of your people have a lot of prejudicial feelings against Jews. You also know that adding the burden of about 12 million poor refugees into your economy will likely cause the downfall of your social systems, unless taxes are hiked massively. You also know that a major tax hike will undoubtedly end your reign as one of the most powerful presidents in American history. What do you do? (given 1940's technology)

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by gen.zod
It's not so much non-compassion It's that a lot of working class people can barely afford to take care of their own families Is it really right that we have to take care of the poor as well? How many working class people can afford that?

Look I have a sister that has two different children from two different men Two years ago she moved in with our mother It was to be only for a few months Basically until she got some money saved up She gets close to $5,000 back for income tax return every year

Guess what? two years later she is still living with her two children at our mother's house She has not saved any money up She makes a little over $12.oo per hour in a full time job She still gets close to five grand back each year

She is the type who will always expect some sort of handout from someone Hell back in 2001 she spent $700 for a pet bird Sadly some people are like her

Some people need a helping hand at times I don't mind helping them out Hell out here on the road as a trucker I've given people money to buy food But what is to be done with people like my sister?

You bring up some good points, but... The issue here is not whether or not working class people can afford to take care of the poor, but that the RICH have a RESPONSIBILITY to share some of their wealth for the benefit of society. Rich people in America have no reason to bitch, because they pay far less in taxes than rich citizens of almost every other First World country. It is the lies of the Republicans that have somehow pandered to the greed of the rich so much in this country that they have the nerve to constantly whine about taxation. Essentially, they have it better than ever before, and they STILL want it better. This isn't a conflict between middle class and poor. This is a conflict between the rich and everyone else. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you'll see just how fucked up our government really is.... We give more government money to corporations than we do to poor people, so if any welfare needs to be cut, it should be CORPORATE welfare. That being said, the corruption is definitely on both sides of the political fence (Republican AND Democrat), but Republicans tend to be the most blatant and extensive in favoring the rich. At least the Democrats are bound enough by special interest groups that oppose corporations (environmental groups, labor unions, etc.) that they have to PRETEND to be less plutocratic. They really are the lesser of two evils, and I don't know about you, but I prefer Karl Marx over Corporate Cthulhu.

As far as your sister is concerned... well, she's the reason why Clinton and a Republican Congress created welfare limits. It was actually a good idea, and it basically serves as damage control for those people that are truly lazy or bad at managing funds. No offense to your sister, of course....

[General Zod]

MrMacphisto
No offense taken:D Believe me my sister is an idiot But as far as the rich paying more taxes go?....... The only way that they will "share the wealth" in this country is if the poor and middle class take it from them at gun point

You made a reference to Marx The Marx Brothers?:D Oh wait you mean the father of communism Hell even I am a bit of a communist But let's face it Communism is a crappy system Even their leaders got to greedy All it did was create a lot of poor people who had to depend upon the government