This place is suddenly flooded ....

[Mr. Shaman]

It's easy to fix a label on anyone who you disagree with, but when generalizations are made, it is my own opinion that the generalizers are engaging in mental laziness and really have no fixed definition for the terms they are using.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's so-much-more convenient, being a "conservative".

 

[Libsmasher]

Argument by cartoon - now that's mature!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You demand definitions in a place where "neocon" means anyone to the right of Obama?

Waaaaaaaaaaay far-to-the-Right.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Here's your "maturity": You're pro-abortion, pro-racial discrimination, pro-appeasement, pro-tax, pro-state, pro-ecofascist, anti-free speech.....

Whew! No rhetoric, there.

Fascism: A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. (See: Bush Admin)

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttt????????

It's called English.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Argument by cartoon - now that's mature!.

You didn't get it. That's not surprising.

 

[Andy]

You didn't get it. That's not surprising.

Every post of yours is filled with lies. When I talk about evidence and logic, that automatically includes truth, something you haven't shown yet. In fact, I've never seen you actually debate something, in the entire time I've known you. Even now, all you've done is spam some empty, pointless cartoons on here, and think that somehow equals debating?

If anything, you are only proving Libs original point to be correct.

You really don't seem to know anything about the topics that are discussed. Which is why you tend to just spam some links to some other web site filled with partisan hacks who fabricate their points, and think this constitutes 'thinking'.

Then when faced with irrefutable evidence to the contrary of your 'link' which you use as an argument, you either resort to name calling (5th grade relived), or you disappear. Never to actually defend your obviously illogical view points, but just to reappear when someone else types up another rant on a hack job web site for you to link to.

Even your lame quote of Jefferson is a proven fabricated lie... like just about everything else you say. At least Sil, as nutty as he is, believes in what he says. We all know that quote is a lie, and you still repeat it. So why should anyone take you as anything more than a side show? A cheap joke to be laughed at on the forums? A non-stop liar is just a minor amusement to me

 

[PLC1]

You demand definitions in a place where "neocon" means anyone to the right of Obama?

Neocon has an actual meaning, and I've defined it already. Why are you dodging the issue? Can't come up with an answer, huh?

 

[GenSeneca]

it is my own opinion that the generalizers are engaging in mental laziness and really have no fixed definition for the terms they are using. Prove me wrong.

Why do they object to labeling themselves?

I hear people on the Left, and its always people on the Left, say something along the lines of: "I don't like labels" or "I'm not going to label myself", something like that... I submit to you that it is a cop out to avoid labeling their political ideology because to do so requires introspective analysis and they don't like having to admit to where their political ideology stands.

Conservatives are proud to be Conservatives and freely declare their position.... Same with Libertarians... Same with Religious and Non-Religious people. I don't know that I've ever met a Libertarian, Conservative, Atheist, Christian etc. who wasn't proud to let others know that's what he believed.

Don't see that so much with Liberalism or Socialism... I don't see any liberals or socialists laying out their beliefs with pride - unless it's a religious viewpoint; like the Liberal/socialist who will "Label" himself Athiest but objects to being labeled a Liberal, or a Socialist, or an Anti-Theist!

PLC, Pragmatic Libertarian Conservative
CaLiCo, Capitalist Libertarian Conservative

I think most people who really are Liberals, in the classic definition of the word... are now among the Libertarians because the Democrat party has gone so far Left. The Libertarians and Liberals are now in the center.

Hey people on the Left... Where do you fit in on these?

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], market liberalism[3] or, in much of the world, simply liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.[2] 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,[4] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods.[5] The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from changes in liberal thought during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, especially the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse,[6] and Franklin D. Roosevelt,[7] which grants the state a more interventionist role in the economy, including a welfare state. Classical liberalism is not to be confused with the ideology that is commonly called "liberalism" today in the United States, as "classical liberalism" is closer to being a current of contemporary "conservatism" in the U.S.[8]

Going farther Left:

Social liberalism, also called new liberalism[1][2] (as it was originally termed), high liberalism[3] radical liberalism,[4] modern liberalism,[5] or in North America and the United Kingdom simply liberalism, is a branch of liberalism which emphasizes individual rights and equal opportunity for all citizens.[6] For social liberals, the lack of education, health, or employment, is seen as as big a threat to individual freedom as state compulsion and coercion. Additionally, like other liberals, social liberals support (with qualifications) free markets, private entrepreneurship, and a limited state.

We are still in Free Markets and Individual Liberty trumping the Socialist Collective... Lets go farther Left:

Progressivism is a term that refers to a broad school of international social and political philosophies. Politically speaking, progressivism can be described as being socially liberal. The term progressive was first widely used in late 19th century United States, in reference to a general branch of political thought which arose as a response to the vast changes brought by industrialization, and as an alternative both to the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more or less radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties, such as the American Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.[1]

U.S. progressivism historically advocates the advancement of labor rights and social justice. The progressives were early proponents of anti-trust laws, regulation of large corporations and monopolies, as well as government-funded environmentalism and the creation of National Parks and Wildlife Refuges.

Progressives have almost completely abandoned the idea of Free Markets and Individual Freedom, they are willing to sacrifice both to a controlled economy and the "Greater Good". Basically, Socialism Lite.
Still farther left:

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who control capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.

Socialist are the Hard Left. Are any of you Socialist? Social Democrats reside among the Socialists and you know them better as... the New Democrat Party.

Capitalism is denounced as unfair and this objection manifests itself in class warfare rhetoric - "Senator Obama also recognizes that a system riddled with tax subsidies is not perceived as fair because people rightly worry that the rich or more sophisticated are taking advantage of benefits they cannot enjoy. Accordingly, he advocates eliminating many of these special tax breaks, thereby also eliminating the economic distortions that they create."

We, the United States, have gone a spree of Nationalizing industries in the last few months:

Nationalization is the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government. - Socialists believe that public ownership enables people to exercise full democratic control over the means whereby they earn their living and provides an effective means of redistributing wealth and income more equitably.

Democrats: Dennis Kucinich (sounding like Sihouette) and, outed Socialist, Maxine Waters are calling for the US to nationalize the US Oil industry to compliment the newly Nationalized Banking industry (Bailout) and Insurance Industry (AIG).

Americans don't like Socialism, we instinctively reject it because we know its a failure responsible for horrific suffering and doomed to devolve into an authoritarian state. So.... Socialism went to Hollywood and got a facelift to find acceptance among the American public.

The Progressive Movement was reborn in the late 80's early 90's to incorporate Socialist policy as environmental imperatives. Coupled with the Green Movement, Progressivism has since grown to such popularity that Socialist policy can now be considered mainstream despite their views being antithetical to our founding... Individual Rights and Liberties, Free Markets, Limited Government and a Right to Property - intellectual, tangible and pecuniary.

 

[vyo476]

I would say, based on those labels, that I'm a social liberal.

 

[GenSeneca]

I would say, based on those labels, that I'm a social liberal.

Thank you Vyo... I hope some others can honestly asses themselves in relation to where they stand politically. Obviously, thanks to word count, I couldn't post each of the several shades that go from Liberalism to Socialism but people are free to explore for themselves to see where exactly they fit in on the political spectrum.

I do encourage people to be as proud to label themselves politically as they are about labeling themselves ethnically, sexually, religiously etc. Find what you really believe in, be proud of what you believe and state it openly.

 

[Libsmasher]

I've noticed that for a long time - liberals find it hard to say what they are. Not suprising, they are the past masters of euphemism:

"exit strategy" = method of abandonment

"choice" = abortion

"diversity" = racial discrimination

"investment" = spending tax money

"insurgents" = terrorists

"undocumented immigrant" = illegal alien invader

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why do they object to labeling themselves?

I hear people on the Left, and its always people on the Left, say something along the lines of: "I don't like labels" or "I'm not going to label myself", something like that... I submit to you that it is a cop out to avoid labeling their political ideology because to do so requires introspective analysis and they don't like having to admit to where their political ideology stands.

Kinda like you Fascists, huh?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I think most people who really are Liberals, in the classic definition of the word... are now among the Libertarians because the Democrat party has gone so far Left. The Libertarians and Liberals are now in the center.

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], market liberalism[3] or, in much of the world, simply liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.[2] 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,[4] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods.[5] The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from changes in liberal thought during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, especially the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse,[6] and Franklin D. Roosevelt,[7] which grants the state a more interventionist role in the economy, including a welfare state. Classical liberalism is not to be confused with the ideology that is commonly called "liberalism" today in the United States, as "classical liberalism" is closer to being a current of contemporary "conservatism" in the U.S.[8]

Gee.....no source for your definition!

How "shocking".

Here.....try one o' mine.

"....of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives."

 

[PLC1]

Why do they object to labeling themselves?

I hear people on the Left, and its always people on the Left, say something along the lines of: "I don't like labels" or "I'm not going to label myself", something like that... I submit to you that it is a cop out to avoid labeling their political ideology because to do so requires introspective analysis and they don't like having to admit to where their political ideology stands.

Conservatives are proud to be Conservatives and freely declare their position.... Same with Libertarians... Same with Religious and Non-Religious people. I don't know that I've ever met a Libertarian, Conservative, Atheist, Christian etc. who wasn't proud to let others know that's what he believed.

Don't see that so much with Liberalism or Socialism... I don't see any liberals or socialists laying out their beliefs with pride - unless it's a religious viewpoint; like the Liberal/socialist who will "Label" himself Athiest but objects to being labeled a Liberal, or a Socialist, or an Anti-Theist!

PLC, Pragmatic Libertarian Conservative
CaLiCo, Capitalist Libertarian Conservative

I think most people who really are Liberals, in the classic definition of the word... are now among the Libertarians because the Democrat party has gone so far Left. The Libertarians and Liberals are now in the center.

Hey people on the Left... Where do you fit in on these?


Going farther Left:

We are still in Free Markets and Individual Liberty trumping the Socialist Collective... Lets go farther Left:

Progressives have almost completely abandoned the idea of Free Markets and Individual Freedom, they are willing to sacrifice both to a controlled economy and the "Greater Good". Basically, Socialism Lite.
Still farther left:

Socialist are the Hard Left. Are any of you Socialist? Social Democrats reside among the Socialists and you know them better as... the New Democrat Party.

Capitalism is denounced as unfair and this objection manifests itself in class warfare rhetoric - "Senator Obama also recognizes that a system riddled with tax subsidies is not perceived as fair because people rightly worry that the rich or more sophisticated are taking advantage of benefits they cannot enjoy. Accordingly, he advocates eliminating many of these special tax breaks, thereby also eliminating the economic distortions that they create."

We, the United States, have gone a spree of Nationalizing industries in the last few months:

Democrats: Dennis Kucinich (sounding like Sihouette) and, outed Socialist, Maxine Waters are calling for the US to nationalize the US Oil industry to compliment the newly Nationalized Banking industry (Bailout) and Insurance Industry (AIG).

Americans don't like Socialism, we instinctively reject it because we know its a failure responsible for horrific suffering and doomed to devolve into an authoritarian state. So.... Socialism went to Hollywood and got a facelift to find acceptance among the American public.

The Progressive Movement was reborn in the late 80's early 90's to incorporate Socialist policy as environmental imperatives. Coupled with the Green Movement, Progressivism has since grown to such popularity that Socialist policy can now be considered mainstream despite their views being antithetical to our founding... Individual Rights and Liberties, Free Markets, Limited Government and a Right to Property - intellectual, tangible and pecuniary.

Based on those definitions, I'm more of a "classical liberal" than anything else. I wonder if that's really what is meant when people who define themselves as "conservatives" rant about how the liberals are ruining the country? I kind of doubt it, don't you?

When words are misused, pretty soon they lose their meanings altogether.

 

[GenSeneca]

Based on those definitions, I'm more of a "classical liberal" than anything else. I wonder if that's really what is meant when people who define themselves as "conservatives" rant about how the liberals are ruining the country? I kind of doubt it, don't you?

When words are misused, pretty soon they lose their meanings altogether.

I agree... like it says, those who were liberals in the classic sense of the word are now recognized as Conservatives. Progressives and Socialist Democrats have become the new liberals.

We would be better off if people used labels appropriately because, as stated, Liberals and Conservatives are on the same team fighting against Socialism. Socialists should identify themselves as such but they know it would be the end of them politically.... so they call themselves Progressives or just stick with Democrat.

BTW, the Socialists are the kings of misusing words. Words mean anything they want them to mean, at any time and for any reason, so long as it provides cover for their lies.

For example.... "Fair" means different things at different times when talking to Socialists, don't expect a definition to that word that works with all their uses of the word.

"The Rich aren't paying their "Fair" share!" Good luck getting a percentage placed on the word "Fair" when talking to Socialists... the meaning changes as their needs change.