Are you a liberal?

Are you a liberal according to the definition given?

  • Yes, I'm a liberal, by that definition.

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • No, I may be a liberal, but not according to the definition given.

    Votes: 7 77.8%
  • I'm not sure.

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • Total voters
    9

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,631
Location
The Golden State
The following definition of the term "liberal" was posted by "Libsmasher" on the thread "What is a Liberal". Of course, t here were many other definitions posted also, but since Libsmasher has the term right in his name, I decided to go with his. A liberal must believe in the following:

- pro appeasement
- pro abortion
- pro bureacracy and regulation
- anti trade
- pro white racial discrimination
- pro taxes
- anti US sovereignty
- pro illegal alien
- pro balkanization
- pro statist
- anti capitalist
- pro ecofascist
- pro health care rationing

Do you believe in at least 80% or more of the above values? If so, then you're a liberal and should vote yes. If you believe in fewer than half of them, then you must not be a liberal, and should vote no. If you're somewhere in between, then vote "not sure."
 
Werbung:

pocketfullofshells

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
12,009
Location
land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
It appears I am not .

- pro appeasement. Only if Appease means talk, and if they dont act, push harder till they listen, and if they realy get out of hand, Military can be a option.

- pro abortion: As much as I dont care for kids, mostly other peoples, I would most likly like my own, and like my freinds ( but I pick freinds who are not so dumb as to end up with dumb kids)
- pro bureacracy and regulation. I have to say no, becuse some Regulation is good and needed to make the system fair and work. Buracracy on the other hand not so much.
- anti trade. I am for Fair trade. Seems that no Trading at all would suck, I would have to live of the land and do everything myself like a cave man.
- pro white racial discrimination. I do hate white people, I yell at the man in the mirror evry day.
- pro taxes. Well i am pro paying for things and not just spending money and not paying for it. So I guess not a Conservative there,
- anti US sovereignty. I am for the US should have to do what ever Israel wants us to do.
- pro illegal alien. I am against them I would force them all to be legal aliens.
- pro balkanization. Not sure, would have to see if I am living in the Albanian or Serb part....
- pro statist..I like Commonwealths more
- anti capitalist. I think that I work in sales, normally Commission based, makes me a bad commie...so I have say no.
- pro ecofascist
- pro health care rationing. I though Republicans wanted it Rationed....90% for the rich, 5% for the middle class, and none for the poor.
 

Mare Tranquillity

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
3,477
The following definition of the term "liberal" was posted by "Libsmasher" on the thread "What is a Liberal". Of course, t here were many other definitions posted also, but since Libsmasher has the term right in his name, I decided to go with his. A liberal must believe in the following:

- pro appeasement
- pro abortion
- pro bureacracy and regulation
- anti trade
- pro white racial discrimination
- pro taxes
- anti US sovereignty
- pro illegal alien
- pro balkanization
- pro statist
- anti capitalist
- pro ecofascist
- pro health care rationing

Do you believe in at least 80% or more of the above values? If so, then you're a liberal and should vote yes. If you believe in fewer than half of them, then you must not be a liberal, and should vote no. If you're somewhere in between, then vote "not sure."

This poll reminds me of ones done by a guy named Devyl who wrote his polls in such a way as to get the answers he wanted. Lipsmasher doesn't define the terms so "appeasement" could mean anything that is handy at the time. What the Hell is an "ecofascist"? "Balkanization" of what or where? "Illegal alien"? I don't even believe in UFO's. Does "pro white racial discrimination" mean discrimination against whites or against people who aren't white? Is "health care rationing" when one can't afford medical care?
 

Bunz

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,215
Location
Alaska
There should have been an option that has something along the lines of,
I dont care what Libs definition is.
 

numinus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
2,525
I so despise attempts at putting people and their opinions in neat little boxes labeled 'liberal' or 'conservative'.

The only requirement for a valid opinion is that it is based on FACTS AND LOGIC.
 

Popeye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
3,023
Location
Washington state
That poll is ridiculous, therefore I won't vote in it. What self respecting person would participate in a poll created and defined by someone with an obvious agenda?
 

sun tzu

Member
Joined
May 12, 2008
Messages
20
Location
undisclosed
The following definition of the term "liberal" was posted by "Libsmasher" on the thread "What is a Liberal". Of course, t here were many other definitions posted also, but since Libsmasher has the term right in his name, I decided to go with his. A liberal must believe in the following:

- pro appeasement
- pro abortion
- pro bureacracy and regulation
- anti trade
- pro white racial discrimination
- pro taxes
- anti US sovereignty
- pro illegal alien
- pro balkanization
- pro statist
- anti capitalist
- pro ecofascist
- pro health care rationing

Do you believe in at least 80% or more of the above values? If so, then you're a liberal and should vote yes. If you believe in fewer than half of them, then you must not be a liberal, and should vote no. If you're somewhere in between, then vote "not sure."

With all due respect to Libsmasher, he isn't exactly unbiased in his opinions, as I think (hope)he admits. I mean, what person is going to say he's racist against whites, anti-capitalist, eco-fascist, anti-US sovereignty, or anti-trade?

A liberal is someone who believes in allowing people to make choices about just about everything in there life, but also believe that taxes are neccassary, and probably should'nt be curbed. A liberal is usually against war on principle, but can be persuaded by logical reasoning (or lies, as Bush proved). Liberals aren't the Blame America First fools people like Libsmasher makes them out to be; in my expeiriance, they love America as much as any conservative. They just exercise that love differently: as opposed to saying America is always right (which isn't possible and isn't true), they try and rectify the times when America is wrong through collective criticism, so that the government types get the message. That is why, at age 14, I can now consider myself a Liberal; not because I think Conservatives hate America (in my expeiriance most of them don't), but because I think liberals go about government in a more effective way. But I can see the other side of the issue with respect, unlike libsmasher.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
With all due respect to Libsmasher, he isn't exactly unbiased in his opinions, as I think (hope)he admits. I mean, what person is going to say he's racist against whites, anti-capitalist, eco-fascist, anti-US sovereignty, or anti-trade?

Well OF COURSE libs won't admit how they are! :D:rolleyes:

A liberal is someone who believes in allowing people to make choices about just about everything in there life,

That's simply false - libs want choices available for the kinds of things their clients would want to chose, and suppress other's ability to make choices.

but also believe that taxes are neccassary, and probably should'nt be curbed. A liberal is usually against war on principle, but can be persuaded by logical reasoning (or lies, as Bush proved).

Liberals are NOT usually against war on principle. Libs and their wars:

Woodrow Wilson: WWI
Franklin Roosevelt: WWII
Harry Truman: Korean war
John Kennedy: Vietnam war
Lyndon Johnson: Vietnam war

Jimmy Carter was in fact the only lib appeaser president in the last 100 years.

Liberals aren't the Blame America First fools people like Libsmasher makes them out to be; in my expeiriance, they love America as much as any conservative. They just exercise that love differently: as opposed to saying America is always right (which isn't possible and isn't true), they try and rectify the times when America is wrong through collective criticism, so that the government types get the message.

Simply false - libs DO blame america for everything - I've heard them blame the US for WWII and 9/11, just to name two preposterous blamings. What ever goes wrong, if there is an american side and a foreign side, they'll almost always be on the foreign side.

That is why, at age 14, I can now consider myself a Liberal; not because I think Conservatives hate America (in my expeiriance most of them don't), but because I think liberals go about government in a more effective way.

Give major policy examples of that?
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
It appears I am not .

- pro appeasement. Only if Appease means talk, and if they dont act, push harder till they listen, and if they realy get out of hand, Military can be a option.

A load of crap -libs have been saying to cut and run from iraq since day 1 - not "talk".

- pro abortion: As much as I dont care for kids, mostly other peoples, I would most likly like my own, and like my freinds ( but I pick freinds who are not so dumb as to end up with dumb kids)

Interesting - now how about commenting on abortion?


- anti trade. I am for Fair trade.

"Fair trade" is a lib statist cliche for stopping free trade by imposing untenable constraints on US trading partners. Since libs don't understand trade, let alone capitalism, they are unable to grasp how this will hurt the US in the long run.

- pro white racial discrimination. I do hate white people, I yell at the man in the mirror evry day.

You support racist policies and actions - that makes you a racist.

- anti US sovereignty. I am for the US should have to do what ever Israel wants us to do.

Clueless - don't even understand the issue, do you? :)

- pro illegal alien. I am against them I would force them all to be legal aliens.

"legal alien" is an oxymoron, and YOU are a just plain --- well, nevermind. :)

- pro balkanization. Not sure, would have to see if I am living in the Albanian or Serb part....

Clueless again. :rolleyes:


- pro health care rationing. I though Republicans wanted it Rationed....90% for the rich, 5% for the middle class, and none for the poor

Pure fiction.
 

vyo476

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,401
Location
Massachusetts
- pro appeasement

Not appeasement, open negotiation. If we do wind up at war with Iran it would be least as much our fault. One of the reasons the present administration won't sit down and talk with Iran is what the Iranians have to say - and if they refuse to talk to us, what would stop them from citing the same reason? Hypocrisy. Nothing is harmed by peaceful discourse.

- pro abortion

I am not "pro-abortion." I've gone back and forth on this issue enough times that I'm a little dizzy. The only thing I'm "pro-" in this category would be removing the need for abortions - through research into better contraceptives and better sexual education.

- pro bureacracy and regulation

I am not pro-bureaucracy. I don't know anyone who is.

As for regulation, yes, I believe in it in some facets. When it comes to firearms, I believe some regulation is necessary. When it comes to food and medicine, I believe some regulation is necessary. I don't believe in prohibition of those types of items - just steps to maintain public safety.

- anti trade

Huh?

- pro white racial discrimination

This is a farce. I advocate racial equality.

- pro taxes

When necessary. Even the founding fathers recognized the necessity of generating government revenue somehow.

- anti US sovereignty

What is this nonsense?

- pro illegal alien

If by that you mean that I empathize with people who enter this country illegally looking for a better life, then yeah, sure, I'm pro-illegal alien. I am not pro-illegal immigration, and I would seek to heal the issues that cause it. I doubt that putting up walls or putting armed guards on the border will really stem the tide of illegal immigration; instead, helping the Latin American countries from which most illegal aliens are coming these days to become more developed should help solve the problem.

- pro balkanization

Wait a minute. The old stereotype is that liberals favor a large, strong central government. How does balkanization fit that stereotype?

And for the record, no, I do not support balkanization.

- pro statist

Not always. I have and continue to advocate as much private action on the issues that are important to me as public action, and generally prefer the former over the latter.

- anti capitalist

In some instances. I'm not terribly comfortable with capitalism, but until something that really is better comes along, I won't be "anti-capitalist."

- pro ecofascist

Was this definition designed by a troll who draws no distinction between actual environmentalists and true "ecofascists" (read: ecoterrorists, the like, etc.)?

I am a mild environmentalist. I believe in conservation where possible, and I believe in taking the necessary steps to ensure the sustainability of the planet. I am not a member of PETA. Environmentalism is not irrational.

- pro health care rationing

As I've stated before on this site, my mother suffers from a severely debilitating disease. It's hard for me to be objective when it comes to health care because I care less about what would benefit the most people and care everything about what would help her. Right now, she and my father have tried everything there is to try in the present system, and she still isn't getting enough to cross the border between "surviving" and "living." I'm willing to entertain options.
 

pocketfullofshells

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
12,009
Location
land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
A load of crap -libs have been saying to cut and run from iraq since day 1 - not "talk".



Interesting - now how about commenting on abortion?




"Fair trade" is a lib statist cliche for stopping free trade by imposing untenable constraints on US trading partners. Since libs don't understand trade, let alone capitalism, they are unable to grasp how this will hurt the US in the long run.



You support racist policies and actions - that makes you a racist.



Clueless - don't even understand the issue, do you? :)



"legal alien" is an oxymoron, and YOU are a just plain --- well, nevermind. :)



Clueless again. :rolleyes:




Pure fiction.

Sarcasm, look it up some time..
 

sun tzu

Member
Joined
May 12, 2008
Messages
20
Location
undisclosed
Well OF COURSE libs won't admit how they are! :D:rolleyes:


what a pointless insult. You can't seriously believe that Liberals hate America, and want to destroy all trade, do you?

That's simply false - libs want choices available for the kinds of things their clients would want to chose, and suppress other's ability to make choices.

Oh, so you're saying that the Liberals are the party of the special interest groups. maybe I should point out that the oil companies have been expeiriencing mind blowing profits almost every year since the Republican president came into office, and that our president seems to be in denial about global climate change (the whole Kyoto treaty thing), which only benifits one group; the oil compaines.

Also, how much money has your candidate excepted from lobbyists? How about Obama?

Your party doesn't want to give homosexuals the choice to get married, Single mothers or rape victims the choice of abortion. Name one instance when liberals as a group have attempted to take away a group's right to choose

Liberals are NOT usually against war on principle. Libs and their wars:

Woodrow Wilson: WWI
Franklin Roosevelt: WWII
Harry Truman: Korean war
John Kennedy: Vietnam war
Lyndon Johnson: Vietnam war

Jimmy Carter was in fact the only lib appeaser president in the last 100 years.

That's a new one; Blaming the liberals for Vietnam. Remember Nixon? all the students at the colleges who were protesting? I think I remember you personally saying we lost that war because the Dems made us pull out too soon.

Like I said, Libs don't start wars -- unless they're neccassary. WWI and WWII are wars I think you'll agree should have happened. Korea is debatable, but we saved South Korea, and that's what we went in to accomplish, after all.

And I'd like to point out some republican wars. Off the top of my head, I can come up with four:

George Bush senior -- the First Gulf War

Richard Nixon -- Vietnam

George Bush Jr. -- Afghanistan

George Bush Jr. -- Iraq

Simply false - libs DO blame america for everything - I've heard them blame the US for WWII and 9/11, just to name two preposterous blamings. What ever goes wrong, if there is an american side and a foreign side, they'll almost always be on the foreign side.

Liberals as a body do not blame America for WWII or 9/11. I don't hold the republicans accountable for all the crazy ramblings of Ann Coulter.
Liberals are ready to criticize America any time it messes up. I think that is a good thing; it keeps stuff like the Keating 5 or Watergate from happening again.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
what a pointless insult. You can't seriously believe that Liberals hate America, and want to destroy all trade, do you?

I look at what people actually DO. What you are is what you DO, not what you say you are. How can anyone say they love america, when they destroy everything in it? Like saying I love your house, after I burn it down.

Oh, so you're saying that the Liberals are the party of the special interest groups. maybe I should point out that the oil companies have been expeiriencing mind blowing profits almost every year since the Republican president came into office, and that our president seems to be in denial about global climate change (the whole Kyoto treaty thing), which only benifits one group; the oil compaines.

That point blew over your head.

Your party doesn't want to give homosexuals the choice to get married,

LOTS of democrats don't want them to have the choice to get married. I don't give a damn what gays do, as long as they stop asking for special privileges. One class of super-citizens, blacks, is more than we can afford already.

Single mothers or rape victims the choice of abortion.

You're damn right I don't support abortions of convenience - and the "rape victims" is a red herring, they are 1% of all abortions.


Name one instance when liberals as a group have attempted to take away a group's right to choose

They want to remove a person's constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. Whew!! That was difficult - had to think for a whole hour!!

That's a new one; Blaming the liberals for Vietnam.

It's a new one only to the historically ignorant - Kennedy injected the first combat troops, and Johnson massively built it up till there were 500,000 troops there. I'm not going to argue facts with you.

Remember Nixon?

The guy who ended the democrat war? Yeah.

all the students at the colleges who were protesting? I think I remember you personally saying we lost that war because the Dems made us pull out too soon.

If you want to argue the vietnam war, that should get a separate thread - and I'm not going to tutor you about the basic facts - read up a lot and then come back.

Like I said, Libs don't start wars -- unless they're neccassary. WWI and WWII are wars I think you'll agree should have happened.

Not at all - the US didn't need to enter WWI. Few historians will agree that we should have gotten into vietnam - another lib war.

Korea is debatable, but we saved South Korea, and that's what we went in to accomplish, after all.

And I'd like to point out some republican wars. Off the top of my head, I can come up with four:

George Bush senior -- the First Gulf War

Richard Nixon -- Vietnam

George Bush Jr. -- Afghanistan

George Bush Jr. -- Iraq

You're losing track of what was said - you said libs are usually against war on principle, which is demonstrably false - I never claimed that was true about republicans.

Liberals as a body do not blame America for WWII or 9/11. I don't hold the republicans accountable for all the crazy ramblings of Ann Coulter.
Liberals are ready to criticize America any time it messes up. I think that is a good thing; it keeps stuff like the Keating 5 or Watergate from happening again.

No liberals just criticize america - period.
 
Werbung:

vyo476

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,401
Location
Massachusetts
I look at what people actually DO. What you are is what you DO, not what you say you are. How can anyone say they love america, when they destroy everything in it? Like saying I love your house, after I burn it down.

We do not "destroy everything in it." That's a highly sensational fallacy. The truth is that most of us do love this country - we just want to see specific changes. You want to see specific changes too - does that mean you hate America?

LOTS of democrats don't want them to have the choice to get married. I don't give a damn what gays do, as long as they stop asking for special privileges. One class of super-citizens, blacks, is more than we can afford already.

Oh, please. If the gay marriage debate was really about what the few intellectuals on the right say it's about then the whole thing would have been over years ago. The reason it stays in the spotlight is simple - prejudice.

And if being a "super-citizen" means being part of a demographic with a 24.7% poverty rate (as opposed to the 8.6% poverty rate amongst white people) then I just have to wonder - where does the "super" part start benefiting them?

You're damn right I don't support abortions of convenience - and the "rape victims" is a red herring, they are 1% of all abortions.

But would you, personally, allow abortions for rape victims?

It's a new one only to the historically ignorant - Kennedy injected the first combat troops, and Johnson massively built it up till there were 500,000 troops there. I'm not going to argue facts with you.



The guy who ended the democrat war? Yeah.



If you want to argue the vietnam war, that should get a separate thread - and I'm not going to tutor you about the basic facts - read up a lot and then come back.

You're right about this. Although our involvement in Vietnam began under Eisenhower, Kennedy was the first to send troops, and Johnson was the one who effectively took over the war from the French. Nixon was the one who ended it.

Not at all - the US didn't need to enter WWI. Few historians will agree that we should have gotten into vietnam - another lib war.

How about World War II? Was that a "lib" war, given that FDR was probably the most big-government of all the Presidents of the US?

No liberals just criticize america - period.

This is simple-minded. Suggesting that there are reasons for things is plain, common sense. Suggesting that we may have contributed to those reasons doesn't mean we are solely, completely responsible, or that we're somehow "evil." The world is more complicated than that.

Anyway, when I (at least) discuss how we've contributed to how the world is today, I'm not looking to assign blame, I'm looking for ways to develop solutions. Angry finger-pointing rarely accomplishes anything good.
 
Top