Kooky Libs...

[Rick]

Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the nineteenth century in Western Europe, and the Americas. It was committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

So yeah I am a liberal of sorts.

How does it feel to be wrong? Liberalism means something completely different than what americans have perverted it to mean. I blame people like you and gipper always needing an enemy to demonize so you dont have to face the truth. Your war isnt against liberalism its war against statism (if you actually mean what you say when you are giving lipservice to freedom) but look in the mirror you have no place yelling black at kettle, Mr. Pot. You sir are a fake.

If I had known you were not from the U.S., I would have patiently explained that to you. Educated americans are abundantly aware that the definition of "liberal" that prevails in america is a corrupted one, meaning the opposite of what it means in the rest of the world. In a discussion where all the posters appear to be americans, I use the corrupted form, because that's what most people here take it to mean. The people who did the corrupting are people like YOU - early 20th century american leftwingers.

Meanwhile don't lecture me about such things. If your posts since I joined here are a fair indicator, I've probably FORGOTTEN more about government, history and politics than you will ever LEARN if you lived to be 100.

As for calling me a statist, it can't get any more assinine.

 

[Apathy]

If I had known you were not from the U.S., I would have patiently explained that to you. Educated americans are abundantly aware that the definition of "liberal" that prevails in america is a corrupted one, meaning the opposite of what it means in the rest of the world. In a discussion where all the posters appear to be americans, I use the corrupted form, because that's what most people here take it to mean. The people who did the corrupting are people like YOU - early 20th century american leftwingers.

Meanwhile don't lecture me about such things. If your posts since I joined here are a fair indicator, I've probably FORGOTTEN more about government, history and politics than you will ever LEARN if you lived to be 100.

As for calling me a statist, it can't get any more assinine.

Im from ****ing Kansas nothing more american than trailer parks and fried oreos. Its not about American vs. Rest of the World its right vs wrong and you sir are wrong. You remind me of my younger brother I just get done explaining something he looks totally befuddled the whole time Im explaining it and his response is "Oh yeah I knew that!". Im sorry rick but you have no idea who I am as I can see you have a piss poor system of labeling people. "They disagree with me so I must scream liberal in total ignorance of what the word actually means.". The reason why you disagree with me is because I actually advocate for smaller government instead of just saying I do and have a complete 180 when it comes to policy.

Yes it appears you have forgotten quite a bit so let me remind you. Ad hominen attacks cannot take the place of argument it is a fallacy and a common one people use when they are backed into a corner.

Here is another thing you forgot. Yes you are a statist a statist advocates for larger government. You supported Lincoln's actions in arresting dissentors with out trial. You also supported a NID card and a database of all US citizens. (Sounds Orwellian doesnt it.)Good bad or indifferent these are actions a statist would support. I have came across your type before and each time this situation arose. Its similar to telling an alcoholic he has a drinking problem, it gets very violent in both situations. You sir are addicted to government.

 

[Rick]

Im from ****ing Kansas nothing more american than trailer parks and fried oreos. Its not about American vs. Rest of the World its right vs wrong and you sir are wrong. You remind me of my younger brother I just get done explaining something he looks totally befuddled the whole time Im explaining it and his response is "Oh yeah I knew that!". Im sorry rick but you have no idea who I am as I can see you have a piss poor system of labeling people. "They disagree with me so I must scream liberal in total ignorance of what the word actually means.". The reason why you disagree with me is because I actually advocate for smaller government instead of just saying I do and have a complete 180 when it comes to policy.

Yes it appears you have forgotten quite a bit so let me remind you. Ad hominen attacks cannot take the place of argument it is a fallacy and a common one people use when they are backed into a corner.

Here is another thing you forgot. Yes you are a statist a statist advocates for larger government. You supported Lincoln's actions in arresting dissentors with out trial. You also supported a NID card and a database of all US citizens. (Sounds Orwellian doesnt it.)Good bad or indifferent these are actions a statist would support. I have came across your type before and each time this situation arose. Its similar to telling an alcoholic he has a drinking problem, it gets very violent in both situations. You sir are addicted to government.

Liberalism is what liberals call each other - obozo, pelosi, etc call themselves liberals - in 21st century america it means left of center. Also hysterically calling someone a statist when he calls for needed government action in a specific valid area, while calling for great reductions in government power in many other areas, categorizes your comment as silly, and you personally as a non-serious poster.

 

[PLC1]

Liberalism is what liberals call each other - obozo, pelosi, etc call themselves liberals - in 21st century america it means left of center. Also hysterically calling someone a statist when he calls for needed government action in a specific valid area, while calling for great reductions in government power in many other areas, categorizes your comment as silly, and you personally as a non-serious poster.

Whether calling for "needed government action in a specific valid area" qualifies one as a liberal or not depends on what "needed" and "valid" really mean in that context.

Calling for expansion of government is the hallmark of a statist. Whether that makes one a "liberal" or not depends on the definition of "liberal".

Using the term "liberal" to mean "anyone with whom I disagree" is the hallmark of a non serious poster.

 

[Rick]

Whether calling for "needed government action in a specific valid area" qualifies one as a liberal or not depends on what "needed" and "valid" really mean in that context.

Calling for expansion of government is the hallmark of a statist. Whether that makes one a "liberal" or not depends on the definition of "liberal".

Using the term "liberal" to mean "anyone with whom I disagree" is the hallmark of a non serious poster.

I don't use it that way, more non-serious stuff from you. I certainly don't call for an expansion of government - my suggestion for relatively small new government prerogatives, plus gigantic reduction in spending functions and bureaucracy is a HUGE net deflation in government. But you insist on having your own version of reality no matter what anyone says - if it makes you feel good, do it.

 

[PLC1]

I don't use it that way, more non-serious stuff from you. I certainly don't call for an expansion of government - my suggestion for relatively small new government prerogatives, plus gigantic reduction in spending functions and bureaucracy is a HUGE net deflation in government. But you insist on having your own version of reality no matter what anyone says - if it makes you feel good, do it.

Fair enough. You have your version of reality, and I have mine. Cutting back a part of government while expanding another hardly qualifies one as a conservative, or a liberal, maybe a reformer?

I have my version of the dictionary, too, and you obviously have yours. Mine was first compiled by Webster. Who compiled yours for you?

 

[Apathy]

Fair enough. You have your version of reality, and I have mine. Cutting back a part of government while expanding another hardly qualifies one as a conservative, or a liberal, maybe a reformer?

I have my version of the dictionary, too, and you obviously have yours. Mine was first compiled by Webster. Who compiled yours for you?

I am all for subjectivism as long as its reasonable. There come a point where you are calling a horse a zebra and at that point I say you are wrong.

 

[Apathy]

Liberalism is what liberals call each other - obozo, pelosi, etc call themselves liberals - in 21st century america it means left of center. Also hysterically calling someone a statist when he calls for needed government action in a specific valid area, while calling for great reductions in government power in many other areas, categorizes your comment as silly, and you personally as a non-serious poster.

So because others use the term liberal incorrectly your definition suddenly becomes right? Rick this is yet another example of your upside down logic. Me and a group of my friends can start calling ourselves fish. But does saying that make us fish? Do we suddenly grow gills and fins? The only one being hysterical is you so wipe that egg off your face. You can call it needed as much as you want but it is what it is more government. In fact I have not once seen you advocate for smaller government.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

So because others use the term liberal incorrectly your definition suddenly becomes right? Rick this is yet another example of your upside down logic. Me and a group of my friends can start calling ourselves fish. But does saying that make us fish? Do we suddenly grow gills and fins? The only one being hysterical is you so wipe that egg off your face. You can call it needed as much as you want but it is what it is more government. In fact I have not once seen you advocate for smaller government.

more important, what would your fishing season be then?

 

[Rick]

So because others use the term liberal incorrectly your definition suddenly becomes right? Rick this is yet another example of your upside down logic.

Actually, it's an example of your ignorance. For at least 50 years, the opinion of the american lexicographical community has been that dictionaries don't impose "correct" definitions, but merely describe how a language is used. That the term was co-opted and successfully reversed, in american usage, by early 20th century "progressives" is well-known by anyone with even a cursory familiarity with american political history.


(Yawwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnn.)

 

[Apathy]

Actually, it's an example of your ignorance. For at least 50 years, the opinion of the american lexicographical community has been that dictionaries don't impose "correct" definitions, but merely describe how a language is used. That the term was co-opted and successfully reversed, in american usage, by early 20th century "progressives" is well-known by anyone with even a cursory familiarity with american political history.


(Yawwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnn.)

Way to avoid the message coward.

(Insert imature excessively long phrase here)