What is a liberal?

[revolution4PAUL]

OK, I'll tell you what my definition is:

A liberal is someone who sees government as the solution to problems, and therefore favors a powerful central government.

A conservative is just the opposite: Someone who sees government as a necessary evil to be kept as small as possible.

So basically a liberal is just someone who has been molded by the gov't and Main Stream Media(MSM) into unconsciously believing that the NWO(New World Order) is going to be the savior of our planet?? At least thats what I get from it. I'm new to political forums and the such so bear with me guys, I do have very good morals though.

 

[SW85]

Will try to dig up my copy of Liberalism and Conservatism: The Nature and Structure of Social Attitudes by Dr. Fred Kerlinger later on. He did a lot of research into sociopolitical attitudes and his definition approaches the issue from a social-scientific perspective.

Unfortunately I suspect it may have gotten lost in my recent move.

 

[Dr.Who]

So basically a liberal is just someone who has been molded by the gov't and Main Stream Media(MSM) into unconsciously believing that the NWO(New World Order) is going to be the savior of our planet?? At least thats what I get from it. I'm new to political forums and the such so bear with me guys, I do have very good morals though.

I suspect the NWO is more of a neocon thing. Liberals would probly advocate something more like the UN but with bite.

The conspiracy nuts would say that they are both in bed together and are moving us toward the same end. Sometimes I wonder.

 

[revolution4PAUL]

The conspiracy nuts would say that they are both in bed together and are moving us toward the same end. Sometimes I wonder.

Right, I wonder too. But you call them conspiracy "nuts" like they are clinically crazy or something. Do you believe everything at face value? Or, do you believe that there is a possibility that there could be some secret corrupt agendas going on that we are not supposed to know? Is every conspiracy "theory" true, of course not, but how much evidence do you need until something changes from a "theory" to fact?

I believe its always a good idea to have an open mind and after you have assessed the problem from multiple angles than you use your logic to determine whats most plausible.

 

[PLC1]

Man, you were being all serious, and I was goofin' . My bad. I agree with your definitions of each.

OK, there's one. I still see the term used to mean other things. Anyone else have a definition for the term "liberal"?

 

[Dr.Who]

Right, I wonder too. But you call them conspiracy "nuts" like they are clinically crazy or something. Do you believe everything at face value? Or, do you believe that there is a possibility that there could be some secret corrupt agendas going on that we are not supposed to know? Is every conspiracy "theory" true, of course not, but how much evidence do you need until something changes from a "theory" to fact?

I believe its always a good idea to have an open mind and after you have assessed the problem from multiple angles than you use your logic to determine whats most plausible.

Conspiracy nuts usually use chains of evidence that appear to be solid to make an incredible case and there is always one very weak link hidden in the chain.

It is obvious that there are elitists who like to think they are above the law on both sides of the aisle. There are even small alliances between some of them. What I doubt is that there is any significant number of elitists who conspire together with a common goal to create a NWO or whatever. On the surface the elitists do not share a common goal except that they want power and rather than conspiring with each other they are in competition against each other. This competition is a very good thing and needs to be nurtured.

When the personal ambitions of one powerful person coincidentally align with the personal ambitions of another elite they will both support the same goal (think of a bill that is loaded with pork and supported by both dems and pubs). It might appear that they are conspiring but they are just taking advantage of chance overlap in what they want.

They are not stupid. They go to be in power (in part) because they know how to take advantage of chance events. They make multiple attempts to gain power and by chance some of them will overlap with the attempts of others. This is the extent of the conspiracy.

It is up to us to keep them weak enough and competing against each other so that they never can create a true conspiracy. Those who vote for big government promises, like national health care or whatever, are setting the stage for what we fear but what is presently not real. IMO.

 

[PLC1]

Libs can be defined by their policies:

- 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

Very good. Now, we have several definitions of the term "liberal". Since Libsmasher must be an expert on the subject (given his screen name), let's take a look at his definition, and see whether there are any liberals posting on this forum. Look for a poll "Are you a liberal?" It will soon be posted.

 

[PLC1]

As promised, there is now a poll to decide how many liberals we have posting on HOP. Go and cast your vote here: https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2909

 

[Libsmasher]

Liberalism is about arrogant, anti-democratic elites who think they know what's best for the unwashed masses.

Liberalism is the ideology of abortion, appeasement, anti-white discrimination, ethnic balkanization, ecofascism, suppression of free speech, anti-patriotism, anti-religion, anti-family, anti-military and big government.

Liberalism is brainwashing by the institutions they control - most of the media and all of the academy.

Liberalism is about anti-christian bigotry.

Liberalism is pushing along failed government institutions, like government schools.

Liberalism is authoritarian and controlling.

Liberalism is the natural home of people who do nothing and/or are a drag on society: feminazis, welfare clients, bureaucrat time servers, tort lawyers.

Liberalism is the enemy of people who want freedom, who want autonomous lives, who create, who explore, who innovate.

 

[PLC1]

Liberalism is about arrogant, anti-democratic elites who think they know what's best for the unwashed masses.

Liberalism is the ideology of abortion, appeasement, anti-white discrimination, ethnic balkanization, ecofascism, suppression of free speech, anti-patriotism, anti-religion, anti-family, anti-military and big government.

Liberalism is brainwashing by the institutions they control - most of the media and all of the academy.

Liberalism is about anti-christian bigotry.

Liberalism is pushing along failed government institutions, like government schools.

Liberalism is authoritarian and controlling.

Liberalism is the natural home of people who do nothing and/or are a drag on society: feminazis, welfare clients, bureaucrat time servers, tort lawyers.

Liberalism is the enemy of people who want freedom, who want autonomous lives, who create, who explore, who innovate.

OK. did you go and cast your vote? I'm assuming you will vote no, but that's just based on your posts. I could be wrong.

 

[Dr.Who]

Liberalism is about arrogant, anti-democratic elites who think they know what's best for the unwashed masses.

Liberalism is the ideology of abortion, appeasement, anti-white discrimination, ethnic balkanization, ecofascism, suppression of free speech, anti-patriotism, anti-religion, anti-family, anti-military and big government.

Liberalism is brainwashing by the institutions they control - most of the media and all of the academy.

Liberalism is about anti-christian bigotry.

Liberalism is pushing along failed government institutions, like government schools.

Liberalism is authoritarian and controlling.

Liberalism is the natural home of people who do nothing and/or are a drag on society: feminazis, welfare clients, bureaucrat time servers, tort lawyers.

Liberalism is the enemy of people who want freedom, who want autonomous lives, who create, who explore, who innovate.

Well if you are going to go and list all the negatives about it like that it is going to look pretty bad. But let's not forget Liberalism is also about having compassion.

 

[bododie]

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP) -- A mother was sentenced to 20 years in prison Thursday for keeping her 17-year-old adopted son caged in her home.


Brenda Sullivan, accused of caging her 17-year-old son, pleaded guilty to three counts of aggravated child abuse.

Brenda Sullivan pleaded guilty in January to three counts of aggravated child abuse. Prosecutors agreed to drop lesser child neglect charges.

The teen weighed 49 pounds when child welfare workers found him in 2005 in what appeared to be a cage. Sullivan told a judge at the time that Ohio authorities told her to keep the boy, who had severe medical and emotional problems, in a crib.

"There's only one conclusion when you look at the medical evidence in this case, and that is that she literally starved him," prosecutor Julie Schlax said.

Two other children, 13-year-old twins the Sullivans adopted as infants, both testified they were kept in similar cages.

Sullivan's husband was also arrested, but died in January 2007 while awaiting trial.

Sullivan's lawyer, Charles Fletcher, said he didn't think prison was the right option because she does not pose a threat to society. He said they would appeal the sentence.

Liberalism. The perpetrator becomes the victim. The mentality that anyone who commits a heinous crime is in essence crying out for help for some socially induced disfunction that isn't their fault. Instead of trying to define liberalism vs. conservatism, how about defining CRIME? It changes with liberals, and however powerful the lobby that chooses to take on their "pet cause" is.

 

[Libsmasher]

Well if you are going to go and list all the negatives about it like that it is going to look pretty bad. But let's not forget Liberalism is also about having compassion.

Their compassion is compassion with other people's money. Their compassion often hurts the people they are supposed to help.

- Their minimum wage is supposed to be compassion, but it puts the most vulnerable out of work.

- Before the welfare reform of the republican congress during Bubba Clinton's administration, their compassionate welfare caused multiple generations of families to think that what life was was nothing more than getting your government welfare check every month.

- Their socialized medicine would wreck it for everyone.

 

[revolution4PAUL]

I say we not classify our selves to any one class but to know we are people that have free minds and can think for ourselves. Why put yourself into a classification that limits you to what 'you are supposed to think'? Why not say
"I'm a person with integrity and this is what I believe in......"?

My point being is that we should look at the big picture and not spend time refuting which group is more superior, but to know we are people with our own thoughts and conscious. Your belief system(ideology) should be based upon how you feel and what YOU think is right. Be a free thinker


RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!!!

 

[bododie]

Been done. It was called the counterculture in modern times. Singing Cumbaya is a great idea but didn't work. Sharing a coke with the world didn't work either. It's not so easy. Free thinking and belief in your own value system can differ greatly depending on demographics as well as religion, culture, etc. What will you do when a group decides that their way of free thinking is better than yours? Appease their rights to free thought? Also, what are you going to do with those who are a lot older than you are, who grew up and lived a great deal of their lives in a much different society than exists today (at least in America, since that's all I know about in practice), whose idea of free thinking doesn't jive with your definition? Who gets to define free thinking?

Don't get me wrong, your idea is right both morally and politically,and I applaud you for even caring, however, what you are advocating is akin to anarchy in reality.

If a definition of global free thinking ever comes to be, then all has been lost to coerced conformity, which defeats the purpose.