For The "Liberals" In The Forum ...

[Charlie Ventura]

OK, would the liberals in the forum please define what they mean by "liberal?" And while you're at it, please describe what your end game would look like. I mean, if you had all of your druthers, what would the country look like economically? How much power would the central government wield over our persons? What would economic and political liberty look like in your Utopia?

I have a gut feeling that no self proclaimed liberal in the forum would take a stab at the above, and the reason why is, that they never think about the end game. They only "feel" about the now. They are destroyers that leave the smoking rubble they themselves created, then say: "Oh well, that didn't work, now lets try something else." I'll just point out the destruction of the Black inner-city family where single moms live on the federal plantation, the destruction of the worth of our dollar through fiat money, the destruction of our economy through unabated illegal immigration, the destruction of 50 million of our most innocent, sacrificed to the god of convenience, the destruction of the middle class in the name of "every one has the right to home ownership" and the destruction of the nuclear family in the name of "feminism."

 

[txhazard]

The clouds are a gathering...

 

[Prefontaine]

yeah all you liberal republican's go stuff it, us conservative democrats are sick of yer isht


just stop using meaningless labels, it just shows that the distraction techniques performed by the mass media and our government in general are working.

"end game" WTF? wake up and see it for what it is, theatre,

Listening to people bitch about party this and that, and right vs left, is no different than listening to the crowd at a WWF daytime soap. put down your bon bons and get a clue

 

[Charlie Ventura]

^^^ With all due respect, that is bull shit. There are posters here who constantly support the Welfare State and others that support free markets and individual liberty. The purpose of this thread is for the Statists to tell us what their end game is. What their ultimate Utopia would look like. Want to take another stab at it?

 

[Carne Seca]

I think this pretty much sums it up:

Liberal

1. 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.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

 

[napa23]

OK, would the liberals in the forum please define what they mean by "liberal?" And while you're at it, please describe what your end game would look like. I mean, if you had all of your druthers, what would the country look like economically? How much power would the central government wield over our persons? What would economic and political liberty look like in your Utopia?

I have a gut feeling that no self proclaimed liberal in the forum would take a stab at the above, and the reason why is, that they never think about the end game. They only "feel" about the now. They are destroyers that leave the smoking rubble they themselves created, then say: "Oh well, that didn't work, now lets try something else." I'll just point out the destruction of the Black inner-city family where single moms live on the federal plantation, the destruction of the worth of our dollar through fiat money, the destruction of our economy through unabated illegal immigration, the destruction of 50 million of our most innocent, sacrificed to the god of convenience, the destruction of the middle class in the name of "every one has the right to home ownership" and the destruction of the nuclear family in the name of "feminism."

What on earth are you talking about? I have no clue where you're getting your examples. As for destroyers leaving smoking rubble, Bush ring a bell? But instead of admitting their policies don't work, the republicans refuse to see it. Every one's favorite example, the Bush tax cuts. It obviously doesn't work. But I agree with Prefontaine. Most politicians are worthless. They seek only to keep their power, not to serve the country. They're all the same. I'm tired of seeing these liberal hating threads popping up. You people can't be reasoned with, so I'm done with it. I really just wanted to let you know your examples are ridiculous. Good day sir

 

[NoDrama]

I think this pretty much sums it up:

Liberal

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

AHA this is a joke post right?

 

[sync0s]

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.

big·ot·rynoun /ˈbigətrē/ 
bigotries, plural
Bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself

Quiet the dissenting opinion!

 

[Charlie Ventura]

What on earth are you talking about? I have no clue where you're getting your examples. As for destroyers leaving smoking rubble, Bush ring a bell? But instead of admitting their policies don't work, the republicans refuse to see it. Every one's favorite example, the Bush tax cuts. It obviously doesn't work. But I agree with Prefontaine. Most politicians are worthless. They seek only to keep their power, not to serve the country. They're all the same. I'm tired of seeing these liberal hating threads popping up. You people can't be reasoned with, so I'm done with it. I really just wanted to let you know your examples are ridiculous. Good day sir

Your damned right Bush rings a bell. Are you under the impression that Bush was some kind of conservative or a libertarian? Hell man, he was a "compassionate" conservative, remember? Bush was a Progressive. A NeoCon. Now stop with the Bush/Obama comparisons.

Now again, what does the Liberal/Progressive end game look like?

And thanks for the responses. Especially looking forward to mame posting here.

And Carne ... your description of a liberal is more a description of a classic Jeffersonian liberal and not the Marxist progressives parading as true liberals. Hey man, these people on the left fringe are totalitarians through and through.

 

[sync0s]

Your damned right Bush rings a bell. Are you under the impression that Bush was some kind of conservative or a libertarian? Hell man, he was a "compassionate" conservative, remember? Bush was a Progressive. A NeoCon. Now stop with the Bush/Obama comparisons.

Now again, what does the Liberal/Progressive end game look like?

And thanks for the responses. Especially looking forward to mame posting here.

And Carne ... your description of a liberal is more a description of a classic Jeffersonian liberal and not the Marxist progressives parading as true liberals. Hey man, these people on the left fringe are totalitarians through and through.

People seem to think that you have to be a democrat in order to be a liberal.

 

[undertheice]

I think this pretty much sums it up:

Liberal

1. 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.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

well i guess this definition means all those liberals aren't really all that liberal. i think we can pretty much ignore c and d, they merely state that a liberal is a liberal because of his liberalism. so i guess we should concentrate on a and b.

not limited by traditional or authoritarian views? get a clue, there is nothing new about the socialist agenda proposed by the liberal establishment. it's been tried and has failed throughout history. its tenets existed long before stalin and mao made it a household name and its statist basis makes it one of the most authoritarian forms of governance ever to have emerged from a lunatic's mind. the welfare state, the slave state, feudalism, totalitarianism, they all share those same elitist characteristics. it's always about the few taking care of (overseeing) the many and the centralization of a society's control. that we now hide it behind the false promises of democracy is only a slightly new twist. tyrants have always hidden behind lies and a strong arm, the latest lie is merely the populist lie and the strong arm is the same violent governmental force that has always existed.

so it seems that just leaves us with broad-minded and tolerant of others. just what are these reforms that liberalism is so intent on bringing about? redistribution through the welfare state certainly isn't very tolerant of the most basic rights of others. the advancement of "protected classes" at the expense of others may seem very forward thinking to y'all, but i doubt those unprotected classes who now pay for the sins of their ancestors can really see the point of bigotry present to make up for bigotry past. from the nanny state nonsense of laws designed to protect us from ourselves to the blatant disregard for tradition simply because it is tradition, modern liberalism is all about closing doors instead of opening minds. it embraces the blank check of "reform", ignoring both the best and the worst of our humanity and forcing us all into a mold of progressive efficiency.

the statists here will merely claim that we have not yet given enough power over to the machine, just as they claim we haven't yet donated enough to stimulate our wilting economy or bled the wealthy dry enough to eliminate poverty. the promise of universal equality is always just around the corner, just out of reach. if we're really lucky and find one with a shred of honesty, they will admit to the orwellian scenario that is every leftist's wet dream.

 

[Carne Seca]

It's a dictionary definition. Not my definition. If you find it offensive, talk to Messrs. Merriam & Webster or better yet.. sue them. Maybe you'll hit the jackpot.

 

[UncleBuck]

OK, would the liberals in the forum please define what they mean by "liberal?"

words have different meanings to everyone. this would be an exercise in futility.

the destruction of our economy through unabated illegal immigration

farmers in georgia are watching their crops rot after they passed a draconian bill in the style of sb1070. what a boon to the economy to let crops rot!

the most comprehensive study, non-partisan at that, was conducted in texas in 2006. they found that illegal immigrants provided a boon to the economy.

what do you think would happen if you woke up tomorrow and 12 million illegals were deported? besides the hefty bill you'd have to foot, who do you think would be working the jobs that are clearly below americans, as evidenced in georgia?

the destruction of 50 million of our most innocent, sacrificed to the god of convenience

so, an unborn fetus has more rights than the adult female who carries it?

i guess the "anti-liberal" stance, since you hate liberals so much, is to deny essential freedoms and liberties to women. hell, it doesn't effect you, right?

the destruction of the middle class in the name of "every one has the right to home ownership"

you mean like how the "compassionate conservative" shrub bragged about in state of the union addresses? him and his "ownership society"?

the destruction of the nuclear family in the name of "feminism."

feminism did not destroy the nuclear family any more than chauvinism did. feminism simply gave females more options, more choices, more freedom to do what they want to do.

is one of your values confining women to the house while men go out and wield power in the world? kind of misogynistic. could just be dishonesty in your unyielding attempt to demonize "liberals".

 

[UncleBuck]

well i guess this definition means all those liberals aren't really all that liberal. i think we can pretty much ignore c and d, they merely state that a liberal is a liberal because of his liberalism. so i guess we should concentrate on a and b.

not limited by traditional or authoritarian views? get a clue, there is nothing new about the socialist agenda proposed by the liberal establishment. it's been tried and has failed throughout history. its tenets existed long before stalin and mao made it a household name and its statist basis makes it one of the most authoritarian forms of governance ever to have emerged from a lunatic's mind. the welfare state, the slave state, feudalism, totalitarianism, they all share those same elitist characteristics. it's always about the few taking care of (overseeing) the many and the centralization of a society's control. that we now hide it behind the false promises of democracy is only a slightly new twist. tyrants have always hidden behind lies and a strong arm, the latest lie is merely the populist lie and the strong arm is the same violent governmental force that has always existed.

so it seems that just leaves us with broad-minded and tolerant of others. just what are these reforms that liberalism is so intent on bringing about? redistribution through the welfare state certainly isn't very tolerant of the most basic rights of others. the advancement of "protected classes" at the expense of others may seem very forward thinking to y'all, but i doubt those unprotected classes who now pay for the sins of their ancestors can really see the point of bigotry present to make up for bigotry past. from the nanny state nonsense of laws designed to protect us from ourselves to the blatant disregard for tradition simply because it is tradition, modern liberalism is all about closing doors instead of opening minds. it embraces the blank check of "reform", ignoring both the best and the worst of our humanity and forcing us all into a mold of progressive efficiency.

the statists here will merely claim that we have not yet given enough power over to the machine, just as they claim we haven't yet donated enough to stimulate our wilting economy or bled the wealthy dry enough to eliminate poverty. the promise of universal equality is always just around the corner, just out of reach. if we're really lucky and find one with a shred of honesty, they will admit to the orwellian scenario that is every leftist's wet dream.

tl;dr

just kidding. i zoned out about halfway through the normal long-winded purple prose that uti is known for.

 

[Prefontaine]

Your damned right Bush rings a bell. Are you under the impression that Bush was some kind of conservative or a libertarian? Hell man, he was a "compassionate" conservative, remember? Bush was a Progressive. A NeoCon. Now stop with the Bush/Obama comparisons.

Now again, what does the Liberal/Progressive end game look like?

And thanks for the responses. Especially looking forward to mame posting here.

And Carne ... your description of a liberal is more a description of a classic Jeffersonian liberal and not the Marxist progressives parading as true liberals. Hey man, these people on the left fringe are totalitarians through and through.

You are an F-ing tard

 

[Johnnyorganic]

I would call myself a Classical Liberal.

A Jeffersonian Liberal even.

Do I have a dog in this hunt?

 

[Prefontaine]

Oh, yeah lets all put on pretty little party jackets and march off to death, cause thats what the invitation says to do.

F-ING TARDS, Sheep! BAH BAH all of you

 

[Darrin]

What on earth are you talking about? I have no clue where you're getting your examples. As for destroyers leaving smoking rubble, Bush ring a bell? But instead of admitting their policies don't work, the republicans refuse to see it. Every one's favorite example, the Bush tax cuts. It obviously doesn't work. But I agree with Prefontaine. Most politicians are worthless. They seek only to keep their power, not to serve the country. They're all the same. I'm tired of seeing these liberal hating threads popping up. You people can't be reasoned with, so I'm done with it. I really just wanted to let you know your examples are ridiculous. Good day sir

Actually, they are now the Obama tax cuts. He extended them, now he owns them. In all fairness...

 

[undertheice]

I would call myself a Classical Liberal.

A Jeffersonian Liberal even.

Do I have a dog in this hunt?

nope, you are now classified as a conservative or possibly, dare we even speak its name, a libertarian. liberalism is now a statist's game.

 

[londonfog]

It's a city Kansas...Liberal KS...so I guess if you are Liberal you are American