Bring a liberal back from the early sixties and they would likely slap silly the ones identifying themselves as liberal today.
hehe, down with the establishment
Fight the power
And yea, today's liberal and nanny state are kind of an oxymoron
In Europe that is the case; but in America, the left hijacked the term so now "liberal" no longer means people who favor LIBERTY (the root of the word), but people who favor government, statist solutions to economic issues.
But yes in essence we are dealing with an oxymoron where the new meaning of the word is the exact opposite of the root of the word.
Progressive examples: Barack Obama, Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, Arlen Specter, Daniel Inouye. Liberal examples: Diane Feinstein, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders (I). ---------------------------------------------- Republicans have Neocons and Conservatives. Neocons are on one extreme end and Conservatives are more towards the middle.
Conservative examples: Ron Paul, George Voinovich, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Olympia Snowe, Mike Pence.
I tried my best to stay out of this thread, but when I saw you label Obama as a progressive, I nearly fell out of my chair. He is the most leftist nutty liberal of any U.S. senator, ever. The few votes he actually participated in as a junior senator (not counting the numerous "present" votes) show just how liberal and nuts he is. His background as an attorney shows the same.
Also, Ron Paul is not a conservative - he is a Libertarian.
I agree. Obama is liberal, not liberal enough in my opinion, but still better than others.
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
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.
That describes libertarians, not you guys. Seems once again you are using the european definition of liberal, not what it means in the united states.
I don't know ANY liberals, at least on this site, that are the least bit tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others. Plus you guys certainly are authoritaroians, certainly dogmatic, and certainly bigoted against people who believe in liberty.
What that dictionary is giving you is the definition of what now has to be called "classical liberal" since the left hijacked the term.
Ah yes, Fisher redefining words to fit his argument. I've seen this before.
The definition of liberal hasn't change. It's exactly what I posted. The only argument that can be made is whether or not certain politicians are liberal, and most won't admit they are because the right has demonized it.
"Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.
Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for political liberalism, which is a set of ideas that express support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, and a transparent system of government.All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.
According to author and philosophy professor Peter Vallentyne, "Liberalism comes in two broad forms. Classical liberalism emphasizes the importance of individual liberty and contemporary (or welfare) liberalism tends to emphasize some kind of material equality." In Europe, the term "liberalism" is closer to the economic outlook of American economic conservatives. According to Harry Girvetz and Minoque Kenneth "contemporary liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe liberals are more commonly conservative in their political and economic outlook".In the United States, "liberalism" is most often used in the sense of social liberalism, which supports some regulation of business and other economic interventionism which they believe to be in the public interest. A philosophy holding a position in accordance with Scottish pioneer of political economy Adam Smith, that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or an invisible hand that benefits the society, is referred to as "classical liberalism.", of which US-style libertarianism may be considered an example."
You guys are, at best, SOCIAL liberals. You ain't liberals in economics, which is what we mostly argue about here. WE, the people who believe in more economic and more social liberty, are the real liberals. In Ameruca, we have to call ourselves classical liberals or libertarians because YOU redefined the term.
Progressive examples: Barack Obama, Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, Arlen Specter, Daniel Inouye. Liberal examples: Diane Feinstein, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders (I). ---------------------------------------------- Republicans have Neocons and Conservatives. Neocons are on one extreme end and Conservatives are more towards the middle.
Conservative examples: Ron Paul, George Voinovich, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Olympia Snowe, Mike Pence.
I tried my best to stay out of this thread, but when I saw you label Obama as a progressive, I nearly fell out of my chair. He is the most leftist nutty liberal of any U.S. senator, ever. The few votes he actually participated in as a junior senator (not counting the numerous "present" votes) show just how liberal and nuts he is. His background as an attorney shows the same.
Also, Ron Paul is not a conservative - he is a Libertarian.
I agree. Obama is liberal, not liberal enough in my opinion, but still better than others.
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
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.
That describes libertarians, not you guys. Seems once again you are using the european definition of liberal, not what it means in the united states.
I don't know ANY liberals, at least on this site, that are the least bit tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others. Plus you guys certainly are authoritaroians, certainly dogmatic, and certainly bigoted against people who believe in liberty.
What that dictionary is giving you is the definition of what now has to be called "classical liberal" since the left hijacked the term.
Ah yes, Fisher redefining words to fit his argument. I've seen this before.
The definition of liberal hasn't change. It's exactly what I posted. The only argument that can be made is whether or not certain politicians are liberal, and most won't admit they are because the right has demonized it.
Then why doesn't it describe you at all?
It does, but I'm sure you'll tell me what I believe like you always do.
You're back on my do not respond to list. You redefine words to fit your needs, sum up peoples position in a way that is completely different then what they are actually saying, argue semantics, and when backed into a corner attack the way people debate.
I'm just going to do myself a favor and just not even engage you anymore. Have fun living in your own self-rightous world.
"Liberals support freedom of speech and freedom of religion as well as government entitlements such as health care and education. These policy stances follow from the central premise that individual freedom necessitates extensive government action as poverty, illness, and economic insecurity are seen as threats to liberty."
Here's the one that sounds more like Sabian's definition:
"Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism, laissez-faire liberalism[, and market liberalism] or, outside Canada and the United States, sometimes simply liberalism is a form of liberalism stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government."
See, liberals have redefined the term to mean that, unless we have a big government controlling people, people won't be "free." Thus they destroyed the very meaning of the word.
Progressive examples: Barack Obama, Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, Arlen Specter, Daniel Inouye. Liberal examples: Diane Feinstein, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders (I). ---------------------------------------------- Republicans have Neocons and Conservatives. Neocons are on one extreme end and Conservatives are more towards the middle.
Conservative examples: Ron Paul, George Voinovich, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Olympia Snowe, Mike Pence.
I tried my best to stay out of this thread, but when I saw you label Obama as a progressive, I nearly fell out of my chair. He is the most leftist nutty liberal of any U.S. senator, ever. The few votes he actually participated in as a junior senator (not counting the numerous "present" votes) show just how liberal and nuts he is. His background as an attorney shows the same.
Also, Ron Paul is not a conservative - he is a Libertarian.
I agree. Obama is liberal, not liberal enough in my opinion, but still better than others.
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
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.
That describes libertarians, not you guys. Seems once again you are using the european definition of liberal, not what it means in the united states.
I don't know ANY liberals, at least on this site, that are the least bit tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others. Plus you guys certainly are authoritaroians, certainly dogmatic, and certainly bigoted against people who believe in liberty.
What that dictionary is giving you is the definition of what now has to be called "classical liberal" since the left hijacked the term.
Ah yes, Fisher redefining words to fit his argument. I've seen this before.
The definition of liberal hasn't change. It's exactly what I posted. The only argument that can be made is whether or not certain politicians are liberal, and most won't admit they are because the right has demonized it.
Then why doesn't it describe you at all?
It does, but I'm sure you'll tell me what I believe like you always do.
You're back on my do not respond to list. You redefine words to fit your needs, sum up peoples position in a way that is completely different then what they are actually saying, argue semantics, and when backed into a corner attack the way people debate.
I'm just going to do myself a favor and just not even engage you anymore. Have fun living in your own self-rightous world.
Yup, him and Faxxer both do that and responding to any of their post is just silly becaus ethey will change the meaning of what you said everytime to fit their pragmatic views
Ron Paul is not for big spending. He is a conservative. He's about as conservative as you can get especially when sitting next to Bush. And Ron Paul is hopping mad about Iraq and us going there.. that's OLD SCHOOL conservatism but I guess some people are to young to know that. See, the conservative party (Republicans) actually used to exist before the religious right and the neocons hijacked it with the Birthers/Teabaggers.
Ron Paul is conservative.
I think Obama is a Progessive based on how he tries to include Republicans into every decision. A liberal would just do what they wanted regardless without thinking much about bipartisianship. Liberals are on one end while Neocons are on the other. Obama has bent over backwards to pretend he's Oprah and listen to those whackjobs to no avail.
I wish Obama was a bit MORE liberal, so they can get this healthcare thing passed for all Americans like FDR would have done.
Progressive examples: Barack Obama, Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, Arlen Specter, Daniel Inouye. Liberal examples: Diane Feinstein, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders (I). ---------------------------------------------- Republicans have Neocons and Conservatives. Neocons are on one extreme end and Conservatives are more towards the middle.
Conservative examples: Ron Paul, George Voinovich, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Olympia Snowe, Mike Pence.
I tried my best to stay out of this thread, but when I saw you label Obama as a progressive, I nearly fell out of my chair. He is the most leftist nutty liberal of any U.S. senator, ever. The few votes he actually participated in as a junior senator (not counting the numerous "present" votes) show just how liberal and nuts he is. His background as an attorney shows the same.
Also, Ron Paul is not a conservative - he is a Libertarian.
I agree. Obama is liberal, not liberal enough in my opinion, but still better than others.
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
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.
This thread reminds me of a quote from Kurt Gödel: "The more I think about language, the more it amazes me that people ever understand each other."
Want to know an easy way to discredit something? Denounce it as the opposite of what it actually is, done properly it becomes unacceptable to question the claim and instead only offers the acceptable question of to which degree does it fit with that opposite.
An example would be a slave owner, "We're talking about slavery here, so my question to you is why do you hate freedom?" You would say that is simply stupid, you wouldn't believe it nor would anyone else; yet it is extremely easy to pull off and it is done by every politician, news commentator, newspaper/magazine editor, and radio host every single day and when its subtle enough people begin to think its legitimate. And when that happens you have what we have in this thread.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
The OP is using a typical Democrat move. Demonize republicans as a whole. I will not say that your post doesn't describe at least some republicans, however its a broad generalization. In other words a predjudiced remark. Being republican doesn't automaticaly make you believe exactly what all republicans do and yeah you stretched a hell of a lot for a few of those. I can make a list just as long demonizing the democrats but why bother. I claim myself independent since I don't like to identify with either party's extremes. I have some typical democrat views and some republican views. I assimilate information and form my own opinion, I don't listen to what Obama or Hannity says and start spewing it like its gospel. Learn to read between the lines. If you watch House it has one truth and thats everyone lies, or at least embelishes to their view point.
The OP is using a typical Democrat move. Demonize republicans as a whole. I will not say that your post doesn't describe at least some republicans, however its a broad generalization. In other words a predjudiced remark. Being republican doesn't automaticaly make you believe exactly what all republicans do and yeah you stretched a hell of a lot for a few of those. I can make a list just as long demonizing the democrats but why bother. I claim myself independent since I don't like to identify with either party's extremes. I have some typical democrat views and some republican views. I assimilate information and form my own opinion, I don't listen to what Obama or Hannity says and start spewing it like its gospel. Learn to read between the lines. If you watch House it has one truth and thats everyone lies, or at least embelishes to their view point.
If someone doesn't want to be generalized, then why would they join a group? Joining a group (especially politically) brings with it a generalization. If a person doesn't get that, then that is their fault for not learning about things like the Republican and Democratic Party platforms. Those state the generalized beliefs of the people in that group!
You said you're an Independent. Even calling yourself that brings about a generalization in peoples minds. If you don't like that, then why call yourself that? You do it to give someone a foundation of a general idea of where you're coming from. Otherwise, you would call yourself an individual. Which you didn't choose to do.
Or go on holding up Karl Marx signs at tea parties thinking you are actually doing something. The smart members of your party will be out debating actual topics instead of propogating fear.
Here's how I look at it:
Liberals and socialists didn't build this country. If things break down so much that it has to be rebuilt again, liberals and socialists will be on the sideline watching. They only spring up when there's enough successful conservatives to leach off of.
Or go on holding up Karl Marx signs at tea parties thinking you are actually doing something. The smart members of your party will be out debating actual topics instead of propogating fear.
Here's how I look at it:
Liberals and socialists didn't build this country. If things break down so much that it has to be rebuilt again, liberals and socialists will be on the sideline watching. They only spring up when there's enough successful conservatives to leach off of.
Of course liberals built this country. They did so along with conservatives ,moderates, and everything in between.
"In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism."
Sounds like both parties, but much more like the Democrats. I think Sabian has said this is more or less what HE believes in.
Also, check this out:
"This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour (Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state""
Sounds on the one hand a LOT like the Democrats, and a bit like the Republicans. Although the last part sounds like China
Comments
hehe, down with the establishment
Fight the power
And yea, today's liberal and nanny state are kind of an oxymoron
In Europe that is the case; but in America, the left hijacked the term so now "liberal" no longer means people who favor LIBERTY (the root of the word), but people who favor government, statist solutions to economic issues.
But yes in essence we are dealing with an oxymoron where the new meaning of the word is the exact opposite of the root of the word.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I tried my best to stay out of this thread, but when I saw you label Obama as a progressive, I nearly fell out of my chair. He is the most leftist nutty liberal of any U.S. senator, ever. The few votes he actually participated in as a junior senator (not counting the numerous "present" votes) show just how liberal and nuts he is. His background as an attorney shows the same.
Also, Ron Paul is not a conservative - he is a Libertarian.
I agree. Obama is liberal, not liberal enough in my opinion, but still better than others.
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
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.
That describes libertarians, not you guys. Seems once again you are using the european definition of liberal, not what it means in the united states.
I don't know ANY liberals, at least on this site, that are the least bit tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others. Plus you guys certainly are authoritaroians, certainly dogmatic, and certainly bigoted against people who believe in liberty.
What that dictionary is giving you is the definition of what now has to be called "classical liberal" since the left hijacked the term.
Ah yes, Fisher redefining words to fit his argument. I've seen this before.
The definition of liberal hasn't change. It's exactly what I posted. The only argument that can be made is whether or not certain politicians are liberal, and most won't admit they are because the right has demonized it.
Then why doesn't it describe you at all?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Here is a beginner's discussion on the situation:
"Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.
Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for political liberalism, which is a set of ideas that express support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, and a transparent system of government.All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.
According to author and philosophy professor Peter Vallentyne, "Liberalism comes in two broad forms. Classical liberalism emphasizes the importance of individual liberty and contemporary (or welfare) liberalism tends to emphasize some kind of material equality." In Europe, the term "liberalism" is closer to the economic outlook of American economic conservatives. According to Harry Girvetz and Minoque Kenneth "contemporary liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe liberals are more commonly conservative in their political and economic outlook".In the United States, "liberalism" is most often used in the sense of social liberalism, which supports some regulation of business and other economic interventionism which they believe to be in the public interest. A philosophy holding a position in accordance with Scottish pioneer of political economy Adam Smith, that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or an invisible hand that benefits the society, is referred to as "classical liberalism.", of which US-style libertarianism may be considered an example."
From wiki:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
You guys are, at best, SOCIAL liberals. You ain't liberals in economics, which is what we mostly argue about here. WE, the people who believe in more economic and more social liberty, are the real liberals. In Ameruca, we have to call ourselves classical liberals or libertarians because YOU redefined the term.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I tried my best to stay out of this thread, but when I saw you label Obama as a progressive, I nearly fell out of my chair. He is the most leftist nutty liberal of any U.S. senator, ever. The few votes he actually participated in as a junior senator (not counting the numerous "present" votes) show just how liberal and nuts he is. His background as an attorney shows the same.
Also, Ron Paul is not a conservative - he is a Libertarian.
I agree. Obama is liberal, not liberal enough in my opinion, but still better than others.
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
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.
That describes libertarians, not you guys. Seems once again you are using the european definition of liberal, not what it means in the united states.
I don't know ANY liberals, at least on this site, that are the least bit tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others. Plus you guys certainly are authoritaroians, certainly dogmatic, and certainly bigoted against people who believe in liberty.
What that dictionary is giving you is the definition of what now has to be called "classical liberal" since the left hijacked the term.
Ah yes, Fisher redefining words to fit his argument. I've seen this before.
The definition of liberal hasn't change. It's exactly what I posted. The only argument that can be made is whether or not certain politicians are liberal, and most won't admit they are because the right has demonized it.
Then why doesn't it describe you at all?
It does, but I'm sure you'll tell me what I believe like you always do.
You're back on my do not respond to list. You redefine words to fit your needs, sum up peoples position in a way that is completely different then what they are actually saying, argue semantics, and when backed into a corner attack the way people debate.
I'm just going to do myself a favor and just not even engage you anymore. Have fun living in your own self-rightous world.
The Official God FAQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States
"Liberals support freedom of speech and freedom of religion as well as government entitlements such as health care and education. These policy stances follow from the central premise that individual freedom necessitates extensive government action as poverty, illness, and economic insecurity are seen as threats to liberty."
Here's the one that sounds more like Sabian's definition:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_liberalism
"Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism, laissez-faire liberalism[, and market liberalism] or, outside Canada and the United States, sometimes simply liberalism is a form of liberalism stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government."
See, liberals have redefined the term to mean that, unless we have a big government controlling people, people won't be "free." Thus they destroyed the very meaning of the word.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I tried my best to stay out of this thread, but when I saw you label Obama as a progressive, I nearly fell out of my chair. He is the most leftist nutty liberal of any U.S. senator, ever. The few votes he actually participated in as a junior senator (not counting the numerous "present" votes) show just how liberal and nuts he is. His background as an attorney shows the same.
Also, Ron Paul is not a conservative - he is a Libertarian.
I agree. Obama is liberal, not liberal enough in my opinion, but still better than others.
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
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.
That describes libertarians, not you guys. Seems once again you are using the european definition of liberal, not what it means in the united states.
I don't know ANY liberals, at least on this site, that are the least bit tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others. Plus you guys certainly are authoritaroians, certainly dogmatic, and certainly bigoted against people who believe in liberty.
What that dictionary is giving you is the definition of what now has to be called "classical liberal" since the left hijacked the term.
Ah yes, Fisher redefining words to fit his argument. I've seen this before.
The definition of liberal hasn't change. It's exactly what I posted. The only argument that can be made is whether or not certain politicians are liberal, and most won't admit they are because the right has demonized it.
Then why doesn't it describe you at all?
It does, but I'm sure you'll tell me what I believe like you always do.
You're back on my do not respond to list. You redefine words to fit your needs, sum up peoples position in a way that is completely different then what they are actually saying, argue semantics, and when backed into a corner attack the way people debate.
I'm just going to do myself a favor and just not even engage you anymore. Have fun living in your own self-rightous world.
Yup, him and Faxxer both do that and responding to any of their post is just silly becaus ethey will change the meaning of what you said everytime to fit their pragmatic views
Ron Paul is not for big spending. He is a conservative. He's about as conservative as you can get especially when sitting next to Bush. And Ron Paul is hopping mad about Iraq and us going there.. that's OLD SCHOOL conservatism but I guess some people are to young to know that. See, the conservative party (Republicans) actually used to exist before the religious right and the neocons hijacked it with the Birthers/Teabaggers.
Ron Paul is conservative.
I think Obama is a Progessive based on how he tries to include Republicans into every decision. A liberal would just do what they wanted regardless without thinking much about bipartisianship. Liberals are on one end while Neocons are on the other. Obama has bent over backwards to pretend he's Oprah and listen to those whackjobs to no avail.
I wish Obama was a bit MORE liberal, so they can get this healthcare thing passed for all Americans like FDR would have done.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I tried my best to stay out of this thread, but when I saw you label Obama as a progressive, I nearly fell out of my chair. He is the most leftist nutty liberal of any U.S. senator, ever. The few votes he actually participated in as a junior senator (not counting the numerous "present" votes) show just how liberal and nuts he is. His background as an attorney shows the same.
Also, Ron Paul is not a conservative - he is a Libertarian.
I agree. Obama is liberal, not liberal enough in my opinion, but still better than others.
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
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.
I'd have voted for him if this were 10% true.
LOL at this wishful thinking
Sorry, wrong liberal
This thread reminds me of a quote from Kurt Gödel: "The more I think about language, the more it amazes me that people ever understand each other."
Want to know an easy way to discredit something? Denounce it as the opposite of what it actually is, done properly it becomes unacceptable to question the claim and instead only offers the acceptable question of to which degree does it fit with that opposite.
An example would be a slave owner, "We're talking about slavery here, so my question to you is why do you hate freedom?" You would say that is simply stupid, you wouldn't believe it nor would anyone else; yet it is extremely easy to pull off and it is done by every politician, news commentator, newspaper/magazine editor, and radio host every single day and when its subtle enough people begin to think its legitimate. And when that happens you have what we have in this thread.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
The OP is using a typical Democrat move. Demonize republicans as a whole. I will not say that your post doesn't describe at least some republicans, however its a broad generalization. In other words a predjudiced remark. Being republican doesn't automaticaly make you believe exactly what all republicans do and yeah you stretched a hell of a lot for a few of those. I can make a list just as long demonizing the democrats but why bother. I claim myself independent since I don't like to identify with either party's extremes. I have some typical democrat views and some republican views. I assimilate information and form my own opinion, I don't listen to what Obama or Hannity says and start spewing it like its gospel. Learn to read between the lines. If you watch House it has one truth and thats everyone lies, or at least embelishes to their view point.
I wonder what progressives think they are progressing to?
Originally it meant toward a planned economy; Socialism.
They seem to want to deny that now.
fishermage.blogspot.com
If someone doesn't want to be generalized, then why would they join a group? Joining a group (especially politically) brings with it a generalization. If a person doesn't get that, then that is their fault for not learning about things like the Republican and Democratic Party platforms. Those state the generalized beliefs of the people in that group!
You said you're an Independent. Even calling yourself that brings about a generalization in peoples minds. If you don't like that, then why call yourself that? You do it to give someone a foundation of a general idea of where you're coming from. Otherwise, you would call yourself an individual. Which you didn't choose to do.
===============================
Neo-con Republican's = Democrats drenched in molasses.
===============================
Here's how I look at it:
Liberals and socialists didn't build this country. If things break down so much that it has to be rebuilt again, liberals and socialists will be on the sideline watching. They only spring up when there's enough successful conservatives to leach off of.
My youtube MMO gaming channel
Here's how I look at it:
Liberals and socialists didn't build this country. If things break down so much that it has to be rebuilt again, liberals and socialists will be on the sideline watching. They only spring up when there's enough successful conservatives to leach off of.
Of course liberals built this country. They did so along with conservatives ,moderates, and everything in between.
The Official God FAQ
From wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
"In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism."
Sounds like both parties, but much more like the Democrats. I think Sabian has said this is more or less what HE believes in.
Also, check this out:
"This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour (Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state""
Sounds on the one hand a LOT like the Democrats, and a bit like the Republicans. Although the last part sounds like China
fishermage.blogspot.com
Due to the climate of this discussion I'm just going to pop in and say "I love you" to everyone here. I hope you're all having a wonderful day.
Once i crush your puny country into so much dust, then you will finally know freedom.
Its okay i will save you all, kneel before Doom!
We don't really role-play here. But it's really nice to meet you!!
I'll second that emotion
fishermage.blogspot.com