what is a liberal ?

[DrjonesUSA]

Originally Posted by zapatito92

I don't mean to start any wars, but I was curious as to what exactly a liberal is.

what defines one because im pretty sure that most of the people on here calling people liberals aren't entirely sure of the definition either.

does a liberal go hand and hand with gun hating ?? what is it ?!?
every time I hear some one say liberal I ask what that means and almost every time I get different answers

Google "Frankfurt School" specifically Antonio Gramsci, and you'll learn all you need to know.

Better yet, buy "Death of the West" by Patrick Buchanan; he has a chapter on the Frankfurt School that lays it all out perfectly.

Basically; True Americans are liberals; classical liberals. The Founding Fathers were "liberals" in the grand scope of history.

Like with everything else, the left has hijacked, appropriated, and distorted that word.

Call them by their true name; leftists, communists, fascists. Just DON'T call them liberals. It makes my skin crawl each & every time I see that word used to describe a leftist.

Again; read up on the Frankfurt School & you'll have all the knowledge you need.




.

[digelectric]

Originally Posted by skyungjae

https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/con...beral-beliefs/

This article is as much useless drivel as it claims liberals to be.

[relatively-anonymous]

Originally Posted by LBDamned

These days "liberal" equate to socialism...

Liberal is not what it used to be at all... But most people are naive to all of it.

So is "conservative" for that matter. The Constitution explicitly forbids government establishment of a religion, but there are a lot of continued efforts by "conservatives" to throw away that provision.

The old labels do not represent the current two parties.

[1859sharps]

Originally Posted by artb

Emotions rule over facts.
A fact to a liberal is like Kryptonite to superman. Larry Elder.

when your ideology is the end all be all, facts get in the way no matter where on the spectrum you fall. Conservatives are not immune from this and they too can become denier of fact because it doesn't fit their ideology/narrative.

Liberal and conservative are very culture/society specific and changes over time. beliefs that are liberal here can be conservative else where and what is conservative else where can be liberal here. And, with a country as large and diverse as the US...it can very a bit region to region.

[cvigue]

Originally Posted by zapatito92

I don't mean to start any wars, but I was curious as to what exactly a liberal is.

what defines one because im pretty sure that most of the people on here calling people liberals aren't entirely sure of the definition either.

does a liberal go hand and hand with gun hating ?? what is it ?!?
every time I hear some one say liberal I ask what that means and almost every time I get different answers

Originally Posted by skyungjae

https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/con...beral-beliefs/

Most of the people who are identified as and self-id as liberal are not really classical liberals - they are leftists, and there is a difference.

The above linked site has succumbed to popular definitions, so that's sad. Leftists are not classical liberals. Liberals in the classic and true sense of the term believe in liberty, and classical liberalism is closer by far to libertarians than to the political left.

I've been trying to cultivate the habit of saying leftist when referring to, well, leftists, because I don't like the muddying of terms. Classical liberalism, loving liberty, and all that sort of stuff has a lot to recommend it, but the term was co-opted by the left and corrupted in the last few decades.


Let's all say leftist when we see a leftist? Don't give them the veneer of liberty.

[Milsurp Collector]

Take the survey and find out where you are on the political spectrum - liberal, conservative, libertarian, statist. Pick the answer to each question that most closely matched your beliefs, even if none of the answers matches exactly:


https://www.nolanchart.com/survey-php




.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by cvigue

Most of the people who are identified as and self-id as liberal are not really classical liberals - they are leftists, and there is a difference.

The above linked site has succumbed to popular definitions, so that's sad. Leftists are not classical liberals. Liberals in the classic and true sense of the term believe in liberty, and classical liberalism is closer by far to libertarians than to the political left.

I've been trying to cultivate the habit of saying leftist when referring to, well, leftists, because I don't like the muddying of terms. Classical liberalism, loving liberty, and all that sort of stuff has a lot to recommend it, but the term was co-opted by the left and corrupted in the last few decades.


Let's all say leftist when we see a leftist? Don't give them the veneer of liberty.

I agree whole heartedly.

[tankarian]

Originally Posted by relatively-anonymous

Spot the Ann Coulter fan! Yeah when he was 14 and didn't know **** about politics other than "he was raised a Jew and would get killed by the Nazis unless he played along," he did what he thought he had to do to survive: Pose as a Christian and confiscate property from other Jews. I don't know what I'd have done in his situation.

Aren't you a cute little lying lib?
Yeah, he was 14 at the time. But why are you failing to mention is when the interviewer asked him if he regrets his actions and tells him "most people would have nightmares for the rest of their lives remembering they did something like that"...what is Soros's response?
Come on, tell us. I let you do it. Just curious if you persist in your stupid lie.

[cvigue]

Originally Posted by relatively-anonymous

So is "conservative" for that matter. The Constitution explicitly forbids government establishment of a religion, but there are a lot of continued efforts by "conservatives" to throw away that provision.

The old labels do not represent the current two parties.

I'm not a fan of publicly operated schools anyway. Give me a voucher for my part of public school funding and let the market solve the education crisis.

But then my solution to gay marriage is to abolish all government intervention in the marriage tradition straight and gay.

[Whiskey_Tango]

[curtisfong]

left/right is dumb

www.politicalcompass.org

[IVC]

Originally Posted by relatively-anonymous

So is "conservative" for that matter. The Constitution explicitly forbids government establishment of a religion, but there are a lot of continued efforts by "conservatives" to throw away that provision.

You REALLY need to understand what you are reading.

From the article, she talked about "using educational philanthropy to promote their conservative Christian worldview to children." Do you understand what "philanthropy" is? Do you understand the difference between a private citizen supporting a particular view and government forcing something?

Then they talk about school voucher programs to allow parents to have kids in Christian schools. Again, do you understand the difference between providing choice to parents and forcing religion on public schools?

So no, nobody is trying to force religion in general or Christianity in particular via government. Remember, it's the "freedom of religion," not "freedom from religion." The core idea is that people can be religious and can practice whatever religion they fancy.

[digelectric]

Originally Posted by Sierra57

Tumblr appears to be an extension of the Dem party and shows the mindset of your typical lefty. They don't vote on and implement laws and policies. Dem politicians do.

Tumblr is obviously a massive commie plot. Same with planned parenthood, Facebook, The Media, and Kamala Harris.

Oh sorry, only one of those is true.

[artb]

Originally Posted by digelectric

Tumblr is obviously a massive commie plot. Same with planned parenthood, Facebook, The Media, and Kamala Harris.

Oh sorry, only every one of those is true.

FIFY

[digelectric]

Originally Posted by artb

FIFY

I know, it's all rigged, that's why Trump lost.

[artb]

Originally Posted by digelectric

I know, it's all rigged, that's why Trump lost.

I believe it is rigged, only not well enough to beat Trump.
I suspect Donald limited the fraud by talking about it before and during the voting period.
JMHO

[SonofWWIIDI]

[SonofWWIIDI]

[SonofWWIIDI]

[SonofWWIIDI]

No more...





Well maybe one.

[vgman94]

Originally Posted by relatively-anonymous

So is "conservative" for that matter. The Constitution explicitly forbids government establishment of a religion, but there are a lot of continued efforts by "conservatives" to throw away that provision.

The old labels do not represent the current two parties.

Which is why the fastest growing party affiliation is Independent. Younger generations are becoming more immune to the indoctrination and more conscious of the flaws in both political ideologies. Until there's a way to deal with the inconsistencies in both parties, and create a greater push towards unity in this country, these terrible distortions (from both parties) of the original intent by the authors of this country will continue. Neither the lef or Right's ideal America is the stable country the Founding Fathers wished it would be.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by digelectric

I know, it's all rigged, that's why Trump lost.

The Bias Stream Media was-is-and will continue to be rigged by a strong leftist spin. Which got a big boost when the Fairness Doctrine was repealed and they no longer had to give equal time to opposing views on any controversial subjects concerning politics. And they drastically over estimated their own influence.

That overwhelmingly applies to printed and broadcast media. Which is the major influencer of attitudes. I would suggest that the BSM got caught with their feet in their mouths over the 2016 election. Because more and more people are turning away from their brand of BSM.

And relying more on the interwebz. A much more diverse source of accurate news and differing views. Where people can freely see it all. And form their own opinions. Rather than being spoon fed the latest spin from whichever billionaire owns the TV networks and newspapers.

First true journalism died and along with it the integrity associated with it. It was replaced by media and sound bytes, which is what we have on the way out today. The era of the "talking head" is coming to a close.

When a YouTuber with a inexpensive domain name, and a message folks want to hear. Especially for free. Has more subscribers than the LA Times, at $200 a year. Guess who is going to lose all the advertising dollars that keep them alive?

JM2c

[Sierra57]

Originally Posted by relatively-anonymous

The Constitution is a fluid document open to interpretation and can have parts added or discarded. It's been proven 27 times. Sometimes we decide on something (18) and realize it's a bad idea and change it back (21.)

Through their willful ignorance, the left is trying to interpret and take away the preexisting individual right to keep and bear arms, and the right to self defense.

[relatively-anonymous]

Originally Posted by IVC

You REALLY need to understand what you are reading.
...
So no, nobody is trying to force religion in general or Christianity in particular via government. Remember, it's the "freedom of religion," not "freedom from religion." The core idea is that people can be religious and can practice whatever religion they fancy.

That was just the most recent article of many on the subject. I had assumed that people who knew/supported vouchers also knew that vast majority (76% is the last number I got from the Department of Education) of schools in voucher programs have a religious affiliation. Forcing ALL taxpayers to fund the advancement of ANY religion against the Establishment clause of the Bill of Rights. Even a community that's 99% Hindu and 1% Taoist cannot legally put statues of Vishnu in taxpayer-funded schools.

The "Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion" quote by Rick Perry is a spurious argument in the context of vouchers. I am not in favor of tearing down or boarding up churches or private schools. Every person has the right to believe and teach and worship what they choose as long as it's not on the taxpayer dime.

Time and time again, the courts have struck down unconstitutional attempts by public officials to use their political power to advance a religion. If you want examples, see Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), Stone v. Graham (1980), and more appropriate to vouchers Locke v. Davey (2004).

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses." - John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” 1787-1788

[relatively-anonymous]

Originally Posted by Sierra57

Through their willful ignorance, the left is trying to interpret and take away the preexisting individual right to keep and bear arms, and the right to self defense.

Hey I realize I am in the minority on this thread and I have taken all sorts of abuse for my world view, but please understand that I am here BECAUSE I AM ON YOUR SIDE in the right to bear arms. I agree that many people and politicians have put unconstitutional restrictions on the right to bear arms. This handgun registry and AR restrictions are pretty damn asinine.

They do it out of fear, not willful ignorance. Fear is a powerful motivator. What got me over my fear were the actions of a few non-judgmental, apolitical individuals taking the time to show me the joy and responsibility of gun ownership. Now I am able to properly recognize where my peers and representatives got things wrong.

If you want to get anti's to change their mind, don't call them names or accuse them of being tyrants. They'll stop listening to you. Instead, invite them to a range and let them learn firsthand that a gun is, by itself NOT a killer. The gun is just a way to get a chunk of lead moving very fast in one direction: It has no will of it's own.

The best argument I've come up with in my short time being a pro-2A liberal: Think of abortion. The official Democratic platform on abortion is that it should be "available, safe, legal, and rarely used." Why can't guns be the same way? Make guns available because they do not, by themselves, kill people. Make them safe through education and training, not bull**** "features." Ask why a "waiting period" on one is OK but not on the other. As for the "rare" part: that's "using guns on humans." That SHOULD be rare, but, like abortion, the responsible person should have the training and practice to do it safely and effectively.

Banning either one of those does not end it: Bans just makes people less safe.

tl;dr: We know that guns, by themselves, are not bad. Calling someone an ignorant fascist nanny will not teach them that. Inviting them to see for themselves WILL teach them.

[CitaDeL]

Liberals (as being observed here) are not liberal.

The nomenclature has been so polluted by political ideology, that the real definitions have been discarded for things that are simply untrue.

If 'liberals' were actually liberal, they would not tell a free people that they must pay taxes to support countless social programs, institute a massive welfare system compelling government dependency, mandate the purchase of health insurance, or seize private property for the mutual interest of public safety.

You want to put a name to what this is? Socialist totalitarianism.

[relatively-anonymous]

I just realized something: Sierra57, IVC, and others who've argued against my views the most: I actually appreciate that you present your arguments on point and don't go down counterproductive namecalling or conspiracy theories.

On where we agree, I'll do my best to take the lessons you give me and share them with my "liberal" peers in ways they can understand. On where we disagree, I'll do my best to say "I disagree and here's why" instead of saying "you're wrong."

[Johnny_Utah]

I try not to use that term anymore as it doesn't really apply to the modern Democrat party nor to its adherents. They are LEFTISTS now...they've jumped the shark. (They continue to move FARTHER left).

[cvigue]

Originally Posted by Johnny_Utah

I try not to use that term anymore as it doesn't really apply to the modern Democrat party nor to its adherents. They are LEFTISTS now...they've jumped the shark. (They continue to move FARTHER left).

Same here.

The confusion the appropriation of the term liberal causes is by design, they love to play word games.

[tankarian]

Originally Posted by relatively-anonymous

I just realized something: Sierra57, IVC, and others who've argued against my views the most: I actually appreciate that you present your arguments on point and don't go down counterproductive namecalling or conspiracy theories.

On where we agree, I'll do my best to take the lessons you give me and share them with my "liberal" peers in ways they can understand. On where we disagree, I'll do my best to say "I disagree and here's why" instead of saying "you're wrong."

Still waiting for you to tell us what was George Soros' response

[relatively-anonymous]

Originally Posted by tankarian

Still waiting for you to tell us what was George Soros' response

The only point of bringing Soros into this conversation is that he is an incredibly wealthy person who also gives millions to charities. Even though there are people of vastly different backgrounds and political views funding charities, there are too few of them.

Soros, Hugo Boss, Volkswagon, Ford, and Chase Bank (among quite a few others) had dealings with the Nazis during WWII. None of them can be admired for it.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by relatively-anonymous

Time and time again, the courts have struck down unconstitutional attempts by public officials to use their political power to advance a religion. If you want examples, see Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), Stone v. Graham (1980), and more appropriate to vouchers Locke v. Davey (2004).

Those cases do NOT support your argument against vouchers.

The last one is about a fellowship that *explicitly* excluded religious studies (*not funding* is constitutional) and the one before was about 10 commandments in *public* schools (favoring a particular religion).

You cannot extrapolate that to the unconstitutionality of a personal choice of school.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by relatively-anonymous

The only point of bringing Soros into this conversation is that he is an incredibly wealthy person who also gives millions to charities.

The problem with Saros is not that he gives to charities - that's admirable.

The problem with Saros is that he gives millions of dollars to non-profits who drive political agenda. It's akin to influence peddling via Clinton foundation, but on steroids.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by relatively-anonymous

I actually appreciate that you present your arguments on point and don't go down counterproductive namecalling or conspiracy theories.

You are new to the forum. It's not only one of the fundamental (and enforced) rules, but the only way to have a civilized discussion.

Besides, you'll notice that vast majority of people "on the right" believe that you're wrong or not informed enough, not that you are personally defective. Compare this to the treatment of ideological opponents on the "left" sites.

(This is just another way to say the proverbial: "The right thinks the left is wrong, while the left thinks the right is evil.")

[tankarian]

Originally Posted by relatively-anonymous

The only point of bringing Soros into this conversation is that he is an incredibly wealthy person who also gives millions to charities. Even though there are people of vastly different backgrounds and political views funding charities, there are too few of them.

Soros, Hugo Boss, Volkswagon, Ford, and Chase Bank (among quite a few others) had dealings with the Nazis during WWII. None of them can be admired for it.

None of the other people of business entities in your reply presently has an agenda including the disarmament of the American people.

And as far as I know none of them expressed no regrets for collaborating with the Nazi, as the sugar daddy of your beloved Party did.
There you go, I answered the question for you.

As for the point of the comparison: you as a beleaguered CA gun owner are stripped of your rights and treated almost as a criminal by the Democrat politicians, yet still vote for and support the very same politicians who persecute and discriminate against all of us gun owners.

And after doing that, you fail to feel any remorse or sense of personal responsibility. Same as Soros who was himself a Jew and chose to participate in his own people's persecution, and not even decades later doesn't feel any remorse or responsibility for the evil he participated in.

True definition of a psychopath.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by relatively-anonymous

They do it out of fear, not willful ignorance. Fear is a powerful motivator.

Funny how it ends up being justification for all the wrongs on the left, yet the same courtesy is not extended to those of us who were genuinely terrified of possible Clinton's SCOTUS appointment to an already ideological court.

We cannot even get a basic affirmation of Heller from SCOTUS because the ideological few are fighting a personal battle. That's not even a hypothesis - we've seen too many examples not only with the court refusing to grant certs to cases that are clearly contradictory to Heller, but with having a few justices write a dissent to refusal of cert. Doesn't get much more explicit and deliberate than that.

[Whiskey_Tango]

Originally Posted by IVC

You are new to the forum. It's not only one of the fundamental (and enforced) rules, but the only way to have a civilized discussion.

Besides, you'll notice that vast majority of people "on the right" believe that you're wrong or not informed enough, not that you are personally defective. Compare this to the treatment of ideological opponents on the "left" sites.

(This is just another way to say the proverbial: "The right thinks the left is wrong, while the left thinks the right is evil.")

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

-Ayn Rand

[relatively-anonymous]

Originally Posted by tankarian

As for the point of the comparison: you as a beleaguered CA gun owner are stripped of your rights and treated almost as a criminal by the Democrat politicians, yet still vote for and support the very same politicians who persecute and discriminate against all of us gun owners.

I am actually a new (in jail until Tuesday) California handgun owner who just loves all the work people put into the engineering of the weapons and skill and discipline people put into it. It was a big damn deal for me to put aside the fear and explore this the first time.

So now that it's done, I think it's my responsibility to try to educate my "liberal" peers that it's ok to maintain their "liberty" views on marijuana, gay equality and other stuff AND to support liberty of gun ownership. Also it's sensible to tell our elected representatives as much or choose new reps who support that liberty as well.

[tankarian]

Originally Posted by relatively-anonymous

I am actually a new (in jail until Tuesday) California handgun owner who just loves all the work people put into the engineering of the weapons and skill and discipline people put into it. It was a big damn deal for me to put aside the fear and explore this the first time.

So now that it's done, I think it's my responsibility to try to educate my "liberal" peers that it's ok to maintain their "liberty" views on marijuana, gay equality and other stuff AND to support liberty of gun ownership. Also it's sensible to tell our elected representatives as much or choose new reps who support that liberty as well.

Well, welcome to the Dark Side.
Next step in your training is to try to renounce your support for the politicians and Party who want to disarm you. Because once you are disarmed and defenseless, there is nothing that can stop them from taking ALL your other rights

[digelectric]

Originally Posted by pacrat

The Bias Stream Media was-is-and will continue to be rigged by a strong leftist spin. Which got a big boost when the Fairness Doctrine was repealed and they no longer had to give equal time to opposing views on any controversial subjects concerning politics. And they drastically over estimated their own influence.

There are tons of media sources (Fox News, The Federalist, New York Post, and the list goes on) that are heavily right leaning that I can't agree. In looking for AM radio news on my commute, it's all Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Armstrong and Getty, etc. I think blaming the media is a waste of time. Clinton blames the media as well, and it no more true for her than Trump. Trump benefitted enormously by being a showman and getting tons more media attention. The media focused on Clinton's email for 2 years straight, and most of it was negative.

I think Clinton's problem was Clinton and I think Trumps problems are Trump. If the system were rigged why do republicans have congress, the White House, and now the SC?

Either you have a funny definition of what the word means or you have it the other way around. The electoral college, for example, already biases presidential elections towards giving less populated (and generally red) states and advantage, as well as gerrymandering within states biases towards red regions.

Democrats have an electoral disadvantage. Be happy you/Trump won, but the statements about it being rigged are totally contradicted by the outcomes.