Reclaiming the Word “Liberal”
30 July 2006 by Sean
One of the things I am completely SICK OF is the bashing of the word “liberalism.” It’s been going on for 20-odd years in the U.S.A. and is completely just fucking WRONG. Liberalism is actually quite a rational and legitimate worldview, no matter your politics or religion. Liberalism practically epitomizes the idea of freedom.
READ:
http://www.answers.com/topic/liberalism
The state or quality of being liberal.
1. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
What legitimate American would have a problem with this worldview? Step up now and show your fascist colors.
30 July 2006, on 8:26 am
I have been saying the same thing for years and throwing the same definition back at them.
It seems they want to redefine what a liberal is, so that all the personality characteristics they dislike in themselves are projected onto another group, namely, the “liberal group.”
It has taken liberals a long time to realise what is happening, but the propoganda against “liberalism” has been so pervasive and successful, that very few people appear to be willing to reclaim the word for themselves.
The very beginning of individual rights, civil rights and societal freedom are tied up with the word “liberal”. Conservatives have projected all their own evil characteristics onto the group they compete with for political power, the liberals and it is about time we spoke out about it. One of the problems associated with being “liberal” is that basically we are too nice.
30 July 2006, on 9:29 am
These are my favorite definitions.
Yet people like Coulter make liberal out to be something evil. I’ve pulled out a dictionary on several people and read them the definition, yet they still look at me weird when I say I’m a liberal. Actually, I consider myself a socially-liberal anarchist.
30 July 2006, on 10:35 am
What’s with the T-shirt? Unless it belongs to a Latin American Jesus, one is likely to assume it’s referring to the Jesus of Xian folklore.
Here’s a sample of what that Jesus believed: Matthew 5:21&22
21 Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.
Is this liberal?
30 July 2006, on 10:36 am
Although Coulter is good at this, she’s just a copycat. I blame one man for the vilification of the word liberal: Rush Limbaugh.
30 July 2006, on 10:39 am
Liberal for it’s time, sure.
I just like sticking “Jesus is a liberal” in their faces once in a while.
How about I add a question mark to it?
30 July 2006, on 10:46 am
There, Lynda. Is that better?
30 July 2006, on 11:46 am
You guys all need to move to Canada. Our two main political parties are:
The Liberal Party.
The Progressive Conservative Party. (which is an oxymoron, of course)
Up here you can be a card-carrying registered Liberal, as well as a day-to-day liberal.
30 July 2006, on 11:56 am
kidkawartha - Apparently there are many in Canada who do not like liberalism and are pushing fundie propaganda.
Here from CBC online: Canada’s Evangelical movement: political awakening
The grass may not be greener on the other side of the fence.
30 July 2006, on 11:58 am
Star,
Got a link?
30 July 2006, on 11:59 am
Star,
Got a link?
Rat, Sorry…it’s there now.
30 July 2006, on 12:18 pm
Star,
Thank you much!
…
Ok, Canada has a problem. That sounds like the US 30 years ago. That Harper guy is going to feed this movement like Reagan’s RNC fed Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority. His pandering has already started. He might even try to bend the rules for religiou broadcasters.
I’d be watching for whom he funnels money to also. He’ll need a Ralph Reed type to act as his “shepherd” to mobilize voters.
30 July 2006, on 12:22 pm
Rat, it just so happens that the Ralph Reed isn’t doing anything right now.
30 July 2006, on 12:40 pm
RainDog sez:
Rat, it just so happens that the Ralph Reed isn’t doing anything right now.
Yeah, but only because he got busted shilling for Ambramoff. They still have a fundie in that spot, just not one who has been outed as corrupt.
I’m sure if Ralphie wanted to run, he could find “sanctuary” in the Vatican, though. It’s not like they haven’t hidden worse. He’d probably get that cushy gig you’re implying as well.
30 July 2006, on 1:15 pm
In looking back, through my experience, it seems to me that, the demonization of the word started with the rise of the ‘Born Again’ movement; which had its effective modern roots in the 1960s’ California “Jesus Freaks”. That being remembered, being ‘Born Again’ started to ‘take off’ through the 1970s; as a ‘New Ager’ at that time, I became well aware of the demonization tactics of the Fundies. It was during the Reagan years, however, with the recognition, and increasing Political power of the ‘Moral Majority’ movement linked with the tilting to the ‘Right’ of the ‘Bedtime for Bonzo’s’ Administration, that the theme of ‘evil Liberalism’ got its real momentum.
Subsequently, as we all know, from the 1994 ‘Contract ON America’, and the resulting control of the NeoCons… with help from the yapping Wingnut talk radio…we end up with the ‘Bushite Morons’, at the brink of Theocratic Neofascism!
So, as the Underground Revolutionary wing of the “One True Church of the Liberal Heathens” [I kid?] …I think we should have our very own QifS, uniquely designed T-shirt to wear proudly …even at our day jobs [I don’t have one!] …amongst the vast, and VERY dangerous, often violent, enemy!
Of course, I’ll add, that we should have a yearly convention…and what!…a wet T-shirt contest? [Only GifS gals, of course, as entries!] OUCH!
[F/X: slapping sound, or is it a whip snap!]
OK,…One more,…”Thought for the Day”:
In light of all the recent news, I offer the following paraphrase of Dorothy’s “Wizard of Oz” mantra:
“MUSLIMS, AND CHRISTIANS, AND JEWS…OH, MY!”
[Yeah, that’s it1…keep Repeating…ad infinitum?…Sheesh!…It’s a mantra!]
I go forth!
30 July 2006, on 1:46 pm
Actually, Kidk, the PC party was dissolved in 2003. The new Conservative Party headed by Stephen Harper lives up extremely well to the more appropriate title. Harper’s a dangerous asshole!
Re: T-shirt front–yes, Sean, better. Much more ambiguous.
30 July 2006, on 2:00 pm
Chuck A, How about a wet shorts contest anyone can enter? Liberals love equal rights. Right? Or is that left?
30 July 2006, on 2:12 pm
Stardust, I cried my eyes out when Stephen Harper won his bid to rule over Canada. I’m not particularly fond of the Liberals, but they did do a much better job of honoring the Canadian Charter of Rights than the present government. I’m worried all the civil rights gains are going to be lost before long (i.e. gay marriage).
What one needs to remember when viewing the Canadian population is that the majority may be liberal, but they split their votes between several parties–Liberal, NDP, Green–thus allowing the Conservative Party to win the election. Not one Conservative member was voted for in any of the 3 major metropolitan communities (Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal).
30 July 2006, on 2:15 pm
Sorry, I should have written “elected in” rather than “voted for” in that last sentence.
30 July 2006, on 2:22 pm
What one needs to remember when viewing the Canadian population is that the majority may be liberal, but they split their votes between several parties–Liberal, NDP, Green–thus allowing the Conservative Party to win the election. Not one Conservative member was voted for[elected in] any of the 3 major metropolitan communities (Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal).
Lynda, sounds like the same thing that happens here. Like I said, we cannot assume the grass will be greener on the other side of the fence. Fundamentalist conservatism is infecting the planet. At present, most Liberals are too divided and wishy-washy to defeat them.
30 July 2006, on 2:55 pm
Shut up, stupid statists. It’s because of people like you that everyone associates atheism with political coercion. Thanks for nothing.
Politics is for Suckers too.
30 July 2006, on 3:03 pm
Here’s your reply, “atheist liberals”:
http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/07/politics-is-for-suckers.html
30 July 2006, on 3:04 pm
While I don’t follow Francois’s ad hominem approach, liberalism is simply state violence by another name. Until we renounce the idea that taking money from another person by violence/force/coersion is anything but a moral abomination, we will continue to allow governments to fetter away our hard earned money, not to mention liberty.
30 July 2006, on 3:15 pm
Tremblay,
Anyone who advocates anarchism and libertarianism is completely ignorant of the world as it stands today.
The new Statism is what Mussolini termed corporatism, the more desrciptive name for…FASCISM.
So do you advocate looting, pillaging and riots in the streets? That’s anarchy, like it or not. Libertarianism is nothing but a lapdog ideology for thoe who control capital, and use thoe means to further oppress those who are already slave to the power of capital.
Statism. What a load of crap. Stalin will get no comfort from I.
Douchbag.
30 July 2006, on 3:16 pm
I was worried about Harper before he ever got into the Government. Both me and BigHeathenMike thought this wasn’t going to turn out so well, especially when he tried to get rid of gay-marriage.
PS. Stephen Colbert claims he’s responsible for getting Harper into power.
30 July 2006, on 3:33 pm
Lynda, Stardust, et al-
Sorry, a comment with a outright mistake (Prog. Cons.- my excuse is it I hate them so much, I can’t remember their name), and a lack of detail.
Yes, the right in Canada has a voice, but I’m far, far less concerned about them than in the States. And they are generally of an age, as the U.S., that their activism is on the tail end of their lives. Despite a highly visible corruption scandal in the Liberal party, they still managed to capture 30% of the vote. The NDP is steadily growing, as well as the Green party. We’re all watching Herr Harper and his pointy-eared minions. The Liberals are self-renewing as we speak, particularly the Young Liberals. We actually have the situation in the U.S. to thank for knowing what to watch for so much better. The right may be better organized, have more money, but they will ultimately lose. They are in decline in a long-term sense whether they like or admit it or not. Gay marriage is here to stay, useless further Parliamentary debate and votes notwithstanding. Now if we just tackle corporate corruption of our government……
30 July 2006, on 3:36 pm
Tremblay’s politics are extremist libertarianism. He thinks corporations behave properly when treated like nice, good-hearted individuals. He doesn’t believe a society of wealth should do something to help its less fortunate members. In other words, he’s as selfish as every libertarian I have ever met, and about 1/10th as deep in his empathy and ability to see the gray areas in life.
Again: back to the definition:
Natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
That means we don’t just lie down and take it when a corproration poisons our entire drinking supply. And why government sometimes needs to stand with us. And that means we get to stand up and tell our government when it is fighting an illegal war for profit.
It is all about the empowerment of the individual. Your ignorant, derogatory term “statists” is defined thusly:
Statism (or Etatism) is a very loose and often derogatory term that is used to describe:
1. Specific instances of state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.
2. A form of government or economic system that involves significant state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.
Liberals actually don’t believe in the government telling them who they can fuck, who they can marry, what they can do recreationally with their own bodies, how they can die with dignity, what they can read, what they can listen to.
Libertarians are just liberals who are too stunted to figure it out yet. They think it’s all about taxes. I would be glad to pay taxes if we had more people who cared about our society’s welfare rather than waging war. I would have no problem with it at all. Have you actually ever spent time in Europe or Canada? Bitch and moan all you want, for the most part they are doing better than us. Hell, even when young people riot there, nobody ever gets killed. It’s amazing. They have a lot to work out, but it’s nothing compared to the festering ghettos we have allowed to develop in the world’s most supposedly wealthy country.
Even the CIA knows this. Take a look at how they describe our economy on their very own website. Just objective analysts doing their jobs. It’s pathetic:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $42,000. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to enter their rivals’ home markets than foreign firms face entering US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a “two-tier labor market” in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. The war in March-April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq, and the subsequent occupation of Iraq, required major shifts in national resources to the military. The rise in GDP in 2004 and 2005 was undergirded by substantial gains in labor productivity. Hurricane Katrina caused extensive damage in the Gulf Coast region in August 2005, but had a small impact on overall GDP growth for the year. Soaring oil prices in 2005 and 2006 threatened inflation and unemployment, yet the economy continued to grow through mid-2006. Imported oil accounts for about two-thirds of US consumption. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.
I’m not a statist. I’m a humanist, and I refuse to live in a world in which an old lady down the street from me is eating cat food right along with her pet cats — while my neighbor is having $50 Indian delivered by Waiters on Wheels. You can take your Ayn Rand Objectivism and shove it. I will continue to work for a better world.
I happen to be an optimist, too, and I actually found Barack Obama’s “Audacity of Hope” speech quite moving.
30 July 2006, on 3:44 pm
Rory,
That’s a load of crap as well. What’s more, it’s completely irresponsible! You have heard of deficits, haven’t you?
I’m sorry, but if you want to maintain the inegrity of a civilization, you have to INVEST in it. And that’s everyone’s responsibility-yours, mine, your bosses-everyone’s. Also, you cannot let entire segments suffer with dilapidated housing, schools, and other essential services like infrastructure, health care and what not.
Now, how do tax cuts for priveledged white corporate CEO’s and paris Hilton have to do with you? Nothing. Yet you act like their puppet with your tired, stale regurgitation of Ayn Rand’s selfishness.
And you know what, you see today what the libertarian philosophy engenders; life in the Bush Economy.
So, you got some of your “hard earned cash” via a $300 check way back in 2002. Tell me, was that little bit of cash worth it? Was it worth the lack of accountability that the Republican and their financiers now enjoy? Was it worth an all out Holy War started under false pretenses? Was it worth our constitutional rights?
Y’see you get what you pay for, and if pay for shit, you get shit. Such is the failure of libertarianism. It’s the other side of the coin of statism because libertarianism is corporatism in sheeps’ clothing.
And who was into that? Class? Bueller?
Yeah, that’s right-Hitler and Mussolini.
Now look, times are tough, and I am loathe to deprive you or anyone else of your hard earned paycheck. We are seeing the return of stagflation, and considering the labor movement in this country has been emasculated by the same forces that claim to believe in conservative/libertarian principles, I would hate to see your income dwindle any further.
You gotta pay that electric bill to keep tthe AC on.
Oh and why are our public utilities actually privately owned? Because it’s easier to act corrupt in a privately held firm rather than in the glare of public service.
The free market is not free. It’s rigged for the people with power and priveledge.
Fuck the lowly consumer. Yeah, we’re not even citizens in that system, just consumers. Soon to be the consumed.
30 July 2006, on 4:07 pm
That $300 tax back thing was a joke. I remember actually hearing guys on the street going “Yeah, that was mighty generous of President Bush. I sure could use that 300 smackers.”
Karl Rove: Oval Office high five
American People: Flim-flammed idiots again
It was like the opposite of the lottery, which we all know is simply a tax for the innumerate. That was relief for the equally innumerate.
30 July 2006, on 4:10 pm
You got that right, Sean! And nice rip on Tremblay! Keep it comin’ bud!
30 July 2006, on 4:22 pm
Tremblay, your posting on your site is idiotic. You really thing liberals: artists, freethinkers, musicians, poets, philosophers, artisans, craftspeople and free spirits are responsible for the tyrants in the world? I have an intellectual bedfellow for you that I’d like you to meet:
The Rev. Jerry Falwell talking about Sept. 11: “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’”
You say:
“Liberals go against centuries of civil disobedience and our constant attempt to take down the power of kings and tyrants.”
You flaming idiot. Liberals are the ones who rise up against tyrants. That’s why they’re called liberals, random-fuck. As in wanting people to be liberated.
Where the fuck were you marching against this illegal war in Iraq? I was out with millions of liberals worldwide, protesting in the streets.
“Atheist liberals are especially hypocrite, since they praise the ruling class that marginalizes them, and they praise the democracy that gives the religious majority power to oppress them.”
What the fuck are you talking about? My family is mostly struggling academics and writers trying to educate the world about dumb fucks like you. The people with the money own oil companies. They are also the ones who finance the mega-churches. Are you one of those right-wing twits who thinks intellectuals are the source of all of society’s ills? So did Pol Pot. Maybe you’re actually a radical communist.
Your proctologist called, Tremblay. He found your head.
30 July 2006, on 4:24 pm
Thanks! Nice rant yourself, Bastid!
30 July 2006, on 4:27 pm
Yes, ChuckA: The Reagan era is where the word “liberal” was successfully turned “dirty.” I’m old enough to remember that. His administration can be seen as the precursor of all the dirty spin that we have seen ever since. They raised it to a high art. National hero, my ass. Should have buried him in a potter’s field and put Ray Charles lying in state for a week in D.C..
30 July 2006, on 4:37 pm
Francois Tremblay Says:
Shut up, stupid statists.
Mongo no like stupid statists! Mongo and Hulk BASH!
30 July 2006, on 4:45 pm
You like burning bridges don’t you Tremblay?
30 July 2006, on 4:51 pm
To piggy back off beepbeep’s last point, I have always had the feeling that indeed, liberals are too nice. We’re the group fighting for open-mindedness and inclusion, fighting to keep the rights that conservatives love to have (religion anyone?), which they throw back in our faces. A disgusting cycle.
Oh well, I do feel Ben Franklin-esque when I come upon things like that, “I don’t agree but ill defend your right to say it” etc.etc.
Liberalism is the most American of ideas, followed closely by Cable TV.
30 July 2006, on 5:34 pm
It seems he does, Ford. I see why Sean is fond of you.
And we should really rip on this idiotic statist thing. I was out there protesting this war, just like you Sean. It’s funny how people like Tremblay ignore facts.
You know, like the biggest communist country on the planet, China, is now a partner with Wal Mart, the greatest corporate criminal organization there is today.
And they’re just the tip of the iceberg.
You all say the free market will open China up, but Google and Yahoo both caved to China’s cenorship demands just to make a buck. The same with Rupert Murdoch and SkyNews.
And what happens here at home? Why, these companies get tax breaks from OUR government! For selling our economic strength to the lowest bidder.
Where’s your outrage over that?
So you see, the libertarian argument ha been fully discredited at it’s core, because it ha proved to me even more corrupt than a democratic government could ever be.
Except for maybe Bush’s pseudo-democracy we’re experiencing right now. Gee, thanks Diebold! Now there’s a company that’s the epitomy of business ethics!
NOT!
This is what you don’t get: this statism can be inflicted on a population more effectively from a large multi national corporation because they do not have the mechanisms of accountability and oversight to the citizenry built into them. To stockholders, yes. But not the general public, whom are affected by their lobbyists’ actions but have no say.
And what did our founding fathers call that? TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Only they don’t call it taxation today. They call it price gouging or profiteering.
But hey, a long as they help the NSA spy on us, our government won’t care. They’ll give them more carrots just to keep their staus quo in power.
And fuck our freedom. that’s expendable in this New Corporate World Order.
30 July 2006, on 5:39 pm
PS: I left Halliburton, Enron, The Carlyle Group, Bechtel and the PNAC out deliberately so someone else could expound.
Anyone? Bueller?
30 July 2006, on 5:47 pm
“We” are scared of being liberal because we fear OURSELVES. Why?
Because the typical mindset of a average American is one formed by direct or indirect religious indoctrination. Makes no difference whether of religous or non-religious background. It’s a “think” woven by the religious into the fabic of society because “leaders” (those in power or seeking power) find it useful to let them weave such. And, on average, people (it to greater or lesser degree depending on their spirit of independence) fall under its influence.
What’s this “think?”: It’s the “you are a sinner and you need controls placed on you else you’ll be sick, unhappy, and damned to whatever.” It’s the “Jesus [or someone] please save me from myself” mentality.
That’s the mindset authorities want their subjects to have. That’s the mindset the “elites” or “want-to-be elites” want to apply to those lower on the rung. It’s all that “I need to save you from some great personal or cosmic danger” bullshit. It’s getting the masses to accede and say “I accept I’m a sinner and weak and without knowledge [or at least my neighbor is] and I turn myself [or at least my neighbor] over to you [fill-in name of authority] so you can protect me from myself [or at least from my pervert no-count neighbor]”
How does a supposedly “secular” society do the bidding of the elite. Well for example by making women feel weak and in need of protection from themselves and others; by casting men as mindless beer guzzling sexual savages; by showing the worst in life in every “reality show”; by making the word “personal-freedom” in the minds of Middle America equal to a “girls gone wild” scene or an on the edge “gay parade”; or by publishing 1000 best sellers a month spewing the “there go you but for the grace of god” bullshit. But most importantly: by advertising every bogeyman conceived by the elite (e.g., flag burning, gay marriage) to continually rally the masses emotionally.
In summary: Liberal is a dirty word because Liberalism is the enemy of those who want to control the masses for their own gain. And for many hundreds of years, religion mind think is the way (directly or indirectly) that the masses have been conditioned to accept conservative [non-liberal] principles: (1) that they and their neighbors need to let authorities dictate key aspects of their lives, and (2) everyone that follows what “god” [represented by authority] says will be blessed and successful, thus the “poor and unwashed” deserve it because they are in some way sinful ,and thus they do not merit help [have a right to share in the bounty of society].
I apologize for not being able to really write! Hope in the rant I conveyed something of interest. Thanks for letting me try.
30 July 2006, on 6:03 pm
ConcernedJoe,
No no, you’re right on target! I think it’ funny how thi plays against people who live in poverty, yet, percentage-wie, the poverty striken are the most pious people out there! That’s oppression personified!
30 July 2006, on 6:29 pm
George Washington:
As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.
H. L. Mencken:
In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.
Jose Ortega y Gasset:
Liberalism is the supreme form of generosity; it is the right which the majority concedes to minorities and hence it is the noblest cry that has ever resounded on this planet.
Anonymous?
A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. A liberal is a conservative who has been indicted.
30 July 2006, on 7:16 pm
I think the reason religion is so interdigitated with the political right-wing is because the Bibble forces them to concede all power to a single authority figure. Since the Bibble was written and accepted in a culture where everyone sweared loyalty to a King (where authority flows from Gawd, to King, to people) it can be considered to be a virtual antithesis to modern Liberal democracy (where power flows from people to a Leader or Leaders). Right-wing conservatism is as close to a monarchy as our countries can get and, therefore, closer to the Gawd-given system of government endorsed by the Bibble.
Now the only way to return to such a system is to make the other guys (i.e: us Liberals) look as bad as possible. That’s why words like Liberal, Democrat, Secular, et cetera have been (dare I say?) demonized.
I’m probably wrong, yet it does seem likely, right?
30 July 2006, on 7:24 pm
Rat, I meant Ralphie Reed was available to be the Canuck Ralph Reed.
I think it was Churchill who said;
“If one is not a liberal at 20, one has no heart but if one is not a conservative at 40, one has no brain.”
And it’s accurate in displaying part of what’s wrong. A lot of folks seem to lose their ideals as they step, I don’t know, out of college, to first jobs, into the so-called “real” world. But the “real” in that case is the same fabulist bullshit favored by today’s American overseers. There’s absolutely nothing that says ideals are to be grown out of like childish habits, no sense in abandoning the quest for whatever utopia one might envision just because perfection may never be attained by the imperfect creatures we are. If one cannot insure that every child born into this world has loving parents, clean drinking water, plenty to eat, adequate healthcare, and access to a quality education, one can at least insure that the kid down the block does. In my book, those that buy into that Churchill quote are either just mean-spirited or spineless defeatists.
Trembling Fran-schwa and his ilk, on the other hand have all the character of the infamously belligerent and warlike 101st Fighting Keyboarders, fighting the war in darkened basements with Cheeto-stained fingers because they haven’t the gumption to go fight it physically- see dear polyethylene pam atlasshrugs. Ayn Rand was, is, and always will be bullshit.
30 July 2006, on 7:41 pm
RDZ: I know that Churchill quote and I take issue with it. My dad has become, as he has aged, more and more radically leftist and open-minded. He sees the world’s arteries hardening along with his own and refuses to go down without a fight. He is truly my hero. I could rant about him endlessly, and one day I may post one of those lengthy anectodal pieces all about him, but he has taught me that not everyone becomes a self-serving prick as they age.
Now let me get back to licking my wounds over the fact that I just turned 40. Dag nab it!
30 July 2006, on 7:59 pm
I don’t think the reason why the word liberal lost its meaning because of conservatives, but rather because liberals themselves have have redefined the word by their actions- but, of course, I’m usually wrong.
Let’s look at a few liberal trademarks.
1) Tolerant
You don’t even have to leave this website to see how they’ve abandoned this one. This site is dedicated to ranting upon theists, mainly christians. The prejudice for those who do not practice their atheistic religion is highly self-evident. Except this site isn’t a liberal site. Nor are the views expressed here- at a site by and for atheists- necessarily the ones those who frequent this place take in their day-to-day lives. Further, the religious are fine up to and until they try and insert themselves or their idiot delusions in either our faces or, more importantly, the US Constitution.
2) Sympathetic
One word: Abortion. I don’t see how prochoice could be a liberal idea. Abortion taking scissors and stabbing a fetus untill it is dead- but that, of course, is partial birth abortion and extremely rare and, even the most hardcore of pro-choice advocates are not in favor of abortion, merely interested in keeping it as an option for women who might need it. This makes an intresting combonation with ‘tree-hugging’, and yet it happens- sorry, that was a really stupid, uncalled for remark.
3) Progressive
This also is connected to abortion. Somehow, it is the conservatives which is for progress by overturning Roe v Wade. I don’t understand why the people who call themselves ‘liberal’ would want to stand by such an out-of-date document except, maybe, for the precise reasons we wouldn’t want to go back and “update” such archaic legislation as, oh, civil rights, women’s right to vote, the emancipation of the slaves, the very Constitution itself. And of course the conservatives are the ones who wish to take us back to the days of enforced pregnancies, back alley abortion, and the overall subjugation of women. Silly me.
The shirt makes a great point. Jesus is a liberal. In many senses, Jesus would be the perfect example of someone tolerant, sympathetic, and progressive. Wow, I got something right, even if it was for the wrong reasons.
I’m a pretty moderate guy, in some ways I’m liberal and some ways I’m conservative. The fact is that after some point, liberalism contradicts itself. How?
Toleration vs Progress.
Toleration - To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit.
Progress - Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
One means, in a sense, ‘to let be’, while the other mean ‘to change’. Oh, wait, what about “changing” things in order “to let” all members of society “be.” Damn, I really ought to think before I open my mouth.
However, the ‘tainting’ of the word liberal was not one sided. The word conservative has also been tainted, as shown in this discussion. Conservative seems to mean racist, white, and christian. The real definition is more along the lines of white, christian, tolerant of racists, constipated, terrified of change and progress, cruel, hypocritical, and just plain obsolete. I should just shut up.
30 July 2006, on 8:10 pm
Sean…. congratulations and you are a youth (hey relativity rules)!!!
After reading the stuff on lots of those atheist blogs from the so caled “criminal, immoral, rudderless, angry, depressed, hopeless, arrogant, etc.” atheists — and using this thread as an example — I have to admit that I was — for shame - RIGHT!! The only true path to what is good and noble in this world is people accepting PERSONAL responsibility for themselves, the environment, nature and all creatures, and their loved ones. Its people admiting to not having all the answers; its people committed to seeking value in all and adding true value to all, to reserving judgement and to seeking TANGIBLE truth first.
God-obbession and/or religion INTERFER with this in such a profound way — hopefully this plague that still afflicts this modern era will go the way of blood letting at the barber shop before too many more scores!
30 July 2006, on 8:18 pm
Sean,
RDZ and I both agree with you:
In my book, those that buy into that Churchill quote are either just mean-spirited or spineless defeatists.
I’d go further and call them sellouts.
Here’s a little Organizing 101, from the DNC circa 2002:
“To activate voters, onw must tap into what the voter perceives as his or her self interests.”
That’s a reference to RainDog’s statement about when people enter the workforce, i.e. “the real world”.
He’s right. This does happen. And this is how politicians exploit us. It’s all designed to divide us (as in we the people) so we can do nothing but fight for crumbs while the Church and corporate America run away with the cake.
Bill Clinton was a master at this, which is why he survived in 1992 and ‘96.
Although he had somne help form Ross Perot.
Hunter Thompsom wrote an article for Rolling Stone depicting the dynamics of Clinton’s inner circle leading up to 2002. While I think half of it was part allegory, part drug induced delusion, he talked of how the Clintonistas were “pick-pocketers” out to defraud us all.
Then we had NAFTA and a failed effort to overhaul Health Care policy. And of course, their career long coddling of Wal Mart.
Why do i bring the Clintons into it? Because they are called liberal, but really, they’re not.
And they are another black mark liberals don’t deserve!
30 July 2006, on 8:23 pm
Concerned Joe,
Personal responsibility is practiced by most liberals; they just don’t PREACH it!
30 July 2006, on 9:14 pm
Mr. Peterson, you’ll find yourself more comfortable with the abortion stance of the Raving Atheist. So, take your ass backwards definitions away from here.
30 July 2006, on 10:00 pm
“atheistic religion”
Is that anything like an ice cold fire?
“You don’t even have to leave this website to see how they’ve abandoned this one. This site is dedicated to ranting upon theists, mainly christians. The prejudice for those who do not practice their atheistic religion is highly self-evident.”
Oh boo-hoo, we don’t tolerate arbitrary intolerance. Cry me a river fuckface. Did you actually say we’re prejudice? Need a dictionary do ya?
from dictionary.com
prej·u·dice Audio pronunciation of “prejudice” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prj-ds)
n.
1.
1. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
(If you look around asshole, you’ll see that this site is mainly about examining the facts, I’m sure most of the people you’ll meet on here pop a major boner when it comes to examination of facts.)
2. A preconceived preference or idea.
(Most of us were religious at some point in time. Even so, being an atheist is pretty much a default state, you aren’t born knowing about god, it’s an idea you’re told by people with no evidence to back it up. As for our anger, you need not do any more than turn on the news, announce you’re an atheist while in Kentucky, or talk to fucktards like you on the internet to get pissed off at assholes, well, like yourself. You think we HATE religious people simply because they’re religious? haven’t checked this out yet have ya?)
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.
(See above explaination)
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
(I’m sure you’ll beg to differ, but our suspicion is anything but irrational, as a matter of fact, we tend to flaunt logic and rationality around here, incase you didn’t notice. As for hatred, we could give a shit about what people believe, we just don’t like bullshit forced on us. Need to see the link again?)
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
(We all know, of course, that atheists are killing religious people by the droves. Preconceived? Need I go over that again?)
30 July 2006, on 11:10 pm
Peterson,
Liberals are not in general atheist, so your claim of intolerance of liberals doesn’t generalize. But for the sake of argument, lets assume all liberals are atheist. The only intolerance that liberal atheists claim is of ‘intolerance’. They are generally intolerant of intolerant groups/people…aka religions for the past several thousand years. This is not an inconsistent strategy. See ‘tit-for-tatters’ in game theory for an understanding of its utility. If religions would simply cease attempting to legislate their morality upon us beyond the realm of mutual informed consent, there would be no beef.
Sympathetic. Abortion. Again, you are mistaken. The goal of liberal is harm reduction and maximal happiness. If you integrate the pain and loss of an untimely, unwanted pregnancy vs the arguably non-existant suffering of a euthanized fetus, the greater harm is to not grant the option. Aborting a fetus does not mean necessarily that a life is lost, in fact more life will probably result. Someone educated and established in their career is more likely to be comfortable successfully parenting more offspring then someone forced into a situation they are not ready for with the attendant loss of status, income and security. You may say, “how do you know that aborted fetus would not have been happier?”. I don’t, I leave that decision to those most proximal to the consequences. Legal abortion within the first trimester is a line drawn arbitrarily through a grey zone out of sheer pragmatism.
Progressive. Overturning roe v wade is not progress, see “Sympathetic.”
30 July 2006, on 11:15 pm
OK Peteren, here goes…
I am by no means tolerant. Why? Well, you answered that on your own:Further, the religious are fine up to and until they try and insert themselves or their idiot delusions in either our faces or, more importantly, the US Constitution.
Thi bullshit has gone on for too long and dammit I can’t TAKE anymore!
What you don’t understand is that this is inevitable. Xianity is preprogrammed to become intolerant. They know this, and use this, to hold power over those who are otherwise power-LESS!
I ued to be all “live and let live” until Bush decided to change our entire democracy over to a theocracy.
That’s when I decided I had had enough!!!
And sorry, but I stand by a womans’ right to choose her own destiny. I do have issues with abortion, but until our society decides that it should abolish poverty or remove the stigmatism against women, then I shall remain pro-choice.
Funny thing about the pro life crowd; as soon as the kid is thru the birth canal, they don’t give a flying fuck anymore.
Let ‘em starve!!! That’s the Christian way!!!
Oh, so compassionate you fucking jeebus freaks are. FUCKTARDS.
And I’m all for change. I want to to change to oppression xianity bring againt women, gays, and people of color. I want to stop the xians from discriminating against them!
I would love to see every church replaced by bars, rock/rap concert halls and titty clubs. Now that would bring REAL peace to the earth!!!
Oh, and those titty clubs? Bring in Chippendales for shows! I’m an equal opportunity kind of sinner!
And ye Petersen, I’m not as liberal as I should be, because I think you’re right.
You should SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
30 July 2006, on 11:16 pm
Nice smack down, OGSteve.
30 July 2006, on 11:27 pm
[Except for the Fundie Troll
Hey 'guys',...so many really great comments...Bravo!...
OK...more hip?...RAMEN?
Sean, you'll heal just fine!...[In that regard; allow me to suggest the following?]
[Like,...maybe, as help?...here's a little MUSICAL MANTRA?...
fit it into 4/4 time...like, yeah man!,...a musical repeat 'measure'!]:
Count: [Tempo: mm=c.120 or 'Disco Tempo']
||: 1 2 3 4 :||
||: dada dada da dada :||
||: “40 is the new 20″ :|| Repeat as needed!
[You get the idea!]
[As a lifetime [always living on the edge] Liberal, I did quite a bit of private music teaching!]
30 July 2006, on 11:31 pm
Oops! The first 3 smileys should be ‘:||’ [repeat sign]
So much for the ease of transferring musical symbols in posts!
“I tried!…man,…how I tried!”
30 July 2006, on 11:36 pm
Ah… Nothing like a good flame war on a Sunday at GifS. She beats church, eh, folks?
30 July 2006, on 11:37 pm
Except this site isn’t a liberal site. Nor are the views expressed here- at a site by and for atheists- I eat my own poop.
pro-choice advocates are not in favor of abortion, merely interested in keeping it as an option for women who might need it. I loves me some fuckin’. Rape, rape, rape, incest is best, put your sister to the test!
except, maybe, for the precise reasons we wouldn’t want to go back and “update” such archaic legislation as, oh, civil rights, women’s right to vote, the emancipation of the slaves, the very Constitution itself. My heart is made by Massey-Ferguson.
what about “changing” things in order “to let” all members of society “be.” Damn, I really ought to think before I open my mouth. Fetus make good sandwich!
white, christian, tolerant of racists, constipated, terrified of change and progress, cruel, hypocritical, and just plain obsolete. I should just shut up. It’s so dark in here, so very dark. Who knew a colon didn’t have track lighting?
Personal responsibility is practiced by most liberals. Why cain’t I be a member of your cool club?
Is that anything like an ice cold fire? Athsms is ver ver ebil und bad, bad, bad!
Oh boo-hoo, we don’t tolerate arbitrary intolerance
As for hatred, we could give a shit about what people believe
I’m glad you are a logical person. I am a fuckface, asshole, and fucktard.
31 July 2006, on 12:17 am
Is that anything like an ice cold fire? Nope. Atheism is based solely on belief rather than fact. Facts can not prove or disprove God. If you don’t want to be religious, stick with the general agnostic approach: “I don’t know.”
Atheism is based on facts. Empty is empty. There is no conjecture that will say or demonstrate that an empty bowl is anything but empty. The proof of existence is on the person describing that existence. Show it and prove it. The facts do prove it is empty. And because air is invisible to the unaided eye I ask if you have a quality of god that is invisible to the unaided eye? The reason I ask is that I have a way of removing all the air and proving it is gone. Can you demonstrate a like procedure for your god? If you can not then it does not exist.
“I don’t know” is a cop out until a person is assured that their thinking is on track and that in fact Atheism is the perfect human state of being.
31 July 2006, on 12:39 am
Wow Peterson…that’s fascinating…so you think the only reason women get abortions is because they are lazy bitches who can’t be bothered to carry a child for nine months or because they don’t want to take responsibility for their actions. Do you really believe that? What do you honestly suppose is going through the mind of a 17 yo girl on her way to an abortion clinic because in the heat of passion she didn’t insist on her boyfriend wearing a condom? Do you think its easy for her? Do you think that decision isn’t utterly life altering for her? Do you not think that some imagine, “this is a most horrible situation, I am not ready for a child, I want one, but not now, I have so much living to do first and don’t have the resources to care for it.” Try and imagine the myriad circumstances in which an unwanted pregnancy can arise.
Do you know the history of abortions in this country and in others? What an act of utter desperation it has been for so many, that they would risk their lives. How lazy and selfish they are.
Nature has played a cruel trick on them, the burden of asymmetrical gametes is entirely theirs. You know as well as I do that the odds of a child having an involved male parent are vastly lower than having an involved female parent. The consequences for a woman are substantially greater. That is why they get that little pass. They get one last chance to be sure. We cautiously give them a little leeway into the grey zone.
31 July 2006, on 1:10 am
“There is no conjecture that will say or demonstrate that an empty bowl is anything but empty.” There could be one that will say or demostrate that a bowl is anything but empty. The whole purpose of the bowl declares that it CAN be full.
“so you think the only reason women get abortions is because they are lazy bitches who can’t be bothered to carry a child for nine months or because they don’t want to take responsibility for their actions.” You’ve put words into my mouth. I never said they weren’t determined. I was talking about the true necessity of abortion. Neccesity isn’t determined by desire or will. A woman who is cabable of concieving a child is capable whether or not she can afford or is willing to do so.
“You know as well as I do that the odds of a child having an involved male parent are vastly lower than having an involved female parent. The consequences for a woman are substantially greater. That is why they get that little pass.”
I believe abortion is murder and such an action is only justified when doing so to defend or protect oneself or others. Other than the case where labor threatens a woman’s life, you won’t be able to justify abortion in my eyes. Neither a fetus nor a baby threatens the mother’s life.
As to the editing of my posts, I find it unnecesary. You guys need not close your eyes and cover your ears to my words.
31 July 2006, on 1:34 am
“I’m glad you are a logical person. It’d be nice if I could get some logical reasoning as to calling me:
1) fuckface
2) asshole
3) fucktard”
Because we get people such as yourself coming by here all of the time and acting like holier-than-thou pricks, and we’re fucking sick of it. Because we get treated like shit everywhere in the world, then assholes like you come on here and act like we’re some big mean bullies there to stomp on innocent peoples beliefs.
“As for hatred, we could give a shit about what people believe
This entire site states otherwise.”
Are you blind or just trying to be difficult asshole? Go here. Go here. Go here. Go here. Go here. Go here. Go here. Go here. Go here. Go here. Go here. There, maybe you’ll see that link now.
“Atheism is based soely on belief rather than fact. Facts can not prove or disprove God. If you don’t want to be religious, stick with the general agnostic approach: “I don’t know.””
And bald is a hairlcolor. Tell me, can facts disprove invisible, incorporeal assgnomes? Evidence for god=0. There are an infinite number of things that have zero evidence. I have no reason to believe in god, doing so would simply be arbitrary. If you want to go around not allowing yourself the ability to ever say something is false, be my guest, but I’m going to treat my life as if there aren’t any gnomes living in my ass. Have fun.
“Other religions, arbitrary intolerance… same thing, right?”
Once more, we aren’t a religion, but I doubt my arguments will ever sway you on that issue, you just get giddy with the idea that we have the same level of truth as Christians. As for the arbitrary intolerance, we’re talking about fucking assholes who deny people rights because of their evidence-less religion.
Look, a belief has to be held up by something, if there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe it. Atheism is a zero position, we don’t believe there is a god, we have no reason to. If you want to get specific, we’re as certain the Judeo-Christian god doesn’t exist as we are that the various things that ARE supported by evidence (evolution being one example) that contradict Christianity DO exist.
You’ll, of course, only understand this if you want to understand this. If all you give a shit about is disproving us, you’ll misinterpret it by using the ambiguity inherent in all words.
31 July 2006, on 1:47 am
Let me simplify my comment. First, a generic god, let’s assume this god doesn’t contradict things that do have evidence (we have infinitely more reason to believe something with evidence than we do something without evidence), we don’t have negative assertions to this, we just don’t believe it because there is no reason to believe it, belief is like a function in this case, we need evidence for this belief to function (it’s binary baby, 0 and 1, not -1 and 1). For specific god’s, if they contradict things that we do have evidence for, we actually have reason to NOT believe them, a negative assertion, based on evidence (-1).
31 July 2006, on 4:42 am
Peterson, you are an idealogue. You see the world in black and white where there is mostly grey. You do not negotiate, you do not comprimise. You are a danger to yourself and others…but mostly others.
The idea that a fetus is equivalent to a human life, and that abortion is equivalent to murder is readily debunked by a very simple thought experiment. Imagine you are placed in the unenviable position of having to decide whom to save from a sinking ship. There is an apparatus of test tubes and machinery keeping alive ten embryos, each barely fifteen cells in diameter, and there is one teenager. Only one lifeboat left and either the machine with the ten embryos gets on, or the teenager gets on. Which do you choose?
31 July 2006, on 8:33 am
Nice analogy, OGSteve!
31 July 2006, on 9:34 am
Sorry guys, but Capt. Petersen loads the Blastocyst 5000 Machine on the lifeboat- because we all know that children are only important until they exit that fun factory of life, hops in himself and, with not so much as a wave at the teenager, paddles away.
The true xian response would be the machine goes and then the teenager in the captain’s place- who sacrifices himself for the good of others.
On the poop deck, the Doctor cries “We must save all the children!”. To which the Lawyer, heading for the lifeboat himself, replies, “Fuck the children!” “What?” the Priest pops up, “All of them?”
31 July 2006, on 7:36 pm
Wait, did the fundie troll just say gawd was a bowl?
BWA-HAHAHAHAHA!
31 July 2006, on 9:00 pm
Peterson
You don’t even get the simplest of ideas. Or is it proof you choose to willfully ignore the question? A Question you did not answer by the way.
Da rat bastid
Yeah he did. A bowl is meant to be filled. Just like this universe we all live in. You know about 5 times out off 7 when I comment to a fundie they come up with somethong like that. I give. No more. I’m done, stick a fork in me.
RDZ
I love that one about the lawyer and priest.
31 July 2006, on 9:08 pm
It’s interesting that no liberal has dared to reply to my direct refutation of the “atheist liberal” foolishness. I guess it’s easier to snipe from afar than to defend your silly beliefs. You might want to take a lesson in zeal from the fundies…
31 July 2006, on 9:43 pm
Francis- or is that “Psycho”? You directly refuted nothing, let alone the supposed bogeyman, “atheist liberalism”. You’re a squirrelly sort, Frenchie, with some vast reserve of hatred coursing through your anemic veins. I suspect that you may have been sexually abused by some sort of livestock at an early age and this, in addition to the massive overload of Cheetos and Mello Yello on your arteries and a sexually- charged relationship with the mother who’s basement you inhabit, has created in you a squalling, hydrophobic rodent of a personality. Liberalism is not communism, is not coercive in any way shape or form, and is certainly better off without you. Thanks for playing, moron.
31 July 2006, on 9:48 pm
“With such rhetoric, is it any wonder that atheism is painted as an ally of political coercion, when they see atheists calling a strong ruling class whose goal it is to impose their value system on all of society by force “the idea of freedom”? Liberals go against centuries of civil disobedience and our constant attempt to take down the power of kings and tyrants.
Atheist liberals are especially hypocrite, since they praise the ruling class that marginalizes them, and they praise the democracy that gives the religious majority power to oppress them. To be an atheist liberal makes about as much sense as being a gay Christian.”
When the fuck did we ever “praise the ruling class that marginalizes” us? Oh, you’re talking about government itself right? So tell me this, you destroy government, what happens? People group together in tribes and thus a primitive government is formed. This primitive government is more brutal than anything we have today, and probably worse, now that we’ll have fucking nukes and other lovely toys of destruction laying around.
Why don’t you define what you think liberal means asshole, because I don’t recall anyone endorsing the form of liberal you’re describing. You seem to think we’re all about letting people tell us how to fucking live and groveling at the feet of tyrants. You apparently didn’t read the fucking post at all, you just saw some words endorsing liberal and went with your warped definitions. You essentially built and attacked a fucking strawman in your “direct refutation”.
“I guess it’s easier to snipe from afar than to defend your silly beliefs.”
Snipe from afar? Would you like us to send someone to your house with a shotgun or something asshole? This is the internet, I can guarantee most of us are pretty fucking far away from each other.
“It’s interesting that no liberal has dared to reply to my direct refutation of the “atheist liberal” foolishness.”
You made two fucking comments, one told us to shut up and that we were silly, the other had a link to your bullshit post that basically said the same bullshit as your first comment along with a bunch of strawman bullshit. You apparently think you’re the main focus of the comments section, why don’t you take a look around, we brushed your foolish bullshit aside early on in the comments, we’ve had bigger assholes to burn. You know, people that at least make some arguments, illogical they may be, rather than some strawmen and bullying.
Now lets think about this, atheism- no theism, no theological belief. Since there are no bullshit gods and the like, there is no reed to follow arbitrary mystical rules, only to maintain real rules to avoid real problems and pains- in other words, liberal. I have little clue what kind of fucking “liberal” you’re talking about.
You do your strawman/fucked up defintions argument thing all of the fucking time, you did it at kill the afterlife and twopercentco, now you’re doing again here. Find a new routine or learn how to think.
31 July 2006, on 11:21 pm
Tremblay: I also directly refuted your silliness here.
3 August 2006, on 8:15 am
Show your facist colors? Yes, I am more than willing to “respect” the opinion of one who closes his comment with such an ignorant statement. I guess the premise is that unless you accept some codified definition of “liberal” that you surely must be against everything that was given in the definition. That is like asking “Does your mom know you’re gay?”. Much like your crusade to eliminate the “ignorant”, don’t you find it quite akin to those that you would offer up such an Either\Or?
I would agree that the right side of the farm is guilty of tainting the L word but it is very closed minded to give them full credit. The left side of the farm has done a fantastic job of allowing themselves, and the L word, to be a negative connotation. Could it be those who try to shout over speakers on college campuses who want to speak on non-liberal political ideas? Or maybe it is the hypocrisy of the New England elite who cry for the poor and minorities while living just as rich as any ‘Phant?
Simply saying “I am what this definition says I am” does not necessarily translate into “This is how they are coming across”, much less that said definition only encompasses one who is a liberal. So ONLY a liberal favors natural goodness, autonomy and favors civil and political liberties? Only the liberals want to protect us from arbitrary authority?
Oddly enought, if I capitalize Liberalsim I apparently get:
A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
This, however, really sets the tone:
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
Yes, that is conservatism. I’d like to thank answers.com for doing such a good job of dolling up the word liberal. Heck, even if I wanted to be a conservative I surely would check myself based on such a bland and limited definition. I guess the basic implication is that change is always good in light of liberal.
But that isn’t the end: here is the kicker. If the liberal is for laissez-faire then why does the liberal support welfare and minimum wages so strongly? Isn’t that government intervention? This definition is simply a joke and doesn’t hold to scrutiny.
The liberal side of the Mule has done as must damage as the Religious Wrong has done to the ‘Phant party. Try to think of liberal in practice and not in theory.
3 August 2006, on 9:39 am
Hey, Village Idiot:
The New England elite you speak of gave you your fucking Bill of Rights.
There are lots of other definitions of liberal out there besides Answers.com:
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
liberal
SYLLABICATION: lib·er·al
PRONUNCIATION: lbr-l, lbrl
ADJECTIVE: 1a. 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 fail to see your problem. Do you have a desire to continue the great traditions of authoritarianism, intolerance and bigotry? Or are you just flapping out of your asshole?
And if the conservative says if the liberal is for laissez-faire then why does the liberal support welfare and minimum wages so strongly? Isn’t that government intervention? This definition is simply a joke and doesn’t hold to scrutiny, why does the conservative support giving every living American’s recorded phone conversations over to the National Security Agency?
You dumb fucks talk about “small government” only when it means a few paltry programs to keep the poor with dinner on their tables. When it comes to fascist oppression of everyone who disagrees with your jingoistic/militant ways, it’s no-holds-barred.
Why do you bastards get so worked up over tiny social programs for the poor but say nothing about the trillions we spend on killing people? Why is that? It always boggles my fucking mind. Where is your fucking humanity?
7 August 2006, on 4:26 pm
That’s what I don’t get about this particular mind-set, Sean; don’t they realize that they themselves could need “help” one day? What if they become so severely disabled in some way that they can’t work and need big-ticket medical help on an ongoing basis? Even one of the nicest little nest eggs could easily be broken in such a scenario. Would they want society to drop them off in Death Valley with three days’ food and water to face their demise alone like the ancient Spartans did?
15 March 2007, on 8:09 pm
[...] Reclaiming the Word “Liberal” (I love Sean’s “asshatting” job on Petersen in this one. [...]