Is Liberty, part of Liberal? (Congress, marijuana, Obama, education)

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Guamanians

The word liberal is nowhere near the definition of "liberal" in politics. I don't know why that is... But, using a thesaurus I found this: anti-american, ill-advised, cowardly, lacking faith, greedy. Any questions?

No questions, just an answer.

I looked up conservative and found it to be an adjective meaning prone to utter inane, asinine, baseless drivel.

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by burdell

You offer O-P-I-N-I-O-N, not fact.

I believe it's you with blinders firmly applied, you certainly see only what you want to see.

How is it my opinion?


What part of Conservative, is not politically and economically Conservative?

What part of liberal, besides with other peoples money, is politically and economically Liberal, with rules, regulation and taxes to pay for the added rules and regulations?


I'm confused???
Enlighten me. Educate me. Don't bash me for asking a question I and many others do not have an answer for.


Is this the forbidden question?

[mhouse2001]

Originally Posted by BentBow

I seem to be confused here???

Liberal has a definition as an adjective for ages.
When did it become a Noun?

Then look at the noun definition, and the adjective and I can find only one relate even remotely to a "Liberal" in politics.

Openhanded:


Shouldn't "with other peoples money" follow Openhanded?


All the definitions are contradictory to the actual Liberal in the USA, today????

What am I missing?
I'm I the only one that is confused why the term "Liberal", has been place on Progressive thinkers?

What is Liberal about forced regulations, a bunch of overlapping rules, and stealing from those that are productive?

I'm trying to get my head around it. Something is not adding up.

When did Liberal become a noun?

Incoherent? Yes.

"Forced regulations". Well, speed limits are regulations that are enforced, are you opposed to those or is 60mph through a school zone OK? Regulations are necessary since not everyone plays fairly or has the common good in mind. Regulations are good and I favor them being applied liberally (he he) to corporations since they are not accountable to us in any other way.

"Stealing from those who are productive". Not everyone who has money is being productive. Making money is not productive. There is a cost to running a society. Those who make so much money can afford to pay more to maintain that society, though I would argue a flat tax would be fairer. Unfortunately, that's not how things operate right now and we were in a better situation when the wealthiest were taxed at far higher rates. We had a middle class with one worker per family back then. No one is stealing anything since it does pay for things that are used by all. If you don't like having to pay taxes, move someplace where there are none. I hear the moon is tax-free.

Liberal in my view applies mainly to social issues. You applied the term to only economic ones. Does this help?

[burdell]

Originally Posted by BentBow

How is it my opinion?

How have you poresented anything factual?

Originally Posted by BentBow

I'm confused???
Enlighten me. Educate me. Don't bash me for asking a question I and many others do not have an answer for.


Is this the forbidden question?

No, you're not confused, you're tunnel visioned.

You've alleged the only defintion of liberal that fits in politics is openhanded while conveniently overlooking another part of that definition: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

Perhaps I'm confused. Are you really that tunnel visioned or did you just feel compelled to go trolling?

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by mhouse2001

Liberal in my view applies mainly to social issues. You applied the term to only economic ones. Does this help?

Is force sacrifice, really a sacrifice? Or oppression? Tyranny? Control?


When you force 95% of the citizens to sacrifice for 5% of them.
How is that liberal, except with other peoples money and effort?

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by burdell

How have you poresented anything factual?





No, you're not confused, you're tunnel visioned.

You've alleged the only defintion of liberal that fits in politics is openhanded while conveniently overlooking another part of that definition: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

Perhaps I'm confused. Are you really that tunnel visioned or did you just feel compelled to go trolling?

A Liberal in politics(noun) isn't anything remotely comparable, to liberal as an adjective.

Is this just done to deceive the voting public?
In the same note "Welfare" was placed on public assistance?
Who comes up with this relabeling and political correctness? Why?
Must be a Conservative thing, right?

[mhouse2001]

Originally Posted by BentBow

Is force sacrifice, really a sacrifice? Or oppression? Tyranny? Control?

When you force 95% of the citizens to sacrifice for 5% of them.
How is that liberal, except with other peoples money and effort?

Forcing 95% of the people to benefit and support the wealth of the top 5% is not liberal, it's wrong, it's tyranny, which has nothing to do with liberal or liberalism. Tyranny and control are not the exclusive domain of liberal or conservative ideologies, though only one of them has a proven track record of such horror. Conservative, right-leaning ideologies lead to tyranny and control because it is in their nature to conserve things in a certain state. Liberal ideologies allow for a broader range of experience with more experimentation on what is allowed, hence it could never be tyrannical. Conservatives who don't like what liberals allow label them as tyrants, proving yet again, in my view, how ignorant and irrational their ideology is.

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by mhouse2001

Forcing 95% of the people to benefit and support the wealth of the top 5% is not liberal, it's wrong, it's tyranny, which has nothing to do with liberal or liberalism. Tyranny and control are not the exclusive domain of liberal or conservative ideologies, though only one of them has a proven track record of such horror. Conservative, right-leaning ideologies lead to tyranny and control because it is in their nature to conserve things in a certain state. Liberal ideologies allow for a broader range of experience with more experimentation on what is allowed, hence it could never be tyrannical. Conservatives who don't like what liberals allow label them as tyrants, proving yet again, in my view, how ignorant and irrational their ideology is.

Yes!


Forced rules and regulations that help only 5% of the public, become a big burden for the 95% adversely affected.

[mhouse2001]

Originally Posted by BentBow

Yes!


Forced rules and regulations that help only 5% of the public, become a big burden for the 95% adversely affected.

Identify please the 'forced rules and regulations' that help only 5% of the public at the expense of the other 95%.

[Gaylenwoof]

Liberty is at the heart of liberal, but you need to keep in mind a distinction between the freedom to do what you want so long as you don't hurt others (liberal liberty), and the freedom to keep your wealth and priviliges, even if others are hurt in the process (conservative liberty).