billvon 3,111
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Quote
- Someone who favors maximum individual freedoms under the law, especially with respect to race, religion, sex, sexual preference and culture.
That definition falters a bit with guns and porn (or anything that 'degrades' women, even when they voluntarily engage in it). Or anything related to Israel.
billvon 3,111
>That definition falters a bit with guns and porn (or anything that
>'degrades' women, even when they voluntarily engage in it) . . .
Porn? I don't know of many liberals who are opposed to it, assuming the usual (i.e. no underage actors, consensual etc.) I know of far more conservatives opposed to nudity on TV and in print, and to 'soft porn' publications like Playboy.
Guns? I'd tend to agree there. While I have no problem with gun ownership, I think some liberals see gun ownership as infringing on _their_ rights to be safe on the streets. That's an argument I don't really see.
>'degrades' women, even when they voluntarily engage in it) . . .
Porn? I don't know of many liberals who are opposed to it, assuming the usual (i.e. no underage actors, consensual etc.) I know of far more conservatives opposed to nudity on TV and in print, and to 'soft porn' publications like Playboy.
Guns? I'd tend to agree there. While I have no problem with gun ownership, I think some liberals see gun ownership as infringing on _their_ rights to be safe on the streets. That's an argument I don't really see.
First off, "liberal" does not equal "democrat" or "Franken" any more than "conservative" equals "republican" or "Bush."
From there, here's a good definition from an on-line dictionary:
Liberal
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
To me, the basic definition is:
- Someone who does not value tradition over change. Traditions are great, but if there is a reason to change them, then they should not stand in the way of progress.
- Someone who favors maximum individual freedoms under the law, especially with respect to race, religion, sex, sexual preference and culture.
You are right it was unfair fom me to associate you like that (sux right?)
With regard to; 4. "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."
Unfortunately liberals have moved away from this in many ways. Would you not consider the 1st Amendment an “individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties” as you put it? Obama (not sure if you support his views or not) has some of the most radical ideas about removing or eroding this fundamental right. What about the 2nd Amendment, which is under fire again through the newly resurfaced Fairness Act/Doctrine?
I would agree with your views but those who are at the forefront of the liberal movement don’t seem to keen upholding those beliefs or The Constitution, rather rewriting it.
Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976...
DanG 1
QuoteOkay, I was under the impression that I asked an open ended question of you. Enlighten me, what is your definition of a "actual" Liberal these days? I mentioned what I thought one was or what I thought one used to stand for. (Classic Liberals believed in limited government, individual freedom and individual responsibility.) Again, if that is the case today they have a funny way of showing it.
Maybe you are as lost as the rest of your party. If in fact you can't define your party, maybe thats because Liberals and Republicans alike change the rules to suit their needs, as needed. The attempt to link me to Rush Limbaugh although funny seems to be nothing more than an attempt to draw attention from your avoidance of my question.
Before you go back on the offensive remember I am not NOT a Republican I am a Libertarian. This fact seems to be missed over and over again.
I haven't really been on the offensive. I did, however, just fart while sitting at my computer. Believe me, it was rather offensive.
I think billvon is doing a fairly good job of defining what liberalism is. By the way, there is no Liberal Party in the United States that I am aware of. The Democratic Party likes to define itself in terms of liberalism, but a lot of people who tend to lean that way don't buy into their whole platform.
My personal political views tend toward libertarianism (note small l), but I recognize the need for some government social programs aimed at alleviating poverty. I believe that the United States' founding document is the Constitution, not the Bible. I believe, as you said, in individual freedom, individual responsibility, and limited government. As someone else pointed out, the Constitution charges the government with "promoting the general welfare." I believe that means that the government has a legitimate interest in keeping people from starving, freezing, or turning to crime when they have no other choice. Well directed "welfare" programs should be aimed at that goal. I do not, however, support all types of welfare, but I don't believe (as many right-wingers do) that everyone on welfare is there because they are lazy cheats.
I used to be a very staunch Republican when I thought that meant a small Federal government, strong support for the Bill of Rights, and strong military protection of our Nation. Since I've grown older I've realized that modern Republicanism stands for Christianity, support for the 2nd Amendment over all the others, and the use of the military for purposes outside of protecting the country. The current Republican Party was very little to do with what I believe.
The current Democratic Party goes too far in the other direction for me as well, but I voted for Obama because all I saw on the McCain-Palin ticket were the things about the Republican Party I most hate.
Oh, as requested a direct response to your characterization:
Quoteit comes down the "peace, love, dope" philosophy of the 60's and the sickly sweet wishes of how things "should" be
Peace: Sounds good to me. War sucks.
Love: I like that, too.
Dope: I don't partake, but think people should be allowed to (you know, individual responsibility and all)
How things "should" be: isn't that what we should be striving for? Making things how they should be sounds great to me.
I suppose you're more into, "war, hate, dope is evil, and resigning ourselves to live in the past?"
- Dan G
Quote>That definition falters a bit with guns and porn (or anything that
>'degrades' women, even when they voluntarily engage in it) . . .
Porn? I don't know of many liberals who are opposed to it, assuming the usual (i.e. no underage actors, consensual etc.) I know of far more conservatives opposed to nudity on TV and in print, and to 'soft porn' publications like Playboy.
There's a pretty big schism with feminists here who believe porn and girlie mag subjects are being exploited, same with strippers and prostitutes. It's a clash between equal rights and free speech (and free will).
QuoteQuoteOkay, I was under the impression that I asked an open ended question of you. Enlighten me, what is your definition of a "actual" Liberal these days? I mentioned what I thought one was or what I thought one used to stand for. (Classic Liberals believed in limited government, individual freedom and individual responsibility.) Again, if that is the case today they have a funny way of showing it.
Maybe you are as lost as the rest of your party. If in fact you can't define your party, maybe thats because Liberals and Republicans alike change the rules to suit their needs, as needed. The attempt to link me to Rush Limbaugh although funny seems to be nothing more than an attempt to draw attention from your avoidance of my question.
Before you go back on the offensive remember I am not NOT a Republican I am a Libertarian. This fact seems to be missed over and over again.
I haven't really been on the offensive. I did, however, just fart while sitting at my computer. Believe me, it was rather offensive.
I think billvon is doing a fairly good job of defining what liberalism is. By the way, there is no Liberal Party in the United States that I am aware of. The Democratic Party likes to define itself in terms of liberalism, but a lot of people who tend to lean that way don't buy into their whole platform.
My personal political views tend toward libertarianism (note small l), but I recognize the need for some government social programs aimed at alleviating poverty. I believe that the United States' founding document is the Constitution, not the Bible. I believe, as you said, in individual freedom, individual responsibility, and limited government. As someone else pointed out, the Constitution charges the government with "promoting the general welfare." I believe that means that the government has a legitimate interest in keeping people from starving, freezing, or turning to crime when they have no other choice. Well directed "welfare" programs should be aimed at that goal. I do not, however, support all types of welfare, but I don't believe (as many right-wingers do) that everyone on welfare is there because they are lazy cheats.
I used to be a very staunch Republican when I thought that meant a small Federal government, strong support for the Bill of Rights, and strong military protection of our Nation. Since I've grown older I've realized that modern Republicanism stands for Christianity, support for the 2nd Amendment over all the others, and the use of the military for purposes outside of protecting the country. The current Republican Party was very little to do with what I believe.
The current Democratic Party goes too far in the other direction for me as well, but I voted for Obama because all I saw on the McCain-Palin ticket were the things about the Republican Party I most hate.
Oh, as requested a direct response to your characterization:Quoteit comes down the "peace, love, dope" philosophy of the 60's and the sickly sweet wishes of how things "should" be
Peace: Sounds good to me. War sucks.
Love: I like that, too.
Dope: I don't partake, but think people should be allowed to (you know, individual responsibility and all)
How things "should" be: isn't that what we should be striving for? Making things how they should be sounds great to me.
I suppose you're more into, "war, hate, dope is evil, and resigning ourselves to live in the past?"
Damn bro...you and I are very much alike, although I did not vote for Obama or McCain.
Not a fan of war myself...obama seems to think he can trade one war for another (we'll see how the love affair last) dope? yes please =) Live in the past NO learn from it and not repeat the bad YES.
Maybe for once in this forum we have reached the common ground????
This may just be a sign of the coming apocalypse !! muahahahaha
Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976...
billvon 3,111
>Unfortunately liberals have moved away from this in many ways. Would
>you not consider the 1st Amendment an “individual freedom possible,
>esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of
>civil liberties” as you put it?
Yes.
>Obama (not sure if you support his views or not) has some of the most
>radical ideas about removing or eroding this fundamental right.
OK. Not sure what you're talking about there, but again, liberal != democrat != Obama. He is certainly more liberal than McCain was, but again, that's not defining liberal (or conservative for that matter.)
>What about the 2nd Amendment, which is under fire again through the
>newly resurfaced Fairness Act/Doctrine?
I don't get this. The Second Amendment concerns gun rights and militias; the Fairness Doctrine was an FCC rule that required that time be provided for opposing views on certain types of mass media. Did you mean First Amendment there?
>I would agree with your views but those who are at the forefront of the
>liberal movement don’t seem to keen upholding those beliefs or The
>Constitution, rather rewriting it.
True of people at the forefront of the conservative movement, as well. Most conservatives do not consider GWB to be a fiscal conservative or Tom Delay to stand for conservative values.
>you not consider the 1st Amendment an “individual freedom possible,
>esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of
>civil liberties” as you put it?
Yes.
>Obama (not sure if you support his views or not) has some of the most
>radical ideas about removing or eroding this fundamental right.
OK. Not sure what you're talking about there, but again, liberal != democrat != Obama. He is certainly more liberal than McCain was, but again, that's not defining liberal (or conservative for that matter.)
>What about the 2nd Amendment, which is under fire again through the
>newly resurfaced Fairness Act/Doctrine?
I don't get this. The Second Amendment concerns gun rights and militias; the Fairness Doctrine was an FCC rule that required that time be provided for opposing views on certain types of mass media. Did you mean First Amendment there?
>I would agree with your views but those who are at the forefront of the
>liberal movement don’t seem to keen upholding those beliefs or The
>Constitution, rather rewriting it.
True of people at the forefront of the conservative movement, as well. Most conservatives do not consider GWB to be a fiscal conservative or Tom Delay to stand for conservative values.
oops I did a flip flop of the 1st and the 2nd, you get the idea now.
As far as using Liberal and Democrat as one in the same I guess its just habit.
Yes I would agree DEM's and REP's alike seem to want to "change" the Constitution to pander to their own parties wishes.
As far as using Liberal and Democrat as one in the same I guess its just habit.
Yes I would agree DEM's and REP's alike seem to want to "change" the Constitution to pander to their own parties wishes.
Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976...
Amazon 7
QuoteDope: I don't partake, but think people should be allowed to (you know, individual responsibility and all)
Me thinks our supposed LIBERTARIAN has not actually checked on the Libertarian position concerning drugs
QuoteQuoteDope: I don't partake, but think people should be allowed to (you know, individual responsibility and all)
Me thinks our supposed LIBERTARIAN has not actually checked on the Libertarian position concerning drugs
All parties will at one time or another conflict with a individuals ideals. Unless of course you look to your party to define you, not the other way around.
Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976...
First off, "liberal" does not equal "democrat" or "Franken" any more than "conservative" equals "republican" or "Bush."
From there, here's a good definition from an on-line dictionary:
Liberal
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
To me, the basic definition is:
- Someone who does not value tradition over change. Traditions are great, but if there is a reason to change them, then they should not stand in the way of progress.
- Someone who favors maximum individual freedoms under the law, especially with respect to race, religion, sex, sexual preference and culture.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites