Why is "liberal" thrown around like a curse word?

Why is "liberal" thrown around like a curse word?

First define what you mean by liberals just want adaptation?


So dirty curse words go hand in hand with dirty liberal...
I think they both belong in the trailor park personally.

[Edited on 28-5-2004 by TrueLies]

OK, truelies, what planet have you been living on?

What is the "liberal party"? Are you inadverantly admitting that the Democratic party has been taken over by liberals? If so, I cannot agree with you more. If you are saying, however, that the Republican party is nothing but conservatives, I'll have to part company with you.

The parties are nothing more than republicrats and democrats, with many people on both sides not understanding the difference between conservatism (a convoluted way of trying to think like a constitutionalist) and right-wing politics. The liberals have a big problem understanding tha tteh difference between them and the right-wingers and them is the right wingers want America to be the Superpower questioned by nobody, and the liberals see America as the ones who should have no authority and should be questioned and beaten by all, no matter how despicable the dictator.

For once, I haven't bothered my arse reading the whole of this thread. There's no need. The whole of Europe knows the answer to that question. It's fear.

I remember when I was 9 years old and I first saw the programme 'Spitting Image'. It was a very famous British political programme that basically took the pish out of politicians. The first sketch I ever seen was that of a giant orange bouncing about the countryside. The army alerted the government - up to the prime minister, that was Thatcher at the time;
The Army asked - 'what do we do with it?'
Thatcher said - we don't understand it.

- Destroy it.

The definitions of the two major parties are pretty clear; Conservatism is all about preserving what is and what has come before. It's about keeping the status quo. Liberalism is about progression, it's about building on what we have and making it better.


Here�s the dictionary definitions, just for fun:

Conservative
� Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
� Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
� Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
a. � Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
dictionary.reference.com...

1. Liberal
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
dictionary.reference.com...

There�s wider definitions of both given at the links.

Originally posted by Byrd
Sorry, old chap, but Communism is an extremist conservative position and not a liberal one. They have one idea of reform and once it's in place, they don't allow changes to the system and they're very much opposed to free trade and other concepts that we think of as liberal.

You'll have to find some other label for liberals.

Yeah, Byrd, in a way I understand what you are saying, the democrats are the real neo-commies. I was merely generalizing the liberals as neo-commies too because the people that always go to riots, err i mean demonstrations, funded and organized by socialist groups like International A.N.S.W.E.R are the liberals. Most of them tend to flock to every socialist demonstration there is, and what is socialism but the begining stages of communism.

Every communist country started as socialist. Of course there are countries that are not completly socialist and have not become communist, but true socialist countries go through these changes.

"In Marxist ideology, socialism is considered an intermediate stage in the inevitable transformation of capitalism into communism. "

Excerpt taken from.
www.indiana.edu...


[Edited on 28-5-2004 by Muaddib]

"Liberalism is about progression..."

I disagree with that. While I would agree the progression is obviously change, or movement, not all change or movement is progress. The changes that liberals want, the ones they cannot get throught the constitutional means but have to subvert the process and use judicially active judges, is not progress, but change that will damage society and culture. Conservatism is not against change, but expects the change to be beneficial.

sorry but we like freedom. not your oppresive government BS.

I'm sorry? Opressive government? Your leader George Bush is at this moment trying to pass through congress a bill (Patriot II I believe) which will allow him to close down all other political parties and charities such as Greenpeace because they could be seen as anti-american. That's not at all opressive is it? I suppose in a free country, people are mauled by police dogs, sprayed with water cannons or shot on the street because they protest against the actions of their government and opressive laws (I can name many examples in the last half a century) and in a free country a president manages to come to power even though he lost the election (Yes, I'm talking about George W Bush again). In the last 50 years, I can name no such instances (the protests in Northern Ireland in which people were shot were because the crowd were using violence) which would allow anyone to call Britain's government (opressive government indeed!) opressive. If it IS opressive (which some could say it has been recently) it is far from because it is liberal, Tony Blair's government is acting more right wing than the conservatives, though arguably it is officially socialist.

It's communist, a thing the U.S. has fought from its beginning. And we r turning into that.. sick.. thing because of liberals.

For your information, the first countries to oppose communism were France and Britain, supporting the white Russians in the Russian Civil War. On the other hand, many AMERICAN financiers (such as Rockerfellar) actually ASSISTED Lenin's communist revolutionaries for reasons which are made clear elsewhere on the site (Secret Societies and New World Order being the most obvious). America didn't begin to ACTIVELY fight communism until at least the end of 1945 when relations with the USSR started to turn frosty. It was at THAT point that America began to ACTIVELY oppose communism. Britain and France on the other hand had been doing it from 1919.

I am interested to find out why people who are interested in better rights and therefore LIBERTY (hence LIBERAL) are seen as opressive and sick? Just because people want to give better rights to women and ethnic minorities, better quality of life and oppertunities (such as healthcare) to all does not make them sick. I think most would agree that a world where only the rich can buy healthcare, and so anyone who doesn't happen to have the skills to be rich (and it would be impossible for EVERYONE to be rich, wouldn't it) would be slightly more sick than a world assisted by liberalism. I hope you have the intellectual capacity to understand the irony of your statements, I do doubt it seeing as you have already married communism and liberalism (a communist society probably being the least similar thing to a truelly liberal society) so 'conclusively' together.

Moron

Quote TC "What is the "liberal party"?

It is one of the three major parties in Canada.

Originally posted by intrepid
Quote TC "What is the "liberal party"?

It is one of the three major parties in Canada.

muahaha, ''THEE ONLY major party in Canada... They've been in power for 20+ years now!!
lol......

They hold over 80+ seats in the house while the others only have a measley 5 or 12 if that....

I hope the alliance gets in soon..........

Ah, interesting. I have to admit, I have no idea about Canadian politics as it is not something that affects me. I assumed the word "liberal" was in reference to U.S. politics.

In this light, I have no idea why it is tossed about like a curse word. As far as I know, your idea of liberalism could very well be totally opposite from ours!

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
[But I agree. AR almost never answers a question, and when he does it slathered with insults not pertaining to anything.

I think hes just owning those who have gone far too long without a healthy dose of truth. His work has resulted in a new pit with new handlers and we can all be grateful of that whether or not we agree with him.

Heres a thumbs up to you AR and all the good work youve done.

Originally posted by Agent47
I think hes just owning those who have gone far too long without a healthy dose of truth. His work has resulted in a new pit with new handlers and we can all be grateful of that whether or not we agree with him.

Grateful? I think not. I didn't want a new pit, I liked the old pit. You remember, the one without the slew of 13 year old driveby insult artists.

The restriction has helped, although I hate that too. It really shouldn't be needed.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I didn't want a new pit, I liked the old pit. You remember, the one without the slew of 13 year old driveby insult artists.

Yeah I remember the old pit, and it use to be interesting without those insult artists, but at the same time the abuse AR has been dealing is only a repercussion of the way certain pit dwellers verbally assaulted people without punishment or accountability.

Originally posted by Agent47

Yeah I remember the old pit, and it use to be interesting without those insult artists, but at the same time the abuse AR has been dealing is only a repercussion of the way certain pit dwellers verbally assaulted people without punishment or accountability.

I didn't think so. Either way it doesn't matter now. I don't mind a tongue lashing every now and again, but it has to have a point, and a well layed out one to be put on my list.

Anyway, AR must have had a talking to, because he's pretty as a peach now.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro



Anyway, AR must have had a talking to, because he's pretty as a peach now.

You are incorrect. No "talking to" has been issued to me in any way, shape or form. In fact, the opposite is true, as I have received many U2U's thanking me for taking on the spreaders of lies and hate. I choose when I will or will not post, and have found nothing worth my time as of late. In addition, having found that the average age of many of the "insult artist's" (a group you wrongly accuse me of belonging to) is somewhere around 15, I find it pointless. Debate with someone who has no idea what the real world is all about is futile in most cases.

I do not usually start the "insult train" running, but in the case of individuals such as the Kernal or BT, it may seem so. They are pro's at what I call, "pulling a Palestinian"... insulting and calling names, and when the get the same in return, crying that they are the injured party. It's an age old trick, but an effective one that many gullible individuals buy off on. I don't...you shouldn't.


BTW, Agent47, thanks for the public support, and you are correct. If you notice who my "abuse", if it must be called that, is heaped upon, it is those who show the least respect for other posters, or those who spread lies, calling opinions fact without support. I despise hypocrites.




[edit on 8-6-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
I choose when I will or will not post, and have found nothing worth my time as of late. In addition, having found that the average age of many of the "insult artist's" (a group you wrongly accuse me of belonging to) is somewhere around 15, I find it pointless. Debate with someone who has no idea what the real world is all about is futile in most cases.

I don't know if I would say I would put you in the SAME category as the kids. I know from your posts outside the pit (which are normally mechanical and dry-not that that is a bad thing) are not childish.

I do not usually start the "insult train" running, but in the case of individuals such as the Kernal or BT, it may seem so. They are pro's at what I call, "pulling a Palestinian"... insulting and calling names, and when the get the same in return, crying that they are the injured party. It's an age old trick, but an effective one that many gullible individuals buy off on. I don't...you shouldn't.

Perhaps you do not, although with those two sometimes it is hard to tell.

Then let's forget it.

Hi, I'm Krazy J.



No worries man, what Agent is talking about is from the few days I was rampaging around getting pissed at all the youthful nitwits. I may have lumped liberally (no pun intended).

If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry. I'm much too tired to fight with anyone anyway.

Let's put this thread to rest though, it has come to little good for conversation.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Let's put this thread to rest though, it has come to little good for conversation.

I agree...but if you wish to know why I have been quiet as of late, here is a perfect example.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That is exactly the kind of rubbish that does not belong on this board. The trash the Kernal and Rant, another disgusting moron who should not be a moderator, are slinging like horsecrap is so beneath contempt, to even reply to tell them so would sicken me. If crap like that is to be condoned here, then I want no part in it. It belongs on an anarchist site where it is welcomed by the vile worms that frequent such sites, not here.....

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
That is exactly the kind of rubbish that does not belong on this board. The trash the Kernal and Rant, another disgusting moron who should not be a moderator, are slinging like horsecrap is so beneath contempt, to even reply to tell them so would sicken me. If crap like that is to be condoned here, then I want no part in it. It belongs on an anarchist site where it is welcomed by the vile worms that frequent such sites, not here.....

Well, I half agree and half disagree. I am almost the polar opposite (as I'm sure you are too) of Colonel, but I have spoken to him at length about topics and had some great discussions. He is intellegent, but let's his anger take over.

As with any of us who delve into these topics as a lifestyle, we have the tendancy to burn out on the vileness of the world around us, and rightfully so. I think this is that case with him. His anger taints his solid viewpoints making them bad arguements.

He is not so bad though. I would encourage you to U2U him and ask him questions. He does leave a lot of his anger in the Pit, which is good.

"I will defend to the end of the viscious revelations...errr...truths...errr...LIES, YEAH, LIES of the Colonel."

Oh, god. Does it get any more cheesier.


[edit on 8-6-2004 by Colonel]

Originally posted by Colonel


Oh, god. Does it get any more cheesier.

It did when you tried to shut AR up and failed.

[edit on 8-6-2004 by Agent47]

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

As with any of us who delve into these topics as a lifestyle, we have the tendancy to burn out on the vileness of the world around us, and rightfully so. I think this is that case with him. His anger taints his solid viewpoints making them bad arguements.

He is not so bad though. I would encourage you to U2U him and ask him questions. He does leave a lot of his anger in the Pit, which is good.

If I thought there was a single thread of coherence in him, I might, but he has proven time and time again that there is not. The thread he started is by far the most disgusting pack of # to come out of him in quite some time. What galls me the most is that he has the old, "My way or the highway" attitude. He seems to honestly believe that if he posts it here, it is true, regardless of what the facts are. He tries to ram his bile down others throats, and when the more timid members of the board simply quit trying to chime in because he has berated them into submission, he and his cronies sit and pontificate like jackals over a kill. I'm pretty much done with him. I don't suffer fools well, and he is defiantly a fool, regardless of any intelligence you may think he possesses. When he comes up with the "dance on his grave" crap, he proves himself to be on the same base level as the Palestinians shown dancing in the streets after the twin towers fell. He proves himself to be a liar, a racist, and an overall poor excuse for a human being. He disgusts me.

Sorry, there are just some people who are not worth the time to spit on. He fits the bill.