Liberalism in America

trythebill · Post by **trythebill** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 7:12 pm

Greg wrote:Before you start whining about 'liberalism,' try to wrap your mind around the concept.

unecessary laws and regulations for everything? i'm not really sure what the big concept is here.

Greg · Post by **Greg** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 7:35 pm

trythebill wrote:
Greg wrote:Before you start whining about 'liberalism,' try to wrap your mind around the concept.
unecessary laws and regulations for everything? i'm not really sure what the big concept is here.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal

Let me give you my personal definition of a "liberal" -- because we're obviously disregarding the dictionaries and I really could not care less about what Fark and Newsweek shat out this morning.

A liberal is someone open-minded and open to social evolution. Someone who is looking for ways to develop society and the human race, as a whole, unrestricted by the status quo -- by authoritarian ideals -- and motivated by a humanist or individualist philosophy.

This "left vs right" thing is just a distraction.

Greg · Post by **Greg** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 7:46 pm

Wolfman Walt wrote:
Apollo wrote:well i agree with you that americans are dumb, only some though, most of us go to college now.
Btw, Alpha, for once Apollo is right. CNN is more of a liberal network and Fox is more conservative. Probably the most unbiased news is "Weekly Christian Science News Moniter", the only problem with them is they relate everything to God. But atleast you get the facts with almost no spin, which is what you want.

HAHAHAHAHAHA oh for fuck's sake...

trythebill · Post by **trythebill** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 7:47 pm

i don't want to evolve. i also don't like to jump on suffix bandwagons.

Greg · Post by **Greg** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 7:49 pm

trythebill wrote:i don't want to evolve.

Yeah, I can see that. If you're worried about the change, maybe you'd be better off if you crawl underneath your desk and curl up into a fetal position. I can't think of any way to "de-evolve" beyond that point.

trythebill · Post by **trythebill** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 8:01 pm

Greg wrote:
trythebill wrote:i don't want to evolve.
Yeah, I can see that. If you're worried about the change, maybe you'd be better off if you crawl underneath your desk and curl up into a fetal position. I can't think of any way to "de-evolve" beyond that point.

that would not be "de-evolving." i also did not say i wanted to "de-evolve", only that i wanted to remain stagnant in my evolutionary development pertaining to the political sector. it is good to see that public education system is doing its job and making sure p.t. barnum's legacy lives on forever.

Greg · Post by **Greg** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 8:12 pm

I attribute this mindset to stupidity/religiosity, ignorance, apathy or being an ascribed member of the .5 to 1% elite pulling the strings.

Which means, you either don't understand what's happening or see nothing wrong with it.

But hey, what do I know.

Slave_Master · Post by **Slave_Master** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 9:07 pm

Gregory wrote:A liberal is someone open-minded and open to social evolution. Someone who is looking for ways to develop society and the human race, as a whole, unrestricted by the status quo -- by authoritarian ideals -- and motivated by a humanist or individualist philosophy.

Yeah, too fucking bad that, aside from a few college students, nobody prescribes to that philosophy.

But let's go ahead and bicker about those wacky liberals with their gun control laws and their veggieburgers,

Both conservatives and liberals are full of shit. Conservatives support my rights more than liberals do, so I like them better. Choosing the lesser evil? Tough shit.

if it this distraction from critical thought makes you feel any better about your spineless, shapeless philosophy

Yes, enlighten us, Greg, as to your beautiful philosophy of saving whales and feeding starving children.

I attribute this mindset to stupidity/religiosity, ignorance, apathy or being an ascribed member of the .5 to 1% elite pulling the strings.

Right, because only stupid wealthy Christians disagree with you.

Greg · Post by **Greg** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 9:30 pm

Slave_Master wrote:Right, because only stupid wealthy Christians disagree with you.

Swingandamiss.

Slave_Master · Post by **Slave_Master** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 9:39 pm

Greg wrote:
Slave_Master wrote:Right, because only stupid wealthy Christians disagree with you.
Swingandamiss.

That's what you said. Semantics and bullshitting aside, I am inclined to agree with you. However, since currently I'm too lazy to fix our shitty system, I really don't give a damn.

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 11:52 pm

Greg wrote:HAHAHAHAHAHA oh for fuck's sake...

Dear Greg, I'm sorry, truth hurts. Don't like it? Get over it.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:24 am

Greg wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal

Let me give you my personal definition of a "liberal" -- because we're obviously disregarding the dictionaries and I really could not care less about what Fark and Newsweek shat out this morning.

A liberal is someone open-minded and open to social evolution. Someone who is looking for ways to develop society and the human race, as a whole, unrestricted by the status quo -- by authoritarian ideals -- and motivated by a humanist or individualist philosophy.

This "left vs right" thing is just a distraction.

Anymore the terms liberal and conservative are simply used to distinguish between the left and the right. We're not using dictionary definitions here, we're using vernacular definitions.

iohkus · Post by **iohkus** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:24 am

YEAH FOX IS CONSERVATIVE, HOLLA HOLLA FO JERRY SPRINGAR

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 8:53 am

Well it sounds kind of funny when people put liberals and conservatives on the table as opposites... Conservative = someone who doesn't want to change (the current ruler/society/social classes etc.) or fear of change. Liberalism = open minded for anything and everything (whether it be new or old, good or bad).

The opposite of Conservative is in fact Radical = someone who wants change or the hunger/thirst for change. And I doubt there are so many radicals in USA ( we've been talking about liberalism in America, right? ).

Many of those liberals who want more freedom/rights bla bla bla want them as long as those blacks/gays/commies stay out of their neighbourhood. "Live free as long as you live a fucking far away from us!"

That bullshit ain't radical or liberal. It's pure bullshit-section of the conservative and narrow-minded society -> which leads to the current screwed up governement. The American life style has been burned so deep into everyone's brain that there is (practically) no one who wants to change it. The rich and the poor, the ones with power and the hobos. As long as you're part of the previous class everything's fine and you can just bark bark bark about liberal bullshit that you don't even really want to happen.

I'm not saying that these "liberal things" are bad, most of them are (basically) good. The problem is that if a rich factory owner says communism rules and power should be given to the people but still cuts salaries, it won't mean shit. It's just empty talk.

Radoteur · Post by **Radoteur** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:03 am

Kashluk, I think your definitions are the dictionary definitions. See, the words liberal and conservative have grown to so much more. Or maybe they've been used so much they have lost all meaning.

Most of the liberals I know are college students or academics. I don't know too many communists in America that are owners of factories or corporations.
American corporations just throw money at whomever they think will advance the corporation's cause. Usually it works.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:12 am

Well, yeah, that's what I meant. The terms used by "redneck every day languagogo" are so much different than the original meanings and the meaning in other countries and cultures.

The factory owner communist was a rough example, with "liberals of empty talk" I meant the rich white kids from "better neighbourhoods" who grow up to be political activists (either democrats or "radical republicans").

Slave_Master · Post by **Slave_Master** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:59 pm

The factory owner communist was a rough example, with "liberals of empty talk" I meant the rich white kids from "better neighbourhoods" who grow up to be political activists (either democrats or "radical republicans").

Ie, all "liberal" politicans. I suppose that since I have a strong desire to fix this damn country because of all the "liberal" and conservative bullshit, that makes me a true liberal? Bizarro

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD · Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:33 am

those rich white kids grow up to be in the government because they saw how hard life was for them, being rich and all, and decide to do what they think is best.

LlamaGod · Post by **LlamaGod** » Sat Oct 25, 2003 4:32 am

Good or bad, right or wrong, I doubt liberalism will ever get a large role (I.E. President or some such) in our goverment, mainly because there's so many people against it. It doesnt matter if it would help or hurt, because the popular guy is always gonna win.

My mother voted for Bush because he was a better dresser than Al Gore. Ahnold won in California. See what i'm pointing at?

In other words, fighting for liberality is sorta pointless because it wont be accepted, atleast not in our life time.

While you could say 'That's not a good reason to give up!', I imagine alot of folks dont wanna devote their lives to something that does jackshit for them, and probably makes them unhappy (since they dont meet eye to eye with whatever current craziness is going on).

Ruben Rooben Reuben · Post by **Ruben Rooben Reuben** » Sat Oct 25, 2003 4:40 am

Liberals or, as our semantic split has provided, radicals had their ball during the racial tensions of the 60s to 80s. In retrospect, some of the ideas they presented then seem reasonable and desireable. The thing they have to deal with now, however, is a general lack of such tensions. With no real social crisis in America, many of their ideas really are useless.

The tactic that's been employed is an odd one. Rather than focus their talents on issues that need to be addresed, they choose to make society appear as bad as possible. This is largely accomplished via their handmaiden: the mainstream media. Once this is accomplished, their ideas seem valid, their goals seem vital, and their (proposed) techniques for achieving such goals, however disgusting, seem justified.

Social reform is unnecessary. There are numerous other arenas in which reform can be exercised, but these do not concern the Liberal as they do not garner as great a spotlight.

I think some would disagree with the stereotype of "typical" Liberals, however. Not all Liberals are college students. Many of them are Democrats. Or blithe dependents of some sort of utopian Federal Vending Machine.

Though, to speak from experience, in defense of the "typical" Liberal stereotype, a conservative in a Liberal Arts school has a hard time making friends. But gets laid all the time. Forgive the tangent, but why is it that Liberal coeds, intelligent women whose intellectual indoctrination at the hands of former activists, women defined by their progressive ideology and staunch pursuit of equality among all peoples, make the biggest cocksluts?

Duck and Cover

Liberalism in America

Too much liberalism in America?