Define a Liberal

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 15836
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:12 pm

PostThu Oct 22, 2009 1:42 am » by Spock


Before I turn in CornBread. One last thing. I'm sure you are able to view American headlines. Everyday, just watch what happens to anyone that dares say anything about our current administration. Watch how the administration (even down to the local police level) is intruding on the peoples individual rights. From questioning Obama, to mandated flu vaccines, to people getting tazered by the cops at a whim.

There is a breakdown sir. We don't want to become the United Kingdom.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8431
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 7:37 am

PostThu Oct 22, 2009 1:45 am » by Lucidlemondrop


spock wrote:Before I turn in CornBread. One last thing. I'm sure you are able to view American headlines. Everyday, just watch what happens to anyone that dares say anything about our current administration. Watch how the administration (even down to the local police level) is intruding on the peoples individual rights. From questioning Obama, to mandated flu vaccines, to people getting tazered by the cops at a whim.

There is a breakdown sir. We don't want to become the United Kingdom.



:flop:

Nite , hope you and the wife enjoy the movie...........
What a long strange trip it's been..............

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10610
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:11 pm

PostThu Oct 22, 2009 1:49 am » by Cornbread714


spock wrote:Before I turn in CornBread. One last thing. I'm sure you are able to view American headlines. Everyday, just watch what happens to anyone that dares say anything about our current administration. Watch how the administration (even down to the local police level) is intruding on the peoples individual rights. From questioning Obama, to mandated flu vaccines, to people getting tazered by the cops at a whim.

There is a breakdown sir. We don't want to become the United Kingdom.



What is it, like 7PM there, you pussy?!

God, Spock you're getting old, but so am I, and it's 1:30 AM here.

But I'll get you later, you bastard...

YOU ARE WRONG! ABOUT ALMOST EVERYTHING! IS YOUR HEARING AID ON??

EH, SPOCK??
Where's the beer and when do I get paid?
- Jimmy Carl Black (the Indian of the group)

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 15836
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:12 pm

PostThu Oct 22, 2009 1:57 am » by Spock


cornbread714 wrote:
spock wrote:Before I turn in CornBread. One last thing. I'm sure you are able to view American headlines. Everyday, just watch what happens to anyone that dares say anything about our current administration. Watch how the administration (even down to the local police level) is intruding on the peoples individual rights. From questioning Obama, to mandated flu vaccines, to people getting tazered by the cops at a whim.

There is a breakdown sir. We don't want to become the United Kingdom.



What is it, like 7PM there, you pussy?!

God, Spock you're getting old, but so am I, and it's 1:30 AM here.

But I'll get you later, you bastard...

YOU ARE WRONG! ABOUT ALMOST EVERYTHING! IS YOUR HEARING AID ON??

EH, SPOCK??


HAHA - yea it's 8:05 here, and i have to be at work at 8 and get in a movie with the wife - and the alarm clock goes off at 5:30. But last night my fucking Chijuajua PUKED IN THE BED AT 3:30!!!!!!! And when I knocked her ass to the floor she puked some more.

My wife DEMANDED we get a little yippy dog - THANKS!!!!!!!! THANK YA VERY MUCH!!!!! LITTLE YIPPY DOGS PUKE IN THE BED ALL THE TIME!!!!!!!!

I am old as fuck :yell:

Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:04 am

PostThu Oct 22, 2009 4:26 am » by Blackjack1875o


Thefreedictionary.com citing (for assisting accuracy)
1.
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.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation. (important definition)
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

3 is a good one to envelope the concept with, not strict or literal, loose or approximated.

Now it's important to note a difference between a liberitarian and liberal, verbally similar, liberitarian believes in a standard of free rights given liberally but with a solid standard of law.

I will tie in why I feel that noting that is necessary.

Now to properly define 'liberal' you must apply the sense in which your applying it, liberal freedoms? liberal finance? liberal government?

Well because of the importance of these conjoined definitions you might begin to understand the whole 'liberal' picture.

Well with liberal freedoms, the idea is to give to the public any necessary rights that sustain open trade, ownership, and personal ideals: free of segregation.
When a politician states he'll take non violent drug offenders out of jail, (like obama did, a conservative republican statement) but instead cracks down on warrant arrests without categorization of violent or non-violent offenders, (like has been happening) There is an obvious counter statement in action that rejects this form of the definition of liberal.
When a politician promises a solid dollar (like obama did, a conservative statement) and it instead becomes depreciated (like it has) that also is a counter action to this definition.

Regarding liberal finance, the general regard that's given, is to spend taxpayer money on idyllic grandeur that's quite often beyond the reasonable means of handling on a budget, open to financing programs that come with a macrovision, but require considerable consolidation and centralization to properly manage, over a long duration of time without heavy consideration of risk, and quite often failing to provide to quantity or quality the initial grandeur would hope.
Liberal finance = giving freely of money, not afraid to step out with budget as a risk.

Then to liberal government, liberal government is open to expanding the government's power, and centralizing equity in order to fund government programs, it stands in aspect as a basic attempt to associate liberal freedoms, with the limited resources given as the means to centralize government, and provide to government more power, and more control, or consolidate more public assets run by government.

Why it's important to consider both liberal and liberitarian, is because one expects charity and free market to handle itself (liberitarian), and the other expects taxpayer money to fund a shallow alternative who's scope will always be outside it's means (liberal). Conservitism is to properly manage what budget is existing, without unnecessary risks or inflation of the projected finance.

Liberal budgetmaking has since it's conception increased taxes, funding failing programs that it must continue to raise taxes to control, while conservitism requires budgeting and programs to fit well within the given finance structure.

Cases like Bush that present a conservative Republican, a strict fiscal spender that would require less government, who instead increases taxes and centralizes communication infrastructure, poses the exact opposite effect of what he originally posed as.
He made himself look like a conservative republican, and instead acted like a liberal democratic.

Cases like Obama who presented themself as a liberal democrat, who gave some conservative promises (sound dollar, reducing nonviolent sentencing), simply looks like far more liberal, with your money, and far more democratic with centralizing your rights, for instance your schools and healthcare, after the bills he's signed.
The fact that medicare has denied as many claims as it has, its evidence of a liberal financing of a grandeur illusion that could never have managed it's budget.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer ... ction-rate

It's important to read the constitution thinking both ways through conservatively and liberally, as there are millions of gray areas, we expect liberal (not literal, loose or approximated) authorities to decide for us whats good for us.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:59 am

PostThu Oct 22, 2009 6:38 am » by Realorfake


A liberal is one whom is unafraid of change...one whom can move with the ebb and flow of humanity...
How many times must you honk your horn and say fuck you?
Now what the fuck does that do?
You feel better now, I didnt let you pass.
How bout I stop my car and beat your fuckin' ass?

Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:04 am

PostThu Oct 22, 2009 8:15 am » by Blackjack1875o


A liberal would give you a handout for a vote, and expect you to live on handouts until an economy crashes.

Is insanity: An irrational reaction to a rational world?
or: A rational reaction to an irrational world?

I'll put this in lamens terms:
Your friend says: Hey pack another up.
You say, hell no im conserving.
or you say,
Shuure lets light it all up.

Either way you look at it,
In one case it's all gone and your left wondering where it went, in the other your rationally measuring a supply.

Let's simply replace the previous topic with, money/budget.
Your congressman says, we need more money,
Other congressman says, the budget is already breaking as it is
OR
Other congressmen says, okay here you go take all you want
In a conservative case the presentation of the finance will be very clear.
In a liberal sense, they have no idea, nor do they care, how much taxmoney goes into failing programs, they wil continue them until the system completely fails, or until they can force its success, VERY dangerous
Last post altogether on this topic, gnite, honestly hope it at least makes sense to some informed individuals,
Denial is the worst relative truth, cause it's not true at all.

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:47 am

PostThu Oct 22, 2009 9:32 am » by Darkplanet


jetxvii wrote:
cornbread714 wrote:
jetxvii wrote:"Socialism" with a "monetary" based "society" would and will "never" work when a "Government" or a "specific people" are in "power" to "regulate" the only "equalizing power" that any man would truly have....."money"..... unless they were all self righteous and unbiased, incredibly incredible credible people with the care and loving of a my little pony.


Uh, "OK" :think:



"just" "making" "sure" "that" "you" "got" "that.".

I don't see how anyone would think socialized anything would work.


Works just fine in Canada dipshit.

jetxvii

PostThu Oct 22, 2009 9:52 am » by jetxvii


Works just fine in Canada dipshit.


actually no it wouldn't when you look at it. so try again. and this wouldn't be Canada... how about that one. how well would it work? you obviously haven't read any of this post only the parts you wanted to see.

try telling me how socialized anything would work? without someone gaining from it?

our constitution and policies and agendas in the power house country of the world is a bit different from yours Buck O, not to say that all countries don't have their problems.....

Dipshit...Pfft. :badair: :top:

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1036
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:54 pm

PostThu Oct 22, 2009 4:38 pm » by Ogmios


Yhe idea is Jet, that institutions such as the NHS are controlled by a democratic state. Nothing is perfect but at least the poor are not left out. The NHS doesn't have shareholders. The people who benefit are those who use the service and, of course, those employed by it. GSK etc still profit from the huge amounts of drugs dished out to the populace but that's a small price to pay for a universal service.

The NHS in the UK is now like a religion. It's such a huge institution, employing almost 1.5 million people. You could argue that it's the best thing to happen in Britain since the war. Some things have been reversed. For example, dentistry and eye tests/spectacles used to be universally free but now only those on benifits don't have to pay.

But you asked:
try telling me how socialized anything would work? without someone gaining from it?


Well there's my attempt at an answer. The NHS is almost completely untouchable by government although, should the tories get in, there will probably be big cuts in funding.
"God is a concept by which we measure our pain"
John Lennon


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook