Definition of a liberal

[Jim Ostrowski]

I decided to repost this because people are putting words in my mouth about what I think about liberals. In fact, I used the word "left" in a specific context, referring to the kinds of people who lie about tea party supporters andf their brethren.

From my blog:

Definition of a Liberal
Written by James Ostrowski on February 25, 2006 – 11:05 am -


A person who thinks that we can improve society by pointing government guns at people who are minding their own business. Corollary: In so doing, liberals somehow manage to feel morally and intellectual superior to the victims of their legalized violence.

Example, as reported in the News today, the limousine liberals want to make it illegal for landlords to consider the wealth of their potential tenants. This would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. That’s what you do when you’re a good landlord–you find out if your tenants can pay the darn rent!

Landlords have to be extremely careful about who they rent to, among other reasons, because liberals have made it fairly difficult to evict bad tenants.

If liberals want to make “housing opportunities more equal,” nothing is stopping them from pooling their vast resources and buying rental property for all those who they feel are being discriminated against.

I love beating up on limousine liberals. In this article, I define that species of the genus liberal as follows:

Limousine liberals are wealthy people, usually white, who usually live in wealthy white neighborhoods, but who insist on telling the poor, minorities and the working class how to live and with whom to live. Limousine liberals or their forebearers brought us the war on drugs (million man march to prison), urban renewal (people removal), public housing (resembling prisons), the Vietnam War (mass murder), and government schools – also resembling prisons – most of them wouldn’t think of sending their children to.

Limousine liberals are elitists who think that common folk are just too stupid to live in freedom. Though their rhetoric emphasizes their deep concern and compassion for the common man, their true feeling is one of contempt for his ability to function without continual external direction from “the best and the brightest.”

So they support centralizing power in distant capitals and glorify those like Lincoln who made it all possible. (See, Mario Cuomo’s new book.) With education, centralizing power in state capitals was not enough. They had to set up a Department of Education in Washington, so the ultra-elites can issue orders to the mid-level elites. And they call me “arrogant”!

Let me just add that my use of the word “liberal” is strictly limited to its modern American meaning. In other times and places, the word was and is used to describe people who believe in individual liberty. Not here, not now.

[Brandon]

Some quotes:

"A conservative is a man who sits and thinks. Mostly sits." Woodrow Wilson

"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" Abraham Lincoln

"The conservative is a tame man." Henry David Thoreau

A liberal says, "No man is an island; no man stands alone." A conservative says, "What I do is none of your business."

A definition I once heard involved a tree with a rotten limb. The conservative wants to wait and see if the tree will heal itself. The liberal wants to saw off the limb. The radical wants to chop down the tree and plant a new one.

"A conservative is a man who is too cowardly to fight, and too fat to run." Elbert Hubbard

"Both conservatives and liberals have their own pet spending areas. Conservatives want much smaller government in the areas liberals favor, but vastly larger government in their own pet areas. Liberals would just as soon have smaller government in the areas conservatives favor, but vastly larger government in their own pet areas."

[Jim Ostrowski]

Do you agree with my definition (more a description actually) of a liberal?

[justKel]

Limousine liberals are wealthy people, usually white, who usually live in wealthy white neighborhoods, but who insist on telling the poor, minorities and the working class how to live and with whom to live. Limousine liberals or their forebearers brought us the war on drugs (million man march to prison), urban renewal (people removal), public housing (resembling prisons), the Vietnam War (mass murder), and government schools – also resembling prisons – most of them wouldn’t think of sending their children to.

Limousine liberals are elitists who think that common folk are just too stupid to live in freedom. Though their rhetoric emphasizes their deep concern and compassion for the common man, their true feeling is one of contempt for his ability to function without continual external direction from “the best and the brightest.”


Congratulations. You've just completely redefined the definition of the word liberal. Really, are you this willfully ignorant? I don't care if you're an attorney or not. Some of the most educated people I've ever met are also the most ignorant.

but who insist on telling the poor, minorities and the working class how to live and with whom to live.

Um yeah... That would be a conservative. You know, the people who for years said that blacks shouldn't marry whites, and who currently say that people of the same gender shouldn't marry?

Limousine liberals are elitists who think that common folk are just too stupid to live in freedom.

Really? Again, that would be a conservative. They started, for example, the abject failure called the war on drugs, which fledged under Nixon (a Republican) and pushed into law by Reagan (another -- gasp! -- Republican).

Conservatives are the ones who object to personal freedoms such as abortion, the right to marry whomever you choose, and even what religion you choose.

Sorry, but you really have no f'ing clue what a liberal is. Redefine the word all you want, this is nothing more than an attempt to push the blame of anything perceived to be negative in this country on liberals. Really pathetic, and I'm not liberal on many issues (though I am on the things which you address in this little gem of an article you wrote regarding personal liberties).

Seriously, any credibility you have is fading fast with each new post. And you know what the crazy part about this is? The area in which I am more conservative is with fiscal policies and taxation. But I won't follow you and your little tea parties because you are an arrogant prick and talk out of both sides of your mouth.

[Jim Ostrowski]

I am not a conservative.
I am not a conservative.
I am not a conservative.
I am not a conservative.
I am not a conservative.
I am not a conservative.
I am not a conservative.
I am not a conservative.

I just said this is more a description than a strict definition, so yes, some of these things may be said about conservatives.

I am always happy to bash conservatives and have been doing so for 30 years!

This thread though is focused on liberals. Is what I said true about liberals? If not, why not?

[Dougles]

Um yeah... That would be a conservative. You know, the people who for years said that blacks shouldn't marry whites, and who currently say that people of the same gender shouldn't marry?



Really? Again, that would be a conservative. They started, for example, the abject failure called the war on drugs, which fledged under Nixon (a Republican) and pushed into law by Reagan (another -- gasp! -- Republican).



So what then do you call people like Al Gore, who tells us we should get rid of oil, but fly's around on a private jet?
What do you call ted Kennedy (beside a killler), who is one of the biggest pushers of nationalized healthcare, but WOULD NEVER BE A PART OF IT?
What do you call Obama who make 2.6 MILLION last year and tells us we will all have to suffer? Then tops it off by have a cabinet FULL of millionaires? And better yet tried to hiring 6 TAX CHEATS? Doesn't that say to you were above the law? It's goes both ways hunny!!

[Dougles]

My definition of a liberal is simple, one who would prefer to have the govt solve a or their problems then trying to do it on your own!

[Jim Ostrowski]

OMG! This lady (as I recall) doesn't know I am one of the leading critics of the war on drugs, the leading critic according to Google.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=drug+legalization

It's the old two-cell ideological prison of American politics. The key to your cell in in your own pocket.

[Jim Ostrowski]

BTW, liberals (progressives) invented the war on drugs.

The libertarian view of marriage is that the state should have little or nothing to do with it.

[Jim Ostrowski]

Here's my critique of the ruling alliance of liberals and conservatives.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski23.html

[justKel]

Jim, If you recall, I was a registered Libertarian until about two months ago. There's a lot of libertarian ideals I fully and completely agree with; mainly in the area (once again) of personal liberties.

Areas in which I am more liberal in my thinking:

A) Business. I don't think businesses should be so deregulated that they are allowed to walk all over employees, pollute freely, and use deceptive marketing practices. This is where Rez and I completely part company because he has this dreamy yet completely unrealistic idea that every business owner is as honest and fair in their business practices as he is.

B) Protections for classes of people; non-discrimination policies. As a minority who is thankful to be protected under non-discrimination laws, I don't want to see those laws eliminated.

C) Welfare. While I think 90% of it could and should be eliminated, I think there has to be some form of welfare. The solution isn't as simple as just eliminating benefits either, because we've created a huge problem for ourselves by making people who could be productive, dependent on it. Good luck changing that overnight. Eliminate welfare altogether and working class, law abiding people will be too afraid to leave their own homes to be able to go to work...

There you go. Now you know where I stand.

[Save Us]

Help I am having an identity crisis,

I want less taxing and spending by this state, less punishing of small businesses, less welfare, less government, less borrowing, less entitlement, less representation,, 400 elected leaders for WNY, get rid of state mandates, stop the abuse of overtime for pension padding.

I am for a strong national defense but oppose the wars.

I think the war on drugs is and abject failure, marijuanna should be legalized, same sex marraige is fine, severe punishment to corporate criminals, fire public servants including teachers that do not perform, no pensions for public servants that violate the public trust. Benchmark our government against others that have done it right and consolidated.

What am I ?

[Jim Ostrowski]

I think you are leaning strongly libertarian.

Believe it or not, even libertarians disagree on issues such as immigration.

[Save Us]

I think you are leaning strongly libertarian.

Believe it or not, even libertarians disagree on issues such as immigration.

cool, so be it,

I do not agree with giving amnesty and benefits to illegals

If you and Kel are both libertarians how come you both appear to be so far apart?

also, what is your opinion of the modern Whig party?

[Dougles]

cool, so be it,

I do not agree with giving amnesty and benefits to illegals

If you and Kel are both libertarians how come you both appear to be so far apart?

also, what is your opinion of the modern Whig party?

See this is the problem with our current political system, the NAMES. Both the media and the extreme wingers feel that everyone has to fit into some political party. that is you believe in XYZ you have to be a republican or if you believe in ABC your a liberal. But let's be honest their are a HUGE number of people that believe in AXYC and don't fit into the extreme mold.

I for one don't believe in abortion, but I also believe women have the right to chose what happens with their body, this fits into neither of the 2 main parties.

I think we need to get over the parties names and affiliations, it has only driven a bigger wedge in this nation. We need to start focusing on ACTION and not rehteric. I don't agree with everything JO talks about, but he has a plan for action and not just talk, so he will be some that i will listen to and help his cause (with some sceptisism (sp)) when i can!

[dave338]

I'm a liberal person, and I think your definition of liberals is as wrong as anything I've ever read.

[justKel]

Help I am having an identity crisis,

I want less taxing and spending by this state, less punishing of small businesses, less welfare, less government, less borrowing, less entitlement, less representation,, 400 elected leaders for WNY, get rid of state mandates, stop the abuse of overtime for pension padding.

I am for a strong national defense but oppose the wars.

I think the war on drugs is and abject failure, marijuanna should be legalized, same sex marraige is fine, severe punishment to corporate criminals, fire public servants including teachers that do not perform, no pensions for public servants that violate the public trust. Benchmark our government against others that have done it right and consolidated.

What am I ?

OMG, we are probably more alike in our thinking than we both realize. I agree about the small business too, BTW. I'm a small business owner. The **** you have to go through just to satisfy the tax filing requirements is ridiculous. I also think that there have to be protections in place for workers. As much as I'd like to think everyone in the world is honest and fair, it's just not reality! I think history proves that.

I think people get the wrong idea about me and think I'm a far-lefty because I am so outspoken about non-discrimination and things like same-gender marriage. It's like when I started questioning Christianity and some of my former friends started saying I was a satan-worshiper.

[FisherRd]

Congratulations. You've just completely redefined the definition of the word liberal. Really, are you this willfully ignorant? I don't care if you're an attorney or not. Some of the most educated people I've ever met are also the most ignorant.



He didn't coin the term Mongo.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBF&ei=teXtSYn0NMqLtgeC5N3ODw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Limousine+Liberal&spell=1

[justKel]

I for one don't believe in abortion, but I also believe women have the right to chose what happens with their body, this fits into neither of the 2 main parties.

Same here. And actually that's true for most "liberals" I know, even Flutter. I don't like abortion -- at all. I had a very hard time when my daughter had one a few months ago. It was her decision and I support her decision, as much as it hurt to even think about and see her go through too.

And yes, I think labels suck. I've fallen under the "liberal" label for quite some time now but I've always considered myself to be more MOR than anything. As I've said -- when you're in the middle, you get **** from every side.

[Dougles]

And yes, I think labels suck. I've fallen under the "liberal" label for quite some time now but I've always considered myself to be more MOR than anything. As I've said -- when you're in the middle, you get **** from every side.Some people are really into this :eek::p:D

I think a lot of people would paint you as a liberal because of your "lifestyle". their aren't a big number of gay people that don't learn pretty far to the left. I mean look at Jeanine Gorafalo(sp) and Rossie!

[Save Us]

OMG, we are probably more alike in our thinking than we both realize. I agree about the small business too, BTW. I'm a small business owner. The **** you have to go through just to satisfy the tax filing requirements is ridiculous. I also think that there have to be protections in place for workers. As much as I'd like to think everyone in the world is honest and fair, it's just not reality! I think history proves that.

I think people get the wrong idea about me and think I'm a far-lefty because I am so outspoken about non-discrimination and things like same-gender marriage. It's like when I started questioning Christianity and some of my former friends started saying I was a satan-worshiper.

I agree, I am not a Christian but I can appreciate their fervor for their religion, I like a lot of the "christians" on the board but have a tough time when someones's beliefs trump everyone elses. again its like my god is better than your god.

[Jim Ostrowski]

"I'm a liberal person, and I think your definition of liberals is as wrong as anything I've ever read."

I'm talking about political liberalism, primarily on economic and regulatory issues.

How am I wrong.

And I know something about liberals since I was one.

[justKel]

Thank you for taking the time to talk to me today Jim. I'd like to post some questions I have for you if you don't mind, starting with property taxes as they relate to public schools. More later...

[dave338]

"I'm a liberal person, and I think your definition of liberals is as wrong as anything I've ever read."

I'm talking about political liberalism, primarily on economic and regulatory issues.

How am I wrong.

And I know something about liberals since I was one.

From your definition:

Limousine liberals are wealthy people,

I'm not wealthy by any stretch.

usually white,

Ok - I'm white.

who usually live in wealthy white neighborhoods,

North Buffalo? No.

but who insist on telling the poor, minorities and the working class how to live and with whom to live.

Absolutely not.

Limousine liberals or their forebearers brought us the war on drugs (million man march to prison), urban renewal (people removal), public housing (resembling prisons), the Vietnam War (mass murder), and government schools – also resembling prisons – most of them wouldn’t think of sending their children to.

I'm against the war on drugs, which I feel is unnecessarily racist.
I could care less about public housing.
I wasn't alive during Vietnam but generally feel that it was a ridiculous war.

Limousine liberals are elitists who think that common folk are just too stupid to live in freedom. Though their rhetoric emphasizes their deep concern and compassion for the common man, their true feeling is one of contempt for his ability to function without continual external direction from “the best and the brightest.”

I'm much more concerned with the attitudes 'common folk' have about minorities and other fringe groups. As some of the conservatives on this board have said, when controversial topics like gay marriage are put to a vote, the conservative viewpoint will usually win. But this is the same argument that was used to keep blacks from marrying whites, keeping bathrooms segregated, etc.

I think people are smarter than they're given credit for, but that everyone looks out for themselves, at the expense of others. Minorities _have_ to have govt intervention in some cases in order to be treated like humans, because the majority will look out for their own well-being at the expense of others.

So they support centralizing power in distant capitals and glorify those like Lincoln who made it all possible. (See, Mario Cuomo’s new book.) With education, centralizing power in state capitals was not enough. They had to set up a Department of Education in Washington, so the ultra-elites can issue orders to the mid-level elites. And they call me “arrogant”!


It sounds much to me like you're just a bitter, bitter man who would prefer to pigeonhole people who don't agree with you into your own twisted definitions to make yourself feel superior. I always find it ironic that your ilk scoff at those who feel they're the 'best and brightest' by basically saying you're smarter than them - that you see through whatever haze they've laid down. You decry those who would act 'superior' by putting on an even MORE superior and condescending tone.

[FisherRd]

You realize that "Limousine Liberal" is not something Jim just made up, right? You realize it's a word that was made to describe a certain brand of liberal, right? If you aren't a Limo Liberal it doesn't mean you aren't a liberal, it just means you're not a Limo Liberal.
It's not a difficult concept, or so I thought. How sheltered does one have to be to not know that?
Think "lipstick lesbian" and "bull dyke"...both gay, yet both different.

[Dumbfounded]

I'm a liberal person, and I think your definition of liberals is as wrong as anything I've ever read.

That's because when someone is a known community activist even in a podunk town like Buffalo it can go to their ego because local celebrities are treated like royalty in this sewer of a city.

I'll repeat what I've said several times now:

Just as you can NOT convert someone from another religion to YOURS let alone convince them that YOUR religion is the "best,"
You can NOT convert a "proud" member of a political party to yours;Discussions of a political nature CAN be done but all too often they turn angry-
Just
like
religious discussions

So if someone is going to see "the light of reason" of a particular belief system, they'll do it on their own;No logic, no statistics;Nothing will convince a "proud Republican" or "proud Democrat" to switch party affiliation unless THEY decide or realize that they've been wrong about their religion and/or political party's governance all along.

I used to lean towards the Conservative a LOT;Really LOVED hearing and reading conservative media until I "woke up" as I call it and realized what liars both major parties are filled with let alone a bought & sold media whose ONLY "political loyalty" is their bank account, 401K and other perks that come when you sell your soul.

"Limo liberals." The ACLU ALONE has done far more good than our rubber stamp Congress did under President Pre-Senile Dementia better known as Governer Bush.

[WNYresident]

A) Business. I don't think businesses should be so deregulated that they are allowed to walk all over employees, pollute freely, and use deceptive marketing practices. This is where Rez and I completely part company because he has this dreamy yet completely unrealistic idea that every business owner is as honest and fair in their business practices as he is.


Far more are honest than butt heads. WHY? People will not perform if they are not happy in their work environment.

Unions are fine. Where people twist this on me is with public service unions. They are MONOPOLIES. We have Osha along with a lot of state/federal laws to protect the worker. You don't need to punish the good business people because there are a few bad apples out there.

[WNYresident]

Why don't people focus on what needs to be done.


We need to get people into elected seats to take control of our community.

[Jim Ostrowski]

Dave, I never said you were a limousine liberal.

But the species does exist. I gave the examples.

[dave338]

Dave, I never said you were a limousine liberal.

But the species does exist. I gave the examples.

My apologies, then. I read your post as defining a liberal as the subspecies of limo liberals.

[HipKat]

The actual definition of Liberalism:

Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for constitutional liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, and a transparent system of government. All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.

Liberals are about less government and more personal freedom, something the right Wingers/Conservatives refuse to acknowledge and continuously accuse us of just the opposite.

BTW, this country was founded by Liberals with Liberal philosophies and beliefs.

[Eat My Gun]

Liberals are about less government and more personal freedom...

Hysterical!

[ILOVEDNY]

Liberal = excessive
As in
Apply liberal ammounts of preperation H.

[HipKat]

Hysterical!

Read the definition.....

[ILOVEDNY]

Liberals are about less government and more personal freedom, something the right Wingers/Conservatives refuse to acknowledge and continuously accuse us of just the opposite.

OK
Then please explain to us how Obama, the second most liberal member while in the Senate, is proposing less government?

[HipKat]

Possibly, Obama is mislabeled as a Liberal.
Possibly, Obama is more Socialist than Liberal.
Which, btw, it's funny that the Right Wingers LOVE to associate Liberals with Socialists, which again, goes against the Liberals Philosophy of less Government intrusion.
I think it's about time people stopped throwing labels around, based on the propaganda they read and not on the actual definition of the label itself.
I am 100% Liberal in that I want more personal freedom to make my own decisions on how I live my life, with less intrusion by the government and it's agencies.

Ironically, in japan, the Liberal Democrats are considered Conservatives...

Definition of Conservatism, btw:

1capitalized a: the principles and policies of a Conservative party
b: the Conservative party

2 a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change ; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change


Oddly, as the definition lists limited Government regulation of business, the Republican have historically pandered to Corporate America....


maybe more people need to actually read the definitions of Political Philosophies and see where they REALLY stand.

[ILOVEDNY]

OK HIP.
Please list any current politicians who would be "liberal" by your definition.

[Brandon]

maybe more people need to actually read the definitions of Political Philosophies and see where they REALLY stand.

I think it's more fun most conservative/republican sheep to just follow what FOX news says and not think.

Anything that's wrong with the world MUST be because of Liberal policies. Actually thinking about what things mean would confuse things.

For most of the loony conservatives on these message boards, Conservatives = GOOD, Liberals = BAD. Any news story about a person doing something wrong MUST, by definition, be done by a Liberal.

[Dougles]

I think it's more fun most conservative/republican sheep to just follow what FOX news says and not think.

Anything that's wrong with the world MUST be because of Liberal policies. Actually thinking about what things mean would confuse things.

For most of the loony conservatives on these message boards, Conservatives = GOOD, Liberals = BAD. Any news story about a person doing something wrong MUST, by definition, be done by a Liberal.

So you must love MSNBC huh?

The same exact statement can be said for Liberals and MSNBC, CBS and ABC news.

We have become so polorized as a nation and it's statements like Brandon's that only make it worse!

[Brandon]

So you must love MSNBC huh?

The same exact statement can be said for Liberals and MSNBC, CBS and ABC news.

We have become so polorized as a nation and it's statements like Brandon's that only make it worse!

Statements like mine make it worse? How so?

I'm saying that the nation _IS_ polarized, and that the problem _IS_ the polarization. I'm trying to get people to understand that this is the PROBLEM.

How exactly am _I_ the problem for pointing this out? Should we continue to just be polarized - is this okay then????

[Dougles]

Statements like mine make it worse? How so?

I'm saying that the nation _IS_ polarized, and that the problem _IS_ the polarization. I'm trying to get people to understand that this is the PROBLEM.

How exactly am _I_ the problem for pointing this out? Should we continue to just be polarized - is this okay then????

Because of the COMPLETE generalization of your prior statement!
You point out one side and one side only! Make the statement that the country is polorized, but don't blame it on one side!

You can say the same thing about most globel warming nuts! The proof is out their that their is no such thing that it's natural change, but for MOST LIBERALS its easier to follow Al Gore's every hypocritical WORD!

Nect time if you make a stereotype about one side, please include the other!

[justKel]

Far more are honest than butt heads. WHY? People will not perform if they are not happy in their work environment.

People are expendable and I believe there's a lot more dishonest employers out there than you think.



Unions are fine. Where people twist this on me is with public service unions. They are MONOPOLIES. We have Osha along with a lot of state/federal laws to protect the worker. You don't need to punish the good business people because there are a few bad apples out there.

Yes, I think in some cases unions do a lot of good. I wish we still had them in my industry. Unions for public service jobs? I agree with you there.

[Dougles]

People are expendable and I believe there's a lot more dishonest employers out there than you think.





Yes, I think in some cases unions do a lot of good. I wish we still had them in my industry. Unions for public service jobs? I agree with you there.

I think many people agree with the CONCEPT of unions, to keep the little guy from being pushed around. But I don't unions should be so big and powerful that they become the big guy and start pushing the company around as we've seen with teachers unions and UAW!

[Dumbfounded]

Hysterical!

"Hysterical?" Hipkat's definition of a liberal is the most honest I've seen on this MB so far.

But the point is, while we, the stupid citizens mock each other out, fight like infants over "who's a liberal" and "who's a conservative,"-Some very, very petty stuff which the MEDIA CONTINUES to urge us on with-
The point is, while we're all bickering about political parties, those who rule over us are robbing and raping EVERYONE-
That's why they're called "the elite" which is not a creation of "the liberal media" but just an ugly fact which makes me really, really hope that there is some kind of hell following this experiment in sentience.

Keep the dunces divided by race, POLITICAL PARTY, religion, clothes, music, the most PETTY STUFF.
"They" have won because while most of us bicker and cry and whine for our respective political parties,
we've been quickly led into a neo-fascist type of society which is a SHADOW of what America once was.


Tonight on NBC, its the boxing match of the year!
Conservatives will battle liberals and its going to be a bloodbath!
Stay tuned and watch, FOLKS, while we keep taking away your "precious" freedoms!
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

...Or something else similarily sick & twisted like that...

[HipKat]

Because no matter what you show him, Dougles sees the world through his own unique vision, based on the false propaganda that gets spread on blogs, message Boards, etc... .

[Dougles]

Because no matter what you show him, Dougles sees the world through his own unique vision, based on the false propaganda that gets spread on blogs, message Boards, etc... .


Coming from you I take it as a compliment!:D

[PickOranges]

I decided to repost this because people are putting words in my mouth about what I think about liberals. In fact, I used the word "left" in a specific context, referring to the kinds of people who lie about tea party supporters andf their brethren.

From my blog:

Definition of a Liberal
Written by James Ostrowski on February 25, 2006 – 11:05 am -


A person who thinks that we can improve society by pointing government guns at people who are minding their own business. Corollary: In so doing, liberals somehow manage to feel morally and intellectual superior to the victims of their legalized violence.

Example, as reported in the News today, the limousine liberals want to make it illegal for landlords to consider the wealth of their potential tenants. This would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. That’s what you do when you’re a good landlord–you find out if your tenants can pay the darn rent!

Landlords have to be extremely careful about who they rent to, among other reasons, because liberals have made it fairly difficult to evict bad tenants.

If liberals want to make “housing opportunities more equal,” nothing is stopping them from pooling their vast resources and buying rental property for all those who they feel are being discriminated against.

I love beating up on limousine liberals. In this article, I define that species of the genus liberal as follows:

Limousine liberals are wealthy people, usually white, who usually live in wealthy white neighborhoods, but who insist on telling the poor, minorities and the working class how to live and with whom to live. Limousine liberals or their forebearers brought us the war on drugs (million man march to prison), urban renewal (people removal), public housing (resembling prisons), the Vietnam War (mass murder), and government schools – also resembling prisons – most of them wouldn’t think of sending their children to.

Limousine liberals are elitists who think that common folk are just too stupid to live in freedom. Though their rhetoric emphasizes their deep concern and compassion for the common man, their true feeling is one of contempt for his ability to function without continual external direction from “the best and the brightest.”

So they support centralizing power in distant capitals and glorify those like Lincoln who made it all possible. (See, Mario Cuomo’s new book.) With education, centralizing power in state capitals was not enough. They had to set up a Department of Education in Washington, so the ultra-elites can issue orders to the mid-level elites. And they call me “arrogant”!

Let me just add that my use of the word “liberal” is strictly limited to its modern American meaning. In other times and places, the word was and is used to describe people who believe in individual liberty. Not here, not now.


I like your definition somewhat but I would like to add the poverty pimps. The so-called minority leaders that want to keep the community down so only they can reap the benefits. They throw billions down the drain to maintain poverty and they continue to promise false hopes to their communities.

My ideals and philosphy comes from my environment growing up. My beliefs go from the left to the right. I cannot be put in a box and labeled.


For instance, I believe all children should be entitled to free healthcare, nutrional meals and a great education. It is not their fault but their parents should work for it whether they are on Welfare or make $100 an hour. Or even it your duty in life was a job at Home Depot, it was not your fault that you came down with cancer or heart disease and now can afford the high cost of medical care..

I believe in the right to bear arms but I know there are no factories in the getto and somehow these guns should be traced all the way back and people held accountable too.

Drug dealers should get the max and be sent away and made to work hard for their keep. I do understand that most drugs are not imported by minorities because there are few that fly planes and drive tractor trailers. Then again, I believe in issues like medical marijuana or anything to relieve your personal pain if dispense properly. Doctors also like to prescribe addicting drugs so you keep coming back and they enrich themselves.

I am against abortion (especially second and third tri-mester) with exceptions of course.

Am I a liberal... somewhat.... Am I a Conservative.. somewhat.. That is what America is all about and makes us so great..

Oh.. and I support TEA PARTIES and I am not a so-called Republican or a so-called Democrat either

[tomac]

Congratulations. You've just completely redefined the definition of the word liberal. Really, are you this willfully ignorant? I don't care if you're an attorney or not. Some of the most educated people I've ever met are also the most ignorant.

Um yeah... That would be a conservative. You know, the people who for years said that blacks shouldn't marry whites, and who currently say that people of the same gender shouldn't marry?

Really? Again, that would be a conservative. They started, for example, the abject failure called the war on drugs, which fledged under Nixon (a Republican) and pushed into law by Reagan (another -- gasp! -- Republican).

Conservatives are the ones who object to personal freedoms such as abortion, the right to marry whomever you choose, and even what religion you choose.

Sorry, but you really have no f'ing clue what a liberal is. Redefine the word all you want, this is nothing more than an attempt to push the blame of anything perceived to be negative in this country on liberals. Really pathetic, and I'm not liberal on many issues (though I am on the things which you address in this little gem of an article you wrote regarding personal liberties).

Seriously, any credibility you have is fading fast with each new post. And you know what the crazy part about this is? The area in which I am more conservative is with fiscal policies and taxation. But I won't follow you and your little tea parties because you are an arrogant prick and talk out of both sides of your mouth.


Sorry, but I agree with Jim on this - to a degree. His definition perfectly describes Teddy Kennedy and that crowd, but it also sums up pretty well Rush Limbo just as well but for far different reasons. An elitist is an elitist is an elitist is an elitist I suppose......
Liberals want to go out and save the world - with my money and time, not theirs; they're too busy directing the show and taking the credit.
Conservatives want to go out and expand the contents of their wallets by freely dipping into mine. And if I complain about it, I must be un-patriotic!
Trouble is most of us who walk down the center of the political road get aimed at by the a$$wipes on either side......

[tomac]

If liberals want to make “housing opportunities more equal,” nothing is stopping them from pooling their vast resources and buying rental property for all those who they feel are being discriminated against.


Funny that you should mention this. Many years ago, a family member (my sister's husband) and a raging liberal lawyer laughed at my concerns about fact that so many welfare recipiants were moving into my neighborhood. Acts of vandalism were happening more often, as were muggings and break-ins, and I in my youth and inexperience, thought that this was the fault on one specific group of people. His attitude was "suck it up, they have a right to live anywhere they want to."
When I stated that I wished to win the NYS lotto, so I could buy the house next door to his in Williamsville and rent it out to some of these clowns, he blew his stack! He told me that if I ever did that he'd have me in court so fast my head would spin!
So it was a case of do as I say, not as I do.
That to me is a Limousine Liberal of the worst sort.

[WNYresident]

Trouble is most of us who walk down the center of the political road get aimed at by the a$$wipes on either side......

Boy does that hit the nail on the head.

[Jim Ostrowski]

Perfect.

I find that most limo libs live in all-white neighborhoods, join mostly-white clubs, marry white people, send their kids to white schools and work in white offices.

But they look down on working class whites who didn't want their kids bussed across town in pursuit of some stupid lim lib principle of social engineering.

F-in hypocrites!

[HipKat]

Perfect.

I find that most limo libs live in all-white neighborhoods, join mostly-white clubs, marry white people, send their kids to white schools and work in white offices.

But they look down on working class whites who didn't want their kids bussed across town in pursuit of some stupid lim lib principle of social engineering.

F-in hypocrites!

And again, you misrepresent the definition of Liberalism.
Liberals are for LESS Government intervention in our lives.

And most of the people you described that I know of are Republicans.

[Jim Ostrowski]

I think you got mixed up at Wikipedia.

Globally, the term "liberal" can mean one who favors smaller government. But in America, the term means something like "social democrat" or one who favors a welfare state and extensive regulatory state.

That's why in America we were forced to invent a new word, libertarian, to stand for one who favors liberty across the board.

[ILOVEDNY]

Because no matter what you show him, Dougles sees the world through his own unique vision, based on the false propaganda that gets spread on blogs, message Boards, etc... .

This coming from the Huff post/Kos crowd.
A laugh a minute they are.

[ILOVEDNY]

The definition of liberal is often wildly abused by ideologues who seek to discredit liberal democracy by appropriating the word liberal for themselves.

Liberalism is not an ideology. Liberalism is best thought of as a standing argument based on a shared set of assumptions. This liberal argument is fought between two distinct kinds of liberals, classical liberals and modern liberals, whom Americans simply call "conservatives" and "liberals," respectively.

Conservative
Natural law
Established institutions
Liberty over equality
Suspicion of power
Exceptionalism
Individualism

Liberal
Positive law
Progress
Equality over liberty
Benevolent government
Human Perfectibility
Community

[ILOVEDNY]

Am I a liberal... somewhat.... Am I a Conservative.. somewhat.. That is what America is all about and makes us so great..
While I most certainly lean to the right.
I too have a few liberal views.
I think most of America is somewhere in the middle.

[Jim Ostrowski]

I'm lost.

Let's not overcomplicate this.

In America, liberalism is what grew out of Progressivism and is the ideology that has ruled America since 1917 (about).

It replaced libertarian laissez-faire which, roughly speaking and excluding slavery was the dominant ideology from 1800 through 1917 (minus the Progressives' Civil War).

Conservatism is a fuzzy, hard to define term with multiple and often contradictory meanings.

It means different things in different countries and eras.

It's a jumble of contradictory ideas tossed together like a bad salad.

This we know. As a purported foe of liberalism's desire to make government ever larger, conservatism is a spectacular failure. No conservative government has ever made government smaller.

Conservatives use the fuzziness of their doctrine defensively by claiming that whatever so and so failed to make government smalller wasn’t really a conservative.

Well, I count three persons who gained power and who were widely thought of as real conservatives at the time: Reagan, Gingrich and W. Bush. All three failed to shrink government.

[Jim Ostrowski]

And the right-left spectrum is pointless and confusing. It arose out of the French Assembly around 1800.

And it's not a proper spectrum either.

Here's a better one that I developed.

http://freebuffalo.org/images/Political-Spectrum.jpg

[nickelcityhomes]

Conservatism is a fuzzy, hard to define term ...It's a jumble of contradictory ideas tossed together like a bad salad.


Just remember that conservatives like to toss salads...simple as that.

[Save Us]

And the right-left spectrum is pointless and confusing. It arose out of the French Assembly around 1800.

And it's not a proper spectrum either.

Here's a better one that I developed.

http://freebuffalo.org/images/Political-Spectrum.jpg

Great Graph.

I would definately say I am a libertarian, with some right leaning tendencies,

The liberal looks to how government can serve them,, they seem to follow utopian ideals that are not consistent with that human nature that in my opinion cannot be changed.

An individual is either going to succeed or fail based on their genetics, environment, will etc. regardless of government support or lack their of.

I do not like liberalism because it is a fallacy and violates laws that are very inherrent to the individual, which is to say different for each and everyone of us.

Government is not the solution it is the problem, Liberals believe that Government is the solution,, and we see how well that works in NY.

[HipKat]

Liberals believe that Government is the solution


Dude, for the 900th time, Liberals do NOT believe government is the solution!
Liberals are for LESS Government in our lives.
Liberals are for MORE Personal freedoms and responsibilities.
Stop listening to the propaganda and the misrepresentation of the term liberal!

[FisherRd]

Dude, for the 900th time, Liberals do NOT believe government is the solution!
Liberals are for LESS Government in our lives.
Liberals are for MORE Personal freedoms and responsibilities.
Stop listening to the propaganda and the misrepresentation of the term liberal!



You are funny.
Liberals for less government and more personal freedoms?
I think you mean libertarian.

[Save Us]

You are funny.
Liberals for less government and more personal freedoms?
I think you mean libertarian.

I was starting to get confused, luckily I know my gender, I thought I knew my political classification.

[Save Us]

Dude, for the 900th time, Liberals do NOT believe government is the solution!
Liberals are for LESS Government in our lives.
Liberals are for MORE Personal freedoms and responsibilities.
Stop listening to the propaganda and the misrepresentation of the term liberal!


I guess I was confusing them with Democrats;)

[HipKat]

I guess I was confusing them with Democrats;)

Which may be true, because Liberal does not mean Democrat, it's just been pinned to Democrats by the Conservative Right Wingers.

Again, from the definition of Liberalism:

Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for constitutional liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, and a transparent system of government.

As a registered Independent, I'd have no problem voting for a Liberal Republican

[Jim Ostrowski]

That's really "libertarian," not liberal. Again, "liberal" outside of the US often means libertarian or quasi-libertarian. It's confusing.

[ILOVEDNY]

That's really "libertarian," not liberal. Again, "liberal" outside of the US often means libertarian or quasi-libertarian. It's confusing.
Well lets keep this inside the US as that's confusing enough.

The founding fathers were considered liberal progressives.
The very thought of breaking away from the Monarcy was radical.
And it is from this historical reference from where HipKat draws his definition.
They are what we can call the classic liberals.
Todays Libertarian party most closely resembles them.

The modern liberals, which many Democrats claim to be, are quite different from the classic.
And it is this current day liberal that most refer to on the MB.

The modern day liberal does not believe in smaller government.

Now when I asked Hipkat how Obama planned to limit the government size his response was "Obama's not a liberal".
So once again I'll ask.
Using Hipkats definition of a liberal.
Please name me anyone that qualifies as one.

[HipKat]

That's really "libertarian," not liberal. Again, "liberal" outside of the US often means libertarian or quasi-libertarian. It's confusing.

Those aren't my words or opinion.
It's the definition of Liberalism, not Libertarianism, but since the words are pretty similar sounding, wouldn't it be prudent to say that they may have similar philosophies?

[HipKat]

Well lets keep this inside the US as that's confusing enough.

The founding fathers were considered liberal progressives.
The very thought of breaking away from the Monarcy was radical.
And it is from this historical reference from where HipKat draws his definition.
They are what we can call the classic liberals.
Todays Libertarian party most closely resembles them.

The modern liberals, which many Democrats claim to be, are quite different from the classic.
And it is this current day liberal that most refer to on the MB.

The modern day liberal does not believe in smaller government.

Now when I asked Hipkat how Obama planned to limit the government size his response was "Obama's not a liberal".
So once again I'll ask.
Using Hipkats definition of a liberal.
Please name me anyone that qualifies as one.


I didn't outright say he's not a Liberal, I say he may not be one.
Ron Paul is pretty Liberal, in my book, for one.

[ILOVEDNY]

I didn't outright say he's not a Liberal, I say he may not be one.
Ron Paul is pretty Liberal, in my book, for one.

Interesting.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul493.html
From a Ron Paul interview.

Q: Do you think people who relate more to the libertarian ideals of the Republican Party have a role to play in the Republican Party of the moment, and do you see a role for them in the coming (hopeful) rebuilding of the Republican Party?

A: I certainly hope so. The Republican Party has traditionally been the party of liberty and limited government. Republicans like Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan had very libertarian qualities. If the G.O.P. gets back to its roots, they can appeal once again to liberty-minded Americans.

Q: Do you think the efforts of the libertarian-minded are better spent forming a third party or joining the actual Libertarian Party?

A: I never try to tell people exactly what to do, so that’s up to them. However, I think the fact that I have remained in the Republican Party shows where I stand.

[Brandon]

http://www.famousplagiarists.com/images/leskomatthew.jpg
Liberal


http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2128957/2/istockphoto_2128957-goofy-cowboy.jpg
Conservative

[Truthdetector]

Funny thing.... Brandon chose a picture to define a liberal from the "famous palgiarists" website..... how fitting.

[therising]

http://www.foundmagazine.com/images/finds/full/loonyleft.jpg

[Dougles]

http://www.foundmagazine.com/images/finds/full/loonyleft.jpg

Shouldn't it be like: How many liberals does it take to screw in a light bulb? ANS. 0, they'll just wait until someone from the govt does it for them!

[HipKat]

Hey Dougles, that would almost be funny if it didn't totally go against what Liberals believe.

Less Government, dude. More personal freedoms....

You basically just gave the punchline to the wrong joke.....

[Brandon]

Shouldn't it be like: How many liberals does it take to screw in a light bulb? ANS. 0, they'll just wait until someone from the govt does it for them!

How many conservatives does it take to screw in a light bulb?
ANS: 0, they'll wait until they get orders from Rush Limbaugh that they're allowed to.

[Truthdetector]

Question - What is the difference between a liberal and a puppy?
Answer -A puppy stops whining after it grows up.

Question - What is the only thing worse than an incompetent liberal President?
Answer -A competent liberal President.

Question - Who was the first liberal Democrat?
Answer -Christopher Columbus. He left not knowing where he was going,got there not knowing where he was,left there not knowing where he’d been and did it all on borrowed money.

Q: How many liberals does it take to change a light Bulb?
A: At least ten, as they will need to have a discussion about whether or not the light bulb exists. Even if they can agree upon the existence of the light bulb they still may not change it to keep from alienating those who might use other forms of light.

Q:How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb?
A:None. Liberals wouldn’t actually change the light bulb, but they would show compassion for it by talking a lot about how terrible it is in the dark and more funding is needed to improve dim, 60 watt bulbs up to bright and productive 100 watt bulbs.

Q: How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Let George Bush fix it! It’s his fault it’s dark anyway!

[Dougles]

Hey Dougles, that would almost be funny if it didn't totally go against what Liberals believe.

Less Government, dude. More personal freedoms....

You basically just gave the punchline to the wrong joke.....

Who was the last elected Liberal/DEM that ACTUALLY WANTED LESS GOVERNMENT? NEVER!!!

[ILOVEDNY]

Hey Dougles, that would almost be funny if it didn't totally go against what Liberals believe.

Less Government, dude. More personal freedoms....

You basically just gave the punchline to the wrong joke.....

Your wiki definition has been proven wrong repeatedly.
Yet you will stick by it come hell or high water.

You are the punchline to many jokes.

[ILOVEDNY]

Who was the last elected Liberal/DEM that ACTUALLY WANTED LESS GOVERNMENT? NEVER!!!

Wait up Doug.
He listed Ron Paul as a liberal.
Now granted Ron Paul considers himself more of a Libertarian.
He also is a Republican.
So using Hips logic.
True liberals can only be found in the Republican party.

[HipKat]

Ron Paul admitted that he ran as a Republican because he wouldn't have had a chance as a Libertarian.

That's not just a Wicki definition, btw.
Ever notice, the only people who dog Wikipedia are the one's who don't get the answer they were hoping for?

From Conservative-Resources.com:

http://www.conservative-resources.com/definition-of-liberal.html

The Definition of Liberal

[1] Given that liberalism represents the center of the political spectrum, the definition of liberal is often wildly abused by ideologues who seek to discredit liberal democracy by appropriating the word liberal for themselves.

[2] Liberalism is not an ideology. Liberalism is best thought of as a standing argument based on a shared set of assumptions. This liberal argument is fought between two distinct kinds of liberals, classical liberals and modern liberals, whom Americans simply call "conservatives" and "liberals," respectively.

[3] (Note that a Republican is not necessarily the same thing as a "conservative" and a Democrat is not necessarily the same thing as a "liberal," as party affiliations are often wrongly used by journalists and pundits as synonyms for political outlooks. Also note that the mere fact that someone calls oneself a conservative or a liberal does not make that someone so.)

[4] Properly understood, then, the definition of liberal is either an American-style conservative or a modern liberal. Generally speaking, liberals (i.e. both "conservatives" and "liberals") believe in the rule of law, individual rights, democracy, the division of powers, the relative freedom and equality of individuals and free markets. What liberals bitterly disagree upon, however, is the interpretation of these beliefs.

[5] For example, many conservatives argue that terrorists do not have rights while embryos do; many liberals, by contrast, argue precisely the opposite because they believe that terrorists are human beings whereas embryos are not. What is mutually agreed upon, however, is that there is such a thing as a human right; a philosopher would not accept that assumption without argument. (Hence the reason why philosophers tend to be so widely disliked!)

[6] Given that the definition of liberal has come to refer mostly to modern liberals, this essay will concentrate on the left side of the liberal argument. For the sake of clarity among American readers, I will use the word liberal here to refer exclusively to modern liberals.

More....

From The Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism

1: the quality or state of being liberal
2 often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties dcapitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

From TheFreeDictionary.com:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberalism

1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2.
a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
b. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
4. Liberalism
a. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
b. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.


Should I keep going???

[ILOVEDNY]

Ron Paul admitted that he ran as a Republican because he wouldn't have had a chance as a Libertarian.

From Conservative-Resources.com:

http://www.conservative-resources.com/definition-of-liberal.html

The Definition of Liberal

[1] Given that liberalism represents the center of the political spectrum, the definition of liberal is often wildly abused by ideologues who seek to discredit liberal democracy by appropriating the word liberal for themselves.

[2] Liberalism is not an ideology. Liberalism is best thought of as a standing argument based on a shared set of assumptions. This liberal argument is fought between two distinct kinds of liberals, classical liberals and modern liberals, whom Americans simply call "conservatives" and "liberals," respectively.



[4] Properly understood, then, the definition of liberal is either an American-style conservative or a modern liberal.


[6] Given that the definition of liberal has come to refer mostly to modern liberals, this essay will concentrate on the left side of the liberal argument. For the sake of clarity among American readers, I will use the word liberal here to refer exclusively to modern liberals.

Should I keep going???
Sure.
Keep on Beclowning yourself.

And you forgot the second part of this definition.

Conservative
Natural law
Established institutions
Liberty over equality
Suspicion of power
Exceptionalism
Individualism

Liberal
Positive law
Progress
Equality over liberty
Benevolent government
Human Perfectibility
Community

[HipKat]

I didn't forget anything, I left a link to the rest of the story and your post doesn't contradict anything I've said.

[ILOVEDNY]

your post doesn't contradict anything I've said.

Simplified version.
You are using a 240 year old definition.
You post a link that explains how the term liberal has evolved.
Yet you will ignore it.
And defend your antiquated thinking til the death.

[Save Us]

Simplified version.
You are using a 240 year old definition.
You post a link that explains how the term liberal has evolved.
Yet you will ignore it.
And defend your antiquated thinking til the death.

I think we all know what liberal means!;)

[raoul duke]

I decided to repost this because people are putting words in my mouth about what I think about liberals. In fact, I used the word "left" in a specific context, referring to the kinds of people who lie about tea party supporters andf their brethren.

From my blog:

Definition of a Liberal
Written by James Ostrowski on February 25, 2006 – 11:05 am -


A person who thinks that we can improve society by pointing government guns at people who are minding their own business. Corollary: In so doing, liberals somehow manage to feel morally and intellectual superior to the victims of their legalized violence.

Example, as reported in the News today, the limousine liberals want to make it illegal for landlords to consider the wealth of their potential tenants. This would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. That’s what you do when you’re a good landlord–you find out if your tenants can pay the darn rent!

Landlords have to be extremely careful about who they rent to, among other reasons, because liberals have made it fairly difficult to evict bad tenants.

If liberals want to make “housing opportunities more equal,” nothing is stopping them from pooling their vast resources and buying rental property for all those who they feel are being discriminated against.

I love beating up on limousine liberals. In this article, I define that species of the genus liberal as follows:

Limousine liberals are wealthy people, usually white, who usually live in wealthy white neighborhoods, but who insist on telling the poor, minorities and the working class how to live and with whom to live. Limousine liberals or their forebearers brought us the war on drugs (million man march to prison), urban renewal (people removal), public housing (resembling prisons), the Vietnam War (mass murder), and government schools – also resembling prisons – most of them wouldn’t think of sending their children to.

Limousine liberals are elitists who think that common folk are just too stupid to live in freedom. Though their rhetoric emphasizes their deep concern and compassion for the common man, their true feeling is one of contempt for his ability to function without continual external direction from “the best and the brightest.”

So they support centralizing power in distant capitals and glorify those like Lincoln who made it all possible. (See, Mario Cuomo’s new book.) With education, centralizing power in state capitals was not enough. They had to set up a Department of Education in Washington, so the ultra-elites can issue orders to the mid-level elites. And they call me “arrogant”!

Let me just add that my use of the word “liberal” is strictly limited to its modern American meaning. In other times and places, the word was and is used to describe people who believe in individual liberty. Not here, not now.
"Limousine Liberals" or just plain liberals? Are they the same as the "San Fransisco Liberals?" Or perhaps the "Coastal Liberals" or those who dismiss the "flyover states" as back woods hovels? Maybe it's the "Urban Liberals" or, GASP!, the Unitarians?!?! Whatever, it's a straw man. I'm glad you can articulate an argument against a political adversary that is imaginary, at best. It's not surprising, IMO, that in the meatspace your "view" of "liberals" is increasingly regarded as being on the fringe.

Per logical extensions - given the thesis of your argument, should we assume you are one and alike with the racist White Nationalist and Birchers that populate the Tea Parties and other right wing movements? Personally Jim, I wouldn't put you in that camp. But if we're gonna be painting with broad strokes. . .

On a more simpler note, if that screed is your idea of a "liberal," you've already lost the war before the first battle. You're rant is aimed at a fantasy. Stereotypes wouldn't be funny if there wasn't an element of truth to them, but they are still stereotypes. The real world is a whole lot more complicated and you're smart enough to know that. At least I thought you were.

[Jim Ostrowski]

Good.

I believe there is an objective reality outside our minds that we can know. We form concepts based on experience and logic. Correctly formulated, those concepts represent real things in the world.

The concept of limo lib is based on history and personal experience. The type is well known. I know them personally.

You offer no argument or evidence that such a species of liberal does not exist.

Now, as I have written before, modern liberals come from old progressivism which arose from pragmatism, the notion that there is no such thing as truth.

So, invariably, arguments with liberals break down pretty much like this one did: spitting hairs about words.

Regardless, there are wealthy white people who funded or supported the Buffalo School desegregation case but their own kids went to 99% white private schools. Lim libs.

The tea party movement is united by the notion that government is far too big. Let's argue about that and not the personal and irrelevant beliefs of a small number of its supporters.

And what's your problem with Birchers? Do you know any? What specific beliefs of Birchers do you find abhorrent?

"Per logical extensions - given the thesis of your argument, should we assume you are one and alike with the racist White Nationalist and Birchers that populate the Tea Parties and other right wing movements? Personally Jim, I wouldn't put you in that camp. But if we're gonna be painting with broad strokes. . . "

Makes no sense, explain.

How is my definition of a liberal false? You somehow failed to explain that although that is the premise of your post.

[Save Us]

Good.


Makes no sense, explain.

How is my definition of a liberal false? You somehow failed to explain that although that is the premise of your post.


Good luck with that;)

[raoul duke]

Good.

I believe there is an objective reality outside our minds that we can know. We form concepts based on experience and logic. Correctly formulated, those concepts represent real things in the world.

The concept of limo lib is based on history and personal experience. The type is well known. I know them personally.
It's a caricature and, frankly, you're dumb to believe otherwise. Applying your silly premise, can I assume you are a white nationalist/supremacist, given your affiliation with Ron Paul and a libertarian ideology heavily subscribed to by the wanna-be fascist in the white power movement? Personally I don't, but if we're gonna paint with broad and opaque brushes, don't waste my time with the ideological distinctions between your brand of libertarianism with it's adoptive ally - the white nationalist movement. But your anecdotal liberal stereotype is totally reliable. :rolleyes:
You offer no argument or evidence that such a species of liberal does not exist.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html) - sometimes known as the negative proof fallacy. How could I offer an "argument" to a question no one asked? (Up and until you asked why I had yet to offer an argument, I mean.) Why do I have to disprove your perceptions? Especially since said perceptions had nothing to do with what I was saying?
Now, as I have written before, modern liberals come from old progressivism which arose from pragmatism, the notion that there is no such thing as truth.

So, invariably, arguments with liberals break down pretty much like this one did: spitting hairs about words.

Regardless, there are wealthy white people who funded or supported the Buffalo School desegregation case but their own kids went to 99% white private schools. Lim libs.

The tea party movement is united by the notion that government is far too big. Let's argue about that and not the personal and irrelevant beliefs of a small number of its supporters.

And what's your problem with Birchers? Do you know any? What specific beliefs of Birchers do you find abhorrent?

"Per logical extensions - given the thesis of your argument, should we assume you are one and alike with the racist White Nationalist and Birchers that populate the Tea Parties and other right wing movements? Personally Jim, I wouldn't put you in that camp. But if we're gonna be painting with broad strokes. . . "

Makes no sense, explain.

How is my definition of a liberal false? You somehow failed to explain that although that is the premise of your post.
Blah, blah, blah. Your "liberal" adversary is a figment of your imagination and, personally, I'm starting to laugh, in earnest, at you. No one needs to prove your fantasy liberal untrue, Jim. Negative proof fallacy and all that. You construct/invent your vision of a liberal and then ask why no one has debunked it. While not a lawyer, I can appreciate the construct of that logic as it would pertain to a legal proceeding. But as a matter of the common body politic, it is horse[crap].

If you want to play it this way? Fine. Please tell me how you're not a white nationalist. (That's meant to be rhetorical, btw.)

Invent your enemy, then destroy it with your perfectly couched ideology. Good work if you can find it. . . I guess.
*Yawn*

[Jim Ostrowski]

Makes no sense, explain.

[raoul duke]

Makes no sense, explain.
Why? So you can pretend I'm something you supposedly understand or can define with tired tropes and heavily shaded perceptions? Whatevs.

I've said it a hundred times, and explained it more than a few, on this board why I believe your brand of snake oil is bunk like the junk in the dump.

When you stopping thinking in caricatured cliches, I'll gladly spend the time wading into the weeds with you. Till then. . .

[Jim Ostrowski]

Makes no sense, explain.

[raoul duke]

Exactly, buddy.

[tomac]

"Limousine Liberals" or just plain liberals? Are they the same as the "San Fransisco Liberals?"


Let's try it this way.
Sister Karen Klimczak was a liberal who saw the good in everyone and wanted to help her fellow man with every fiber of her being. She was a liberal 24/7 and although it cost her her life, she did do unvarnished good for the community.
Senator Ted Kennedy is a limousine liberal who thinks that the average human is a fool who is incapable of thinking for himself and needs to be led by the hand like a brain-damaged cripple (appologies to any who are offended). Unfortunately, Senator Kennedy thinks that this should be done with the taxpayer's money, not neceaasrily his. The only thing that Senator Kennedy wants in return is the glowing adulation of all the people of the land for all of the wonderful things that he's done for them. Just pay no attention to the multutude of people behind the curtain - the ones who were forced to foot the bill.

[Dougles]

Let's try it this way.
Sister Karen Klimczak was a liberal who saw the good in everyone and wanted to help her fellow man with every fiber of her being. She was a liberal 24/7 and although it cost her her life, she did do unvarnished good for the community.
Senator Ted Kennedy is a limousine liberal who thinks that the average human is a fool who is incapable of thinking for himself and needs to be led by the hand like a brain-damaged cripple (appologies to any who are offended). Unfortunately, Senator Kennedy thinks that this should be done with the taxpayer's money, not neceaasrily his. The only thing that Senator Kennedy wants in return is the glowing adulation of all the people of the land for all of the wonderful things that he's done for them. Just pay no attention to the multutude of people behind the curtain - the ones who were forced to foot the bill.


100% correct! And saddly their are people in MASS, NY, CA and CT than are dumb enough to vote for these fools!

[therising]

Let's try it this way.
Sister Karen Klimczak was a liberal who saw the good in everyone and wanted to help her fellow man with every fiber of her being. She was a liberal 24/7 and although it cost her her life, she did do unvarnished good for the community.
Senator Ted Kennedy is a limousine liberal who thinks that the average human is a fool who is incapable of thinking for himself and needs to be led by the hand like a brain-damaged cripple (appologies to any who are offended). Unfortunately, Senator Kennedy thinks that this should be done with the taxpayer's money, not neceaasrily his. The only thing that Senator Kennedy wants in return is the glowing adulation of all the people of the land for all of the wonderful things that he's done for them. Just pay no attention to the multutude of people behind the curtain - the ones who were forced to foot the bill.

So, I guess what you're saying, by using Sister Karen as an example, is that Liberalism, in its purest form, is actually a good thing.
I'm surprised to see Dougles agree with this.

[WNYresident]

So, I guess what you're saying, by using Sister Karen as an example, is that Liberalism, in its purest form, is actually a good thing.
I'm surprised to see Dougles agree with this.

Basically yes. The harm comes when people believe they should help with other people's money. Why won't the kennedy's live in a very modest home and give all their money away if they feel so strongly they every need should be met by the government?

[raoul duke]

Let's try it this way.
Sister Karen Klimczak was a liberal who saw the good in everyone and wanted to help her fellow man with every fiber of her being. She was a liberal 24/7 and although it cost her her life, she did do unvarnished good for the community.
Senator Ted Kennedy is a limousine liberal who thinks that the average human is a fool who is incapable of thinking for himself and needs to be led by the hand like a brain-damaged cripple (appologies to any who are offended). Unfortunately, Senator Kennedy thinks that this should be done with the taxpayer's money, not neceaasrily his. The only thing that Senator Kennedy wants in return is the glowing adulation of all the people of the land for all of the wonderful things that he's done for them. Just pay no attention to the multutude of people behind the curtain - the ones who were forced to foot the bill.
Well that's an apt comparison. I'm convinced. :rolleyes:

[HipKat]

Basically yes. The harm comes when people believe they should help with other people's money. Why won't the kennedy's live in a very modest home and give all their money away if they feel so strongly they every need should be met by the government?

Which goes directly against the Liberalism that I practice and believe in....