• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Question For The Left

The word's meaning hasn't changed --- the left has just taken the word and warped it into something it isn't. We agree here. A statist isn't a liberal even though they call themselves liberal.

Libertarians are MUCH closer to classic liberals than most people who call themselves "liberals" today.

Yeah, well, the right has warped the word at least as much. Ever seen someone refer to antifa thugs as liberals? That was a conservative. Ever see someone refer to socialism as liberal? That was a conservative. BLM=liberal? Guess what.
And the term 'classical liberal' sounds very intelligent and high-fallutin' and all but it means nothing to me. I've always voted for the Liberal Party, when I voted. I'd rather have a sister in a whore-house than a brother in the Conservative Party. And the socialists and progressives and social activists in the New Democratic Party are just a source of amusement. That's what being liberal means. To me. Here.
 
I scanned your link. This is what I picked up...

"Classical liberalism is often contrasted with a new social liberalism, which is supposed to have developed out of the classical variety around 1900. But social liberalism deviates fundamentally from its namesake at its theoretical root in that it denies the self-regulatory capacity of society: the state is called on to redress social imbalance in increasingly ramified ways. The plea that it intends to preserve the end of individual freedom, modifying only the means, is to classical liberals hardly to the point — as much could be claimed for most varieties of socialism. In fact, social liberalism can scarcely be distinguished, theoretically and practically, from revisionist socialism. "

Key words-"social liberalism deviates fundamentally from its namesake at its theoretical root in that it denies the self-regulatory capacity of society: the state is called on to redress social imbalance in increasingly ramified ways."
In other words, the 'new social liberalism' isn't liberalism, it's a different animal.

I'm not going to quibble about how the word 'liberalism' can be shaped into something that conservatives can agree to abhor. I get that you detest 'liberals' the way conservatives define them. But I have to ask- if it takes such gymnastics to make 'liberal' a derogatory term, if you have to push that hard against a simple dictionary definition, why bother? Why is it so important to take the good out of 'liberalism' for your side and change the name of it into something nobody but you understands?
It's still simple. Dictionary. Definition. Done.

OK, first of all, I didn't say anything about it being a "derogatory" term. I said it had changed meaning from the time of the Founding Fathers, and it has. I said that the kind of "liberal" the Founding Fathers were is not the same as a political "liberal" today, and it's not.

It's you who insists the term hasn't changed meaning, and that's just not right.

I've shown you the ways in which it has changed. I showed you how your very own dictionary definition shows it to be so.

I'm not sure why you're utterly failing to understand things here.

You say:

Key words-"social liberalism deviates fundamentally from its namesake at its theoretical root in that it denies the self-regulatory capacity of society: the state is called on to redress social imbalance in increasingly ramified ways."
In other words, the 'new social liberalism' isn't liberalism, it's a different animal.

But the very "dictionary definition" you offered says:

such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class)

Let's put these side by side:

What you say ISN'T liberalism, but a "different animal":

"social liberalism deviates fundamentally from its namesake at its theoretical root in that it denies the self-regulatory capacity of society: the state is called on to redress social imbalance in increasingly ramified ways."

What you say IS liberalism, by the dictionary:

such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class)

I'm beginning to wonder if you're just trolling here, because your self-contradiction is incandescent.

In any case, I've given you everything you need to understand the point. If you say you still don't, then I'm not sure what else I can do to help you along.
 
Typical American deception. You should meet quag, mike, gamolon, ... . They are just like you.

Aw, so you still can't figure out an answer to my very simple question. Should I repeat it again? Will that help your flailing?
 
Aw, so you still can't figure out an answer to my very simple question. Should I repeat it again? Will that help your flailing?

You're just like mike, quag and the gang, people who are only interested in diversion and distraction. The truth means squat to you, brainwashed as you are.
 
You're just like mike, quag and the gang, people who are only interested in diversion and distraction. The truth means squat to you, brainwashed as you are.

You being unable to answer a very simple question, one with important consequences as to your numerous petty claims, is extremely telling. It is neither a "distraction" nor a "diversion."

You can't answer my question because it sinks your case.
 
You being unable to answer a very simple question, one with important consequences as to your numerous petty claims, is extremely telling. It is neither a "distraction" nor a "diversion."

You can't answer my question because it sinks your case.

Why in the world would you think you are important enough to me that I would remember some goofy question from a brainwashed American boy who mistakenly thinks the US is a good country?
 
Why in the world would you think you are important enough to me that I would remember some goofy question from a brainwashed American boy who mistakenly thinks the US is a good country?

I've repeated it several times buddy. Clearly you CTers lack the ability to retain basic information even when it is repeatedly shown to you. No wonder you can't argue worth a damn

:lamo

So. Let's try this again. It'll be amusing watching you desperately flee.

Why, if the US was so awful and evil in the Philippines, would Filipinos so actively support the US, with everything up to and including active guerilla resistance against the Japanese?
 
I've repeated it several times buddy. Clearly you CTers lack the ability to retain basic information even when it is repeatedly shown to you. No wonder you can't argue worth a damn

:lamo

You are so childish. How old are you?

Old enough, I hope to not become a US war criminal.

So. Let's try this again. It'll be amusing watching you desperately flee.

Why, if the US was so awful and evil in the Philippines, would Filipinos so actively support the US, with everything up to and including active guerilla resistance against the Japanese?

Because the US had taken full control for many long years and had a great propaganda system going in the school system.

U.S. WAR CRIMES IN THE PHILIPPINES

The U.S. occupation of the Philippine Islands came about as a result of military operations against the Spanish Empire during the Spanish-American war of 1898-99. The seizure of the Philippines by the United States, however, was not unplanned. American eyes had been set on the Philippines since before the outbreak of war. To many prominent Americans, establishing a colony in the Philippines was a logical extension of the nation's "manifest destiny" to play a leading role on the world stage. An expanded American presence in Asia was also thought to have significant commercial advantages for the nation, since American companies could then participate directly in large Asian markets.

For all the alleged advantages to possessing the Philippines, no thought was given to whether or not native Filipinos would welcome American as opposed to Spanish rule. The Filipinos were of course never informed of American intentions to stay in the Philippines. This turned out to be a serious error. By 1898 Filipinos had already shed a considerable amount of blood since rising up in 1896 to free themselves from Spanish domination. They would not take kindly to a change in colonial administration from Spain to the United States.

The First Philippine Republic and the End of Spanish Rule

On May 1, 1898, an American fleet under Dewey sailed into Manila harbor and quickly destroyed a small force of Spanish ships anchored there. Plans for Dewey to commence offensive operations against the Spanish in the Philippines had originated several months before, in February, when Assistant Secretary for the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt, had cabled Dewey to say "Your duty will be to see that the Spanish squadron does not leave the Asiatic coast ... start offensive operations in Philippine Islands."[1]

Because a considerable number of Spanish troops remained stationed throughout the Philippines, including a large force in Manila itself, American diplomats urged resistance leader Emilio Aguinaldo to return to the Philippines from exile in Hong Kong. Before journeying to his homeland, Aguinaldo, who was overjoyed at the American declaration of war on Spain, cabled resistance members the following message, which clearly expresses his belief that the Americans had come to liberate his people:

"Divine Providence is about to place independence within our reach. The Americans, not from mercenary motives, but for the sake of humanity and the lamentations of so many persecuted people have considered it opportune to extend their protecting mantle to our beloved country. ... At the present moment an American squadron is preparing to sail to the Philippines. The Americans will attack by sea and prevent any re-enforcements coming from Spain. ... We insurgents must attack by land. ... There where you see the American flag flying, assemble in number; they are our redeemers!"[2]

Aguinaldo sent another message several days later expressing the same confidence in American altruism:

"Filipinos, the great nation, North America, cradle of liberty and friendly on that account to the liberty of our people ... has come to manifest a protection ... which is disinterested towards us, considering us with sufficient civilization to govern by ourselves this our unhappy land."[3]

Energized by the seemingly fortunate turn of events, the Filipinos immediately went on the offensive. Within weeks Aguinaldo's insurgents had pushed the Spanish back to Manila. Fighting would continue for another two months, until American forces arrived in enough numbers to complete the defeat of Spanish troops holed up in Manila. Aguinaldo and his men were ecstatic with their victory and on June 12, 1898 they proclaimed Filipino independence. The First Philippine Republic had been founded.


US War Crimes in the Phillipines
 
You are so childish. How old are you?

Old enough, I hope to not become a US war criminal.



Because the US had taken full control for many long years and had a great propaganda system going in the school system.

Bullcrap. As usual, you have utterly failed.

I can't wait to hear your wails of misery as the groups you love so much are crushed.

And yet another useless piece of junk for an attempted source. Despite your claims, Filipinos, via their actions and words, vehemently supported the US.
 
Bullcrap. As usual, you have utterly failed.

I can't wait to hear your wails of misery as the groups you love so much are crushed.

And yet another useless piece of junk for an attempted source. Despite your claims, Filipinos, via their actions and words, vehemently supported the US.

Gee, you brag about wanting to be a US war criminal.

American Genocide in the Philippines / Filippines

"In total the Americans murder more innocent people than died in Auschwitz in WWII."

 
Last edited:
Gee, you brag about wanting to be a US war criminal.

American Genocide in the Philippines / Filippines

"In total the Americans murder more innocent people than died in Auschwitz in WWII."



Yep, I definitely brag about helping destroy the groups and regimes, such as the Taliban and ISIS, that you love so much.

YouTube videos. More trash sources from you.

And a blatantly false claim which includes a rather telling attempt at Holocaust minimization.
 
Would you vote to rescind our Declaration Of Independence and return to English rule? Some of the very reasons which started our country in the first place no longer seem important to the left.

1. Many on the left are for higher taxes in order to fund more social programs even though our country was founded as a fight against taxes paid to the British

2. Many on the left don't seem to really care about religious freedom even though that was extremely important in our fight for independence

3. Many on the left want nationalized healthcare

4. Many on the left are for stricter gun control

Forgot to check the poll but this is a serious question that can be answered without the poll.


“Would you vote to rescind our Declaration Of Independence and return to English rule?”

No.

“Some of the very reasons which started our country in the first place no longer seem important to the left.”:

“Many on the left are for higher taxes in order to fund more social programs even though our country was founded as a fight against taxes paid to the British”

Our country was not “…founded as a fight against taxes paid to the British”. It was founded on taxation without representation. The Colonies tax rates were much less in Britain. In fact, they were seldom paid, at all up until Britain ran out of money and enforced collection, immediately preceding and compounding the Revolution.


“Many on the left don't seem to really care about religious freedom even though that was extremely important in our fight for independence”

Give an example. The separation of church and state does not allow the unabated excursion of religion over the secular.

“Many on the left want nationalized healthcare”

I’d say most on the left want nationalized health care. A solely privatized health care hasn’t worked. When the private market cannot serve the public is when government should step in. Health care costs have gone up no more, under Obamacare, than predicted as was. The difference is that more people are insured now to live healthy, productive lives.

“Many on the left are for stricter gun control”

Again, most on the left are for stricter gun control. What does this have to do with your premise?

“Forgot to check the poll but this is a serious question that can be answered without the poll.

And what would the poll of that be?
 
Yep, I definitely brag about helping destroy the groups and regimes, such as the Taliban and ISIS, that you love so much.

Both the Taliban and ISIS were US creations, formed to help the US commit it myriad war crimes.


YouTube videos. More trash sources from you.

No sources from you.

And a blatantly false claim which includes a rather telling attempt at Holocaust minimization.

You know all the propaganda memes.
 
You know all the propaganda memes.

Bull****. There is literally zero proof the US created either ISIS or the Taliban.

Oh really? Which sources would you like me to provide? There are so many it's hard to know where to start crushing your feeble lies.

You know all the CT fantasies.
 
2. For God's sake, we can't say Merry Christmas and we can't have public displays like the nativity scene or the Ten Commandments.

/QUOTE]

Yes you can, and yes you can. I hear merry Christmas during that time of year more times than I can count and there are nativity scenes all over the place. Words have meanings. Can't means can not, not allowed to. Claiming you can't say merry Christmas is a blatant lie.
 
Who's standards? Every conservative has a different definition of 'liberal' according to whatever pisses them off most about society and politics. Antifa thugs on six-o'clock news? Liberals. Socialists agitating for free education and medical insurance? Liberals. Gays and lesbians dancing in a Pride parade? Liberals. Black Lives Matter shouting epithets at police? Liberals.

Here. Here's today's standard definition of liberalism...

From Merriam-Webster

Definition of liberalism
1
: the quality or state of being liberal
2
a 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 (see gold standard 1)
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy (see autonomy 2) of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class)
d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal (see 1liberal 6b) party

If the word had been 'redefined', I guess Merriam-Webster would know about it.

You don't really believe this stuff, come on! Dictionary definitions is desperation. The Left has been redefining Hitler for months trying to bend into a shape that looks exactly like Trump, yet haven't got a clue about the real Hitler. My parents conveyed stories of their life under Hitler to me, and it wasn't at all what is going on here. Blacks aren't forced to wear armbands that say "nigger" on them. The Antifa are just a bunch of thugs looking for an excuse to beat people and cause mayhem. And have you noticed how much money and time they seem to have? Dressed the same, always available to show up at a moments notice? Neo-Nazi and White Supremacists in this country are inconsequential, with numbers that are insignificant. Didn't you watch at Obama almost promoted the killing of cops and BLM rioting? "Trayvon could have been my son" <<< Obama loosing his ****ing mind with a statement like that. That was all the mouthfoamers needed to spur them on.
 
Back
Top Bottom