• 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!

What we call liberalism and conservatism today, isn’t ...

ModernDiogenes

ModernDiogenes

Searching for One Honest Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
4,853
Reaction score
3,681
Location
North East
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Liberalism: a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. [Wikapedia]

Conservatism: a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights.[1] Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as religion, parliamentary government, and property rights, with the aim of emphasizing social stability and continuity. [Wikapedia]

What we label as Liberalism today, more and more, are extremist views that border on socialism. Socialism is not the Nth degree of Liberalism any more than Fascism is Conservatism drawn out to its Nth degree.

Our Founding Fathers, in their desire for change and the institution of governing by representation of public mandate, were political Progressives. This nation was born of Liberal thought. Yet that Liberal thought took place, in part, to preserve the rights of property. That they not be taxed away by a governing entity that did not represent the will or respect the rights of those who produced what was taxed. Certainly what we’d define as classic Conservative principle.

If their efforts, that brought about the birth of this nation, doesn’t prove that conservative and liberal thinking can’t coexist to bring about well rounded and constructive results than I don’t know what does.

We’ve lost the historical perspective. In doing so we’ve morphed what were well defined concepts of political thought and warped their meanings.

Let us first help reinstitute that by defining our terms as what they actually are, and not all this folderol that’s been added to them.

Actual Conservatism isn’t corporatism. It’s not nation building. It’s not White supremacy. Let’s call those things what they are.

Actual Liberalism isn’t against free markets and the seizing of private property in the name of the state. It’s not minority rule, or the proletariat. Let’s call this things what they are.

Then let us get back to being a nation that looks at ideas and concepts, instead of labels, and picks and chooses from all things on the basis of the merit of the idea and what works.
 
From my perspective, it doesn't matter what the parties champion but what they actually do. For that reason, I see no significant difference between the two. We are in another gilded age.
 
In America, liberals are the opposite of conservatives. Liberals are in favor of social justice for example, and free health care.

But if this was Europe, I would agree with your definitions.
 
ModernDiogenes said:
Liberalism: a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. [Wikapedia]

Conservatism: a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights.[1] Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as religion, parliamentary government, and property rights, with the aim of emphasizing social stability and continuity. [Wikapedia]

What we label as Liberalism today, more and more, are extremist views that border on socialism. Socialism is not the Nth degree of Liberalism any more than Fascism is Conservatism drawn out to its Nth degree.

Our Founding Fathers, in their desire for change and the institution of governing by representation of public mandate, were political Progressives. This nation was born of Liberal thought. Yet that Liberal thought took place, in part, to preserve the rights of property. That they not be taxed away by a governing entity that did not represent the will or respect the rights of those who produced what was taxed. Certainly what we’d define as classic Conservative principle.

If their efforts, that brought about the birth of this nation, doesn’t prove that conservative and liberal thinking can’t coexist to bring about well rounded and constructive results than I don’t know what does.

We’ve lost the historical perspective. In doing so we’ve morphed what were well defined concepts of political thought and warped their meanings.

Let us first help reinstitute that by defining our terms as what they actually are, and not all this folderol that’s been added to them.

Actual Conservatism isn’t corporatism. It’s not nation building. It’s not White supremacy. Let’s call those things what they are.

Actual Liberalism isn’t against free markets and the seizing of private property in the name of the state. It’s not minority rule, or the proletariat. Let’s call this things what they are.

Then let us get back to being a nation that looks at ideas and concepts, instead of labels, and picks and chooses from all things on the basis of the merit of the idea and what works.
Click to expand...

Nope, you Americans are just using the word wrong. Liberalism everywhere BUT the US is exactly what the original mean is. It is only in the US that the word "liberal" has been bastardised to mean socialist or left leaning.
 
Drawdown said:
From my perspective, it doesn't matter what the parties champion but what they actually do. For that reason, I see no significant difference between the two. We are in another gilded age.
Click to expand...

If you define the “Gilded Age” as a period of US history where there was a high degree of oligarchical corruptive political activity, that attempted to use political differences as a “fog of war” to cover their actions that were motivated by greed, and I do, than I totally agree.
 
Drawdown said:
From my perspective, it doesn't matter what the parties champion but what they actually do. For that reason, I see no significant difference between the two. We are in another gilded age.
Click to expand...

The Parties are part of the problem, hell with they way they've rigged the system, they may be the majority problem. There's not that much difference in action between the R and the D, it's why I call them the Republocrats. It's an oligarchy built upon large government, the Corporate State, and the New Aristocracy. And they've convinced enough of us that we have to support one or the other. That there's no other way, the other side is so much worse you have to support this side. All of their arguments, R or D, come down to that. And in doing so they've successfully driven a wedge between us so that we do not think any longer that it's The People vs the Government which was designed to serve us. But that it's left vs right, it's R vs D and that's it; if you're not one, you're the other. And it's driven out thought, it's driven out reason, it's driven out rational argument and political philosophy.

And to the OP's point, it's driven out all realization of what liberal and conservative ideologies once were. You label yourself one, and you hate the other. And anyone that doesn't have your label is "the other". It's the death of a Republic, and people are cheering. Duped by designing men, just as Daniel Webster said. Because in the end, the Republocrats serve the same Corporations and the same select group of Aristocrats and work for their ends, not the ends of the People. But they've convinced us we have to support one of them over the other. They've set the rules to keep others out of the game. They've turned the media into partisan entertainment to keep us duped.

It's the death of a Republic. And people are cheering.

“I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.”
― Daniel Webster
 
PeteEU said:
Nope, you Americans are just using the word wrong. Liberalism everywhere BUT the US is exactly what the original mean is. It is only in the US that the word "liberal" has been bastardised to mean socialist or left leaning.
Click to expand...

That’s my point. We didn’t use to. We don’t use Conservative correctly anymore either.

The bastardization of those terms, the conflating them with other concepts, is part of what’s fueling this unproductive political polarization, and keeping us from fixing problems being created for profit by the folks who profit from them.

The crux of the issue and the point of my post.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
The Parties are part of the problem, hell with they way they've rigged the system, they may be the majority problem.
Click to expand...

Are they really, or are the simply the greedy and weak of will falling victim to riches being displayed before them for the taking by those who profit even more by their offering?

In investigation you can almost never go wrong finding your way to the true culprit by following the money. Who profits most? That’s the $64 question.
 
PeteEU said:
Nope, you Americans are just using the word wrong. Liberalism everywhere BUT the US is exactly what the original mean is. It is only in the US that the word "liberal" has been bastardised to mean socialist or left leaning.
Click to expand...

It has not been "bastardized," it has been co-opted by Progressives and Marxists.

Like wolves in sheep's clothing.
 
Captain Adverse said:
It has not been "bastardized," it has been co-opted by Progressives and Marxists.

Like wolves in sheep's clothing.
Click to expand...

:lol:

That is exactly what Conservatives have been saying forever.. if you throw enough mud, then at some point it will stick.. which is exactly what has happened with the word liberalism.
 
Captain Adverse said:
It has not been "bastardized," it has been co-opted by Progressives and Marxists.

Like wolves in sheep's clothing.
Click to expand...


And “conservatives” haven’t done precisely the same thing.

Do you think Theodore Roosevelt would recognized the Conservative or Republican federal platforms as conservative?

How about Goldwater, would he?
 
ModernDiogenes said:
And “conservatives” haven’t done precisely the same thing.

Do you think Theodore Roosevelt would recognized the Conservative or Republican federal platforms as conservative?

How about Goldwater, would he?
Click to expand...

Why are you asking me about Teddy Roosevelt and Barry Goldwater? :unsure13:

Apparently you've never had a chance to review member blogs.

Here's the one I made reiterating my positions posted in the "I'm New" thread when I first joined:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/captain-adverse/1391-time-re-introduce-myself.html

And it contains a link to that original post to show it is the same in 2013.

I argue for individual liberty, but not anarchy. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

Revue my posts over the last seven years and you'll find my positions are clear, consistent, firmly held but respectful of others.

No personal attacks, no claims of superiority or especial virtue. I can be convinced by rational arguments, but I am not moved by peer pressure or groupthink. If I make a mistake...I own it and admit it. But if I am right, I stand by my positions.

However, you will also find that I do oppose socially divisive ideologies. Including but not limited to: identity politics, grievance politics, cancel culture, socialism, communism, or any other "-ism" or "-ology" that professes submission of the individual to the demands of the group.

If you think that makes me a "conservative?" (Or worse?) That's your issue...not mine.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Why are you asking me about Teddy Roosevelt and Barry Goldwater? :unsure13:

Apparently you've never had a chance to review member blogs.

Here's the one I posted reiterating my positions posted in the "I'm New" thread when I first joined:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/captain-adverse/1391-time-re-introduce-myself.html

And it contains a link to that original post to show it is the same in 2013.

I argue for individual liberty, but not anarchy. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

Revue my posts over the last seven years and you'll find my positions are clear, consistent, firmly held but respectful of others.

No personal attacks, no claims of superiority or especial virtue. I can be convinced by rational arguments, but I am not moved by peer pressure or groupthink. If I make a mistake...I own it and admit it.

However, you will also find that I do oppose socially divisive ideologies. Including but not limited to: identity politics, grievance politics, cancel culture, socialism, communism, or any other "-ism" or "-ology" that professes submission of the individual to the demands of the group.

If you think that makes me a "conservative?" (Or worse?) That's your issue...not mine.
Click to expand...

{scratching head} What has that got to do with the exchange that we just had.

You said the use of the word liberal had been cooped by leftists and socialists. That would make them “liberals”, not liberals.

I said you don’t think “conservatives” hadn’t coopted conservative as well. Asking if two recognized true conservatives would recognize what today is being passed off as conservatism?

It had nothing to do with YOU at all, and didn’t require I have your pedigree to ask it of you.
 
ModernDiogenes said:
{scratching head} What has that got to do with the exchange that we just had.

You said the use of the word liberal had been cooped by leftists and socialists. That would make them “liberals”, not liberals.

I said you don’t think “conservatives” hadn’t coopted conservative as well. Asking if two recognized true conservatives would recognize what today is being passed off as conservatism?

It had nothing to do with YOU at all, and didn’t require I have your pedigree to ask it of you.
Click to expand...

LOL

The point being...why would I have to define what a conservative is or would think?

I used to define myself as a Liberal...which is why I pointed you to that blog. Had you bothered to look, you would know (or should anyway) that it is not up to me to define "conservatives."

However I know what Liberalism used to be, and it is not in any way demonstrated by those who currently claim that mantle but act anything BUT Liberal.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
LOL

The point being...why would I have to define what a conservative is or would think?

I used to define myself as a Liberal...which is why I pointed you to that blog. Had you bothered to look, you would know (or should anyway) that it is not up to me to define "conservatives."

However I know what Liberalism used to be, and it is not in any way demonstrated by those who currently claim that mantle but act anything BUT Liberal.
Click to expand...

Yes, but reread my OP. That’s the point and it’s getting lost.

“Conservatives” aren’t and neither are “Liberals”, and the coopted terms are adding to the nonsense that others are availing themselves of to create the disharmony and distraction that give opportunity for corruption.
 
ModernDiogenes said:
Liberalism: a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. [Wikapedia]

Conservatism: a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights.[1] Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as religion, parliamentary government, and property rights, with the aim of emphasizing social stability and continuity. [Wikapedia]

What we label as Liberalism today, more and more, are extremist views that border on socialism. Socialism is not the Nth degree of Liberalism any more than Fascism is Conservatism drawn out to its Nth degree.

Our Founding Fathers, in their desire for change and the institution of governing by representation of public mandate, were political Progressives. This nation was born of Liberal thought. Yet that Liberal thought took place, in part, to preserve the rights of property. That they not be taxed away by a governing entity that did not represent the will or respect the rights of those who produced what was taxed. Certainly what we’d define as classic Conservative principle.

If their efforts, that brought about the birth of this nation, doesn’t prove that conservative and liberal thinking can’t coexist to bring about well rounded and constructive results than I don’t know what does.

We’ve lost the historical perspective. In doing so we’ve morphed what were well defined concepts of political thought and warped their meanings.

Let us first help reinstitute that by defining our terms as what they actually are, and not all this folderol that’s been added to them.

Actual Conservatism isn’t corporatism. It’s not nation building. It’s not White supremacy. Let’s call those things what they are.

Actual Liberalism isn’t against free markets and the seizing of private property in the name of the state. It’s not minority rule, or the proletariat. Let’s call this things what they are.

Then let us get back to being a nation that looks at ideas and concepts, instead of labels, and picks and chooses from all things on the basis of the merit of the idea and what works.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle.

Defining the opposition has long been a tradition in partisan politics and communications. After the decades of politically expedient partisan lamination of the definition by both parties you arrive at the grotesquely distorted fallacious definition of the labels being thrown around today.
A problem when such a politically diverse populace must pick from only two alternatives, neither of which are all that representative.
 
Captain Adverse said:
LOL

The point being...why would I have to define what a conservative is or would think?

I used to define myself as a Liberal...which is why I pointed you to that blog. Had you bothered to look, you would know (or should anyway) that it is not up to me to define "conservatives."

However I know what Liberalism used to be, and it is not in any way demonstrated by those who currently claim that mantle but act anything BUT Liberal.
Click to expand...

Let me try it again from a different tack...

Conservative and Liberal are terms that carry a certain amount of politcal gravitas. "Liberals" and "Conservatives" who aren't give themselves instant credibility by conflating their political ideology by usurping the branding, and muddle the issues, creating conflict and polarization.

If we could clear things up by getting Liberal and Conservative back to their actual political meanings, calling Corporatist nation builders what they are and seizers of private property in the name of the state what they are... In other words, forcing the extremes on both flanks out of the parties into the fringe where they belong, the majorities of both parties may find a lot more room for compromise, the noise levels would retreat, and there would be a lot less fog to hide corruptive actions of those spreading their money around purchasing influence.
 
Jonsa said:
I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle.

Defining the opposition has long been a tradition in partisan politics and communications. After the decades of politically expedient partisan lamination of the definition by both parties you arrive at the grotesquely distorted fallacious definition of the labels being thrown around today.
A problem when such a politically diverse populace must pick from only two alternatives, neither of which are all that representative.
Click to expand...

I am suggesting there is more going on then simply "defining the opposition".

I am suggesting there are those who profit by the polarization and higher levels of contention that currently exist. That it creates a "fog of war", within which it becomes easier to practice corruptive behaviors that allow undue influence within our Congress and state houses. That many of our political issues, not just here but in first world governments all over the world, are at least in part the result of deliberate action to befuddle and cause descent within their electorates.

It doesn't help that those electorates are so easily distracted by shiny objects. [ours chiefly amongst these :roll:]
 
ModernDiogenes said:
I am suggesting there is more going on then simply "defining the opposition".

I am suggesting there are those who profit by the polarization and higher levels of contention that currently exist. That it creates a "fog of war", within which it becomes easier to practice corruptive behaviors that allow undue influence within our Congress and state houses. That many of our political issues, not just here but in first world governments all over the world, are at least in part the result of deliberate action to befuddle and cause descent within their electorates.

It doesn't help that those electorates are so easily distracted by shiny objects. [ours chiefly amongst these :roll:]
Click to expand...

I totally agree. Creating fear, uncertainty and doubt in a target audience is a well worn communication strategy. Demonizing the "other" is a trademark of oppressive autocratic governments. That it also hides corrupt behavior behind all that bullcrap chaff is a given, with the current administration being the benchmark example.
 
ModernDiogenes said:
Liberalism: a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. [Wikapedia]

Conservatism: a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights.[1] Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as religion, parliamentary government, and property rights, with the aim of emphasizing social stability and continuity. [Wikapedia]

What we label as Liberalism today, more and more, are extremist views that border on socialism. Socialism is not the Nth degree of Liberalism any more than Fascism is Conservatism drawn out to its Nth degree.

Our Founding Fathers, in their desire for change and the institution of governing by representation of public mandate, were political Progressives. This nation was born of Liberal thought. Yet that Liberal thought took place, in part, to preserve the rights of property. That they not be taxed away by a governing entity that did not represent the will or respect the rights of those who produced what was taxed. Certainly what we’d define as classic Conservative principle.

If their efforts, that brought about the birth of this nation, doesn’t prove that conservative and liberal thinking can’t coexist to bring about well rounded and constructive results than I don’t know what does.

We’ve lost the historical perspective. In doing so we’ve morphed what were well defined concepts of political thought and warped their meanings.

Let us first help reinstitute that by defining our terms as what they actually are, and not all this folderol that’s been added to them.

Actual Conservatism isn’t corporatism. It’s not nation building. It’s not White supremacy. Let’s call those things what they are.

Actual Liberalism isn’t against free markets and the seizing of private property in the name of the state. It’s not minority rule, or the proletariat. Let’s call this things what they are.

Then let us get back to being a nation that looks at ideas and concepts, instead of labels, and picks and chooses from all things on the basis of the merit of the idea and what works.
Click to expand...

What unifies progressives throughout time is the belief that intellectuals should run the government (as opposed to kings, priests, demagogues, or any other bogeyman). The actual beliefs don't matter.

In the 18th century, when actual kings and noblemen held sway over the British government, "taxes are too high" was a viable progressive rallying cry. Once they got their foot in the door, that ceased to be an effective justification for getting more power (for obvious reasons). Thus "progress" morphed into its modern pseudo-socialistic form. Though the policy prescriptions are radically different, modern leftism is the natural outgrowth of classical liberalism.

ModernDiogenes said:
Do you think Theodore Roosevelt would recognized the Conservative or Republican federal platforms as conservative?
Click to expand...

Well no. Anyone from Theodore Roosevelt's time would see the modern Republican and Democratic Parties as extreme left-wing groups. This is so obvious it's hard to see how anyone could not see it (though I'm aware many progressives are under the delusion that Republicans today are more right-wing than Republicans in the past).
 
ModernDiogenes said:
Liberalism: a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. [Wikapedia]
Click to expand...

Lol I can guarantee you a liberal typed that definition into Wikipedia :lamo

Here's a better definition:

Liberalism: a philosophy, usually connecting with atheism, based on discarding all ethical and moral values, and narrowly focused on change just for the sake of change, often accompanied by a philosophy of "end justifies the means" in order to achieve narrowminded goals which cater to a specific group of individuals, rather than society as a whole
 
Last edited:
AmNat said:
What unifies progressives throughout time is the belief that intellectuals should run the government (as opposed to kings, priests, demagogues, or any other bogeyman). The actual beliefs don't matter.

In the 18th century, when actual kings and noblemen held sway over the British government, "taxes are too high" was a viable progressive rallying cry. Once they got their foot in the door, that ceased to be an effective justification for getting more power (for obvious reasons). Thus "progress" morphed into its modern pseudo-socialistic form. Though the policy prescriptions are radically different, modern leftism is the natural outgrowth of classical liberalism.



Well no. Anyone from Theodore Roosevelt's time would see the modern Republican and Democratic Parties as extreme left-wing groups. This is so obvious it's hard to see how anyone could not see it (though I'm aware many progressives are under the delusion that Republicans today are more right-wing than Republicans in the past).
Click to expand...

T. Roosevelt believed in small government. He didn’t hold well with big business either, making strong use of the Sherman Anti-trust Act to break up cartels like Rockefeller’s Standard Oil., among others.

He believed in spend as you go, balanced budgets.

He would be a Libertarian these days.

Your average Republican these days falls into one of three camps, with crossover allowed: nation building neo-cons, corporatists, and Christian Fundi’s. Like I said, with a large segment belonging to two or more categories.
 
ReubenSherr said:
Lol I can guarantee you a liberal typed that definition into Wikipedia :lamo

Here's a better definition:

Liberalism: a philosophy, usually connecting with atheism, based on discarding all ethical and moral values, and narrowly focused on change just for the sake of change, often accompanied by a philosophy of "end justifies the means" in order to achieve narrowminded goals which cater to a specific group of individuals, rather than society as a whole
Click to expand...

Feh. I equally guarantee a staunch Fox viewer just to the political Right of Hannity was responsible for that one. {LOL}
 
ReubenSherr said:
Lol I can guarantee you a liberal typed that definition into Wikipedia :lamo

Here's a better definition:

Liberalism: a philosophy, usually connecting with atheism, based on discarding all ethical and moral values, and narrowly focused on change just for the sake of change, often accompanied by a philosophy of "end justifies the means" in order to achieve narrowminded goals which cater to a specific group of individuals, rather than society as a whole
Click to expand...

I recommend Merriam-webster's to Americans.

Definition of liberalism
1: the quality or state of being liberal
2aoften 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 sense 1)
c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy (see AUTONOMY sense 2) of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

Of course we understand that a certain group of conservatives is allergic to books, especially reference books, and they prefer to make up words and meanings as they go along. Allowances must be made, and so long as the dimwits aren't taken seriously discussion can procede.
 
PeteEU said:
:lol:

That is exactly what Conservatives have been saying forever.. if you throw enough mud, then at some point it will stick.. which is exactly what has happened with the word liberalism.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine defined liberal v conservative thusly : Conservatives want to regulate what you do in the bedroom; liberals want to regulate everywhere else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom