BF2S Forums True Definition of Liberal Please?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

So a war possibly twice as long as WWII is short?  I want to know your opinion on why terrorists are fighting against the US, and to tell me what we can do in the next 5 years (we have been fighting them since late 2001) to get them to stop.  Concrete answers, not abstract.

If your view, when did wwii start?  Mine is about the time Hitler came to power. ~1933  WWII ended in 1945 with resistance fighters for another 2 years.

They hate us?  We're not the only ones they're fighting against either if that was your point.  Spain, England, Israel, India, etc.

Would kill them be a possible answer?  Stop their fundings?  Eliminate their training grounds?

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

"Liberalism is an ideology, philosophy, and political tradition which holds liberty as the primary political value. Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government, wealth, and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed."

This portion of your quote refers to Classical Liberalism...which we know today as Libertarianism.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy in the form of either a republic (e.g. France, Germany and India) or a constitutional monarchy (e.g. the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the countries of the Commonwealth realm), with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.".

Refers to modern Liberalism, but isn't the whole story.  From the same source:

"Today the word "liberalism" is used differently in different countries. (See Liberalism worldwide.) One of the greatest contrasts is between the usage in the United States and usage in Continental Europe. In the US, liberalism is usually contrasted with conservatism, and American liberals support broader tolerance and more readily embrace multiculturalism and affirmative action. In Europe, on the other hand, liberalism is not only contrasted with conservatism and Christian Democracy, but also with socialism and social democracy. In some countries, European liberals share common positions with Christian Democrats."

We need to be aware that in the US, particularly, the term 'Liberalism' includes most of what is associated with center left to just shy of 'hard' left political philosophy.  Many self-described 'Liberals' are also Socialists in the US, but few are Communists.

None of this denies your point, but those omissions make it easier to debate your point.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

In your view, when did wwii start?  Mine is about the time Hitler came to power. ~1933  WWII ended in 1945 with resistance fighters for another 2 years.

IN my view, WWII started in 1939, not when Hitler came to power.  So not twice as long, but significantly longer than WWII.

When did the war on terrorism start?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

They hate us?  We're not the only ones they're fighting against either if that was your point.  Spain, England, Israel, India, etc.

That is an abstract thought.  "They hate us."  Do they hate that we exist?  Do they hate our skin color?  Do they hate what we wear?  CONCRETE reasoning.  I ask this question for a few reasons, one of them being that if we cannot define why they are waging the war, how do we know how to win?

We're not Muslims.  That ok with your reasoning?  Now that a jihad has been declared Muslims are entitled to: "slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush."  That more concrete?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Would kill them be a possible answer?  Stop their fundings?  Eliminate their training grounds?

Kill them.....Who are they?  Are they the sleeper cells that were in the U.S. before the attacks?  How do we know what they look like?  So should we go around indiscriminately killling all terrorist-looking people?  I agree, stop their funding.  But as I pointed out before, much of their funding comes from the Bin Laden Group, which many powerful Americans have economic ties to, so this is unlikely to happen soon.

It wasn't Australians who took out the world trade buildings, USS Cole, US embasy, etc.  I think you can figure that one out for yourself.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

When did the war on terrorism start?

2001, shortly after the WTC bombings.  I believe we went into Afghanistan in October 2001, not sure of the correct dates

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

We're not Muslims.  That ok with your reasoning?  Now that a jihad has been declared Muslims are entitled to: "slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush."  That more concrete?

So all muslims are attacking us.  Because we are not muslim.  Come one now.  Why don't you read and listen to from the people who are coordinating these attacks against friendly interests and show me where it they say they are attacking us because we are not muslim.  And the idea of jihad has been hijacked by fundamentalist Muslims to validate their attacks on non-Muslims.  Look into what Islamic scholars all over the world have to say about this.  If need be, I can send you in the right direction.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

It wasn't Australians who took out the world trade buildings, USS Cole, US embasy, etc.  I think you can figure that one out for yourself.

Yes, it was muslim terrorists.  My point (I thought I made this clear, apparently not) is that they are not organized, specific muslims that we can target.  We cannot indiscriminately attack all muslims.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-04-05 13:13:02)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

When did the war on terrorism start?

2001, shortly after the WTC bombings.  I believe we went into Afghanistan in October 2001, not sure of the correct dates

Is 2001 when we decided to fight back even though we were at war long before then.  1993, 1998, etc.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

We're not Muslims.  That ok with your reasoning?  Now that a jihad has been declared Muslims are entitled to: "slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush."  That more concrete?

So all muslims are attacking us.  Come one now.  And the idea of jihad has been hijacked by fundamentalist Muslims to validate their attacks on non-Muslims.  Look into what Islamic scholars all over the world have to say about this.  If need be, I can send you in the right direction.

I remember 4-5 years ago MS hiring a firm to evaluate IE and then give a press conference on how much better it was than the competition.  "Sleight of hand" so to speak. 

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

It wasn't Australians who took out the world trade buildings, USS Cole, US embasy, etc.  I think you can figure that one out for yourself.

Yes, it was muslim terrorists.  My point (I thought I made this clear, apparently not) is that they are not organized, specific muslims that we can target.  We cannot indiscriminately attack all muslims.

Al-Quida, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Hizballah, etc.

Last edited by wannabe_tank_whore (2006-04-05 13:15:50)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Is 2001 when we decided to fight back even though we were at war long before then.  1993, 1998, etc.

well in that case, we've been fighting terrorism since the country was founded.

That's why it should be labeled Islamic terrorism.  Clarify who we're after.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

I remember 4-5 years ago MS hiring a firm to evaluate IE and then give a press conference on how much better it was than the competition.

i don't understand what the relevance is to that statement.

You said:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

And the idea of jihad has been hijacked by fundamentalist Muslims to validate their attacks on non-Muslims.  Look into what Islamic scholars all over the world have to say about this.  If need be, I can send you in the right direction.

I said that in response to what you said.  You didn't see the point that I was trying to make (bias statement in that MS hired the company to make the good report about its own product). One can easily say 'hey islam has been hijacked... we're peaceful... I know because i'm a scholar'.  But the 'scholars' are silent when asked to condemn the attacks.  Why?  Because they know they will be killed as a heretic.  There will be peace one day... when all non believers are either converted or killed.  Kind of like when Anakin attempted to kill off all Jedi to restore peace to the galaxy... 

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Al-Quida, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Hizballah, etc.

Ok, you have identified a few islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups.  One has direct links to terrorism on US soil.  How do you go about attacking a loosely based organization?   Answer the questions instead of providing statements that don't support your arguments.

We'll let the others be dismantled by the countries they attack.  Al-Quida is in our cross hairs now as the taliban once was (kind of still is as pockets of taliban fighters still exist).

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003 … f_GNQ.html
Scroll down to #16, Flows of Aid....
Just one example.  Use the power of the internet and research some for yourself if you are so interested.

I suggest applying political pressure to the companies doing business with the dictatorships.  Yes, we removed the tyrannical government of Iraq.  But thats not why we went there my friend (at least not the reason given to the US public).  Now, after the fact, we say we are implementing democracy.  My point being that as long as tyrannical, totalitarian/authoritarian governments are of a benefit to the US, we do nothing.  Further, we try to subversively dismantle democratically elected governments (Venezuela) when they are not in line with US interests.
But I digress.  Back to the orginal topic.  Sorry guys

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-04-05 14:29:52)

Lowing wrote:

like a said before, to limit someones wealth, and religion, is anti- american

I'm not going to argue with you there, but I will point out that that is not what the definition says.

"limitations on the power of government, wealth, and religion,"

It does not say limitations on wealth and religion, rather on what wealth and religion can do. For example, you can't buy people or reject someones college application based on their religion. That is what the definition is saying...

Seriously, it's not that complicated. Take some time and read it through next time.

Skruples wrote:

Lowing wrote:

like a said before, to limit someones wealth, and religion, is anti- american

I'm not going to argue with you there, but I will point out that that is not what the definition says.

"limitations on the power of government, wealth, and religion,"

It does not say limitations on wealth and religion, rather on what wealth and religion can do. For example, you can't buy people or reject someones college application based on their religion. That is what the definition is saying...

Seriously, it's not that complicated. Take some time and read it through next time.

""limitations on the power of government, wealth, and religion,"" well I don't know how many different ways you can READ into this QUOTE but oooooooooooook. seems pretty plain to me.

Skruples wrote:

Was my explanation not clear enough? There is a difference between putting a limitation ON something, as in a limitation ON wealth, and putting a limitation on the POWER of something, such as the limitation on the POWER of wealth.

For example: putting a limit on wealth could be saying you can not have more than a certain amount of wealth.
Putting a limit on the power of wealth could be saying you can not do certain things with this money, like buying people.

Ok please show me where that is what it means, something other than what you THINK it means.

What do you mean show you where that is what it means? It says that right in the quoted definition. Wheres Horseman when you need him, he seems to be reasonably intelligent...

I'll break it down for you, since your grasp of the English language seems somewhat tentative.

Here is the quote in question, again: "limitations on the power of government, wealth, and religion"

The important part: "limitations on the power of"

Now, limitations is a noun, meaning, from webster:
1 : an act or instance of limiting
2 : the quality or state of being limited
3 : something that limits : RESTRAINT

Power is also a noun, and here is the definition from webster:
1 a (1) : ability to act or produce an effect (2) : ability to get extra-base hits (3) : capacity for being acted upon or undergoing an effect b : legal or official authority, capacity, or right
2 a : possession of control, authority, or influence over others b : one having such power; specifically : a sovereign state c : a controlling group : ESTABLISHMENT -- often used in the phrase the powers that be d archaic : a force of armed men e chiefly dialect : a large number or quantity
3 a : physical might b : mental or moral efficacy c : political control or influence


So, as you can see (or maybe not), the aforementioned definition of liberal is not implying the limitation on wealth or religion itself, but on the ability for wealth and religion to influence events or people. Was that clear enough for you? Or do I need to draw it in crayon?

*edit* typo

Last edited by Skruples (2006-04-05 15:13:11)

Skruples wrote:

What do you mean show you where that is what it means? It says that right in the quoted definition. Wheres Horseman when you need him, he seems to be reasonably intelligent...

I'll break it down for you, since your grasp of the English language seems somewhat tentative.

Here is the quote in question, again: "limitations on the power of government, wealth, and religion"

The important part: "limitations on the power of"

Now, limitations is a noun, meaning, from webster:
1 : an act or instance of limiting
2 : the quality or state of being limited
3 : something that limits : RESTRAINT

Power is also a noun, and here is the definition from webster:
1 a (1) : ability to act or produce an effect (2) : ability to get extra-base hits (3) : capacity for being acted upon or undergoing an effect b : legal or official authority, capacity, or right
2 a : possession of control, authority, or influence over others b : one having such power; specifically : a sovereign state c : a controlling group : ESTABLISHMENT -- often used in the phrase the powers that be d archaic : a force of armed men e chiefly dialect : a large number or quantity
3 a : physical might b : mental or moral efficacy c : political control or influence


So, as you can see (or maybe not), the aforementioned definition of liberal is not implying the limitation of wealth or religion itself, but on the ability for wealth and religion to influence events or people. Was that clear enough for you? Or do I need to draw it in crayon?

*edit* typo

so by using your own words restraint of wealth as to restrain someones wealth?? .....sounds the same to me dipshit. as limiting someones wealth.

Last edited by lowing (2006-04-05 15:18:55)

I find it hard to read anything you post anymore without cracking a smile. How do you expect people to take you seriously?