Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 25

 

Poll

Since joining BF2S's D&ST, have your political views strayed to the...

Far Left9%9% - 6
Left7%7% - 5
Moderate Left19%19% - 12
Center (more or less)26%26% - 17
Moderate Right9%9% - 6
Right19%19% - 12
Far Right7%7% - 5
Total: 63
2010-05-01 16:47:27
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6756

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lowing. YOU FUCKING MORON.

'liberal' DID NOT START WITH CARTER. IT STARTED ABOUT 300 YEARS EARLIER.

classical, european liberalism, the ORIGINAL and PROPER use of the term 'liberal', does not stand for ANYTHING that Carter stood for

hence why american political commentators insist on those pesky annoying 'neo' prefixes: so fucking idiots like you don't get CONFUSED

apparently the effort is wasted
I see, so you attach a NEW word meaning new, yet fix it to an old word in order to get back to the old meaning.....got it....Only a liberal would dream up some bullshit like that. Or is it a neo liberal that would? Oh well.
arrrrggggh this isnt about political affiliation at all, stop trying to make it into a slapfight. this is about being able to differentiate between the original liberal (or any political swaying) meaning, and the current ones practised in america. in no shape or sort or form is this 'liberal bullshit' its just a way to tell the two apart. FOR FUCKS SAKE you're just wrong. it happens.
yeah lowing, stop arguing... you're just a dumbass on this matter. you didn't understand something. you got schooled. sit down. be quiet.

the word 'neo' just implies the retaking of a term or the reinvention/reintroduction of an old doctrine. 'neo'-liberalism as a political system just intends to stick to the classic economic and social tenets of european classical liberalism- the old stuff originally theorized. the reason that they attach the 'new' meaning to talk about an 'old' term is, because as i've explained about 5 times now, it's much easier to give it a slightly new term (a neologism) than to try to change everyone's common understanding and perception of the old one.

YOU are the BEST example of this. the mention of the word liberal gets you all in a sweat and in a huffle-puffle, trying to insult everyone and claim we're all hippie liberal faggots. that's because your understanding and YOUR meaning to the word liberal is INCORRECT; a malapropism from the carter-era (in your own terms). political scientists and academics have to thus attach 'neo' to the front of the word because of dumbasses like you that continually insist on spreading and using the word in its WRONG context with the WRONG 'true' meaning.

as ted eloquently put it: you're just wrong, it happens
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-05-01 17:07:16
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6814|Global Command

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

This all seems very familiar.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=68717

Or..

You left out some key parts of that post sir.
Selective quoting ftl.
lol.. did I offend you or something? It was for shiz an jizz.

here, cause this clears everything up

Devoid of ideas they simply oppose every move by anyone with a Republican leaning.
     These are the guys who don't believe in borders. These are the gun banning secret selling people who think America doesn't deserve it's place in the food chain.
     Liberals are led by morons like Murtha and Al Gore who go around saying Americas Armies are broken, her soldiers torture innocents.
     Liberals are the types poisoning the minds of our students, indoctorinating them to hate America. They deserve no more than a few seconds against a cold brick wall and a couple of ounce of hot lead at about 2400 fps. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, Republicans are almost as bad.
Nah, it's all good.

I just think that post painted me unfairly.

Now, I was a hardtroll shock poster back then. I posted a thread in dst once suggesting ac130 gunships be used on a crowd of May Day marchers.


Ridiculous even by my own low standards back then, but I was new to forums and liked stirring up shit.

Yet...

if you strip away from the bs and analyze what I said;

Devoid of ideas they simply oppose every move by anyone with a Republican leaning.

that is American politics; opposition for its own sake.

These are the guys who don't believe in borders. These are the gun banning secret selling people who think America doesn't deserve it's place in the food chain.

ummm...sayeth the anointed one; " like it or not, America is a super-power.  "

And his comments on the Arizona law; " all people in Arizona have the protection of the Constitution..."


   Liberals are the types poisoning the minds of our students, indoctorinating them to hate America.

Kinda goes without saying. Unless you are left, you are a monster. Write books about assassinating George Bush and be a hero.

And the main point is that the biggest distraction is the phony divide between our two parties. We are being suckered. We are offer no choice every four years and all the drama, like the bush/gore election was just that.
2010-05-01 17:09:07
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6785|so randum
atg seriously less fucking spaces
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2010-05-01 18:12:37
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7057|PNW

thread wrote:

neo-
https://wdpk837.whoisbenhustis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/neo_whoa_1.png

---

ruisleipa wrote:

no option for they haven't changed?
The poll's for change. If they haven't, you can post about it.

---

JohnG@lt wrote:

'Right' and 'Left' mean very little. Are you talking about economic or social policy? They aren't the same by any means. It's better to use the political compass concept with cardinal directions, North, East, South, West with variants in between.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Definitions of the above terms open to interpretation.
Also, there are too many points on the NESW grid for a poll. It's much easier to stick with a left-right scale and have people flesh out their vote (y-axis) in a descriptive post.

---

3 hours, 26 minutes ago      [D&ST Political Slider 2010]      best (unintentional) troll thread of the year to date! m3th
All threads are subject to a derail at some point. I don't think this one is in as much immediate danger of (complete) degeneration as others.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2010-05-01 18:28:26)

2010-05-01 18:20:14
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6960|Canberra, AUS
*blinks at thread*
*laughs at thread*

Holy shit lowing, holy shit. Is it really that hard?!
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-05-01 18:31:57
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

Uzique wrote:

lowing. YOU FUCKING MORON.

'liberal' DID NOT START WITH CARTER. IT STARTED ABOUT 300 YEARS EARLIER.

classical, european liberalism, the ORIGINAL and PROPER use of the term 'liberal', does not stand for ANYTHING that Carter stood for

hence why american political commentators insist on those pesky annoying 'neo' prefixes: so fucking idiots like you don't get CONFUSED

apparently the effort is wasted
Let's give credit where it's due. The basis for Classical Liberalism is English Philosophical Thought. The meaning of liberal changed when they started embracing German philosophy and leaving the English school of thought in the library collecting dust. New is not always better, and in the case of philosophical views, the German was not superior to the English unless your goal was to run a hive-mind Prussian militaristic state. This wasn't limited to America either, Britain itself went through the same transformation at the turn of the 20th century and it wasn't until Thatcher that it changed. She's the one that brought F.A. Hayek and his ideas to the forefront. American liberals (especially higher education) just haven't caught up yet and are still stuck in their worship of Kant, Nietzsche, Marx, Freud etc.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-05-01 18:36:30
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

Uzique wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:


I see, so you attach a NEW word meaning new, yet fix it to an old word in order to get back to the old meaning.....got it....Only a liberal would dream up some bullshit like that. Or is it a neo liberal that would? Oh well.
arrrrggggh this isnt about political affiliation at all, stop trying to make it into a slapfight. this is about being able to differentiate between the original liberal (or any political swaying) meaning, and the current ones practised in america. in no shape or sort or form is this 'liberal bullshit' its just a way to tell the two apart. FOR FUCKS SAKE you're just wrong. it happens.
yeah lowing, stop arguing... you're just a dumbass on this matter. you didn't understand something. you got schooled. sit down. be quiet.

the word 'neo' just implies the retaking of a term or the reinvention/reintroduction of an old doctrine. 'neo'-liberalism as a political system just intends to stick to the classic economic and social tenets of european classical liberalism- the old stuff originally theorized. the reason that they attach the 'new' meaning to talk about an 'old' term is, because as i've explained about 5 times now, it's much easier to give it a slightly new term (a neologism) than to try to change everyone's common understanding and perception of the old one.

YOU are the BEST example of this. the mention of the word liberal gets you all in a sweat and in a huffle-puffle, trying to insult everyone and claim we're all hippie liberal faggots. that's because your understanding and YOUR meaning to the word liberal is INCORRECT; a malapropism from the carter-era (in your own terms). political scientists and academics have to thus attach 'neo' to the front of the word because of dumbasses like you that continually insist on spreading and using the word in its WRONG context with the WRONG 'true' meaning.

as ted eloquently put it: you're just wrong, it happens
It goes back further than that... to the 1890s at least. When German thought (Marx) met American liberalism, it was embraced and the meaning of the word changed at that point. By the 1920s the word had become a perjorative.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-05-01 18:52:43
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6756
i am trying to bifurcate the two different uses of the word in an explanation to lowing...

i'll stick to "american liberalism = carter" for now, having seen that as his named example. bringing in names like marx will only get the "SOCIALIST SCUM IN DENIAL!" treatment. im already trying to communicate the idea that one can discuss a doctrine without subscribing to it. i don't want to make my job any harder, thanks .

thanks for the history lesson, as well. ive already read-up on all my philosophy. studied economics. glad you're engaged with it, too, though.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-05-01 19:00:50
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5544|foggy bottom
i knew how to call em a long time ago
Tu Stultus Es
2010-05-02 09:43:41
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lowing. YOU FUCKING MORON.

'liberal' DID NOT START WITH CARTER. IT STARTED ABOUT 300 YEARS EARLIER.

classical, european liberalism, the ORIGINAL and PROPER use of the term 'liberal', does not stand for ANYTHING that Carter stood for

hence why american political commentators insist on those pesky annoying 'neo' prefixes: so fucking idiots like you don't get CONFUSED

apparently the effort is wasted
I see, so you attach a NEW word meaning new, yet fix it to an old word in order to get back to the old meaning.....got it....Only a liberal would dream up some bullshit like that. Or is it a neo liberal that would? Oh well.
arrrrggggh this isnt about political affiliation at all, stop trying to make it into a slapfight. this is about being able to differentiate between the original liberal (or any political swaying) meaning, and the current ones practised in america. in no shape or sort or form is this 'liberal bullshit' its just a way to tell the two apart. FOR FUCKS SAKE you're just wrong. it happens.
liberal and conservative works just fine. No complaints from the conservative camp, of course the conservative label has not done itself in quite like the those that tote the liberal banner. SO much so, that they gotta find a new word, whatever happened to "PROGRESSIVE"? Liberals took that word and made it their own, only to make progress synonymous with the celebration of failure and entitlement.

Also do not accuse me of slapfighting, for that you need to turn everyone else.

Last edited by lowing (2010-05-02 12:08:26)

2010-05-02 09:51:42
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Uzique wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

I see, so you attach a NEW word meaning new, yet fix it to an old word in order to get back to the old meaning.....got it....Only a liberal would dream up some bullshit like that. Or is it a neo liberal that would? Oh well.
arrrrggggh this isnt about political affiliation at all, stop trying to make it into a slapfight. this is about being able to differentiate between the original liberal (or any political swaying) meaning, and the current ones practised in america. in no shape or sort or form is this 'liberal bullshit' its just a way to tell the two apart. FOR FUCKS SAKE you're just wrong. it happens.
yeah lowing, stop arguing... you're just a dumbass on this matter. you didn't understand something. you got schooled. sit down. be quiet.

the word 'neo' just implies the retaking of a term or the reinvention/reintroduction of an old doctrine. 'neo'-liberalism as a political system just intends to stick to the classic economic and social tenets of european classical liberalism- the old stuff originally theorized. the reason that they attach the 'new' meaning to talk about an 'old' term is, because as i've explained about 5 times now, it's much easier to give it a slightly new term (a neologism) than to try to change everyone's common understanding and perception of the old one.

YOU are the BEST example of this. the mention of the word liberal gets you all in a sweat and in a huffle-puffle, trying to insult everyone and claim we're all hippie liberal faggots. that's because your understanding and YOUR meaning to the word liberal is INCORRECT; a malapropism from the carter-era (in your own terms). political scientists and academics have to thus attach 'neo' to the front of the word because of dumbasses like you that continually insist on spreading and using the word in its WRONG context with the WRONG 'true' meaning.

as ted eloquently put it: you're just wrong, it happens
already addressed this read up.

Also I have never called anyone "hippie liberal faggots".  To do so would insult "faggots" all over the world.

People like you are the ones getting all hot and bothered and in a sweat and a huffle and a puffle". Might wanna re-read the posts in here.


I got this in karma   "You should probably step back from BF2S for a bit, then reenter with a cooler head. You're being used by these guys as their personal ball of yarn. -un13"... I love this. I am called every name in the book and then I am told I need to leave and re-enter with a cooler head......Now that is funny!!!

I wonder where all the mods are with all the bans for the personal insults in this thread.........Oh well, much like liberalism or is it neo liberalism which now means old liberalism, there is no rhyme or reason to their rationality either.

Last edited by lowing (2010-05-02 12:00:42)

2010-05-02 12:47:16
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England
You need to watch less Glenn Beck lowing.

Not all liberals are bad you know, some resemble... actual liberal thought. The people you identify as Liberals/Progressives are the ones that co-opted the word and made it mean it's antonym. They've turned it so the word, in politics, refers to a populist and conformist set of ideals. Because the word appeals to the people who get an ego boost by attaching labels like 'free thinking' 'free spirited' and yes, 'liberal' to themselves, the political agents used the word to appeal to them. Now a bunch of idiots without the faintest notion of what they are talking about support a myriad of takeover policies that would ultimately destroy what they think they are fighting for under the banner of Liberalism/Progressivism. That's the irony.

All people are doing by adding a 'neo' in front of the word is detaching it from the meaning that it currently has. They're not trying to pull the wool over your eyes and hide behind a different word. They're genuinely using it to take the word back before it was co-opted by the political agents I mentioned before in this post. Neo-Liberalism is synonymous with Libertarianism. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the Liberal/Progressives that you so rightly despise.

For all your... well, lowing, in this thread, the entire premise of the argument seems to have gone completely over your head. A Neo-Liberal is the exact fucking opposite of a modern day Liberal.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-05-02 13:11:23
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

You need to watch less Glenn Beck lowing.

Not all liberals are bad you know, some resemble... actual liberal thought. The people you identify as Liberals/Progressives are the ones that co-opted the word and made it mean it's antonym. They've turned it so the word, in politics, refers to a populist and conformist set of ideals. Because the word appeals to the people who get an ego boost by attaching labels like 'free thinking' 'free spirited' and yes, 'liberal' to themselves, the political agents used the word to appeal to them. Now a bunch of idiots without the faintest notion of what they are talking about support a myriad of takeover policies that would ultimately destroy what they think they are fighting for under the banner of Liberalism/Progressivism. That's the irony.

All people are doing by adding a 'neo' in front of the word is detaching it from the meaning that it currently has. They're not trying to pull the wool over your eyes and hide behind a different word. They're genuinely using it to take the word back before it was co-opted by the political agents I mentioned before in this post. Neo-Liberalism is synonymous with Libertarianism. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the Liberal/Progressives that you so rightly despise.

For all your... well, lowing, in this thread, the entire premise of the argument seems to have gone completely over your head. A Neo-Liberal is the exact fucking opposite of a modern day Liberal.
Nothing has gone over my head.... WHat the problem is, is there is no NEW train of thought out there. No fresh ideas There are no new liberal ideas that are old liberal ideas. The country is falling worse into socialism and entitlement not receding from it, and there is no movement other than a conservative movement to steer the country away from those cliffs. There is no reason to coin a "NEO" term for liberal when we have conservative and libertarian that represents responsibility and accountability.  If you are against liberalism, then call yourself a conservative and move on. Stop with your "NEO" bullshit already.

If you wanna take back words that have lost their meaning, start with racist and racsim. Maybe we can call it "NEO" racists. Does that make you feel better?
2010-05-02 13:13:46
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85
lowing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

"Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the 18th century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the 20th century."

Do you understand this? "neo" is to differentiate today's bullshit from 18th century's and even earlier bullshit.

You don't like social liberalism. You probably like classical liberalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

"Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the 19th century in England, Western Europe, and the Americas. It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets."

Instead of saying "social liberalism" we can also say "neo liberalism" to differentiate it from classical liberalism.
2010-05-02 13:20:34
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You need to watch less Glenn Beck lowing.

Not all liberals are bad you know, some resemble... actual liberal thought. The people you identify as Liberals/Progressives are the ones that co-opted the word and made it mean it's antonym. They've turned it so the word, in politics, refers to a populist and conformist set of ideals. Because the word appeals to the people who get an ego boost by attaching labels like 'free thinking' 'free spirited' and yes, 'liberal' to themselves, the political agents used the word to appeal to them. Now a bunch of idiots without the faintest notion of what they are talking about support a myriad of takeover policies that would ultimately destroy what they think they are fighting for under the banner of Liberalism/Progressivism. That's the irony.

All people are doing by adding a 'neo' in front of the word is detaching it from the meaning that it currently has. They're not trying to pull the wool over your eyes and hide behind a different word. They're genuinely using it to take the word back before it was co-opted by the political agents I mentioned before in this post. Neo-Liberalism is synonymous with Libertarianism. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the Liberal/Progressives that you so rightly despise.

For all your... well, lowing, in this thread, the entire premise of the argument seems to have gone completely over your head. A Neo-Liberal is the exact fucking opposite of a modern day Liberal.
Nothing has gone over my head.... WHat the problem is, is there is no NEW train of thought out there. No fresh ideas There are no new liberal ideas that are old liberal ideas. The country is falling worse into socialism and entitlement not receding from it, and there is no movement other than a conservative movement to steer the country away from those cliffs. There is no reason to coin a "NEO" term for liberal when we have conservative and libertarian that represents responsibility and accountability.  If you are against liberalism, then call yourself a conservative and move on. Stop with your "NEO" bullshit already.

If you wanna take back words that have lost their meaning, start with racist and racsim. Maybe we can call it "NEO" racists. Does that make you feel better?
But I am in no way shape or form a conservative. That's what you don't get. About the only thing I have in common with Conservatives is their desire to keep the markets free and the only reason they even give a shit about that is because they need the political donations that management gives them.

Do you have any idea how closely Socialist and Christian ideals really are? They're almost identical except for one glaring mistake Marx made when he wrote his books, he demonized religion and dreamed of an atheist utopia instead. He simply wanted to free people from all forms of oppression and tyranny (and the clergy fit the bill in that regard, especially within the Catholic church of the 1800s). That was his mistake. If he didn't make that error the hardcore Christians conservatives would've taken up the flag of Socialism long ago. The premise of Socialism is 'love thy neighbor'.

Your problem is that you don't even understand why you believe the things you do. You're not alone though, the same could be said for 95%+ of the people on this planet. It's absolutely rare to find a person whose ideas and opinions aren't wholly conflicted.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-02 13:21:57)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-05-02 13:23:23
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

lowing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

"Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the 18th century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the 20th century."

Do you understand this? "neo" is to differentiate today's bullshit from 18th century's and even earlier bullshit.
Would be great if no one was on the same page in todays world as to what liberalism means, today!. Problem is, you can't stand that being a liberal is synomonous with socialism and communism, entitlement and welfare,. When you speak of liberal in America, EVERYONE knows exactly what you mean. There is nothing lost in translation. 

You all have no problem redfining racism and terorrism to suit your arguments why now then, all of a sudden, do ya need a new term to cover liberalism? YOu all are the masters at word re-definition.
2010-05-02 13:26:10
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

lowing wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

lowing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

"Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the 18th century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the 20th century."

Do you understand this? "neo" is to differentiate today's bullshit from 18th century's and even earlier bullshit.
Would be great if no one was on the same page in todays world as to what liberalism means, today!. Problem is, you can't stand that being a liberal is synomonous with socialism and communism, entitlement and welfare,. When you speak of liberal in America, EVERYONE knows exactly what you mean. There is nothing lost in translation. 

You all have no problem redfining racism and terorrism to suit your arguments why now then, all of a sudden, do ya need a new term to cover liberalism? YOu all are the masters at word re-definition.
Why are you saying 'you'? We aren't the ones that changed the word from it's original meaning. We just want it mean what it's supposed to and that's got nothing to do with socialism.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-05-02 13:29:11
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You need to watch less Glenn Beck lowing.

Not all liberals are bad you know, some resemble... actual liberal thought. The people you identify as Liberals/Progressives are the ones that co-opted the word and made it mean it's antonym. They've turned it so the word, in politics, refers to a populist and conformist set of ideals. Because the word appeals to the people who get an ego boost by attaching labels like 'free thinking' 'free spirited' and yes, 'liberal' to themselves, the political agents used the word to appeal to them. Now a bunch of idiots without the faintest notion of what they are talking about support a myriad of takeover policies that would ultimately destroy what they think they are fighting for under the banner of Liberalism/Progressivism. That's the irony.

All people are doing by adding a 'neo' in front of the word is detaching it from the meaning that it currently has. They're not trying to pull the wool over your eyes and hide behind a different word. They're genuinely using it to take the word back before it was co-opted by the political agents I mentioned before in this post. Neo-Liberalism is synonymous with Libertarianism. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the Liberal/Progressives that you so rightly despise.

For all your... well, lowing, in this thread, the entire premise of the argument seems to have gone completely over your head. A Neo-Liberal is the exact fucking opposite of a modern day Liberal.
Nothing has gone over my head.... WHat the problem is, is there is no NEW train of thought out there. No fresh ideas There are no new liberal ideas that are old liberal ideas. The country is falling worse into socialism and entitlement not receding from it, and there is no movement other than a conservative movement to steer the country away from those cliffs. There is no reason to coin a "NEO" term for liberal when we have conservative and libertarian that represents responsibility and accountability.  If you are against liberalism, then call yourself a conservative and move on. Stop with your "NEO" bullshit already.

If you wanna take back words that have lost their meaning, start with racist and racsim. Maybe we can call it "NEO" racists. Does that make you feel better?
But I am in no way shape or form a conservative. That's what you don't get. About the only thing I have in common with Conservatives is their desire to keep the markets free and the only reason they even give a shit about that is because they need the political donations that management gives them.

Do you have any idea how closely Socialist and Christian ideals really are? They're almost identical except for one glaring mistake Marx made when he wrote his books, he demonized religion and dreamed of an atheist utopia instead. He simply wanted to free people from all forms of oppression and tyranny (and the clergy fit the bill in that regard, especially within the Catholic church of the 1800s). That was his mistake. If he didn't make that error the hardcore Christians conservatives would've taken up the flag of Socialism long ago. The premise of Socialism is 'love thy neighbor'.

Your problem is that you don't even understand why you believe the things you do. You're not alone though, the same could be said for 95%+ of the people on this planet. It's absolutely rare to find a person whose ideas and opinions aren't wholly conflicted.
Conservative and liberal have long held their camps. The words are now as they are accepted. Everyone understands them as they are so go with it.

But again, you are all seeking the original definitions of words, why not start with racism? There seems to be no problem bastardizing that word to suit your needs as you set out to discredit anyone that disagrees with you, and yet, we must fix liberalism?
2010-05-02 13:31:32
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85
dude fuck. off. about what I believe and who I do/do not like. Socialism communism entitlement welfare and social liberalism can die in a fucking fire. You have to realize that in so many areas of academia these words are so overloaded that you can't make heads or tails out of it. "neo" is a poor attempt at differentiating between true liberalism - the love of personal liberty and rights - and the "liberal" democrats.

Conservatism does not mean the love of personal liberty and rights, it is about stability and keeping things the way they are. A conservative in a welfare state wants to maintain a welfare state. Obviously that is not what you are for.

The problem is liberal should not be synonymous with the Democratic Party and conservative should not be synonymous with the Republican Party. That is just not what the words mean. It's not "redefining" anything, it's using the words as they are meant to be used and not as they are used in partisan rhetoric. So yeah, there is a lot lost in translation.

Frankly to differentiate we should just call social liberals bleeding hearts and be done with it, neo is stupidly overloaded as well.

also read my edit to the other post
2010-05-02 13:32:11
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England
You know what lowing? You win. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall so I give up. You automatically win any conversation you enter where I am involved because I'm done responding to you. It's like arguing with a two year old.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-05-02 13:40:00
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

dude fuck. off. about what I believe and who I do/do not like. Socialism communism entitlement welfare and social liberalism can die in a fucking fire. You have to realize that in so many areas of academia these words are so overloaded that you can't make heads or tails out of it. "neo" is a poor attempt at differentiating between true liberalism - the love of personal liberty and rights - and the "liberal" democrats.

Conservatism does not mean the love of personal liberty and rights, it is about stability and keeping things the way they are. A conservative in a welfare state wants to maintain a welfare state. Obviously that is not what you are for.

The problem is liberal should not be synonymous with the Democratic Party and conservative should not be synonymous with the Republican Party. That is just not what the words mean. It's not "redefining" anything, it's using the words as they are meant to be used and not as they are used in partisan rhetoric. So yeah, there is a lot lost in translation.

Frankly to differentiate we should just call social liberals bleeding hearts and be done with it, neo is stupidly overloaded as well.

also read my edit to the other post
I see so "neo-con" was not meant as the evil step mother to conservativism, it was coined by liberals, to mean a throughback to true conservatism of yesteryear..I understand now.

andwhy is no one addressing the lack of desire to fix the word racism back to what it mean a mere year and a half ago? I mean as long as we are into fixing words all of a sudden.
2010-05-02 13:41:10
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

You know what lowing? You win. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall so I give up. You automatically win any conversation you enter where I am involved because I'm done responding to you. It's like arguing with a two year old.
Sorry ya feel that way, but when you refuse to address what I post, you already are ignoring me. So nothing really new there.
2010-05-02 13:42:22
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6814|Global Command

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

dude fuck. off.
Well said. Or, said from a whale. Or, swell ahead.
Didn't I get an AWM from you not so long ago for something less harsh?
2010-05-02 13:42:59
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

lowing wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

dude fuck. off. about what I believe and who I do/do not like. Socialism communism entitlement welfare and social liberalism can die in a fucking fire. You have to realize that in so many areas of academia these words are so overloaded that you can't make heads or tails out of it. "neo" is a poor attempt at differentiating between true liberalism - the love of personal liberty and rights - and the "liberal" democrats.

Conservatism does not mean the love of personal liberty and rights, it is about stability and keeping things the way they are. A conservative in a welfare state wants to maintain a welfare state. Obviously that is not what you are for.

The problem is liberal should not be synonymous with the Democratic Party and conservative should not be synonymous with the Republican Party. That is just not what the words mean. It's not "redefining" anything, it's using the words as they are meant to be used and not as they are used in partisan rhetoric. So yeah, there is a lot lost in translation.

Frankly to differentiate we should just call social liberals bleeding hearts and be done with it, neo is stupidly overloaded as well.

also read my edit to the other post
I see so "neo-con" was not meant as the evil step mother to conservativism, it was coined by liberals, to mean a throughback to true conservatism of yesteryear..I understand now.

andwhy is no one addressing the lack of desire to fix the word racism back to what it mean a mere year and a half ago? I mean as long as we are into fixing words all of a sudden.
Well more like they coined neo-con so they could go on about how fucked up the neo-cons are, without going against anything that conservative used to mean. Both sides are doing it so they can essentially have their cake and eat it to, but there truly is a difference between what the word meant then and what the word meant now.

What did racism mean a year and a half ago?
2010-05-02 13:46:05
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You know what lowing? You win. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall so I give up. You automatically win any conversation you enter where I am involved because I'm done responding to you. It's like arguing with a two year old.
Sorry ya feel that way, but when you refuse to address what I post, you already are ignoring me. So nothing really new there.
Because you're changing the subject because you backed yourself into a corner and simply refuse to say 'I'm wrong'.

What did the definition of racism have to do with anything anyway? When was it changed and what was it changed to? Sorry, I'm not up to date on my conservative conspiracy theories. Are you talking about the people who say disagreeing with Obama is racist? If so, then yes, those people are idiots. If you're talking about something else I'm clueless. The entire concept of racism is absolutely ludicrous to me in the first place.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 25

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard