Dan Espen wrote in
:
(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:
Jim Yanik wrote:
well,I guess it depends on the meaning of "liberal".
In today's world,it means "socialist" ,"progressive",or Communist.
Two out of three wrong.
Today's "liberal" is a statist.
Absurdly *backwards*.
I suggest you research "liberal fascism".
Yes, it seems so:
statism:
state intervention in personal, social or economic matters
At least our current crop of conservatives seem to fit
this description quite well.
HAH,the DemocRATs are the ones pushing for state control of everything.
THEY are the ones wanting the "Fairness Doctrine" restated,in order to
stifle the conservative new media[censorship].(they already control most of
the MSM.)
They are anti Second Amendment,they want a "Living Constitution" whose
interpretation varies with popular opinion.(meaning that what a law means
one day will not necessarily mean the same the next.)
They want to tax and redistribute income for their social
programs.(disregarding the failures of all their previous programs)
Everything belongs to or is subject to the State.
Excessive confusion seems to be the root cause of
a lot of what you say, and this is not exception.
Liberal:
# broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness;
# having political or social views favoring reform and progress
# tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or
tradition # a person who favors a political philosophy of progress
and reform and the protection of civil liberties
that's the OLD,classical definition of "liberal",TODAY,it means a
"progressive"/socialist/Communist.
(the Soviets called themselves "progressives")
I suggest you research "liberal fascism".
Hmm, sounds OK to me. I guess I'm a liberal.
But, I like to think I'm pretty ethical.
So I resent being pre-judged as somehow ethically
lacking.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net