Dan Espen wrote in
:
Jim Yanik writes:
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".
Now why would we research "liberal fascism"?
You didn't mention it, did you.
Until now, as you try to weasel out of your incorrect statement.
I've known a lot of liberals, and I just looked up
the definition and posted it. Clearly there is no
fascism involved.
Unlike the current administration.
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.
Yes "DemocRATs". Name calling. The refuge of those who have no
point. Lot's of names for Republicans today.
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.)
Oh right:
"The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in an atmosphere of
anti-Communist sentiment in the U.S. in 1949..."
Yes,and it's effect was for networks to AVOID any political talk at all,to
keep from running afoul of the "Fairness Doctrine" law.
There was good reason to void thatlaw.
THAT is why the "Liberals" want to reinstate it;to regain their liberal
monopoly on the media,to stifle the new outlets that Conservatives found to
get their voices heard.Censorship."liberals" are pro-censorship,via
political correctness,campus speech codes,"diversity" codes and laws.
Liberals are the ones shouting down Conservative campus speakers,denying
them their free speech,they also toss pies,physically assaulting the
speakers.
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.)
Judge Scalia is against it, so I'm for it.
Oh? you dont think that laws should mean the same thing day after day,year
after year?(as WRITTEN,not what some judge reads into it)
Seriously, reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
I see both sides but don't see anything wrong with the concept.
The idea is that to change the Constitution,you AMEND it,not "reinterpret"
the law,changing it's original meaning.
They want to tax and redistribute income for their social
programs.(disregarding the failures of all their previous programs)
BS. Bill Clinton, the extreme liberal, signed into law
welfare reform. That argument is dead.
you have SUCH a narrow view of things.
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".
Ok, you win, I just looked it up:
Liberal Fascism:
1) A Illogical word created by Right-Wingers in an attempt to
cover-up Fascism's Right-wing roots.
Do you have a cite for this?
2) Also the title of a illogical book that makes a poor attempt
to connect liberalism to Fascism.
No,Goldberg's book shows how today's "liberalism" is more fascist than the
conservatives.
[but liberals are often calling Conservaties Fascists;**name calling**]
3) A popular word within the Conservative Hate culture
Translation;if you are Conservative,you're a hater.
4) A word that would make a person with the most basic knowledge
of Politics laugh at you.
Liberal "knowledge".
Liberal Fascism is a failed attempt to demonize a ideology that
Democracy was founded on.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
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.
Still waiting for that apology.
BWahaha.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net