Is Juan a liberal?

[InkL0sed]

Hint: the answer is "no"

[luns101]

I thought Juan was a Blackhawks fan

[Frigidus]

I thought Juan was a Blackhawks fan

[Neoteny]

I didn't think such things existed anymore.

[Juan_Bottom]

I thought Juan was a Blackhawks fan

I was until the new owner in like... I don't remember when, forever ago, took over.


I demand definitions.

lib⋅er⋅al   /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1325–75; ME < L līberālis of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to līber free + -ālis -al 1

lib⋅er⋅tar⋅i⋅an   /ˌlɪbərˈtɛəriən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lib-er-tair-ee-uhn] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian ).
–adjective 3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.

con⋅serv⋅a⋅tive   /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
–noun 8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.
10. (initial capital letter) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.
11. a preservative.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1350–1400; < LL conservātīvus, equiv. to L conservāt(us) (see conservation ) + -īvus -ive; r. ME conservatif < MF < L, as above

Even Dictionary.com basically painted Libertarians as liberals.


While I agree with the basic Libertarian Principles, I do not agree with the Libertarian party on many important issues.

& There is no liberal party so what am I supposed to say there?

For instance; healthcare, taxes, consentual sex ages, and the draft, property owners rights, the size of the government, the existance of a military, the duty of the government to intervene in the free market, drugs, the responsability of the individual as a trump to the need for an organized police force, and (some of) their interpretations of the 2nd amendment, to name the important stuff are all things that I disagree with the libertarian party about. I also disagree with some of their more outspoken and prominent party members about other issues such as abortion and "interpretting" what is a victimless crime.



Since Libertarianism is a political party, I am not a Libertarian. I am a a liberal who leans libertarian. I do not believe in the full-out shrinking to the governement to nothingness like they do, and I do not believe in keeping everything that you take/earn. That is what the elite rich of this country believe. I believe in helping others through taxes and social programs.
I only agree with their very core beliefs like protecting your rights, defending the Constition, victimless crimes, the war on drugs is a failure(legalize cannabus), that citizens the right to be armed, free will & liberty (except for taxes, drafts, prison), and that the government is too big and controlling.

Libertarianism is too synonimous wihth Anarchism, don't you agree?


Some liberals believe in more government control and spending, but I am not one of those. Do you agree with everything a single party or liberal/conservative says? Well, Bob Barr is not my guy, but I think he's a good guy.

& Liberal is a much broader term than Libertarian. Know your target and the party line before you label them.

Hint: the answer is "no"

Hint: you're labeling me and telling people what to think....
You must be Communist.......

[Juan_Bottom]

Sorry, I scorn labels.

[InkL0sed]

Juan, you can't preach tax cuts instead of stimulus, worship Peter Schiff, and be absolutely opposed to the bailouts and claim to be a liberal.

Your use of a dictionary definition is fallacious, because there's only one definition in there that is pertinent:
"3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism", which isn't very descriptive.

The dictionary is defining the word "liberal" in its use in sentences like "He used liberal amounts of icing on his cake", or "We must liberate Iraq".

Libertarians are not liberals. Please, do browse this site, as I don't feel like explaining the difference between a liberal and a libertarian: http://66.241.213.91/idealog.asp?ClassID=

And Libertarianism is not a party; there is a party in the US naming itself after the political philosophy, but there are Libertarians in the Republican party as well. Ron Paul, for instance.

[Juan_Bottom]

<- I don't use this one often
http://66.241.213.91/idealog.asp?ClassID=
Damn, I can't post the score. I'm right in the middle of LIBERAL... Did you forget that I already took a similer test to the one offered here? Someone go dig up that thread. Practically identical placement scores.
Order 1 Equality 8 and leaning Libertarian. Just like I said, so you can lick my hairy nutsack.

I hope this teaches you a lesson about labeling people that you don't know or understand. That's what racist do ya know? And maybe a lesson about wasting your own time doing so.

Juan, you can't preach tax cuts instead of stimulus,

Never did? WTF are you smoking? I say let the system crash.

worship Peter Schiff,

I qouted him because he had a point. If I qoute Stalin does that make me Communist?

and be absolutely opposed to the bailouts and claim to be a liberal.

Conservatives were completely opposed too. America is/was opposed.

There is nothing wrong with listening to all points of view, and forming an opinion thusly. Sometimes I will agree with Libertarians or Conservatives.

[Simon Viavant]

Sorry, I scorn labels.

Juan, you were the one who labeled yourself liberal.

[Extraterrestrial]

He's either a debt slave or a banker.

[Juan_Bottom]

He's either a debt slave or a banker.

Don't qoute Peter Schiff now or you'll be a Libertarian.

Juan, you were the one who labeled yourself liberal.

"You're a pinhead."
-Bill O'Reilly

Hey look, I qouted Bill O'Reilly, now I'm a conservative. This is fun.

[GabonX]

Juan, you can't preach tax cuts instead of stimulus, worship Peter Schiff, and be absolutely opposed to the bailouts and claim to be a liberal.

Actually you can. Obama ran on a platfom of tax cuts and the first bailouts were instituted under Bush so the things you've mentioned really don't have anything to do with being liberal or conservative at all. You can't be an Obama drone and hold the positions you mentioned but Liberal is not synonymous with allowing Obama to do your thinking for you. Which based on this post it looks like you do..

[PLAYER57832]

Gee and here I thought preserving personal liberty was a conservative desire?

ooh yeah, only when it comes to economics .. now I get it!

[Serbia]

People shouldn't hate on Juan. He's got an Hispanic name.

[InkL0sed]

Juan, you can't preach tax cuts instead of stimulus, worship Peter Schiff, and be absolutely opposed to the bailouts and claim to be a liberal.

Actually you can. Obama ran on a platfom of tax cuts and the first bailouts were instituted under Bush so the things you've mentioned really don't have anything to do with being liberal or conservative at all. You can't be an Obama drone and hold the positions you mentioned but Liberal is not synonymous with allowing Obama to do your thinking for you. Which based on this post it looks like you do..

Fallacy fallacy fallacy. Oh, did I mention fallacy?

You can't start from the conclusion that Obama is a liberal, and then say that all of his policies must then be liberal, nor can you say the same about conservatism and Bush. Not to mention that's unbelievably simplistic logic.

Nor can you say all liberals are "Obama drones" - honestly, for that comment I really shouldn't even bother responding.

Juan, I am not trying to tell you what to believe; I am trying to make sure you understand what it is to call your set of ideals, because from the positions I've seen you take in several threads, you do not seem at all liberal.

[GabonX]

Juan, you can't preach tax cuts instead of stimulus, worship Peter Schiff, and be absolutely opposed to the bailouts and claim to be a liberal.

Actually you can. Obama ran on a platfom of tax cuts and the first bailouts were instituted under Bush so the things you've mentioned really don't have anything to do with being liberal or conservative at all. You can't be an Obama drone and hold the positions you mentioned but Liberal is not synonymous with allowing Obama to do your thinking for you. Which based on this post it looks like you do..

Fallacy fallacy fallacy. Oh, did I mention fallacy?

OK. You aren't supposed to actually say fallacy when you think you see one. Rather you're supposed to demonstrate what's wrong with a statement.

You can't start from the conclusion that Obama is a liberal, and then say that all of his policies must then be liberal, nor can you say the same about conservatism and Bush. Not to mention that's unbelievably simplistic logic.

I'm not sure what to say here accept that I didn't in any way do what you said I did..

Nor can you say all liberals are "Obama drones" - honestly, for that comment I really shouldn't even bother responding.

Basically I said the exact opposite of everything you claimed I said and I've taken the liberty of bolding/underlining those segments. What I see you doing is stating a number of Obama's positions, which have nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, and claiming that because someone does not support them that they cannot be of one political persuasion and therefore must be the other. Tax cuts are not anti liberal by default. Being against the bail out is not necesairly a conservative position either. What I see you doing is taking Obama's side on every issue and claiming that anyone who disagrees with him about anything is a conservative.

Next time you want to cry "fallacy fallacy fallacy" make sure to read the post you're talking about.

[GabonX]

It just occurred to me that you're post has about three straw man arguments

[InkL0sed]

Juan, you can't preach tax cuts instead of stimulus, worship Peter Schiff, and be absolutely opposed to the bailouts and claim to be a liberal.

Actually you can. Obama ran on a platfom of tax cuts and the first bailouts were instituted under Bush so the things you've mentioned really don't have anything to do with being liberal or conservative at all. You can't be an Obama drone and hold the positions you mentioned but Liberal is not synonymous with allowing Obama to do your thinking for you. Which based on this post it looks like you do..

Fallacy fallacy fallacy. Oh, did I mention fallacy?

OK. You aren't supposed to actually say fallacy when you think you see one. Rather you're supposed to demonstrate what's wrong with a statement.

Right, which is what I kind of proceed to do.

Straw man

You can't start from the conclusion that Obama is a liberal, and then say that all of his policies must then be liberal, nor can you say the same about conservatism and Bush. Not to mention that's unbelievably simplistic logic.

I'm not sure what to say here accept that I didn't in any way do what you said I did..

Nor can you say all liberals are "Obama drones" - honestly, for that comment I really shouldn't even bother responding.

Basically I said the exact opposite of everything you claimed I said and I've taken the liberty of bolding/underlining those segments. What I see you doing is stating a number of Obama's positions, which have nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, and claiming that because someone does not support them that they cannot be of one political persuasion and therefore must be the other. Tax cuts are not anti liberal by default. Being against the bail out is not necesairly a conservative position either. What I see you doing is taking Obama's side on every issue and claiming that anyone who disagrees with him about anything is a conservative.

Next time you want to cry "fallacy fallacy fallacy" make sure to read the post you're talking about.

You were the first person in this thread to mention Obama. Obama is a Democrat, which is not synonymous with liberal.

So yeah, basically you're either making a bunch of invalid arguments (trying to use Obama to define a liberal) and making things up about me (ie, I always agree with Obama).

No wonder I gave up on this thread.

[HapSmo19]

You left off 16.

lib⋅er⋅al   /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
....
....
....
16. a gay communist whiner

[GabonX]

Inklosed, you did go on to talk about my post but everything you said was wrong. Several of the things you said that I said were the exact opposite of what I wrote. On top of that I don't think that screaming FALLACY really accomplishes anything even if you go on to identify what it is that you think is a fallacy.

What I saw happening here was you claiming Juan wasn't a liberal, when as near as I can tell he is in virtually every respect, largely because he didn't agree with two of Obama's policies, not enacting tax cuts and the stimulus package.

Obama promised to give tax cuts to voters who made under $250,000 a year. Tax cuts are not strictly a left or a right concept because people on both sides of the political spectrum can be for them.

The stimulus package is a very specific issue and while the Democratic party pushed it through Congress it can hardly be considered a defining issue of the liberal cause. Rather it is a highly specific issue that people on both sides of the political spectrum have varrying opinions on.

I found your attempt to categorize Juan based on these issues, like most personal attacks here, to be counter productive. I like having debates based on merrit but this idea that someone can be categorized as conservative or un-liberal because they don't support the above mentioned policies (which are seemingly the policies Obama has tried hardest to push through since taking office) reaks of a kind of pseudo McCarthyism. You could also call it (I believe) an ad hominum attack.

The title as well as the first post of this thread are not constructive political discussions but are rather attempts to demonize (black list) a certain member of the forums.

[InkL0sed]

Interesting.

About the fallacy thing - I was frustrated when I made that post, which is why I took that tone. But I think it's interesting that your main "argument" regarding that is basically on a matter of style, and not substance. What's the use in taking issue with how I make my argument? I could say "look, you've made a few typos in your post, making your points invalid", but that would be totally irrelevant.

Both you and Juan seem to think my assertion that he isn't liberal is an attempt to "blacklist" him. No, it's simply an attempt to call an apple an apple and an orange an orange. You claim to be nonpartisan, and yet you automatically assume that just because I'm liberal and I'm saying Juan isn't liberal, that that means I must hate him or something. This was never an ad hominum, because I wasn't attempting to insult Juan. I was being facetious, yes. But I just find it frustrating when I see him call himself a liberal. I'd be just as frustrated if Rush Limbaugh or Ron Paul or some anarchist regularly called themselves liberal.

Your entire argument is based off of one post which was an incredible oversimplification of what I think. No, I don't think tax cuts are necessarily unliberal, nor do I think you have to support the stimulus bill to be a liberal, though that one is cutting it close. I say that because the core beliefs of liberalism generally are that the government should be hands off when it comes to social policy (ie, marriage, abortion, drug laws etc), but should have a more active role in the economy. And I don't see how you could ever be for government activism in the economy if not now. I've seen Juan stoutly argue against stimulus in other threads, which no true liberal would do. Not against the bill itself - the idea of stimulus. No, it's not because Obama proposed the stimulus bill. Again, you keep bringing up Obama. I'm starting to think you're the one that's a little obsessed with him.

I still think this

Obama promised to give tax cuts to voters who made under $250,000 a year. Tax cuts are not strictly a left or a right concept because people on both sides of the political spectrum can be for them.

is a fallacy. Yes, Obama is pretty much always on the left, but the only reason why he's giving any tax cuts at all are because they were a campaign promise. And most considered that promise to be a move to the center, to gain more independent voters. Just because Obama is liberal doesn't make all of his opinions liberal.