Moderator: Community Team
ok, but why? I ask this because I honestly don't know.ooge wrote:conservatives and republicans in the U.S. hate liberalism.
To lengthy to answer,ask yourself what liberalism is and think why someone would hate it. Hint they hate Social security as well. another clue look up Ayn Rand.waauw wrote:ok, but why? I ask this because I honestly don't know.ooge wrote:conservatives and republicans in the U.S. hate liberalism.
social security has nothing to do with liberalism. It's an element of socialism...ooge wrote:To lengthy to answer,ask yourself what liberalism is and think why someone would hate it. Hint they hate Social security as well. another clue look up Ayn Rand.waauw wrote:ok, but why? I ask this because I honestly don't know.ooge wrote:conservatives and republicans in the U.S. hate liberalism.
in the US those who hate liberalism, tie socialism and liberalism together.waauw wrote:social security has nothing to do with liberalism. It's an element of socialism...ooge wrote:To lengthy to answer,ask yourself what liberalism is and think why someone would hate it. Hint they hate Social security as well. another clue look up Ayn Rand.waauw wrote:ok, but why? I ask this because I honestly don't know.ooge wrote:conservatives and republicans in the U.S. hate liberalism.
"Liberal" in America means "welfare liberal" or "Rawlsian liberal." It's the political ideology which favors government intervention for the goal of promoting some standard of living for poorer people.waauw wrote:Hey, I'm a european and I'm a firm believer in the liberal set of values. However I've noticed that on the internet there seem to be a lot of americans using "liberalism" as an insult.
Therefor I would like to ask americans here to tell me why there are so many americans who hate liberalism? I can only assume it's not the same reason why some europeans hate liberalism. In europe it's people looking from a socialist perspective who hate liberalism, however the US being so anti-socialist I guess it has another reason?
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.[4][5][6][7][8]
In American English the word "liberal" is used to refer to social-democracy, unlike Belgium and the rest of the world where it refers to ideas of limited government and market economics.waauw wrote:Hey, I'm a european and I'm a firm believer in the liberal set of values. However I've noticed that on the internet there seem to be a lot of americans using "liberalism" as an insult.
Therefor I would like to ask americans here to tell me why there are so many americans who hate liberalism? I can only assume it's not the same reason why some europeans hate liberalism. In europe it's people looking from a socialist perspective who hate liberalism, however the US being so anti-socialist I guess it has another reason?
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 0#p5349880
BigBallinStalin wrote:"Liberal" in America means "welfare liberal" or "Rawlsian liberal." It's the political ideology which favors government intervention for the goal of promoting some standard of living for poorer people.waauw wrote:Hey, I'm a european and I'm a firm believer in the liberal set of values. However I've noticed that on the internet there seem to be a lot of americans using "liberalism" as an insult.
Therefor I would like to ask americans here to tell me why there are so many americans who hate liberalism? I can only assume it's not the same reason why some europeans hate liberalism. In europe it's people looking from a socialist perspective who hate liberalism, however the US being so anti-socialist I guess it has another reason?
"Liberalism" doesn't mean exactly the same thing though. Wiki gets its right:
However, by "equality," they mean the classical meaning: "political equality"--not economic equality, which is a goal associated with welfare liberalism, egalitarianism, socialism, etc.
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.[4][5][6][7][8]
(ooge doesn't make much sense. He's promoting a distorted view in order to make others perceive that his favored ideology is totes better than other ideologies in the US).
In the United States, a lot of Democrats would appear to hate liberalism, as well.ooge wrote:conservatives and republicans in the U.S. hate liberalism.
sad but trueWoodruff wrote:In the United States, a lot of Democrats would appear to hate liberalism, as well.ooge wrote:conservatives and republicans in the U.S. hate liberalism.
LOL, there's enough editing in the first 30 second of your clip to make John Stewart wet his pants. If you want to get the message you are looking for, sure check out the edited with malicious intent version. Or, you can go the Phatscotty way, and watch the full interview, in context (no answers are edited to appear as a response to a totally different question than was asked) Whoever made that video is a liar and purposefully trying to confuse the message.ooge wrote:
You have to go back to a bit before the time Reagan was elected. That was when there was this group that called itself the "Moral Majority" became a laughing stock because they were truly anything but a majority. Except.... shortly after that you began to see a very serious, but subtle shift in how things were referred to. Unions were a threat to the big business "powers that be", the "establishment", if you will, but average Americans were very pro-union, so tromping on union rights was a bad political move. HOWEVER. a lot of those union members were church-going family folks, so touting "family values" did work, and that is what they did. Initially they denounced homosexuality, but that did not take as well as some would have liked. They succeeded in spades by opposing abortion and being "anti drugs". (its in paranthesis because a lot of that "war" actually turned a tolerable situation into something downright nasty, but it played well outside of those areas where kids schools were being sprayed with chemicals and public forests were seeing Vietnam-style booby traps).waauw wrote:Hey, I'm a european and I'm a firm believer in the liberal set of values. However I've noticed that on the internet there seem to be a lot of americans using "liberalism" as an insult.
Therefor I would like to ask americans here to tell me why there are so many americans who hate liberalism? I can only assume it's not the same reason why some europeans hate liberalism. In europe it's people looking from a socialist perspective who hate liberalism, however the US being so anti-socialist I guess it has another reason?
The tie-in is that the group that has put itself forward originally as conservative, but more tending more to claim liberaterianism or Tea partyism, etc.... they are all against the government doing much of anything and purport to be about individual freedom. Unfortunately, it is really just a cover for a bunch of folks at the top who plain just want money and are making lots of it on the backs of everyone else. Any dime that goes to social service, maintaining infrastructure or anything other than their pockets is "waste"; or, if they get to take credit, "charity".ooge wrote:in the US those who hate liberalism, tie socialism and liberalism together.waauw wrote:social security has nothing to do with liberalism. It's an element of socialism...ooge wrote:To lengthy to answer,ask yourself what liberalism is and think why someone would hate it. Hint they hate Social security as well. another clue look up Ayn Rand.waauw wrote:ok, but why? I ask this because I honestly don't know.ooge wrote:conservatives and republicans in the U.S. hate liberalism.
One of the biggest problems in U.S. history is the attempt to flat out steal terms by some groups because of the fact that they had worn out their previous label. For a large portion of the mid 20th century, the "progressive" movement stole the term "liberal." Progressives are no more liberal than crony capitalists are conservative. But that is what you get when you ask "who are liberals" in the US.waauw wrote:Hey, I'm a european and I'm a firm believer in the liberal set of values. However I've noticed that on the internet there seem to be a lot of americans using "liberalism" as an insult.

I knew your short attention span would not be able to watch the full clip,hence the short version. so you a Ayn rand supporter,we already know you love Ayn Rand PaulPhatscotty wrote:LOL, there's enough editing in the first 30 second of your clip to make John Stewart wet his pants. If you want to get the message you are looking for, sure check out the edited with malicious intent version. Or, you can go the Phatscotty way, and watch the full interview, in context (no answers are edited to appear as a response to a totally different question than was asked) Whoever made that video is a liar and purposefully trying to confuse the message.ooge wrote:
Quick message to the OP, Liberal is usually used in a very general sense. If we want to get technical about it, I am a classic Liberal. However, Liberal used to be a negative word. I would know it was used to bash me the same way you see me bashed today as a right winger. The most correct understanding of what we are talking about, if this originated from the education thread, is to understand Progressivism. Progressivism is strongest on the left, but deeply pervades the right as well. There are many Progressive Republicans, and they are just as bad as the Progressive Democrats.
Obama is Progressive to the core, Romney also is a Progressive, just not as much. Huckabee is a Progressive, so is Clinton. Ron Paul is the definition of a everything a Progressive isn't, Gary Johnson too.
Which is almost certainly why you refused to vote for Gary Johnson.Phatscotty wrote:Ron Paul is the definition of a everything a Progressive isn't, Gary Johnson too.
While I agree with you that the two major parties are basically identical in their core rhetoric, I do not consider them to be moderates. Rather, I consider both parties to be to the right of center./ wrote:From what I’ve seen, the large majority of Americans are moderates, perhaps with one or two issues that feel strongly about. The two major parties of Democrat and Republican are basically identical in their core rhetoric; listen to any politician from either party talk, and they will both say basically the same things.
Both parties have moved to the right since Reagan, in my opinion, rather than any back-and-forth./ wrote:The opposing party sees that, and mistakenly assumes the other side is the fringe, as a reaction, they take the other side, even if the other side doesn't make any sense.
If I had voted for Gary Johnson, WHAT WOULD THAT CHANGE? LMAO!!Woodruff wrote:Which is almost certainly why you refused to vote for Gary Johnson.Phatscotty wrote:Ron Paul is the definition of a everything a Progressive isn't, Gary Johnson too.
I haven't watched either of those clips (yours or his). But this exchange leads me to wonder if you watched his and, if you did, is there the marked difference that he states there is in the responses?ooge wrote:I knew your short attention span would not be able to watch the full clip,hence the short version. so you a Ayn rand supporter,we already know you love Ayn Rand PaulPhatscotty wrote:LOL, there's enough editing in the first 30 second of your clip to make John Stewart wet his pants. If you want to get the message you are looking for, sure check out the edited with malicious intent version. Or, you can go the Phatscotty way, and watch the full interview, in context (no answers are edited to appear as a response to a totally different question than was asked) Whoever made that video is a liar and purposefully trying to confuse the message.ooge wrote:
Quick message to the OP, Liberal is usually used in a very general sense. If we want to get technical about it, I am a classic Liberal. However, Liberal used to be a negative word. I would know it was used to bash me the same way you see me bashed today as a right winger. The most correct understanding of what we are talking about, if this originated from the education thread, is to understand Progressivism. Progressivism is strongest on the left, but deeply pervades the right as well. There are many Progressive Republicans, and they are just as bad as the Progressive Democrats.
Obama is Progressive to the core, Romney also is a Progressive, just not as much. Huckabee is a Progressive, so is Clinton. Ron Paul is the definition of a everything a Progressive isn't, Gary Johnson too.
Your credibility may have a changed a bit.Phatscotty wrote:If I had voted for Gary Johnson, WHAT WOULD THAT CHANGE? LMAO!!Woodruff wrote:Which is almost certainly why you refused to vote for Gary Johnson.Phatscotty wrote:Ron Paul is the definition of a everything a Progressive isn't, Gary Johnson too.
Gosh, I wonder why nobody even knows who he is. Could it be because nobody will vote for him? You're a self-fulfilling prophecy against your own alleged interests, which tells me and anyone who is paying attention that either those really aren't your own interests (that's my bet) or that you're simply available to the highest bidder.Phatscotty wrote:meh, pretty sure it had to do with recognizing nobody even knows who Gary Johnson is, as well as a lack of effort IMO.
Gary was still running when Ron Paul dropped out of the race, so that's a pretty ignorant set of statements.Phatscotty wrote:Ron Paul had a much better shot and made a much larger impact. In short, I couldn't add a vote to the 2% GJ got because I was too busy helping win an entire state for Ron Paul. He is way ahead of Gary.
The decision to be a sellout must have come fairly easily for you.Phatscotty wrote:I think the Ron Paul path is a much more realistic one, and I made that decision a long time ago.
It's possible, though I suppose it changes relative to era.Woodruff wrote:While I agree with you that the two major parties are basically identical in their core rhetoric, I do not consider them to be moderates. Rather, I consider both parties to be to the right of center./ wrote:From what I’ve seen, the large majority of Americans are moderates, perhaps with one or two issues that feel strongly about. The two major parties of Democrat and Republican are basically identical in their core rhetoric; listen to any politician from either party talk, and they will both say basically the same things.
Both parties have moved to the right since Reagan, in my opinion, rather than any back-and-forth./ wrote:The opposing party sees that, and mistakenly assumes the other side is the fringe, as a reaction, they take the other side, even if the other side doesn't make any sense.