how many people on here bash liberals but dont even know what the definition of liberal is?

Question

the definition of liberal is one who favors reform or progress, but also one who is tolerant, which mean a republican and a democrat could both be a liberal, any one that is for a change for the better is one, so maybe you should get an education before you open your mouth

Answer 1

I bet I could out drink a liberal. Thats not a liberal slur. Thats my confidence in myself

Answer 2

Well, that's the political defination, but the ACTUAL defination that the political term comes form goes like this:


1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

(Yes, I know the political defination is in there as wel, but I thought givign you all the definatiosn may help. And yes, I did know these definations before i searched for them on the internet, I just wanted the best definations that you wouldn't question)

Answer 3

All of them.

I have yet to see a good argument against liberalism that doesn't involve things that have nothing to do with liberalism like Communism, fascism, Nazism, drugs, and killing. It's childish name calling and that only makes the critics look bad.

Answer 4

Talk about opening your mouth. I see an equal amount of bashing of Liberals and Conservatives. But mostly I see sheep bleating and parrots pecking. None of the name callers, including the above author seems to have an original thought. It has all been said before.
We tremble in your presence.

Answer 5

Of course he is racist. You only have to look at who he associates with to see that. For the record , I don't think that Father Pfleger was looking for his 15 minutes of fame, and Obama does know this man. Obama supporters need to check their facts. Pfleger's support of Obama is well known in Chicago. When Obama was a state Senator in 2000, he secured a $100k earmark for the ARK community center--a center attached to Pfleger's church. Pfleger was also a member of the Catholics for Obama Committee, until he stepped down a few weeks ago--the committee is a voluntary advisory committee to the Obama campaign. Quit making excuses for him and hold him accountable!

Answer 6

SInce the period of the Reagan presidency the word liberal has been used strictly by the Republican Party as an insult, they created a negative image of 'liberal' through a very slick and subtle media campaign. They managed to connect liberal with being weak .. sissy, ie no 'real' man could be a liberal only 'aging hippies and gays'. I guess it was one of the most successful manipulation of political perceptions and use of 'wedge politics' which have really come of age in the last 6 years. Yet we on the left, the remaining liberals would argue that only ignoramuses could NOT be liberals - anyone with an ounce of morality, compassion, honesty, scepticism and the ability to predict the consequences of our governments action beyond one news cycle, or the next quarters corporate earnings has to be a liberal. But of course the very nature of 'liberals' - their tendency to greater morality and selflessness neccessitates they use ideas and facts not smears to argue their case, which all too often makes them ineffective in American Politics. Which because it is still driven by a populace that has still not acquired the most basic critical thinking faculties is still susceptible to the use of slogans, simply loathsome smears, and value loaded words especially implying racial over tones. The word liberal is just one of the many that republicans have managed to define in the public perception. Sickening - simply sickening.

As a response to Polaris - The beauty of your 'critique' is that it proves my point exactly rather than challenge me on facts and ideas, you resort to rather adolescent name calling and sarcasm, this of course is an immediate indicator to any thoughtful person that it is the product of the absence of ideas. That truth and reality are irrelevent to you ONLY 'winning' is important. The use of emotive language intended to manipulate perceptions as opposed ideas and language defining a more accurate truth IS the problem. It is because people like you seem to think that such language in debate is useful and meaningful that we are currently in the situation we are in. As opposed to the reality which is that your 'thinking' is rather a pathetic. Sadly you are simply a product of the political belief system that gave birth to you an created a society in which 'name calling' masquerades as political discourse. It saddens me to say but you are exactly the problem about which I was talking.

Answer 7

Oh, here's another one. Here's another educated elitist liberal snob in the vein of John Kerry. Mr. Snob has college time under his belt and that makes him all-wise, a regular know-it-all. Got his head full of left wing propaganda from those pointy headed blame America first college professors and now he's going forth, nose in the air, a better than thou attitude, ready to educate the great unwashed with his unimpeachable wisdom. Oh how superior you must feel with your college degree, yet a little tarnished, being forced to rub elbows with the common man in order to save that common man from his uneducated ignorance. What a burden you bear, what a noble cause, bringing light to the neanderthal masses. I salute you sir, your a real trooper!!

Answer 8

I think this is an adequate definition.

In "The Federal Courts, Politics, and the Rule of Law," by John C. Hughes (published 1995), it says:

"In the contemporary political context, those who fear conformity have tended to describe themselves as liberal and have tended to applaud judicial 'protection' of human rights. Those who fear diversity have tended to call themselves conservatives and have been appalled by judicial 'usurpation' of the majority's discretion to form the kind of community it finds most conducive to its own happiness. The former tends to approve of the expansive theories of constitutional interpretation, while the latter tends to prefer the restrained theories of judicial review. These alignments are neither perfect nor inevitable, but the debate has surely been shrill."

Answer 9

I am not guilty. I am a progressive too. I want to have the full spectrum of info and allow for out of the box new solutions. The minds that created the mess we are in can not be expected to solve the problems they made. It will take different minds with more humain goals to do that.

Answer 10

Most of the liberals in America aren't really liberal on the scale of things. They are center to left.

Answer 11

Liberal comes from the root word "liberty". Anyone who favors personal liberty over repression is a liberal.

Gay marriage is a liberal issue because it is a personal liberty issue. One classic liberal (Thomas Jefferson)said "The legitimate powers of government extend only to that which is injurious to others". How would something like 2 homosexuals getting married be injurious to others? It would not weaken heterosexual marriage, only allow those with differing viewpoints and lifestyles the same rights.

A true liberal would not attempt to force non-injurious dogma on the general populous. Unfortunately, there are few true liberals left. Most who claim to be liberals are actually neo-liberals and socialists.

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have become simply a way to attack the "other side", not accurate descriptions on political philosophy.