The founding fathers were LIBERALS...True or false ???

Question

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States#History

The CURRENT definition of liberal is posted for your reference.

you can assume that conservative is the opposite of that definition.

If you don't like the WIKI.....and you think it is inaccurate...maybe you should correct it. You will have to cite references though....which would be difficult given your agenda.

Fact is....it is accurate.

Conservative Loyalists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_%28American_Revolution%29

john_stolworthy.... ARE you admitting to being a liberal ????

It's not a bad word...it's ok you know.

I'm a liberal too.

I prefer a free market society...it's the only one that works....I also favor political reform and freething and sharing idea like we are right now.

I think you are refferring a meaningless stereotype.... the word liberal is not derogatory no matter how many people try use it as such.

The definition hasn't changed and it still stands, and if you don't like it, you should Webster's dictionary to get it changed.

If you agree with that definition, you might be guilty of misusing the word in generalizations.

I think most of you are confusing your adjectives with nouns...

Democrat Republican....both nouns.
Liberal Conservative....both adjectives.

Answer 1

True and false.


[quote] "you can assume that conservative is the opposite of that definition."[/quote]

Assumption is the mother of all fuc kups.

In your mind, comparing Liberals and Conservatives are on the same order as comparing black and white. Liberal and Conservative are not opposites. Liberals can have conservative views and Conservatives can share Liberal views. The word you're looking for is "extremist". A modern Liberal wants to be free of all restraints.

Open borders. Let all the terrorists and social rejects from other countries in. Result. Economic strain and criminal upheaval.

Legalize all drugs. It's my body and I can put anything I want into it. Result. Mind altering drugs being used freely leads to the breakdown of civilization. If you can't think clearly, you can't make clear and concise decisions. Think... drunk blonde.

No discrimination based on age, sex, race or sexual orientation. How many 80 year old super models do you see on the runway? How many women NFL players do you see? If they make a movie about Bill Clinton, how many black actors are going to be considered for the role? Survival of the species. Humanity is devastated by a natural, chemical or biological disaster. Who's going to propagate the species? It's not discrimination if you are not qualified.
Individual rights. Then I guess that means I should be able to hire who I want, when I want and where I want. But this contradicts discrimination and affirmative action. I'll let a Liberal explain that one to you.

Well, I have to get back to work, so I can pay my taxes. Taxes to support all the benefits of being an American. Freedom isn't free.

Answer 2

Your premise is false. One of the primary reasons for the second amendment was that the British attempted to Control the Americans, by making the British Army the only protections that the Americans had against "highwaymen" who were the rapists, robbers and murders of the day. The British made it illegal for the Americans to own firearms or use any sort of weapon to protect themselves from highwaymen. The British found this to be a very effective method to control the Americans. If the Americans did not behave themselves as the British desired, the British merely removed the troops that were used to protect the Americans against the "highwaymen" The "highwaymen" would have a field day raping, robbing and murdering the Americans, until the Americans begged the British to bring back the troops, and the Americans promised to behave themselves to the satisfaction of the British. This tactic worked very well for the British in the short run, however in the long run that tactic by the British was one of the many factors that led to the American Revolution. That tactic by the British was also one of the important factors that led to the second Amendment and the importance of the private Citizen to have the ability and the tools for self defense and protection against Criminals, rather than depend on the government for protection against criminals. That is also one of the reasons that in many of the States, the Sheriff has a small core of paid Deputies and a large number of volunteer Deputies taken from the ranks of the Citizenry, who perform a large amount of the law enforcement. This is very common in the Rural States, although it is less common in the Urban areas. .

Answer 3

That's an interesting question. the founding fathers were fearful of government abuse, so they designed in safeguards to prevent a situation similar to the monarchy they were fighting against. Although conservatives claim this as a precept, I see no evidence of this ideal in the current administration, other than on the social side.

Since they were against the existing government, they were, at the time, considered by the ruling elite as anarchists, a position currently associated with the extreme left - far left of what is considered liberal.

They were also considered terrorists by the existing government because of their military tactics, which included firing from cover, the use of camoflage, the fact that many of them wore no uniforms, and didn't follow many of the principles of warfare which existed at the time. Of particular annoyance (if you consider being shot an annoyance) was the use of snipers, who fired accurately from long ranges using Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles (the rifled barrels were much mor accurate than the British smooth bore muskets)

Whether terrorists, anarchists, or patriots depends on both the times in which they lived , and which side of the Atlantic you were on ;-)

Answer 4

True. Most modern day self-professed "liberals" are not liberal, though. Today, the founding fathers would be considered libertarians because the true definition of "liberal" has been perverted. Hillary and Obama are NOT liberal, they are neo-socialist.

From wikipedia:
A liberal society is characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy, free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.

Sounds like the Constitution and Bill of Rights, doesn't it?

The conservatives of the time would have been the Tories who were opposed to revolutionary change and sympathized with the British.

edit: Yes, I am a proud liberal who subscribes to Jeffersonian principles.

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others.” -Thomas Jefferson

Don't lump me with the "new liberals". Jefferson and the Founders would be appalled with the current state of government in America.

Most "new liberals" support things like gun control, seatbelt laws, removal of religion from the public forum, etc. I do not as they restrict personal freedom.

I like Websters definition. I try to be:
-favorable to progress or reform
-favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible (my personal favorite and the one most often infringed upon)
-favoring or permitting freedom of action
-free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant
-open-minded or tolerant

Liberal can also be a noun:
–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views
So, a person of liberal (defined above) principles or views is a liberal.

I like the definition and believe I am using it properly. Most people do not, though.

Liberal comes from the Latin "līberālis" meaning "of freedom, befitting the free". So yes. I am a liberal. Check my blog:

Answer 5

Yes, they were liberals. They wanted to bring about reform that would promote personal freedoms and civil liberties. Those are liberal ideals.

Texasjewboy, if you honestly believe today's conservatives are anti-big-government, you haven't been paying attention. That's why so many people have taken to calling them neoconservatives. They're the opposite of what they claim to be in several crucial ways.

Answer 6

They were liberals by the standards of their time. Today, however, they'd be defined as conservatives. They believed in God, they were pro-gun, and anti-big government. So the answer depends on whether we define them by the standards of their time (fair) or ours (foul!). Remember there was a different standard for liberals then, and many of the nation's founders (including Thomas Jefferson, who wrote so eloquently about freedom and equality) were slave owners. That's a paradox many historians today simply can't get over!

Answer 7

Even if they were said to be liberals that word has DRASTICALLY changed since that time. The modern liberal is almost the complete opposite as the original with the exception of equal rights but then again doesn't everyone want that?

Asker: You would be considered a classical liberal. Liberals today do not believe in a free market in contrast to the original definition of the term.

Answer 8

False. They were organist and free thinkers with a basis on moral and God not as we think of it today. Meaning to be liberal there can be no judgment of right and wrong. If they felt this way then they could not have judged the King to be doing them wrong. And every human has the right to freedom of religion and from the Government imposing its Will on each man like bigger Government and taxes to take away form one man to give to another like we see the left doing today. The failure of the Pilgrims showed socialism failed and free market works as when we do for our selves then we can be all that we can be. But if one takes way form another than there is no incentive to do all that you can do and excel in life.

Answer 9

Liberals? No. They were full-blown revolutionaries.

In the context of the current political spectrum, they would be TRUE conservatives who would view neo-cons as traitors.

.

Answer 10

False.