Why do conservatives not understand that a "liberal" is a supporter of liberalism, like our founding fathers?

Question

For those who've never read a dictionary:

[lib·er·al·ism (lbr--lzm, lbr-)
n.
1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2.
a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
b. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
4. Liberalism
a. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
b. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.]

Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberalism

Oops, sorry Cat, I reflexively responded to the first few answers (having expected them from the get-go).

Answer 1

Because the Rep's don't understand what a Lib really is or about...or maybe they do and they try to distort what the libs stand for......maybe they should look it up....

[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - 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

Answer 2

Because it isn't. Liberalism is not democracy. It never was. The heart of liberalism is despotism. This can be seen in the recent histories of Russia, Cuba, China Vietnam, Cambodia, Uganda, and Germany. Liberalism is at the heart of Communism, and has nothing to do with democracy or republicanism. None of the Founding Fathers were liberals. None of them stood for oppressive government. Liberalism stands for the weakening of the populace, and for the ignorance of the populace as well. Liberals don't like for people to know much about history, for this betrays the crafty, deceptive and attractive nature of liberalism. The problem with most liberals in this country is that they don't know much about recent history either. If they knew much about Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Hitler, Goebbels, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Idi Amin, they would not so easily describe the Founding Fathers, nor themselves as liberals.

Answer 3

Our founding fathers would have lined both modern day conservatives and liberals up and shot them.

Anyone that can honestly claim that other countries deserve our involvment and tax dollars spent on them, more so than their fellow Americans, doesn't have any claim to patriotism.

Likewise, anyone who thinks not voting intelligiently or not voting at all is any form of protest against the "Establishment", is in the same boat.

Answer 4

you have your data all incorrect, yet your intentions all precise. The ambassador had a night meal. After dinner a set of armed murderers attacked the construction killing the ambassador and his aide. They then disappeared into the night. 6 or 7 hours later, an identical group (possibly) confirmed up at a CIA "risk-free homestead", and attacked there, killing 2 extra. That become in basic terms earlier sunrise, and back they fled. That become that. inspite of the hype, inspite of the craziness, there become no longer something to be carried out. No Stand down order become issued to the protection stress. the only "stand down" that become ever uttered become to 4 "protection professionals" interior the capitol city of Libya. It become no longer issued by making use of the President or the Secretary of State yet by making use of a close-by embassy respectable who advised the adult men in Tripoli to no longer rush to Benghazi and get right into a fire combat that become already over with. i assume (yeah, i be attentive to) that he become in contact much extra American lives could be misplaced in the event that they rushed right into a situation the place a street ambush become achieveable. The capitol is countless hours faraway from Benghazi, and there become little they had have been waiting to end. each little thing else is synthetic, made up, "cavalry dashing to the rescue" falsehoods. there have been no drones hovering overhead staring on the attack on the consulate. That too is fabrication. there have been no waiting jets 10 minutes out waiting to swoop in and do injury. that's pretend. different forces interior the mediterranean ought to no longer respond in time, and had no objectives in the event that they have been waiting, a million hour after the two attack. (a million hour is seen very rapid reaction time, by making use of ways.) there become no death sentence, there have been purely deaths. this is the reason extra understand is with the help of people who serve our united states so some distance from homestead. They place themselves in those circumstances, understanding the possibility previous to time. I honor their thoughts, and thank them for their provider. They gave their all. yet something is hysteria, no longer history.

Answer 5

Not quite.

Liberals back then were closer to true Conservatives now.

Modern day Liberals are Social Progressives and Communist Sympathyers.

Answer 6

The founding fathers were Federalists, the opposite of liberals.

Answer 7

Stop making up crap.