Elaborate on liberal..... meaning in different places

[drlmg]

Will you (fellow members) elaborate on what the term liberal means in your country as opposed to the meaning in the US? The liberals here (US) are basically socialists who think the government should control every aspect of our lives, re-distribute wealth, etc.

I think it is important to know so we don't portray the wrong message when ranting. I saw the other day a thread where someone was rightfully complaining about liberals and a member from Israel (I think thats right) asked what was wrong with being a liberal. Apparently, politically speaking, liberal doesn't mean the same thing there. Also, reading world news I never know for sure exactly what it refers to when referencing right-wing, liberal, etc.

Thank You

[Lisa]

Will you (fellow members) elaborate on what the term liberal means in your country as opposed to the meaning in the US? The liberals here (US) are basically socialists who think the government should control every aspect of our lives, re-distribute wealth, etc.

You're absolutely right about this part.  I should also add that liberals are hostile to Western civilization, the U.S. military, Judeo-Christian standards of morality, and straight white men. 

[briann]

Will you (fellow members) elaborate on what the term liberal means in your country as opposed to the meaning in the US? The liberals here (US) are basically socialists who think the government should control every aspect of our lives, re-distribute wealth, etc.

I think it is important to know so we don't portray the wrong message when ranting. I saw the other day a thread where someone was rightfully complaining about liberals and a member from Israel (I think thats right) asked what was wrong with being a liberal. Apparently, politically speaking, liberal doesn't mean the same thing there. Also, reading world news I never know for sure exactly what it refers to when referencing right-wing, liberal, etc.

Thank You

I'll put in my two cents here.  Although there are slight differences from country to country....in today's world... the term has come to mean relatively the same thing throughout the west (At least from a fiscal perspective)

Sometimes... people claim it is a form of libertarianism... but that's just not true anymore... it might have been before the 1920's but not anymore.  If anyone can name a party in any western country that uses the term 'liberal' and that party does not push socialist state-heavy remedies... then I stand corrected... but I doubt you can.

[spiritus_persona]

Most people who call themselves liberal are actually neo marxist.  They want to tear the social fabric of their country so they can bring in their debaucherous view of an ideal society.

[Rubystars]

Usually in America people don't call themselves liberal. They are called that by conservatives as a pejorative.

Liberal is the word used because they have no respect for old values, morality, or traditions and want to be liberated from all constraints on their wicked behavior.

[Sentinel For Truth]

I accept the view put forth by Robert Bork in his book "Slouching Toward Gomorrah" that modern liberalism has two major components:  radical individualism and radical egalitarianism.  Radical individualism is manifested in anything goes with anyone and people can do anything they want at any time, such as watch any kind of pornography, do homosexual acts, piercings and tattoos, anything that they want, basically and everyone else must accept it.  Radical egalitarianism is like neo-Marxism in that everyone should share equally in what is produced which is classic wealth distribution, the opposite of the "trickle down" theory of Regan, this is the "trickle up" theory of Karl Marx which robs productive people and gives their wealth to the lazy. 

Karl Marx is dead.  It's time we put his broken theories to rest as well and reduce the size of government so the population won't be taxed as heavily and we can get back to producing things of value and exporting them for profit.  This is the only way to rebuild America.  For anyone who will take about an hour to watch one of the best video series by a brilliant Jew, Peter Schiff, in 2006 in front of an audience of mortgage brokers telling them how we got to a borrow and spend society, how the entire thing would fall apart in a major financial crisis and how to get back to business again:

[Zelhar]

That's a great insight Dan Ben Noah !

[Dr. Dan]

Liberal should really mean open minded and opened to many different point of views. As well as wishy washy.  But the people called liberals today are much worse and aren't open minded

[cjd]

Liberal should really mean open minded and opened to many different point of views. As well as wishy washy.  But the people called liberals today are much worse and aren't open minded

No Liberals are not open minded in the least and this past week they showed their true colors. It's been all well and fine in the past years for the Liberal left to have million monkey marches and every form of subversive demonstration against how the past administration fought the war on terror. Now one or two demonstrations on fiscal restraint by Conservatives has the shvartza administration and most Liberals ready to round Conservatives up in FEMA camps.

[Adrian Wainer]

Well, a liberal for many Americans supposedly on the right of US politics, is just somebody they do not like or at least say they do not like, supposedly to the left of them.  Like Hitler said, he did not like Communists and then gifted Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to the Communists. There are people who call themselves liberals and who are indeed very nasty characters, but these folks are more often than not, pseudo-liberal crypto-fascistocommunists. For example, the present President of the United States of America Barack Hussein Obama, may be of these characters.



Real liberals the other hand are very serious people, for example they have no time at all for moral relativism, which is pretty much a trademark of pseudo-liberals and because they have no time for moral relativism, that sets them on a straight away collision course with the likes of the Saudi Wahhabis. 

 



Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[Adrian Wainer]

They are called "liberals" because they want evil people to be "liberated" to do whatever they want to do.  They basically take the Noahide laws and make them the opposite of what they are:

2.  Blasphemy:  You are encouraged to be a blasphemer because the official religion of liberalism is atheism, which is blasphemy.  Blasphemy would be the official protocol of a liberal government, ridiculing religious values in general and monotheism in particular.

Well, if you are talking about Islamofascist friendly Arab racial supremacist friendly pseudo-liberal cryptofascistocommunists, you are wrong. They start off from the position of appearing antagonistic to religious ideas but that is only a beginning tactic, to try to  elicit broad based support, by seeming to espouse secularist democratic values. In the initial phase, they are intending not to secularize society, which is what they claim to be doing but what they are actually doing, is seeking to neutralize legitimate liberal, legitimate conservative and legitimate socialist religious voices of authority within society, particularly when they follow core judeo-christian values. Once they have that done, what that do, is to do an 180 degree u turn and demand all sorts privileges for the most nasty and aggressive manifestations of Islam. The British Labour Party Government in England actually tried to introduce a law, in which people could be put in prison for saying Islam is a rubbish, religion. The way the British Parliament works is that the lower chamber makes the law but the upper chamber, the House of Lords, has a power to demand changes. After the House of Lords kept rejecting the law, there is a right that the British Government have, when a law is rejected a number of time by the house of Lords to force that law in to effect without approval by the House of Lords, but they would have had a public relations problem doing that, in that the law had been highlighted by the house of lords as an unjust law. So the British Government, that is the Labour Party allowed the House of Lords to pretty much turn the law in to a useless piece of paper by making changes to it and in this this way, the Labour Party was saved the embarrassment of forcing a law in to effect, which the House of Lords had exposed as a tyrannical instrument to assert the supremacy of Islam over the British people and other alternative embarrassment of withdrawing the law entirely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006



Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer