"More on my quest to make liberal less of a dirty word...."

Status
Not open for further replies.
grampster said:
WE'UNS = Members of THR and other such organizations that promote freedom as defined, enumerated and confirmed by the Constitution and BoR. Generally sentient folks that are aware of more than their immediate surroundings for a time period longer than a 30 second soundbite.

WOLVES = Socialist Elitist Statists who believe that the only proper rule is one that they force upon others regardless and in spite of any other opinion or document (such as the Constitution and BoR).
Click to expand...

Change WE'UNS to WOLVES. The perception of Wolves by most IMO is that they represent groups in nature that live free and don't allow others to tread on them.

Change WOLVES to Sheep Dog - The function of the sheep dog is to maintain control of the flock, keep them all together and safe. That's what the social elitists as described above want to do.
 
Should have known better than try and inject a little humor into a serious conversation...........:rolleyes: (See We'uns, wolves, sheeple and blissninnies, page 2)

Then again, my wife says I'm usually the only one that understands my humor......:rolleyes: At least that's what I think she means when she says.."You are not being funny......!!!"

My true thought on the matter is that humans tend to be complex, unstable critters in a rather simple, well defined world; so labels tend to be slippery and elusive. A person reveals himself through his actions. What you call him is not important.


:D :p :neener:
 
It used to be that the Republicans wanted to tell you how to live your life (no pre-marital sex, anti-abortion, censorship of radio/tv/movies...), and the Democrats wanted to tell you how to spend your money (actually they want to spend it for you).

The Republican position was "freedom from..." taxation, socialism, criminals, foreign invasion...while the Democrat position was "freedom to..." be who I am and do what I want as long as I don't hurt anyone.

I think many current Democrats still think this way and they may not see or understand the change their party has taken.

In the last 20 years or so, the "liberal" movement has added their own version of telling you how to live your life -- no guns, no V8 engines, no hunting, no smoking tobacco, no speaking your mind, etc. Where they can't make laws, they open the door for lawsuits or legislate from the bench.

Federal Republican politicians -- with a few notable exceptions like RWR -- have helped this process along by "moving to the middle" to win elections. Note GWB's recent domestic policies and his comments on the AWB.

I think one basic premise most of us here on THR can agree on is that the government cannot solve all problems.

We support RKBA because we know this. Those who disagree with RKBA typically believe that the Government CAN solve most problems, and they want a strong Federal government to enforce the Nanny State and make every state accept feel-good legislation that limits the freedom of law-abiding citizens.

So...I propose "Nanny Statists".
 
I like Tamara's "looters" idea. It fits with "gun grabbers". First you grab the guns and then you can loot.


"...Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard—the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money—the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law—men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims—then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter..." -Atlas Shrugged, © Copyright, 1957, by Ayn Rand-
 
liberal ... right between conservative Republicans and Libertarians in attitudes.
Click to expand...

Oleg, I don't know if you are being facetious but that is about as far apart as East and West, up and down, day and night.
 
you're more likely to win friends and influence people if you stick to the point at hand.
Click to expand...
Pax, with all due respeck, you are not going to win friends and influence people by this sort of debate, as warm and cuddly as it sounds. ;) What you have here is a bully pulpit aimed at the choir to hear the thundering proclamations of the enlightened. If a handful of folks become favorably influenced, it is because they already had the leanings and somehow found their way to the site. The vast unwashed majority have no such ability to discern, nor do they care about anything other than their own well-being. My opinion, of course. :)

Liberal is a dirty word because it was co-opted by the Democrats, who for the most part are a stench in the nostrils of anybody with any sense of history. Again my opinion. Apologies to Zell Miller.
 
I'll just contribute this to the debate: Macchiavelli, Chairman Mao, and others thru history correctly stated that "political power flows from the bbl of a gun." Political power is power to control people. These fellows knew, and were straightforward enough to state for the record that whoever controls the guns, controls the people. Whoever controls the people, controls the state.

That is your reason for centralized control of weapons. Not little Johnny getting blown away on the street; not some suicide via an evil gun. Whoever controls the guns controls the people. Should be a mantra.

Your leading Democrats know this but are too crooked to admit it.
 
As I think most of you have noticed, I think it is proper to call someone by their true name, and I have taken to doing so with "liberals." I call them communists.

I've been meaning to start a thread that will show precisely how and why the modern American left are communists, plain and simple, but have been putting it off.

"Socialist" is too light a term, as well as simply inaccurate, though I can definitely see how one could mistake them for mere socialists. But don't take them so lightly; the modern left's ideologies are based entirely on communist principles and ideals.
 
BigG,

"....thundering proclamations of the enlightened...." much better than my use of "propundiation" when discussing the wisdom set forth here on THR.

My congratulations, sir, on your inventive use of the King's english.:D

I agree with your last couple posts. Very discerning on your part. Nail on the head, as it were.

grampster
 
Why don't we keep it simple

GUN BIGOT = One who is anti-gun and won't be swayed. Characterized by irrational hatred of guns and/or gun owners

ANTI-GUNNER = One who is antigun, minus the hate.

I have a problem with using liberal as a smear. A true liberal should be pro-gun. The problem, as stated elsewhere, is that the term has been co opted, by both the left and the right.

owen
 
Thanks, Sean! :D

w4rma: :neener: ;)


Seriously; would you call me racist for calling a black man black?

The modern American left's ideologies are wholly based on communist ideals and principles. I'm calling a spade a spade, plain and simple.

Look up the following: gramsci, adorno, marcuse, lukacks, the frankfurt school, and critical theory.
 
capitalism and socialism are opposite ends of an axis.
democracy and dictatorship/monarchy are opposite ends of another axis.

A state can be totalitarian and capitalist (fascism):

“Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.†-- Benito Mussolini

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.†-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

A state can be totalitarian and socialist (communism).
A state can be democratic and capitalist.
A state can be democratic and socialist.
A state can be anywhere inbetween the two axis. The U.S. has both capitalist policies and socialist policies.

Here is a list of some of the socialist ones:
socialized armed forces
socialized water
socialized police
socialized fire department
social(ized) security
medicare
road building/maintanance
public waste and water treatment
public schools

I am a liberal and I am not a communist. Don't mislabel me.
 
Communism is a totalitarian extreme where a (usually, undemocratic) government takes over control of all of the nation's industries and services. Buisnesses are not allowed, small or large.

I do not support, nor will ever support this.

Corporatism/fascism is a totalitarian extreme where a group of extremely large unelected corporations take over control of the government and all of the nation's industries and services (usually through mergers). Until they have enough power to shut down opponents to their power openly, they do it behind the scenes. Once, they feel that they have enough power, they essentially become a communist nation.

I do not support, nor will ever support this.

I do not support the banning of guns, either. This is common to fascism/corporatism, communism, feudalism and dictatorships.
 
"Communist" doesn't just refer to economic ideals.
Click to expand...
Drjones and w4rma, I think you two are about to get into one of those endless debates mired in a fight over definitions and semantics. :)
 
Not really, dischord.

I'm not really going to bother going any further.

You guys will see a thread pretty soon that will explain my position and prove me right. :)
 
Corporatism/fascism is a totalitarian extreme where a group of extremely large unelected corporations take over control of the government and all of the nation's industries and services (usually through mergers).
Click to expand...

Interesting how that bears no resemblance to actual Nazism or Fascism. But I've come to expect no different from you. :D

“Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.†-- Benito Mussolini
Click to expand...

A description that bears precious little resemblance to what Mussolini actually did. Then again, you uncritically believing the rhetoric of a genuine fascist is pretty ironic. ;)
 
w4rma,

You use some odd (and wrong) definitions.

Communism is the abolition of private property entirely where everyone owns everything equally and everything is available to those who need it.
Happy, puppy, kitten, flower, sunshine, bunny love.

What has been practiced in the Soviet Union, China, and elsewhere is actually a form of Marxist Socialism that never got to the utopian Communism stage.

Socialism is a pretty broad brush covering an awful lot of different governmental controls of production and distribution of products and services.

Corporatism is a society organized into industrial and professional corporations which exercise some political control over their jurisdiction.

Facism is an autocractic, often nationalist and/or racist government that doesn't have anything to do with eeeeevil corporations. Hence, Hitler could be a fascist even though he wasn't president of Hitler Inc.

Statist or Looter could imply any of the above.
 
Pax, with all due respeck, you are not going to win friends and influence people by this sort of debate, as warm and cuddly as it sounds.
Click to expand...
I wasn't aiming at "warm and cuddly." I was aiming for effective vs. ineffective.

pax

If you can not answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. -- Elbert Hubbard
 
Kind of archaic, but...

could we find a more exact term...
Click to expand...

Perhaps we could simply use the descriptor used so effectively by H. L . Menckin in 1925: UPLIFTER. Certainly, there is nothing innately derogatory about that.

Uplifter


"To a child with a hammer, all the world appears as a nail" (with apologies to A.H. Maslow).

These people (the uplifters) have just not figured out that they cannot reach into the heart of a murderer, or cannot reliably touch the mind of a psychopath. The only tool they have is their vote, their activism, their sway with their legislators, in other words: LAWS - that which by definition will have no impact on criminals. The problem cannot be solved with laws, but it's the only tool they have - thus they will wield it to our detriment.

Pretty much like prohibition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Conservative "bad words" vs. Liberal "bad words."
Replies
24
Views
1K
Brian Dale
B
G
  • Locked
John Kerry is NOT a liberal....
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
Sean Smith
S
R
  • Locked
The so-called "liberal media"
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
M1911Owner
M
D
  • Locked
"Liberals" and guns - stand up!
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
125
Views
4K
Don Gwinn
D
Y
  • Locked
Liberal Media: A commentary in Businessweek
Replies
0
Views
380
yy
Y
Back
Top