The same way much time and effort could’ve been spared if you’d simply stated “each time I use the word ‘liberal’ I really mean what is today commonly referred to as ‘libertarian’,” and we had said “okay” and moved on from there (or not)—based on your last few posts I believe we can save a lot of time by assuming that your term “leftist ideal” is functionally equivalent to “anything I personally disagree with,” and a “leftist” is anyone who does one of those things, regardless of how centrist or even far-right they may be in every other regard.
At any rate, I assert that if you’ve enlarged the term “leftist” to include George W. Bush, you have stretched it like an old sweater now too floppy and ridiculous-looking to ever again be worn with a straight face.
It is not hard to look up the term leftist or “left-wing” in the dictionary.
As with the term “liberal”, I adhere to the definition of “leftist” contained within any major English language dictionary. I do not mind if other people choose to make up another definition for it as long as they do not accuse me of speaking in those made up terms.
It would be easy for me to pick and choose definitions based on sources outside major English dictionaries but that would be cheating myself out of being honest when honesty is called for.
I agree with Vinyl. I think it’s becoming clear that DevNull is a Libertarian of some form and is using the term “liberal” to mean an active government. By that definition, I suppose you can define FDR, Bush, Reagan, Hitler, and Stalin all as “liberals”. But I don’t think it’s fair to use an existing term with an established meaning and redefine it.
I will give DevNull some credit. While his terminology is vague and his knowledge of history is weak, at least he is willing to step forward and defend his ideas unlike some drive-by posters we’ve seen.
I did. I found no definition so broad as to include everything you have labelled ‘unamerican’ in this thread. Is leftism the only political philosophy you recognize a threat to American liberty?
I saw no personal attacks in **Nemo’s ** post. You have repeatedly fabricated historical references and meanings for words to suit your purposes. Nothing personal in observing that. It has long been the policy in GD that calling someone a liar, or crazy, are not personal insults, despite what definition you may find in your favorite dictionary.
I stated they were leftist ideals. You do not find a laundry list of leftist ideals under a definition in any dictionary. You would have to turn to an encyclopedia to read up on leftist ideals.
Leftists ideals are not compatible with the Constitution of the USA. I realize this is a global board so I expect some of my debate opponents to not understand my lifelong held angle, but anyone who has read and respects the Constitution of the USA should understand clearly.
Nothing personal taken except that I do not understand when I may have fabricated any historical references.
I understand that I have been challenged regarding a “certain number” of Jews on the forefront of the socialist movement in Germany, but the I consider the word “forefront” to be a powerful qualifier to which I did not agree that there were any Jews who earned such a powerful designation. I eventually explained this and also initially asked what the number was and confessed that I have not discovered any on the forefront.
Quite the reverse, he is using “liberal” to mean “libertarian” – an etymologically/historically sound, but nevertheless anachronistic and indefensible, usage.
I have not been come across that policy regarding the GD sig, but I will take your word for it simply because I do not plan to implement those self-preservation tactics so it cannot hurt to concede.
Also if it is truly the case, I apologize to anyone who may have been caught up in my misunderstanding. I come from a time and a place in online communication where calling someone a liar or crazy or weak was considered a personal insult.
No. Either there are a majority of devil’s advocates here who are interested in shaking down leftism or there are a majority of leftists so that is what it appears as. You will have to take my word for it (or search for it) that I half-jokingly stated that 90% of leftist ideals are fully incompatible with the Constitution of the USA and that 89% of current conservative ideals are also fully incompatible with the Constitution of the USA. The kicker being that leftism is NOT the opposite of conservatism because conservatism is relevant to the current socio-political, legal climate and liberalism (classic liberalism, if you will) is concerned with individual freedom and conservative is in relation to anything in the legal or political sense whether collective or individual.
There are few ideologies in any respect that are compatible with individual freedom and/or the Constitution of the United States of America. A simple reading of the Constitution will reveal that fact.
In the Middle East?! How?! Apart from SA and Pakistan, which are supposedly our allies, what has Bush done to “appease” in the Middle East? He wouldn’t recognize or aid the Hamas government in Palestine even after they won the election fair and square. He’s talking about a multilateral peace conference, but how is that “appeasement”?
Yes. I cannot dispute the definition of any English dictionary. I am using liberal to mean an ideology that favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of individual civil liberties.
Damn skippy.
The kids these days are fond of claiming superiority over Webster’s dictionary and god bless them, but scholars and lawmakers look deep into Latin meanings of words when using them and what may play on Air America as “bitchin’ disertation” does not cut the mustard in concrete ideals and debate.
The dictionaries, all dictionaries, have not found it necessary to add the anachronism label to any of my words I use here, although I am stopped from using a few every now and again.
In my defense, I do not even use the word “liberal” because of the bastardization that goes on… mostly from right-wing radio hosts. I feel that someday it may be reclaimed for common usage as the dictionary defines it, although not in the next decade or so. When I was a child it was taboo for a politician to self-label with the term. Now it is getting close to fashionable. We called it the “L-word” back then.
Actually, people like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders and Ralph Nader are more likely nowadays to label themselves “progressives” – yet another political term that has changed its meaning over time.
The Bush administration, along with president GW Bush, have sacrificed 3000+ of our soldiers in what is becoming a vain attempt to stop international Muslim terrorism by going soft on, appeasing, host nations of Muslim terrorists when it is clear that we can level them all… alone. By sacrificing 3000+ of our troops in a failed attempt to appease the host nations it is clear that appeasement does not work.
I am open to hear of incidents of appeasement that have worked to control aggression in regards to the interests and assets of the USA.
Peace by appeasement, yes. Appeasement can only be implemented under the threat of aggression and aggression means war… to a self-respecting individual and a collective alike.
Peace may be also had by utter annihilation or the threat of such. Japan. Germany. Native Americans. I seriously doubt that leftists are attached to the peace that those incidents brought.
Social democracy , democratic socialism, and many other socialism-lite flavors may survive under the protections of our fair nation but not thrive and be empowered on a national basis without severe conflicts that clog up the courts and the time and effort of our populace. They may thrive only as a state-by-state anomaly (and getting stronger) BUT eventually they may (and are doing so) rise to a large enough movement to be able to amend our Constitution enough to amend it to death.
That’s about it unless you want to micropick at some oldies like Constitutionalism and other admitted fossils that have been effectively swallowed by classic liberalism.
Calling a poster “crazy” in GD is a clear violation of the “no insults” rule. (As no one has actually called another poster in this thread “crazy,” it is a moot point.)
Calling a poster “a liar” is permitted as a grudging concession to casual conversation, in which the expression “you are a liar” is (too frequently) used in place of the more precise “you have lied.” Claiming that another poster has lied is not a personal insult; it is a challenge to the argument.
Challenging arguments is the very nature of this Forum and construing challenges to one’s statements as personal insults is a rather silly way to attempt invoke the well-poisoning fallacy, but calling another poster crazy or stupid or morally bankrupt would, indeed, call down the forces of Moderation on one.
Hey, you’re the one who said all would be revealed if I looked it up in a dictionary. No doubt if I was to show the encyclopedia explanation was similarly lacking, you would recommend I take a college course in order to comprehend your philosophy.
That’s not the way we play here. You don’t get to tell people to google it, or look it up in a dictionary, or in an encyclopedia. You make your case, and support it with specific cites, and defend it when weaknesses are pointed out. And when you complain about how you are treated, it is pretty much conceding defeat.
I just can’t get over the notion that the OP is deliberately fashioning a political stance that offers no opportunity for agreement. It is not liberal, conservative, or libertarian, it is contrarian.
Sure we can. By carpet-nuking. I hope you appreciate that is not an option to be considered, ever.
We lack the resources to “level them all” through conventional warfare. We lack the resources even to hold down two thoroughly conquered Middle Eastern countries.
It is also clear that the invasion of Iraq was an attempt to appease nobody.
I am open to hear of incidents of appeasement by the USA, period. It’s not something I see much of in our history.
War, OTOH, does not always mean aggression – not on both sides, anyway.
Leftists would approve of the defeat and postwar reconstruction of Germany and Japan – fascist powers as they were – but not the extermination of the Indians. You would feel the same way on both points, would you not?