Why do you hate liberals and liberalism so much?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

This comment is a joke, right? Someone please tell me this comment is a joke.

No joke.

[Alex+R 0]

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

This comment is a joke, right? Someone please tell me this comment is a joke.

No joke.

Don't worry, Spark, she's just pointing out that there are more traditional (and sometimes opposite) definitions of liberalism than what we generally use today in the U.S.

Hm, kinda makes you wonder what exactly all these people mean when they talk about "liberals."

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

This comment is a joke, right? Someone please tell me this comment is a joke.

No joke.

Don't worry, Spark, she's just pointing out that there are more traditional (and sometimes opposite) definitions of liberalism than what we generally use today in the U.S.

Hm, kinda makes you wonder what exactly all these people mean when they talk about "liberals."

Makes you wonder what anyone means when they talk about "liberals". The news presents politics in a stilted fashion that suggests there are only two extremes represented by the mainstream political parties. What we are suggesting is that these definitions "Liberal" and "Conservative" are more diverse and represent a whole spectrum of political philosophy that is separate to partisan politics as represented by the Republicans and Democrats.

Edited September 24, 2006 by erekose

[Alex+R 0]

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

This comment is a joke, right? Someone please tell me this comment is a joke.

No joke.

Don't worry, Spark, she's just pointing out that there are more traditional (and sometimes opposite) definitions of liberalism than what we generally use today in the U.S.

Hm, kinda makes you wonder what exactly all these people mean when they talk about "liberals."

Makes you wonder what anyone means when they talk about "liberals". The news presents politics in a stilted fashion that suggests there are only two extremes represented by the mainstream political parties. What we are suggesting is that these definitions "Liberal" and "Conservative" more diverse, and are not necessarily tied to partisan politics.

That is exactly what I said, or is at least what I intended to say. Sorry if I came off differently. (?)

[Heracles 417]

However, I find myself repulsed by the moral relativism, anti-Americanism, and pro-Socialist tendencies of western European liberalism.

That pretty much summed it up..

[Kathryn41 3,205]

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

Excuse me, but you have it backwards. It is the conservative perspective that is pro-business and against social programs/communities. It is the liberal perspective that supports the environment, supports human rights, and support communities and social values. It is the conservative perspective that has allowed corporations to act as individuals - everything that you are 'against' are liberal agenda items - not conservative/Republican at all. This may be a big part of many people's problems - they don't understand what the real differences in the view points are.

[Ban Hammer 12,830]

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

Excuse me, but you have it backwards. It is the conservative perspective that is pro-business and against social programs/communities. It is the liberal perspective that supports the environment, supports human rights, and support communities and social values. It is the conservative perspective that has allowed corporations to act as individuals - everything that you are 'against' are liberal agenda items - not conservative/Republican at all. This may be a big part of many people's problems - they don't understand what the real differences in the view points are.

how can a liberal "support" social values when there is no defined value? homosexuality is allowed, drugs are legalized, and so on. is supporting everything negative to society at large a value?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

Excuse me, but you have it backwards. It is the conservative perspective that is pro-business and against social programs/communities. It is the liberal perspective that supports the environment, supports human rights, and support communities and social values. It is the conservative perspective that has allowed corporations to act as individuals - everything that you are 'against' are liberal agenda items - not conservative/Republican at all. This may be a big part of many people's problems - they don't understand what the real differences in the view points are.

Social Liberalism is different from Economic Liberalism (Neoliberalism). In the US, if we're talking about Liberalism in a general sense, its the economic variety that is most prevalent in current policy-making.

Edited September 24, 2006 by erekose

[Alex+R 0]

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

Excuse me, but you have it backwards. It is the conservative perspective that is pro-business and against social programs/communities. It is the liberal perspective that supports the environment, supports human rights, and support communities and social values. It is the conservative perspective that has allowed corporations to act as individuals - everything that you are 'against' are liberal agenda items - not conservative/Republican at all. This may be a big part of many people's problems - they don't understand what the real differences in the view points are.

Kathryn, please see the previous posts. She's not backwards, she's just making a point. In a professorly sort of way.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

Excuse me, but you have it backwards. It is the conservative perspective that is pro-business and against social programs/communities. It is the liberal perspective that supports the environment, supports human rights, and support communities and social values. It is the conservative perspective that has allowed corporations to act as individuals - everything that you are 'against' are liberal agenda items - not conservative/Republican at all. This may be a big part of many people's problems - they don't understand what the real differences in the view points are.

Kathryn, please see the previous posts. She's not backwards, she's just making a point. In a professorly sort of way.

No, I honestly mean that; I don't agree with present-day liberals in the U.S. or elsewhere on a lot of issues, because they are too pro-business in my eyes. Any policies in the past decades aimed at protecting the environment or addressing social issues have been more favorable to businesses and the rich. The problem I see with the current political debate is that it narrows the political spectrum to two alternatives that are basically the same in many ways, and that differ only on "issues."

[kirk and Jenny 0]

MYTH LIBERALISM IS FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

The difficulty with liberalism is it has become a religion. Liberals are “right” as a matter of faith. This comes from someone who was a democrat from 1974-1990. I don’t vote republican but would never vote democratic.

My first disillusionment came after fighting forest fire on an elite crew for seven years. After seven years all experienced men on the crew, Black, White and Native American were in essence fired and blackballed because: the forest service was looking for “the cream of the crop so men could not apply”. (Notice how this policy did not apply to men applying for professional positions, men more likely to be represented by liberal policies). Now before you shout sexist toward me, I agree with affirmative action. (Definitely a liberal policy). Affirmative action is based on the principle that all things being equal the under represented class gets the job.

Three years later we won the legal case. (Bragdon v. Yeuteer) This case stated that it was not women who had been discriminated against in fire the last 10 years, but men. In fact, if you checked career advancement before the fired all of us, you would have seen that a women of equal experience and education to myself and other men who came into work at the same times were g.s. 11 to 13s while we averaged g.s. 4s. By the time the case was decided the discrepancy was much higher because we were all fired.

In 1990 when the case was decided, I expected an apology and some of our rights restored. How wrong I was as all those people, liberals, who had violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, were given Civil Rights Awards and promotions.

So this is where I am on the social justice issue. Remember, I worked in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's in Virginia passing open housing petitions around. Liberals don’t give a ####### about social justice; in fact they are worse than conservatives on these issues. In fact, if you look at liberal policy, you will find it highly discriminatory against working class America. If it believed in justice, affirmative action would be based on economic factors rather than genetic factors. This would include a much higher percentage of minorities because they have suffered economically because of discrimination. This will never happen. Liberalism is about creating nice dual careers for people who vote democratic and has nothing to do with social justice.

In 1991 I dragged my sorry ### into law school. This was scary for me because I am learning disabled. (I have never asked for any help from anyone because I am learning disabled). It scared me because even though I knew I had the intelligence to make it through law school, in the top 15% on the LSAT’S I did not know if I was going to be able to express that knowledge. And if I didn’t make it, rightfully so, who should suffer an attorney who cannot express himself sufficiently?

MYTH, LIBERALS ARE FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

My second unpleasant experience with liberalism, occurred in the last few years. Recently, the public defender system of Montana was revamped. The person who ended up being put in charge of the system was the wife of the assistant attorney general in charge of prosecution for the state. I felt this was a conflict. I talked to a high ranking member on the committee who picked her, they had been each others first law partners. These people are all liberals. For my honest voicing of opinion, my great liberal friends pretty much destroyed my career, alla, Joe McCarthy.

This is what I have to say. If liberalism was honest in 1/3 of its assertions, they would be elected by landslide votes every year. I think it is funny. George Bush is an imbecile. The democrats or so incompetent, they cannot find some one to beat an imbecile in an election.

So for all of you who will criticize me, because this is not well written, let me say, I get on a forum for enjoyment, not to write adequately written dissertations.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin. At the end of the day we end up with less money and fewer freedoms. They divide and conquer. Republicans have the image that they don't care about the little guys (which is probably true). Democrats act like they care all the way to their chauffeured limosine.

That's why I'm a Libertarian (Socially liberal and fiscally conservative). Yeah, it's a wasted vote but we need more than 2 parties and you have to start somewhere.

[Ban Hammer 12,830]

kirk and Jenny - very well written, a good read

Edited September 25, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[kirk and Jenny 0]

kirk and Jenny - very well written, a good read

Thanks, in this tough world, I think all of us, with different political persuasions, should listen to what people say from the outside and try harder to make things work. I know I have a lot of flaws, that will not be corrected if I don't listen. So do our political parties.

[mawilson 2,133]

However, I find myself repulsed by the moral relativism, anti-Americanism, and pro-Socialist tendencies of western European liberalism.

As we Western Europeans find ourselves repulsed by American Republicism Empire building. Can Europe have no opinion? Do we really have to cowtow to the US world order, there are other nations in this world you know. If you don't like Europe LEAVE

I too find myself at odds with European ideas of "social justice" (aka getting something for nothing.)

I don't like Europe. I left.