For the most part, it seems that liberals and democrats went hand in hand. Oddly enough, most neocons are actually liberals with a different name.

Liberals, as I see it, are more 'for/of the people'. They are for more big government control and regulation of larger entities (social groups, corporations, etc), higher taxes (to fund more socialist style policies), and are generally concerned more with individuals and underdog/minority groups. There is a focus on personal entitlement.

Now, liberalism is not bad, and it is necessary and would work out great in a two party system if done correctly.

Where i see things go wrong is the radicalization of general liberalism. Welfare can be a 'good thing'(tm) but in its current state, it is all too inclusive. it is too easy to get on welfare and there is no reason to get out of it. I always took welfare as a 'oh hey, you tripped, let me help you back on your feet. ok good, goodbye' rather than 'oh hey, you tripped, stay there and have cookies until you feel like getting up'. When it comes to underdog/minority groups, it becomes all about them to the exclusion of the majority, and the majority has to kowtow to the minority, especially via legislation. Taxes raise up and it is to support the 'less fortunate' portion, and there is no issue in the radical liberal's mind that many people, while paying for these programs will never be allowed to make use of them. That whole mortgage/loan thing, forcing banks to more or less give loans to anyone that can sign their name? that is a liberal style program. Where there is a large bit on self entitlement, it falls far short on personal responsibility, because that might interfere with their entitlement, but we see where that gets us.

I tend to see a lot of radical liberals as idealists and academics, generally out of touch with society despite their information. Radical conservatives are the same way, just a different bubble. Theory vs practice.

Generally, liberalism has always meant 'change' in large shifts and hang right out there on the edge of things, and at times, wants change just for the sake of change.

if this were an ideal world, between liberals and conservatives (i guess you'd have to see my definition on a conservative first), conservatives would be more like the executives and higher ups, with a small liberal advisory panel included.. and the liberals would be more on the supervisor//boss level. Generally, conservatives are good at steering, and do things top down, liberals are good at getting people themselves going esp. from the bottom up.

Oddly, I have seen this kind of setup work wonderfully in companies, but not the other way around (liberals lead, conservatives 'make it so') it actually ended up being way too restrictive!

I have a wife, friends and coworkers that are liberal. I can only describe (Stereotype) how they think. I am not stereotyping the entire liberal population okay? lol

To me liberals seem to mean well. I think for the most part they are well intentioned. They tend to be more emotional with issues. By that I mean they let their heart get in the way of their mind and reasoning sometimes. On the flip side they appear hypocritical and vindictive. They have a "my way is the right way" mindset and if you don't buy into the they get extremely angry. But that's fine, that's when the debates get very entertaining. lol

They want everyone to be equal. They NEED to be able to have situations that involve good vs evil. They must be able to place people into different groups\classes. Everyone has to be defined by skin color or how much money they have or what their sexual orientation is. They need to have a group to support, to fight for and they need to have an evil villain to fight against. They have to have a cause and they can always dig one up if needed.

This is where their belief in government comes into play I think. They believe a large centralized government (the middle man, elected by THEM) can help with redistributing the "fairness" amongst it's citizens. The problem here is, the liberals I know don't really understand the concept of dirty politicians, wasteful spending or the obvious evidence of corruption and deceit. They just have faith in government..... unless a republican is president of course. I, as a conservative, will never understand THAT part. The trust that people can give the government these days. After years of Republicans and Democrats wasting our tax dollars and lying to us how anyone can still trust them is beyond me.

I sort of just categorize the liberals I know as well intentioned, overly optimistic and sometimes naive people. They want so very much to change the world for the better that they are willing to risk losing personal freedoms to achieve it.






[edit on 21-10-2009 by Topher28]

Originally posted by Boston Grump

OK this is easy. Define a liberal: Creep Slobberman, Koontie Couric, Crisp Mascrews-Loose, Jamlick Femi-nazitano, Judge Salzamoonbat. Mich-Hell-Cat Obama, hubby Barry Soetoro Maobama, and the hellary demon herself!

Seriously? What grade are you in?

You're going to answer a serious question with a bunch of 5th grade name insults? Really?

Edit for type and quote fix.

[edit on 21/10/09 by Morbo the Annihilator]

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by superrat
liberal = socialist = communist = atheist = social evolutionist = anti-American

Hmm that sounds pretty backwards to me.

What's wrong with you people?

I agree. Apparently some people are quite skeptical of education as some kind of socialist/athiest/commie/retard plot. these are the people who don't know the meaning of the term "socialist."

Originally posted by Office 4256

I agree. Apparently some people are quite skeptical of education as some kind of socialist/athiest/commie/retard plot. these are the people who don't know the meaning of the term "socialist."

wellllll.....


....there is something to that.

For many years there has been a grumble about how it seemed that higher institutions were indoctrinating students into a socialist mindset via some of the curriculum that was not only offered, but required. Perhaps this happened, perhaps it was more of an issue of kids in college revolting against mom and dad by taking classes that were all the rage at the time, such as philosophy that focused on writing of people like Karl Marx. This was exacerbated by the McCarthy flap. Of course, to a conservative, McCarthy is looking like a freaking genius right about now.

I have spent hours visiting with a guy who is a former official with the Texas education authority (in the 70's and 80's). He rants and raves constantly about the "wussification" of our youth through "liberal education agenda". I don't argue with him. He is either right, or he is wrong. In either case, i won't change his mind.

Regardless, the surfacing of some soviet era (late 40's/early 50's, i believe) documents that discuss attacking America via our educational institutions, is damning evidence. It is a brilliant concepts: subjugate "upper crust" individuals via focused educational efforts in college level coursework. The wealthy and young are the leaders of American culture. "Celebrity gossip" in the early 1900's consisted of rags that gossiped about the wealthy families back east (the railroad barons, etc). If you focus on these people, and can educate them in a way that promotes what we currently call the "liberal mindset", you create an increasingly weak nation lacking in the character that made it great in the mid 20th century.

Besides, this is a conspiracy website. of course people are going to have a tendancy to think that the pink-o's were trying to get in their panty drawer back at the height of the cold war. and, maybe they were based on some of the evidence.