Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The word 'liberal'...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VisitorQ,

Your posts always seem to bother me. I guess you probably say the same thing about mine. There is always something you say where I am like, do you live on the same planet as me?

I'll let the liberals are socialists business go; you see socialism in so many things, I sometimes think of you as the reincarnated soul of Joseph McCarthy (paying penance no doubt!). And, even about classical liberalism being for small government - John Locke didn't even care about the kind of government - a monarchy would do - as long as it had the will of the people (not that I support Locke's position) much less "size". I don't even think it was an issue. And, even Jefferson greatly expanded the power of the federal government. And, the history of the U.S. has been steady increase in the power of the federal government.

But, I am just flabbergasted that you would be against the U.S.'s enterance into WWII. Without the U.S. involvement in WWII, we might truly live in a fascist world. I just don't see how you could possibly get that liberty that you so crave if the U.S. had been isolationist. You don't seem like a pacificist...so what gives?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unposter wrote:
VisitorQ,

Your posts always seem to bother me. I guess you probably say the same thing about mine. There is always something you say where I am like, do you live on the same planet as me?

I suppose you could say the feeling is mutual. I don't really dwell on it much though...

Quote:
I'll let the liberals are socialists business go; you see socialism in so many things, I sometimes think of you as the reincarnated soul of Joseph McCarthy (paying penance no doubt!). And, even about classical liberalism being for small government - John Locke didn't even care about the kind of government - a monarchy would do - as long as it had the will of the people (not that I support Locke's position) much less "size". I don't even think it was an issue. And, even Jefferson greatly expanded the power of the federal government. And, the history of the U.S. has been steady increase in the power of the federal government.

Your claims are pretty dubious. Jefferson was for big government? Come now...

Quote:
But, I am just flabbergasted that you would be against the U.S.'s enterance into WWII. Without the U.S. involvement in WWII, we might truly live in a fascist world. I just don't see how you could possibly get that liberty that you so crave if the U.S. had been isolationist. You don't seem like a pacificist...so what gives?

This is just plain nonsense. Without the US there would have been no fascism in the first place. Weren't you aware that Wall Street funded both Hitler and the Bolsheviks right from the start? Nor was there ever any threat whatsoever that the Germans would have invaded the US (the mere notion is laughable). The myth that we entered the war to liberate Europe is just that: a myth. Both of the world wars were about war profiteering and further centralization of power, plain and simple.

This notion that we need to be the "peacekeepers" of the world is the very antithesis of classical liberalism. This is why the progressives are not really liberal, but much more akin to collectivists/socialists/fascists in their world view.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OP, despite what you read since my post, its about the label 'liberal' that you spoke of.
Someone who has advocated things such as gay marriage, national health care, caring for the environment, are called liberals by Republicans and those that are called 'conservatives'. Its the label.
Just like how Bush and others were called 'conservatives' even though they didn't govern or legislate as such. Its the label I believe you are referring to.
The progressives of the past were called socialists by the conservatives of the past in order to taint their views on such things as the right for women to vote, equality of blacks and in the '70s the women's movement, later gay rights. These views were deemed liberal and as such Republicans demonized the word and it stuck. That's the essence of it.
There are all kinds of textbook definitions of what is liberal. classic liberalism, libertine, etc. that you can get out history books but the term as its understood today are those that support things such as national healthcare, gay marriage, etc.
The very same people who were calling themselves liberal years ago started calling themselves progressives when the term liberal got demonized socially.
Now its happening with those that label themselves conservative. Since the Bush years its become a social stigma in some circles to regard yourself as conservative. Right or wrong, to many saying you are means you are possibly fundamental religious, you are anti immigration, borderline racist to some, against gays to some, etc. Its not true, but its the label and the social meaning.
Some who once called themselves conservatives are now saying they are independent or libertarian in order not be tainted by the tag just like liberals did with rebranding themselves as progressive. Re-using a term from many decades ago.

So, to answer you again, the term was used negatively by Republicans and right of center folks (Fox News, etc.) and prior to Fox News by the elder Bush and others and it stuck in the public arena to mean a bad thing. Someone who was socialist almost. Anti American, non patriotic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fezmond



Joined: 27 Oct 2008

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cheers for all the replies.

it's interesting to me how so many people are so passionate about the whole election in america. from my perspective in europe it's almost like we expect politicians to be lying bastards so that nobody really gives a monkey about the whole election. just like choosing the best of a bad bunch.

however, from an outsider's point of view, it seems a lot of american politics is based around religion and a creeping sense of 'how staunch are you?' in a lot of those views - abortion, guns, welfare etc.

anyway, thanks all for the replies and helping to educate me. looking forward to november (?) to see who makes it
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
On the other hand



Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OTOH/Bucheon Bum exchange...

Quote:
Quote:
The American Civil Liberties Union, essentially a group of lawyers who argue for an expansive interpretation of the Bill Of Rights, especially the free-speech and due process clauses. They are not so keen on a similar approach to the 2nd Amendment.

I wouldn't say it is that they're less keen on the 2nd amendment, it is just that their need is a lot less when you have groups like the NRA that pour tons of resources into "defending" the 2nd amendment. I imagine if the the 4th amendment had a lobby group in its defense, the ACLU would also give less attention to that one.


But wouldn't you say, BB, that the kind of people who support or are involved with the ACLU tend to be the kind who also favor more restrictive gun laws?

From what I've seen of American politics, there is probably a positive correlation between "supports pro-choice, absolutist interpretations of the First Amendment, and the teaching of evolution", and "supports tighter gun legislation".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: DC area

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the other hand wrote:
OTOH/Bucheon Bum exchange...

Quote:
Quote:
The American Civil Liberties Union, essentially a group of lawyers who argue for an expansive interpretation of the Bill Of Rights, especially the free-speech and due process clauses. They are not so keen on a similar approach to the 2nd Amendment.

I wouldn't say it is that they're less keen on the 2nd amendment, it is just that their need is a lot less when you have groups like the NRA that pour tons of resources into "defending" the 2nd amendment. I imagine if the the 4th amendment had a lobby group in its defense, the ACLU would also give less attention to that one.


But wouldn't you say, BB, that the kind of people who support or are involved with the ACLU tend to be the kind who also favor more restrictive gun laws?

From what I've seen of American politics, there is probably a positive correlation between "supports pro-choice, absolutist interpretations of the First Amendment, and the teaching of evolution", and "supports tighter gun legislation".


You're right that about the types of people supporting the ACLU are probably the same type that favor more restrictive gun laws. I just wanted to note that the ACLU itself is apolitical (or at least tries to be). Obviously those who support and donate to the ACLU are generally not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: DC area

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
caniff wrote:

With a wife, teenage daughter, two cats, a mortgage payment in Seoul while carrying a house in Boston with two tenants on the third floor, being personal representative on the estates of two recently-deceased family members, working full-time, etc., my plate is loaded.


That is completely reasonable. Now why can't you use the specifics of your experience to extrapolate that, in general, the people you have been, as of late, railing against likely have similarly complex personal lives that similarly restrain them?

Although they may not be as specifically informed as you are, Americans are broadly aware that there are problems with the system. Like you, however, they simply have too much going on in their day to day lives to go off to war, so to speak, against these problems. You could stand to be more charitable, and I think that is the substance of what Bucheon Bum was getting at, albeit in perhaps an overly aggressive fashion.


Thanks Fox for elaborating and being more eloquent than I certainly was.

Sorry Caniff. I share your frustration with the system, and I guess reading that from you repeatedly doesn't help. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ACLU's position on the second amendment:

Quote:
Gun Control

Updated: 7/8/2008
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

ANALYSIS
Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.

Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.

Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: DC area

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
ACLU's position on the second amendment:

Quote:
Gun Control

Updated: 7/8/2008
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

ANALYSIS
Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.

Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.

Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.


Ha, yeah, that would have been the wise move (actually looking it up). I stand corrected.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
caniff



Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bucheon bum wrote:
Sorry Caniff. I share your frustration with the system, and I guess reading that from you repeatedly doesn't help. Smile


Accepted and noted, BB.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
caniff



Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bucheon bum wrote:
Sorry Caniff. I share your frustration with the system, and I guess reading that from you repeatedly doesn't help. Smile


Accepted and noted, BB. And Fox was right, although I stand by what I've said. I'll try to pick my battles more wisely from here on out so as not to completely alienate the audience.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VisitorQ,

Man, I thought I was cynical but your take on WWII takes the cake.

Not only can't you see how the lack of participation of the U.S. in WWII could have lead to world wide fascism (despite the fact that you consider the Bush administration fascist - so I don't see how you can see Democracy and freedom even having a chance without U.S. participation in WWII), you cannot see any other reason to fight the Nazis and the Japanese other than war profitering.

And, for the record, Jefferson's purchase of the Lousiana territory greatly expanded the scope and purpose of the U.S. Federal government and paved the way for increased "Federalism." So, yes, Jefferson, too, sorry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unposter wrote:
VisitorQ,

Man, I thought I was cynical but your take on WWII takes the cake.

My take on WWII is completely reasonable and well-founded.

Quote:
Not only can't you see how the lack of participation of the U.S. in WWII could have lead to world wide fascism (despite the fact that you consider the Bush administration fascist - so I don't see how you can see Democracy and freedom even having a chance without U.S. participation in WWII), you cannot see any other reason to fight the Nazis and the Japanese other than war profitering.

Because I am not a hypocrite. If you think it was worth the US entering WWII (after having built up the Nazis and Bolsheviks from the very start), then the sky's the limit. I sure hope not to hear you whining about Bush invading Iraq anymore. I, on the other hand, will continue to be consistent and complain about it.

Quote:
And, for the record, Jefferson's purchase of the Lousiana territory greatly expanded the scope and purpose of the U.S. Federal government and paved the way for increased "Federalism." So, yes, Jefferson, too, sorry.

Federalism means sharing power between a central government and state governments. So again, your "point" (if you had one) is not taken...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There was a time when 'liberal' only meant moving on ahead into the future and trying to find the policies that would further that goal.

Then along came RR and suddenly liberal meant something like 'un-American anti-business pro-peace vicious subversive insanity'. It wasn't that liberals had changed their views, but it did mean that conservatives had become vicious anti-American reactionary pro-theocracy fanatics with a view to turning over the government to the 1% in favor of government by, for, and of the 1%. In essence, 'liberal' had to become a dirty word for that to happen.

It was frustrating.

The good news is that the word 'conservative' is fast becoming equally unacceptable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
There was a time when 'liberal' only meant moving on ahead into the future and trying to find the policies that would further that goal.

Then along came RR and suddenly liberal meant something like 'un-American anti-business pro-peace vicious subversive insanity'. It wasn't that liberals had changed their views, but it did mean that conservatives had become vicious anti-American reactionary pro-theocracy fanatics with a view to turning over the government to the 1% in favor of government by, for, and of the 1%. In essence, 'liberal' had to become a dirty word for that to happen.

It was frustrating.

The good news is that the word 'conservative' is fast becoming equally unacceptable.


+10 points to Gryffindor.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International