Liberal. I Will Wear It As a Badge of Honor.

Hoss

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Posts
11,801
Media
2
Likes
586
Points
148
Age
73
Location
Eastern town
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
I don't believe in wearing badges sand certainly not in the political world where they'r mostly liars.
 

Jay1074

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Posts
374
Media
2
Likes
124
Points
113
Location
A Very Warm Handbasket
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Good lord! You guys clearly are not up on the history of political labels and how they have changed over the past 100 years.

Abraham Lincoln and Susan B. Anthony were both Republican and would be viewed as Conservatives these days but they were considered LIBERALS in their day when it was good to be known as a liberal. That changed in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

Modern day Conservatism is often referred to as Classical Liberalism because liberalism in the 18th and 19th Centuries was synonymous with LIBERTY or FREEDOM. Conservatism today refers to a desire to uphold the Classical Liberal philosophy of liberty for all, not as a means for keeping the status quo as that clip implied. That was an outright lie. From the 20th Century onward liberalism is no longer liberal but often anti-Liberty and Freedom as most liberal politicians in both parties fall into the regulatory crowd who's desire is to impose restrictions wherever they perceive unfairness and disadvantage. The term liberal does contain a negative connotation nowadays because of this. This is why the term Progressive is preferred by people like Hilary Clinton and was also the preferred label of Democrats like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The term Progressive implies forward motion and progress but it is anything but either. Progressiveness often tends to be regressive as rights and liberties of the people are stripped and trampled on. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler all considered themselves Liberals, Socialists, and/or Progressives. In this context they are synonymous. Still think it's a badge of honor?
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I like the phrase, wrongly attributed to Churchill, "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain." Like everything else in my life, I am bass akward on this remark, as I was a hard core conservative in my youth and have drifted left in my years.
Churchill swapped parties twice, swapped constituencies when he was defeated so as to get back into parliament immediately and chose his first party because his father's mates could get him adopted as a candidate. His plan was to do better than his father who was chancellor of the exchequer, and indeed he made it to PM. Whichever party he belonged to he was broadly a liberal. Introduced some of the first state pensions.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Conservatism today refers to a desire to uphold the Classical Liberal philosophy of liberty for all . . .

It refers to no such thing. To reiterate just one example:

Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Final Voting

House of Representatives:
Democrats 235 for, 15 against
Republicans 15 for, 160 against

Senate:
Democrats 57 for, 0 against
Republicans 8 for, 31 against

"And Justice and Liberty for All." Right.
 

Jay1074

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Posts
374
Media
2
Likes
124
Points
113
Location
A Very Warm Handbasket
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
It refers to no such thing. To reiterate just one example:

Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Final Voting

House of Representatives:
Democrats 235 for, 15 against
Republicans 15 for, 160 against

Senate:
Democrats 57 for, 0 against
Republicans 8 for, 31 against

"And Justice and Liberty for All." Right.

Way to misrepresent the situation. Don't ask don't tell was instituted by Clinton. The only reason there was ever a movement to repeal it is because of the whiners who felt the need to outwardly express their homosexuality while serving in the military. It was instituted to allow gays to serve in the military by making their orientation no one's business but their own and banned the "are you a homosexual?" question from military entrance exams which was standard practice until 1993. But no!! The militant gays had to have their cake and eat it too and made it an issue of being forced back into the closet, when that was NEVER the intent. Granted things have gotten better the past 20 years and being out isn't as controversial as it once was. Believe me, I'm grateful for that; but if gays really want to be treated fairly and not fuck up all the progress that's been made we need to collectively be a little more aware of that progress and stop being so paranoid about dubious intentions that may not exist.

We will never have a population that's 100% accepting of homosexuality, period. Forcing heterosexual men and women to knowingly serve alongside gay individuals and shut up about it is begging for a shit storm of controversy. Not everyone has to agree with our sexuality and forcing them to is not only wrong it's feeble minded. Just as you have a God given right to your opinions, so do straight people. But we can individually do our part to change the hearts and minds of others if we're not too forceful or militant about it.

Also, ending don't ask don't tell technically didn't end a ban on gays serving outwardly in the military. Gay men and women can still be discharged for sexual misconduct if they are accused of making unwanted advanced toward fellow military members of the same sex. Of course there should be proof if that occurs but this didn't make serving in the military as easy as you guys think it did and this is just the beginning of unknown consequences. There are some gay people who will never come out because they are fully aware of the unintended ramifications for making their orientation known to their colleagues. Speaking from experience, it is at times easier to keep it to yourself than to make your colleagues unnecessarily uncomfortable around you. All the sensitivity training in the world will never overcome that. Once the cat's out of the bag you can't get it back in and you cannot predict or control the feelings of others and to try is an exercise in futility. There's a reason why Pandora's box needs to stay closed. This is a clear case of progressive policy having a regressive effect.
 

TurkeyWithaSunburn

Legendary Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
3,589
Media
25
Likes
1,225
Points
608
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Conservatism today refers to a desire to uphold the Classical Liberal philosophy of liberty for all, not as a means for keeping the status quo as that clip implied.

I guess that's why TWO state parties (MT and TX) have as a part of their official platform statements FOR keeping sodomy laws on the books, despite the Supreme Court ruling that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional.

What I do in my bedroom, if anything, isn't a state matter as long as it's with a mutually consenting adult.
 

Meniscus

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
3,434
Media
0
Likes
1,947
Points
333
Location
Massachusetts, United States of America
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Modern day Conservatism is often referred to as Classical Liberalism because liberalism in the 18th and 19th Centuries was synonymous with LIBERTY or FREEDOM. Conservatism today refers to a desire to uphold the Classical Liberal philosophy of liberty for all, not as a means for keeping the status quo as that clip implied. That was an outright lie. From the 20th Century onward liberalism is no longer liberal but often anti-Liberty and Freedom as most liberal politicians in both parties fall into the regulatory crowd who's desire is to impose restrictions wherever they perceive unfairness and disadvantage. The term liberal does contain a negative connotation nowadays because of this. This is why the term Progressive is preferred by people like Hilary Clinton and was also the preferred label of Democrats like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The term Progressive implies forward motion and progress but it is anything but either. Progressiveness often tends to be regressive as rights and liberties of the people are stripped and trampled on. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler all considered themselves Liberals, Socialists, and/or Progressives. In this context they are synonymous. Still think it's a badge of honor?

The devil is in the details. The rules, regulations, and restrictions to which you refer are intended to promote the general welfare of the people by giving all people a voice in the political process, preventing the oppression and exploitation of minorities by the majority, preventing (or at least avoiding/reducing) environmental damage, and promoting such things as safe working conditions, reasonable work hours, fair wages, affordable healthcare, and retirement plans.

The loss of freedom which you bemoan is, in America, the loss of freedom of the rich and powerful to use their (largely unearned) cultural and economic privileges to the detriment of those less advantaged. Doing so stimulates the economy, creates upward mobility, and promotes the growth of the middle class--all of which are ultimately in everyone's best interests.

Unregulated capitalism DOESN'T WORK. It grows like a cancer and results in monopolies which suffocate competition, produce shoddy and overpriced goods and services, and leave consumers without any real choices.

I shudder to think about what America would look like today if it hadn't been for people like FDR and other liberals/progressives. Imagine a world with no civil rights, no social security or medicare, no minimum wage, long working hours in dangerous, unhealthy working conditions, child labor, and little access to healthcare or education. I seriously doubt that in such a world we would have made the scientific, technological, and social/cultural progress that defines the 20th century, and we'd be lagging far behind Western Europe and other "progressive" nations.

Marx, Lenin, and Stalin were obviously a very different kind of liberal than FDR or any other American liberal.

So, yes, I still think "liberal" is a badge of honor.
 
Last edited:

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Way to misrepresent the situation . . . . [big load of horse crap after that]

It's real simple. Don't Ask Don't Tell was unjust, just as the previous policy had been. Either way, you could get kicked out of the military simply for being gay--something that could *not* happen simply for being heterosexual.

This is not conjectural. It happened some 14,000 times while DADT was in effect.

Your garbage about the problems of gay people in the service is being disproved even as we have this conversation. DADT is gone, and the huge disaster conservatives predicted has not happened. Will not happen--any more than it has in all the other countries that have had openly gay men and women in their militaries for years.

Thank God the times are against you. Your generation (don't know your age, just going by your attitude) will end up as nothing but a curious footnote in history.
 

Upperdown

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Posts
198
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
The people associated with a word or symbol tend to give it a bad connotation.

That and the constant redefining of the word. Scoundrals, theives, racists, and general crooks use that word to cover their tracks.

The liberals that link speaks of would be astonished that they are being lumped with modern liberals.

The "liberal" Lincoln would be judged an extreme social conservative by todays standards.

The "liberals" that brought the vote to blacks would also be astonished that they are being lumped with modern liberals. They would also be amazed that the Democrats are taking credit for all the achievements.
 

billybones

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Posts
3,511
Media
0
Likes
3,148
Points
333
Gender
Male
That and the constant redefining of the word. Scoundrals, theives, racists, and general crooks use that word to cover their tracks.

The liberals that link speaks of would be astonished that they are being lumped with modern liberals.

The "liberal" Lincoln would be judged an extreme social conservative by todays standards.

The "liberals" that brought the vote to blacks would also be astonished that they are being lumped with modern liberals. They would also be amazed that the Democrats are taking credit for all the achievements.

Wait, what?
 

CalmAndCreative

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Posts
160
Media
168
Likes
434
Points
343
Location
Seattle (Washington, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
The clip from The West Wing becomes very much like this quote, I printed a copy of it and hung it on my wall:

If your workplace is safe; if your children go to school rather than being forced into labor; if you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a forty-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights -- you can thank liberals. If your food is not poisoned and your water is drinkable -- you can thank liberals. If your parents are eligible for Medicare and Social Security, so they can grow old in dignity without bankrupting your family -- you can thank liberals. If our rivers are getting cleaner and our air isn't black with pollution; if our wilderness is protected and our countryside is still green -- you can thank liberals. If people of all races can share the same public facilities; if everyone has the right to vote; if couples fall in love and marry regardless of race; if we have finally begun to transcend a segregated society -- you can thank liberals. Progressive innovations like those and so many others were achieved by long, difficult struggles against entrenched power. What defined conservatism, and conservatives, was their opposition to every one of those advances. The country we know and love today was built by those victories for liberalism -- with the support of the American people.

--Joe Conason

I also remember keeping a newspaper article from the 90s, when Pat Schroeder retired from the House of Representatives, where she said she was "proud to be a liberal". Just a few little reassurances I could turn to to remind me that you don't let the opposition define you, you have to do that for yourself.

Thanks for this..
 

Bardox

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Posts
2,234
Media
38
Likes
551
Points
198
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
When I'm with my more arrogant, dyed in the wool Liberal hating conservative friends I usually bring up my favorite line:

Just remember -- it was the conservative traditionalists that nailed Christ to his cross!

Nice. Mind if I use that one? :)
 

FuzzyKen

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,045
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
193
Gender
Male

Definitions historically have changed based on what is needed politically by one group or another.

In order to remove conscious thought from individuals about things they know as wrong a group of people has to be "dehumanized" and or "stereotyped" under a negative or stereotype so that control of the mind can be established by those seeking power over others.

Though it started long before, let's look back first at World War II.

By the time that the bombing of Pearl Harbor took place, there were many generations of Japanese Americans born in the United States and living in this country as members of it's own society. Prior to December 7, 1941 the United States had been isolationist in view. The American People basically had stated that "war" was something taking place in Europe and whatever Germany or Japan did or professed the actions of those countries are the problems of those they attack. The American population did not want a fight of any kind and felt that both the War in Europe and in the Pacific was "none of our business". There were heavy Asian populations throughout the United States but the West Coast was higher in concentration. Because of the actions that took place in Pearl Harbor a campaign began in the United States to dehumanize both the German and the Japanese people. If one looks these campaigns were very public and parts of these can be found on the net with little effort. Children in schoolyards were attacking and beating up Japanese American Children and children of German ancestry as this progressed because of things done by Japanese and German Nationals overseas. Many individuals of German descent "Americanized" their surnames and moved because of this. Mr. and Mrs. Braun became Mr. and Mrs. Brown, Mr. and Mrs. Stern became Mr. and Mrs. Star or "Starr" if they wanted to really confuse. Those of Japanese ancestry could not do this because they physically had identifiable characteristics. The Japanese taught us a great number of lessons. The main thing was that by a barrage or negative campaign to dehumanize other human beings we could control a very large population changing their opinions and making them fight. It was found over more than 80 years that by soing so we could turn even young teenagers into cold blooded killers.

Adolph Hitler used exactly the same techniques on the Hitler Youth towards individuals which he in his delusional state opposed or of which for one reason or another he opposed.

The United States we did the same thing in Viet Nam. The problem with this technique is it works way too well. It resulted in absolute massacres when the soldiers were unable to tell the civilian population from the enemy. The result was that they drew their machine guns and asked questions later.

Currently, the same tactics are used towards individuals of Middle Eastern heritage. Who is or is not in fact an individual that creates problems is far less important than questioning and doing a microscope on everyone simply because it is a mentality that has worked on the part of those who want some form of control.

Religious extremists are another group that has dehumanized their enemies with fictional misinformation.

The problem in more recent years is that the Republican Party has been destroyed from what it's true ideals are by the infiltration of a number of extremists using these same wartime techniques to expand their own power base.

The idea to change a simple definition of a word to have a negative connotation in this case is one of the most far reaching power grabs in world history. The United States is not the only place where extremist conservatives have done this.

One of the more interesting aspects of this entire method is that extremists are so concerned with their power base that they don't care that in order to overcome their enemy they in fact become what they most fear. They become the oppressors.

Those who are extremists professing the moronic and short cited viewpoint of the extremist on either side would sacrifice all forms of freedom and they would not hesitate to sacrifice personal freedoms or the rights that protect themselves and others in the process of moving towards the goal of power.

When taking College Psych courses I had to spend a great deal of time on this one and we had to understand the methodology on how it was done. There are surprisingly medical applications for this and those would be completely unrelated to the subject of this posting, but this is the how and why the word "liberal" has been given a negative connotation. In truth a word itself has no power whatsoever, it is people that give any word it's power.

 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
you will change your mind when you have money.
An acknowledgement that the Republican Party blatantly caters to the wealthy (individuals and corporations)?
Interestingly enough, I've heard statistics show that more millionaires vote Democrat than Republican, but I've always taken that to mean that the average person isn't as much of a greedy douche as some would have us believe.
Way to misrepresent the situation. Don't ask don't tell was instituted by Clinton. The only reason there was ever a movement to repeal it is because of the whiners who felt the need to outwardly express their homosexuality while serving in the military. It was instituted to allow gays to serve in the military by making their orientation no one's business but their own and banned the "are you a homosexual?" question from military entrance exams which was standard practice until 1993. But no!! The militant gays had to have their cake and eat it too and made it an issue of being forced back into the closet, when that was NEVER the intent. Granted things have gotten better the past 20 years and being out isn't as controversial as it once was. Believe me, I'm grateful for that; but if gays really want to be treated fairly and not fuck up all the progress that's been made we need to collectively be a little more aware of that progress and stop being so paranoid about dubious intentions that may not exist.
While it was usually referred to as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the policy was actually Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue. The third part was supposed to be "If you somehow find out about someone's sexual orientation, you must ignore the fact that you learned about it. Don't talk about to anyone, and don't try to get them removed from the military." That part got largely ignored. How different would it have been treated if anyone that tried to tell on someone else for being gay got kicked out for tattling?
We will never have a population that's 100% accepting of homosexuality, period. Forcing heterosexual men and women to knowingly serve alongside gay individuals and shut up about it is begging for a shit storm of controversy. Not everyone has to agree with our sexuality and forcing them to is not only wrong it's feeble minded. Just as you have a God given right to your opinions, so do straight people. But we can individually do our part to change the hearts and minds of others if we're not too forceful or militant about it.
It's less begging for that shit storm and more asking our soldiers to be considerate human beings. If the homophobic soldiers are incapable of getting along with their coworkers in a professional manner, they need to find another job. Period. It's really no different than any other job in that regard, but the military is held to an even higher standard. If they're unable to even maintain a cool professional relationship with the people there to keep them alive and take them home, I do NOT want them armed and representing my country overseas until they learn to grow a thicker skin and deal with it.
Also, ending don't ask don't tell technically didn't end a ban on gays serving outwardly in the military. Gay men and women can still be discharged for sexual misconduct if they are accused of making unwanted advanced toward fellow military members of the same sex. Of course there should be proof if that occurs but this didn't make serving in the military as easy as you guys think it did and this is just the beginning of unknown consequences. There are some gay people who will never come out because they are fully aware of the unintended ramifications for making their orientation known to their colleagues. Speaking from experience, it is at times easier to keep it to yourself than to make your colleagues unnecessarily uncomfortable around you. All the sensitivity training in the world will never overcome that. Once the cat's out of the bag you can't get it back in and you cannot predict or control the feelings of others and to try is an exercise in futility. There's a reason why Pandora's box needs to stay closed. This is a clear case of progressive policy having a regressive effect.
First off, the military doesn't look kindly on unwanted sexual advances regardless of gender. Openly homosexual doesn't mean hitting on every soldier with a penis. Discretion and professionalism is expected of all soldiers in such endeavors, and gay soldiers are no different. If the rules are being enforced differently for them, than that is an issue with the people enforcing the rules; a separate matter that needs to be dealt with on its own.

And Pandora's Box needs to stay the fuck open. The sooner people serve with openly gay individuals, the sooner they'll realize its not the end of the world. If they can't figure that out, they can leave when their contract is up. It's basically a choice: whose rights do you defend? The gay soldiers' rights to be happy and pursue love (within the rules) without having to lie and creep around everywhere in the process? Or the other guy's right to be a bigot? Give those guys the choice; get tolerance or get the hell out of our military. Our armed forces will be better for it.