>>67296157
this is a shitpost.
>>67296335
this is a shillpost
>>67296335
this is a liberalpost
>>67296157
>willing to discard traditional values
Well they're half right.
>>67296157
i just checked a dictionary from 2000 and it says the same thing, can anyone confirmed
>>67296157
This is the meaning of this word... What else would you want it to say?
>>67296157
guess it's time for them to change their names back to progressives again, see you in 8 years liberals
>>67296157
That's a fairly succinct and fair definition,
>>67296662
isn't that traditional in of itself though?
>>67296157
amerifats just use the word wrong. get over yourself, you're not the center of the world.
lmao open to new ideas as long as it matches their ideas would be more accurate
you jsut cant make this shit up
>>67296662
they're actually half left
ITT 1984 in action
>pol in charge of objectivity
this place is astonishing, there is almost no place else on the internet this insane
>>67296157
It's the correct definition, although many who like to think of themselves as "liberal" actually aren't.
That's their own failure, not anything to do with the definition.
>>67298396
In many ways, yes. I still think that our bill of rights and many 'traditional' principals are liberal. Individualism is a liberal as you can get in my opinion. Contrast that with collectivist thought coming out of the left and it's hard to reconcile left with liberal in many ways.
Let us not forget the etymological root of liberal, which is liber which means free.
>>67296157
Learn to read, asshole.
It says open to "new," not open to "different" or "opposing."
That is, in fact, what liberal means, but i get your original point.
You need some lessons in how to better explain yourself to people.
>>67299098
uh.. the word liberal has no connection whatsoever to democrat party positions, why are you falling for such obvious orwellian tactics?
>>67296157
GUYS I CRACKED THE CODE
liberal
lib er al
real lib
bill ear.
>>67298513
Well, actually . . .
>>67300287
Because many democrats call themselves liberals. I'm not falling for that.
>>67296157
Get woke faggots
>>67300592
You idiots are the ones calling democrats liberals in the first place. Don't blame them for not being liberal by definition afterward. That's just dumb.
>>67300682
>Because many democrats call themselves liberals
well, let's see some of what they call for..
>equal protection for all gender, race, orientation, etc
>single payer health care
>higher taxes on the rich
>stricter regulation wall street
by USA standards, it's easy to argue democrats do in fact espouse liberal ideas. by contrast, please tell me the liberal ideas republicans call for?
>>67301435
>(in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.
>>single payer health care
>>higher taxes on the rich
>>stricter regulation wall street
Democrats are quite politically illiberal
>>67301755
they are socially liberal.
>>67300770
oh god...
>>67301755
>maximum individual liberty
the word you might be looking for is individualism. your own made up, arbitrary definition of the word liberal isn't going to stop democrats being labeled as such for thinking everyone regardless of sexual orientation, race, or gender should be equally protected under law. we tried segregation for centuries and it failed horribly, this is by definition, a liberal idea
>>67301435
>by contrast, please tell me the liberal ideas republicans call for?
This is a false dichotomy, and i'm not going to entertain it past calling it what it is.
>equal protection for all gender, race, orientation, etc
14th Amendment already covers much of that. When democrats start pushing women to be registered for the draft or abolishing it, then you can have a leg to stand on here.
>single payer health care
That is not free, that is limiting choices. Even more so by saying that health care must be obtained by every individual, what if you don't want it?
>higher taxes on the rich
They already pay higher taxes. Crony capitalism does create loopholes for many though.
>stricter regulation wall street
Is this a partisan issue? I don't see it as such.
>>67303879
>Even more so by saying that health care must be obtained by every individual, what if you don't want it?
Nobody's discussing forcing people to get healthcare you fucking cunt. It's just like conservatards to ruin long overdue good ideas with false debates, like Sarah Palin and her fucking death panels. It's like you guys are trained from childhood to be intellectually disohonest. God you're repugnant.
>>67304552
That's only one added aspect and wasn't central to my point. You sound really mad though and very eager to pick a fight over any little thing you can find.
Why you so mad leaf?
>>67305211
I have a friend in the United States who isn't getting the psychiatric care he needs because his insurance doesn't cover it. If I had lived in America and hadn't been able to get the psychiatric care I have today, I'd either be dead or in the streets. It's the fault of ignorantsingle-payer system naysayers that America is still a third world country for anyone who isn't in ideal mental and physical health. You people refuse to realize how much blood you have on your hands because you're so scared of a modest tax hike.
>>67305211
>>67305583
I'm impatient to hear your smart ass remark about this. I'm sure it's rich and it's really gonna put me in my place.
>>67305583
I'm simply arguing for competition in the market place to help drive down insurance costs. Single payer has been shown to correlate and some argue cause higher insurance premiums. Government is not good at efficiently managing things.
Can your friend not switch insurance companies?
>>67306668
Wow, you really are on edge huh? Expecting a timely response... rich indeed.
>>67306982
>Single payer has been shown to correlate and some argue cause higher insurance premiums
A single payer system is funded by taxes, not premiums. It's not an insurance, it's a public service. It kinda sounds like what you're talking about is Obamacare.
The government has a hard time managing things efficiently, yes, but there are things for which the government managing things is the lesser evil. As a society, we established long ago that shitty public education was better by far than the majority of the population being illiterate.
And if he could have, he would have. I know you like to think "freedom" has a solution to everything, but to some problem, the only solution it has to offer is death or misery. If you want to stand by that, be my guest, but get ready to be looked as like an asshole.
>>67303879
>This is a false dichotomy, and i'm not going to entertain it past calling it what it is.
you're right, that's my mistake. republicans have literally no liberal political positions
>>equal protection for all gender, race, orientation, etc
>14th Amendment already covers much of that.
>The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868,
sounds good but for the following 100 years, minorities were unconstitutionally discriminated against across the country and arguably still are to this day in the most unfortunate areas of the USA. i know republicans like to call democrats naive, but this takes the cake, come on, man.
>single payer health care
>That is not free, that is limiting choices.
of course it's no free but we've had a privatized healthcare system from the start and it's had nothing but disastrous results. we have the most bloated costs and 20%+ of our nation is uncovered with them, of course, being the poorest and most vulnerable. a single payer system is a welcoming change to the status quo, or LIBRUL if you prefer.
also, kek at the rest of your post. i am embarrassed we share the internet with the rest of the world who isn't trapped in a conservative disinfo sphere to see this close mindedness.
>>67307549
>A single payer system is funded by taxes, not premiums
Yes. You're right there. I was referring to Obamacare. Point taken.
>As a society, we established long ago that shitty public education was better by far than the majority of the population being illiterate.
* 90 percent of middle schools failed to meet New York State minimum standards for math and English exam scores. * 65 percent of elementary schools flunked the minimum standards. * 84 percent of high schools failed to meet the minimum state standards. * More than half of New York City's black and hispanic elementary school students failed the state's English and math exams. About 30 percent of white and asian-american students failed to achieve the minimum English test scores. * The results for eighth grade students were even worse. Here, 75 percent of black and hispanic students flunked both the English and the math tests. About 50 percent of white and Asian-American eighth graders failed the tests. These illiteracy rates are now common in public schools across America, not just in New York City.
http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Ed/Gvt&Litrcy.htm
This is once again my central point. Government, namely federal government can't even accomplish what they set out to do. I suppose you might argue that even failed literacy tests are better than nothing? How about making schooling done on more of a state/local level?
I don't know your friend's personal circumstances, and you're using anecdotal evidence to paint a broad picture. How about you take a more objective approach here to further your point. Not saying it's wrong, just refine it.
Freedom of choices and competition does answer many problems. I'm not going to argue that some things didn't/don't need to be looked at and addressed. For instance getting rid of denying people for pre-existing conditions certainly was a lesser of two evils that comes out on your sides favor in my opinion.
>>67306982
hey, buddy, in economics there's this thing called a public good. it's something nobody wants to provide for anyone else, but society as a whole has decided to collectively do so. you know, elementary schools, roads, police, government, etc. why is it so hard of a stretch to include healthcare like the rest of the world has?
>>67309804
>nobody wants to provide for anyone else
Then why do turnpikes, private schools and private security exist?
>>67310211
>Then why do turnpikes, private schools and private security exist?
because rich fags are willing and able to pay? if everything was privatized, what's to stop them from increasing the price of everything higher and higher so only the wealthiest can have those services?
>>67297814
only open to new behavior or opinions and strongly opposed to traditional values
>>67300770
Jesus I've never thought of it that way.
>>67308181
>you're right, that's my mistake. republicans have literally no liberal political positions
Any position that they take that espouses individualism is liberal. For instance the second amendment. When you set out to 'refute' my response to your shitpost with a universal negation I stopped reading.
>>67296157
>open to new behavior or opinions
BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGOOOTTTTTT
>>67311108
Competition.
>>67301435
>single payer health care
>higher tax
>more regulation
>liberal, coming from liber, to mean free int he sense of liberty and not fettered by other's control
No. The word today means that yes, I'll give you that, but it is a blatant misuse of the word, and is simply an anachronism now. Left wing policies are inherently less liberal in the classical sense of the word.
This is why people now use the word libertarian.
