Can a modern day "liberal" also be a "patriot"?

Right said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
What's the point of repeating your OPINION when to date neither you or any of your like minded cohorts HAVE produced ONE SHRED OF FACT OR EVIDENCE that stands up to scrutiny that ANYONE who considers themselves "liberal" fits your description via public advocacy or action?

Seems you're just plain stubborn. Carry on.
Click to expand...


This is not my opinion, but fact:
The meaning of liberalism has changed throughout US history. During the revolutionary period a liberal was someone who was against the monarchy and fought for a republican form of government. They recognized that government was a necessary evil, and that in order to minimize the evil they also had to limit the powers of the government. So they created a federal system with very limited powers and left the rest to the states, or to the people.

In the modern era, a liberal is someone who sees the Constitution as outdated. They want the federal government to have broad, unrestricted power. This power approaches that of a monarchy, of which the patriot, both then and now, fights against.
Click to expand...

It was presented in the opening argument, and you apparently didn't read it. Instead you went off on your usual tripe.
Click to expand...

You seem to be confused to think that repeating yourself is an explanation, so let me clarify: YOUR OPINION IS NOT A "FACT". YOU have to PROVIDE DOCUMENTED, FACT BASED EVIDENCE that a "liberals" (by your definition or Webster's dictionary) "....want the federal government to have broad, unrestricted power". Given that our federal government is regulated by the ELECTED OFFICIALS OF THE PEOPLE, "monarchy" would not actually apply as a description.

Let us all know if you can meet this simple burden of proof, so as a more rational & logical discussion can be had.
 
Right said:
I always refer to a liberal as someone who adheres to his party's stated principles: http://www.liberalnationalpartyusa.com/lnc_platform.html
Click to expand...

*sigh* Newsflash for ya, bunky; YOU just gave a link to a POLITICAL PARTY. You can be a "liberal" without belong to that particular political party or adhering to their agenda/standard list. There are many who are "conservatives", but do NOT belong to or adhere to every group/party that incorporates that word in their monicker. Case in point: http://americanconservativeparty.com/about

YOU may agree with these folk 100%....others don't, as we see here: http://usconservatives.about.com/od/campaignselections/tp/AlternativesToTheGOP.htm


So back to square one: unless you can provide PROOF that ALL folk who consider themselves "liberal" are lock step with the group you sighted, your original assertion is rendered inaccurate.

But I suspect your willful ignorance and stubborn pride will prevent that simple acknowledgement. Carry on.
 
Sun Devil said:
Do you even fucking understand what it is to be liberal, conservative, progressive? Certain people of political ideologies or philosophies are of certain parties. People can be liberal and have conservative views. Being liberal for some, is not always in absolutes. Some people are liberal and conservative based on different social issues. Apparently anyone that demonstrates liberal thought is entirely liberal in your view. the fact that you're painting people with a broad brush demonstrates your...um...conservative logic because we all know people of the right don't know how to discern between members of a specific philosophy and political party....See how well generalizations work?
Click to expand...

He's an idiot. There are several people here who call themselves fiscal conservatives and social liberals. I don't see a contradiction in that.
 
Canceled.2014.1 said:
I think there are examples of liberals being patriots. The idea that all liberals seek to "creatively interpret" the constitution is laughable.

Many who are labeled "liberal" are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

The definition of "patriot" according to Merriam Webster is:

"pa·tri·ot noun \ˈpā-trē-ət, -ˌät, chiefly British ˈpa-trē-ət\

: a person who loves and strongly supports or fights for his or her country

Full Definition of PATRIOT

: one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests "

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriot
Click to expand...

I thought you were leaving for good Stang! :dunno:
 
Teflon Don said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Pull your head out of Rush Limbaugh's ass and PAY ATTENTION to what is actually being discussed! This is how I schooled your equally willfully ignorant compadre:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...56#post1430656

Now run-a-long and research the word "dixiecrat", as I tire of doing the homework for dumb toots like you.
Click to expand...

So you can't list them?
Click to expand...

YOU didn't even know what a "dixiecrat" was, much less the Southern Strategy of Nixon and it's historical significance. All one has to do is a historical research as to who switched parties and when. I suggest you do so, because I tire of doing homework for the willfully ignorant such as yourself.
 
Taichiliberal said:
YOU didn't even know what a "dixiecrat" was, much less the Southern Strategy of Nixon and it's historical significance. All one has to do is a historical research as to who switched parties and when. I suggest you do so, because I tire of doing homework for the willfully ignorant such as yourself.
Click to expand...

Oh I know what a Dixiecrat is. I am just looking for a list of democrats that became republicans. Surely someone as smart as you can find said list.
 
Teflon Don said:
Oh I know what a Dixiecrat is. I am just looking for a list of democrats that became republicans. Surely someone as smart as you can find said list.
Click to expand...

and what I THINK you are asking for is a list of ELECTED democrats that became republicans. That is nowhere near as relevant as the fact that, obviously, lots of southern voters who were democrats became republicans... which is why the south went from being true blue to dead red.
 
Before the CRA and the VRA, the south was solid blue... and that was with very little black participation in the electoral process. After blacks could freely vote, they did so in overwhelming numbers for democratic candidates. One would think that if all the southern racist democrats stayed democrats, and all the blacks in the south voted for democrats as well, that the democratic dominance of the south would have only grown more daunting. So... if voters for democrats increased as all those southern blacks started voting, where did the white democratic voters go? They changed parties. Nixon's southern strategy was a success, and even the chair of the RNC admitted that it had been when he apologized on behalf of the republican party to the NAACP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top