Liberal

[ophello]

If we're going to call each other nasty names like "liberal" (which might just have become a four-letter-word here on HQ), let's start a discussion on what the word actually means.

I'm going to use Wikipedia as my source. Hopefully they, too, aren't overrun by communists:

Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, free markets, and a transparent system of government. All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.

Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism. Liberals argued that economic systems based on free markets are more efficient and generate more prosperity.

The first modern liberal state was the United States of America, founded on the principle that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Now, there are some of you who think I'm a "liberal". I can handle that. But what does that really mean? What are you really calling me? And if you think I am, does that make it so?

I challenge anyone in this forum to prove that liberals are ruining our country. And as such, if I am one, why you tolerate the likes of me on this forum.

[z]

Op,

I agree that liberal, like many other 'consepts' has very little actual substance attached to them these days.

That is intentional.

See this video:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv7AAc681bE

Ex KGB agent tells how its done.

I recommend viewing the whole thing:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVZ4Lkm6JQw&feature=related

[Jerseyboy]

Wikipedia is likely run by Fascists if not communists. Facists are totalitarians who would govern forcefully without divine imprimatur, bringing the profit and production of Corporate Capitalist entities under state control for the benefit of a useless bloated bureaucratic apparatus of the state government whose speculative and heavy-handed regulating power eventually stifles free market forces. Which leads to a socialist program to keep their worker bees from starvation. Which leads to etc..

We already know what Communists are.

Either way, regarding Wikipedia, they have shown a strong pattern of defining terms according to their own "understanding" of things.

Just look at how they use classic disinformation in their definition of liberalism. Mostly truth with a twist.

--------- ----------- ------------ -----------

WP: Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.

(Vaguely true without mentioning that many of these political philosophies are diametrically opposed on the basis of what consequences are due to an individual who is at liberty to follow their free will.)

WP: Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies,

(Vaguely true, but still remains undefined and uncommitted to the essence)

WP: but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, free markets, and a transparent system of government.

(The principles of Liberty mentioned above are those that any conservative civil libertarian would agree with. But are all those "liberals" mentioned previously who hold the "various streams of thought" and "differing policy ideas" truly "generally united" in supporting these principles?)

WP: All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.

(Here they equate 2 tenets of liberty,

1. open and fair elections
2. all citizens having equal rights by law,

with "liberal democracy", while not defining the criteria required to qualify a person to vote in a "fair election"---- thus DISINFORMATION)

WP: Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism. Liberals argued that economic systems based on free markets are more efficient and generate more prosperity.

(more truth)

WP: The first modern liberal state was the United States of America, founded on the principle that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

(more truth)

---------

The point is that all totalitarians can use "liberal democracy" (one man one vote) In order to keep the working class people feeling they have a say, while manipulating their sentiments and buying votes from those they have the most sway over.

It is true that America is the most Liberal country in the world in the sense that ANYONE could approach America with no bar to race, creed, or caste. As long as they were willing to follow the laws of the constitution of this constitutional republic and thus assimilate into the Culture. This is liberal compassion.

Those who were willing to CONSERVE such values are the Most LIBERAL in the true sense of the word, and are the Liberal Conservatives of this Republic. The true conservative republicans.

Those would twist the word liberal in the sense of the libertine, who takes liberty with those things not meant to be changed, like core values, are rascals. The "left wing" of today, the liberal democrats radical, moderate, and Neo-con "republicans".

This is how I see it, writing to you from the liberal state of NJ.

Mark

[ophello]

Either way, regarding Wikipedia, they have shown a strong pattern of defining terms according to their own "understanding" of things.

And by "they", you mean everyone right? Since anyone can edit the articles I don't see how you can call Wikipedia fascist.

[Abdiel]

Jersey,

I see the other way around, is not that wiki's definition of liberal is a twist, rather the appropriation of the left of the word liberal, has effectively twisted it's current meaning. I speculate that's way someone else had to come to the term "libertarian" to reflect it has more to do with classical liberalism. Indeed, classical liberalism was considered "bourgeois", and many of the classical liberalism philosophies gave birth to the USA constitution, are considered contrary to marxist philosophy.

While I don't know if there are fascists running the wikipedia, I know, that certain political articles are appropriated by biased watchdogs. Just try to mention in the wikipedia article, that Barack Hussein Obama has 17 pending lawsuits questioning his qualifications as natural born citizen, two of which had made their way to the supreme court. I challenge you to modify Obama's and/or McCain's biography, to include the lawsuits against them questioning their qualifications for POTUS. If your mod passes the article administrator, it won't last more than 5 minutes.

Abdiel.

[Adam]

Lack of authority

Wikipedia acknowledges that it should not be used as a primary source for serious research.[14] Librarian Philip Bradley stated in an October 2004 interview with The Guardian that the concept behind the site was a "lovely idea," and he would use it in practice, and that he is "not aware of a single librarian who wouldn't. The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data is reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window."[15]

Robert McHenry, former editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica said in November 2004:
“ "The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him."[8] ”

Wikipedia contains no formal peer review process for fact-checking, and due to the lack of requiring qualifications to edit any article, the contributors themselves may not be well-versed in the topics they write about. As the cultural commentator Paul Vallely put it, writing in The Independent on the subject of Wikipedia:
“ "Using it is like asking questions of a bloke you met in the pub. He might be a nuclear physicist. Or he might be a fruitcake."[16] ”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

Second link: fist web page.

www.oxysearch.com/search.aspx?q=Criticism_of_Wikipedia%20&st=web

[e-Male]

Op,

Wikipedia has a long history of bullying moderators and censorship and violation of their own policy about point of view interjection. That's why the founders abandoned it to form Citizendium.

I've seen it going on regarding plasma physics and cosmology, since that's a particular interest of mine. The discussion tabs on the pages that used to be there (and have since been removed) are infuriating for the narrow-minded and arbitrary dictatorial behavior that goes on.

Only those singing with the choir (of the moderators) are allowed to post.

It's also evident in their articles about current events and personalities.

/e

[Dave, our posts sort of crossed paths. Yours was obviously a more comprehensive work-in-progress when I jumped in. Thanks.]

[Jerseyboy]

Exactly Ab,

Others noticed this propensity of watchdogging long ago regarding specific subjects on wiki. And the most agressive always seemed to be in relation to matters of libertine liberal subjects. And mind-binding religious subjects.

I cannot replicate the results of all the investigations I did into the matter, but from what I saw, the founders of Wiki and admins of the site have special privelege and even hire biased folk on the down low to slant certain sections as if their lives depended on it.

And character studies of the founders including their associations and proclivities spoke for themselves. Anyone can do their own research, but my conclusion was Zionist Fascist OR Bolshevik Communist hiding behind Fascism.

You know, ever since Ophello came to the board, I noted his story with interest. And every time his name comes up, my mind breaks his handle into...

Op - Hello. As in, Hello!! this is an OP. In your face.

Of course it could be he is just A Fellow.

Now if I am wrong (often am) that it is such a gross conspiracy, perhaps the person who is Ophello might want to consider how he may have been guided to choose such a near onomatopoeia even if he thought it meant something else. Also consider the root of Ophello which is Greek

www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/STRGRK37.htm : ophello (to heap up, i.e. accumulate or benefit); gain:--advantageth, profit

Hmmm.

Either way, there are poorly intentioned (sinister) and well intentioned (but naive) folks who are operatives for the socialistic and communistic movements. I should know once leaning toward some socialistic idealisms myself, but I find that the socialists respond better to preaching based on fact, logic, and reason, (as I did) than do communists (which I wasn't, at least in this lifetime).

your fellow,

Mark

[Adam]

[Dave, our posts sort of crossed paths. Yours was obviously a more comprehensive work-in-progress when I jumped in. Thanks.]

Nay, nay - E-mail, your reply was just as comprehensive. Threw your experience. I have a trick that I employ when addressing controversy with a hard headed person. I just type in a search engine criticism of [fill in the blank]. Usually the subject in question has been addressed before.

Lazy of me...I know. But why reinvent the wheel. Or if it is not broke why fix it.

[ophello]

mark:

you may be interested to hear the boring story of the inception of my handle, Ophello.

Here goes: about 8 years ago, I was looking for a username on a message board that wasnt chosen, and wasnt just my name with 6 numbers after it. I thought "ill chose a word, then change one letter and make a new word". I tried some ideas and the play "Othello" came to mind. "I know! Ill replace the 't' with a 'p' like my real name, and see if it works!" Lo, the name "ophello" was not taken.

...oddly enough, no one anywhere on the internet chooses this name. It is a weird anomaly, but it has worked to my advantage. If you find that name on the internet, it probably tracks to me (though there are a couple exceptions).

In short, I thought of this name years ago and is merely a phonetic internet convenience. I wouldnt dig too deep.

You know, ever since Ophello came to the board, I noted his story with interest.

I have been on this board since it began, and I was on Cal's board before this one since...oh...2003 or so. The first question I asked Cal was "are we rebels in the universe's eyes" for being a part of his secession. He answered that we aren't rebels inasmuch as we dont really have much of a say in what goes on.

Im not sure who you think I am, but the message board from before this one will help you understand my journey here. Sadly, many of those messages were lost in a system crash.

[Jerseyboy]

Op,

Until we are in 100% service to God and in full spiritual alignment, what we do is guided by the 3 fates of the material world, ignorant chaotic inertia, passionate activity, and orderly goodness, usually some combination of the 3 with ratios depending on the evolutionary moment of the person.

There are no random coincidences, and the closer we get to being able to break out of the prison of the fates, the more we tend toward order and the more our environment reflects clues so we can see ourselves, the good, bad and ugly, and use them to do what we might.

Your choice of moniker may be rationalized as some decision you made as x,y,or z, but there is more to such things, especially identifiers such as names, if one has eyes to see.

Once on a backwoods adventure I was given a hooded sweatshirt to wear, at "random" because winter was coming and it was low cost so I accepted it. I wore it every day for a month, and it read "Dartmouth".

No one had to say anything. I took it as an opportunity to check my communication skills and finding myself wanting, I decided to practice some pennance of speech.

Some would have not even noticed what their new sweatshirt said and held it meaningless. And perhaps wouldn't need to, everyone is different. I was consciously paying attention to ways God might communicate to me in various ways and he responded.

Still learning, sharing the lessons and the journey as I can.

Mark

[ophello]

If you are suggesting that my name carries some hidden meaning about me, then what am I supposed to do with that information?

[hollis]

There is an innate difference between "liberal" and "Progressive" or between "liberal" and "radical" that needs to be addressed in order to fully answer Ophello's question.

[Jerseyboy]

No abolutes Op.

But you have received alot of feedback over the years on this board about what others percieve as your philisophical leanings, and you seemed to have a hard time seeing how the shoe might fit.

I just dropped you a little tool I use to check in on my own self. Thats all. Not for everyone I suppose.

best regards.

Mark

[Caligastia Lanonandek]

Personally, I don't have a problem with liberals, just socialists and communists.

The exception is when they subordinate common sense to an ideology that has shown its failures time after time. Anyone who 'believes' that if a thing fails 1000 times, it 'might' succeed at the 1001st time is just plain stupid.

The choice before the nation now is slavery versus freedom

Right of center insures freedom - left of center destroys it in the name of 'fairness'.

Communists use liberals as they would any other useful idiot for the purpose of growing liberalism into communism. While they give lip service to compassion and tolerance, one has only to get in their faces with facts and history to find out how truly intolerant they are - well past the borders of visicious. Their idea of 'fair' is to insure a common level of mediocrity and an equal share of misery to be enforced by a ruling elite who, naturally, do not have to live under the same rules.

Lies, deceit, and misrepresentation are the cornerstones and only those who believe the world owes them a living (or should) are willing to follow this judas goat into hell and do so with their eyes wide open.

Here, at Thanksgiving, there is the true story of the Pigrims.
They had a socialist communal set up where everyone's crops were put into the community pot. They soon noticed that the shirkers wouldn't work as hard (preferring to be parasites on the others who did work) and the community did not prosper.

They changed this into everyone could own their own land and sell their crops. Immediately, the shirkers started working and the community did prosper.

Remove incentive and people quit working. You can't legislate human nature. Reward the shirkers and you breed generations of parasites who consume much and contribute little.

Such is liberalism as it grows to communism.

In my world, if I dont' work - I don't eat. I have no safety nets excepting those I've built for myself. I have a decided incentive to work and I do. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of parasites who would endeavor to feed upon me for having values they see no worth in.