Are we still allowed to denounce Communism as a failed and hateful ideology that oppresses people even if they are supporting the BLM folks?
“We had some folks from Chicago come to town. What are they called? The Revolutionary Communist Party of Chicago showed up. Actually, they’re the ones that started to cause problems late in the evening by marching and trying to take over Sherman and Burleigh,” Flynn said.
Liberals like and align themselves with the ideology of human rights disasters of Stalin and Chairman Mao.
I always enjoyed the book “Radical Son” which detailed the picture of how Stalin was a liberal hero to liberal academics in 50s and early 60s, until the details of Stalins crimes against humanity came out.
Liberals just don’t get the concept of making a central federal government all powerful, destroys human rights.
The Bill of Rights is a liberal document.
The Constitution and amendments are conservative concepts. They are a guard against unlimited government power.
They also have theor genesisi in natural law, rights derived from Almighty God.
Liberals mostly reject God and limited government power.
Once again your flexible set of definitions and lack of historical perspective fail you at a critical point. In the context of the time, the Bill of Rights was considered a “liberal” document. You should stayed awake during those American History classes…
“At the time” —-classical liberalism
It resembles nothinlike modern day liberalism. Liberalism today has total and utter war on 1st and 2nd amendments.
“Liberal” today abhors the Constitution.
If you can redefine liberalism then you can’t defend the original interpretations of the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Or do you get to select what suits your purposes? Your double standards and flip-flopping are what get you painted into a corner.
In a world where (modern day) liberals are destroying the definition of “male” and “female”, you take issue with the well accepted definition between liberal in the classical sense (libertarian) and perverse liberalism in the modern day sense?
What I take issue with is your use of flexible definitions to suit your needs. You use the term liberal as a slur, yet can’t recognize that the Bill of Rights is a liberal document.
Laws and rules are codified so that there can be a consistent interpretation for all applications. The same with words, that is why we have dictionaries. When your words mean nothing, then what you say means nothing as well. How Orwellian.
Liberalism in the classic sense (limited government) is a good thing.
Liberalism in modern day sense (unlimited governmemt) is slavery and a slur rolled into one.
Liberals are making “male” and “female” definitions into a slur. There is no end to liberal perversion of english language….a language many liberals find offensive and oppressive anyway.
When did the definition change? I have several dictionaries, even my grandfathers 1934 Websters Law, and they all read pretty much the same. Could you give the exact date of the change in the definition, provide some etymology as well.
While you are at it, could you point out when the term “progressive” became synonymous with “liberal”, again provide details. And why are you opposed to progress?
It really is hypocritical of you to condemn anyone for “perversion of english language”, as you have no qualms at all about perverting it to suit your whim of the day.
Why don’t you start reading up on actual history.
Let me know when you are up to speed.
After this “primer”, we can talk about what “liberal” meant at the country’s founding, vs. the perverseness liberalism is today.