The important role of liberals.

Liberals whine all the time about everything and are either stupid and/or completely crazy, so you don't want them running the country.

However corrupt politicians often pay off people who criticise them to go somewhere else and liberals, being stupid and/or crazy, are very hard to pay off. Every man has his price, but if you get enough liberals whining away so the total expense of avoiding responsibility will be too high, there will be no way to escape justice for the corrupt politician or whoever is up to no good.

So you need liberals and you need enough of them to police a wide variety of issues in a heated paranoid manner. However the more liberals you have, the more influence they have over the government. So you need to find a balance between the corruption caused by liberals with their corrupt ideals and the corruption they alleviate through criticism.

I'm trying to make al ist of factors to understand how to control the proportion of liberals and how many and what type of liberals are needed. This is it briefly so far.
:the liberals' ability to criticise
;how crazy liberals are and how much money is needed to subvert them
;how much need there is for criticism ie. how much corruption there is
;how many people are in a position to commit the various crimes and how much money they have

The role of the media and action groups is a very important factor, since hierarchial groups are easier to bribe than an assorted movement. Michael Moore for instance makes a lot of money for not criticising certain companies and officials and the new york times is a liberal newpaper that occasionally expresses some avidly non-liberal points of view. It's obvious what is going on.

I hate the word liberal and the two dimentional political classification system, it leads to stupid thought patters. For proof, look at the post above this one.

>>2
So 2 classifications, that's liberal and what? Non-liberal?

>>3
there's liberals, then there's people who live in the Real World.

lib·er·al adj.
 0. (American usage:) Enemy of freedom. Terrorist. Loonie.
   1.
         1. Obsolete. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
         2. Obsolete. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
         3. Obsolete. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
         4. Obsolete. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
   2.
         1. Obsolete. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
         2. Obsolete. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
   3. Obsolete. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
   4. Obsolete. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
   5.
         1. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
         2. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

>>3
There are liberals and facists.

>>6
I thought there were Communists, being the far left side of the spectrum, and facists, being the far right side, liberals leaning more to the left while conservatives lean more to the right...

I'm a proud liberal, and do not consider myself crazy. What i do think is crazy is the inital post, second paragraph  of "However corrupt politicians often pay off people who criticise them to go somewhere else and liberals, being stupid and/or crazy, are very hard to pay off." Are you saying that it would take a stupid and/or crazy person to do the right thing and fight political corruption?

For some reason I get the feeling that you have been reading off of the dribble that Ann Coulter tries to push as... Well damn, it cant be considered anything that resembles a decent read. The crazy/stupid line just reeks of her, and I say this loosely, "technique."

True liberals = libertarians. American liberals = crazy leftist scum who stole and contaminated that word.

remember that liberalism is a disease.

the only cure for liberalism is to give them everything they want and also, don't have any laws, morally or legally, because most liberals are liberals, because they don't feel good about themselves and are looking to feel important with those that also don't feel good about themselves.

Remember, just as mental retardation is, liberalism is also a deadly disease.

I sure hope they find a cure fast before they help America start speaking German, Spanish, Guatamalin, etc..

>>9
Extreme-Nationalist Libertarism = Superior

Rape the other countries and their people, but give your own people paradise of ultimate freedom with minimal laws and goverment. True freedom can't be achieved at expense of others and another man's paradise will be always another man's dystopia. Vote me for Emperor and you shall receive free sex-slave(of any age and sex), free guns, free drugs(if you want to) and ofcourse free citizenship.

>>4
>>6
Ok I have to disagree. You don't have to be a liberal to not live in the real world, there are plenty of crazy people out there who are not liberals. Also some fascists share inherant traits with liberals and could be described as liberals. However I agree that there are more than 2 classifications, there are liberals and there are many different kinds of people whom are not liberal. I am merely focussing on liberal groups which pretty much exist in each country.

>>7
Left and right is a good approximation of politics in general. Through history the left has pushed for what they see as progress and the right have pushed for what they think needs to be preserved. The general idea is to have groups who argue over issues to determine what is the best course of action, eventually the government improved and there was universal suffrage and solutions to most of the problems faced by democratic governments, until eventually the liberals began to face unemployment. By the mid 70s there were no major issues to be resolved and liberals found there were no rational causes to fight for, but the same amount of liberals with the same dependance on blaming others and being radical out of boredom. This is where the problems with liberals began, before hand they would fight for rational ideas, but now that few things needed changing they decided to fight things that didn't need changing and fight for irrational ideas.

So when the liberal/government corruption ratio was low, liberals were useful and whe nthe liberal/government corruption ratio was high they acted like asses. Since the power liberals have is in proportion to their numbers and you don't want them in power, but you do want enough to criticise the government, it is obvious we need to control and preserve the liberal population.

>>9
Can you give me some proof and explanations into the causes of liberalism please. Could it be associated with any particular psychological disroders. It is well known that liberal elites use psychology to recruit a following.

>>11
You are missing one point.

amerika is not a democracy, it is a totalitarian police state.

That is what the Liberals do not like.

>>13
gb2 canada

>>14
I would never go there, that hellhole is almost as bad as amerika.

>>15
Go to Sweden then?

Oh, wait, the uberfaggotness of the country is unbearable. Go to Norway instead.

>>16
Go to Finland. Not the best country of Europe(that title goes to Switzerland), but one of best. Not very nice people there and taxes are ridiculous, but beats Norway & Sweden hands down.

>>17 No! Go to the netherlands. Amsterdam coffee houses FTW!

>>16
It's not that faggy if you never go outside -----(>_<)----- !!!!

>>13


Since when? If America were a police state, most of the media would be dead.......


And that wouldn't be such a bad idea

>>20
Actually it would be damn bad idea. Now America without Christian moralists, soccer moms, american "liberals" and republicans would be possibly most awesome country in world.

>>21
You forgot the subspecies Texans.

>>22
I did not. Texans are nice people, but too many are members of those groups.

>>1
I don't understand people who try to make the argument that one party if more "corrupt" than others.  Man, they all have corruption!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>21
There's really only one thing that could make one country superior to all others.  Legalize drugs..... all of them, for everyone.  Legalize em.... then, and only then and for only that reason, would America be the best country in the world.

>>20
I wouldn't call the US a police state, but the media (anywhere) is a fantastic means of social control. Why use guns when a pen is cheaper, less risky, and more absolute?

The important roles of liberals?

Isn't that a contradiction?

Liberalism is a disease.

>>24
Without groups mentioned in that post, I'm damn sure all the drugs, guns and porn you want would be 100% legal.

Well liberals are always whining and when you ask them why they are such dumbasses they always remind you of the fat cats they've toppled and the reforms they've made for the little man.

So liberals do at least 1 good thing. Going back to the list I've made we need

We need
:liberals who are good critics
;liberals who are powerless when it comes to making decisions
;liberals who need a lot of cash per person to keep them quiet
We need to control liberals and direct them to where they are needed. For instance we don't want liberals getting murderers like tookie off the hook, but we do want liberals dealing with white supremacist groups and other nutcases they don't like.
We need to tie a group of liberals to each person in a position of power to criticise them relentlessly day in day out, just to ensure they remain disciplinned. It could sort of become an unofficial policy for liberals to join a criticism club and spend time criticising both democrat and republican senators.

>>21
I'm cool about the christian stuff. In fact, I think that at least catholic christians are cooler than any of the other denominations because they (the common catholic) are not so extremist.

>>24
Mexico was to legalize drugs but then some motherfucker stupid asshole president from some stupid american government started to whine about that and then Vicente had to cancel all the shit.

i am not going to type it all agian so this is my post from the "racism is boring" thread as it is on this subject. 

how about the REAL definition of conservatism
how about the REAL definition of Liberalism.

Conservatism is the "less is more" mentality of politics, meaning that they want as little govenment obstruction of peoples lives as possible.  anything more than the government having basic military, police power (procicuting murderers, rapists, thieves, etc), and civil litigation(person A thinks person B owes them money and sues for it, govenment decides case) anything more does not belong in a pure conservative ideal.
(Anarchism can be seen as an extreem form of conservatism that doesn't even cover these three things)

Liberalism is the idea that the govenment needs to step into social, fiscal, and other matters of a private individuals because they either can't or won't manage these areas on their own.  this incudes anything that doesn't fall under conservatism  such as government control of food distubution, medical care, or redistribution of wealth through taxes, or little things like road construction, subsidies, employment laws, etc.  Communism would be an economic system based on the liberal political theory(communism is not a political system, but it requires a liberal politial ideal, in which the government assumes that people can't handle much of anything on their own and takes over for them).

  The U.S. govenment btw was founded on the idea of conservatism and the theory that if you give the govenment an inch and it takes a mile.  And therefore you want the govenment to stay out of citizens life as much as possible.  we are moving more and more towards a liberal idea of govenment where we have more and more interventon every day....also democrat and republican parties:  both liberal.. the democrats are fiscally liberal, meaning they want more control over the financial institutions of the country, the republicans are socially liberal meaning they tend to go after private affair control more.  either way you are totally fucked because whichever one the govenment takes control of first leads to the other one falling, although historically fiscally liberal government has been able to take complete control faster (communist russia, communist cuba, socialist nazi germany, etc.)    OK any thoughts on this


btw.  liberitarians are the only conservative party in the us. check their website, it says conservative right on it if you look.

>>30
y helo thar american!

Truly, only in the US of A.

Awwww...you still believe in the whole lib/cons dynamic. How cuuuuute!!^_^

  I believe in the conflict of Liberal and Conservative ideals in purity, i don't believe that any one person is pure in either direction.  There are people that come close, myself being one of them.  either one is impossible to maintain as pure conservatism is anarchy and pure liberalism is pretty much hard to describe as anything more than a pure organized mass of nothing, where thoughts and emotions have to be policed in order not to desturb the system.  I believe in the conflict of ideals.  not nesessarly either ideal in and of itself.  the world was made by conflict, and can only continue to exist in the same way.

>>30

Conservatism? HEY GUYS, WE WANT LESS GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER PEOPLE, EXCEPT WE WANT ALL CONTROL OVER THEIR SEXUAL HABITS.

I have allready covered that matter.  that group is republicans and they are "neo-conservatives" not true conservatives.  if you want a true conservative party try the liberitarians.  stop trying to think of conservative and liberal as republican and democrate respectivly.  conservatism and liberalism are political ideals, where republican and democrat are political parties.  parties may try or claim to follow an ideal but the parties do not define the ideal, it is the other way around.  and at least so-called conservative republicans aren't trying to take our guns away, and with guns we can get any freedom that has been taken away from us back.

true conservatives

And who is the ultimate arbiter of a "true" conservative, dipshit? Your definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" are also just your personal wankery to assuage your ego.

Take your USian definitions and shove them up your ass. The dichotomies and resulting rationalizations that run through your peanut-sized brain are pathetic.

PS. You write like a preadolescent.

i am defining ideals not people.  i said allready that it is about the conflict of to ideals, not about thousands of individuals with wildly differing philosophies that are a blend of the two ideals.  a good analogy is good and evil.  nobody of pure good or evil has ever walked the earth, however we are all psychologially built on the conflict of the two ideals.  Political ideology is split between those that believe in a more conservative philosophy and those that favor a more liberal one.  I am just getting stupid ass people that don't want one side or the other seen in a negative light.
      i not making up the definition of "conservative" and "liberal" conservative means "less" in the dictionary and liberal means "more".  at one point in politics people actually argued about political philosophy rather than party philosophy.  nobody with any brains is behind the republican party in everything they do, or even behind a republican politician in everything they do.  in the same way nobody with any brains is behind the democrat party in everything they do, or even behind a democrat politician in everything they do.  the argument isn't about parties and i am trying to make sure it stays that way.  it is about liberalism in the subject.  this isn't even limited to the US, anyone can argue about these to aspects of politics.  so talk about the advantages of having a more powerful govenment or a less powerful one rather than which party defines liberalism and conservatism.  and i will thank you not to judge my writing habbits so hard, have you ever tried acessing 4chan in an elementary school library, it ain't easy.

>>30
True liberals want LESS goverment and conservatists are traditionalists who are opposed to changes and want to stick their traditions. Research history and true meaning liberalism. Socialists perverted it later, but that doesn't mean their twisted version is true liberalism. American "liberals" aren't real liberals they're mostly pseudo-liberals. Republicans are mostly conservatists. Libertarians however are true liberals, but their economic policies really aren't part of liberalism as liberalism has really no take on economy(although since it prioritises invidual freedoms it requires some form of capitalism).

Russian conservatives want communism back, ultra conservatives want the Tzar back ;)

>>39        when you refer to russian conservatives(actually your post was news to me, what are the names of these groups) you are refering to a return to older ways.  kind of how so-called american conservatives preach a return to "traditional values",  It has nothing to do with true conservatism.  You are continuing to prove that the modern labeling system is wrong by pointing out how they label two completely different groups the same way however.  in order to label the communism conservatism when you at the same time label republicans conservative really shows this.

>>38  when you define American liberals as "pseudo" liberals i assume you mean the text book meaning of pseudo which is "fake".  a fake liberal by logic is a conservative, correct??  and by your definition "conservatists are traditionalists who are opposed to changes and want to stick their traditions."  So when have American liberals liberals preached tradition and opposed raddical change.  You are correct that neither conservatism nor liberalism have anything to say about economics specifically.  as they are simply ideals of overall function of government.  however just about every action taken by the government effects the economy in some way(the primary way being any action typically changes taxes and how the government will spend money).  That is why most political parties are based on an economic prinicipal the biggest ones in the US being republican, democrat, liberitarian, Socialist Party USA, Communist Party USA.  the big exceptions being the Green party and the Constitution party, but the Green still has a basic economic policy where as far as i know the constitution party has none, but i am not willing to read though all the bullshit on the constitution party website to find out.  I searched the Liberitarian party web site and they label themselves neither liberal nor conservative that i can find, I assume this is because they don't want to get into a label battle such as that which is on this forum. so when i said that they said so on there website i had bad memory and i appologize.  However if you want to search for other liberitarian websites most define it as conservative.  google "liberitarian+conservative" and "LIberitarian+liberal" and you will get the basic idea. 

>>40
Original thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Classical liberalism's today's equivalent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Socialist version also called neo-liberalism and they can be rightfully called pseudo liberals, because they don't fully support freedoms that liberalism embraces:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

I actually rarely find arguement with wikipedia, and even in this case i primarally agree with you.   however in this case i am pointing to much older philosophies.  trying do devide politics into "change to something new or go back to tradition" is a rather stupid and pointless argument.  This is much the same way that the label "progressive" is a lie because it is led by politicians and politicians are never for progress.

           Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy.[3] Many elements of this ideology developed in the 17th and 18th centuries. As such, it is often seen as being the natural ideology of the industrial revolution and its subsequent capitalist system. The early liberal figures that libertarians now describe as their fellow "classical liberals" rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion, and focuses on individual freedom, reason, justice and tolerance.[4]. Such thinkers and their ideas helped to inspire the American Revolution and French Revolution.

           OK this is a simple enough philosophy.  I am even willing to put the label "liberal" on it for the sake of this arguement.  Now with my simple definition of conservative and liberal we have to exact mirror philosophies that are encouraged to have conflict.  this definition of liberal is simply what i have been using for conservative.  and by wikipedia the definition of conservative is this:

Conservatism is a philosophy defined by Edmund Burke as "a disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve".[1] The term derives from conserve; from Latin conservare, to keep, guard, observe. Classical conservatism does not readily avail itself to the ideology of objectives. It is a philosophy primarily concerned with means over ends. To a conservative, the goal of change is less important than the insistence that change be effected with a respect for the rule of law and traditions of society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Conservatism
 
               these two definitions are far from being able to define everything because they aren't clean cut enough.  Certain issues are covered by both.  For instance it is a traditional national philosopy that a man has the right to own a firearm, it is also a liberal philosophy because it falls under the govenment not stepping on that persons rights.  Also over time an issue that stars on one side of an arguemnt can move to another.  Case in point: the republican party has always been conservative since it's conception.  The problem is that it started as a 1 platform pary, that being anti-slaver, a decidedly liberal(by your definition) concept at the time, as it covers both bringing about social change, and stoping the govenment from keeping freedom from people.  Today however if a party were to preach a return to slavery it would be promoting a CONSERVATIVE philosophy as it would be advocating the return to a traditional and outdated system,  and definately not liberal as it would be the govenment allowing the rights of individuals to be taken away.  now politicans and parties can change sides all they want by the definitions i put forward, however the issues are always on one side or the other making what we see as the "modern definiton" of conservatism and liberalism, or even classical conservatism and classical liberalism extreemly flawed.

         Most liberitarians still define themselves as conservatives still.  not really because of any knowlege of the subject, or any particualar like of the word.  it's just that the primary focus of the political party is economics.  they tend to agree with republicans on economics far more often that democrats, and republicans define themselves as the conservative party.

        Social liberalism i won't really go into unless it comes up again.  lets just say that i believe it to be a political wet dream and a fantasy.  A nice thought in form, but seriously lacking in funcion.  Another advantage of the defining system i brought up is it defines Social liberalism and simmular philosophies as exactly what they are, blends and mixes of the two over philosophies.  where as the modern definition of conservatism will ALMOST always fall under liberal by my definition because it tends to advocate govenment forcing "traditionalism" down peoples throats,  there is nothing wrong with tradition, but it has little actual meaning and certainly doesn't require getting involved in politics

politicians are never for progress.

Except for the ones trying to crawl to the top.

politicans are all about progress. they want to progress from one office to another so they are in a better position to screw over the rest of the population.

>>44
3 types of politicians:

1. Power hungry psychopat, most common form of politican. Appears to be nice man, but blatantly lies about everything. Cares mostly for money and his position.

2. Popular crusader, soccer mom type politician mostly against single thing. Popular versions are anti-gun politician whose family member was killed by guns and hysteriously anti-sexual politician, because she/he was raped. 

3. Politician who actually cares about people, most rarest type not that they don't exists, but they are commonly just commoners and get little to no votes.

>>8
u morons, libertarians = libertarians, liberals are people who are liberal.

the term CONSERVATIVE has been around since before left/right politics. usually conservatives vote with leftists or rightists, depending on what's best. you people remember the conservative coalition or democrats and republicans?

>>you people remember the conservative coalition of democrats and republicans?

i typo'd that, fix'd

Democrats support a republic method of representation, why is this?

>>48
not democrats. americans support it.

>>49
So why don't the democrats disband since they are not needed?

>>50
because that's not what democrats are there for u fucking moron. u think democrats are there to try to make america a direct democracy and republicans are there to keep a republican democracy?

man, you fail to the fullesWHERE IS SARAH CONNOR

>>50
>>51

         if the democrats were disbanded than another simmular party(probably the green party) would pick up a majority of democrats, and as a result become more like the former democratic party, and we would still have practically the same 2 party system.  if the republican party disbanding would be the same situation.  So it wouldn't really matter if a major party disbanded or not. although a change in party leadership would likely happen which is always good.

>>51
So why don't they change their name to the liberal-republican party? Kinda like how another party in the past didn't change their name after they changed ideology.

>>52
See above. Also the Green party wouldn't need to change it's ideals since all the ex-democrats would join them anyway and all they have to do is keep their original leadership so no ex-democrats change their main policies.

After spewing "conservative" in their retoric for the past 100 years the republican party would risk alienating their current constuency to change their name in such a way, even though the name of a political party means nothing.

party policy changes based oh who is in the party and who they are trying to get into the party.  the green party wouldn't so much change their ideology to suite those they were picking up, they would simply add on more in places where their platform had limited scope. the overall policy would change very little seeing as they agree with the democrats on most issues, and tend to just want to take it a few steps furter.  the point was really that the disbanding of a political party wouldn't exactly create a 1 party system in the us.  another party would simply fill in the gap.

>>54
NO nono... I meant the democrats change their name to the liberal-republican party.

i answered that
      "After spewing "conservative" in their retoric for the past 100 years the republican party would risk alienating their current constuency to change their name in such a way"

>>55

    sorry i really misread that twice.  for starters the main constuentcy of the democratic party is seen(even by them) to be stupid.  i mean they argue about illiterate voting, foreign language voting. and remember the design of ballots were argued to be unfair to people too stupid to read them.  I mean they helped pass laws that let catatonic people vote.  they want people living in asylums to far from reality to say anything coherient to vote.  imagine the problems if there were two parties on the ballot and both had "republican" in the name.  that would really fuck up all the dumbasses they want to vote for them.