Geb is definitely not a liberal

somewhatfast wrote:

yeah I'm way taller than him though.

... and more likely to get hit by lightning

I'm a pretty liberal guy and I sure as shit don't want my hard earned money paying for welfare queens to squirt out another kid.

Methinks you're not really sure what liberals stand for..

Of course, instead using a hack's label designed to incite a negative knee-jerk reaction, you could just look up the meaning of the word and see for yourself:

lib·er·al /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ –adjective

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

Gee, if seems to me that saying someone is liberal is a compliment. I mean those are such vile things listed above, right?

I'm genuinely curious, when did "liberal" become a recognised insult in the US? In England the word simply doesn't have the same negative associations. For instance, see here, where it is applied to comments by David Cameron, the leader of the right-of-centre Conservative Party: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1670004,00.html

You have to understand that Geb is living and working in a country that was under a communist regime in the not too distant past. He is distinguishing himself from THAT, not from John Edwards. And if you ask, say, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama how to be successful, I think you would get a much different answer than "just sit around and wait for free money."

People confuse "liberal" with "leftist."

"Liberal" is not a political leaning. "Leftist" is.

Liberal basically means you're open-minded.

I lean heavily towards the left politically (it's arguable how "liberal" I am, however), and I agree with what Geb says. Pretty much nobody believes in "free handouts" as a matter of economic policy. It's a myth created by the right to demonize their opponents and to deflect attention from their own selfishness and utter lack of empathy and concern for their fellow man.

actually the most economically conservative people favor a government cash handout to poor people instead of programs like welfare and public housing.

the weird thing is that they label themselves as "liberal" although the word has come to mean something completely different in modern times.

that doesn't quite make sense because welfare is a handout. subsidized public housing still works as an example though.

instantargument wrote:

"People sometimes get angry with me, because I won't give money away. I tell them, if you want to work, I will find you work. I will give you a job with a good wage and I will take care of you. But a man cannot improve himself with free gifts, only with opportunity. When you find a child who wants to learn but cannot find a good school, or a man who wants to work and to better himself but he cannot find a job to help his family, that is where I must help. Work builds confidence." -Geb

not only is he faster than you, he is smarter also.

He's probably not a "liberal" but he's probably not a "conservative" either. The American Republican and Democratic parties are hardly exhaustive of the wide spectrum of political ideologies. What he is saying is hardly in conflict with what the rest of the world would consider liberal, or even with what Americans consider liberal. This quote sheds very little on who Haile would vote for in an American election. It just says that he agrees with the old proverb, "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

milton wrote:

actually the most economically conservative people favor a government cash handout to poor people instead of programs like welfare and public housing.

the weird thing is that they label themselves as "liberal" although the word has come to mean something completely different in modern times.

There are tons of "self-described" liberals who are anything but. That definitely clouds the issue. But "liberal" is a term that's more sociological or personality-related than it is "political." But I think it's right-wing blow-hards who have demonized the term strictly for political gain who are most responsible for the warped definition that the term has taken on today.

As for what "most economically conservative" people are in favor of, they're in favor of "looking out for #1"; and damn the long-term consequences. They don't care about the long-term consequences of reckless deficit spending as long as their taxes are low, and they're personally raking in a bundle.

Sub6 wrote:

This quote sheds very little on who Haile would vote for in an American election. It just says that he agrees with the old proverb, "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

That's exactly right. But good luck telling that to the Rush Limbaugh clone who started this stupid thread. If you want a good definition of "futile," ask a right-winger to properly characterize their opponents point of view. It's impossible.

semantics wrote: I'm genuinely curious, when did "liberal" become a recognised insult in the US?

I recall this shift occurring some time in the 80's (1). The Republicans seemed ahead of the Democrats on the power of words as weapons - a single word could smear someone's image a lot quicker and easier than discussing actual facts and records.

So they sneered whenever they said "liberal" and preceded it with "tax and spend", and the next thing you know the word was taken to mean "irresponsible bleeding heart who wants to bankrupt this country". (2)

In the best case, the liberal's intentions were good, his heart in the right place. But due to his lack of foresight (like the little pigs who built the straw and wood houses) and lack of inclination or ability to engage the left brain to do a little matter-of-fact accounting, crunch some numbers, consider consequences, he was a Don Quixote-esque impossible dreamer who we maybe deserved a smile and pat on the head - but absolutely no check signing privileges.

Or to crank it up another gear, the liberal was dangerous more ways than economically. Look - he's a bleeding heart, he wants to take all the money and power away from whites and give it to the blacks and other minorities, women, gays... he's dangerous, traitorous, and of dubious masculinity. He hates the hard-working decent folk so much he'd turn violent non-white criminals free so they could rape and pillage and murder:

I'm guessing some of this likely gained momentum in the 1980 election as the nation was preparing to vote Reagan in and Carter out, in a landslide. But hey I was only 12 and not paying much attention.

Another word shift the Republicans got a lot of play from, this one I did notice after a few years of it in the early '90s, was the virtual eradication of "citizen" from the lexicon, to be replaced with "taxpayer". Think about that: once upon a time it made sense for JFK to implore citizens "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country". Citizens had a shared interest in contributing - whether we're talking taxes, service, loyalties, emotions - to their country. But if your relationship to the country is as a taxpayer, well, that's practically like the gub'mint stealing from you ain't it? About the only way you can react to that notion is to resent their hand in your pocket, and resent everyone in and out of government laying claim to your pennies, dimes, and dollars.

Anyhow, that's what I recall, "semantics". Surely some of those older and wiser and more politically involved and aware at the time could tell you more. And I don't imagine you require a disclaimer from me that my recollections aren't coming from total political neutrality.

(1) But see also the McCarthy years, the red scare, all of that. I wasn't around and don't know if the word "liberal" itself took on sinister overtones; but clearly the art of sinister insinuation was in full swing. G-ds help you if you were a Red or sympathizer like my grandparents.

(2) This isn't the post, and I'm not the person, to talk about actual economic consequences from the last several administrations of either party.

Odd, isn't it. Members of the US military are generally among the most "conservative" around, yet they're the beneficiaries of the biggest government welfare program in existence.

Same goes for all those patriots who work for US military contractors. They drive around Northern Virginia in their Hummers and Escalades, all paid for by the American taxpayer, even as they spout the virtues of private enterprise.

Hypocrisy -- THE great American tradition!

Post of the YEAR.