Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 25, 2013 23:59:36 GMT -5
And it seems to me that you're clinging to definitions that were wholly abandoned by the common man because they change depending on who happens to be in power and what people consider to be "an earlier state", when what was needed were stable terms that represented the actual ideologies once and for all.
Speaking of which, we're still waiting on the word from Reply #146. Give me an alternative to "liberal" with the stated definition and I'll use it. Big freakin' government is in the definition I give.
A BIG government. Taxing the people. Spending all that money and taxing the people some more. Making it so that every citizen is taken care of by the state from cradle to grave.
Scrape your knee? The state will pay to take care of you.
Need a bike to lower your carbon emissions and save the world? The government will buy it for you.
Addicted to snorting cocaine off of strippers' bodies? The government respects you right to live 'alternative lifestyles', but if you wish to change at any time, it will pay for drug rehabilitation, sexual addiction rehabilitation, and personal lack of confidence rehabilitation as many times as you need it to embrace a more 'socially traditional lifestyle'.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 26, 2013 0:01:19 GMT -5
And it seems to me that you're clinging to definitions that were wholly abandoned by the common man let's just stick to your question for a minute, shall we? how about answering my previous post?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 26, 2013 0:02:33 GMT -5
Speaking of which, we're still waiting on the word from Reply #146. Give me an alternative to "liberal" with the stated definition and I'll use it. i can't do that without hearing back to you on the economic dimension of your mythical "liberal". and who is this WE of which you speak? Paul will NEVER go along with this idea.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 26, 2013 0:05:51 GMT -5
And it seems to me that you're clinging to definitions that were wholly abandoned by the common man because they change depending on who happens to be in power and what people consider to be "an earlier state", when what was needed were stable terms that represented the actual ideologies once and for all. Speaking of which, we're still waiting on the word from Reply #146. Give me an alternative to "liberal" with the stated definition and I'll use it. Big freakin' government is in the definition I give. A BIG government. Taxing the people. Spending all that money and taxing the people some more. Making it so that every citizen is taken care of by the state from cradle to grave. Scrape your knee? The state will pay to take care of you. Need a bike to lower your carbon emissions and save the world? The government will buy it for you. Addicted to snorting cocaine off of strippers' bodies? The government respects you right to live 'alternative lifestyles', but if you wish to change at any time, it will pay for drug rehabilitation, sexual addiction rehabilitation, and personal lack of confidence rehabilitation as many times as you need it to embrace a more 'socially traditional lifestyle'. no, sorry, that is not what i meant. i meant what is it that you think they do with private capital, or to use Marx's language "the owners of the means of production". what is your mythical "liberal" position on business and ownership of industry? private, government, or some combination of both?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 26, 2013 0:08:06 GMT -5
And it seems to me that you're clinging to definitions that were wholly abandoned by the common man because they change depending on who happens to be in power and what people consider to be "an earlier state", when what was needed were stable terms that represented the actual ideologies once and for all. Speaking of which, we're still waiting on the word from Reply #146. Give me an alternative to "liberal" with the stated definition and I'll use it. Big freakin' government is in the definition I give. A BIG government. Taxing the people. Spending all that money and taxing the people some more. Making it so that every citizen is taken care of by the state from cradle to grave. Scrape your knee? The state will pay to take care of you. Need a bike to lower your carbon emissions and save the world? The government will buy it for you. Addicted to snorting cocaine off of strippers' bodies? The government respects you right to live 'alternative lifestyles', but if you wish to change at any time, it will pay for drug rehabilitation, sexual addiction rehabilitation, and personal lack of confidence rehabilitation as many times as you need it to embrace a more 'socially traditional lifestyle'. no, sorry, that is not what i meant. i meant what is it that you think they do with private capital, or to use Marx's language "the owners of the means of production". what is your mythical "liberal" position on business and ownership of industry? private, government, or some combination of both? Some combination of both, in roughly the same proportion as France circa 2012, say.
|
|
TonyTiger
Junior Associate
Mundi est stupenda locus
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 20:08:39 GMT -5
Posts: 5,583
|
Post by TonyTiger on Feb 26, 2013 0:08:21 GMT -5
Merriam-Webster...definition of "liberal" to " liberal (adj.) left-leaning, favouring big government and leadership by a small group of experts, favouring higher taxes and greater government spending, hostile to religion and the notion of absolute morality". Sounds like 90%+ of those I've ever encountered who identify as Liberals... close enough for gubmint work... I think I find Moral Relativism to be the most obnoxious element of the 'modus operandi'...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 26, 2013 0:18:00 GMT -5
no, sorry, that is not what i meant. i meant what is it that you think they do with private capital, or to use Marx's language "the owners of the means of production". what is your mythical "liberal" position on business and ownership of industry? private, government, or some combination of both? Some combination of both, in roughly the same proportion as France circa 2012, say. ok, here it is again: left-leaning, favouring big government and leadership by a small group of experts, favouring higher taxes and greater government spending, hostile to religion and the notion of absolute morality, and favouring a mixed economy similar to France ca2012" there are a lot of loaded terms in here. i am not sure anyone actually fits in those shoes. but let's take this apart one step at a time. the view that government should be lead by a small group of experts is right out of Plato's Republic- no matter what the size of government, so i would call that a Republican principle prima face. higher taxes, greater government spending? that is a leftist principle that comports nicely with early stage socialism. however, your restriction that it be shared, and not exclusive to government means that it is more "democratic socialism". the idea of secularism is a fairly liberal principle. i am not sure that liberals are actually hostile to religion tho. however, they are highly hostile of belief as a principle above reason. so, i guess i would describe this person as a big government republican with liberal religious positions. maybe Reagan? ok, maybe Rousseau.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 26, 2013 0:19:18 GMT -5
Merriam-Webster...definition of "liberal" to " liberal (adj.) left-leaning, favouring big government and leadership by a small group of experts, favouring higher taxes and greater government spending, hostile to religion and the notion of absolute morality". Sounds like 90%+ of those I've ever encountered who identify as Liberals... close enough for gubmint work... I think I find Moral Relativism to be the most obnoxious element of the 'modus operandi'... moral relativism is ethically invalid. the proper term for such a person is not liberal, it is dumbass.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 26, 2013 0:40:05 GMT -5
Uh huh. And it surprises you that people shorten this to 'liberal'? How about this? We change the wording a bit to become: Liberal Ideology vs. Bibles; Embraces Republican Authorities that are Large, or LIBERAL as an acronym. Then to save having to press the Caps Lock key, we drop the uppercase letters, and our magical new term becomes 'liberal'. And with all of us knowing that this alternative liberal acronym is defined right here in the right way, we can forgo all further contention, strife, and confusion when using the term in future. Well sir, it's 12:39 AM here, but I tell you it was worth it staying up to heave reached this agreement. I bid thee all good night.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 26, 2013 0:50:47 GMT -5
Uh huh. And it surprises you that people shorten this to 'liberal'? if those are synonyms for you, why not? but they are not synonyms for me. or Meriam-Webster. keep in mind that your team has been working on changing the term liberal to mean "a good friend of Satan" since about 1950. one would think that given the 60 year crusade, you might at least get in as definition 8, but no dice.
tough luck, eh. maybe give it another 60 years?
How about this? We change the wording a bit to become: Liberal Ideology vs. Bibles; Embraces Republican Authorities that are Large, or LIBERAL as an acronym. Then to save having to press the Caps Lock key, we drop the uppercase letters, and our magical new term becomes 'liberal'. how about you give up and call them leftists or something equally meaningless, rather than taking a perfectly noble term and ruining it?And with all of us knowing that this alternative liberal acronym is defined right here in the right way, we can forgo all further contention, strife, and confusion when using the term in future. Well sir, it's 12:39 AM here, but I tell you it was worth it staying up to heave (sic) reached this agreement. like hell, we have.I bid thee all good night. you as well, Virgil. always a pleasure- even if not a productive one.
|
|
TonyTiger
Junior Associate
Mundi est stupenda locus
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 20:08:39 GMT -5
Posts: 5,583
|
Post by TonyTiger on Feb 26, 2013 11:30:06 GMT -5
The terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" are both 'noble terms' and have both been equally maligned and mis-used; however, attempting to reverse the stereotypical or commonplace understanding and usage in connection with these is tantamount to, well... Ol' Cnut was thinkin' along the same lines...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 19, 2024 19:16:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2013 11:59:15 GMT -5
there is no easy definition of either liberal or conservative
i consider myself conservative....but fiscal not social
others here think themselves liberal....but they dont follow the "leftist" views
we each have our own ideals...and sometimes it fits within a small box where one can be called a "republican" or a "democrat"....but those are rare birds
this site has taught me that much....a lot of centrists here who are moderates that may lean left or right depending on the topic
and most have surprised me on one topic or another...i thought they would zig, and yet they zagged
trying to define views/idealism to one short definition that fits all....well good luck on that one
|
|
TonyTiger
Junior Associate
Mundi est stupenda locus
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 20:08:39 GMT -5
Posts: 5,583
|
Post by TonyTiger on Feb 26, 2013 12:10:30 GMT -5
there is no easy definition of either liberal or conservative. i consider myself conservative....but fiscal not social. others here think themselves liberal....but they dont follow the "leftist" views. we each have our own ideals...and sometimes it fits within a small box where one can be called a "republican" or a "democrat"....but those are rare birds. this site has taught me that much....a lot of centrists here who are moderates that may lean left or right depending on the topic. and most have surprised me on one topic or another...i thought they would zig, and yet they zagged. trying to define views/idealism to one short definition that fits all....well good luck on that one. You are, of course, correct in your observation. The difference between us, on this one, I suspect, is that I see (more?) value in using predefined terms to establish a baseline from which we may explore the variations... After all, if we had no terminology to describe the color Blue as a baseline, you and I could not possibly articulate the shades and hues and variations such as the color of the sky vis a vis a navy uniform or a shallow or deep sea. My tiny little brain tells me that the Baseline (phrase) has great value in defining what lies beyond...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 26, 2013 13:15:52 GMT -5
The terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" are both 'noble terms' and have both been equally maligned and mis-used; however, attempting to reverse the stereotypical or commonplace understanding and usage in connection with these is tantamount to, well... Ol' Cnut was thinkin' along the same lines... first of all, liberals have been maligned continuously for 60+ years. if you think that conservatives have been hammered on for that amount of time or longer, i would be surprised. secondly, misuse, no matter how popular, is not acceptable. peruse does not mean "to skim", no matter how often it is used that way.
|
|
zdaddy
Established Member
Joined: Jun 20, 2012 13:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 295
|
Post by zdaddy on Feb 26, 2013 13:17:05 GMT -5
I've lived several years in Europe and can't think of a single "big socialist" government that does what you describe in your post (ie, provide for your every need). BTW America also spends a huge amount of money on drug addicts, only instead of trying to rehabilitate them we just throw them in prison. This has huge societal costs, but it does allow for politicians to look tough on crime and keeps the prison industrial complex rolling along. And as long as we're on big government, why do conservative politicians keep pushing for insane amounts of defense spending and having big government dictate what you do in your bedroom?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 26, 2013 13:18:42 GMT -5
there is no easy definition of either liberal or conservative yes there is. conservative: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
liberal:
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, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties. 4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. 5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers. those work for me. how about you?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 26, 2013 13:20:00 GMT -5
I've lived several years in Europe and can't think of a single "big socialist" government that does what you describe in your post (ie, provide for your every need). BTW America also spends a huge amount of money on drug addicts, only instead of trying to rehabilitate them we just throw them in prison. This has huge societal costs, but it does allow for politicians to look tough on crime and keeps the prison industrial complex rolling along. And as long as we're on big government, why do conservative politicians keep pushing for insane amounts of defense spending and having big government dictate what you do in your bedroom?
they also seem to enjoy big prisons and big arsenals, no matter how big the cost.
|
|
TonyTiger
Junior Associate
Mundi est stupenda locus
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 20:08:39 GMT -5
Posts: 5,583
|
Post by TonyTiger on Feb 26, 2013 15:33:22 GMT -5
The terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" are both 'noble terms' and have both been equally maligned and mis-used; however, attempting to reverse the stereotypical or commonplace understanding and usage in connection with these is tantamount to, well... Ol' Cnut was thinkin' along the same lines... "first of all, liberals have been maligned continuously for 60+ years..." Doesn't matter, DJ; folks utilize the sterotypical/commonplace definition found in Merriam-Websters, for the most part, and tryin' to reverse that is truly an exercise in futility...
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 26, 2013 16:41:55 GMT -5
He ain't budgin', Tony. When I have the time, I'll write a plugin that converts the world "liberal" in everybody but DJ's writing to "big government republican with liberal religious positions" when viewed by DJ's account, and converts the world "liberal" in DJ's writing to "liberal (per the classical, defunct dictionary definition)" when viewed by all but DJ's account. That way the software will perform all the tedious work of translating for us, and we can communicate pain-free with DJ.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 26, 2013 20:37:09 GMT -5
"first of all, liberals have been maligned continuously for 60+ years..." Doesn't matter, DJ; folks utilize the sterotypical/commonplace definition found in Merriam-Websters, for the most part, and tryin' to reverse that is truly an exercise in futility... agreed. i suggest you stop doing that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 26, 2013 20:40:42 GMT -5
He ain't budgin', Tony. When I have the time, I'll write a plugin that converts the world "liberal" in everybody but DJ's writing to "big government republican with liberal religious positions" when viewed by DJ's account, and converts the world "liberal" in DJ's writing to "liberal (per the classical, defunct dictionary definition)" when viewed by all but DJ's account. That way the software will perform all the tedious work of translating for us, and we can communicate pain-free with DJ. no need for software, other than the kind that God gave you. suggestion: use it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 26, 2013 20:44:21 GMT -5
He ain't budgin', Tony. When I have the time, I'll write a plugin that converts the world "liberal" in everybody but DJ's writing to "big government republican with liberal religious positions" when viewed by DJ's account, and converts the world "liberal" in DJ's writing to "liberal (per the classical, defunct dictionary definition)" when viewed by all but DJ's account. That way the software will perform all the tedious work of translating for us, and we can communicate pain-free with DJ. no need for software, other than the kind that God gave you. suggestion: use it. I am using it. You've never heard of that old saw: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 26, 2013 20:47:35 GMT -5
no need for software, other than the kind that God gave you. suggestion: use it. I am using it. You've never heard of that old saw: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em? you ever heard of a dictionary?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 26, 2013 21:40:49 GMT -5
I am using it. You've never heard of that old saw: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em? you ever heard of a dictionary? A dictionary is only as good as the general usefulness of the words it contains. I believe we've fairly established in this thread that the popular definition of "liberal" is so nightmarishly verbose when translated into DJ speak that it deserves its own word. And for better or for worse, the word chosen by the public is "liberal". If you look up the definitions of (small-L) "libertarian" and "libertarianism", they're close enough to classical liberalism that they can suffice to stand in for it. You're also neglecting the fact that large-L Liberals exist outside the US political sphere, with the closest example being here in Canada. The Liberal Party of Canada espouses doctrines that are compatible with the popular definition of "liberal", not with your classical definition. Hence even the parties themselves are thumbing their noses at the dictionaries, waiting for them to catch up and acknowledge the new reality surrounding the word. In short, in a world where there is some interplay between whether the dictionary should be slave to common usage, or common usage should be slave to the dictionary, this is clearly one situation where I, the broader public, and even the politicians themselves have decided the dictionary is the element that will have to change.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 26, 2013 22:45:07 GMT -5
you ever heard of a dictionary? A dictionary is only as good as the general usefulness of the words it contains. i see. so because liberal is not useful to you, you dispense with the formal definition in favor of one that suits your goals. got it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 26, 2013 22:55:05 GMT -5
you ever heard of a dictionary? I believe we've fairly established in this thread that the popular definition of "liberal" is so nightmarishly verbose when translated into DJ speak that it deserves its own word. really? definition one is as follows:
liberal:
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
that works fine for me. or is it some credo of your to dispense with definitions that are longer than a couple of words?
And for better or for worse, the word chosen by the public is "liberal". dictionaries define usage. that is precisely what they are there for.If you look up the definitions of (small-L) "libertarian" and "libertarianism", they're close enough to classical liberalism that they can suffice to stand in for it. that is because they have the same root, "liber".You're also neglecting the fact that large-L Liberals exist outside the US political sphere, with the closest example being here in Canada. The Liberal Party of Canada espouses doctrines that are compatible with the popular definition of "liberal", not with your classical definition. Hence even the parties themselves are thumbing their noses at the dictionaries, waiting for them to catch up and acknowledge the new reality surrounding the word. that is fairly common. political parties do that all of the time. the Libertarian Party in the US is a good example.In short, in a world where there is some interplay between whether the dictionary should be slave to common usage, or common usage should be slave to the dictionary, this is clearly one situation where I, the broader public, and even the politicians themselves have decided the dictionary is the element that will have to change. if you want to cozy up with the Orwellian Language Contingent, that is entirely your prerogative. what i find irritating about this discussion is that we resolved a conflict earlier by resorting to a dictionary, but when i offer you the same solution, you are behaving just as i did with the word "biased", and feeling completely righteous about it. odd.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 26, 2013 23:05:01 GMT -5
Virgil: i will leave you a FAQ from Merriam Webster's site. just take a deep breath and consider it, please (relevant portions increased to 14 point by me). if the word, as you seem to feel it is defined, were commonly used that way, IT WOULD BE IN THE DICTIONARY. PERIOD. the word "liberal" has been misused by people who have a vested interest in misusing it for 60+ years, Virgil. if they had succeeded, the meaning you seem to think is wildly popular would be in there. it isn't. qed. How does a word get into a Merriam-Webster dictionary? This is one of the questions Merriam-Webster editors are most often asked. The answer is simple: usage. Tracking Word Usage To decide which words to include in the dictionary and to determine what they mean, Merriam-Webster editors study the language as it's used. They carefully monitor which words people use most often and how they use them. Each day most Merriam-Webster editors devote an hour or two to reading a cross section of published material, including books, newspapers, magazines, and electronic publications; in our office this activity is called "reading and marking." The editors scour the texts in search of new words, new usages of existing words, variant spellings, and inflected forms–in short, anything that might help in deciding if a word belongs in the dictionary, understanding what it means, and determining typical usage. Any word of interest is marked, along with surrounding context that offers insight into its form and use. Citations The marked passages are then input into a computer system and stored both in machine-readable form and on 3" x 5" slips of paper to create citations. Each citation has the following elements: - the word itself
- an example of the word used in context
- bibliographic information about the source from which the word and example were taken
Merriam-Webster's citation files, which were begun in the 1880s, now contain 15.7 million examples of words used in context and cover all aspects of the English vocabulary. Citations are also available to editors in a searchable text database (linguists call it a corpus) that includes more than 70 million words drawn from a great variety of sources.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Feb 26, 2013 23:57:28 GMT -5
I have to say, I agree with DJ's terminology of conservatives and liberals, based on the fact he continues to say he is a Republican.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Feb 27, 2013 0:11:18 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 27, 2013 0:39:52 GMT -5
yeah, i have heard that 75 year old quote. if it actually happened on a large scale (i have no evidence that it DID) it would have made for a rather successful rebranding of the Socialist Party. Hitler tried the same thing with Socialism- coopting the moral and cultural capital of that idea for his own decidedly anti-populist intentions. but it doesn't change the basic facts. the world doesn't actually run on an Orwellian model, yet. slavery really is not freedom. war really is not peace. and liberalism really is not socialism. in fact, it is the enemy of totalizing systems, and those that are part of those systems are well aware of that fact. it is a shame that freedom loving people, such as yourself, are not.
|
|