Lots of good points!

[Arlo]

I think people very commonly misuse the term liberal.

Oh, I know they do (even while projecting that flaw on others).

[-gg-]

In terms of voting you do indeed have to choose a side unless you don't want to vote at all. I mostly choose not to vote at all anymore. I know that's going to be demonized but that's me.

On most political issues there are two sides. You are voting for one person or the other. Sure there might be a field of people that are involved that aren't associated with either side, but they have no actual chance of ever making it through the election.. so you have to choose a side.

[-gg-]

(Image removed from quote.)

Go join my other forum called flame warriors. You can say whatever you want there all day long. I created icom to be a different place and it was stated up front that it was moderated. You fail to follow the rules. You were an irritant and you were abrasive towards me for no reason at all. I got rid of you for the good of the forum not because it personally affected me at all. You will never understand that though. And this is probably one of the few times I will interact with you because you add nothing to anything

[Arlo]

I mostly choose not to vote at all anymore. I know that's going to be demonized but that's me.

Demonized? Really? My only question to you is .... what was the actual point of your thread?

[rabbidrabbit]

Oh, I know they do (even while projecting that flaw on others).

You are a only slightly less childish troll than Milo.  In all honesty, I could not care less about what you think about anything so there is no value in wasting other peoples time trolling me.

[Arlo]

You were an irritant and you were abrasive towards me for no reason at all.

[Arlo]

You are a only slightly less childish troll than Milo.  In all honesty, I could not care less about what you think about anything so there is no value in wasting other peoples time trolling me.

Obviously. Thanks for your response. 

[rabbidrabbit]

Obviously. Thanks for your response. 

I'm simply doing the community a favor so others don't have to scroll past your trolls in addition to Milo's.  In all fairness to you though, when not involving your dogmatic and bigoted politics you can have some decent posts. 

[Arlo]

I'm simply doing the community a favor so others don't have to scroll past your trolls in addition to Milo's.  In all fairness to you though, when not involving your dogmatic and bigoted politics you can have some decent posts.

Your 'community mindedness' is ... ummm ... noted. Once again, thank you. 

[perdue3]

The founding fathers did indeed want profound change and would fit the definition of Liberal that I provided.  The Tories would also fit the definition of Conservative that I provided.  Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I think you are trying to fit a round peg in a square hole and wondering why it does not fit.  If you find yourself in that position it best to rethink your processes.

I think people very commonly misuse the term liberal.

It seems like you are claiming liberals are people who want change. That is not always the case and is not the definition of a liberal. In some cases it is applicable, but "wanting change" is not an ideology. It is only relative to the status quo, as you aforementioned. Liberalism has its own ideology that is not built upon change.

I was simply pointing out that it is not black and white, blanket statements are dangerous. Not interested in a semantics debate, although I addressed the semantics of the discussion.

[Arlo]

By the way, while you're specifically trying to protect (or identify) trollish behavior here in this forum would you mind dropping by the jukebox? If so, thanks. A good paladin is hard to find and seldom appreciated. I appreciate you, though. 

[Arlo]

It seems like you are claiming liberals are people who want change. That is not always the case and is not the definition of a liberal. In some cases it is applicable, but "wanting change" is not an ideology. It is only relative to the status quo, as you aforementioned. Liberalism has its own ideology that is not built upon change.

I was simply pointing out that it is not black and white, blanket statements are dangerous. Not interested in a semantics debate, although I addressed the semantics of the discussion.

The term 'progressive' has even a more specific meaning. Occasionally some seem to detest it as much, if not more, than liberal.

[perdue3]

The term 'progressive' has even a more specific meaning. Occasionally some seem to detest it as much, if not more, than liberal.

As it pertains to change, Progressive and Reformist are much better terms and are more accurate than Liberal.

[rabbidrabbit]

It seems like you are claiming liberals are people who want change. That is not always the case and is not the definition of a liberal. In some cases it is applicable, but "wanting change" is not an ideology. It is only relative to the status quo, as you aforementioned. Liberalism has its own ideology that is not built upon change.

I was simply pointing out that it is not black and white, blanket statements are dangerous. Not interested in a semantics debate, although I addressed the semantics of the discussion.

Fair enough, how would you define Progressive then?  Would you define it as I ascribed it to Liberal?  Not trying to pick you apart, I'm interested in clarifying the use of terms as I agree with what you said about terms being loosely used.

[-gg-]

Isn't it just semantics? I would say that the things going on in the Democratic party are pretty much progressive liberalism.