WHY are they called LIBERALS ??  Shouldn't they be called LIEBERALS ???
346707
"They" are called "liberals because their scope of concern expands to include everyone (Jesus was one of the first Liberals). Most liberals even have compassion for jerrks like you too!
876006
LOL - BECAUSE you only asked for working liberals to answer the question.\nNext time - Liberals on WELFARE and see what that will get you!
496056
I think the reason is that liberals believe that man is capable of being perfect without anybody's help. They think that all it takes is education. This is the reason behind much of their supposedly self-righteous anger at anybody who seems to diagree with them:\n\n"I've just explained my position to this person, and he disagrees! Since I can't possibly be mistaken, he might simply be too stupid to understand. I'll be patient and give him a second chance."\n\n(After explaining a second time,)\n\n"I've just explained my position to this person who was pretending to be honestly curious and he STILL disagrees! Since I can't possibly be mistaken, and he doesn't seem to stupid to understanmd, he must be DELIBERATELY pretending to be dumb in order to waste my time! That makes him a CAD as well as a HERETIC! What's more, he knows EXACTLY how much what he says and does irritates me, AND HE'S DOING IT ON PURPOSE!"\n\nThe above assumptions cover most if not quite all of the liberal position. People are not born liberal. What kind of person does it require to take an innocent child and turn them into a liberal...? I will tell you what kind of person you need. It takes a villain.\n\nYou correctly point out that liberals are dissatisfied with Christ, this is because they largely do not have a personal sense of sin. They see no need or a Savior, they do not recognize the moral response of guilt (" 'laws' are for the governed, not for the governor") and they have lost all sense of shame.\n\nLiberals appear to recognize guilt only as a means of manipulating people; they will not admit to a real sense of moral guilt because that would be to recognize a standard be behavior above themselves. They respond to attempts to put them on the same footing with the rest of the world as attempts to shame them, and their pride will not allow them to admit that they might be mistaken. So they castigate those who would criticise them, at the same time hurling terrible and vicious attacks against their opponents, in an attempt to shame their opponents. \n\nBecause they do not realize that there must be a basis to moral accusations, their attacks are largely built on emotional appeal, and are factually invalid.\n\nThis unyeilding effort to block all sense of personal responsiblity has its parallel in an individual psychological response, called malignant narcissism.\n\nMalignant narcissism was first described by a psychologist and author Dr. M. Scott Peck in his books The Road Less Traveled, and others. He describes the resistance of some hideously selfish people to recognize their own selfishness. This was his attempt to describe the moral condition traditionally called 'evil', in psychological terms. When faced with the 'good', evil must destroy it or be forced to face its own selfishness.\n\nIn American liberalism to day, I believe that we see malignant narcissism raised to the institutional level.\n\nThe group behavior of people may be either better or worse than their individual behavior. Among Christians we recognize that we ought to continue to assemble together on a regular basis becuse we will stimulate each other to love and good works more than if we do not meet regularly.\n\nAnd, we have (unfortunately almost daily in the news) seen reports of troublemakers who, egged on by their peers, commit even more heinous acts of violence and selfishness than they would have stooped to without such provocation. What makes organized crime and gang activity so bad and so dangerous to the community is the fact that it is organized. Organization is a 'good', which was made and intended to serve other goods. It is terrible that it has been coopted and enslaved to serve evil.\n\nSo it is with liberalism in America today. (By the way, I  hope nobody has misunderstood-- this is political liberalism I am talking about. Liberal Christians are a different matter, in terms
663976
ugh, i just answered this to find you removed it, here I go again.\n\nActually the word 'socialist' better describes todays 'democrats'.  People can still have liberal ideals without having them freakishly to the left of reality.\n\nLiberals are basically the ones who think a world wide utopia is possible if they 'live and let live'.  They are unable to mentally comprehend the fact that there are others in this world who do not tolerate views different than theirs.  Liberals, for some reason, are hypocritical in most of their thinking.  For instance, since they don't like George W. Bush, they think that a man who gassed to death over 30 thousand of his countries innocent people should be left in power, and defend the lives of people on death row, who were convicted of the most heinous crimes known to man.  Yet liberals for some reason think it is OK for a mother to kill a child.  \n\nLiberals also say it is wrong to discriminate by race/ religion (as do conservatives), but then the liberals turn around and make laws that give benifits to some, and not all, such as 'affirmative action'.  If that is not hypocrocy, what is?\n\nBasically Socialists, Liberals, Democrats, all stand for the same things.  They want to take businesses away from the ones who built them, and give them to the government to run, and give out free stuff to everyone.  What they fail to realize is that over time, the few who are working to support everyone else, will get tired of doing all the work, and the work will gradually decline, thus leading less to distribute.  Eventually we will be sitting in bread lines, waiting for our government rations, because it doesn't matter how hard you work, you will get the same amount of bread as the lazy democrat in line next to you.
1146241
Simple:  Personal responsibility and consequences for ones' actions is antithesis to the liberal dogma.  They like to call themselves progressives (I must admit they are VERY good at grabbing the best euphemisms), but in reality they are nothing but excuse makers, victim whores, and apologysts for the worst that human nature can produce.
1117284
I understand your point.  I think it has to do with the fact that people are intensely stuck into categorizing. If a person considers him or herself to be liberal. They will normally take a harsh view on a conservative question that is not asked in a meaningful way. Or the other way, if a liberal question starts off with "why did bush kill our soldiers?" you will get an angry response from the right. That is why I asked the question that you answered. We have always been a society of labels. As far back as this countries founding there were labels on people for their political views or origin. Today it just takes an ever so hateful view and ignorance.
1162102
Well in the 23 answers I read:\n7 said it was equal\n2 say that liberals do the most\n...of those neither were hateful\n13 say that conservatives do the most\n...of those 11 were hateful\n1 was just an idiot\nSo, after crunching the numbers: I would say Liberals.\n\n\n\nFor the record: I am a conservative and I don't call liberals "libtards."  I call them "Liberals."  I know.. I know.. it's hateful.  But I can't help myself.  I apologize if "liberals" is too hateful for you.\nI am such a hate monger-er.
1155044
1. Neocons... hehe (thought I'd throw my own version of name calling in) use name calling as a method of 'winning'. That's all in the own head btw.\n\n2. I've watched some detailed research on this subject on CSpan and it was actually a goal of the Republican party to have a campaign designed specifically to make the word 'liberal' derogatory. Their goal was to have the words liberal and democrat to mean the same when someone is talking about each party.\n\nTheir strategy worked btw. Today even us democrats use the word liberal to describe us when we all know that the far left is only a minority of the democratic party.\n\nDid you know that Clinton was a moderate democrat? Yep. But if you listen to ppl today, they say, '... that liberal democrat Clinton.....'.
302649
If we used the same tactics we used during or right after WWII, the liberals would scream.   \nI think crewl and inhumain would be the terms used.\n\nI would also hear "just leave and let them form thier own government"  Boy, those are the intelligent ones who have NEVER studies history and a political vaccuum.
427738
you bring up a very good point. thanks to years and years of deliberate misinformation and demonization of liberals by the right-wing media, most of what republicans believe about liberals bears little resemblance to reality. they believe a bunch of myths and stereotypes that are repeated over and over until in the conservative mind they become "fact" - i.e. there's a liberal bias in the mainstream media, liberal bogeymen want to come and take away all your guns, republicans are more fiscally conservative (see current administration), liberals are anti-family, liberals don't support the troops, liberals are pro-abortion, liberals are elitist snobs, liberals in reality hate america, and as stated in the post before mine, liberals have no ideas... etc., etc., etc...\nWHY do they choose to believe silly myths and hateful stereotypes? because they're easily manipulated & have an innate need for some "other" that they can feel superior to.
1169852
I always remember that "left" originally meant "sinister" - so it is the Religious Right and the Liberal Leftist.  Traditionally Right is conservative and Left is Liberal.\n\nConservatives (right) are traditionally thought of as cautious, uncomfortable with too much government and are financially and/or religiously motivated.\n\nversus\n\nLiberals (left - I wonder who decided on these names...) are traditionally thought of as folks who think the government should take care of all it's people and will pass tax bills to pay for it.  They are more religiously tolerant (as long as you keep your religion to yourself) and more likely to try new things.  \n\nLiberals are thought to vote with their heart and Conservatives with their wallets.  Republicans are often considered Conservatives, while Liberals are usually the Democrats.\n\nI am more what you would call a Centerist (I can see some things are correct on both sides of the debate) and a Libertarian (I really think government should get out of our lives - if I had my way, the only law would be "If you damage someone else (physically, financially) you will be punished.  Otherwise, do what you want.")  I usually vote Democrat / Liberal.
885797
sure!! a liberal is someone like Abraham Lincoln and JFK and his brother and mlk and Gandhi and john Lennon and the people that assassinated them are all racist conservatives! and assassination is the only way they 'win' arguments! [oh and by the way the greatest liberal is Jesus Christ.... yeah that's right .... prove me wrong!]
595172
they are mostly lapdogs for liberals, since they all seem to have been educated by the same socialist type professors with the same buzz words to know each other by...\n\ndont pay any attention to news that doesnt give you competing sides of every issue and let you make your own mind up...
740102
The answer is in the question, "Liberalsuck". \n\nLiberals are, generally, uneducated (though there are a few in acedemia who are edeucated beyond their intellectual capacity) and ignorant. They also base much on feelings, rather than on simple, hard logic. \n\nSince libs are generally uninformed (though they seem to think they are BETTER informed than we conservatives), there is little else they can do than to throw unimaginative insults and profanities... It's sad really.
1013483
DimocRATS and Liberals!!!
808824
I totally agree! And they should stop bringing up Clinton, for goodness' sake! The man's been out of office for almost six years, so enough already! However, I don't mind being called a liberal. I hate the fact that it's been used as an epithet for so long, and I think it's time that we took it back!
133326
Why is a liberal labeled as such?  A liberal wants to do away with the 2nd Amendment, and limit how average citizens can protect themselves and their property against criminals. Sounds limiting to me, instead of how the word is supposed to mean.