I also have issue with the word 'liberal' and the way it's used today. 'Liberal' used to be an insulting term for Republicans.
The Declaration of Independence listed three rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I insist on my right to liberty so I fall under the definition of a liberal person.
I am liberal enough to say that if a man wants to put on a dress and call himself 'Susie' he should be allowed to do so. I wouldn't want to impose on his personal liberty by telling him he can't do so.
However, if he insists that I pretend to refer to him as a woman or that I must call him "Ma'am" then he is now imposing on my liberty. He has the liberty to call himself anything he wants but he does not have the liberty to tell me what I can or can't say. I am at liberty to call him anything I want to call him unless there is deliberate slander involved. Calling a man 'sir' is not slander.
I whole-heartedly accept the words-- "Common sense" rather than "conservative". I've written about how the word-- 'conservative' doesn't really mean anything anymore, especially when RINOs use it to describe themselves. So obvious was this seeming conundrum that I favored using the word-- "Naturalistic" and "Naturalism" to describe my leanings. 'Naturalistic' or 'Naturalism' describes acknowledging the Laws of Nature.
It is clear that 'Natural' gender expressly defines male and female.
'Natural' marriage specifically defines the joining of a man and woman in lifelong monogamy.
'Natural' parents, 'Natural' children, and a 'Natural' family intentionally describes something based on Nature and being biologically related.
I believe a 'Natural' government is a government that recognizes Natural Law and its subsequent Common Law that is the basis of our God given Rights recognized in the US Constitution. The original 'Conservatives' tried to conserve a former way of life, which this present generation have no idea of what that was. Being 'Naturalistic' describes everything based on Nature and excludes the conservative pretenders like RINOs like the Zionist-funded Charlie Kirk, Liz Cheney, Lindsey Graham, William Krystol, and lesbians like Tammy Bruce.
Many political Organizations and PACs are set up, heavily funded, and promoted by the enemy we are fighting. The purpose of these are to besmirch, and demoralize the good name of so many Americans opposed to the daemonology taking over our institutions. Moreover, they will even use the "MAGA" term for ideology purposes not representative of it's original intent. Doing so is a form of copyright infringement. The intent is undermine the term MAGA; to delude it, and ultimately make it's meaning of no effect. This is what the enemy does and the history of name destroying is ancient. Look at the original meaning of 'liberal', 'gay', 'bastard', 'hook-up', 'cell', 'rubbers', 'thongs', 'bad', 'truth' and 'conservatives'. The name "Conservative" has come to mean almost anything.
The term "conservative" has been slandered relentlessly the same way "conspiracy theory" has been; much of the public has an immediate negative reaction to it. Also, the term is vague in that there are many things we might conserve and continue with -- racism, child trafficking, etc etc -- that we don't WANT to conserve.
"Common sense" is much better, I agree. "Sane" works for me also. I like "pro-freedom", and in particular prefer "compassionate pro-freedom" because compassion is a different realm than political freedom; compassion is of the heart and cannot be legislated or enforced -- it is a matter of feeling and actions guided thereby.
Freedom is something that can and must be enforced (not necessarily by a government that initiates coercion, but by force when necessary).
I also have issue with the word 'liberal' and the way it's used today. 'Liberal' used to be an insulting term for Republicans.
The Declaration of Independence listed three rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I insist on my right to liberty so I fall under the definition of a liberal person.
I am liberal enough to say that if a man wants to put on a dress and call himself 'Susie' he should be allowed to do so. I wouldn't want to impose on his personal liberty by telling him he can't do so.
However, if he insists that I pretend to refer to him as a woman or that I must call him "Ma'am" then he is now imposing on my liberty. He has the liberty to call himself anything he wants but he does not have the liberty to tell me what I can or can't say. I am at liberty to call him anything I want to call him unless there is deliberate slander involved. Calling a man 'sir' is not slander.
I whole-heartedly accept the words-- "Common sense" rather than "conservative". I've written about how the word-- 'conservative' doesn't really mean anything anymore, especially when RINOs use it to describe themselves. So obvious was this seeming conundrum that I favored using the word-- "Naturalistic" and "Naturalism" to describe my leanings. 'Naturalistic' or 'Naturalism' describes acknowledging the Laws of Nature.
It is clear that 'Natural' gender expressly defines male and female.
'Natural' marriage specifically defines the joining of a man and woman in lifelong monogamy.
'Natural' parents, 'Natural' children, and a 'Natural' family intentionally describes something based on Nature and being biologically related.
I believe a 'Natural' government is a government that recognizes Natural Law and its subsequent Common Law that is the basis of our God given Rights recognized in the US Constitution. The original 'Conservatives' tried to conserve a former way of life, which this present generation have no idea of what that was. Being 'Naturalistic' describes everything based on Nature and excludes the conservative pretenders like RINOs like the Zionist-funded Charlie Kirk, Liz Cheney, Lindsey Graham, William Krystol, and lesbians like Tammy Bruce.
Many political Organizations and PACs are set up, heavily funded, and promoted by the enemy we are fighting. The purpose of these are to besmirch, and demoralize the good name of so many Americans opposed to the daemonology taking over our institutions. Moreover, they will even use the "MAGA" term for ideology purposes not representative of it's original intent. Doing so is a form of copyright infringement. The intent is undermine the term MAGA; to delude it, and ultimately make it's meaning of no effect. This is what the enemy does and the history of name destroying is ancient. Look at the original meaning of 'liberal', 'gay', 'bastard', 'hook-up', 'cell', 'rubbers', 'thongs', 'bad', 'truth' and 'conservatives'. The name "Conservative" has come to mean almost anything.
The problem with freedom. An opponent can easily counter the word. It’s too abstract.
We need to stop speaking in abstracts are start to use more verbs.
For Example.
I tell people that I want to decentralize the federal government.
That’s all I tell people now.
That’s an actual verb. It’s something that’s more tangible.
"Liberal" means someone who is generous...with your money
The term "conservative" has been slandered relentlessly the same way "conspiracy theory" has been; much of the public has an immediate negative reaction to it. Also, the term is vague in that there are many things we might conserve and continue with -- racism, child trafficking, etc etc -- that we don't WANT to conserve.
"Common sense" is much better, I agree. "Sane" works for me also. I like "pro-freedom", and in particular prefer "compassionate pro-freedom" because compassion is a different realm than political freedom; compassion is of the heart and cannot be legislated or enforced -- it is a matter of feeling and actions guided thereby.
Freedom is something that can and must be enforced (not necessarily by a government that initiates coercion, but by force when necessary).
Liberal- Libeler or Labeler would be more accurate. Still not demonic enough though.
think
Conserve the Founding/Constitution
vs
Liberate you from your individual liberties
Liberal sense, sounds spot on.