Taken from the internet, and written by someone under the pseudonym of Billy Bob, and not myself.....

Well, what is the difference? There seem to about be as many theories regarding the origin of each term and the effectiveness of each in conveying left-wing messages as there are internet commenters to argue about it. Can we discuss it, or should we all just call ourselves, “left-wing loonies” and be done with it?

Many on the left have chosen to shy away from the word “liberal” altogether in favor of “progressive”. Some claim it’s because of the perceived link to “classical liberalism”, which would favor the existence of an unchecked and unregulated economy. However, this is only one meaning of the word. There is also the original meaning of the word liberal itself, which generally has something to do with open mindedness regarding people and modes of thinking. Why should lefties suddenly choose to adopt a meaning for liberalism that was virtually absent from the ordinary American political lexicon just a few decades ago? Is it just another case of backpedaling by the left from supposedly deeply held beliefs? Is it re-branding or appeasement?

Concerning “classical liberalism”: The term classical liberalism (to my knowledge) seems to have its roots in 18th and 19th Century discourse. In that context, although it does relate to so-called “free” markets, it also appears to be associated with the concepts of freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. Are those not left-wing concepts? They certainly don’t agree with much of the current right-wing agenda. So, the connections between the term “liberal” and “classical liberal” seem pretty tenuous. Perhaps the modern definition of liberalism shouldn’t be so strictly beholden or limited to pre-twentieth Century uses.

The term “progressive” has recently cropped up as a way to avoid the association altogether. However, does it? The basic definition of the word seems pretty generic. In fact, any conservative with a bold plan could claim “progressivism” based on the most straightforward definition of the term. It seems like a pretty vague label to put on a set of strongly held principles.

I’m not the only one who’s noticed the sudden replacement of “progressive” for “liberal” starting around the time Newt Gingrich became the Speaker of the House in 1994. I agree that progressivism, as a political movement, has its roots in much older history. However, it doesn’t appear to have replaced that naughty “L word” until the early ‘90s. It’s no secret that the Reagan revolution was a stark attack on all things deemed liberal and that the torch of anti-liberalism was carried full-tilt by AM radio as soon as the Fairness Doctrine was nullified by the Reagan-appointed chair of the FCC in 1987. I certainly remember the early early ‘80s bumper stickers stating, “I don’t believe the liberal press”. A well orchestrated attack on the political language and evenhanded discourse was under way. It’s roots extended at least as far back as Spiro Agnew’s “pointy-headed intellectuals” remark. In fact, politics since the McCarthy era has been a war of attrition for the American right. The left has often seemed aloof and too easily sucker punched by a fight it refused to acknowledge it was even engaged in.

So, why suddenly has the word “liberal” become exclusively associated with the (now right-wing) panacea of laissez-faire capitalism? Why has it suddenly become forbidden to associate itself with the basic definition of the word itself, including all of its left-wing implications? Why is the left suddenly incapable of defining its own meaning for a label it once gave itself? What happens when “the P-word” suddenly becomes a target for witch hunts? Do we have another backup?

Obviously I have an opinion of my own on the subject. I consider it to be an example of what we could call “classical pansy liberalism”. “Anything to avoid or divert confrontation” could be the motto of this movement. To me, the historic progressive political movement of a century ago was a strategy of moving forward with a liberal agenda much more than one of anti-liberalism. At any rate, the word “liberal” has its own history as a proudly worn label for the left-wing movement for many decades before this sudden rebranding. I find it distasteful to run from a word because the conservative media has decided it has naughty connotations. In fact, the act of hiding from it shows a lack of conviction more than anything else.

Try reading the bible! There are zero cases in the Old Testament where a woman was forced to marry her rapist! None.... However, the man could be forced by the father of the woman to marry her! In Hebrew communities, the father of the woman has to give consent.... I do not know of any parent who would force marriage on their child! Also, keep in mind....we are talking about 3,000 or more years ago! Sorry, but you do not appear to be a scholar in any subject.... When you have read and understand history, do return so we may have a proper discussion.

The ultimate point is that anything that occurs following rules is being designed. Everything in this universe follows rules. Humans have even figured out some of them. Rules are not speculation, they simply are.

There are only two ways this can happen; deliberately or haphazardly, by accident. Everything from acanthostega to mankind has a tibia and a fibula, or an ulna and a radius, or both. From fish to man, the same design. That clearly rules out accidental/coincidental development. It clearly shows a lineage and just as clearly shows that a creature's design is malleable. The question of who is designing the creatures is easily answered, the creatures are doing the designing by selecting their lifestyles and producing young ever more capable of commanding that chosen lifestyle.

They are designing their environment, insofar as nonsentient life is concerned, as they go about their lives. They are sentient creatures and sentience may not constitute intellect but it certainly defines intelligence.

The world overflows with intelligent design. The only fundamental question we can't answer is how did the rules that govern the universe occur. Where they laid down by God or was it the only possible way it could happen?

Actually my facts are correct. Except one; he's an idiot is my opinion. Of course not all liberals are liars but it is getting more and more frequent. Do I think Trump's a liar, not necessarily. I believe he exaggerates a lot, shoots his mouth off to much and honestly either believes what he says or doesn't care. A lie is intentional. For instance; as much as I detest Obama I believe he probably thought all the crap he espoused about the ACA was true. Not that he knew for sure, but I am sure the authors of that bill told him blah, blah, blah. So when I couldn't keep my doctor I said Obama lied because I am an not an Obama supporter. Happens all the time and on both sides of the aisle. Problem is, politicians do this all the time and are very seldom held accountable.

"No, there are a great many more possibilities."

Your words, not, may be... Be that as it may be, what you spout is a lot of pseudointellectual New Age claptrap.

We have much more than just speculation unless you regard honest intellectual accomplishment as meaningless. Most considerations in this universe are binary if you frame the enquiry properly. It's hot or it's not.

Define your terms adequately and every question can be accurately answered. The problem with New Age philosophy is that it rests on destroying definitions and standards. It makes resolving anything impossible. It does make a great balm for the ego, though, you need never worry about being wrong.

You are misunderstanding Deuteronomy 22: 28 and 22:16. This is a punishment... think about having to marry a woman (or in your case; man, boy, animal, or whatever you may be attracted to) and that individual is not compatible. Notice that the man can not divorce her for all his life... meaning, every day he would pray for death. You are also missing another key ingredient, the father of the woman. Her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he hands this authority over to her husband. If the man is unsuitable, the father can refuse to give his daughter to him. So, now we have this guy who had sex with a woman, rape or consensual, who has to pay for a bride, be considered married... without a wife for the rest of his life. Without the ability to divorce, he is not free to marry anyone else.... think about the dirty dishes, uncooked meals, dirty clothing, help in harvesting, and that all important heir.

In all the Old Testament, not one single female/woman was forced to marry her rapist. In 2 Samuel 13, Amnon, a son of David, rapes his half-sister, Tamar. Tamar was not forced to marry Amnon. Interestingly, though, Tamar seemed to have wanted to marry Amnon after the rape (2 Samuel 13:13-16). Why would she desire such a thing? In that culture, virginity was highly prized. It would have been very difficult for a woman who was not a virgin, and especially a woman who had been raped, to find a man to marry her. It seems that Tamar would have rather married Amnon than live desolate and single the rest of her life, which is what happened to her (2 Samuel 13:20). So Deuteronomy 22:28-29 could be viewed as merciful to the woman, who, because of the rape, would be considered unmarriageable. In that culture, a woman without a husband would have a very difficult time providing for herself. Unmarried women often had no choice but to sell themselves into slavery or prostitution just to survive. This is why the passage leaves marriage to the discretion of the father, because every situation is different, and it is better to be flexible than have a blanket rule.

Thank You PennyLynn. Quite the history lesson. I am ignorant and did not know these things. I wonder if we're "jealous', here. Hmmm...... i gather we want the 'resources' too. It's just never enough, it seems.

As with Georgia, I see Ukraine in this same boat as well, but I do not know. I recall reading awhile back, that the Ukrainians were relieved to see the Russians, but this could have been Georgia, I'm not sure.

Putin is only protecting his country and his people. As if we wouldn't do the same.

You seem to be rather confused, first I am talking about Montenegro petition to join NATO not the UN. NATO relies on military as well as political strength. Montenegro has a standing military of just under 2,000 men and women. It is true that Milo Đukanović has pledged the lives of those people to quote: "you can count on us at any time." But, really, in terms of military strength, the 2,000 in military would not be a unfordable force. This is a tiny country, no more than 700,000 people and I do not see how they could or would enhance the security of NATO. In fact, they could potentially be the catalyst to begin another World War. You see, under Article 5 of the charter to come to the defense of any member that is attacked. If admitted into NATO, the members are obligated to go to war in their defense... that would mean; Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey, Germany, Spain, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Albania and Croatia, and the United States would send forces to "rescue" them, even if they start the conflict. And, yes Russia is concerned and rightly so. From Russia's standpoint, they believe that NATO of trying to encircle it and friendly nations like Serbia, and they have vowed to do what's necessary to defend its national security and interests. Now, do not take that lightly, keep in mind that Russia has a nuclear arsenal slightly larger than the United States and is the largest geographical country on Earth. Now, that should make people stop and think.... Harvard professor Graham Allison has pointed out in regards to the situation with Russia, miscalculations and misunderstandings that lead to violent conflict are common in history. As John Mearsheimer has argued, Russia may start to feel cornered and desperate and might actually use its nuclear weapons. We don’t need any more stumbling blocks that could inadvertently contribute to armed conflict. What is clear to me, is that further encircling Russian ally Serbia and adding Georgia, a former part of both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, to the alliance would be a terrible idea. In fact, Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 in order to prevent it from joining NATO.

You, as a "concerned" individual for the "welfare" and "rights" of Supporters of Montenegro’s invitation to the alliance may point to other small NATO countries such as the Baltic States as a reason for including this tiny country as a precedence for their acceptance. And you would be so wrong, the Baltics are the perfect example of why small, militarily insignificant states should not be admitted into NATO. A recent study by the RAND Corporation found that Russia would likely reach the capitals of Estonia and Latvia within sixty hours if it invaded. Admitting the tiny Baltic States to NATO has come with very large risks for America without actually making the United States any safer.

Do not tangle up the United Nations' mission with NATO. The UN was established in 1945, not as a military strength, but rather a sanction driven organization who can take action on humanitarian issues that include "climate change, sustainable development, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, humanitarian and health emergencies, gender equality, governance, food production, and more." Well, that is what they claim.... although I have personal opinions of their effectiveness, I will stick only to facts and not emotions. The UN has 195 nation members and they claim to protect human rights. In this capacity they deliver humanitarian aid in the form of food, water, shelter, and by promoting sustainable developments (think rain forest and coffee), and finally they "hear" grievances presented under International Laws. And Montenegro became a member in June 2006.

I do admit, I have a different view of Russia than you and if you examine history, all European Jews and their descendants should be grateful for their contributions during WWII. As Hitler's Germany invaded country after country, his words were broadcast worldwide. Therefore, the world to include Americans knew Hitler's plans... and they turned their backs. Indeed, they knew that Adolf Hitler had repeatedly forecast the extermination of every Jew on German soil. They knew these details because they had read about them. They knew because the camps and the measures which led up to them had been prominently and proudly reported step by step in thousands of officially-inspired German media articles and posters.

Even before Germany declared war on the USA, photographs of the death camps were made by reconnaissance flight over Germany, and the annexed countries of Poland. And all Germans knew of the camps, to include foreknowledge of the final solution. And they were not just complacent, they were willing participants. And here is where Russia came into play.... Of course you have seen the photos of the camps and read how Americans came to the aid of the "Jew." But, that is somewhat untrue, America did not enter the War to 'save' the Jews, in fact antisemitism was ramped in the US and leading the force were men like Henry Ford. The first 'savior' for the Jew was Russians. Russia’s Soviet forces were the first to approach a major Nazi camp, Maidanek near Lublin, Poland in July 1944. The Soviets liberated Auschwitz, the largest killing center and concentration camp, in January 1945. In the following months, the Soviets liberated additional camps in the Baltic states and in Poland. Shortly before Germany's surrender, Soviet forces liberated the Stutthof, Sachsenhausen, and Ravensbrueck concentration camps. And I give credit where credit is due. US forces liberated the Buchenwald concentration camp near Weimar, Germany, on April 11, 1945. They also liberated Dora-Mittelbau, Flossenbürg, Dachau, and Mauthausen. And it was only by happenstance that they did. It was not part of the objective. The objective of the USA was to win the war, not save a nation.

So, you know about Arthur Neville Chamberlain, who thought that Hitler could be trusted....and he made a mistake. You may not know that he had fought in WWI and wanted to avoid another conflict or war. Many of our military can relate to the aversion to war as it was, that is hand to hand, watching the life drain from another human. So, I can see where he was in favor of a "civilized" and "nonviolent" path away from war. However, in doing so he condemned hundreds of thousands of people, and if you know history, Russia suffered substantial losses. Depending on the historian, Russia lost over 11 MILLION soldiers and more than 20 MILLION civilians.... compare that to American loss of 400,000.

So.... to you Russia is a horrible group of power hungry animals and not your friend. Okay, it is your right to harbor that opinion and I will not try to persuade you to think otherwise, but to all survivors of concentration camps... Russians had faces of avenging angels sent to preserve a nation.