I've taken liberals on many issues and challenged them for many times in various posts to answer what liberalism is. They, knowing that should they have given the definition, it wouldn't stand one wave of questioning and debunking, decided that they better just keep wiggling and avoiding to answer this question. But luckily, they are not so good at covering their tracks and tying up lose ends, so I got a lot info about what liberalism is not. I got so much info that I think it's time to give liberalism a definition you know, like MRI scans, you scan so many 2D images and eventually you are able to have a pretty good clue about what's going on. And I hereby raise you the most accurate definition of liberalism:the not-entirely-ism, becausethe following are concluded from the best wiggling effort made by liberals when I deduced their beliefs into something utterly absurd) It has something to do with wealth redistribution, but not entirely about wealth redistribution. It has something to do with equal result , but not entirely about equal result . It has something to do with impeding the development of science to protect the environment , but not entirely about impeding the development of science to protect the environment. It has something to do with high taxation , but not entirely about high taxation. It has something to do with government regulation , but not entirely about government regulation. It has something to do with a huge, gigantic government , but not entirely about huge, gigantic government . It has something to do with <insert a typical appeal of liberals> , but not entirely about <insert the same typical appeal of liberals>. I'll be glad if you couldn't help let out a chuckle after reading this or if you are outraged because you think this definition isn't accurate at all and start wiggling again by posting what JFK (who wouldn't recognize today's liberals) said about liberalism.
