Does the definition of a liberal change to support the Conservative rant at that time?

I hear them being called the ';rich, liberal elite,'; by Bush in 2000 and O'Reilly continuously.





But reading some of the posts on Y!A, liberals are welfare-sucking, out-of-work, lazy slobs.





I believe it's neither.Does the definition of a liberal change to support the Conservative rant at that time?
agreed...also, they use the term 'conservative' to fit their agenda. Nothing conservative about increasing the size of govt, or increasing spending.Does the definition of a liberal change to support the Conservative rant at that time?
Much as the definition of ';Conservative'; changes from ';corporate bloodsucking greedmongers'; to ';dumb, God-addled, neanderthals'; depending on the point being raised by liberals.





Sadly, neither side has anything to be proud of in this arena.
I thought that, reading the answers here, liberals were said to be gung-ho about all of us supporting the welfare-sucking, out-of-work, lazy slobs... and that was why the Conservatives were so pissed off?





There's always a middle ground point of view... but very few people actually want to see it.
As I've pointed out many times, there's nothing wrong with being liberal. However if being liberal means government entitlements at my expense, that is socialism. :)





As far as conservative goes, I am one. I don't like what's happening at all with both sides. We're far from conservative and GWB is not my idea of a true republican.
Has anyone ever seen a poll that determined the party affiliation of people that are getting aid from our various social programs? I thought not. While liberals may support the program, I would guess most on actual '; welfare '; would not be voting.
There are really rich liberals and really poor liberals. The really rich ones are the ';rich, liberal elite'; who rally the real liberals, the ';welfare-sucking, out of work, lazy slobs.';





I think a better definition is one who supports government-sponsored liberties to all people... including the welfare-sucking, out of work, lazy slobs.
Definition of your opponent is a primary tool in debate. If you control the definition of your opponent and their point of view, you control the debate.





What I've noticed is that people here love to build straw dog arguments. They build conservatives as rich and uncaring, ignorant and unknowing or as Neocons which I guess is someone who is pretty close to Fascist. Liberals are built up as disconnected elitists or poor and needing a hand out or as too young to understand politics.
yes,they can't seem to keep their stereotypes about libs straight