What is the difference between liberal and "progressive"?

[Ban my account ffs!]

There is no difference.

I am both liberal and progressive.  I believe in progressing society towards utopia by liberally spending *YOUR* money

In all seriousness... progressive is just a term thought up because weak-kneed Democrats (or rather, the non-Democratic voters they're trying to court) couldn't just keep the term liberal after the conservatives made it a dirty word.

I'm a liberal.  I think rich people should pay higher taxes so the poor aren't quite so miserable... so shoot me, or rather stab me because I'm going to take your guns away.. mwah hahahahaha

[Ban my account ffs!]

When I think of liberal I think of classical liberalism to which much of personal beliefs are based upon.  To call a leftist a "liberal" to me though is an egregious misappropriation of the term.  Thus the correct definition is quite different from a so-called "progressive" which is another euphemism for a socialist.

Kind of like conservatism is a euphemism for fascist.  As long as we're defining the other side.

[Ban my account ffs!]

When I think of liberal I think of classical liberalism to which much of personal beliefs are based upon.  To call a leftist a "liberal" to me though is an egregious misappropriation of the term.  Thus the correct definition is quite different from a so-called "progressive" which is another euphemism for a socialist.

Kind of like conservatism is a euphemism for fascist.  As long as we're defining the other side.

Nyet.

I was being sarcastic.  As if this guy has any idea what socialism or even "leftism" really is.  He's just throwing out labels that are supposed to be "bad" as a cheap (but effective) way to demean the other side.

[Ban my account ffs!]

When I think of liberal I think of classical liberalism to which much of personal beliefs are based upon.  To call a leftist a "liberal" to me though is an egregious misappropriation of the term.  Thus the correct definition is quite different from a so-called "progressive" which is another euphemism for a socialist.

Kind of like conservatism is a euphemism for fascist.  As long as we're defining the other side.

Nyet.

I was being sarcastic.  As if this guy has any idea what socialism or even "leftism" really is.  He's just throwing out labels that are supposed to be "bad" as a cheap (but effective) way to demean the other side.

No I know what socialism is and that it is basically statism in one form or another it can be "democratic" or can be more "authoritarian".   And it has many different synonyms for it .  I sorry if you find it offensive. 

mutters bullsh**t under my breath

"No I know what socialism is and that it is (insert completely wrong definition here)"

Statism is an extreme form of socialism that also places the government in control of your personal life, something many conservatives don't seem to have a problem with. 

Socialism is placing the means of production into the hands of the community, rather than profit seeking individuals.  Profits are shared, but personal freedoms are hardly a part of the definition of socialism.

For example, here, electric and telephone service are provided by cooperatives, which is a limited form of socialism, in that the ventures, rather than being owned by the whole community, are owned by the individuals that take part in the program.  Profits are shared among members.  Food and agricultural cooperatives are also very common here.

[Ban my account ffs!]

For example, here, electric and telephone service are provided by cooperatives, which is a limited form of socialism, in that the ventures, rather than being owned by the whole community, are owned by the individuals that take part in the program.  Profits are shared among members.  Food and agricultural cooperatives are also very common here.

Which is one of the great points for a more liberal (in a traditional sense) society and against a socialist one.  You can be socialist and do socialistic things in a liberal society, the reverse is certainly not true.

One thing that may surprise you, Dead0man, is that I believe government functions best when local governments and communities have the most power.  Ideally, the federal government would serve the purpose of protecting our rights and freedoms and occasionally re-distributing wealth, especially during disasters.  I also see the federal government as becoming more important in filling roles traditionally left to the states because we are becoming a nation where travel and mobility between states is common and having a myriad of 50 different ways of doing things will only hurt the economy.

So, I've adopted the "local issues should be up to the locals, state issues up to the state" and so on.  Funding a picnic area at the local park is not something your congressman should be worried about.. but it is okay for your city council to be concerned about terrorism.