What is a liberal?

[MrTuffPaws]

Now how did I know there would be a post like this one.

I think if there is a next civil war we will be joining ranks to get rid of our government not each other. Course I'll be long ago dead when or if that happens.

Fret not. I have had that treat at least once before here. I really wonder why the mods don't clamp down on it, after all, it is a direct treat in a way. Question someone's beliefs and see what you get

But as you say, OEF, the next civil war will be to the people against the government.

 

[Biker]

But as you say, OEF, the next civil war will be to the people against the government.[/QUOTE]
I'm not at all sure about that. I could see the next civil war beginning in the southwest and spreading northward, and in the not-so-distant future.
Biker

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Close all foreign military bases. Skip the next war. Refuse to sign any law I can't fully read during lunch. Write my own State Of The Union speech.

+1

 

[TCW]

Their agenda in a nutshell:

Abortion good
God bad

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Their agenda in a nutshell:
Abortion good
God bad

MODS: I am going to tread a no-no here, but it is necessary to correct a factual inaccuracy above.

Hmmm...thats a bit simplistic. Just a wee bit.

How about this agenda in a nutshell:

Terrorism Bad
Terrorists with BIG things that go boom bad
Democracy Good!
Strong Military good
Alternative forms of energy good
Protecting our homes from enemies good
Full employment good
Equal opportunity good
Home ownership good
High wages good
American jobs good
Middle Class good
Access to health care services good
Education good
Lower crime good
Clean air/water good
Fish still in rivers good
Fewer drivers on road good

I challenge you to tell me what concept in this agenda you *don't* like, other than perhaps abortion (bowing to THR rules).

I can't find anything wrong with any of the CONCEPTS, tho I will freely admit to have trouble with the methods of implimentation for those concepts to become reality.

Thats about the democratic party agenda as I see it...and as they see it.

Don't believe me?
http://www.Democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

What you seem to think is overly simplistic, and frankly insulting.

I don't know a SINGLE Dem who thinks abortion is a good thing. Not one. Not a single one. Get the point? No one LIKES abortion...not even the doctors that do it. Since you claim that which isn't true, here is the direct quote (page 38):

"Abortion should be safe, legal and rare."

Now where is "good" in that sentence?

I would also like to point out that the word "God" appears 7 times in that very document. Ok, 7 times on 6 different pages. They actually broke THR rules by invoking the name of God, and not in vain, either.

Saying that you disagree is one thing. Saying that you disagree, then providing salient evidence or intelligent discourse is better. Saying that you disagree, but then boiling down the tenets to some *incorrect* statement is just plain lazy. :banghead:

 

[one eyed fatman]

But as you say, OEF, the next civil war will be to the people against the government.

I'm not at all sure about that. I could see the next civil war beginning in the southwest and spreading northward, and in the not-so-distant future.
Biker[/QUOTE]

Sounds interesting. Tell me more.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Pink Pistol, it is not the statements of the outcomes that you're, generally speaking, in favor of, such as clean water, that are the problem. Who's against clean water? It's the underlying philosophy of leftism that is so destructive to humanity, and that we, therefore, find so abhorrent. For example, when you say that "Access to health care services is good," you don't mean that in the same way that I might mean it if I said it. When I say something like that, what I mean is that it is a good thing for medical facilities to be accessible, i.e., nearby and available. What you mean when you say that is that you will use the power of government to take money from me at, in essence, gun point, so as to provide medical care to someone else who did not take the steps in life to take care of his own needs. Not only is this wrong on its face, but the long term result is also highly destructive. It throws a monkey wrench into the economy, causing health care costs to sky rocket, for one thing, and creates a society full of permanent government dependents for another.

No one has a right to health care services in the sense that you mean it, i.e., at someone else's expense. That is something which requires money. If you are smart, you will make the right choices in life and see to your own needs. For those who do not, Americans are a very generous people when a gun is not held to their heads. Even with a gun held to their heads, they are willing to give to charities that are set up to help such people if they are made aware of the need. Take the gun away, and there will be many more such charities and donations to them.

Before the welfare state, that's the way such people received help as a matter of course. This is not destructive of property rights, and it is not destructive to the economy. We conservatives don't believe in creating a Big Brother to take care of us from cradle to grave. That is the main difference between us. In other words, whereas health care is a good thing in the abstract, socialism is a bad thing in cold hard reality. Socialism sounds nice at first glance, but in reality it amounts essentially to a stomp in the face by a jack-booted government agent.

 

[ron73644]

I hear you, Old Dog. I had a couple of son-in-laws that must have been liberals. I believe in helping, but not as a lifetime project. When they have your daughters and grandkids, they think they have leverage........and I suppose they do.

 

[one eyed fatman]

Fret not. I have had that treat at least once before here. I really wonder why the mods don't clamp down on it, after all, it is a direct treat in a way. Question someone's beliefs and see what you get

But as you say, OEF, the next civil war will be to the people against the government.

Count your blessings MrTuffPaws. The head cases at my other forum are fully supported by the moderator. You know who I'm talking about.

 

[Biker]

I'm not at all sure about that. I could see the next civil war beginning in the southwest and spreading northward, and in the not-so-distant future.
Biker

Sounds interesting. Tell me more.[/QUOTE]
Somehow, we got the 'quote' function FUBARed.
I believe that we're already skirmishing with the likes of MS13, Maldef, La Raza and others for control of 'Aztlan' and it will get a lot worse before it gets better thanks to Jorge Bush, at the present, and others before him.
Flame away, folks. I can take it.

Biker

 

[orionengnr]

no brakes

you try to make some good points...post #66 is a gem

What you and nearly everyone else miss is that the modern use of the word is the accepted definition, right or wrong.

I agree with your sig line, but until the Left relinquishes possession of the word, the public equates Leftist with Liberal.

Arguing it here (in the format originally presented) was a bit leading, a bit baiting,...a good place to start, but kind of like preaching to the choir...

 

[one eyed fatman]

Sounds interesting. Tell me more.

Somehow, we got the 'quote' function FUBARed.
I believe that we're already skirmishing with the likes of MS13, Maldef, La Raza and others for control of 'Aztlan' and it will get a lot worse before it gets better thanks to Jorge Bush, at the present, and others before him.
Flame away, folks. I can take it.

Biker[/QUOTE]

Your obviously very wrong. MS13, Maldef, La Raza are only here to make a few dollars to feed their poor family's. Ask any dipstick in Washington that doesn't care about mexican gangs in America.

 

[TCW]

JJpdxpinkpistols:

"Strong Military good"
"Protecting our homes from enemies good"

You actually expect me to believe that these are common priorities of liberals?

ROFLMAO!

 

[ceetee]

Saying that you disagree is one thing. Saying that you disagree, then providing salient evidence or intelligent discourse is better. Saying that you disagree, but then boiling down the tenets to some *incorrect* statement is just plain lazy. :banghead:

+1... or more if they'll let me.

 

[Kaylee]

Hawkeye -- nicely said!

As to the whole "who's who in the Civil War" side discussion.. let's not be talking about shooting each other here, eh?

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

How do you equate socialism with freedom and equality?

I don't equate them as they are independent of each other. Socialism, at the time the quote is supposed to have been made, was seen by many as a liberation movement against the conservative European establishments of aristocracy and constitutional monarchy. Capitalism at that time was more or less allied with the aristocracy. Of course, socialism is an economic system, and freedom and equality are more political goals. You can have capitalistic and socialist systems with very little freedom or equality, and both systems can also have those attributes.

 

[Kaylee]

You can have capitalistic and socialist systems with very little freedom or equality, and both systems can also have those attributes.

Incorrect.

A socialist system requires some means of forcing the haves to give to the have nots.

Ergo, it is not (economically) free.

 

[silverbird]

a liberal is someone who seeks to impose their ideas of what individuals in our society *need*

I believe everyone needs god......MY god.


I just made myself a conservative

 

[MrTuffPaws]

Incorrect.

A socialist system requires some means of forcing the haves to give to the have nots.

Ergo, it is not (economically) free.

They why is the standard of living in many socialist countries higher than our own? Take northren Europe for instance. A high standard of living requires capitalist measures.

 

[meef]

Democrats want power given to big government, Republicans want power kept at the lowest levels, where it belongs.

You know what? I wanted to believe that particular concept at one time in the not-too-distant past, too.

I well remember my hopes for the Republicans "Contract With America".

But, as with 99% of all political promises and manipulations - it turned out to be BS. Little more than pure BS.

I've little use for any "political party".

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I don't equate them as they are independent of each other. Socialism, at the time the quote is supposed to have been made, was seen by many as a liberation movement against the conservative European establishments of aristocracy and constitutional monarchy. Capitalism at that time was more or less allied with the aristocracy. Of course, socialism is an economic system, and freedom and equality are more political goals. You can have capitalistic and socialist systems with very little freedom or equality, and both systems can also have those attributes.

You pair the terms "freedom and equality" as if the two could ever, in any respect whatsoever, be made compatible. The two are, in point of fact, diametrically opposed. Under liberty, society will naturally result in gradations of wealth in accord with differing levels of talent, character and, yes, on occasion, good fortune. Equality, on the other hand, is only found under tyrannies, which deny liberty to all, with the backing of armed government agents.

Those who pair freedom and equality, as if they could ever go hand in hand, suffer from a mental illness called leftism. It is not hopeless, however. Some people have been known to grow out of it on their own, but it takes a determination to develop the capacity to think logically, and a desire to actually learn to understand human nature and the nature of governmental power.

Since socialism is an effort at using the force of armed government agents to equally distribute wealth (that is to say, my property), it is also incompatible with liberty, under which governments are instituted to preserve my right to property (property being the only real foundation of liberty). This is inescapable logic. The fact that you cannot comprehend it is a very bad indication, but there is still hope for you, assuming you are still young. As I said, you could still grow out of leftism, as many have before you.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I believe everyone needs god......MY god.


I just made myself a conservative

Though the desire that all believe in God is, naturally, not at all incompatible with conservatism, it does not make you a conservative. If, on the other hand, you wished to use the power of a central unitary government to enforce your desire that everyone believe in God, that would make you the opposite of a conservative, i.e., it would make you a statist, i.e., someone who wishes to use the power of a central unitary government to manipulate society and to deny individual liberty.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

You know what? I wanted to believe that particular concept at one time in the not-too-distant past, too.

I well remember my hopes for the Republicans "Contract With America".

But, as with 99% of all political promises and manipulations - it turned out to be BS. Little more than pure BS.

I've little use for any "political party".

You confuse political parties with political world views. Political parties can be used as vehicles of political world views, but sometimes that proves very unreliable, such as the case of the Republican Party. In the 1980s it looked like the Republican Party was beginning to transform into an acceptable vehicle for Conservatism, but then the neocons and the big tent Republicans stepped in and put the Kibosh on that.

 

[Bunkster]

... suffer from a mental illness called leftism.

Correctly, Hawkeye defines this entire thread as LEFTISM, not liberalism.

Always remember, a leftist hates being called a leftist. Ergo, call them LEFTISTS!

As for an excellent example of how leftism is a mental illness, review the leftover Paul Wellstone websites. These people are breathtakingly immature, juvenile, emotional and disgusting in their religious fervor for leftism and this wholly vile person.

 

[biketrapeze]

Liberal = rubbish!