Liberals hate freedom

[SmarterthanYou]

Smarterthanyou is proving his avatar to be an oxymoron as he's dumber than fuck. Political freedom was invented by liberals. What the fuck would a conservative know about freedom?

I mean hell their good about talking about freedom....until someone actually practices it then GOOD GOD HEAVEN FORBID THAT SHOULD HAPPEN.

you prove your inestimable stupidity by ASSuming i'm a conservative. what a fucktard you are.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Bush is a conservative.

Bush was a conservative in name only. he was a modern liberal/neocon.

 

[ironhead]

IMHO, a new term needs to be coined to describe what we commonly refer to as liberal today. The reason being, Patrick Henry, James Monroe, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, and many others, were LIBERALS. And they would spit in the face of anyone claiming that honor under today's definition. (Hancock would probably shoot them.)

Don't put Lincoln in that group, he was no classical liberal. He suspended habeas corpus, detained political dissidents, waged an unconstitutional war against the South while parading it as ending slavery, and greatly increased the power of the exectuive branch and enhanced corporate power (railroads). And, aren't you a Conservative (i.e. not a classical liberal)?

 

[ironhead]

Watermark, why don't you use some original thought and stop reguritating conventional wisdom about Tom Paine. A citizen's dividend, funded by a tax on unimproved land values (something that no one created, and supported in theory by Adam Smith and French Physiocrats) is not a "welfare state", nor is it wealth redistribution.

 

[Good Luck]

I'm sorry but you just dont' know what your talking about. That's a sweeping generality and like all such generalities it is wrong. Many of the people you sighted weren't liberals, they were radical revolutionaries far to the left of what you would term a "liberal" today.

Would they be opposed to the modern social well fare state? Probably, but then again, they didn't have to worry about feeding 300 million people.

To many people have been inculcated by the propaganda of the far right which has been determined to marginalize those who oppose their political agenda as "liberals". Well liberal is not a bad thing. It's a very good thing and to generalize liberals as adherents to an all encompassing social welfare state is just spectacularly wrong.

It saddens me that you are not wise to this Goebbels propaganda method.

What is sad is when pseudo intellectuals rewrite history for their own purposes. READ what those great men had to say about government vs liberty. I included both federalists and anti-federalists in my list for a reason. Because despite their differences on forms of government and limits to government, they all followed a common thread of human dignity and right to choose both choose one's destiny AND be RESPONSIBLE for it. (Hence, the probability they would oppose the socialist agenda - whether they had 300 million to worry about or not.)

I am a liberal, and am proud to wear the title of liberal. But I have found myself more and more at odds with others who claim that title as the years have gone by. Admittedly, there are liberals all along the "left" general socio-political spectrum. However there is also a generalized common agenda of modern liberalism. There are many, many who do not agree with all of that agenda. There are many who do. But it is not a generalized group of people to whom I refer, but rather the overall philosophy and agenda when I express my criticism in light of the liberals who founded this nation.

But to specify where modern liberalism goes awry, it is specifically the socialist agenda, trying to heap the responsibility of welfare on the central government. The core problem with that is it is mutually exclusive to a free society. You simply cannot have full control of the economy (which is what socialism requires to have any chance of working) without also controlling other aspects of the society. Social issues and economic issues are too intertwines to expect the ability to control one and leave the other to the vagaries of individuality.

And the agenda of modern liberalism supports that truism. Of note is the manner in which certain liberties, considered sacrosanct by the founders (especially the anti-federalists) are proposed to be "controlled". And not the logical "control" of holding a person responsible if their abuse of free speech causes injury to others, but the direct interference with liberty on the theory that such is needed for the "benefit of society".

IMO, Patrick Henry WOULD spit in the face of a man supporting the so-called "fairness doctrine". He would bitch slap anyone supporting the vast majority of today's gun control laws. And while Hancock would not just out and shoot someone proposing the 2nd Amendment be abolished, he would undoubtedly be sorely tempted.

Now, admitting that not all liberals (especially myself) support the agenda of modern liberalism, look at what modern liberalism DOES support in violation of constitutional protections:
Punitive and prohibitive gun control laws against law abiding citizens. (2nd)
Punitive taxation on purchase of guns, ammunition, and dealers' licenses. (2nd)
Sobriety check points. (4th)
Hate crimes (1st)
Denial of government employees free expression of religion while on the job. (1st)
"Fairness" doctrine. (mentioned before, but still on the list) (1st)
Federal mandates over state authority (10th)
Coerced community, state, and/or federal service (18th)

With a little thought I can add to the above list, but you get the idea. Not exactly a list that would engender approval from the founders, is it?

 

[Cancel7]

Good Luck, you're not a liberal. You're a malcontent and a crank who is still smarting because a democrat once got tired of hearing your pontificating speechifying and told you to shut the fuck up and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. You have a personal grudge because your local democratic party didn't like having you in the room. Your unending anger steams from your posts.

Oh, and in your constant jabbering about Patrick Henry, you left out one of his more interesting moments. That would be when he was arguing against the federalists, and he warned people "They'll free your niggers".

So really who gives a shit what Patrick Henry would say, even if any one of us knew what that would be, which, just by the way, we don't?

 

[Good Luck]

Don't put Lincoln in that group, he was no classical liberal. He suspended habeas corpus, detained political dissidents, waged an unconstitutional war against the South while parading it as ending slavery, and greatly increased the power of the exectuive branch and enhanced corporate power (railroads). And, aren't you a Conservative (i.e. not a classical liberal)?

Lincoln also promoted the progressive idea of equality of men, and a few other ideas that were not well thought of at the time. He was a staunch federalist, hence his abuse of federal authority to push his agenda, but he was also very much a classical liberal.

And no, I am not a conservative, though many mistake me for one when I oppose much of modern liberal agenda. Of all political historical figures I admire, and follow the principles most, it would be Patrick Henry. But I am rather a mix between todays liberal and todays conservative. I was a registered democrat for most of my voting life, until about 4-1/2 years ago.

Like my racial heritage, I am a political mutt.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Watermark, why don't you use some original thought and stop reguritating conventional wisdom about Tom Paine. A citizen's dividend, funded by a tax on unimproved land values (something that no one created, and supported in theory by Adam Smith and French Physiocrats) is not a "welfare state", nor is it wealth redistribution.

Ironhead, it is a welfare state. It's meant to abolish poverty. You can refuse to call it a welfare state if you want to but that doesn't change the facts.

 

[Socrtease]

Don't put Lincoln in that group, he was no classical liberal. He suspended habeas corpus, detained political dissidents, waged an unconstitutional war against the South while parading it as ending slavery, and greatly increased the power of the exectuive branch and enhanced corporate power (railroads). And, aren't you a Conservative (i.e. not a classical liberal)?

The first shots of the civil war were fired by southern forces on Federal Forces. The south declared war, the United States of America put an end to that war.

 

[ironhead]

The first shots of the civil war were fired by southern forces on Federal Forces. The south declared war, the United States of America put an end to that war.

Yeah, except Lincoln would not agree to Southern offers of compensation for Union property in the South. Lincoln's defiance essentially began the war. Moreover, Union blockades of Southern commercial ports ruined the South's economy - a sanction in effect, which is an act of war. The South responded with military action, but the North initiated the acrimony which lead to it.

 

[Annie]

Yeah, except Lincoln would not agree to Southern offers of compensation for Union property in the South. Lincoln's defiance essentially began the war. Moreover, Union blockades of Southern commercial ports ruined the South's economy - a sanction in effect, which is an act of war. The South responded with military action, but the North initiated the acrimony which lead to it.

Sort of like the oil and steel embargo with Japan prior to WWII?

 

[Good Luck]

Yeah, except Lincoln would not agree to Southern offers of compensation for Union property in the South. Lincoln's defiance essentially began the war. Moreover, Union blockades of Southern commercial ports ruined the South's economy - a sanction in effect, which is an act of war. The South responded with military action, but the North initiated the acrimony which lead to it.

Lincoln's intent - whether you agree with it or not - was to prevent the south from seceding, thus preserving the union. (Another aspect of Lincoln's strong federalist beliefs.) By his definition - which was later upheld by both SCOTUS and Congress - the declaration to secede was insurrection.

Anyway, you call his war "unconstitutional". You use the term out of ignorance of the facts. Ditto people calling Vietnam, Korea, and the current Iraq wars "unconstitutional"

I invite you to study the Prize Cases from the Civil War, in which SCOTUS made its first and most encompassing decision regarding the power of the president as Commander in Chief. No challenge since has made a significant change to the Prize Cases decision. It is why Korea and Vietnam were allowed to take place despite there being no War Powers Act. It is also why all sitting presidents since 1973 (of both parties) have claimed at one time or another that the WPA itself claims unconstitutional authority by congress over presidential powers as CinC.

http://www.answers.com/topic/prize-cases

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=67&invol=635

 

[Cancel5]

Why liberals and socialists deny the constitution.

For decades the liberals and socialists of this great country have pursued the ultimate destruction of the US Consitution by judicial tyranny through installing unamerican totalitarian minded ideologists on the federal courts.

several cases in point to prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, are the slaughterhouse cases, wickard v. fillburn, and US v. Miller. All of these cases bent their ears on forcing liberalization through federal law enforcement by expanding the commerce clause of the US Constitution to the extent that congress can legislate what you can and cannot grow on your own property for your own purposes.

Later 21st century cases expand the commerce clause powers of congress even further through cases such as gonzalez v. raich.

One case in particular stands out to show that liberals don't like the constitution is Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) that totally obliterates the 4th amendment, by the United States Supreme Courts own admission, by deciding that the states interest in reducing drunk driving is greater than the 4th amendment protections guaranteed by the US Consitution EVEN THOUGH the sobriety checkpoints provided little proof that they made any dent or decrease in drunk driving throughout the US.

Liberals hate freedom and the US Constitution. Ban all Liberals.

Jeezus gawd! It slays me, how, after four years of Bush you could actually post something like this without it being from "The Onion"

Our Constitution is in shreds after Bush and you are worried what is going to happen now?

To quote Biden, "this is a joke, right?"

 

[Cancel5]

not at all, in fact, in the next 4 years we're going to see just how much liberals hate freedom as you all praise pelosi, boxer, reid and obama.

Are you afraid they will use some of the Bush powers?

 

[Cancel5]

A Liberal is the President now, jerkoff. Your too stupid to know that I guess

I knew these guys would panic if a Democrat won. Obama now has all this Presidential power, granted by Bush and Cheney and they aren't liking it one little bit!

This wire tap is for you!

 

[Annie]

Are you afraid they will use some of the Bush powers?

LOL! Most definitely Obama will use those 'unconstitutional' signing statements that so many railed against for so long. As will the Republicans use the filibuster, it is the way the system works.

 

[Cancel5]

Patrick Henry, James Monroe, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, and many others, were SLAVEOWNERS who owned GUNS how could they be liberals??

It was the times and Thomas Jefferson stated that he was torn, but without slavery the United States of America would not have made it. We have much to thank the slaves for, more than we will ever be able to determine!

 

[Cancel5]

No he's not. He's neither a liberal, radical or conservative. W is a political reactionary.

You are all too kind, I have a label for him, but I won't share.

 

[Cancel5]

Don't put Lincoln in that group, he was no classical liberal. He suspended habeas corpus, detained political dissidents, waged an unconstitutional war against the South while parading it as ending slavery, and greatly increased the power of the exectuive branch and enhanced corporate power (railroads). And, aren't you a Conservative (i.e. not a classical liberal)?

Georgie is thinking that with time, we will look back on him with fondness as we do Lincoln.

I just laugh and laugh!

 

[Cancel5]

LOL! Most definitely Obama will use those 'unconstitutional' signing statements that so many railed against for so long. As will the Republicans use the filibuster, it is the way the system works.

I find it so entertaining!