DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Exactly where most of the Democrats are.
The perfect candidate.
- Thread starter theMAJORITY
- Start date
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
(Notice the root word "Libre")
A BUNCH of parties used to be called the progressive party! But there's a way to tell between someone who cares about liberty and who doesn't. If they do care about liberty, they will call themselves a "liberal". If they don't, they will call themselves a "progressive", or a "leftist". Think about Midcan or BAC. Some of their comments are bone-chilling in their collectivism.
theMAJORITY
MAJORITYrules-sorry
I don't understand why liberials call republican/conseratives racist---where are you regurgetating that from?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I live in the south. I know a lot of Republicans.
theMAJORITY
MAJORITYrules-sorry
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Tell the big lie often enough and most dummies will start to belive it. The fact is thogh, the Democrat Party has been actively subjugating the Black Race since its inception.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
BS. Its defined by its contemporay leaders: Soros, Hillary, Obama, Kennedy, Pelosi, and Reid.
theMAJORITY
MAJORITYrules-sorry
I have to correct this
Why don't liberials care about my liberities---big government = less liberity. Both the libs and consertatives like big gove now (for the most part) because we have experienced a great shift of philosophy---the sift of all philosophy as a collective whole in this country is shifting toward communisum--and liberials are leading the way.
What you learned--son with no real life experience--thus no intuition of human nature, and the ability to read between lines----is called a disguise.
Why don't liberials care about my liberities---big government = less liberity. Both the libs and consertatives like big gove now (for the most part) because we have experienced a great shift of philosophy---the sift of all philosophy as a collective whole in this country is shifting toward communisum--and liberials are leading the way.
What you learned--son with no real life experience--thus no intuition of human nature, and the ability to read between lines----is called a disguise.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopedia. Would you like me to get my copy of brittanicca out?
Liberalism = liberty
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The conservatives are leading the way.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Who amongst them refer to themselves specifically as "liberals"?
gonzojournals
Better than You
What South are you living in? There are plenty of Democrats in the South (US history should clue you in on that.)
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Not anymore. Southern Democrats were populists, not liberals, in any case, and that's long since dead. Nowadays, the only people who pull the lever for the Democrats are 90% of the blacks and 10% of the whites - just enough to never win anything.
gonzojournals
Better than You
There are still plenty of Democrats in the South...don't lie. (And you want to agree with me, Watermark, because Southern Man is trying to say all liberals are in the North).
B
Brently
Guest
Southernman, that sounds rather close to A FAIR DEAL FOR ALL AMERICANS:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=1178
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Society refers to them as Liberals, with a capital L. And modern society defines Liberalism as the belief that government can provide solutions to all of society's ills. Democrat leaders don't like this label, but that is exactly what they stand for.
You're relying on some dictionary/ encylopedia definition of small l liberal. That is meaningless in a political discussion of Liberal ideals and goals, because the ideals and goals change over time. For example:
I consider myself a 1776 Liberal, which means that I am a fiscal and social Conservative as defined in the late 20th and early 21st century. The Founders wanted a small Federal government to unite and provide security for several independant States. They never intended the Federal government to provide retirement benefits, personal welfare, and health insurance.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Do I have to get out that red state/ blue state map for you. That is what I was referring to: trends.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I could vote for the Huckster. But I'd rather Romney.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Society refers to them as Liberals, with a capital L.
Dude, that is retarded. People in Australia call themselves small L liberals whenever they don't belong to the conservative Liberal party, and are socially liberal, however, it doesn't make sense in America. There's no political party to have a big L in front of it, besides the Libertarians.
And modern society defines Liberalism as the belief that government can provide solutions to all of society's ills.
You'd think that the modern society that wrote wikipedia would take that into account.
Democrat leaders don't like this label, but that is exactly what they stand for.
Democratic leaders don't like the label because they aren't liberals, they're populists. They give a fuck about social freedom.
You're relying on some dictionary/ encylopedia definition of small l liberal. That is meaningless in a political discussion of Liberal ideals and goals, because the ideals and goals change over time. For example:
Liberalism is a philosophy. The philosophy of Stoicism didn't change because time did.
I consider myself a 1776 Liberal, which means that I am a fiscal and social Conservative as defined in the late 20th and early 21st century.
Bullshit. Social conservatism is a big time collectivist philosophy. They don't care about the individual, they want the governemtn to force everyone to be like them and be good Christians. Our founders would slap you for demeaning the name of liberalism like that. You represent nothing other than totalitarinaism and big government collectivism.
The Founders wanted a small Federal government to unite and provide security for several independant States.
The depends on the founder. The federalists compromised a lot, but I think just about everyone with half a brain realizes today that if they had gone all out with their plans the US would've been better off in the end. Human rights trump states rights.
They never intended the Federal government to provide retirement benefits, personal welfare, and health insurance.
200 years of supreme court precedent, and Alexander Hamilton, would disagree with you.
Dude, that is retarded. People in Australia call themselves small L liberals whenever they don't belong to the conservative Liberal party, and are socially liberal, however, it doesn't make sense in America. There's no political party to have a big L in front of it, besides the Libertarians.
And modern society defines Liberalism as the belief that government can provide solutions to all of society's ills.
You'd think that the modern society that wrote wikipedia would take that into account.
Democrat leaders don't like this label, but that is exactly what they stand for.
Democratic leaders don't like the label because they aren't liberals, they're populists. They give a fuck about social freedom.
You're relying on some dictionary/ encylopedia definition of small l liberal. That is meaningless in a political discussion of Liberal ideals and goals, because the ideals and goals change over time. For example:
Liberalism is a philosophy. The philosophy of Stoicism didn't change because time did.
I consider myself a 1776 Liberal, which means that I am a fiscal and social Conservative as defined in the late 20th and early 21st century.
Bullshit. Social conservatism is a big time collectivist philosophy. They don't care about the individual, they want the governemtn to force everyone to be like them and be good Christians. Our founders would slap you for demeaning the name of liberalism like that. You represent nothing other than totalitarinaism and big government collectivism.
The Founders wanted a small Federal government to unite and provide security for several independant States.
The depends on the founder. The federalists compromised a lot, but I think just about everyone with half a brain realizes today that if they had gone all out with their plans the US would've been better off in the end. Human rights trump states rights.
They never intended the Federal government to provide retirement benefits, personal welfare, and health insurance.
200 years of supreme court precedent, and Alexander Hamilton, would disagree with you.
