Dems to pick up another Senate seat in Virginia: Warner is Running

Darla said:
Why is it an appropriate quote? Have you ever thought about what it means?

If being under 30 and being a conservative makes you heartless, what about being a conservative over 30, doesn't make you heartless?

The quote is stupid, meaningless, and self-contradictory. People pull it out and love to post it on message boards because they don't think about what it means. All they think is, Winston Churchill said it!

It never fails to make me laugh. See? Libertarians are funny!
Click to expand...

Churchill was orignally elected as a Liberal - later on he switched over to Conservative (sometime before the Liberal party passed legislation allowing the everyone to vote, which soon lead to their own ironic demise). I've always thought that the quote was rather self-congratulatory, as he was probably the only member of his party that had followed such a pattern.
 
Last edited:
It certainly wasn't libertarian, Damo.

In Britian and the US the term "liberal" pretty much always means "social liberal". We both have pluraritarian forms of government, so the minority opinion in liberalism died away pretty quickly.
 
"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."

There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"
Click to expand...

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=112
 
We've already all provided myriad links to the "Churchill didn't say this." Can we get past that now?
 
Watermark said:
It certainly wasn't libertarian, Damo.

In Britian and the US the term "liberal" pretty much always means "social liberal". We both have pluraritarian forms of government, so the minority opinion in liberalism died away pretty quickly.
Click to expand...
At his time it certainly wasn't socialist either.

Anyway, look at the "Liberal Democrats" in Britain and tell me what you think of them. On that political Compass site they pretty much fall right where I do on the chart. Simply the "liberal" title isn't what people expect from it.

Churchill ran as a conservative, switched to the liberal party, then switched back later.
 
I would vote Liberal Democrat every time if I lived in Britain.

They are probably the only major political party that I agree with almost entirely.
 
The "Liberal Democrats" are, actually, the old Liberal party. They merged with the Social Democrats. But most of the more socialist members of the party come from the old Liberal party, and most of the more market liberals come from the Social Democrats. The barely surviving old Liberal party represented the center, and the center back in the 70's of Britian was socialism.

The Labour party started out as the plain socialist wing of British politics. Now it's really more of a right wing party.

In Churchill's time the Liberal party represented the center-left, however. Sure, there were very market liberals in there, but there's market liberals in the modern Democratic party, and I wouldn't call the Democratic party "socialist" anyway.
 
Warren said:
I would vote Liberal Democrat every time if I lived in Britain.

They are probably the only major political party that I agree with almost entirely.
Click to expand...

We should move to Britian just so we can vote for them :).

They don't seem to be showing any signs of increase in popularity, though... I just hope they don't collapse. I've noticed a trend in recent world elections - all the market liberal parties are collapsing in on themselves.
 
Warren said:
I would vote Liberal Democrat every time if I lived in Britain.

They are probably the only major political party that I agree with almost entirely.
Click to expand...


Fascinating:

Liberal Democrat Party 2005 Manifesto

Economic and Social Fairness Platform:

"Because ill-health, disability, poverty, environmental pollution and the fear of crime curtail freedom, just as much as discriminatory laws or arrest without trial. So we want government to provide the essential requirements that everyone needs to make real choices in theirlives – a good education, a decent pension, a clean environment, effective policing andhigh quality healthcare
Click to expand...
.

Healthcare for Seniors

"Those towards the end of theirl ives deserve the best possible care.
Liberal Democrats will provide free personal care for elderly people
and people with disabilities, for as long as they need it, funded
out of our new 50 per cent rate on that part of people’s incomes over £100,000"
Click to expand...

They also strongly support Britiain's socialized national healthcare system, but with reforms.


http://www.libdems.org.uk/party/policy/manifesto.html
 
Which is actually too the right of the current policies in Britian, Cypress. Everything except for the tax raise on the rich (which I don't even really oppose). Where the Liberal Democrats really shine is on their social policy. They are, by far, the most socially liberal major party in the western hemisphere, excluding the Scandanavian nations.
 
Watermark said:
Which is actually too the right of the current policies in Britian, Cypress. Everything except for the tax raise on the rich (which I don't even really oppose). Where the Liberal Democrats really shine is on their social policy. They are, by far, the most socially liberal major party in the western hemisphere, excluding the Scandanavian nations.
Click to expand...


The are not "to the right" of the Tories.

Ask Charver, or AOI.
 
Of course they aren't to the right of the Tories. I didn't say that.

I meant, economically, their policies are generally to the right of the current administration, although I'm sure you could find a few exceptions.
 
Watermark said:
Of course they aren't to the right of the Tories. I didn't say that.

I meant, economically, their policies are generally to the right of the current administration, although I'm sure you could find a few exceptions.
Click to expand...


Read through their entire Manifesto: on health care, on pension, on environment, on global warming, on free dental care.

And ask yourself: Who would fit more comfortably into the UK Liberal Democrat Party: Dennis Kucinich, or Ron Paul?


Kucinich, hands down.
 
Kucinich, Cypress. Ron Paul obviously wouldn't fit, because people would scratch their heads every time he brought up the constitution. I wonder what Ron Paul would believe without the constitution? Hmmm...

Their economic policies aren't too bad, but don't think Warren would like me speaking for him, as I'm to the left of him economically. They're mostly opposed to regulation and "nanny-statism", but they're very moderate in this. I think Warren was making reference to their social policies.
 
I've really become disillusioned with radical free-market policies anyway. A free market will always be better than a state run economy, but I honestly don't see even massive governments like in Sweden hurting anything. I don't think it makes much of a difference economically, and the stability it provides, overall, makes the general populace happier. We need to approach things pragmatically, rather than dogmatically, anyway.

Which is why I feel no guilt at all with agreeing with the libdems.
 
Watermark said:
Kucinich, Cypress. Ron Paul obviously wouldn't fit, because people would scratch their heads every time he brought up the constitution. I wonder what Ron Paul would believe without the constitution? Hmmm...

Their economic policies aren't too bad, but don't think Warren would like me speaking for him, as I'm to the left of him economically. They're mostly opposed to regulation and "nanny-statism", but they're very moderate in this. I think Warren was making reference to their social policies.
Click to expand...


I actually think their social policies reflect true progressive values. I think Russ Feingold or Dennis Kucinich or Baraba Boxer would be very comfortable with most of their manifesto. I mean, real progressives, are against authoritarian centralized government. With all the Patriot Act, REAL ID, illegal wiretapping stuff.
 
Watermark said:
I've really become disillusioned with radical free-market policies anyway. A free market will always be better than a state run economy, but I honestly don't see even massive governments like in Sweden hurting anything. I don't think it makes much of a difference economically, and the stability it provides, overall, makes the general populace happier. We need to approach things pragmatically, rather than dogmatically, anyway.

Which is why I feel no guilt at all with agreeing with the libdems.
Click to expand...

Well I'm glad you've reached internal stasis and satisfaction. The pills must be working.
 
Watermark said:
I've really become disillusioned with radical free-market policies anyway. A free market will always be better than a state run economy, but I honestly don't see even massive governments like in Sweden hurting anything. I don't think it makes much of a difference economically, and the stability it provides, overall, makes the general populace happier. We need to approach things pragmatically, rather than dogmatically, anyway.

Which is why I feel no guilt at all with agreeing with the libdems.
Click to expand...
And I've come to generally the same conclusion from the opposite direction. Individual entrepreneurship really is more effective -- forget "efficient" as it's an inappropriate adjective in these cases -- at creating jobs and supplying basic needs at the local level. Regulation is critically important but it should always be balanced against the need to create and foster new business ventures.

As you say, pragmatism is almost always preferable to dogma where government policy is concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top