Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
☭proletarian☭;2197056 said:Could you clarify how the OSS qualifies as a liberal idea and not simply a military/intelligence strategy?
President Franklin D. Roosevelt was concerned about American intelligence deficiencies. On the suggestion of Canadian/British spymaster William Stephenson, the senior British intelligence officer in the western hemisphere, Roosevelt requested that William J. Donovan draft a plan for an intelligence service.
On a thread written by an idiot I may claim anything I wish. Don't tell me that cons wouldn't take credit if FDR was a Republican. They certainly take credit for freeing the slaves.☭proletarian☭;2197056 said:Could you clarify how the OSS qualifies as a liberal idea and not simply a military/intelligence strategy?
President Franklin D. Roosevelt was concerned about American intelligence deficiencies. On the suggestion of Canadian/British spymaster William Stephenson, the senior British intelligence officer in the western hemisphere, Roosevelt requested that William J. Donovan draft a plan for an intelligence service.
That doesn't make it liberal, any more than the invention of the atomic bomb makes nukes a liberal concept.
Somethings are politically neutral, and/or cross political lines (not quite the same thing). It doesn't matter who was sitting in the hot seat when they were instituted or were invented.
On a thread written by an idiot I may claim anything I wish. Don't tell me that cons wouldn't take credit if FDR was a Republican. They certainly take credit for freeing the slaves.
That doesn't make it liberal, any more than the invention of the atomic bomb makes nukes a liberal concept.
Somethings are politically neutral, and/or cross political lines (not quite the same thing). It doesn't matter who was sitting in the hot seat when they were instituted or were invented.
Seems to me that we're back to assigning blame to somebody rather than discussing the thread topic.
For instance, using modern definitions for 'conservative' and 'liberal' in America, was abolition a 'conservative' or a 'liberal' concept? Modern American Conservatism is very big on personal liberties and unalienable rights.
Is Women's suffrage a 'conservative' or a 'liberal' concept. Modern American Conservatism draws no distinction between people based on any demographic and assigns unalienable rights to all.
So, I'm not sure you can now assign those as 'liberal' successes. I am prepared to have somebody show me how I'm wrong.
On a thread written by an idiot I may claim anything I wish. Don't tell me that cons wouldn't take credit if FDR was a Republican. They certainly take credit for freeing the slaves.
That doesn't make it liberal, any more than the invention of the atomic bomb makes nukes a liberal concept.
Somethings are politically neutral, and/or cross political lines (not quite the same thing). It doesn't matter who was sitting in the hot seat when they were instituted or were invented.
If you let us know what your definition of 'liberal' is, I would try to give an answer, 'Liberal' is so subjective in the USA. For example, I call myself a liberal because my views on social issues are very liberal. I also call myself a conservative because my views on fiscal issues are conservative for the most part.
If you let us know what your definition of 'liberal' is, I would try to give an answer, 'Liberal' is so subjective in the USA. For example, I call myself a liberal because my views on social issues are very liberal. I also call myself a conservative because my views on fiscal issues are conservative for the most part.
We are called "Independents." More appropriately, the word is "libertarian," though the word "libertarian" has been hijacked by a lot cranks.
If you let us know what your definition of 'liberal' is, I would try to give an answer, 'Liberal' is so subjective in the USA. For example, I call myself a liberal because my views on social issues are very liberal. I also call myself a conservative because my views on fiscal issues are conservative for the most part.
We are called "Independents." More appropriately, the word is "libertarian," though the word "libertarian" has been hijacked by a lot cranks.
That's one term. Narcissist is another.
We are called "Independents." More appropriately, the word is "libertarian," though the word "libertarian" has been hijacked by a lot cranks.
That's one term. Narcissist is another.
You sound like a liberal bashing conservatives for their "me-first-all-the-time" selfishness.
That's one term. Narcissist is another.
You sound like a liberal bashing conservatives for their "me-first-all-the-time" selfishness.
Hey if the shoe fits.....
HAHA!
Oh, and let me guess, you got a $90,000 a year job the week after graduation with a corner office and 2 hour lunch break and a company car, right? You must have missed the countless stories on the tens of thousands of college grads who can't find work (aka, refuse to do shitty jobs b/c they feel too good for it). A college degree is great. You still must work your way up. Well, except you, who got the above job upon graduation I'm sure.
How can you claim you belief a college degree is great, while also looking down your nose at those with degrees?
You misunderstand. A college degree is great. Thinking having a college degree entitles you to not working entry level or non-related tough jobs is bad.
By the way, you should get a refund on your degree, as the sentence "How can you claim you belief a college...." should instead read "How can you claim you BELIEVE a college" or "can you claim your belief that a college..".
Get a refund, they failed you. I'm hiring at Wendy's though....if you're interested.
And have the Unions make contributions to those that YOU may not agree?
Face FACT. Unions are Corporations unto themselves that they decry.
Some union contributions:
40 hour work week
Overtime pay
Minimum wage
Paid Vacation
Safety
Child Labor laws
All things conservatives fought every step of the way.
You forgot one other union contribution:
Causing the eventual bankruptcy of the company or government they work for, thus causing the promised pensions and benefits of former employees to dry up and lead to an economic crisis when those union members who became so dependent on the union are all-of-a-sudden out on their own. Oops.
Are you conflating ideology and party affiliation?☭proletarian☭;2197056 said:Could you clarify how the OSS qualifies as a liberal idea and not simply a military/intelligence strategy?
President Franklin D. Roosevelt was concerned about American intelligence deficiencies. On the suggestion of Canadian/British spymaster William Stephenson, the senior British intelligence officer in the western hemisphere, Roosevelt requested that William J. Donovan draft a plan for an intelligence service.
None.
Abolition was before modern liberals.
Civil rights movement? Nope. What would have occurred anyway took place only by enlarging the state and trampling on individual rights and property rights.
Democracy? Nope. Extending the franchise to anyone over 18 has meant a growing list of entitlements that will eventually bankrupt this country and end our government.
No fault divorce? Nope. Sent the message that relationships are cheap and expendable. Fail.
My take on all of this 'liberal/conservative' partisan bickering is that a liberal (MY definition of one - it's the classic bleeding heart type) without a conservative (MY definition - fiscal and constitutional conservative), and a conservative without a liberal are of no use to a society that wishes to remain great. Each tempers the other from becoming radical in their views.
No, He's a Jew who said in this very thread that extending suffrage to all adults not judged incompetent was a bad thing.You sound like a liberal bashing conservatives for their "me-first-all-the-time" selfishness.
Hey if the shoe fits.....
Ah, so you are a liberal!
I always thought so.
☭proletarian☭;2197813 said:None.
Abolition was before modern liberals.
Civil rights movement? Nope. What would have occurred anyway took place only by enlarging the state and trampling on individual rights and property rights.
People aren't property.
Democracy? Nope. Extending the franchise to anyone over 18 has meant a growing list of entitlements that will eventually bankrupt this country and end our government.
So you propose an oligarchy?
No fault divorce? Nope. Sent the message that relationships are cheap and expendable. Fail.
As opposed to costing 40 sheckles?
You religion devalues life more than ideology ever has. Just ask the Moabites, Jesubites, Hittites, Ammonites...
We all know you want a one party state like the good little fascist you are. But, no need to demonstrate your lack of understanding of one of this country's fundamental founding principles at the same time. You end up looking like a stupid fascist.My take on all of this 'liberal/conservative' partisan bickering is that a liberal (MY definition of one - it's the classic bleeding heart type) without a conservative (MY definition - fiscal and constitutional conservative), and a conservative without a liberal are of no use to a society that wishes to remain great. Each tempers the other from becoming radical in their views.
History proves the idea of Conservative Fiscal Prolicies is a fraud. A tax break deoesn't create long term jobs. Then the FACT that only 6% of Republicans are scientists. Republicans say, "So what? What does that prove?" It proves and highlights Republican disdain for education.
If tax breaks were so good at creating jobs, then the 2.5 trillion dollar tax cut the Republicans made would have left a sparkling economy, not led to a great depression that still might happen, only Democrats are working hard to avoid that disaster, without Republican support I might add.
