Conservatives and Libertarians need to be allies

[Pheonixops]

Excuse me?

Have you considered the animosity of the bed wetting liberals who go out of their way to suppress our abilities to buy a certain wattage of light bulb? They regulate our toilets, invent "endangered species" that prevent people from developing their lands, they interfere with communities that celebrate religious holidays, they oppose gun rights.

Whatever issues conservatives interfere with individual rights on pales in comparison to the hostility liberals have for an individual's rights.

Excuse me? I am a Liberal, I don't care what wattage of bulb a person uses in their own home, I don't care what toilets they use, I'm not a "tree hugger", I don't care if a community has a Ramadan or other religious celebration, and I am very pro second Amendment as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Well then you are a "classical" liberal not one of the modern progressive liberals such as Obama.

Though Liberals and Progressives may agree on some issue, the two ideologies are no more or less interchangeable than Neo-con and Conservative. I think that the description below sums it up pretty well.

"Liberalism

The term "progressive" is today often used in place of "liberal." Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies and should not be used interchangeably. In the U.S. in particular, the term "progressive" tends to have the same value as the European term social democrat, which is scarcely used in American political language.[citation needed]

The reason for this confusion in the U.S. might partly be rooted in the political spectrum being two-dimensional; social liberalism is a tenet of modern progressivism, whereas economic liberalism (and its associated deregulation) is not. According to John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the center-left Center for American Progress, "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics. It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic." [22]

Cultural liberalism[clarification needed] is ultimately founded on the belief that the major purpose of the government is to protect rights. Liberals are often called "left-wing", in contrast to "right-wing" conservatives. The progressive school, as a unique branch of contemporary political thought, tends to advocate certain center-left or left-wing views that may conflict with mainstream liberal views, despite the fact that modern liberalism and progressivism may still both support many of the same policies (such as the concept of war as a general last resort).[citation needed]

American progressives tend to advocate progressive taxation and oppose what they describe as the growing and negative influence of large corporations. Progressives are typically in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. In the United States, liberals and progressives are often conflated, and in general are the primary voters of the Democratic Party which has a "large tent" policy, combining similar if not congruent ideologies into large voting blocs. Many progressives also support the Green Party or local parties such as the Vermont Progressive Party."

 

[kaz]

Excuse me? I am a Liberal, I don't care what wattage of bulb a person uses in their own home, I don't care what toilets they use, I'm not a "tree hugger", I don't care if a community has a Ramadan or other religious celebration, and I am very pro second Amendment as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Well then you are a "classical" liberal not one of the modern progressive liberals such as Obama.

Though Liberals and Progressives may agree on some issue, the two ideologies are no more or less interchangeable than Neo-con and Conservative.

Classic liberals are libertarians. I think you just mean modern liberals and progressives.

As for neocon and conservative, you don't seem to know what a neocon is. W is a neocon, Rush isn't. If you don't know why then you need to learn the term, if you do know why then I'm confused about what you think a conservative is.

 

[kwc57]

Interestingly, in the wake of Snowden/NSA surveillance programs, it’s liberals and libertarians who have become allies.

ROFLMAO!!!!, thanks for the laugh, much appreciated.

Libertarians and "liberals" becoming "allies" is about as feasible as The Pope publicly agreeing to dine in hell with Satan. When "liberals" disavow all the methods, practices and purpose of the leviathan authoritarian state then maybe an alliance can be formed, but that ain't happened yet, not even close.

I think the problem occurs when some people automatically equate democrat with being a Liberal. For instance, I don't think that the current President is a Liberal, in fact one of my main gripes with him, is that he seems to act more like a republican instead of a Liberal.

Conservatives don't fall for believing a lie just because it is oft repeated.

 

[dblack]

ROFLMAO!!!!, thanks for the laugh, much appreciated.

Libertarians and "liberals" becoming "allies" is about as feasible as The Pope publicly agreeing to dine in hell with Satan. When "liberals" disavow all the methods, practices and purpose of the leviathan authoritarian state then maybe an alliance can be formed, but that ain't happened yet, not even close.

I think the problem occurs when some people automatically equate democrat with being a Liberal. For instance, I don't think that the current President is a Liberal, in fact one of my main gripes with him, is that he seems to act more like a republican instead of a Liberal.

Conservatives don't fall for believing a lie just because it is oft repeated.

hmmmm

 

[kwc57]

I think the problem occurs when some people automatically equate democrat with being a Liberal. For instance, I don't think that the current President is a Liberal, in fact one of my main gripes with him, is that he seems to act more like a republican instead of a Liberal.

Conservatives don't fall for believing a lie just because it is oft repeated.

hmmmm

hm

So do you believe Obama isn't liberal?

 

[Pheonixops]

Well then you are a "classical" liberal not one of the modern progressive liberals such as Obama.

Though Liberals and Progressives may agree on some issue, the two ideologies are no more or less interchangeable than Neo-con and Conservative.

Classic liberals are libertarians. I think you just mean modern liberals and progressives.

As for neocon and conservative, you don't seem to know what a neocon is. W is a neocon, Rush isn't. If you don't know why then you need to learn the term, if you do know why then I'm confused about what you think a conservative is.

What neo-con policy or policies of W did Rush speak out against? How about "Mr. Conservative" Hannity?

 

[dblack]

Conservatives don't fall for believing a lie just because it is oft repeated.

hmmmm

hm

So do you believe Obama isn't liberal?

Heck, I dunno what 'liberal' is supposed to mean these days. I see precious little difference between Obama and Bush - well, Obama's a much better speaker, but not in terms of policy. Point being, believing a lie just because it is oft repeated doesn't really seem like a left/right thing. It's just an ignorant voter thing.

 

[kaz]

Though Liberals and Progressives may agree on some issue, the two ideologies are no more or less interchangeable than Neo-con and Conservative.

Classic liberals are libertarians. I think you just mean modern liberals and progressives.

As for neocon and conservative, you don't seem to know what a neocon is. W is a neocon, Rush isn't. If you don't know why then you need to learn the term, if you do know why then I'm confused about what you think a conservative is.

What neo-con policy or policies of W did Rush speak out against? How about "Mr. Conservative" Hannity?

The one that makes neither Hannity nor Rush neocons is W's spending policies.

But other policies they both spoke out against were W's immigration policies, the Transportation bill and the so called campaign finance reform.

So why don't you google neocon and learn about it so you know what it actually is? neocons aren't conservatives. By definition they aren't fiscal conservatives and neocon has nothing to do with socon

 

[Pheonixops]

ROFLMAO!!!!, thanks for the laugh, much appreciated.

Libertarians and "liberals" becoming "allies" is about as feasible as The Pope publicly agreeing to dine in hell with Satan. When "liberals" disavow all the methods, practices and purpose of the leviathan authoritarian state then maybe an alliance can be formed, but that ain't happened yet, not even close.

I think the problem occurs when some people automatically equate democrat with being a Liberal. For instance, I don't think that the current President is a Liberal, in fact one of my main gripes with him, is that he seems to act more like a republican instead of a Liberal.

Conservatives don't fall for believing a lie just because it is oft repeated.

LOL, why do you think that's a "lie"? What does a person gain by saying what you put in red above? What and why do you think that I am trying to make conservatives "fall" for something?

 

[Pheonixops]

Conservatives don't fall for believing a lie just because it is oft repeated.

hmmmm

hm

So do you believe Obama isn't liberal?

Name one truly Liberal policy he has enacted. It certainly wasn't that mandatory Health Care Act he signed off on. He certainly didn't refuse to sign to renew the PA, in fact it looks like he increase the scope of it. His actions in Libya, flirtations with the "Syrian problem" certainly isn't a Liberal policy, so i would be interested in seeing your examples.

 

[thanatos144]

Our most virulent self-proclaimed capitalists in the private sector benefit from a very powerful interventionist state. What do you think the patent system is? It's big government protecting the investments of the private sector by building and enforcing a monopoly fence around their products. It's pure nanny-state capitalism, and the Republican voter has been kept totally in the dark about it.

What a stupid argument. Interventionist by definition refers to government controlling markets.

Patents are protecting intellectual property rights. If people don't benefit from their own ideas because other people turn around and steal them, then you're disincentive people investing their time and money into things like developing drugs and technology that require billions of dollars and years of time.

Liberals always use this stupid argument of whenever socialism is challenged, you go to things that even libertarians support, like roads and firemen to justify your massive government beliefs.

Oh, if you want people to have their intellectual property protected, then I get to confiscate with guns and redistribute any amount of anyone's wealth that want to.

Rejected as the crap argument that it is.

Are you saying government doesn't have the power to regulate international trade?

 

[thanatos144]

Liberals only support "freedom" when it undermines religious morality and destabilizes social normality.

What constitutes ‘religious morality,’ and what religion, exactly?

And who determines what constitutes ‘social normality’? Conservatives?

This is yet another example of conservative authoritarianism, where most on the right seek to impose their subjective moral and religious beliefs on society as a whole.

And indeed liberals advocate for individual liberty by opposing conservative efforts to legislate morality, by supporting the Framers’ original intent that church and state remain separate.

The Liberty Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees every American the right to realize his own personal liberty, to define himself as an individual as he sees fit, free from government interference, despite what conservatives might perceive to be ‘social normality.’

Except when liberoidal assholes want to declare eminent domain, so that they can better stuff gubmint coffers with more money for their Utopian "smart growth" central planning and other general do-goodery.

Pious hypocrite.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Does that say they cant take land or that they have to pay for it?

 

[Pheonixops]

Classic liberals are libertarians. I think you just mean modern liberals and progressives.

As for neocon and conservative, you don't seem to know what a neocon is. W is a neocon, Rush isn't. If you don't know why then you need to learn the term, if you do know why then I'm confused about what you think a conservative is.

What neo-con policy or policies of W did Rush speak out against? How about "Mr. Conservative" Hannity?

The one that makes neither Hannity nor Rush neocons is W's spending policies.

But other policies they both spoke out against were W's immigration policies, the Transportation bill and the so called campaign finance reform.

So why don't you google neocon and learn about it so you know what it actually is? neocons aren't conservatives. By definition they aren't fiscal conservatives and neocon has nothing to do with socon

I pretty much have listened to those guys everyday for over 20 years (Hannity for over a decade when he was a local New york host) while commuting and in the office. They spent more time attacking Democrats than they did talking about and railing against Bush's spending policies. They were both in favor of the PA, DHS, etc. They were both in favor of Bush's Middle east ventures. What specific immigration policies of Bush were they against?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What constitutes ‘religious morality,’ and what religion, exactly?

And who determines what constitutes ‘social normality’? Conservatives?

This is yet another example of conservative authoritarianism, where most on the right seek to impose their subjective moral and religious beliefs on society as a whole.

And indeed liberals advocate for individual liberty by opposing conservative efforts to legislate morality, by supporting the Framers’ original intent that church and state remain separate.

The Liberty Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees every American the right to realize his own personal liberty, to define himself as an individual as he sees fit, free from government interference, despite what conservatives might perceive to be ‘social normality.’

Except when liberoidal assholes want to declare eminent domain, so that they can better stuff gubmint coffers with more money for their Utopian "smart growth" central planning and other general do-goodery.

Pious hypocrite.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Does that say they cant take land or that they have to pay for it?

Compensation means they have to pay for it, Corky. But the government has no money of its own. So it's essentially stealing from your neighbors and you to pay you for the land it will claim as its own.

Look up compensation. You get it in the form of around $7.50 an hr.

 

[thanatos144]

Except when liberoidal assholes want to declare eminent domain, so that they can better stuff gubmint coffers with more money for their Utopian "smart growth" central planning and other general do-goodery.

Pious hypocrite.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Does that say they cant take land or that they have to pay for it?

Compensation means they have to pay for it, Corky. But the government has no money of its own. So it's essentially stealing from your neighbors and you to pay you for the land it will claim as its own.

Look up compensation. You get it in the form of around $7.50 an hr.

Loom at you twist like the progressive you are.... you say you are for the constitution but as we see here only those parts you like....... How again are you so politically pure, Burger king boy?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Does that say they cant take land or that they have to pay for it?

Compensation means they have to pay for it, Corky. But the government has no money of its own. So it's essentially stealing from your neighbors and you to pay you for the land it will claim as its own.

Look up compensation. You get it in the form of around $7.50 an hr.

Loom at you twist like the progressive you are.... you say you are for the constitution but as we see here only those parts you like....... How again are you so politically pure, Burger king boy?

Did I touch a nerve, Corky? it's $7 an hr isn't it?
Sorry to hear that.

Again, you asked if they had to pay for it. They do. That's what compensation means. Check it out. It's in the dictionary. Dictionaries can be found in libraries and also you can buy your own. Although, I haven't bought one lately, I'd venture to guess you'll need to work a few hours to have enough for one.

 

[Pheonixops]

Classic liberals are libertarians. I think you just mean modern liberals and progressives.

As for neocon and conservative, you don't seem to know what a neocon is. W is a neocon, Rush isn't. If you don't know why then you need to learn the term, if you do know why then I'm confused about what you think a conservative is.

What neo-con policy or policies of W did Rush speak out against? How about "Mr. Conservative" Hannity?

The one that makes neither Hannity nor Rush neocons is W's spending policies.

But other policies they both spoke out against were W's immigration policies, the Transportation bill and the so called campaign finance reform.

So why don't you google neocon and learn about it so you know what it actually is? neocons aren't conservatives. By definition they aren't fiscal conservatives and neocon has nothing to do with socon

Hannity and Limbaugh admire Reagan, can we agree about that? What does this text below describe?

"In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan's program and was one of the four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his efforts.

Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party's efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O'Neill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed.

Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter's four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan's five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.

All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit. But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats.

Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that "deficits don't matter," the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile effort to hold on to control of the Senate."
Ron Paul's 1987 Resignation Letter to the RNC - Wikisource, the free online library

 

[kaz]

Our most virulent self-proclaimed capitalists in the private sector benefit from a very powerful interventionist state. What do you think the patent system is? It's big government protecting the investments of the private sector by building and enforcing a monopoly fence around their products. It's pure nanny-state capitalism, and the Republican voter has been kept totally in the dark about it.

What a stupid argument. Interventionist by definition refers to government controlling markets.

Patents are protecting intellectual property rights. If people don't benefit from their own ideas because other people turn around and steal them, then you're disincentive people investing their time and money into things like developing drugs and technology that require billions of dollars and years of time.

Liberals always use this stupid argument of whenever socialism is challenged, you go to things that even libertarians support, like roads and firemen to justify your massive government beliefs.

Oh, if you want people to have their intellectual property protected, then I get to confiscate with guns and redistribute any amount of anyone's wealth that want to.

Rejected as the crap argument that it is.

Are you saying government doesn't have the power to regulate international trade?

No, I'm saying that purple pajamas attract star ships from frying pans. WTF are you talking about?

 

[kaz]

What neo-con policy or policies of W did Rush speak out against? How about "Mr. Conservative" Hannity?

The one that makes neither Hannity nor Rush neocons is W's spending policies.

But other policies they both spoke out against were W's immigration policies, the Transportation bill and the so called campaign finance reform.

So why don't you google neocon and learn about it so you know what it actually is? neocons aren't conservatives. By definition they aren't fiscal conservatives and neocon has nothing to do with socon

I pretty much have listened to those guys everyday for over 20 years (Hannity for over a decade when he was a local New york host) while commuting and in the office. They spent more time attacking Democrats than they did talking about and railing against Bush's spending policies.

You asked what they criticized. They both critized Bush a lot for those. Now you come back with that they criticized Democrats more than Republicans. Wow, Republicans criticized Republicans, but they criticized Democrats more. How can I put this?

No shit Dick Tracey. I didn't say they weren't Republicans. And pointing out they are adds nothing to either your original comments or my response. And you still apparently have no idea what a neocon is.

They were both in favor of the PA, DHS, etc. They were both in favor of Bush's Middle east ventures

Democrats voted for all of those too. What insight are we supposed to gleam from this exactly relevant to the conversation?

What specific immigration policies of Bush were they against?

Apparently you didn't listen to them as much as you think you did. They were against granting citizenship to illegal aliens before there was a process in place to stop illegal immigration.

Again, none of your questions indicate any understanding of my point, you don't know ... what ... a ... neocon ... is. So stop using the term wrong until you do unless you just want to keep looking ignorant.

 

[freedombecki]

"TakeAStepBack, I recommend a book to you entitled "All Too Human" by George Stephanopoulos if there is still a copy available. It contains some information you might appreciate. "

I'll pass. Thanks.

You should. The facts in the book would kill your soul if you think the Clinton family is on the up and up. They're not. In addition to being world-class crooks, she desires to stifle free enterprise to death and hand over power to murderous Marxists to end free enterprise forever.

If she succeeds, this world will blow itself up. You better not read it if you're going to die in the next couple of years, because you won't like a dying planet the Clintons have in mind by perpetrating experimentalist criminality in the place of rational governance of shrinking masses.