Defining "Liberalism"

[PoliticalChic]

Liberalism is a pain free solution to all our problems based on the inherent truth of humanity that all people are good and want to work hard if only given a fair chance and they are treated with equality and respect.

Except Republicans.

OK....I get it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberalism is a pain free solution to all our problems based on the inherent truth of humanity that all people are good and want to work hard if only given a fair chance and they are treated with equality and respect.

Except Republicans.

OK....I get it.

And equal opportunity is the liberal goal for all but Republicans, conservative talk show hosts, Wal-mart or Chick-fil-a CEOs, Christians, conservative females, blacks, or Hispanics, white people, or anybody who works for or watches Fox News.

 

[kaz]

Liberalism is a pain free solution to all our problems based on the inherent truth of humanity that all people are good and want to work hard if only given a fair chance and they are treated with equality and respect.

Except Republicans.

OK....I get it.

And equal opportunity is the liberal goal for all but Republicans, conservative talk show hosts, Wal-mart or Chick-fil-a CEOs, Christians, conservative females, blacks, or Hispanics, white people, or anybody who works for or watches Fox News.

That is a good list. I think you covered it pretty well.

 

[Rinata]

JFK Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

So am I, and proud of it.

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.

Why are you so impressed with this man?? Because The Heritage Foundation seems to just worship him?? They should call themselves The Liars Foundation. But I'm sure YOU believe everything they say.

 

[Foxfyre]

OK....I get it.

And equal opportunity is the liberal goal for all but Republicans, conservative talk show hosts, Wal-mart or Chick-fil-a CEOs, Christians, conservative females, blacks, or Hispanics, white people, or anybody who works for or watches Fox News.

That is a good list. I think you covered it pretty well.

Thank you.

Oh damn, I left out the Tea Party.

 

[Dragonlady]

Further I have yet to find any modern day statist/liberal/progressive/leftist/political class or any combination of these who can or will state what he or she believes. He will point to and accuse, ridicule, demean, diminish, and/or demonize the other guy, but s/he will not answer a direct question about what he/she believes on most specific issues. And he/she will invariably change the subject when anybody tries to pin him/her down on an answer.

In short somebody else has to define you because you won't or can't do it for yourself..

There have been lots of liberals on this board who have defined themselves but you reject those definitions because they don't jibe with your ideas of what liberals are. You repeated make this claim that we haven't defined ourselves but that simply isn't true. You just don't like our definitions.

Let's test it:

Does your belief in 'opportunity for all' include Sarah Palin running for President?

Does it include a corporate executive drawing a multi-million dollar salary?

Does it include a Rush Limbaugh speaking his mind about a female lobbyist?..

Yes to all of the above, but freedom also includes the rights of others to refuse to vote for Palin, and to boycott Rush and those who sponsor him. I would say that if a corporation is paying multi-million dollar salaries to its executive, that no employee of said company should be eligible for food stamps or Medicaid coverage unless that corporation pays, out of their profits, the costs for all social programs which their workers are using, including administration fees for processing application.

Does it include the people of a state voting to support traditional marriage or limit abortion beyond a certain number of weeks?

Does it include the people of a community choosing to place a creche on the courthouse lawn for Christmas?

If by "supporting traditional marriage" you mean banning same sex marriages then no. That's limiting freedom and imposing religious beliefs on the general population. That's not freedom. They can put their creche on the church lawn, or residents can put it on their own lawns, but not on publically owned property - separation of church and state.

Does it include a business laying off employees because the employer cannot afford to accommodate Obamacare mandates?

Does it include requiring people to qualify for the jobs or salaries they want instead of somebody mandating that they receive them whether they qualify for them or not?

Does it include allowing people to treat every person exactly the same with impunity regardless of their race, creed, ethnicity, gender etc. including the words they use?

These are questions without simple yes and no answers. If a company is already providing health care, then they can't opt out of it, but I think that companies which are not currently providing healthcare for their employees should be able to apply for and receive a subsidy to assist them in providing a group policy if they genuinely can't afford the cost.

In regards to the other two questions, who determines who is qualified or who is treating every person exactly the same? What happens if someone who thinks they're being fair, is in fact, discrimating against people on the basis of sex, race or sexual orientation? How is that determined and what is the redress for those who lose out on opportunities because of prejudice, or who find the language used by a supposedly unbiased employer, both biased and offensive?

Does it include expecting and teaching people to educate themselves, stay away from illegal activities, be able to support themselves and get married before they have children, learn a trade, spend their time in low paying jobs to develop experience, work ethic, and references so that they can succeed as those who are already successful have done??

No it does not. You cannot require others to live as you believe they should live. That's not freedom at all. It is in the best interests of the state to assist and provide education to the population, in order to encourage employment and investment in that country.

That's facism at its best. For someone who says they believe in freedom, this is the very antithesis of freedom. Freedom is messy, and success isn't the same thing for all people. Some of the most successful people in the world have chequered pasts. Often those who engage in high risk behaviour when they are young, are the most successful as adults. A disproportionate number of Fortune 500 executive have engaged in deliquent behaviour in their youth. Success depends on the ability to manage risk and sometimes mistakes are made on the road to learning how to manage risk.

Does it include teaching and encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves?

Does it include allowing all people to experience the consequences of their own choices?

Or does it include allowing me to choose what I will do with what I have earned and requiring everybody to expect to contribute what they can for what they get?

No to that Randian bullshit. People are not always going to be able to anticipate or handle all eventualities. Health, changing economic conditions beyond their control, political instability are all reasons for a social safety net. One of the responsibilities of those in a capitalistic society is to provide a social safety net for those who cannot take care of themselves, for whatever reason.

Human beings on their own are vulnerable. Early man formed tribes to support one another. As humanity advanced, they built cities and nations to provide security and support for one another. They sought education for their populations, and ultimately realized that the more educated their population, the more successul their economies.

The USA provides the economic structure, stability, and the physical infrastructure to allow it's people and corporations to succeed. It's no accident that countries without those complex structures, where instability or anarchy reigns, are among the poorest in the world. Nobody is building multi-national companies in such countries. To that end, those individuals and companies most benefitting from these structures, need to contribute to maintain them, including the cost of health care and education of the population from which they draw their employees.

In that regard you must pay taxes as your contribution to the country which allowed you to create wealth, and which provides you with the infrastructure to succeed. Failing which you should move to Myanmar and see how much money you can make there.

 

[Foxfyre]

So am I, and proud of it.

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.

Why are you so impressed with this man?? Because The Heritage Foundation seems to just worship him?? They should call themselves The Liars Foundation. But I'm sure YOU believe everything they say.

Have you ever read Chamber's biography? It is a fascinating read because he has not only studied Communism as deeply as any person has done, but he lived it for a good long time. He died 12 years before the Heritage Foundation was founded.

Chambers, through his own logic and reason and not via influence by any other, came to see Communism for what it is and he rejected it in favor of capitalism. And even though he died in the early 1960's, he had already seen that the U.S. was rushing headlong into the same kind of flawed thinking that made Communism so unpalatable to him. But he did believe Communism, due to its willingness to be totally ruthless and merciless, would conquer us all.

Still quoting from the book Witness he wrote:

“Like the soldier, the spy stakes his freedom or his life on the chances of action. The informer is different, particularly the ex-Communist informer. He risks little. He sits in security and uses his special knowledge to destroy others. He has that special information to give because he once lived within their confidence, in a shared faith, trusted by them as one of themselves, accepting their friendship, feeling their pleasures and griefs, sitting in their houses, eating at their tables, accepting their kindness, knowing their wives and children. If he had not done these things he would have no use as an informer.... I know that I am leaving the winning side for the losing side, but it is better to die on the losing side than to live under Communism.”

 

[kaz]

And equal opportunity is the liberal goal for all but Republicans, conservative talk show hosts, Wal-mart or Chick-fil-a CEOs, Christians, conservative females, blacks, or Hispanics, white people, or anybody who works for or watches Fox News.

That is a good list. I think you covered it pretty well.

Thank you.

Oh damn, I left out the Tea Party.

I'm smacking my forehead now too. How did we forget that?

 

[Pheonixops]

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.

Yes, which is why liberals aren't liberal. A liberal is for personal freedom, and the biggest threat to our freedom is the State. It is libertarians in this country are truly liberal.

Those who call themselves "liberal" are authoritarian leftists, which as Whittaker Chambers accurately point out is equivalent to Communist.

Calling an authoritarian leftist a "liberal" is like calling a neocon a dove.

Definitions change with usage. There was a time that an African-American was somebody holding dual citizenship both here and somewhere in Africa. It was not associated with a race. And now a black person is referred to as African-American regardless of where he or she was born or where his/her ancesters came here from or what other races might be included in his/her genetics. Think of how differently we look at words such as 'gay' or 'download' or 'fast food' than images such words conjured up for our grandparents.

So it follows that common usage has also changed the definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative' also, at least in the images the words create in our mind and emotional response these days. In fact the common usage has almost reversed the standard dictionary definitions

Conservative once meant rigid, unwilling to compromise, unwilling to upset the status quo, authoritarian, fixed positions, and required conformity. Such traits are far more typical of the average leftist in modern day America--such leftists who are most often labeled 'liberal'.

Liberal once meant freedom, ability to change, to move forward, to allow different points of view, to allow people their choices, options, attitudes, and ability to seek their own destiny. Such traits are far more typical of the average right-of-center person in modern day America--such rightists who are most often labeled 'conservative'.

So now 'liberal' has come to mean bigger, more expensive, more authoritarian, more intrusive government into every aspect of our lives.

And 'conservative' or 'classical liberal' has come to mean those who want minimum government to secure our rights, more individual choices, options, opportunity, and individual liberty to be whomever we choose to be and with choices to strive for whatever we aspire to be.

Pretty much a fruit basket turnover kind of thing.

Liberal still means the above, I'm not buying the "conservatives" are now "Liberals" point. There are PLENTY of conservatives who advocate an authoritarian government and a bigger government (DHS,PA, NASA, etc.,) , school prayer, anti-"pro-choice", becoming involved in people's bedrooms (see Cuccinelli, Santorum, and the like), international military intervention, anti- "gay marriage".

My main problem with Obama is that with some exceptions, he's is acting the same way the above described conservative republicans do for the most part.

 

[Pheonixops]

Conservative once meant rigid, unwilling to compromise, unwilling to upset the status quo, authoritarian, fixed positions, and required conformity. Such traits are far more typical of the average leftist in modern day America--such leftists who are most often labeled 'liberal'.

Liberal once meant freedom, ability to change, to move forward, to allow different points of view, to allow people their choices, options, attitudes, and ability to seek their own destiny. Such traits are far more typical of the average right-of-center person in modern day America--such rightists who are most often labeled 'conservative'.

So now 'liberal' has come to mean bigger, more expensive, more authoritarian, more intrusive government into every aspect of our lives.

And 'conservative' or 'classical liberal' has come to mean those who want minimum government to secure our rights, more individual choices, options, opportunity, and individual liberty to be whomever we choose to be and with choices to strive for whatever we aspire to be.

Pretty much a fruit basket turnover kind of thing.

I would say that conservatives pretty much meet the definition which you consider outdated. They certain oppose change and are determined to hold onto failed ideas from the Bush Administration. They continue to impose their authoritarian will on women's health matters, and promote intrusive government under the NSA. Conservatives cling to economic policies which increase wealth for the top 20% of Americans and large multi-nationals and refuse to see the overall damage such policies have caused for the remaining 80% of the population, instead blaming the poor for their loss of spending power, when it is the wealthy who have most benefitted.

Government institutions have consistently grown under Republican/conservative administrations and shrunk under the two Democrat Presidents. Liberals favour personal choice in reproductive matters, gay marriage, supporting programs which would improve public education and public infrastructure spending.

Your definition of liberal is not anyone I know who votes for Democrats or favours liberal programs. Liberals favour opportunity for ALL, and liberals want to see such opportunities expanded and assisted. Conservatives want to tie two rocks to the feet of the poor, throw them overboard and tell them to sink or swim, but they sure don't want their tax dollars going to provide educational or economic opportunities for them.

YOU don't get to define us, because you have no idea who we are or what we believe.

Sure I do, just as you get to insert "Republican" and "Democrat' into the mix despite the fact that I did not because political parties are not necessarily synonymous with definitions of liberal or conservative, then or now.

Further I have yet to find any modern day statist/liberal/progressive/leftist/political class or any combination of these who can or will state what he or she believes. He will point to and accuse, ridicule, demean, diminish, and/or demonize the other guy, but s/he will not answer a direct question about what he/she believes on most specific issues. And he/she will invariably change the subject when anybody tries to pin him/her down on an answer.

In short somebody else has to define you because you won't or can't do it for yourself.

Let's test it:

Does your belief in 'opportunity for all' include Sarah Palin running for President?

Does it include a corporate executive drawing a multi-million dollar salary?

Does it include a Rush Limbaugh speaking his mind about a female lobbyist?

Does it include the people of a state voting to support traditional marriage or limit abortion beyond a certain number of weeks?

Does it include the people of a community choosing to place a creche on the courthouse lawn for Christmas?

Does it include a business laying off employees because the employer cannot afford to accommodate Obamacare mandates?

Does it include requiring people to qualify for the jobs or salaries they want instead of somebody mandating that they receive them whether they qualify for them or not?

Does it include allowing people to treat every person exactly the same with impunity regardless of their race, creed, ethnicity, gender etc. including the words they use?

Does it include expecting and teaching people to educate themselves, stay away from illegal activities, be able to support themselves and get married before they have children, learn a trade, spend their time in low paying jobs to develop experience, work ethic, and references so that they can succeed as those who are already successful have done?

Does it include teaching and encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves?

Does it include allowing all people to experience the consequences of their own choices?

Or does it include allowing me to choose what I will do with what I have earned and requiring everybody to expect to contribute what they can for what they get?

And I'm going to guess that you can't or won't answer a single one of those questions with a simple yes or no.

I can.

Let's test it:

Does your belief in 'opportunity for all' include Sarah Palin running for President? Yes

Does it include a corporate executive drawing a multi-million dollar salary? Yes

Does it include a Rush Limbaugh speaking his mind about a female lobbyist? Yes

Does it include the people of a state voting to support traditional marriage or limit abortion beyond a certain number of weeks? Yes, as long as it passes Constitutional muster.

Does it include the people of a community choosing to place a creche on the courthouse lawn for Christmas? I don't care if people put a Menorah, Star and Crescent, or the above on holidays". How about you?

Does it include a business laying off employees because the employer cannot afford to accommodate Obamacare mandates? Yes; I believe in Free Enterprise.

Does it include requiring people to qualify for the jobs or salaries they want instead of somebody mandating that they receive them whether they qualify for them or not? Yes

Does it include allowing people to treat every person exactly the same with impunity regardless of their race, creed, ethnicity, gender etc. including the words they use? Yes

Does it include expecting and teaching people to educate themselves, stay away from illegal activities, be able to support themselves and get married before they have children, learn a trade, spend their time in low paying jobs to develop experience, work ethic, and references so that they can succeed as those who are already successful have done? Yes; people can teach whatever they want, as long as it's not MANDATORY and forced on people. I like the above message.

Does it include teaching and encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves? Of course!

Does it include allowing all people to experience the consequences of their own choices? Yes!

Or does it include allowing me to choose what I will do with what I have earned and requiring everybody to expect to contribute what they can for what they get? Yes on the first part, I'm not sure what you mean by the second part.

 

[Pheonixops]

HARRY BROWNE ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS: "It is hard to understand why there has been such controversy about having the Ten Commandments posted in a courtroom. Are courts supposed to enforce commandments about such things as adultery, false idols, and coveting? Far more telling about the state of American justice today is that you would have to look long and hard to find a courtroom displaying the Bill of Rights — every article of which should have a bearing on court cases."

 

[Foxfyre]

I would say that conservatives pretty much meet the definition which you consider outdated. They certain oppose change and are determined to hold onto failed ideas from the Bush Administration. They continue to impose their authoritarian will on women's health matters, and promote intrusive government under the NSA. Conservatives cling to economic policies which increase wealth for the top 20% of Americans and large multi-nationals and refuse to see the overall damage such policies have caused for the remaining 80% of the population, instead blaming the poor for their loss of spending power, when it is the wealthy who have most benefitted.

Government institutions have consistently grown under Republican/conservative administrations and shrunk under the two Democrat Presidents. Liberals favour personal choice in reproductive matters, gay marriage, supporting programs which would improve public education and public infrastructure spending.

Your definition of liberal is not anyone I know who votes for Democrats or favours liberal programs. Liberals favour opportunity for ALL, and liberals want to see such opportunities expanded and assisted. Conservatives want to tie two rocks to the feet of the poor, throw them overboard and tell them to sink or swim, but they sure don't want their tax dollars going to provide educational or economic opportunities for them.

YOU don't get to define us, because you have no idea who we are or what we believe.

Sure I do, just as you get to insert "Republican" and "Democrat' into the mix despite the fact that I did not because political parties are not necessarily synonymous with definitions of liberal or conservative, then or now.

Further I have yet to find any modern day statist/liberal/progressive/leftist/political class or any combination of these who can or will state what he or she believes. He will point to and accuse, ridicule, demean, diminish, and/or demonize the other guy, but s/he will not answer a direct question about what he/she believes on most specific issues. And he/she will invariably change the subject when anybody tries to pin him/her down on an answer.

In short somebody else has to define you because you won't or can't do it for yourself.

Let's test it:

Does your belief in 'opportunity for all' include Sarah Palin running for President?

Does it include a corporate executive drawing a multi-million dollar salary?

Does it include a Rush Limbaugh speaking his mind about a female lobbyist?

Does it include the people of a state voting to support traditional marriage or limit abortion beyond a certain number of weeks?

Does it include the people of a community choosing to place a creche on the courthouse lawn for Christmas?

Does it include a business laying off employees because the employer cannot afford to accommodate Obamacare mandates?

Does it include requiring people to qualify for the jobs or salaries they want instead of somebody mandating that they receive them whether they qualify for them or not?

Does it include allowing people to treat every person exactly the same with impunity regardless of their race, creed, ethnicity, gender etc. including the words they use?

Does it include expecting and teaching people to educate themselves, stay away from illegal activities, be able to support themselves and get married before they have children, learn a trade, spend their time in low paying jobs to develop experience, work ethic, and references so that they can succeed as those who are already successful have done?

Does it include teaching and encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves?

Does it include allowing all people to experience the consequences of their own choices?

Or does it include allowing me to choose what I will do with what I have earned and requiring everybody to expect to contribute what they can for what they get?

And I'm going to guess that you can't or won't answer a single one of those questions with a simple yes or no.

I can.

Let's test it:

Does your belief in 'opportunity for all' include Sarah Palin running for President? Yes

Does it include a corporate executive drawing a multi-million dollar salary? Yes

Does it include a Rush Limbaugh speaking his mind about a female lobbyist? Yes

Does it include the people of a state voting to support traditional marriage or limit abortion beyond a certain number of weeks? Yes, as long as it passes Constitutional muster.

Does it include the people of a community choosing to place a creche on the courthouse lawn for Christmas? I don't care if people put a Menorah, Star and Crescent, or the above on holidays". How about you?

Does it include a business laying off employees because the employer cannot afford to accommodate Obamacare mandates? Yes; I believe in Free Enterprise.

Does it include requiring people to qualify for the jobs or salaries they want instead of somebody mandating that they receive them whether they qualify for them or not? Yes

Does it include allowing people to treat every person exactly the same with impunity regardless of their race, creed, ethnicity, gender etc. including the words they use? Yes

Does it include expecting and teaching people to educate themselves, stay away from illegal activities, be able to support themselves and get married before they have children, learn a trade, spend their time in low paying jobs to develop experience, work ethic, and references so that they can succeed as those who are already successful have done? Yes; people can teach whatever they want, as long as it's not MANDATORY and forced on people. I like the above message.

Does it include teaching and encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves? Of course!

Does it include allowing all people to experience the consequences of their own choices? Yes!

Or does it include allowing me to choose what I will do with what I have earned and requiring everybody to expect to contribute what they can for what they get? Yes on the first part, I'm not sure what you mean by the second part.

Okay RE

Does it include expecting and teaching people to educate themselves, stay away from illegal activities, be able to support themselves and get married before they have children, learn a trade, spend their time in low paying jobs to develop experience, work ethic, and references so that they can succeed as those who are already successful have done? Yes; people can teach whatever they want, as long as it's not MANDATORY and forced on people. I like the above message.

Interesting.

So would you agree that current government policies that punish those who make the good choices and reward the people who do not make the good choices are actually teaching and encouraging the people to make poor choices? And that such policies should be ended and policies that encourage personal responsiblity be implemented as the more humane and compassionate choice?

Which leads me to your comment here:

Or does it include allowing me to choose what I will do with what I have earned and requiring everybody to expect to contribute what they can for what they get? Yes on the first part, I'm not sure what you mean by the second part.

I didn't make it really clear, but what I was getting at is that liberty requires that I, Citizen A, have full right to choose whether I will help Citizen B. The government will have no power to require me to do so.

And if the government DOES help Citizen B, it can be conditional on Citizen B doing community service, paying back any benefits received, or otherwise being accountable for what he or she receives.

 

[Pheonixops]

Sure I do, just as you get to insert "Republican" and "Democrat' into the mix despite the fact that I did not because political parties are not necessarily synonymous with definitions of liberal or conservative, then or now.

Further I have yet to find any modern day statist/liberal/progressive/leftist/political class or any combination of these who can or will state what he or she believes. He will point to and accuse, ridicule, demean, diminish, and/or demonize the other guy, but s/he will not answer a direct question about what he/she believes on most specific issues. And he/she will invariably change the subject when anybody tries to pin him/her down on an answer.

In short somebody else has to define you because you won't or can't do it for yourself.

Let's test it:

Does your belief in 'opportunity for all' include Sarah Palin running for President?

Does it include a corporate executive drawing a multi-million dollar salary?

Does it include a Rush Limbaugh speaking his mind about a female lobbyist?

Does it include the people of a state voting to support traditional marriage or limit abortion beyond a certain number of weeks?

Does it include the people of a community choosing to place a creche on the courthouse lawn for Christmas?

Does it include a business laying off employees because the employer cannot afford to accommodate Obamacare mandates?

Does it include requiring people to qualify for the jobs or salaries they want instead of somebody mandating that they receive them whether they qualify for them or not?

Does it include allowing people to treat every person exactly the same with impunity regardless of their race, creed, ethnicity, gender etc. including the words they use?

Does it include expecting and teaching people to educate themselves, stay away from illegal activities, be able to support themselves and get married before they have children, learn a trade, spend their time in low paying jobs to develop experience, work ethic, and references so that they can succeed as those who are already successful have done?

Does it include teaching and encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves?

Does it include allowing all people to experience the consequences of their own choices?

Or does it include allowing me to choose what I will do with what I have earned and requiring everybody to expect to contribute what they can for what they get?

And I'm going to guess that you can't or won't answer a single one of those questions with a simple yes or no.

I can.

Let's test it:

Does your belief in 'opportunity for all' include Sarah Palin running for President? Yes

Does it include a corporate executive drawing a multi-million dollar salary? Yes

Does it include a Rush Limbaugh speaking his mind about a female lobbyist? Yes

Does it include the people of a state voting to support traditional marriage or limit abortion beyond a certain number of weeks? Yes, as long as it passes Constitutional muster.

Does it include the people of a community choosing to place a creche on the courthouse lawn for Christmas? I don't care if people put a Menorah, Star and Crescent, or the above on holidays". How about you?

Does it include a business laying off employees because the employer cannot afford to accommodate Obamacare mandates? Yes; I believe in Free Enterprise.

Does it include requiring people to qualify for the jobs or salaries they want instead of somebody mandating that they receive them whether they qualify for them or not? Yes

Does it include allowing people to treat every person exactly the same with impunity regardless of their race, creed, ethnicity, gender etc. including the words they use? Yes

Does it include expecting and teaching people to educate themselves, stay away from illegal activities, be able to support themselves and get married before they have children, learn a trade, spend their time in low paying jobs to develop experience, work ethic, and references so that they can succeed as those who are already successful have done? Yes; people can teach whatever they want, as long as it's not MANDATORY and forced on people. I like the above message.

Does it include teaching and encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves? Of course!

Does it include allowing all people to experience the consequences of their own choices? Yes!

Or does it include allowing me to choose what I will do with what I have earned and requiring everybody to expect to contribute what they can for what they get? Yes on the first part, I'm not sure what you mean by the second part.

Okay RE

Does it include expecting and teaching people to educate themselves, stay away from illegal activities, be able to support themselves and get married before they have children, learn a trade, spend their time in low paying jobs to develop experience, work ethic, and references so that they can succeed as those who are already successful have done? Yes; people can teach whatever they want, as long as it's not MANDATORY and forced on people. I like the above message.

Interesting.

So would you agree that current government policies that punish those who make the good choices and reward the people who do not make the good choices are actually teaching and encouraging the people to make poor choices? And that such policies should be ended and policies that encourage personal responsiblity be implemented as the more humane and compassionate choice?

Which leads me to your comment here:

Or does it include allowing me to choose what I will do with what I have earned and requiring everybody to expect to contribute what they can for what they get? Yes on the first part, I'm not sure what you mean by the second part.

I didn't make it really clear, but what I was getting at is that liberty requires that I, Citizen A, have full right to choose whether I will help Citizen B. The government will have no power to require me to do so.

And if the government DOES help Citizen B, it can be conditional on Citizen B doing community service, paying back any benefits received, or otherwise being accountable for what he or she receives.

Maybe this post of mine from a while back can answer your question.

I think that aspect of welfare should be changed, in fact I think that the whole welfare and unemployment system needs an overhaul. I think that it's benefits should be finite, paid back at a very low payment and interest rate, not discourage having a partner or spouse at home, give incentives for attending a trade school, and not penalize someone for finding a job by cutting off the benefits right away. This way it will theoretically tell people that the "ride" isn't forever, that the "ride" is going to have to be paid back before they can go on it again, that it's good or ok to have your partner or spouse living with you so you can work as a family unit, that learning a trade and getting a job is they to success, and that if they find a job in good time, they can get caught up and get ahead before the benefits run out. If they decide to stop receiving benefits sooner than it's expiration, they still have additional time left if they need it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's test it:

Does your belief in 'opportunity for all' include Sarah Palin running for President? Yes

Does it include a corporate executive drawing a multi-million dollar salary? Yes

Does it include a Rush Limbaugh speaking his mind about a female lobbyist? Yes

Does it include the people of a state voting to support traditional marriage or limit abortion beyond a certain number of weeks? Yes, as long as it passes Constitutional muster.

Does it include the people of a community choosing to place a creche on the courthouse lawn for Christmas? I don't care if people put a Menorah, Star and Crescent, or the above on holidays". How about you?

Does it include a business laying off employees because the employer cannot afford to accommodate Obamacare mandates? Yes; I believe in Free Enterprise.

Does it include requiring people to qualify for the jobs or salaries they want instead of somebody mandating that they receive them whether they qualify for them or not? Yes

Does it include allowing people to treat every person exactly the same with impunity regardless of their race, creed, ethnicity, gender etc. including the words they use? Yes

Does it include expecting and teaching people to educate themselves, stay away from illegal activities, be able to support themselves and get married before they have children, learn a trade, spend their time in low paying jobs to develop experience, work ethic, and references so that they can succeed as those who are already successful have done? Yes; people can teach whatever they want, as long as it's not MANDATORY and forced on people. I like the above message.

Does it include teaching and encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves? Of course!

Does it include allowing all people to experience the consequences of their own choices? Yes!

Or does it include allowing me to choose what I will do with what I have earned and requiring everybody to expect to contribute what they can for what they get? Yes on the first part, I'm not sure what you mean by the second part.

Okay RE


Interesting.

So would you agree that current government policies that punish those who make the good choices and reward the people who do not make the good choices are actually teaching and encouraging the people to make poor choices? And that such policies should be ended and policies that encourage personal responsiblity be implemented as the more humane and compassionate choice?

Which leads me to your comment here:


I didn't make it really clear, but what I was getting at is that liberty requires that I, Citizen A, have full right to choose whether I will help Citizen B. The government will have no power to require me to do so.

And if the government DOES help Citizen B, it can be conditional on Citizen B doing community service, paying back any benefits received, or otherwise being accountable for what he or she receives.

Maybe this post of mine from a while back can answer your question.

I think that aspect of welfare should be changed, in fact I think that the whole welfare and unemployment system needs an overhaul. I think that it's benefits should be finite, paid back at a very low payment and interest rate, not discourage having a partner or spouse at home, give incentives for attending a trade school, and not penalize someone for finding a job by cutting off the benefits right away. This way it will theoretically tell people that the "ride" isn't forever, that the "ride" is going to have to be paid back before they can go on it again, that it's good or ok to have your partner or spouse living with you so you can work as a family unit, that learning a trade and getting a job is they to success, and that if they find a job in good time, they can get caught up and get ahead before the benefits run out. If they decide to stop receiving benefits sooner than it's expiration, they still have additional time left if they need it.

And would you have any problem with the state instigating and implementing such policy, or would you insist that it be administered at the federal level?

 

[Pheonixops]

Okay RE


Interesting.

So would you agree that current government policies that punish those who make the good choices and reward the people who do not make the good choices are actually teaching and encouraging the people to make poor choices? And that such policies should be ended and policies that encourage personal responsiblity be implemented as the more humane and compassionate choice?

Which leads me to your comment here:


I didn't make it really clear, but what I was getting at is that liberty requires that I, Citizen A, have full right to choose whether I will help Citizen B. The government will have no power to require me to do so.

And if the government DOES help Citizen B, it can be conditional on Citizen B doing community service, paying back any benefits received, or otherwise being accountable for what he or she receives.

Maybe this post of mine from a while back can answer your question.

I think that aspect of welfare should be changed, in fact I think that the whole welfare and unemployment system needs an overhaul. I think that it's benefits should be finite, paid back at a very low payment and interest rate, not discourage having a partner or spouse at home, give incentives for attending a trade school, and not penalize someone for finding a job by cutting off the benefits right away. This way it will theoretically tell people that the "ride" isn't forever, that the "ride" is going to have to be paid back before they can go on it again, that it's good or ok to have your partner or spouse living with you so you can work as a family unit, that learning a trade and getting a job is they to success, and that if they find a job in good time, they can get caught up and get ahead before the benefits run out. If they decide to stop receiving benefits sooner than it's expiration, they still have additional time left if they need it.

And would you have any problem with the state instigating and implementing such policy, or would you insist that it be administered at the federal level?

My whole thinking was in a State level where States should be "laboratories of Democracy". If the people of the State voted for such a program and or elected representatives who favored such a program, I definitely see no problem with it.

 

[Dragonlady]

Such programs were tried in Ontario and were problematic. Requiring community service for payment required excessive amounts of administration, both in terms of finding suitable service jobs for the numbers of welfare recipients, and supervision in the community. Where the jobs were picking up garbage, or doing work in other municipal areas, public service unions complained that that these workers were taking jobs away from regular municipal workers. the welfare recipients were not receiving even minimum wage for the work performed since minimum wage was nearly double the amount of welfare paid for a single mother with one child, and this both violated labour law and union contracts with municipal workers. Churches, old age homes and other community groups were encouraged to use this new pool of workers, but these agenies complained that the program required them to provide supervisers for the workers. It costs them money to supervise this free labour, and these were funds they could ill afford.

Churches and other community groups also had problems with workers who were not receiving at least minimum wage. They preferred to give the work to parishioners who were in need, because they didn't require supervision, and could be paid a fair wage for the work performed. This was true of most community groups and charities.

For welfare recipients with young children, the costs of public transit and child care ate up nearly all of the benefits received. Subsidized day care added to the benefits given to recipients and administration costs to locate and place children in care. The demand for subsidized day care far outstrips the number of spaces available and long waiting lists meant delays in the ability of recipients to perform their community service.

The program in Ontario was announced with great fanfare by the Mike Harris Conservative government immediately after they were elected, fulfilling a campaign promise which helped them win the election. No more free rides for lazy welfare bums. The program was quietly dropped two years later. The costs of administration, especially the amount of time and work involved in placing their cases, meant substantially increasing the numbers of government workers required to administer and monitor caseloads. The program cost taxpayers much more to administer than simply paying benefits to recipients and prevented recipients from attending training and other programs which would help them to rejoin the work force.

Requiring repayment of the benefits received would also present problems. It would discourage people from finding employment as they would be saddled with a lien for benefits received. Collection costs would add to the monies already paid out. Most of these individuals would not be obtaining good paying jobs. Lower income family members often work more than one job just to support their families. Adding a debt of many thousands of dollars would be keep them in poverty and prevent them from saving for a "rainy day". Illness or economic downturns would see them having to declare bankruptcy because of this debt.

One very effective program in getting people off welfare was a wage subsidy paid to employers who hired welfare recipients. The government paid 50% of their wages for the first year of employment. The new hire had 12 months to prove their value to their new employers and many did. The Mike Harris Conservatives terminated that program upon their election.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.





A detailed exposition of that theme can be found in James Piereson of the Manhattan Institute's 2007 book “Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism”

He showed how that moment, the assassination, gave Liberals the opportunity to turn on communism, ...or on America.
Their choice is clear today.


1. "... (concerning Lee Harvey Oswald) “He didn’t even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It’s — it had to be some silly little Communist.”— Jacqueline Kennedy

2. She thought it robbed his (JFK's) death of any meaning. But a meaning would be quickly manufactured to serve a new politics. First, however, an inconvenient fact — Oswald — had to be expunged from the story.

a. .... 24 months after the assassination, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the Kennedys’ kept historian, published a thousand-page history of the thousand-day presidency without mentioning the assassin.






3. ... The transformation of a murder by a marginal man into a killing by a sick culture began instantly — before Kennedy was buried. The afternoon of the assassination, Chief Justice Earl Warren ascribed Kennedy’s “martyrdom” to “the hatred and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by bigots.”

a. The next day, James Reston, the New York Times luminary, wrote in a front-page story that Kennedy was a victim of a “streak of violence in the American character,” noting especially “the violence of the extremists on the right.”

[Of course, Liberals are still running with that obfuscation today, with respect to the Tea Party]

b. Never mind that adjacent to Reston’s article was a Times report on Oswald’s Communist convictions and associations. A Soviet spokesman, too, assigned “moral responsibility” for Kennedy’s death to “Barry Goldwater and other extremists on the right.”

[Liberals and Soviet spokesmen....on the same page]






4. .... a Times editorial, “Spiral of Hate,” identified Kennedy’s killer as a “spirit”: The Times deplored “the shame all America must bear for the spirit of madness and hate that struck down” Kennedy. The editorialists were, presumably, immune to this spirit. The new liberalism-as-paternalism would be about correcting other people’s defects..... Kennedy was killed by America’s social climate, whose sickness required “punitive liberalism.”

[ "... Obama Is Making Shutdown As Painful As Possible" http://news92fm.com/390223/congressman-olson-says-obama-is-making-shutdown-as-painful-as-possible/]






5. The bullets of Nov. 22, 1963, altered the nation’s trajectory less by killing a president than by giving birth to a destructive narrative about America.....

6. Punitive liberalism preached the necessity of national repentance for a history of crimes and misdeeds that had produced a present so poisonous that it murdered a president.... Liberalism would become the doctrine of grievance groups owed redress for cumulative inherited injuries inflicted by the nation’s tawdry history, toxic present and ominous future.

[ Obama: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."]

7. As Piereson writes, the retreat of liberalism from a doctrine of American affirmation left a void that would be filled by Ronald Reagan 17 years after the assassination." George F. Will: When liberals became scolds - The Washington Post





Whitaker Chamber's point proven.

Liberalism continued down the path blazed by Franklin Roosevelt....seeing nothing worthy of confronting nor combating in communism.



Just as Oswald was erased as the central element of the assassination, so, too, was the glorious history of this great nation.
Instead, it turned the battle against a non-existent enemy of freedom and liberty, ...America.


Liberalism: seeking evil in America the way pigs seek truffles.

Well, and let us also not forget that liberals NEVER, EVER blame the criminal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Rabid Rightie defines Liberals as commies.

SOP.

Yeah, well, it's also SOP for us to define water as wet. Recognizing reality is one of our little quirks. Doesn't make us rabid.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Further I have yet to find any modern day statist/liberal/progressive/leftist/political class or any combination of these who can or will state what he or she believes. He will point to and accuse, ridicule, demean, diminish, and/or demonize the other guy, but s/he will not answer a direct question about what he/she believes on most specific issues. And he/she will invariably change the subject when anybody tries to pin him/her down on an answer.

In short somebody else has to define you because you won't or can't do it for yourself..

1. There have been lots of liberals on this board who have defined themselves but you reject those definitions because they don't jibe with your ideas of what liberals are. You repeated make this claim that we haven't defined ourselves but that simply isn't true. You just don't like our definitions.

Let's test it:

Does your belief in 'opportunity for all' include Sarah Palin running for President?

Does it include a corporate executive drawing a multi-million dollar salary?

Does it include a Rush Limbaugh speaking his mind about a female lobbyist?..

Yes to all of the above, but freedom also includes the rights of others to refuse to vote for Palin, and to boycott Rush and those who sponsor him. I would say that if a corporation is paying multi-million dollar salaries to its executive, that no employee of said company should be eligible for food stamps or Medicaid coverage unless that corporation pays, out of their profits, the costs for all social programs which their workers are using, including administration fees for processing application.



2. If by "supporting traditional marriage" you mean banning same sex marriages then no. That's limiting freedom and imposing religious beliefs on the general population. That's not freedom. They can put their creche on the church lawn, or residents can put it on their own lawns, but not on publically owned property - separation of church and state.



These are questions without simple yes and no answers. If a company is already providing health care, then they can't opt out of it, but I think that companies which are not currently providing healthcare for their employees should be able to apply for and receive a subsidy to assist them in providing a group policy if they genuinely can't afford the cost.

In regards to the other two questions, who determines who is qualified or who is treating every person exactly the same? What happens if someone who thinks they're being fair, is in fact, discrimating against people on the basis of sex, race or sexual orientation? How is that determined and what is the redress for those who lose out on opportunities because of prejudice, or who find the language used by a supposedly unbiased employer, both biased and offensive?

Does it include expecting and teaching people to educate themselves, stay away from illegal activities, be able to support themselves and get married before they have children, learn a trade, spend their time in low paying jobs to develop experience, work ethic, and references so that they can succeed as those who are already successful have done??

3. No it does not. You cannot require others to live as you believe they should live. That's not freedom at all. It is in the best interests of the state to assist and provide education to the population, in order to encourage employment and investment in that country.

That's facism at its best. For someone who says they believe in freedom, this is the very antithesis of freedom. Freedom is messy, and success isn't the same thing for all people. Some of the most successful people in the world have chequered pasts. Often those who engage in high risk behaviour when they are young, are the most successful as adults. A disproportionate number of Fortune 500 executive have engaged in deliquent behaviour in their youth. Success depends on the ability to manage risk and sometimes mistakes are made on the road to learning how to manage risk.

Does it include teaching and encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves?

Does it include allowing all people to experience the consequences of their own choices?

Or does it include allowing me to choose what I will do with what I have earned and requiring everybody to expect to contribute what they can for what they get?

4. No to that Randian bullshit. People are not always going to be able to anticipate or handle all eventualities. Health, changing economic conditions beyond their control, political instability are all reasons for a social safety net. One of the responsibilities of those in a capitalistic society is to provide a social safety net for those who cannot take care of themselves, for whatever reason.

Human beings on their own are vulnerable. Early man formed tribes to support one another. As humanity advanced, they built cities and nations to provide security and support for one another. They sought education for their populations, and ultimately realized that the more educated their population, the more successul their economies.

The USA provides the economic structure, stability, and the physical infrastructure to allow it's people and corporations to succeed. It's no accident that countries without those complex structures, where instability or anarchy reigns, are among the poorest in the world. Nobody is building multi-national companies in such countries. To that end, those individuals and companies most benefitting from these structures, need to contribute to maintain them, including the cost of health care and education of the population from which they draw their employees.

In that regard you must pay taxes as your contribution to the country which allowed you to create wealth, and which provides you with the infrastructure to succeed. Failing which you should move to Myanmar and see how much money you can make there.

1. Actually no. Liberals are enigmatic. Their views are constantly changing every which way. It's confusing to know what they represent anymore. Liberals are undefined, so there are no "definitions" for which to dislike. If there is any disdain, it is that they lack a direction same as the Republicans do. Truthfully, they resemble Communists/Socialists more than anything else.

2. And when you destroy the institution of marriage, just who is forcing their beliefs on whom? Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 defined church and state as protecting the church from the state, not the state from the church.

3. And what does this mean? One of the discernible platforms of liberalism is conformity. "Conform with us or suffer dearly." Conformity itself is the very antithesis of freedom/liberty what have you. When liberals call people "terrorists", "racists" and other such vile invective when they don't agree with them, are they not trying to shame others into submission? As in "requiring others to live as you believe they should live?"

4. First paragraph:

Safety nets? At what cost? Do you realize what that would mean exactly? Burdening those who have the money by paying for those who don't. That is unfair. Charity should be voluntary. Keep that socialist nonsense to yourself.

Second Paragraph:

Your analogy is flawed. You make a link where none exists. In early human history, these vulnerable humans sought communal relationships. But they were never handed anything to them on a silver platter. They hunted, they grew their own food, buried their own dead, and punished those who refused to contribute to the tribe. A far cry from what you've stated here.

Third Paragraph:

So what you suggest is rank Communism.

Fourth Paragraph:

Good thing we live in America, not Myanmar. Deal with it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Repeating one more time, in the context of the liberal community's response to the OP, (and elsewhere):

So you too reinforce my belief that modern day American liberals are incapable of focusing on and discussing a principle, concept, or conviction. Their ONLY argument will be ad hominem, partisan, ridiculing or denigrating or demonizing some individual or group and, more often than not, they will throw out red herrings or straw men in an attempt to change the subject to something they don't have to defend but can cheerfully attack.

The thing that mystifies me, is that they don't appear to be embarrassed by this.
__________________

That's the one thing that DOESN'T mystify me. One needs a sense of shame in order to be embarrassed, and I don't remember the last time I encountered a leftist with one of those.