What are the underlying principles of Modern liberalism?

[AVG-JOE]

Liberty, Freedom, Justice and Tolerance.

Hang on a moment, I was laughing so hard I coughed up my spleen. LIBERTY is massive taxation, socialized healthcare, government run banks, auto manufacturers, redistribution of wealth?!

Y'all need to realize that "Democrat" and "Liberal" are NOT synonymous. There's probably more liberal thinkers in the Republican ranks now, thanks to the Tea Party, not that you can see them through the masks of fascism they wear for domestic social issues.

The only group doing a better job of protecting the status quo through misinformation and fear than the Democrats is the Republicans, that's why corporations and foreign governments give so much money to BOTH of them.

Wake up boys and girls. Learn a little history and a little something about your roots - remember, Thomas Jefferson was a Liberal and Benedict Arnold was a status quo lovin' Conservative.

This isn't rocket science...

 

[Intense]

It's weird how you left out that whole part about providing for the General Welfare. Doesn't fit your narrow view point does it?

Which Interpretation of "General Welfare"? Before the Constitution was Ratified (What they told everyone in order to get them to agree to it), or after it was Ratified, when Hamilton sprung the trap?

The one in the constitution as it is today.

The one in the constitution as it is today.

As it is today, it means what a minimum of 5 Supreme Court Justices say it means, and that, only until they change their minds. Which brings me to my point. Thank You for helping me illustrate it. Original meaning can be found in the Federalist Papers.

 

[Intense]

Liberty, Freedom, Justice and Tolerance.

Hang on a moment, I was laughing so hard I coughed up my spleen. LIBERTY is massive taxation, socialized healthcare, government run banks, auto manufacturers, redistribution of wealth?!

Y'all need to realize that "Democrat" and "Liberal" are NOT synonymous. There's probably more liberal thinkers in the Republican ranks now, thanks to the Tea Party, not that you can see them through the masks of fascism they wear for domestic social issues.

The only group doing a better job of protecting the status quo through misinformation and fear than the Democrats is the Republicans, that's why corporations and foreign governments give so much money to BOTH of them.

Wake up boys and girls. Learn a little history and a little something about your roots - remember, Thomas Jefferson was a Liberal and Benedict Arnold was a status quo lovin' Conservative.

This isn't rocket science...

Jefferson was a Madison Style Federalist. He was big on Enumerated Powers and State Rights. He was adamantly opposed to Hamilton's Strong Limitless Centralized Federal Authority.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Preamble to the United States Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

- We the People

- to form a more perfect Union,

- establish Justice,

- insure domestic Tranquility,

- provide for the common defence,

- promote the general Welfare,

- secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

The Preamble to the United States Constitution is an introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental intentions and guiding principles. It was the most liberal expression of 18thC philosophy at the time!

History Rcks!

 

[AVG-JOE]

Interesting. Very, very interesting.

Which part, Dog?

 

[Intense]

It's weird how you left out that whole part about providing for the General Welfare. Doesn't fit your narrow view point does it?

Which Interpretation of "General Welfare"? Before the Constitution was Ratified (What they told everyone in order to get them to agree to it), or after it was Ratified, when Hamilton sprung the trap?

irrelevant. they couldn't anticipate what would be in the general welfare 200 years plus down the line.

if they could, they'd have expressly set out what it was.

or you could actually read the 200 years of caselaw on the subject.

From my honest perspective the Case Law is a Chronicle of 200 years of straying further from original intent, one ruling at a time. That aside, that which serves Justice best, without offending, giving proper weight to Principle and relevance, which is at times a matter of educated opinion, is the best we can do, being human. The true Litmus Test? When 75% or better of the Congress or the Country is that strongly opposed to a Decision or Ruling, know that You or I, are on thin ice.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Hang on a moment, I was laughing so hard I coughed up my spleen. LIBERTY is massive taxation, socialized healthcare, government run banks, auto manufacturers, redistribution of wealth?!

Y'all need to realize that "Democrat" and "Liberal" are NOT synonymous. There's probably more liberal thinkers in the Republican ranks now, thanks to the Tea Party, not that you can see them through the masks of fascism they wear for domestic social issues.

The only group doing a better job of protecting the status quo through misinformation and fear than the Democrats is the Republicans, that's why corporations and foreign governments give so much money to BOTH of them.

Wake up boys and girls. Learn a little history and a little something about your roots - remember, Thomas Jefferson was a Liberal and Benedict Arnold was a status quo lovin' Conservative.

This isn't rocket science...

Jefferson was a Madison Style Federalist. He was big on Enumerated Powers and State Rights. He was adamantly opposed to Hamilton's Strong Limitless Centralized Federal Authority.

Isn't that what I just said?!?

Hello...?​

Is this thing on?​

 

[kaz]

I never said they were honest enough to write it down.

Why would you ascribe some hidden nefarious plot of world domination to Democratic party?

So my only choices are they will write down what they are doing or they are on a nefarious plot of world domination? Hmmm....why are those my only choices? Now if we were talking Republicans you'd gladly accuse them of having all sorts of agendas they aren't honest about. But to say Democrats aren't straightforward about their views? Preposterous. We know they are honorable because they are honorable, which is how we know.

Do some research on the Supreme Court New London ruling that government can confiscate land for it's own interest and not public use.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's ok to clear slums for economic development then say economic development isn't a reason for takings.

You're going to have to remind me when I said that, can you show me that quote where I advocated government clearing slums for economic development?

Do some research on the Supreme Court New London ruling that government can confiscate land for it's own interest and not public A U.S. Senator from Ohio and an outspoken conservative, Taft was the sponsor of legislation in 1949 to fund slum clearance and build low-income public housing developments. He was the son of William Howard Taft, the 27th President of the United States. He advocated isolationism before World War II. Known as "Mr. Republican," Taft opposed most Democratic New Deal programs. He helped write the Taft-Hartley Labor Act of 1947.

Damn liberal WWII Republicans and their activist courts, eh?

First, I'm a libertarian not a Republican. Second, I'm not sure I see funding clearing slums the same as confiscating land from one citizen and giving to another. But let's see if I have your logic here. I pointed out Democrats support all the planks of the Communist manifesto. You're trying to argue the Republicans support one. Even if true I don't see how that refutes my point in any way.

New London also shows the left's claim they are in it for the little guy is a lie. They supported down the line confiscating land from an individual and giving it to a developer. They also say Republicans are the defenders of big business over the little guy. But Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the New London ruling. So, it turns out liberals lied they are for the little guy first, they are for the power of government first. Liberals also lied Republicans were for big business first, they were for the Constitution and liberty first. At least in this case.

The liberals went 0 fer in that one. And it was the plank YOU chose. Ouch...

 

[Mad Scientist]

Y'all need to realize that "Democrat" and "Liberal" are NOT synonymous. There's probably more liberal thinkers in the Republican ranks now, thanks to the Tea Party, not that you can see them through the masks of fascism they wear for domestic social issues.

The only group doing a better job of protecting the status quo through misinformation and fear than the Democrats is the Republicans, that's why corporations and foreign governments give so much money to BOTH of them.

Wake up boys and girls. Learn a little history and a little something about your roots - remember, Thomas Jefferson was a Liberal and Benedict Arnold was a status quo lovin' Conservative.

This isn't rocket science...

Jefferson was a Madison Style Federalist. He was big on Enumerated Powers and State Rights. He was adamantly opposed to Hamilton's Strong Limitless Centralized Federal Authority.

Isn't that what I just said?!?

Nope. Not even close.

 

[Sunni Man]

OP Question: What are the underlying principles of Modern liberalism?

Answer:

1) Everything is relative.

2) There is No right or wrong.

3) Morals and cultural values are obsolete and need to be discarded.

4) Do anything you want; but everyone else has to do it also.

5) Contrary opinions are not allowed or tolerated.

6) We know best; and need to be in control in every area of your life.

 

[Sallow]

By the way..Liberals welcome different viewpoints. Liberals see that the Conservatives have a valid argument most the time..and we really take them seriously and incorporate them into our way of doing things.

The opposite, however, isn't done.

 

[Mad Scientist]

By the way..Liberals welcome different viewpoints. Liberals see that the Conservatives have a valid argument most the time..and we really take them seriously and incorporate them into our way of doing things.

Could you give us a few examples?

 

[JBeukema]

I never said they were honest enough to write it down.

Why would you ascribe some hidden nefarious plot of world domination to Democratic party?

So my only choices are they will write down what they are doing or they are on a nefarious plot of world domination? Hmmm....why are those my only choices? Now if we were talking Republicans you'd gladly accuse them of having all sorts of agendas they aren't honest about. But to say Democrats aren't straightforward about their views? Preposterous. We know they are honorable because they are honorable, which is how we know.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's ok to clear slums for economic development then say economic development isn't a reason for takings.

You're going to have to remind me when I said that, can you show me that quote where I advocated government clearing slums for economic development?

Do some research on the Supreme Court New London ruling that government can confiscate land for it's own interest and not public A U.S. Senator from Ohio and an outspoken conservative, Taft was the sponsor of legislation in 1949 to fund slum clearance and build low-income public housing developments. He was the son of William Howard Taft, the 27th President of the United States. He advocated isolationism before World War II. Known as "Mr. Republican," Taft opposed most Democratic New Deal programs. He helped write the Taft-Hartley Labor Act of 1947.

Damn liberal WWII Republicans and their activist courts, eh?

First, I'm a libertarian not a Republican. Second, I'm not sure I see funding clearing slums the same as confiscating land from one citizen and giving to another. But let's see if I have your logic here. I pointed out Democrats support all the planks of the Communist manifesto. You're trying to argue the Republicans support one. Even if true I don't see how that refutes my point in any way.

New London also shows the left's claim they are in it for the little guy is a lie. They supported down the line confiscating land from an individual and giving it to a developer. They also say Republicans are the defenders of big business over the little guy. But Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the New London ruling. So, it turns out liberals lied they are for the little guy first, they are for the power of government first. Liberals also lied Republicans were for big business first, they were for the Constitution and liberty first. At least in this case.

The liberals went 0 fer in that one. And it was the plank YOU chose. Ouch...

1) The left is not one group with a singular ideology

2) Liberalism is hardly left of center at all- and arguably right-of-center in today's enviroment

3)I get the impression you know nothing oh Liberalism. of Leftism. Or anything else

 

[kaz]

By the way..Liberals welcome different viewpoints. Liberals see that the Conservatives have a valid argument most the time..and we really take them seriously and incorporate them into our way of doing things.

The opposite, however, isn't done.

I see, it's just the phrasing. People misunderstand cries like "blood for oil" and calling Republicans "fascist" and me a Republican even when I'm pointing out I oppose not only the wars but our military's presence in the middle east, I'm pro-choice and think all drugs and prostitution should be legal for intolerance. I see your point, it was a silly mistake for us all to have made...

 

[AVG-JOE]

Jefferson was a Madison Style Federalist. He was big on Enumerated Powers and State Rights. He was adamantly opposed to Hamilton's Strong Limitless Centralized Federal Authority.

Isn't that what I just said?!?

Nope. Not even close.

O.k.

Got Link?

Here's mine: http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...ism-america-was-born-liberal.html#post1321923

Don't like USMB links? (this is a good one - it has a quote from a REAL history book and everything!)

But, if you're a purest or some such bullshit.... here's some from a quick Goooooooooooooooooooooooogle search:

Never heard of this guy, but he seems to know his history: Thomas Jefferson was a Liberal

This one has pretty pictures: Jefferson

This one has "Wiki" in the name - it must be truth: Answers.com - Was Thomas Jefferson a liberal or conservative

Oh, here's one from a right-wing blogger calling TJ a 'liberal menace': Thomas Jefferson: Liberal Menace

Oh, hell - I've got laundry to fold - if you don't like those, look it up yourself: Google: Thomas Jefferson AND Liberal

 

[kaz]

Why would you ascribe some hidden nefarious plot of world domination to Democratic party?

So my only choices are they will write down what they are doing or they are on a nefarious plot of world domination? Hmmm....why are those my only choices? Now if we were talking Republicans you'd gladly accuse them of having all sorts of agendas they aren't honest about. But to say Democrats aren't straightforward about their views? Preposterous. We know they are honorable because they are honorable, which is how we know.



You're going to have to remind me when I said that, can you show me that quote where I advocated government clearing slums for economic development?

Do some research on the Supreme Court New London ruling that government can confiscate land for it's own interest and not public A U.S. Senator from Ohio and an outspoken conservative, Taft was the sponsor of legislation in 1949 to fund slum clearance and build low-income public housing developments. He was the son of William Howard Taft, the 27th President of the United States. He advocated isolationism before World War II. Known as "Mr. Republican," Taft opposed most Democratic New Deal programs. He helped write the Taft-Hartley Labor Act of 1947.

Damn liberal WWII Republicans and their activist courts, eh?

First, I'm a libertarian not a Republican. Second, I'm not sure I see funding clearing slums the same as confiscating land from one citizen and giving to another. But let's see if I have your logic here. I pointed out Democrats support all the planks of the Communist manifesto. You're trying to argue the Republicans support one. Even if true I don't see how that refutes my point in any way.

New London also shows the left's claim they are in it for the little guy is a lie. They supported down the line confiscating land from an individual and giving it to a developer. They also say Republicans are the defenders of big business over the little guy. But Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the New London ruling. So, it turns out liberals lied they are for the little guy first, they are for the power of government first. Liberals also lied Republicans were for big business first, they were for the Constitution and liberty first. At least in this case.

The liberals went 0 fer in that one. And it was the plank YOU chose. Ouch...

1) The left is not one group with a singular ideology

2) Liberalism is hardly left of center at all- and arguably right-of-center in today's enviroment

3)I get the impression you know nothing oh Liberalism. of Leftism. Or anything else

As I pointed out in another thread, I understand fine what a classic liberal is and how the current Democrats and those who call themselves Left and liberal aren't that. But here's the thing. You gave up the word when you didn't defend it and it was taken over by the Communist Manifesto supporting Democratic party. If you wanted liberal to not mean that, you and your brethren should have been out screaming at the top of your lungs that government dependency and totalitarianism isn't liberal. You didn't, it's gone. Sorry. Actually not sorry, it's your own fault.

It's like the Confederate flag. Many Southerners started claiming a few years ago it's a symbol of southern pride and shouldn't be removed from southern flags or government buildings because it did not stand for racism. But after sitting on their hands for a few decades while it was waived by racists, they lost that, it's reasonably interpreted by blacks as a symbol of racism.

So if you want to make that historical argument of liberal, I'm with you. But if you want to argue it doesn't mean Democrat as if you hadn't been too silent for too long, you're too late. Sorry.

You're also a snotty little ass wipe who doesn't recognize when you have the opportunity to have a more meaningful conversation with someone who gets it. When you have the chance to make a smug, contentless little bitter comment like this, THAT is your priority.

 

[AVG-JOE]

By the way..Liberals welcome different viewpoints. Liberals see that the Conservatives have a valid argument most the time..and we really take them seriously and incorporate them into our way of doing things.

Could you give us a few examples?

Unfortunately, not really. The current crop of examples comes from either the Democrats or the Republicans - neither of which represents Liberal thinking. The Tea Party comes closest, at least in their taxation rhetoric, but their stance on social issues is pretty close to fascist and they seem to be bought and paid for puppets of big business when it comes to protecting the status quo.

Sing it with me now...

Where have all the liberals gone?​

long time pa-assing...​

 

[JBeukema]

By the way..Liberals welcome different viewpoints. Liberals see that the Conservatives have a valid argument most the time..and we really take them seriously and incorporate them into our way of doing things.

The opposite, however, isn't done.

I see, it's just the phrasing. People misunderstand cries like "blood for oil" and calling Republicans "fascist" and me a Republican even when I'm pointing out I oppose not only the wars but our military's presence in the middle east, I'm pro-choice and think all drugs and prostitution should be legal for intolerance. I see your point, it was a silly mistake for us all to have made...

legal for intolerance?

clarify

 

[JBeukema]

You gave up the word when you didn't defend it

You think I'm Liberal? More like a right/moderate Social Democrat

and it was taken over by the Communist Manifesto supporting Democratic party.

The dems aren't communists. Many of them are much like democratic socialists, however. Whatever they call themselves, I recognize their position for what it is

If you wanted liberal to not mean that, you and your brethren

Again, I'm not a Liberal. I'm on record as rejecting the bourgeois liberalism of the FF.

So if you want to make that historical argument of liberal, I'm with you. But if you want to argue it doesn't mean Democrat as if you hadn't been too silent for too long, you're too late. Sorry.

Liberal doens't mean Democrat. For one thing, I recognize no meaningful difference between the two factions (Republican/Democrat).

You're also a snotty little ass wipe who doesn't recognize when you have the opportunity to have a more meaningful conversation with someone who gets it.

Says the person turning to personal attacks and insults instead of engaging in meaningful discourse...

the left's claim they are in it for the little guy is a lie.

minimum wage?
8-hr work week?
OSHA?
renters' rights?

o, it turns out liberals lied

you use 'liberal' and 'left' interchangeably and then talk about refusing to have meaningful discussion?

 

[Big Fitz]

Liberty, Freedom, Justice and Tolerance.

Hang on a moment, I was laughing so hard I coughed up my spleen. LIBERTY is massive taxation, socialized healthcare, government run banks, auto manufacturers, redistribution of wealth?!

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength..