What are the underlying principles of Modern liberalism?

[AVG-JOE]

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?



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.

The Liberal Label was appropriate for democrats back in the 40's and then Conservative Senator Joseph McCarthy used fear, misinformation and slander politics (sound familiar?) to lump ALL of his personal enemies into one pot so he could pursue his pet project, his own unremarkable career. Groups singled out for questioning included communists, socialists, liberals - in short, everyone who wasn't a white, Christian Republican.

After three largely undistinguished years in the Senate, McCarthy rose suddenly to national fame in February 1950 when he asserted in a speech that he had a list of "members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring" who were employed in the State Department.[4] McCarthy was never able to prove his sensational charge.

During this dark time in America, you kept your mouth shut if you wanted a career.

 

[Big Fitz]

Republicans, being 90% white and mostly Christian

Did you know that 94% of statistics are made up on the spot???

That's 62%, and they are 33% more believable when a university name is included.

 

[jgarden]

When the Framers (of the US Constitution) read the works of John Locke and Baron De Montesquieu they agreed with Locke about the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (although Locke wrote property instead of pursuit of happiness) and they agreed with Montesquieu about the separation of powers into three branches (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) .....

[urlhttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_European_political_philosophers_influence_the_Framers_of_the_US_Constitution[/url]

- rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

- separation of powers into three branches

John Locke's Contract Theory, Jean Jacques Rousseau's concept of the Social Contract and Baron De Montesquieu ideas concerning the separation of powers were anything but "conservative" by 18thC European standards - where most countries were still ruled by monarchs!

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

Best summed up by the wiccan belief "Do what you will, but harm none".

Great concept, but the application has always proved tricky, because it is not compatible with human nature.

 

[Big Fitz]

When the Framers (of the US Constitution) read the works of John Locke and Baron De Montesquieu they agreed with Locke about the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (although Locke wrote property instead of pursuit of happiness) and they agreed with Montesquieu about the separation of powers into three branches (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) .....

Answers.com - How did European political philosophers influence the Framers of the US Constitution

- rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

- separation of powers into three branches

John Locke and Baron De Montesquieu would hardly be considered "conservatives" by 18thC standards.

They would be considered Libertarians mostly.

 

[JBeukema]

When the Framers (of the US Constitution) read the works of John Locke and Baron De Montesquieu they agreed with Locke about the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (although Locke wrote property instead of pursuit of happiness) and they agreed with Montesquieu about the separation of powers into three branches (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) .....

Answers.com - How did European political philosophers influence the Framers of the US Constitution

- rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

- separation of powers into three branches

John Locke and Baron De Montesquieu would hardly be considered "conservatives" by 18thC standards.

They would be considered Libertarians mostly.

They were Liberals by definition.

 

[Samson]

You decide:

I believe the federal annual budget should not exceed $10,000 per US citizen

I believe the feds should run national parks and the military on a budget derived from excise taxes.

States should be responsible for their citizen's social welfare.

 

[JBeukema]

You decide:

I believe the federal annual budget should not exceed $10,000 per US citizen

why?

I believe the feds should run national parks and the military on a budget derived from excise taxes.

why?

 

[Samson]

You decide:

I believe the federal annual budget should not exceed $10,000 per US citizen

why?

I believe the feds should run national parks and the military on a budget derived from excise taxes.

why?

A. I believe in a budget that is directly proportional to the number of citizens that the government serves. My number would cap the 2010 federal budget at about 350,000,000 X $10,000 = $350 B

This seems like a nice number to keep parks open, and prevent simultaneous invasion from Mexico and Canada.

B.


In 2008, the total U.S. trade deficit was $695.9 billion, which is $1.8 trillion in exports minus $2.5 trillion in imports.

A $0.10 excise tax on every dollar of imported goods sold, and exported goods would pay for my federal government.

 

[Big Fitz]

You decide:

I believe the federal annual budget should not exceed $10,000 per US citizen

why?

I believe the feds should run national parks and the military on a budget derived from excise taxes.

why?

A. I believe in a budget that is directly proportional to the number of citizens that the government serves. My number would cap the 2010 federal budget at about 350,000,000 X $10,000 = $350 B

This seems like a nice number to keep parks open, and prevent simultaneous invasion from Mexico and Canada.

B.


In 2008, the total U.S. trade deficit was $695.9 billion, which is $1.8 trillion in exports minus $2.5 trillion in imports.

A $0.10 excise tax on every dollar of imported goods sold, and exported goods would pay for my federal government.

gimme gimme gimme that style of taxation and government restraint!!!!

 

[MSNY]

Id prefer to hear the answer from liberals themselves. I want to see what they say their underlying principles are.

They have no principles.

 

[JBeukema]

You decide:

I believe the federal annual budget should not exceed $10,000 per US citizen

why?

I believe the feds should run national parks and the military on a budget derived from excise taxes.

why?

A. I believe in a budget that is directly proportional to the number of citizens that the government serves.

All-told? Does the govenrment not spend more on the poor than on the rich?

My number would cap the 2010 federal budget at about 350,000,000 X $10,000 = $350 B.

This seems like a nice number to keep parks open, and prevent simultaneous invasion from Mexico and Canada.

I'm really not worried about a Canadian invasion, but okay..

My number would cap the 2010 federal budget at about 350,000,000 X $10,000 = $350 B. This seems like a nice number to keep parks open, and prevent simultaneous invasion from Mexico and Canada.

How did you reach the 10k/person number? Do you have your numbers to show that $350M would cover all essential functions of government?

In 2008, the total U.S. trade deficit was $695.9 billion, which is $1.8 trillion in exports minus $2.5 trillion in imports.

How do you feel about NAFTA?

A $0.10 excise tax on every dollar of imported goods sold, and exported goods would pay for my federal government.

Do you have your numbers? Have you accounted for the effects of these tariffs on trade?
bing video
</div>

 

[Samson]

why?


why?

A. I believe in a budget that is directly proportional to the number of citizens that the government serves. My number would cap the 2010 federal budget at about 350,000,000 X $10,000 = $350 B

This seems like a nice number to keep parks open, and prevent simultaneous invasion from Mexico and Canada.

B.


In 2008, the total U.S. trade deficit was $695.9 billion, which is $1.8 trillion in exports minus $2.5 trillion in imports.

A $0.10 excise tax on every dollar of imported goods sold, and exported goods would pay for my federal government.

gimme gimme gimme that style of taxation and government restraint!!!!

Hold on now before you get too excited.

The individual states could tax your ass and bleed you dry....but then of course you probably would try to move to another state: IOW there would be competition between states to hold taxes low and to operate efficiently...

 

[Samson]

why?
why?

A. I believe in a budget that is directly proportional to the number of citizens that the government serves.

All-told? Does the govenrment not spend more on the poor than on the rich?


I'm really not worried about a Canadian invasion, but okay..



How did you reach the 10k/person number? Do you have your numbers to show that $350M would cover all essential functions of government?

In 2008, the total U.S. trade deficit was $695.9 billion, which is $1.8 trillion in exports minus $2.5 trillion in imports.

How do you feel about NAFTA?

A $0.10 excise tax on every dollar of imported goods sold, and exported goods would pay for my federal government.

Do you have your numbers? Have you accounted for the effects of these tariffs on trade?
bing video
</div>

Yep I've accounted for everything.

Exactly what essential service would you like to know about?

 

[JBeukema]

A. I believe in a budget that is directly proportional to the number of citizens that the government serves. My number would cap the 2010 federal budget at about 350,000,000 X $10,000 = $350 B

This seems like a nice number to keep parks open, and prevent simultaneous invasion from Mexico and Canada.

B.


In 2008, the total U.S. trade deficit was $695.9 billion, which is $1.8 trillion in exports minus $2.5 trillion in imports.

A $0.10 excise tax on every dollar of imported goods sold, and exported goods would pay for my federal government.

gimme gimme gimme that style of taxation and government restraint!!!!

Hold on now before you get too excited.

The individual states could tax your ass and bleed you dry....but then of course you probably would try to move to another state: IOW there would be competition between states to hold taxes low and to operate efficiently...

Wouldn't that same argument apply to competition between nations?

 

[JBeukema]

A. I believe in a budget that is directly proportional to the number of citizens that the government serves.

All-told? Does the govenrment not spend more on the poor than on the rich?


I'm really not worried about a Canadian invasion, but okay..



How did you reach the 10k/person number? Do you have your numbers to show that $350M would cover all essential functions of government?



How do you feel about NAFTA?

A $0.10 excise tax on every dollar of imported goods sold, and exported goods would pay for my federal government.

Do you have your numbers? Have you accounted for the effects of these tariffs on trade?
bing video
</div>

Yep I've accounted for everything.

Exactly what essential service would you like to know about?

Do you have the numbers?

How do you account for the negative effect on trade such tariffs would have?

Would this raise as much money as the current system? If not, what cuts do you propose?

 

[Samson]

All-told? Does the govenrment not spend more on the poor than on the rich?


I'm really not worried about a Canadian invasion, but okay..



How did you reach the 10k/person number? Do you have your numbers to show that $350M would cover all essential functions of government?



How do you feel about NAFTA?

Do you have your numbers? Have you accounted for the effects of these tariffs on trade?
bing video
</div>

Yep I've accounted for everything.

Exactly what essential service would you like to know about?

Do you have the numbers?

How do you account for the negative effect on trade such tariffs would have?

Would this raise as much money as the current system? If not, what cuts do you propose?

What negative effect on trade? Do you have any proof of this "negative effect?"

I repeat: I have accounted for everything, and I've told you what will be financed by the Federal Government: National Parks, and the Military.

What more are you talking about funding?

 

[JBeukema]

You deny that tariffs have a negative effect on foreign trade?

If tariffs have no effect, why NAFTA?

I have accounted for everything

So you say. Do you have the numbers?

I've told you what will be financed by the Federal Government: National Parks, and the Military.

So no paychecks for congress? No CIA or NSA? No SS to protect the president? No Interstate?

 

[Samson]

You deny that tariffs have a negative effect on foreign trade?

If tariffs have no effect, why NAFTA?

I have accounted for everything

So you say. Do you have the numbers?

I've told you what will be financed by the Federal Government: National Parks, and the Military.

So no paychecks for congress? No CIA or NSA? No SS to protect the president? No Interstate?

Indeed, Why NAFTA?

Yes, I have the numbers: What numbers would you like to know? This is like, the third time I've asked.

"So no paychecks for congress? No CIA or NSA? No SS to protect the president? No Interstate?"

Correct; states would pay their representatives.

I'm confident that the Military could protect the president, and the Federal Government, AND keep the Mexicans and Canadians at bay.

Interstate? Why would this be a Federal Concern? States can build their own roads.

 

[rdean]

In stead of hijacking this thread with your usual left wing talking points from HuffPo, why don't you start a new thread?

Why don't you. Here's your list of right wing "values". Notice you couldn't disagree with any.

This thread is about "Underlying Liberal Principles". Notice that you didn't post any.

Try to stay on topic.

Yes I did. A whole bunch. Republicans on this board couldn't disagree with any. They just called names. As usual.