what is a liberal and which historical leaders were liberals?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The free stuff most minorities want is called freedom,

too stupid!! minorities have been crippled to want welfare not freedom. If they wanted freedom they would be Republican of course you perfect fool!!

We see how the Great Society War on Poverty Civil rights movement amounted to a near genocide when blacks tried to secure freedom at the government teat!!

A liberal is so stupid as to see government as the only source of freedom when our country is based on the oppposite principle

 

[Dragonlady]

too stupid!! minorities have been crippled to want welfare not freedom. If they wanted freedom they would be Republican of course you perfect fool!!

Bullshit. Minorities want equal opportunity, decent wages for a day's work, and a quality education system for their children so that they will have more opportunities their parents had. They want to live in safety and security.

Inner city schools lack sufficient textbooks for all students, the buildings are crumbling, and things like computer labs are non-existant. How can inner city kids prepare themselves for work in today's economy under these conditions?

But it should be noted that the Republican Party policies have efficiently manufactured more poor than in any time in the history of the nation. Since Reagan came into power, the numbers of poor people in the US have grown expotientially with the transfer of wealth to the top income earners in the country. Funny how those two things go hand in hand.

Simple logic tells us that in order for one person to be wealthy, thousands must be poor. So while we talk about all of the wealthy people created by Republican policies, it behoves us to remember that those same policies created thousands more poor than they did rich. Of course the Republicans have been busy blaming the poor for their plight. Pay no attention to the real causes of poverty.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Simple logic tells us that in order for one person to be wealthy, thousands must be poor.

pure liberal stupidity, not simple logic!! It's not a zero sum economy. Today a poor person lives like a king did 100 years ago since you cant get rich unless you can sell stuff everyone can afford!! Ever wonder why everyone has a new flat screen TV, cell phone, and computer ????

Now you know how the poor got rich thanks to Republican capitalism!!

Many new poor have been created though by liberal welfare programs that have destroyed the black family in particular by sending the men to prison and forcing the women to be poor single mothers collecting from the government.

 

[Dragonlady]

Today a poor person lives like a king did 100 years ago since you cant get rich unless you can sell stuff everyone can afford!! Ever wonder why everyone has a new flat screen TV, cell phone, and computer ????

People have flat screen TV's because that's the only kind you can buy, and they're cheap. You can buy a 40" flat screen for $500. The same with cell phones and computers. My last top of the line, desk top computer, bought in 2007 cost just under $1,500, my laptop was purchased in 2010 for $600. We're looking at a tablet now, for around $300.

Your comparison has no validity. It doesn't matter how the rich live in comparison to people 100 years ago, it matters how they live in comparison to the rest of us in society, today. What truly matters is whether the poor have any sort of realistic chance of improving their lot. Whether their children are receiving a quality public education which will help them compete for the good jobs in the 21st century. Whether their neighbourhoods are clean and safe. Whether their housing is up to code. Whether they have access to and can afford a high quality diet. Whether they have access to quality medical care.

If you can't answer "Yes" to all of these, then there is a lot of work to be done.

 

[Sallow]

Simple logic tells us that in order for one person to be wealthy, thousands must be poor.

pure liberal stupidity, not simple logic!! It's not a zero sum economy. Today a poor person lives like a king did 100 years ago since you cant get rich unless you can sell stuff everyone can afford!! Ever wonder why everyone has a new flat screen TV, cell phone, and computer ????

Now you know how the poor got rich thanks to Republican capitalism!!

Many new poor have been created though by liberal welfare programs that have destroyed the black family in particular by sending the men to prison and forcing the women to be poor single mothers collecting from the government.

You can't actually believe this crapola.

Were it left up to conservatives..we'd still be subjects of the British Empire.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Simple logic tells us that in order for one person to be wealthy, thousands must be poor.

pure liberal stupidity, not simple logic!! It's not a zero sum economy. Today a poor person lives like a king did 100 years ago since you cant get rich unless you can sell stuff everyone can afford!! Ever wonder why everyone has a new flat screen TV, cell phone, and computer ????

Now you know how the poor got rich thanks to Republican capitalism!!

Many new poor have been created though by liberal welfare programs that have destroyed the black family in particular by sending the men to prison and forcing the women to be poor single mothers collecting from the government.

You can't actually believe this crapola.

.

pure liberal stupidity, not simple logic!! It's not a zero sum economy. Today a poor person lives like a king did 100 years ago since you cant get rich unless you can sell stuff everyone can afford!! Ever wonder why everyone has a new flat screen TV, cell phone, and computer ????

 

[Vast LWC]

You can't actually believe this crapola.

Were it left up to conservatives..we'd still be subjects of the British Empire.

I don't believe that's strictly true.

By modern definitions, a Liberal is someone who believes in a lack of government restraint on social liberties, but government control of economic matters.

While a Conservative is someone who believes in government restraint of social liberties, with no government control of economic matters.

A Libertarian is of course someone who believes in no governmental control of anything at all, and an authoritarian believes that government should control everything.

Since the founding fathers were against governmental control of the economy (for the most part), as well as enhancing individual liberty, I would place most of them squarely in the camp of Libertarians, with some notable exceptions.

Lincoln, however, was a Liberal with authoritarian tendencies.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

While a Conservative is someone who believes in government restraint of social liberties,

like what???????????

with no government control of economic matters.

who are we kidding. Imposing and maintaining capitalism involves a lot of government control and wisdom.

 

[Vast LWC]

like what???????????

A whole bunch. Strict conservatives are exemplified by "Moral Majority"-Religious types.

The range of conservative however, goes all the way from Autocrat-Conservative to Libertarian-Conservative, and liberals have the same range.

I am a Liberal-Libertarian myself.

who are we kidding. Imposing and maintaining capitalism involves a lot of government control and wisdom.

True enough, but the more conservative one is, the less government control is desired.

It's like this:

That is not where I am on the chart, by the way, that is some random other person.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Children born to unmarried mothers are more likely to grow up in a single-parent household, experience instability in living arrangements, live in poverty, and have socio-emotional problems.1,2,3,4 As these children reach adolescence, they are more likely to have low educational attainment, engage in sex at a younger age, and have a birth outside of marriage.5,6,7,8 As young adults, children born outside of marriage are more likely to be idle (neither in school nor employed), have lower occupational status and income, and have more troubled marriages and more divorces than those born to married parents.9

Women who give birth outside of marriage tend to be more disadvantaged than their married counterparts, both before and after the birth. Unmarried mothers generally have lower incomes, lower education levels, and are more likely to be dependent on welfare assistance compared with married mothers.10,11,12,13 Women who have a nonmarital birth also tend to fare worse than childless single women; for example, they have reduced marriage prospects compared with single women without children.

Births to Unmarried Women | Child Trends Databank

Excellent post. Robert Rector at Heritage has, for decades, done excellent work in this area of poverty, etc. Here's a link to his work at heritage if you haven’t already found/researched it. The study on poverty is really quite enlightening.

Robert Rector

Don't have the time right now to search but I'll bet the percentages of black/hispanic/asian/white abortions performed over the years by or for Planned Parenthood would fulfill Margaret Sanger's hope of weeding out her "undesirables".

Wait, didn't I see a picture of the left's poster organization's (Planned Parenthood), founder (Sanger) speaking to a gathering of approving Klansman on this very thread? Why yes, yes I did! Quite the success story for the left!


JM

Which means there are three times as many white illegitimate births as blacks each year.

You all need to grow up

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A whole bunch. Strict conservatives are exemplified by "Moral Majority"-Religious types.

if you're talking religious conservatives rather than economic, foreign policy, or social conservatives.

I am a Liberal-Libertarian myself.

you're trying to say you're a social liberal and an economic conservative

True enough, but the more conservative one is, the less government control is desired.

if you're talking economic conservatives