what is a liberal and which historical leaders were liberals?

[Sallow]

JFK would be considered a conservative by today's standards.

Incorrect.

"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" need I say more?

No.

Because you have absolutely no idea what that means.

 

[Redfish]

I would like to hear from both sides on this.

My definition of a modern day liberal is someone that wants a big intrusive controlling government, someone who wants wealth and income redistribution, someone who wants abortion on demand but does not want the 2nd amendment upheld, someone who wants to punish success and reward failure, someone who is comfortable being a slave to the government and wants an active thought and speech police.

...... So how come you ask for "both sides" -- and then immediately pollute the debate with a slanted diatribe? You notice how long it took for Godwin's Law to arrive? The next post.

That whole mantra about "big government" was something the Reaganites invented. "Big government" has never been a goal of anybody; not in this country anyway. Just another facile pandering pseudoargument to demonize the opposition in the licentious quest for personal power. There is no point to "big government", unless you're a top-down hierarchy like the Soviet Union.

The rest of your laundry list is just reactionary bullshit not based on even a wisp of philosophy, a cherry-pick of hot-button issues of strictly recent vintage, signifying nothing philosophically. You've polluted your own discussion before it starts, which renders the whole thing worthless, as your pretentious claim to want "both sides" is a joke.

For what it's worth, liberal means liberty. That means freedom of expression and livelihood. The entire "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" sentiments, drawing off the Rousseau and Voltaire ideas of the time, are eminently liberalism. It's the cloth the United States is made from. "Nothing in America's founding, or the creation of the United States, was of a conservative nature" -- John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience, p. 12

If you want an honest discussion you'll have to present it more honestly than you have here. This isn't even close.

LOL, you make that comment after quoting John Dean??????? you gotta be kidding!..

lets talk about actions and deeds not philosophy, ok. which party began the growth of govt? how about starting with FDR ?

 

[Redfish]

Incorrect.

"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" need I say more?

No.

Because you have absolutely no idea what that means.

see post #100, I know exactly what it means and what context he said it in. you are the one who seems confused.

 

[bayoubill]

what is a liberal and which historical leaders were liberals?

a liberal is a busybody know-it-all who thinks he or she knows what's best for us better'n we know ourselves...

Congress, and the senate in particular, is infested with 'em... on both sides of the aisle...

 

[ZimothyTahn]

what is a liberal and which historical leaders were liberals?

a liberal is a busybody know-it-all who thinks he or she knows what's best for us better'n we know ourselves...

Congress, and the senate in particular, is infested with 'em... on both sides of the aisle...

you know who else was a liberal? a FLAMING liberal? frank zappa. he'd read your posts and punch you in the cock.

 

[Pogo]

I would like to hear from both sides on this.

My definition of a modern day liberal is someone that wants a big intrusive controlling government, someone who wants wealth and income redistribution, someone who wants abortion on demand but does not want the 2nd amendment upheld, someone who wants to punish success and reward failure, someone who is comfortable being a slave to the government and wants an active thought and speech police.

...... So how come you ask for "both sides" -- and then immediately pollute the debate with a slanted diatribe? You notice how long it took for Godwin's Law to arrive? The next post.

That whole mantra about "big government" was something the Reaganites invented. "Big government" has never been a goal of anybody; not in this country anyway. Just another facile pandering pseudoargument to demonize the opposition in the licentious quest for personal power. There is no point to "big government", unless you're a top-down hierarchy like the Soviet Union.

The rest of your laundry list is just reactionary bullshit not based on even a wisp of philosophy, a cherry-pick of hot-button issues of strictly recent vintage, signifying nothing philosophically. You've polluted your own discussion before it starts, which renders the whole thing worthless, as your pretentious claim to want "both sides" is a joke.

For what it's worth, liberal means liberty. That means freedom of expression and livelihood. The entire "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" sentiments, drawing off the Rousseau and Voltaire ideas of the time, are eminently liberalism. It's the cloth the United States is made from. "Nothing in America's founding, or the creation of the United States, was of a conservative nature" -- John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience, p. 12

If you want an honest discussion you'll have to present it more honestly than you have here. This isn't even close.

LOL, you make that comment after quoting John Dean??????? you gotta be kidding!..

lets talk about actions and deeds not philosophy, ok. which party began the growth of govt? how about starting with FDR ?

No, I made that comment before quoting John Dean. He's punctuation. Granted his book is mainly about conservatism but his history background is sound.

You could certainly point to FDR as a focal point for the growth of government, even on the basis of his twelve year tenure alone. That doesn't mean it's the idea of a party or a political philosophy. Again, nobody holds "big government" as a goal. There's no point in that. Big government, however we define it, just happens out of circumstances. Consider the severe growth of government under Reagan. Is that because conservatism believes in "big government"?

This idea of taking every little historical event and ascribing it to one political party or the other is superficial oversimplification. Not only does it demand we look at the past through our lens of the present but it ignores all the contributing factors that produced that event to a one word "liberal" or "conservative" or "Whig" or "socialist" doctrine. That's not what events are. So I don't get why you suddenly want to talk about "actions and deeds" (he said redundantly) when you started out talking philosophy. 'Round here that's called moving the goalposts.

 

[Dragonlady]

yes, you have it in context. Did obama say anything remotely close to that context? NO.

I repeat, by today's standards Kennedy would be considered a conservative---by words, deeds, and context.

Yes, he did, but you weren't listening. And it wasn't as eloquent as Kennedy.

Kennedy was far more liberal than Obama and was roundly hated by conservatives of his day for his "extreme" position on civil rights, and his concern for those living in poverty. Obviously you like Kennedy and would like to claim him as one of your own, but not only would Kennedy be considered a communist today, he was considered radically liberal when he was elected.

 

[bayoubill]

what is a liberal and which historical leaders were liberals?

a liberal is a busybody know-it-all who thinks he or she knows what's best for us better'n we know ourselves...

Congress, and the senate in particular, is infested with 'em... on both sides of the aisle...

you know who else was a liberal? a FLAMING liberal? frank zappa. he'd read your posts and punch you in the cock.

you obviously don't know jack about Frank...

 

[rightwinger]

you liberals always bring up "reproductive choice" meaning abortion. why is that such a major issue with you? why can't you find a better contraception method than killing your fetus? how about just keeping your legs together?

"transfer of wealth" is anothe key liberal talking point, why should people not be allowed to keep what they have earned? we already have a progressive income tax, how much more do you want?

Liberals do not seek to confiscate accumulated wealth.

What they do is question why do we continue economic policies that encourage one group to accumulate more wealth at the expense of others?

which policies would those be? be specific, which govt policies enourage one group to accumulate wealth at the expense of others?

envy and jealousy are not acceptable answers.

Glad you asked

Tax incentives, relaxation of labor laws, relaxation of environmental protections, anti-union laws, targeted infrastructure improvements, direct subsidies, foreign market protections.....

 

[rightwinger]

yes, you have it in context. Did obama say anything remotely close to that context? NO.

I repeat, by today's standards Kennedy would be considered a conservative---by words, deeds, and context.

Yes, he did, but you weren't listening. And it wasn't as eloquent as Kennedy.

Kennedy was far more liberal than Obama and was roundly hated by conservatives of his day for his "extreme" position on civil rights, and his concern for those living in poverty. Obviously you like Kennedy and would like to claim him as one of your own, but not only would Kennedy be considered a communist today, he was considered radically liberal when he was elected.

Amazing how conservatives now claim JFK and MLK as one of their own

And how they demonized them while they were alive

 

[Synthaholic]

The founders were Liberals.

 

[bayoubill]

The founders were Liberals.

lol... they were slave-holding old white guys... remember...?

 

[Pogo]

a liberal is a busybody know-it-all who thinks he or she knows what's best for us better'n we know ourselves...

Congress, and the senate in particular, is infested with 'em... on both sides of the aisle...

you know who else was a liberal? a FLAMING liberal? frank zappa. he'd read your posts and punch you in the cock.

you obviously don't know jack about Frank...

I have to back Bill here. FZ was never a liberal. And I doubt he would punch anyone in the cock, but I don't know that for sure.

 

[Pogo]

The founders were Liberals.

lol... they were slave-holding old white guys... remember...?

Yes they were, and that goes right back to my point about judging the past through the lens of the present, as well as about shaving off circumstantial factors to reduce events and people to inane labels.

Fun fact Bill, just yesterday I was being howled at as a 'racist' for far less a statement than that.
Neither yours nor mine are racist statements; I'm just noting the rhetoric, and who so carelessly wields it.

 

[Pogo]

yes, you have it in context. Did obama say anything remotely close to that context? NO.

I repeat, by today's standards Kennedy would be considered a conservative---by words, deeds, and context.

Yes, he did, but you weren't listening. And it wasn't as eloquent as Kennedy.

Kennedy was far more liberal than Obama and was roundly hated by conservatives of his day for his "extreme" position on civil rights, and his concern for those living in poverty. Obviously you like Kennedy and would like to claim him as one of your own, but not only would Kennedy be considered a communist today, he was considered radically liberal when he was elected.

Absolutely right. I remember that. The idea of "all men are created equal" is a screamingly liberal one.
The entire country has moved significantly to the right since then, and that means both parties.

 

[Synthaholic]

The founders were Liberals.

lol... they were slave-holding old white guys... remember...?

They embraced change, also, though.

Starting a new country is a fairly progressive move.

 

[Synthaholic]

you know who else was a liberal? a FLAMING liberal? frank zappa. he'd read your posts and punch you in the cock.

you obviously don't know jack about Frank...

I have to back Bill here. FZ was never a liberal. And I doubt he would punch anyone in the cock, but I don't know that for sure.

I don't think that anyone can effectively argue that Zappa was a conservative.

 

[bayoubill]

The founders were Liberals.

lol... they were slave-holding old white guys... remember...?

Yes they were, and that goes right back to my point about judging the past through the lens of the present, as well as about shaving off circumstantial factors to reduce events and people to inane labels.

Fun fact Bill, just yesterday I was being howled at as a 'racist' for far less a statement than that.
Neither yours nor mine are racist statements; I'm just noting the rhetoric, and who so carelessly wields it.

I know... but it sure is fun poking the dumb motherfuckers with a stick...


eta: not calling Synth a dumb motherfucker... just his dumb-shit cohorts...

 

[Wry Catcher]

John F. Kennedy -- Inaugural Address

 

[Redfish]

...... So how come you ask for "both sides" -- and then immediately pollute the debate with a slanted diatribe? You notice how long it took for Godwin's Law to arrive? The next post.

That whole mantra about "big government" was something the Reaganites invented. "Big government" has never been a goal of anybody; not in this country anyway. Just another facile pandering pseudoargument to demonize the opposition in the licentious quest for personal power. There is no point to "big government", unless you're a top-down hierarchy like the Soviet Union.

The rest of your laundry list is just reactionary bullshit not based on even a wisp of philosophy, a cherry-pick of hot-button issues of strictly recent vintage, signifying nothing philosophically. You've polluted your own discussion before it starts, which renders the whole thing worthless, as your pretentious claim to want "both sides" is a joke.

For what it's worth, liberal means liberty. That means freedom of expression and livelihood. The entire "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" sentiments, drawing off the Rousseau and Voltaire ideas of the time, are eminently liberalism. It's the cloth the United States is made from. "Nothing in America's founding, or the creation of the United States, was of a conservative nature" -- John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience, p. 12

If you want an honest discussion you'll have to present it more honestly than you have here. This isn't even close.

LOL, you make that comment after quoting John Dean??????? you gotta be kidding!..

lets talk about actions and deeds not philosophy, ok. which party began the growth of govt? how about starting with FDR ?

No, I made that comment before quoting John Dean. He's punctuation. Granted his book is mainly about conservatism but his history background is sound.

You could certainly point to FDR as a focal point for the growth of government, even on the basis of his twelve year tenure alone. That doesn't mean it's the idea of a party or a political philosophy. Again, nobody holds "big government" as a goal. There's no point in that. Big government, however we define it, just happens out of circumstances. Consider the severe growth of government under Reagan. Is that because conservatism believes in "big government"?

This idea of taking every little historical event and ascribing it to one political party or the other is superficial oversimplification. Not only does it demand we look at the past through our lens of the present but it ignores all the contributing factors that produced that event to a one word "liberal" or "conservative" or "Whig" or "socialist" doctrine. That's not what events are. So I don't get why you suddenly want to talk about "actions and deeds" (he said redundantly) when you started out talking philosophy. 'Round here that's called moving the goalposts.

actually I blame both parties, the dems a little more, but both are responsible. the problem is liberalism