What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

[Publius1787]

That is what I base my beliefs on, and I am a liberal. You saying it is a non-answer does not make it so, it simply shows that you have no reply, and you did not even take the time to consider my answer.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the fall of Western civilization. (See above). I suppose the biggest problem is that you truly do believe you gave an adequate response. I speak of Locke and Mill and you simply say "experience and common sense," without defining either, of which, both are not so common as you have demonstrated. Feel free to leave if this subject is over your head (staying will only make you look like a fool). Considering your company, however, that might not be necessarily true.

It is amazing to see someone too thick to grasp a simple concept acting so superior.

Is this your reply?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

Simple:

Do/say whatever will allow you to gain/retain as much partisan political power as possible.

 

[Publius1787]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

For conservatives, it’s easy. They either place their ideology on the principle of self-ownership as written by John Locke or the no harm principle as advocated by J.S. Mill. But what does the modern day liberal trace his/her ideological principles back to? What is the foundation of their thought? It can’t be the classical liberalism of the above stated philosophers (Which calles into qustion the reason they identify as "liberals"). So who/what? Is it “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”? Certainly a modern day liberal/progressive/democrat should be able to shine some light on this question.

Liberals evolve...which might be a good lesson for conservatives to learn...

Define "evolve". Moving backwards away from real liberalism is not evolving.

 

[Publius1787]

It would all be so heartrending the way you present it if the fact is that the Republicans are trying to use the Sequestration to prevent the implementation of the ACA, which, if you will recall, was one of the things that the American public voted in favour of in the last election. They also voted in favour of higher taxes for the wealthy.

Do you not understand that using the Budget negotiations to force measure on the American public that they clearly rejected in the Presidential elections is both stupid and wrong? I know that Republicans must do this, otherwise their Tea Party constituents will nail their asses to the wall for caving, but that doesn't mean that they should be doing it or that it is of any help to the situation.

Republicans are negotiating in bad faith. It's the only tool they have left, and it won't work.

excuse me but you do not seem to understand the American system....

just because you dimwits voted a subversive marxist into the executive office again does not mean we have to agree with his proposals....his slim win was hardly a mandate....

Congress is the legislative part of the process....you might take notice that the voters elected a majority of Republicans in the House....and the Tea Party conservatives DO have America's back...

Without republican gerrymandering you wouldn't have a majority in the house either. The Tea Party has an approval rating on a par with Congress. The majority consider them to be out of touch with mainstream America.

Funny, Obama instructed census workers to count illegals and now they complain that the Republicans took power and drew the lines. Indeed, gerrymandering does exist in both parties. If it werent for Obamacare, it would have been democrats fudging the lines.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It would all be so heartrending the way you present it if the fact is that the Republicans are trying to use the Sequestration to prevent the implementation of the ACA, which, if you will recall, was one of the things that the American public voted in favour of in the last election. They also voted in favour of higher taxes for the wealthy.

Do you not understand that using the Budget negotiations to force measure on the American public that they clearly rejected in the Presidential elections is both stupid and wrong? I know that Republicans must do this, otherwise their Tea Party constituents will nail their asses to the wall for caving, but that doesn't mean that they should be doing it or that it is of any help to the situation.

Republicans are negotiating in bad faith. It's the only tool they have left, and it won't work.

excuse me but you do not seem to understand the American system....

just because you dimwits voted a subversive marxist into the executive office again does not mean we have to agree with his proposals....his slim win was hardly a mandate....

Congress is the legislative part of the process....you might take notice that the voters elected a majority of Republicans in the House....and the Tea Party conservatives DO have America's back...

Without republican gerrymandering you wouldn't have a majority in the house either. The Tea Party has an approval rating on a par with Congress. The majority consider them to be out of touch with mainstream America.

waaah! have you ever seen the gerrymandering in Democrat Chicago....the worst in the country? no surprise there...

lamestream media has been sliming the tea party since its inception....most libs don't even know what it's about....all they know is "tea party bad"...

the tea party candidates were elected by people who know what the hell is going on....and who are out to fight the left wing idiocy.....that's why Obama et al hate them so much....

 

[Derideo_Te]

excuse me but you do not seem to understand the American system....

just because you dimwits voted a subversive marxist into the executive office again does not mean we have to agree with his proposals....his slim win was hardly a mandate....

Congress is the legislative part of the process....you might take notice that the voters elected a majority of Republicans in the House....and the Tea Party conservatives DO have America's back...

Without republican gerrymandering you wouldn't have a majority in the house either. The Tea Party has an approval rating on a par with Congress. The majority consider them to be out of touch with mainstream America.

Funny, Obama instructed census workers to count illegals and now they complain that the Republicans took power and drew the lines. Indeed, gerrymandering does exist in both parties. If it werent for Obamacare, it would have been democrats fudging the lines.

Your knowledge of the census leaves a lot to be desired. Your grasp of the electorate isn't all that different. Only the Tea Party voted against Obamacare. In 2010 the majority were voting their displeasure over the 2008 economic collapse. The dismal failure of the Tea Party to do anything constructive about the economy is why the Republicans were slammed in 2012. The majority understand that the Tea party stands for nothing but obstruction.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

For conservatives, it’s easy. They either place their ideology on the principle of self-ownership as written by John Locke or the no harm principle as advocated by J.S. Mill. But what does the modern day liberal trace his/her ideological principles back to? What is the foundation of their thought? It can’t be the classical liberalism of the above stated philosophers (Which calles into qustion the reason they identify as "liberals"). So who/what? Is it “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”? Certainly a modern day liberal/progressive/democrat should be able to shine some light on this question.

The first question is what is a "liberal?"

The Khmer Rouge democrats can hardly be considered "liberal." We have leftists with an agenda of revoking civil rights and establishing an authoritarian system, but the "liberals" are the Libertarians and some Republicans. There are zero "liberals" among the democrats.

Barack Obama has a lot of philosophical connection to Pol Pot, but not at all to Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Publius1787]

Without republican gerrymandering you wouldn't have a majority in the house either. The Tea Party has an approval rating on a par with Congress. The majority consider them to be out of touch with mainstream America.

Funny, Obama instructed census workers to count illegals and now they complain that the Republicans took power and drew the lines. Indeed, gerrymandering does exist in both parties. If it werent for Obamacare, it would have been democrats fudging the lines.

Your knowledge of the census leaves a lot to be desired. Your grasp of the electorate isn't all that different. Only the Tea Party voted against Obamacare. In 2010 the majority were voting their displeasure over the 2008 economic collapse. The dismal failure of the Tea Party to do anything constructive about the economy is why the Republicans were slammed in 2012. The majority understand that the Tea party stands for nothing but obstruction.

They were voting against Obama in 2010 for the reason liberals claimed people voted for Obama in 2008? And how do you define obstructionism? Conservatives blocking liberal policies? If it were the other way around would it still be obstructionism? Were democrats playing obstructionism with the lives of our troops in Iraq during the Bush years?

 

[NoNukes]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

For conservatives, it’s easy. They either place their ideology on the principle of self-ownership as written by John Locke or the no harm principle as advocated by J.S. Mill. But what does the modern day liberal trace his/her ideological principles back to? What is the foundation of their thought? It can’t be the classical liberalism of the above stated philosophers (Which calles into qustion the reason they identify as "liberals"). So who/what? Is it “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”? Certainly a modern day liberal/progressive/democrat should be able to shine some light on this question.

The first question is what is a "liberal?"

The Khmer Rouge democrats can hardly be considered "liberal." We have leftists with an agenda of revoking civil rights and establishing an authoritarian system, but the "liberals" are the Libertarians and some Republicans. There are zero "liberals" among the democrats.

Barack Obama has a lot of philosophical connection to Pol Pot, but not at all to Thomas Jefferson.

So, when people bad mouth liberals, they are not talking about Democrats, but Libertarians and some Republicans. Thank you for straightening that out for us.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Funny, Obama instructed census workers to count illegals and now they complain that the Republicans took power and drew the lines. Indeed, gerrymandering does exist in both parties. If it werent for Obamacare, it would have been democrats fudging the lines.

Your knowledge of the census leaves a lot to be desired. Your grasp of the electorate isn't all that different. Only the Tea Party voted against Obamacare. In 2010 the majority were voting their displeasure over the 2008 economic collapse. The dismal failure of the Tea Party to do anything constructive about the economy is why the Republicans were slammed in 2012. The majority understand that the Tea party stands for nothing but obstruction.

They were voting against Obama in 2010 for the reason liberals claimed people voted for Obama in 2008? And how do you define obstructionism? Conservatives blocking liberal policies? If it were the other way around would it still be obstructionism? Were democrats playing obstructionism with the lives of our troops in Iraq during the Bush years?

Thank you for confirming that your knowledge of the electorate is lacking. Democrats did not obstruct Iraq war funding bills. You would be better served by fact checking before you cast aspersions.

 

[BreezeWood]

Were democrats playing obstructionism with the lives of our troops in Iraq during the Bush years?

define democrats ...

 

[Publius1787]

Your knowledge of the census leaves a lot to be desired. Your grasp of the electorate isn't all that different. Only the Tea Party voted against Obamacare. In 2010 the majority were voting their displeasure over the 2008 economic collapse. The dismal failure of the Tea Party to do anything constructive about the economy is why the Republicans were slammed in 2012. The majority understand that the Tea party stands for nothing but obstruction.

They were voting against Obama in 2010 for the reason liberals claimed people voted for Obama in 2008? And how do you define obstructionism? Conservatives blocking liberal policies? If it were the other way around would it still be obstructionism? Were democrats playing obstructionism with the lives of our troops in Iraq during the Bush years?

Thank you for confirming that your knowledge of the electorate is lacking. Democrats did not obstruct Iraq war funding bills. You would be better served by fact checking before you cast aspersions.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ajCupzwAcE]Democrats Cave In Once Again - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efIpuSLlJ40]Bush calls on Congress to approve war funding - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgKXKTbFFrU]Sen. Harry Reid questioned on funding the Iraq War - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mustang]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

For conservatives, it’s easy. They either place their ideology on the principle of self-ownership as written by John Locke or the no harm principle as advocated by J.S. Mill. But what does the modern day liberal trace his/her ideological principles back to? What is the foundation of their thought? It can’t be the classical liberalism of the above stated philosophers (Which calles into qustion the reason they identify as "liberals"). So who/what? Is it “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”? Certainly a modern day liberal/progressive/democrat should be able to shine some light on this question.

Epicureanism.

 

[Derideo_Te]

They were voting against Obama in 2010 for the reason liberals claimed people voted for Obama in 2008? And how do you define obstructionism? Conservatives blocking liberal policies? If it were the other way around would it still be obstructionism? Were democrats playing obstructionism with the lives of our troops in Iraq during the Bush years?

Thank you for confirming that your knowledge of the electorate is lacking. Democrats did not obstruct Iraq war funding bills. You would be better served by fact checking before you cast aspersions.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ajCupzwAcE]Democrats Cave In Once Again - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efIpuSLlJ40]Bush calls on Congress to approve war funding - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgKXKTbFFrU]Sen. Harry Reid questioned on funding the Iraq War - YouTube[/ame]

Thank you for confirming that the Democrats did not obstruct any Iraq war funding.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, when people bad mouth liberals, they are not talking about Democrats, but Libertarians and some Republicans. Thank you for straightening that out for us.

The term has been bastardized, perverted.

democrats once were the liberal party. But starting with Wilson, began to move to a leftist, rather than liberal, position. Obviously FDR was a Fabian, and had little in common with the concepts of "liberal." But the name stuck and continued to be used, inappropriately.

When people speak honestly of democrats (bad mouth,) they refer to leftists. Those who seek a collectivist, authoritarian system - not those who seek liberty and free markets.

 

[Publius1787]

Thank you for confirming that your knowledge of the electorate is lacking. Democrats did not obstruct Iraq war funding bills. You would be better served by fact checking before you cast aspersions.

Thank you for confirming that the Democrats did not obstruct any Iraq war funding.

Do you always find it necessary to assure yourself in such a manner? Speaks volumes.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Thank you for confirming that the Democrats did not obstruct any Iraq war funding.

Do you always find it necessary to assure yourself in such a manner? Speaks volumes.

Thanking someone for conceding a point is the polite thing to do.

 

[Freewill]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?



That which does the greatest number of people the greatest amount of good for the greatest length of time.

And with the modern welfare state how is that working out for ya? Again, another example of the opposite outcome from a liberals stated intent.

You'll have to answer that welfare state question yourself, what with it being your side that incurred massive war debts, allowed all our jobs to be sent out of the country, allowed massive mortgage company fraud, bailed out the banks instead off nationalizing them, killed all jobs programs, and gave massive revenue-killing tax breaks to those that least deserve it.

Blah blah blah blah f.ing blah. Can't you sheep ever bleat a different tune?

 

[Publius1787]

Thank you for confirming that the Democrats did not obstruct any Iraq war funding.

Do you always find it necessary to assure yourself in such a manner? Speaks volumes.

Thanking someone for conceding a point is the polite thing to do.

Yes, re-read your reply.

 

[uscitizen]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

for me it is the fact that 85% of what right wingers say is wrong.