Can someone show me ONE liberal ideal that has actually worked?

[Foxfyre]

Bush was a conservative about like Nixon was a conservative. At least if Nixon could have lived through the Reagan years. Strong foreign policy, lower taxes.
Of course the old Democratic Party c.1965 was for pretty much the same things.
But I have not seen where he didnt want gov't to finance certain things. And with the steel tariffs he went protectionist--a dismal policy failure.

Ah I had forgotten the steel tariffs too, and yes, if the Left hadn't decided to make Bush their perpetual whipping boy and had not hated him with such vitriolic passion, that among his other leftist tendencies should have made him their darling. But you have to add that into the negative column on the conservative side.

I too think there are similarities between Bush and Nixon, except as politicians go, I think Bush was about as honest as we will ever see and I can't say the same of Nixon. Also Nixon distrusted and/or was afraid of everybody; and Bush wasn't afraid of anybody.

However, in the wacky world of politics, fearlessness and honesty does not necessarily translate into competence, and dishonesty and paranoia doesn't necessary translate into sub par performance. We have had better Presidents that President Bush was even though I continue to like him. And we have had worse Presidents than Nixon even though I found him difficult to like.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bush inherited a tought situation: recession, 9/11, emergence of terrorism as a new issue. He was bound to make mistakes.
But I think he did a fine job overall, despite some serious mistakes. I know Gore would have muffed all of the issues.
The left never forgave Bush for the election in 2000. Hell, I'll bet there are still people here who think Gore actually won.

 

[rightwinger]

Bush inherited a tought situation: recession, 9/11, emergence of terrorism as a new issue. He was bound to make mistakes.
But I think he did a fine job overall, despite some serious mistakes. I know Gore would have muffed all of the issues.
The left never forgave Bush for the election in 2000. Hell, I'll bet there are still people here who think Gore actually won.

He inherited a balanced budget. He ignored terrorism as an issue while attempting to restore the Star Wars Program that he saw as the real threat to America.
The left accepted the Bush Presidency in 2000 and overwhelmingly supported him after 9-11. It was not until Bush abused the good will support in fighting terrorism and attacked Iraq, engaged in torture and botched two wars that the left and the world as a whole, turned on him

I know Gore would have muffed all of the issues.


The amazing Karnak speaks again with his "what if" revisions of history

 

[The Rabbi]

Bush inherited a tought situation: recession, 9/11, emergence of terrorism as a new issue. He was bound to make mistakes.
But I think he did a fine job overall, despite some serious mistakes. I know Gore would have muffed all of the issues.
The left never forgave Bush for the election in 2000. Hell, I'll bet there are still people here who think Gore actually won.

He inherited a balanced budget. He ignored terrorism as an issue while attempting to restore the Star Wars Program that he saw as the real threat to America.
The left accepted the Bush Presidency in 2000 and overwhelmingly supported him after 9-11. It was not until Bush abused the good will support in fighting terrorism and attacked Iraq, engaged in torture and botched two wars that the left and the world as a whole, turned on him

I know Gore would have muffed all of the issues.


The amazing Karnak speaks again with his "what if" revisions of history

Is today "Opposite Day" where you live?

 

[Liberty]

You mean the Consent of the Governed of Locke and other leading liberal philosophers?




You mean like the conservatives who fought for slavery?


Right...

The reason it's called 'liberalism' is because it's grounded in individual liberty.

You seem to redefine your terms whenever you're wrong.

Listen, idiot. Classical liberal = modern conservative.
modern liberal = pro-socialism / welfare state

And you call other's idiots
Make up whatever definitions you want
The delusions of hacks are amazing.

Yeah, read a history book, retard.

 

[Foxfyre]

Bush inherited a tought situation: recession, 9/11, emergence of terrorism as a new issue. He was bound to make mistakes.
But I think he did a fine job overall, despite some serious mistakes. I know Gore would have muffed all of the issues.
The left never forgave Bush for the election in 2000. Hell, I'll bet there are still people here who think Gore actually won.

There is much truth in that. I can't accept his more leftist big government tendencies as the right way to go, but I do expect history to be much kinder to President Bush than his press or poll ratings have been.

 

[007]

Bush inherited a tought situation: recession, 9/11, emergence of terrorism as a new issue. He was bound to make mistakes.
But I think he did a fine job overall, despite some serious mistakes. I know Gore would have muffed all of the issues.
The left never forgave Bush for the election in 2000. Hell, I'll bet there are still people here who think Gore actually won.

He inherited a balanced budget. He ignored terrorism as an issue while attempting to restore the Star Wars Program that he saw as the real threat to America.
The left accepted the Bush Presidency in 2000 and overwhelmingly supported him after 9-11. It was not until Bush abused the good will support in fighting terrorism and attacked Iraq, engaged in torture and botched two wars that the left and the world as a whole, turned on him

I know Gore would have muffed all of the issues.


The amazing Karnak speaks again with his "what if" revisions of history

Bullshit, and bullshit. NO ONE "ignored terrorism" more than the women molesting, sex adict himself, bubba, a.k.a., slick willie, clinton. He was to busy groping women in hall ways and dipping his cigars in vagina juice. He was an utter and total FAILURE on terrorism on a scale of which has never been seen since.

 

[rightwinger]

Bush inherited a tought situation: recession, 9/11, emergence of terrorism as a new issue. He was bound to make mistakes.
But I think he did a fine job overall, despite some serious mistakes. I know Gore would have muffed all of the issues.
The left never forgave Bush for the election in 2000. Hell, I'll bet there are still people here who think Gore actually won.

He inherited a balanced budget. He ignored terrorism as an issue while attempting to restore the Star Wars Program that he saw as the real threat to America.
The left accepted the Bush Presidency in 2000 and overwhelmingly supported him after 9-11. It was not until Bush abused the good will support in fighting terrorism and attacked Iraq, engaged in torture and botched two wars that the left and the world as a whole, turned on him

I know Gore would have muffed all of the issues.


The amazing Karnak speaks again with his "what if" revisions of history

Bullshit, and bullshit. NO ONE "ignored terrorism" more than the women molesting, sex adict himself, bubba, a.k.a., slick willie, clinton. He was to busy groping women in hall ways and dipping his cigars in vagina juice. He was an utter and total FAILURE on terrorism on a scale of which has never been seen since.

Someone has issues

 

[editec]

Can someone show me ONE liberal ideal that has actually worked?

The constitutional United States of America, which was, after all a liberal idea at the time, worked out fairly well for some of us.

It's not perfect, by a long shot, but all in all, it was pretty good liberal idea at the time.

 

[The Rabbi]

Can someone show me ONE liberal ideal that has actually worked?

The constitutional United States of America, which was, after all a liberal idea at the time, worked out fairly well for some of us.

It's not perfect, by a long shot, but all in all, it was pretty good liberal idea at the time.

Too bad it has nothing to do with today's use of the term liberal. And it is frequently reviled in liberal circles as outdated and obsolete. That includes the current undocumented worker in the Oval Office.
Fail.

 

[rightwinger]

Can someone show me ONE liberal ideal that has actually worked?

The constitutional United States of America, which was, after all a liberal idea at the time, worked out fairly well for some of us.

It's not perfect, by a long shot, but all in all, it was pretty good liberal idea at the time.

Too bad it has nothing to do with today's use of the term liberal. And it is frequently reviled in liberal circles as outdated and obsolete. That includes the current undocumented worker in the Oval Office.
Fail.

The founding fathers were the ultimate liberals of their day. The concept that a man working in a field would have the same voting power as the man who owned the field was decidedly liberal.
At the time, there were classes of people with royalty given a birthright to rule. The concept of all men being created equal was the ultimate in liberal thinking.

The founding fathers were liberals.........the Torries who supported the crown were conservatives

By definition, the term liberal evolves as new challenges to a society are encountered. Liberals and conservatives are identified by the standards of their day......not by the standards 200 years later

 

[AmericanFirst]

Famous Liberals of their day

1. Jesus Christ
2. Gahndi
3. Thomas Jefferson
4. Abe Lincoln
5. Teddy Roosevelt
6. FDR
7. JFK
8. Martin Luther King

Famous Conservatives of their day:

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Saddam Hussein
The Pope (all of them)
Stalin
Mao
Bin Laden
Hitler
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Anyone who fights change and wants to keep things the same. Anyone who is against civil rights and education. These are signs of being conservative.

Stalin, Mao, Hitler,Hussein were all far left which is the problem.

 

[The Rabbi]

The constitutional United States of America, which was, after all a liberal idea at the time, worked out fairly well for some of us.

It's not perfect, by a long shot, but all in all, it was pretty good liberal idea at the time.

Too bad it has nothing to do with today's use of the term liberal. And it is frequently reviled in liberal circles as outdated and obsolete. That includes the current undocumented worker in the Oval Office.
Fail.

The founding fathers were the ultimate liberals of their day. The concept that a man working in a field would have the same voting power as the man who owned the field was decidedly liberal.
At the time, there were classes of people with royalty given a birthright to rule. The concept of all men being created equal was the ultimate in liberal thinking.

The founding fathers were liberals.........the Torries who supported the crown were conservatives

By definition, the term liberal evolves as new challenges to a society are encountered. Liberals and conservatives are identified by the standards of their day......not by the standards 200 years later

I'd suggest getting yourself an education before you are revealed as a total dope. The man working the field did not necessarily have a right to vote. There were usually voter requirements, including land ownership.
What he did have was the right to equal treatment before the law. This is something today's liberals, e.g. Sotomayor, want to repeal.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The founding fathers were the ultimate liberals of their day. The concept that a man working in a field would have the same voting power as the man who owned the field was decidedly liberal.

The FF didn't institute universal suffrage by any stretch. ONly the landed gentry could vote.

At the time, there were classes of people with royalty given a birthright to rule. The concept of all men being created equal was the ultimate in liberal thinking.

Except they took the 'men' part literally and only applied it to those who were White and owned land.

 

[Foxfyre]

Can someone show me ONE liberal ideal that has actually worked?

The constitutional United States of America, which was, after all a liberal idea at the time, worked out fairly well for some of us.

It's not perfect, by a long shot, but all in all, it was pretty good liberal idea at the time.

Too bad it has nothing to do with today's use of the term liberal. And it is frequently reviled in liberal circles as outdated and obsolete. That includes the current undocumented worker in the Oval Office.
Fail.

Bingo. I think our liberal friends do not wish to look at what the modern definitions of liberalism are nor do they understand how the term was defined in the days of the Founders.

The Constitution, as the Founders intended it, secures the unalienable rights of the people, strictly limits the power and scope of the federal government, and affords the people freedom to order whatever society they wish to have. All these concepts are squarely modern American conservative ideals and are anathema to modern American liberals.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

There is no 'modern definitions of liberalism'. The definition of Liberalism remains the same as it always has:

(1)(From the Latin liberalis, "of freedom; worthy of a free man, gentlemanlike, courteous, generous): one who believes in liberty

(2) An adherent of Liberalism

nor do they understand how the term was defined in the days of the Founders.

Can't speak for the Liberals, but this Leftist has been referring you to their love of Locke for some time now.

All these concepts are squarely modern American conservative ideals

Conservatives, by definition have no ideals. Conservatives, by definition have no common ideology but are merely the reactionary forces which seek to preserve the status quo or restore the status quo ante, whatever it might be. Conservatives in American history have included the Tories, the KKK, and those who bombed the Freedom Riders bus.

If you claim to adhere to Liberalism, then you are claiming to be a Liberal- and yet you attack Liberalism and scream bloody murder when someone points out that the FF were Liberals.

If you claim that a given person or party does not adhere to the Liberal ideology or one of its subsets, then why do you call them Liberals instead of accusing them of not being Liberals at all?

 

[Meister]

Just like definition of "General Welfare" hasn't changed, right?

 

[Avatar4321]

I can name one:

The mass murder of anti-communists.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is no 'modern definitions of liberalism'. The definition of Liberalism remains the same as it always has:

(1)(From the Latin liberalis, "of freedom; worthy of a free man, gentlemanlike, courteous, generous): one who believes in liberty

(2) An adherent of Liberalism

nor do they understand how the term was defined in the days of the Founders.

Can't speak for the Liberals, but this Leftist has been referring you to their love of Locke for some time now.

All these concepts are squarely modern American conservative ideals

Conservatives, by definition have no ideals. Conservatives, by definition have no common ideology but are merely the reactionary forces which seek to preserve the status quo or restore the status quo ante, whatever it might be. Conservatives in American history have included the Tories, the KKK, and those who bombed the Freedom Riders bus.

If you claim to adhere to Liberalism, then you are claiming to be a Liberal- and yet you attack Liberalism and scream bloody murder when someone points out that the FF were Liberals.

If you claim that a given person or party does not adhere to the Liberal ideology or one of its subsets, then why do you call them Liberals instead of accusing them of not being Liberals at all?

Baloney. Modern American liberalism favors big, authoritarian government and approves cradle to grave security. It objects to government infringing on what liberals want to do, but approves laws that prevent others from doing what the liberals don't want them to do. It places hope and authority in selected personalities that are exalted and must be defended at all costs. It has little understanding for and even less respect for God given unalienable rights and Locke's views of property is anathema to them. It makes victims of the poor and certain law breakers thereby encouraging and abetting poverty and criminality, while despising the rich and devising ways to make the rich much less rich. It has little appreciation for the great nation that America was intended to be and has been and often disrespects it, its flag, and the common values that were once shared by all Americans.

Modern American conservatism by contrast loves its country, respects the flag as the symbol of the blood and treasure that went into its creation, and holds inviolate the God given unalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. It wants government to secure those rights and otherwise leave the people alone to form whatever society they wish to have. It promotes the concept of a system that allows the people to govern themselves and chart their own destinies.

And both have little or no relationship to dictionary terms defining nouns, adjectives, and adverbs.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

There is no 'modern definitions of liberalism'. The definition of Liberalism remains the same as it always has:

(1)(From the Latin liberalis, "of freedom; worthy of a free man, gentlemanlike, courteous, generous): one who believes in liberty

(2) An adherent of Liberalism

nor do they understand how the term was defined in the days of the Founders.

Can't speak for the Liberals, but this Leftist has been referring you to their love of Locke for some time now.

All these concepts are squarely modern American conservative ideals

Conservatives, by definition have no ideals. Conservatives, by definition have no common ideology but are merely the reactionary forces which seek to preserve the status quo or restore the status quo ante, whatever it might be. Conservatives in American history have included the Tories, the KKK, and those who bombed the Freedom Riders bus.

If you claim to adhere to Liberalism, then you are claiming to be a Liberal- and yet you attack Liberalism and scream bloody murder when someone points out that the FF were Liberals.

If you claim that a given person or party does not adhere to the Liberal ideology or one of its subsets, then why do you call them Liberals instead of accusing them of not being Liberals at all?

Baloney.

Those are the definitions of the words. Those are the facts. Deal with it.

Modern American liberalism favors big, authoritarian government .

No, they don't. Nor did did they ever nor can they ever, for such things are contrary to Liberal ideology. Anyone supporting what you describe is, by definition not a liberal.

Words have real meanings. Someone is not a doctor merely because they call themselves a doctor. They are a doctor by definition if they hold a doctorate (or equivalent degree), practice or practiced medicine or are a teacher (doctoris) and the term is being used in the archaic sense (such as to refer to ancient 'doctors' prior to the introduction of the familiar education and merit system).

A socialist calling himself a liberal becomes a liberal no more than an angel calling himself God becomes God, a conqueror calling himself a liberator becomes a liberator, or a lunatic calling himself the reincarnated Christ becomes the Messiah.

Modern American conservatism by contrast loves its country, respects the flag as the symbol of the blood and treasure that went into its creation, and holds inviolate the God given unalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Sounds like Nationalism and the Religious Right more than anything else.

And both have little or no relationship to dictionary terms

So the meaning of words is unimportant when reality gets in the way of your hackery? I referred you to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy-0 I suggest you give it a look.