Disgusted With Conservatism, America Was Born Liberal.

Liberals have completely turned a 180 from what they use to be.
Coming from the word "liberty"...liberals were people who believed that people do best when left to their own volition.

Clearly...not what liberals are today. They should call them something else...like maybe "dependals" - those who believe that people do best only when government is there to provide everything to them from cradle to grave.
 
Liberals have completely turned a 180 from what they use to be.
Coming from the word "liberty"...liberals were people who believed that people do best when left to their own volition.

Clearly...not what liberals are today. They should call them something else...like maybe "dependals" - those who believe that people do best only when government is there to provide everything to them from cradle to grave.

Liberal thinking has not changed but the label has. If you give people true freedom, along with the responsibility that managing freedom requires, you get people who become competition for the status quo and the status quo has the resources to use propaganda to demonize labels so the conversation can be diverted away from the issues.

Liberalism is in line with fiscal responsibility and in line with government and personal responsibility in people. Freedom means free and liberals want to be free to smoke what they want and marry whom they want. The status quo (them that has control of the resources) used the social side of liberal thinking to scare all the red necks and bible thumpers into throwing their lot in with the conservatives using the 'trickle down' economic theory as bait.

Hell, I bought into it. I voted republican quite a few times but enough is enough. A very important point is that the democrats are no closer to true liberal thinking that the republicans are. Just give me a tax code that 75% of people believe is fair and spend as little money as is required to make working in America a little more efficient than last year. No bail outs, no bullshit. Just build infrastructure we can all share and keep the streets clean for the tourists.

Think liberally... please don't bust that crimpie house and crush the dreams of the young agricultural entrepreneur within who just wants to get off fake disability payments of $650 a month by doing something he's good at and he loves: growing and selling quality, grown in America vegetables for the mind.
 
Last edited:
Hey, you know what would be cool? If fucking idiots learned to think for themselves instead of regurgitating other people's thoughts.

The word 'sheeple' is most appropriate.

:lol:

Yep. It's a challenge.... think for yourself and start a thread based on your own ideas, not someone else's.... very few manage to achieve such a task.

The copied text was properly quoted and the purpose of an opening post is to start a conversation.

Mission accomplished.



Besides, why stifle yet another perfectly good freedom around here with a rule that outside sources can't be used to start a conversation? Imagine how many threads the mods would have to delete that start with links to somewhere.

The whole loss of another freedom aside, can we REALLY afford that much more government on our tight budget?

Come on Girl....... Think liberally!
 
Joe is the kind of lib I would never argue with (and i love arguing with libs) because he is beyond an idiot, and ignorant of history.

a little knowledge is an absurd thing.

Today's conservatives are basically classical liberals. Today's liberals are basically marxists.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: The Rabbi​

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Thanks Rabbi!

Funniest fucking thing I've read on the board all year!

The only people more concerned with keeping the status quo than todays 'Democrats' are today 'Republicans'! ALL of whom are CONSERVATIVE!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, God...​

I think I just peed my pants a little! :lol:

I would have to disagree as well. I used to think that's what conservatives were, but I have found myself a bit disenchanted with the old gaurd of 'new conservatives'. I think they are fighting the wrong battles and cater to the wrong voter base and in a lot of ways to reflect a lot of the founding principles....at least not in what the actually do. As ed mentioned they talk a good game. I find myself to be more libertarian these days.
 
are you seriously comparing classic liberalism to liberals of today? I think you need the education
 
"Classical Liberal" is the biggest crock of shit spewed by Conservatives in ages. No such thing. Liberal thinking is constantly changing. Conservatism is stuck in tradition.
 
"Classical Liberal" is the biggest crock of shit spewed by Conservatives in ages. No such thing. Liberal thinking is constantly changing. Conservatism is stuck in tradition.

So by your own admission, what is considered liberal today is not the same liberal as back then, seeing as how it has 'evolved'. Man that's funny to say. DEvolved would be more accurate.

This de-evolution is more recent than today's libs would like admit. No quote illustrates how much liberalism has changed in a relatively short time, than that by JFK. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country."
 
Last edited:
Yes, clearly, the Founders established the USA because the Brits failed to offer single payer health care.

And Gandhi, Christ, Einstein, Shakespeare and Michelangelo were all Liberals.

Uh huh.
 
Liberals have completely turned a 180 from what they use to be.
Coming from the word "liberty"...liberals were people who believed that people do best when left to their own volition.

Clearly...not what liberals are today. They should call them something else...like maybe "dependals" - those who believe that people do best only when government is there to provide everything to them from cradle to grave.
Socialists/progressives in the Democrat Party stole the term back in the 1920s, to obfuscate their true collectivist authoritarian political agenda.

Today, there's nothing more illiberal than a so-called liberal.
 
Classical liberal represents today's small l libertarian more so than today's traditional conservative.

I find it ironic, or maybe not so much, that Rabbi of all posters would try and make that comparison, considering the guy doesn't know jack shit about what a libertarian is.
 

Yep. It's a challenge.... think for yourself and start a thread based on your own ideas, not someone else's.... very few manage to achieve such a task.

The copied text was properly quoted and the purpose of an opening post is to start a conversation.

Mission accomplished.



Besides, why stifle yet another perfectly good freedom around here with a rule that outside sources can't be used to start a conversation? Imagine how many threads the mods would have to delete that start with links to somewhere.

The whole loss of another freedom aside, can we REALLY afford that much more government on our tight budget?

Come on Girl....... Think liberally!

I do think.... 'liberally'... I just happen to think it would be cool to get some original thought instead of regurgitation. That's just me.... I'm more into individual thought than reading other people's crap and blabbering about it.
 
Liberals have completely turned a 180 from what they use to be.
Coming from the word "liberty"...liberals were people who believed that people do best when left to their own volition.

Clearly...not what liberals are today. They should call them something else...like maybe "dependals" - those who believe that people do best only when government is there to provide everything to them from cradle to grave.
Socialists/progressives in the Democrat Party stole the term back in the 1920s, to obfuscate their true collectivist authoritarian political agenda.

Today, there's nothing more illiberal than a so-called liberal.


Average saying: "Don't give the wrong guy a Label Maker for Christmas."
 
Last edited:
Disgusted with conservatism, America was born liberal.

Amazing what one can learn from a history book... check out what it was to be 'liberal' in the worlds power base, Europe, during our first 75 years as a nation.

Sign me up...

A SHORT HISTORY OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION by John B. Harrison said:
1. GENERAL NATURE OF NINETEENTH-CENTURY LIBERALISM (19th century = 1800’s)

Liberalism is a difficult term to define. It has various shades and from time to time changes its complexion. During the nineteenth century, liberalism had developed into an ideology – a loose set of beliefs about the world and how it should be.

The roots of liberalism stretch back through the French Revolution and the Enlightenment to the seventeenth century political thoughts of John Locke and others. At the base of liberalism was a belief in individualism. Liberals optimistically believed that individuals, unaided and free from outside forces or institutions, should pursue their own interests. Individuals deserved equality before the law and the right to embark on careers open to talent. Government should be constitutional and based on popular sovereignty. The people should be represented by an elected legislature, to whom government ministers were responsible. Government should be limited in its powers, with individual freedoms as freedom of the press, of speech, and of assembly guaranteed. The role of government should be that of a passive police officer, enforcing laws and contracts. Government should interfere in economic life as little as possible, leaving that realm to private enterprise. Liberals were also anticlerical; that is, they opposed interference in government by organized religion. During the first half of the nineteenth century, liberals were usually nationalists, since nationalism at that time was primarily concerned with freeing peoples from alien rule and uniting them under one flag, and nationalism seemed consistent with popular sovereignty, constitutional government, and people’s rights. Liberals, particularly during the first half of the nineteenth century, were not democrats; liberals wanted to limit the right to vote to those holding wealth and the educated. Only later in the nineteenth century did liberals begin to favor universal male suffrage.

Liberals typically came from the middle class –the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie, the professionals, and the intellectuals. Their chief opponents were the vested interests of traditional society – the aristocracy, the clergy, and the military – seeking to retain their favored positions. The peasantry was still generally conservative, strongly influenced by the clergy and sometimes by the aristocracy, and not very active in politics. Liberals were sometimes contemptuous of the propertyless masses below, forming alliances with them only so far as necessary. Middle-class liberals’ contempt for those below them was often a mask for fear; their contempt of the aristocrats above them was tinged with envy.

Liberals stood in contrast to conservatives. Liberals were optimistic about the individual; conservatives were pessimistic. Liberals had great faith in reason; conservatives argued that reason was too abstract. Liberals favored many of the ideas and reforms of the Enlightenment and French Revolution; conservatives attacked them. Liberals valued the individual over society; conservatives felt the individual was secondary. For liberals the state was an agent of the people; for conservatives the state was a growing organism not to be tampered with.


Their chief opponents were the vested interests of traditional society – the aristocracy, the clergy, and the military – seeking to retain their favored positions. The peasantry was still generally conservative, strongly influenced by the clergy and sometimes by the aristocracy, and not very active in politics.

The more things change, the more they remain, eh?

-Joe

Too bad today's liberals want to do exactly the opposite of what the founding fathers envisioned. Maybe the reason today's conservatives like the founding fathers so much is they are yesterday's liberals.
 
"Classical Liberal" is the biggest crock of shit spewed by Conservatives in ages. No such thing. Liberal thinking is constantly changing. Conservatism is stuck in tradition.
Yes, liberal thinking is constantly changing. It used to be about individual liberties. Now it's about being subordinate to the government. The collective is more important than the individual.
 
Disgusted with conservatism, America was born liberal.

Amazing what one can learn from a history book... check out what it was to be 'liberal' in the worlds power base, Europe, during our first 75 years as a nation.

Sign me up...

1. GENERAL NATURE OF NINETEENTH-CENTURY LIBERALISM (19th century = 1800’s)

Liberalism is a difficult term to define. It has various shades and from time to time changes its complexion. During the nineteenth century, liberalism had developed into an ideology – a loose set of beliefs about the world and how it should be.

The roots of liberalism stretch back through the French Revolution and the Enlightenment to the seventeenth century political thoughts of John Locke and others. At the base of liberalism was a belief in individualism. Liberals optimistically believed that individuals, unaided and free from outside forces or institutions, should pursue their own interests. Individuals deserved equality before the law and the right to embark on careers open to talent. Government should be constitutional and based on popular sovereignty. The people should be represented by an elected legislature, to whom government ministers were responsible. Government should be limited in its powers, with individual freedoms as freedom of the press, of speech, and of assembly guaranteed. The role of government should be that of a passive police officer, enforcing laws and contracts. Government should interfere in economic life as little as possible, leaving that realm to private enterprise. Liberals were also anticlerical; that is, they opposed interference in government by organized religion. During the first half of the nineteenth century, liberals were usually nationalists, since nationalism at that time was primarily concerned with freeing peoples from alien rule and uniting them under one flag, and nationalism seemed consistent with popular sovereignty, constitutional government, and people’s rights. Liberals, particularly during the first half of the nineteenth century, were not democrats; liberals wanted to limit the right to vote to those holding wealth and the educated. Only later in the nineteenth century did liberals begin to favor universal male suffrage.

Liberals typically came from the middle class –the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie, the professionals, and the intellectuals. Their chief opponents were the vested interests of traditional society – the aristocracy, the clergy, and the military – seeking to retain their favored positions. The peasantry was still generally conservative, strongly influenced by the clergy and sometimes by the aristocracy, and not very active in politics. Liberals were sometimes contemptuous of the propertyless masses below, forming alliances with them only so far as necessary. Middle-class liberals’ contempt for those below them was often a mask for fear; their contempt of the aristocrats above them was tinged with envy.

Liberals stood in contrast to conservatives. Liberals were optimistic about the individual; conservatives were pessimistic. Liberals had great faith in reason; conservatives argued that reason was too abstract. Liberals favored many of the ideas and reforms of the Enlightenment and French Revolution; conservatives attacked them. Liberals valued the individual over society; conservatives felt the individual was secondary. For liberals the state was an agent of the people; for conservatives the state was a growing organism not to be tampered with.


Their chief opponents were the vested interests of traditional society – the aristocracy, the clergy, and the military – seeking to retain their favored positions. The peasantry was still generally conservative, strongly influenced by the clergy and sometimes by the aristocracy, and not very active in politics.

The more things change, the more they remain, eh?

-Joe

Too bad today's liberals want to do exactly the opposite of what the founding fathers envisioned. Maybe the reason today's conservatives like the founding fathers so much is they are yesterday's liberals.

Perhaps it's high time we start calling folks who promote keeping the government in control over everything "Democrats and Republicans" and learn a little somethin' from our history as we foment a second LIBERAL revolution.
 
Last edited:
OK, Frank. To their credit, modern liberals, Social Security, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Disease Control, Environmental Protection Agency, workplace safety laws, and so many more agencies and laws that protect the citizens of this nation. Almost all of these laws and agencies were fought by conservatives, all stating that they were doing so in the name of freedom.

And to think that it only cost us tens of trillion of dollars.

Librulism, such a deal!!

What's 100 trillion dollars among 300 million people over 100 years?

It's an almost reasonable cost for social security and safety that's what it is!

Why is protecting me and my neighbors from The People of Yemen prioritized as a no limit expenditure and protecting me and my neighbors from DOW chemical and our own bad luck "not the responsibility of government"?

Liberalism. A great deal until they hand you the bill.

Do you live in Bhopal, India?

You and your neighbors should pay close attention to what goes on around you. If Soros is financing a chemical processing plant upstream from you, that's something YOU Need to get out in front of.
 
OK, Frank. To their credit, modern liberals, Social Security, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Disease Control, Environmental Protection Agency, workplace safety laws, and so many more agencies and laws that protect the citizens of this nation. Almost all of these laws and agencies were fought by conservatives, all stating that they were doing so in the name of freedom.

And to think that it only cost us tens of trillion of dollars.

Librulism, such a deal!!

What's 100 trillion dollars among 300 million people over 100 years?

It's an almost reasonable cost for social security and safety that's what it is!

Why is protecting me and my neighbors from The People of Yemen prioritized as a no limit expenditure and protecting me and my neighbors from DOW chemical and our own bad luck "not the responsibility of government"?

$3333.33 a year per person. Since about half of adults do not pay federal income tax that doubles the bill to $6666.66 per year. Factor in that about half of that 300,000,000 are children and that doubles again. I bet that $13,333.33 per year out of your pocket sounds a lot more expensive than the rather vague figures you posted.
 

Forum List

Back
Top