Famous Liberals in our history

[Fatality]

I'll give you FDR. He was a man who believed that the average man was not capable of dealing with the world around him. As a result, he spent his life trying to construct a government that would both cradle the individual and insert itself into the lives of the individuals.

FDR was willing to look at what happens if the average man is dealt a series of conditions that were beyond his ability to deal with.

what a load of SHIT! so FDR was a superhuman and eveyone else was incapable and stupid, gotcha ya fucking wingnut!

 

[Intense]

FDR prolonged the Depression. FDR caused untold misery.

 

[Intense]

My Union is The USA? What's Yours? Can't serve two Masters.

 

[rightwinger]

what a load of SHIT! so FDR was a superhuman and eveyone else was incapable and stupid, gotcha ya fucking wingnut!

When compared to the republican braintrust of his time, FDR was superhuman

Republicans mouthed the same nonsense they do today..
Let things take care of themselves, poor people are poor because they deserve it

Isolate the US from the rest of the world, their war will not affect us

Thankfully, we had FDR to lead us through the depression and WWII

 

[Intense]

what a load of SHIT! so FDR was a superhuman and eveyone else was incapable and stupid, gotcha ya fucking wingnut!

When compared to the republican braintrust of his time, FDR was superhuman

Republicans mouthed the same nonsense they do today..
Let things take care of themselves, poor people are poor because they deserve it

Isolate the US from the rest of the world, their war will not affect us

Thankfully, we had FDR to lead us through the depression and WWII

That's sure what the History books say. Imagine that. That's sure what we were taught in school, huh.

We were sold on an Ideology, before we were old enough to reason for our selves.

 

[rightwinger]

what a load of SHIT! so FDR was a superhuman and eveyone else was incapable and stupid, gotcha ya fucking wingnut!

When compared to the republican braintrust of his time, FDR was superhuman

Republicans mouthed the same nonsense they do today..
Let things take care of themselves, poor people are poor because they deserve it

Isolate the US from the rest of the world, their war will not affect us

Thankfully, we had FDR to lead us through the depression and WWII

That's sure what the History books say. Imagine that. That's sure what we were taught in school, huh.

We were sold on an Ideology, before we were old enough to reason for our selves.

And what does history say of our conservatives of the day? Out of touch, protectionist, fought every major initiative.

If America had followed the advice of the right wing in the 30s and 40s we would still be a second rate power

 

[Oddball]

what a load of SHIT! so FDR was a superhuman and eveyone else was incapable and stupid, gotcha ya fucking wingnut!

When compared to the republican braintrust of his time, FDR was superhuman

Republicans mouthed the same nonsense they do today..
Let things take care of themselves, poor people are poor because they deserve it

Isolate the US from the rest of the world, their war will not affect us

Thankfully, we had FDR to lead us through the depression and WWII

ROFLMFAO!!

You know EVERYTHING about republicans back then, but important historical facts about the socialists in the Democrat Party are irrelevant footnotes!

Partisan schmucks are da goofiest people!!

 

[Oddball]

FDR prolonged the Depression. FDR caused untold misery.

Great Myths of the Great Depression [Mackinac Center]

 

[rightwinger]

Conservatives in action

1937 Wagner Housing Act opposed by rural and southern congressmen led by Sen. Harry Byrd of VA; southerners also opposed 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act that sought to eliminate child labor that was widely used in the South and that established minimum wage and maximum hours for all workers, including blacks; southerners also killed the anti-lynching bill in 1938 with a 6-week filibuster

 

[del]

Conservatives in action

1937 Wagner Housing Act opposed by rural and southern congressmen led by Sen. Harry Byrd of VA; southerners also opposed 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act that sought to eliminate child labor that was widely used in the South and that established minimum wage and maximum hours for all workers, including blacks; southerners also killed the anti-lynching bill in 1938 with a 6-week filibuster

so northerners' hands were clean?

 

[code1211]

Jesus was the ultimate liberal progressive revolutionary of all history. The conservative religious and social structure that He defied hated and crucified Him. They examined His life and did not like what they saw. He aligned Himself with the poor and the oppressed. He challenged the religious orthodoxy of His day. He advocated pacifism and loving our enemies. He liberated women and minorities from oppression. He healed on the Sabbath and forgave adulterers and prostitutes. He associated with drunks and other social outcasts. He rebuked the religious right of His day because they embraced the letter of the law instead of the Spirit. He loved sinners and called them to Himself. Jesus was the original Liberal. He was a progressive, and He was judged and hated for it. It was the self-righteous religionists that He rebuked and He called them hypocrites.

If Jesus is the inbodied Son of God with that link to the eternal, he was as he is. There is no relativism available to Him based on the time in which He "lived" as He is alive today as He was then.

Any belief that He put forth then was as relevent to today as if He put it forth today. Saying that He believed one thing then due to circumstances is to deny that He was who He was and and is.

Of course, if you are saying he was not who he said he was and was just some guy running a swindle, then his inclusion on the list is a little pointless, no?

 

[code1211]

I'll give you FDR. He was a man who believed that the average man was not capable of dealing with the world around him. As a result, he spent his life trying to construct a government that would both cradle the individual and insert itself into the lives of the individuals.

All of the others on the list seemed to believe quite srongly in the power of the individual against the force of the government or the power present at the time.

Any of them would certainly have been "Borqed" by modern Liberals if they dared to assert their core beliefs as they did at the time they lived.

At the core of Conservatism is the belief that the individual is a strong and competent force in the world. At the core of Liberalism is the belief that the individual is not capable and is weak in the face of adversity and must be protected by a collective.

That is why Conservatives want to protect reward for effort while Liberals want to assure the protection from failure. Everyone on your list believed in the nobility of the individual and all except FDR believed in the ability of the individual. This is odd to me in that he was crippled and yet the President.

Truly a "content of the charachter" triumph story.

You said it.

FDR should have left all those breadline stalkers to die slow deaths in the misery of their own failures.

Due to the reality of the times, the first order of the day had to be to feed the people. It is what FDR and Hitler did. Hitler then went on a spending spree which was very Keynesian of him and it served to revive the German economy.

Under the Fascist model, he funneled cash through industry and put people to work which ginned up the economy and would have worked out pretty well except for the whole Holocaust, Conquer Europe, Terror Weapons and Master Race thingy's.

Putting those deficiencies aside for the sake of the economic recovery of Nazi Germany vs New Deal America, Germany rose from literally rubble and ash to be the pre eminant world power in 1939.

With Hitler's world view, the Germans were the Master race and every Germen individual was a superior being who only needed direction and opportunity to achieve.

With FDR's world view, the Americans were victims and every American individual was a suffering wretch who needed a handout in order to survive.

Did FDR have to do things the way he did based on our laws? About half of what he did was unConstitutional in any event. He did it because he was an elitist who believed in his heart that Americans were not capable. I think he was wrong in that belief and should have followed the economic model of Kaynes. He was concerned about a mounting debt.

Our leaders seem to have conquered that concern of late.

Hitler was nuts, but he blundered his way to a pretty successful economic recovery on his way to ultimate disaster and ruin. FDR was brilliant, but he engineered a recovery that made the USA as successful then as we are today. Today we are looking at the worst economy in 70 years.

FDR and Hitler were both working in the dark as economic theory was not a real science at the time and they had only their gut to go on. It was at the dawn of the time in which countries had more money than corporations. The actions of each are a good mirror of the view they held of the people.

So, is it better to feed the "breadline stalkers" or better to feed them and then to provide jobs and occupations that pay well and get the economy moving? I suppose it all depends on what you estimate the capabilities of the "breadline stalkers" to be.

 

[rightwinger]

I'll give you FDR. He was a man who believed that the average man was not capable of dealing with the world around him. As a result, he spent his life trying to construct a government that would both cradle the individual and insert itself into the lives of the individuals.

All of the others on the list seemed to believe quite srongly in the power of the individual against the force of the government or the power present at the time.

Any of them would certainly have been "Borqed" by modern Liberals if they dared to assert their core beliefs as they did at the time they lived.

At the core of Conservatism is the belief that the individual is a strong and competent force in the world. At the core of Liberalism is the belief that the individual is not capable and is weak in the face of adversity and must be protected by a collective.

That is why Conservatives want to protect reward for effort while Liberals want to assure the protection from failure. Everyone on your list believed in the nobility of the individual and all except FDR believed in the ability of the individual. This is odd to me in that he was crippled and yet the President.

Truly a "content of the charachter" triumph story.

You said it.

FDR should have left all those breadline stalkers to die slow deaths in the misery of their own failures.

Due to the reality of the times, the first order of the day had to be to feed the people. It is what FDR and Hitler did. Hitler then went on a spending spree which was very Keynesian of him and it served to revive the German economy.

Under the Fascist model, he funneled cash through industry and put people to work which ginned up the economy and would have worked out pretty well except for the whole Holocaust, Conquer Europe, Terror Weapons and Master Race thingy's.

Putting those deficiencies aside for the sake of the economic recovery of Nazi Germany vs New Deal America, Germany rose from literally rubble and ash to be the pre eminant world power in 1939.

With Hitler's world view, the Germans were the Master race and every Germen individual was a superior being who only needed direction and opportunity to achieve.

With FDR's world view, the Americans were victims and every American individual was a suffering wretch who needed a handout in order to survive.

Did FDR have to do things the way he did based on our laws? About half of what he did was unConstitutional in any event. He did it because he was an elitist who believed in his heart that Americans were not capable. I think he was wrong in that belief and should have followed the economic model of Kaynes. He was concerned about a mounting debt.

Our leaders seem to have conquered that concern of late.

Hitler was nuts, but he blundered his way to a pretty successful economic recovery on his way to ultimate disaster and ruin. FDR was brilliant, but he engineered a recovery that made the USA as successful then as we are today. Today we are looking at the worst economy in 70 years.

FDR and Hitler were both working in the dark as economic theory was not a real science at the time and they had only their gut to go on. It was at the dawn of the time in which countries had more money than corporations. The actions of each are a good mirror of the view they held of the people.

So, is it better to feed the "breadline stalkers" or better to feed them and then to provide jobs and occupations that pay well and get the economy moving? I suppose it all depends on what you estimate the capabilities of the "breadline stalkers" to be.

Nice tale

But you forgot the ending. We won

 

[midcan5]

Hey Midcan, Long time.

I'll disagree with you on Locke and Madison speciffically. One thing neither would have ever done was sacrifice Individual Perspective to the Group. They were both Christian, and believed in Individual Salvation. They believed in Self Determination, in Individual Liberty, in Choice. The Statist requirement of the abandonment of the Self for the Group is actually an abomination when you study it. When the price of fitting in, being a member, requires the abandonment of Conscience (Who Knows whom might be offended by Truth), Which is the core of the Self, the price is too high. You cannot serve God and Man, though you can serve one through the other.

Hello, Do I know you? I have to disagreed, both are very liberal, maybe the epitome of liberal. I don't have time now, but these labels such as statist or assuming liberals are anti religion is something the right wing needs but doesn't fit genuine liberals.

 

[Intense]

Hey Midcan, Long time.

I'll disagree with you on Locke and Madison speciffically. One thing neither would have ever done was sacrifice Individual Perspective to the Group. They were both Christian, and believed in Individual Salvation. They believed in Self Determination, in Individual Liberty, in Choice. The Statist requirement of the abandonment of the Self for the Group is actually an abomination when you study it. When the price of fitting in, being a member, requires the abandonment of Conscience (Who Knows whom might be offended by Truth), Which is the core of the Self, the price is too high. You cannot serve God and Man, though you can serve one through the other.

Hello, Do I know you? I have to disagreed, both are very liberal, maybe the epitome of liberal. I don't have time now, but these labels such as statist or assuming liberals are anti religion is something the right wing needs but doesn't fit genuine liberals.

We've gone toe to toe a ways back on a different board. (Angry Puppy) (Grrr... Grrr...).

Both were very Christian, and remember that in religion, in Christianity, Liberalism has different meaning than it does today, in politics. For a start, the control and consent of your own resource or ability, is directed by you. The resource of others is requested not mandated. One would rely on conscience for direction, and seek guidance through conscience, when in doubt. The Group, can easily impose against conscience, Locke, Madison, Thoreau saw the danger in that. When I think or say conservative, it is with this principle in mind. Circumventing Conscience to achieve a goal is not a light matter. The Individual should not by sacrificed in a worthy society, Principle should not be sacrificed in a worthy society. When Liberal is what we choose to do with our own resources, with or without expectation it is a good thing, it is between the Individual and his maker at the core, and it is blessed. When we lay unrealistic burdens on others, especially without consent, it's a different matter.

 

[paperview]

Quote=code1211

FDR should have left all those breadline stalkers to die slow deaths in the misery of their own failures.

Due to the reality of the times, the first order of the day had to be to feed the people. It is what FDR and Hitler did. Hitler then went on a spending spree which was very Keynesian of him and it served to revive the German economy.

Under the Fascist model, he funneled cash through industry and put people to work which ginned up the economy and would have worked out pretty well except for the whole Holocaust, Conquer Europe, Terror Weapons and Master Race thingy's.

Putting those deficiencies aside for the sake of the economic recovery of Nazi Germany vs New Deal America, Germany rose from literally rubble and ash to be the pre eminant world power in 1939.

With Hitler's world view, the Germans were the Master race and every Germen individual was a superior being who only needed direction and opportunity to achieve.

With FDR's world view, the Americans were victims and every American individual was a suffering wretch who needed a handout in order to survive.

Did FDR have to do things the way he did based on our laws? About half of what he did was unConstitutional in any event. He did it because he was an elitist who believed in his heart that Americans were not capable. I think he was wrong in that belief and should have followed the economic model of Kaynes. He was concerned about a mounting debt.

Our leaders seem to have conquered that concern of late.

Hitler was nuts, but he blundered his way to a pretty successful economic recovery on his way to ultimate disaster and ruin. FDR was brilliant, but he engineered a recovery that made the USA as successful then as we are today. Today we are looking at the worst economy in 70 years.

FDR and Hitler were both working in the dark as economic theory was not a real science at the time and they had only their gut to go on. It was at the dawn of the time in which countries had more money than corporations. The actions of each are a good mirror of the view they held of the people.

So, is it better to feed the "breadline stalkers" or better to feed them and then to provide jobs and occupations that pay well and get the economy moving? I suppose it all depends on what you estimate the capabilities of the "breadline stalkers" to be.

A recognition-worthy rejoinder.

Wish I wasn't so tired right now, or I would comment further. I do appreciate your thoughtful response.

Nite.

 

[Kalam]

Few of these historical figures bear any resemblance to todays so-called "liberals" and "conservatives." Our political classifications are completely issue-driven. Groups who claim these people as their own make illogical assumptions - that Gandhi gave a crap about private school vouchers or that Jesus would have something to say about the federal budget, etc.

 

[Intense]

James Madison on Education.

We the subscribers , citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

 

[midcan5]

We've gone toe to toe a ways back on a different board. (Angry Puppy) (Grrr... Grrr...).

Both were very Christian, and remember that in religion, in Christianity, Liberalism has different meaning than it does today, in politics. For a start, the control and consent of your own resource or ability, is directed by you. The resource of others is requested not mandated. One would rely on conscience for direction, and seek guidance through conscience, when in doubt. The Group, can easily impose against conscience, Locke, Madison, Thoreau saw the danger in that. When I think or say conservative, it is with this principle in mind. Circumventing Conscience to achieve a goal is not a light matter. The Individual should not by sacrificed in a worthy society, Principle should not be sacrificed in a worthy society. When Liberal is what we choose to do with our own resources, with or without expectation it is a good thing, it is between the Individual and his maker at the core, and it is blessed. When we lay unrealistic burdens on others, especially without consent, it's a different matter.

Politics dot com, I guess? Your religious interpretation of these ideas is exactly contrary to Locke. Locke wrote religion had no place in civil society and if the gawds didn't like it that was tough. Locke was maybe the key figure in the idea of separation. I think Locke is quoted wrongly by conservatives because he saw the danger religion (esp Catholicism) posed when it dictates what a person is free to do. But Locke believed strongly in civil government and its authority to help create a just and equitable society.

The individual is the key component of liberalism, going back to the French Revolution. Others, see link below, see liberalism as originating in the conflicts of the various religions and the idea of tolerance these religious conflicts caused. On the other side, hierarchy is key to conservatism. I often wonder why conservatives never mention this as it is written in all conservative ideology. See Russell Kirk for instance. If the individual mattered to the conservative, there would be less restrictions on personal freedom. Boy, that opens a bag of worms.

James Madison was maybe the key person in the founding of our liberal democracy, calling him anything else is just too off base for me. I agree the words change meaning, but they do so only in the rhetoric of spin and deception. Liberal will always be about the individual, tolerance, and equality. How we work those issues out is the tough piece.

Locke: Toleration

James Madison quotations.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."

"War should only be declared by the authority of the people, whose toils and treasures are to support its burdens, instead of the government which is to reap its fruits."

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/American-Liberalism-Interpretation-Eugene-Lillian/dp/0807861804/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251719465&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: American Liberalism: An Interpretation for Our Time (H. Eugene and Lillian Youngs Lehman Series) (9780807861806): John McGowan: Books[/ame]

 

[Intense]

Locke was a Strong Christian, that is what You miss every time. Conscience before the mob. Obligation to Our Creator Precedes Our Obligation to Society and Government. Natural Law. Non Violent Civil Disobedience. Separation of Church to protect the Sanctity of Both.

Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, I must needs answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church. For whatsoever some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of their outward worship; others, of the reformation of their discipline; all, of the orthodoxy of their faith — for everyone is orthodox to himself — these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ. Let anyone have never so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself. "The kings of the Gentiles exercise leadership over them," said our Saviour to his disciples, "but ye shall not be so."[1] The business of true religion is quite another thing. It is not instituted in order to the erecting of an external pomp, nor to the obtaining of ecclesiastical dominion, nor to the exercising of compulsive force, but to the regulating of men's lives, according to the rules of virtue and piety. Whosoever will list himself under the banner of Christ, must, in the first place and above all things, make war upon his own lusts and vices. It is in vain for any man to unsurp the name of Christian, without holiness of life, purity of manners, benignity and meekness of spirit. "Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ, depart from iniquity."[2] "Thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren," said our Lord to Peter.[3] It would, indeed, be very hard for one that appears careless about his own salvation to persuade me that he were extremely concerned for mine. For it is impossible that those should sincerely and heartily apply themselves to make other people Christians, who have not really embraced the Christian religion in their own hearts. If the Gospel and the apostles may be credited, no man can be a Christian without charity and without that faith which works, not by force, but by love.

John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration



The Second Treatise of Civil Government
1690

John Locke
1632-1704

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government


Midcan: The individual is the key component of liberalism, going back to the French Revolution. Others, see link below, see liberalism as originating in the conflicts of the various religions and the idea of tolerance these religious conflicts caused. On the other side, hierarchy is key to conservatism. I often wonder why conservatives never mention this as it is written in all conservative ideology. See Russell Kirk for instance. If the individual mattered to the conservative, there would be less restrictions on personal freedom. Boy, that opens a bag of worms.

James Madison was maybe the key person in the founding of our liberal democracy, calling him anything else is just too off base for me. I agree the words change meaning, but they do so only in the rhetoric of spin and deception. Liberal will always be about the individual, tolerance, and equality. How we work those issues out is the tough piece.

This is where we differ, and again where we are the same. I See Liberalism as State First, at all cost. There is no Inalienable Right, there is nothing without the consent of the State. The rulings are also generally arbitrary. Even France does not recognize Inalienable Rights. There are Powers above Government.

I See Conservatism as Individual First, as in Conscience First. Conservatism is rooted in that. In Reference to Free Market, I would ask you what do you prefer to trade in, Currency or Bullets? There is nothing more basic than a trade all relevant parties agree to. There is nothing more offensive than having a pointed gun direct a transaction.

I will say that I do recognize that You and I both Value the Individual. Madison and Jefferson Split from Hamilton over Principle, and the Threat of Tyranny. We were founded on Government by the Consent of the Governed. What Happened?