If our Constitution made liberalism, in effect, illegal what should we do with them?.

[Nosmo King]

, you could understand that your neighbors are liberal. ...........not in a sinister cabal to destroy the constitution and by consequence nation.

well the Germans were big govt liberal nuts in 1932 and had no idea what they were doing. Our liberals are blind too but its not a conscious sinister cabal. Its just based in pure ignorance.Do you understand?

I disagree. My politics are not born of ignorance. My politics are born, if they were born of anything approaching ignorance, of aspiration.

Today's 'conservatism' (I also disagree that those who identify as conservative are really conservative) is instigational politics. The Trumpian ideology calls for one to be fearful, hateful and suspicious. There must be a group to blame as both enemy and source of all the woes of the world. There are no solutions, only accusations. Political opponents serve as scapegoats and are never regarded as Americans but a group hell bent on destroying all things virtuous.

I would prefer to divine solutions from compromise rather than contention. Solutions that work for all Americans rather than benefit the wealthiest and then hope those wealthy will shower down largess. I would hope that all citizens could enjoy all the rights every other citizens enjoy rather than castigate some as losers or morally deficient. Aspirations. Never instigations.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I disagree. My politics are not born of ignorance. My politics are born, if they were born of anything approaching ignorance, of aspiration.

.

so you mean you aspire to be a communist thinking that its better despite already killing 120 million?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Trumpian ideology calls for one to be fearful, hateful and suspicious. There must be a group to blame as both enemy and source of all the woes of the world. .

this is true and liberals are that group since they oppose the basic principles of America.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There are no solutions, only accusations. .

no solutions?? 4.2% GDP and peace with North Korea

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Political opponents serve as scapegoats and are never regarded as Americans but a group hell bent on destroying all things virtuous.
.

liberals do want to destroy America as we know it which is why they support a communist now, Sanders!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I would prefer to divine solutions from compromise rather than contention.

why would you compromise with libcommieism when it has already killed 120 million?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

rather than castigate some as losers or morally deficient. Aspirations. Never instigations.

so you want to make libcommies heros despite already killing 120 million? Ever heard of Cuba/Florida?
Cuba is poor because it is libcommie! 1+1=2

 

[danielpalos]

I disagree. My politics are not born of ignorance. My politics are born, if they were born of anything approaching ignorance, of aspiration.

.

so you mean you aspire to be a communist thinking that its better despite already killing 120 million?

You keep bringing that up; that happened due to internal conflict, not business as usual. How many people starve or die due to a simple lack of capital under any form of Capitalism; as Business as usual?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You keep bringing that up; that happened due to internal conflict, not business as usual.

just coincidental that USSR Red China, Nazis, Venezuela, East Germany, Cubann liberal statists all killed starved and imprisioned their populations!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How many people starve or die due to a simple lack of capital under any form of Capitalism; as Business as usual?

people are getting rich, not starving, now that China has switched to Republican capitalism from libcommie statism. It's been in all the papers!!

 

[danielpalos]

You keep bringing that up; that happened due to internal conflict, not business as usual.

just coincidental that USSR Red China, Nazis, Venezuela, East Germany, Cubann liberal statists all killed starved and imprisioned their populations!!

during times of Conflict; not because they couldn't afford it, like Capitalism and Business as usual.

 

[Skylar]

Liberalism is based on socialism and communism, which are as incompatible with the U.S.constitution as Sharia Law would be.

The leftists will jump up and down and scream "It ain't true", but conservatism mirrors the doctrine that the framers of the constitution intended for this country. They looked at many other countries' constitutions and found them all wanting. So they came up with the most unique set of rights and rules the world had ever seen before then.

Special Ed gurgles again, blissfully unaware that Liberals are exactly who WROTE the Constitution. And that by the same token the Constitution is not only based on but a written expression of Liberalism.


/thread

/Not thread

Modern-day liberalism has little to do with the Colonial definition of "liberalism". The description “liberal” was used in colonial America as the political description for those seeking to change government to a more limited role (Lockean). In today’s context they would more likely be called “libertarian” not progressive. Even so, libertarianism is closely aligned with conservatism, as they both seek a limited government with constrained powers, the rights of the individual over the power of the state, and lower taxes.

Modern-day liberalism embraces none of those values, and more resembles socialism than anything else. Modern-day liberalism believes in higher taxes, more dependence of government, and the willingness to forfeit certain personal liberties in exchange for the "security" big government affords them.

Worse than that, modern-day liberalism seeks to impose what is "best" for everyone, by using the force and power of the government. We've seen this time and time again: No soda drinks over 16 ounces, no straws, restrictive gun laws, burdensome regulations on business and industry, restrictive consumer laws, and on, and on, and on.

Most modern day liberals support democracy, an economy centered around capitalism and a strong social safety net.

That's hardly incompatible with the Constitution. And certainly good for the people. Regulated capitalism is even good for Capitalism. As it mitigates the 'bust and boom' cycle that plagued the economy before the federal government started setting up economic buttressing like the Federal Reserve.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Most modern day liberals support democracy, an economy centered around capitalism and a strong social safety net.

modern day liberals support Sanders an open communist who supports single payer communist health care. Do you really think health care is only industry a Marxist wants to control? Also, you bounce off a safety net. Libcommies support a comfortable intergenerational house that creates a dependent voting cohort, not a safety net. Please don't ever use that term again.

 

[Skylar]

Most modern day liberals support democracy, an economy centered around capitalism and a strong social safety net.

modern day liberals support Sanders an open communist who supports single payer communist health care. Do you really think health care is only industry a Marxist wants to control? Also, you bounce off a safety net. Libcommies support a comfortable intergenerational house that creates a dependent voting cohort, not a safety net. Please don't ever use that term again.

Single payer heathcare would be part of the strong social safety net. Most modern democracies have them.

US citizens pay more per capita for healthcare than any nation on earth. And have one of the lowest satisfaction rates and among the worst health outcomes and among the lowest life expectencies in the western world.

Modern Day Liberals are split on the implemenation of a single payer system, but the trend seems to be supporting them. In the context of a regulated capitalist economy and a democratic republic government.

 

[Oberon178]

Let's keep in mind that democracy is not our strength since liberals get to vote too. Our strength is the Constitution which was intended to make big liberal magical govt illegal, and freedom the law of the land. Conservatives are the real Americans who believe in the principles of the Constitution. Thus it is they who set Europe free from big liberal magical govt through two world wars and they who just set 1.4 billion Chinese free from big liberal magical govt uniting most of the world in a peaceful common ideology. Oh, and there is no reason to acknowledge our faults (which are trivial in the big picture) to suit treasonous liberals who oppose everything for which our Founders and modern conservative Americans stand. So what do we do with liberals who really don't belong here in the first place and who constantly interfere with our good works?

Here is just more evidence a lot of right wingers need to be deported along with their fellow left winger partners.

 

[dblack]

Single payer heathcare would be part of the strong social safety net. Most modern democracies have them.

It's not a safety net though - it's nationalizing an industry. Those are very different propositions.

If liberals were simply trying to beef up the safety net, they'd get a lot less push back from conservatives and libertarians. Instead, they're trying to centralize control of one of life's necessities via government. That's very bad plan in my opinion.

 

[danielpalos]

...insist they come up with arguments, superior those of the nine hundred ninety-nine.

 

[Skylar]

Single payer heathcare would be part of the strong social safety net. Most modern democracies have them.

It's not a safety net though - it's nationalizing an industry. Those are very different propositions.

Not necessarily. As single payer system can create a system of national insurance. Not necessarily a nationally run healthcare system where the government employs all doctors.

Medicare for all would be single payer. With most medicare patients served by private doctors.

If liberals were simply trying to beef up the safety net, they'd get a lot less push back from conservatives and libertarians. Instead, they're trying to centralize control of one of life's necessities via government. That's very bad plan in my opinion.

Oh, nonsense. Republicans aren't known for nuance. Nor is their opposition proportionate to degree of 'beefing of the safetynet'. They work in a solution binary. Its its their one-size-fits-all solution for every problem (tax cuts for the wealthy, less regulation for business, cut social services) or its the enemy. There's little to nothing in between.

Take Obamacare. It wasn't a nationalization of all of healthcare. It is a system of private healthcare insurance options with state run market places. The Heritage foundation itself proposed something similar in the 90s.

Yet we heard hysteric rants about 'death panels' and 'communism' and Obama trying to take over all of healthcare and impliment socialism across the country. There was no less 'push back'. There was the same 'its either our rote solution or its the enemy' approach they take regardless of circumstances. In the midst of a the great recession or at the peak of a strong economy...they offer the same solution.

Nor can you rely on them to come up with solutions for very serious problems like skyrocketing healthcare. In the 2012 presidential campaign while Hillary and Obama were battling it out on how to fix healthcare, the republican solution for people without health insurance was 'go to the emergency room'.

Republicans as a group don't really have solutions. They don't adapt. They don't problem solve. They trust in the market to create solutions. If the market isn't conducive to a solution, they've deny a problem exists. Their solution to climate change? Deny it exists. Their solution for wealth inequality? Deny its a problem. Their solution for skyrocketing healthcare costs? Go to the emergency room.

Even look at this thread. Most of our conservative posters here are using the same empty trope that was used for decades: label and ignore. Where they label anything but the rote solution from republicans as socialism and socialism as evil.

 

[dblack]

Single payer heathcare would be part of the strong social safety net. Most modern democracies have them.

It's not a safety net though - it's nationalizing an industry. Those are very different propositions.

Not necessarily. As single payer system can create a system of national insurance. Not necessarily a nationally run healthcare system where the government employs all doctors.

The industry in question is the health insurance industry. That's what single payer would be nationalizing.

If liberals were simply trying to beef up the safety net, they'd get a lot less push back from conservatives and libertarians. Instead, they're trying to centralize control of one of life's necessities via government. That's very bad plan in my opinion.

Oh, nonsense. Republicans aren't known for nuance.

That's why I said "conservatives and libertarians", and not "Republicans". The Republicans had their chance to repeal ACA, and declined.

 

[danielpalos]

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour equivalent for simply being unemployed; how would our market based system be less efficient and not more efficient?