Liberal government, not guns the problem in inner cities...

[2aguy]

I saw this article...it discuss the real problem in states with lots of gun violence...the article doesn't mention guns...it just focuses on the cities that have been run by democrat/liberal beliefs...and what nightmares they have become...

Who Lost the Cities? | National Review Online

Progressives spent a generation imposing taxes and other expenses on urban populations as though the taxpaying middle class would not relocate. They protected the defective cartel system of public education, and the union money and votes associated with it, as though middle-class parents would not move to places that had better schools. They imposed burdens on businesses, in exchange for more union money and votes, as though businesses would not shift production elsewhere. They imposed policies that disincentivized stable family arrangements as though doing so would have no social cost.

The more progressive the city, the worse a place it is to be poor and/or black. The most pronounced economic inequality in the United States is not in some Republican redoubt in Texas but in San Francisco, an extraordinarily expensive city in which half of all black households make do with less than $25,000 a year. Blacks in San Francisco are arrested on drug felonies at ten times their share of the general population. At 6 percent of the population, they represent 40 percent of those arrested for homicides. Whether you believe that that is the result of a racially biased criminal-justice system or the result of higher crime incidence related to socioeconomic conditions within black communities (or some combination of those factors) what is undeniable is that results for black Americans are far worse in our most progressive, Democrat-dominated cities than they are elsewhere. The progressives have had the run of things for a generation in these cities, and the results are precisely what you see.

so...when it comes to gun violence...blame years of democrats destroying cities and not guns...those are the tools the criminals use to further victimize the innocent people in those cities...the very people the democrats,want to make defenseless in the face of these criminals...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And they did so while adhering to a political philosophy that holds that the state, not the family or the market, is the central actor in our lives, that the interests of private parties — be they taxpayers or businesses — can and indeed must be subordinated to the state’s interests, as though individuals and families were nothing more than gears in the great machine of politics.

The premise of the article fails as a straw man fallacy, as ‘liberals’ advocate no such thing, where to maintain otherwise is a lie.

 

[2aguy]

Hmmm...ask your average silly person who thinks communism is good on theory...do they advocate for mass murder in the tens of millions...of course not...and yet that is exactly the outcome...

Do the liberals in these cities believe their anti education, anti police, high tax, pro welfare, pro teen single mother, huge spending, anti business policies will destroy theses cities...of course not...but that is what happens...

and it happens again and again in cities and states controlled by democrats/liberals/progressives...

and then they blame republicans...and guns...

 

[Pogo]

Hmmm...ask your average silly person who thinks communism is good on theory...do they advocate for mass murder in the tens of millions...of course not...and yet that is exactly the outcome...

Do the liberals in these cities believe their anti education, anti police, high tax, pro welfare, pro teen single mother, huge spending, anti business policies will destroy theses cities...of course not...but that is what happens...

and it happens again and again in cities and states controlled by democrats/liberals/progressives...

and then they blame republicans...and guns...

You're severely confused here. Your OP seems to conflate "Liberals", "Democrats" and "progressives" -- which doesn't even have a definition. Three different things.

Liberals wrote the Second Amendment. Start there.

 

[2aguy]

When you say liberals gave us the second Amendment you mean "classical" liberal...someone who believes in "negative freedoms" that is what the government can't do to you...that is more in alignment with modern conservatism and libertarianism. The modern American "liberal" is now the opposite of that belief system...they believe in "positive" rights, or what the government should be doing to you...these people are exemplified by Obama and hillary when Obama complains that the Constitution didn't go far enough in saying what the government can do...

the democrat party today believes in growing the power of the central government and they have had to change the name of their belief system as that system and it's results,have failed...once "liberal" became known as "big government/high taxes/big spending....they changed their name to progressive in order to mislead people. so democrat/liberal/progressive is used to keep them properly identified for what they are as they try to hide behind new names.

A modern liberal believes in a huge central government, huge taxation, huge spending, and can be found belonging to the democrat party...

 

[2aguy]

modern liberalism examined...

The Evolution of Liberalism | Young Americans for Liberty

The modern conception of liberalism is most often centered on one idea: The use—and typically expansion—of the state for the benefit of society as a whole. With its attendant focus on social welfare programs, “ humanitarian” wars, and a mixed economy, this modern liberal movement is often the epitome of C.S. Lewis’ “tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims,” unending because it finds hearty approval in the tyrants’ heart.

American conservatives, libertarians, and other anti-statists rightly denounce modern liberals for their expansion of the state. Between the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society, and now the era of “Hope and Change,” modern liberalism has done little to recommend itself as a philosophy productive of liberty or equality, whatever its claims to those principles may be. Indeed, on most counts I whole-heartedly agree with the critics of liberalism. Where I disagree, however, is the notion that these policies are liberal. The garden variety American statist may have laid claim to the liberal title, but he does not possess its philosophical pedigree

.

Indeed, it was exactly the opposite. Classical liberalism in its simplest sense meant advocacy of limited government permitted only to fulfill its role of protecting life, liberty, and property. Locke’s ideas in this vein were further developed by thinkers such as Adam Smith in the 18th Century and Frédéric Bastiat several decades later. When these men’s ideas jumped the pond to fuel the American revolution, they were perhaps most strongly supported by Thomas Jefferson, who so despised centralized government that expressed in an 1821 letter that the new American government was already too illiberal:

When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.

From Epiphany to Epithet

So how could “liberalism,” a word representative of so anti-statist a philosophy, come to represent such a very different prescription for government? How did the term lose its history as a great liberator in the history of ideas and, among many on the American right, become little better than a slur? Even more significantly, why did this etymological reversal occur?

The answer lies in the development of another new political philosophy: Progressivism. As Mises Institute scholar Ralph Raico puts it, progressivism is “a vague term, but one that connote a new readiness to use the power of government for all sorts of grand things.”

 

[Pogo]

"'Classical' Liberalism"....
Utter horseshit. Oh wait, you just did. Nooooo, you're entitled to your opinion but not your own definitions.
Oh wait, you found it on an internet blog. Well it must be true then.

Fact remains: "Liberal" ≠"Democrat" ≠ "progressive". They're three different terms for a reason. Learn them and get back to us.

 

[2aguy]

It is you who is behind on their definitions...the democrats/progressives,took over liberal as a defining term and now when that term comes to represent big taxing, big spending government philosophy they are now switching to the term, progressive...once that is truly associated with big taxing, big spending, big government...and all the horrors that creates...they will pick another term to hide who they are and what they do to a society...

 

[Pogo]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Because somebody's blog told you. As I said, learn what you're talking about and get back to us.

I can call myself a 'brain surgeon'. That doesn't actually make me one. But if you think it does, let me get my hacksaw and see what the problem is in there...

 

[2aguy]

Another look at how the philosophy of classical liberalism has been distorted and destroyed by modern liberals/democrats/progressives/statists...

How Obama is Turning Liberalism Into an Instrument of Coercion - Michael Barone - Page full

Liberals just aren't very liberal these days. The word "liberal" comes from the Latin word meaning freedom, and in the 19th century, liberals in this country and abroad stood for free speech, free exercise of religion, free markets, free trade -- for minimal state interference in people's lives.

In the 20th-century, New Dealers revised this definition by arguing that people had a right not only to free speech and freedom of religion but also, as Franklin Roosevelt said in his 1941 Four Freedoms speech, freedom from fear and from want.

Freedom from want meant, for Roosevelt, government provision of jobs, housing, health care and food. And so government would have to be much larger, more expensive and more intrusive than ever before.

That's what liberalism has come to mean in America (in Europe it still has the old meaning), and much of the Obama Democrats' agenda are logical outgrowths -- Obamacare, the vast expansion of food stamps, attempted assistance to underwater homeowners.

But in some respects the Obama Democrats want to go further -- and are complaining that they're having a hard time getting there. Their form of liberalism is in danger of standing for something like the very opposite of freedom, for government coercion of those who refuse to behave the way they'd like.

Example one is the constitutional amendment, sponsored by 43 of the 55 Democratic U.S. senators, which would cut back on the First Amendment and authorize Congress and state legislatures to restrict political speech.

The amendment is poorly drafted and leaves many questions dangerously open (who qualifies for the media exception?), perhaps because its sponsors know it has no significant chance of passage.

It also seems animated by a delusionary paranoia: Democrats profess to be afraid they'll be swamped by a flood of rich people's money, even though their rich supporters have raised more than the other side in recent years.

Nonetheless the picture is striking. Many conservatives wanted to change the First Amendment in order to prosecute flag burning, not the Founding Fathers' central concern.

Today's liberals, in contrast, want to change the First Amendment to restrict political speech, which is the core value the Founders sought to protect.

Or consider liberals' recent attitude toward free exercise of religion, made plain in their reaction to the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision declaring the Obamacare contraception mandate invalid as a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.e]

And that is how the Statists, as Mark Levin defines them, came to distort the ideas of classical liberalism to promote centralizing power in their hands...we need bigger government to provide more freedom to people...and then they build their concentration camps for the people who object..

 

[Pogo]

"as Mark Levin defines them". 'Nuff said.

You need to uh, upgrade your sources. Won't be much of a stretch though.

Here, chew on this. And quit getting your edumacation from screaming talk radio attention whores.

/unsub (yawn)

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, I've seen that...overly complicated for the purposes of posting here...and for defining the liberal/democrat/progressive/statists...they want larger more intrusive government, will increase taxes, increase spending to do it...they gain control over education, drive out businesses, undermine the police, spend money on everything except vital services...and then when the social problems overwhelm the system...they demand more control...

 

[2aguy]

when in fact the Fascists and Communists disagreed on virtually every point,

Yeah, not accurate...try this, it better approaches the concept of facsism and communism...

http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/08/definition-of-fascism/

 

[boedicca]

And they did so while adhering to a political philosophy that holds that the state, not the family or the market, is the central actor in our lives, that the interests of private parties — be they taxpayers or businesses — can and indeed must be subordinated to the state’s interests, as though individuals and families were nothing more than gears in the great machine of politics.

The premise of the article fails as a straw man fallacy, as ‘liberals’ advocate no such thing, where to maintain otherwise is a lie.

You're nuts. Liberals constantly promote More Government as the solution for anything they think is a problem.

 

[Moonglow]

Every large city has a problem with violence..Does not matter which party is in charge. It occurs in all cities governed by all parties.

 

[Moonglow]

And they did so while adhering to a political philosophy that holds that the state, not the family or the market, is the central actor in our lives, that the interests of private parties — be they taxpayers or businesses — can and indeed must be subordinated to the state’s interests, as though individuals and families were nothing more than gears in the great machine of politics.

The premise of the article fails as a straw man fallacy, as ‘liberals’ advocate no such thing, where to maintain otherwise is a lie.

You're nuts. Liberals constantly promote More Government as the solution for anything they think is a problem.

Especially abortion control

 

[2aguy]

Here is an easier view of the American political spectrum...

Articles: Rethinking the Political Spectrum

A More Accurate Spectrum

The mental framing device of a political spectrum is not a bad idea in itself. There are indeed relationships among tyranny, liberalism, conservatism, and other political phenomena that lend themselves to depiction on a spectrum. But the spectrum must reflect reality.

There is something nonsensical about a political spectrum that spans the range between tyranny and ... tyranny. If one end of the spectrum is the home of tyranny, then shouldn't the opposite end of the spectrum be the home of liberty, tyranny's opposite? The new spectrum is a rough measurement of liberty: very little liberty on the left end, quite a bit on the right end. At the left extreme reside the hard tyrannies of communism and fascism, as seen historically in such places as the Soviet Union, China, Germany, or North Korea. A bit to the right are the softer tyrannies of socialism, as commonly practiced in Western Europe. Liberalism comes next, then "moderation." Moving further along the spectrum toward greater liberty, one finds conservatism, and finally libertarianism.

 

[2aguy]

Every large city has a problem with violence..Does not matter which party is in charge.

Then why is it when you look at the most top ten violent cities in the country...they are all run by democrats...and when you look at the most violent states...though some are red they all have the most violent cities in their borders run by democrats...for example...Tennessee is a red state, but it considered the most violent state in the country...it's six largest cities...are run by democrats...

 

[2aguy]

Especially abortion control

No, it is called the primary purpose of organized government...protecting it's citizens from violence...stopping the murder of a baby fits that purpose exactly...and then, once the baby is born, the mother is completely free to do her own thing...

 

[2aguy]

A look at the most violent cities in the United States and the thing they have in common...democrats have controlled them for decades...

?Top 10 U.S. Murder Cities?? ? With Added Information | Extrano's Alley, a gun blog

Our data is still from 2012, and I have reason to believe there has been a bit of shuffling in 19 months. With that, here are the top ten for 2012. In addition, I will note the political party of the mayor, since that is often asked, as well as the 2012 homicide rate:

1……Flint, Michigan [D] 64.9

2…… Detroit, Michigan [D] 54.6

3……..New Orleans, Louisiana [D] 53.6

4…….St. Louis, Missouri [D] 35.5

5…….Baltimore, Maryland [D] 35.0

6……..Birmingham, Alabama [D] 33.70

7………Newark, New Jersey [D] 33.1

8………Oakland, California [D] 33.1

9……….Baton Rouge, Louisiana [D] 28.9

10………Memphis, Tennessee [D] 24.6

Besides Democratic Mayors, all these cities share a number of characteristics. Except Detroit, they are relatively small cities that were thriving until the Clinton Administration agreed to transfer the major part of America’s light industry to China in return for that nation lending the United States up to three trillion dollars. And of course imposing the world’s highest corporate tax rates – making it impossible to provide the “return on investment” investors expect.

Besides the loss of some 54 million manufacturing and support jobs, most of the cities on the list have suffered greatly from ill advised gun control schemes.

While Michigan has largely joined the mainstream, the malign effects of gun control continue to dominate the crime numbers, including Flint’s and Detroit’s, as well as small cities such as Saginaw that did not make this list.

Baltimore and Newark both suffer from State level gun control that have driven the demographically adjusted murder rates sky high. And, like Michigan, there are a number of cities that barely missed the cut. Camden, for one.