Liberal politics are a lose-lose situation

[Bfgrn]

Of course you fail to see what "personal responsibility" has to do with robbing people. Because your value system doesn't include people.

Here's a hypothetical...If I filled the swimming pool in my back with PCB's and carcinogens instead of chlorine and algaecide, then allowed the kids in the neighborhood to swim in it, WHAT do you think would happen to me if their parents found out?

You're just embarrassing yourself now.

Unalienable rights are those which do not impede the rights of others. You don't have a right to poison people no matter whose property you're on.
This is the basis of Liberty. Do as you please, just so long as you're not hurting anybody else in the exercise of your own pursuits.

Your blind worship of the aristocracy is about to become YOUR major embarrassment...

If "personal responsibility" applies to me, then it applies to everyone. NO one has the right to rob another human being of their right to life, liberty or their pursuit of happiness. That includes not ONLY me, but Dow Chemical, Exxon Mobil, BP and any other polluter. If my kid develops asthma because he or she is breathing poisons from a coal burning energy plant, WHO is responsible to pay for their medical care? WHO will be 'personally responsible'? If my kid develops cancer from exposure to PCB's and carcinogens from swimming in polluted lakes, WHO pays for their chemotherapy and exorbitant medical costs...ME??? If my child is robbed of LIFE by those illnesses WHO will be 'personally responsible'?

Maybe you can make the case that it's the cost of PROGRESS, the root word of progressive...but that would expose your true hypocrisy...

You need to get an adult education, be taught the real price all of us pay for corporate socialism and corporate welfare; it's called cost externalization. And you need to be schooled on the REAL founding father's beliefs...

A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when.

Corporations could not own stock in other corporations

They were prohibited from any part of the political process.

Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation.

But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good

And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

Jan Edwards and Molly Morgan: Abolish Corporate Personhood

 

[Mr. Shaman]

then by all means, why in the heck don;t you CHOOSE to help our neediest fellow citizens, not getting help from your church or charity, through some of your taxes? you CHOOSE TO KILL others with your taxes, you choose to bail out the crooks who took us on Wall street, why not choose to help some of your own....? (the general you)

Choosing to help others is not suppose to stop at your church's door, you are NOT suppose to just turn in to cold wax in your secular life, is what I was taught....

Do good in all that you do.

This does not stop once you leave church or mass or synagogue or mosque or temple on sundays, fridays or saturdays....

that's my personal view on it, as a devout Christian.

Saying all of that, this does not mean that I do not see problems with our systems to take care of the neediest among us....this does not mean I do not see govt waste....but in many cases, many many many cases, charities are ineffective....where MOST or too darn much of their charity money goes towards their admin costs and salaries and overhead and waste to where 25-50 cents on the dollar you donated, makes it to the actual person in need....both systems have deficiencies....

and we need reform, all around, so that government help should focus more on education and lifting the person up through teaching them to support themselves....I agree with all that....

but with me, charity for the neediest does not stop at the church door....

care

Do not presume to know what I choose to do, or not do, in the name of charity. It makes you look hysterical.

You do NOT have the right to rob me for the sake of YOUR charitable choices. That does not make you a good Christian. It merely makes you a good THIEF.

The fucking federal government has no business engaging in "charity". There's no enumerated power for it to do so.

Yeah....let's hear it for survival-o'-the-riche$t (and their auto-death-panels...).
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n9mCcpatig&feature=related]YouTube - Hard Times[/ame]​

Social welfare should come at the state level in whatever amounts the States choose to provide it.

Ah, yes....those good ol' "compassionate States' Rights"!!!​

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTxU5_hjCQE&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Murf76]

Your blind worship of the aristocracy is about to become YOUR major embarrassment...

If "personal responsibility" applies to me, then it applies to everyone. NO one has the right to rob another human being of their right to life, liberty or their pursuit of happiness. That includes not ONLY me, but Dow Chemical, Exxon Mobil, BP and any other polluter. If my kid develops asthma because he or she is breathing poisons from a coal burning energy plant, WHO is responsible to pay for their medical care? WHO will be 'personally responsible'? If my kid develops cancer from exposure to PCB's and carcinogens from swimming in polluted lakes, WHO pays for their chemotherapy and exorbitant medical costs...ME??? If my child is robbed of LIFE by those illnesses WHO will be 'personally responsible'?

Maybe you can make the case that it's the cost of PROGRESS, the root word of progressive...but that would expose your true hypocrisy...

You need to get an adult education, be taught the real price all of us pay for corporate socialism and corporate welfare; it's called cost externalization. And you need to be schooled on the REAL founding father's beliefs...

A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when.

Corporations could not own stock in other corporations

They were prohibited from any part of the political process.

Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation.

But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good

And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

Jan Edwards and Molly Morgan: Abolish Corporate Personhood

Why don't you go talk to the fucking Corporatist-In-Chief then if you're so worried about corporatism? There's been more corporatism under Barack Obama than we've ever seen in this country. Why don't you extract Jeffrey Immelt out from under his ass before you regale us with tales of "corporatism".


Republicans recognize the need for some regulation in order to protect the liberties of the general public. We just believe that it's not necessary to use a Sherman tank when a flyswatter will do. We don't have to have government takeovers of entire industries in order to solve problems.

Oh... and this bit about "progress" being the root word for "progressivism". Wake up. No... grow up. It's about incrementalism, making "progress" toward a fascist goal, bit by bit. You can tell that, by watching their actions and ignoring their lying words.

 

[Murf76]

Yeah....that's the problem with programs (for people of lesser-means). There's no money....

Nobody owes you a boat. You want a boat?... get a fucking job and buy one.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And you won't. I, for one, did not relish the idea of a madman like Saddam Hussein sitting on a big pile of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

How quickly we forget what the circumstances were which surrounded our decision to disarm him.

Yeah.....you keep on tryin'!!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqoJHOSrjQo]YouTube - Scott Ritter: Weapons of Mass Delusion[/ame]​

 

[Murf76]

Yeah.....you keep on tryin'!!!!
​

Do you actually have anything to say... ever? ​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Save it for St Peter...I'm sure He is a 'capitalist'...

When you are in the political world, you have decisions to make every single day about who you will try to help and who you won't. In spite of the earnest quest of good technocrats everywhere, the simple fact is that there are only a few win-win solutions. Who you tax, who you give a tax break to, what programs you cut or add to, who you tighten regulations on, and who you loosen them on, what kind of contractors are eligible for government work, which school districts and non-profit groups get federal money, etc: these political decisions are generally not win-win. Instead, they mean that one group of people win, and one group of people loses. It is the nature of politics, and you can't take the politics out of politics.

The most fundamental difference between progressives and conservatives is that question of which side you are on. Conservatives believe that the rich and powerful got that way because they deserve to be, that society owes its prosperity to the prosperous, and that government's job when they have to make choices is to side with those businesspeople who are doing well, because all good things trickle down from them. Progressives, on the other hand, believe it is the poor and those who are ill-treated who need the most help from their government, and that prosperity comes from all of us -- the worker as well as the employer, the consumer as well as the seller, the struggling entrepreneur trying to make it as well as the wealthy who already have.

Jesus' main concern in terms of the people whose fates he cared about was for the poor, the oppressed, and the outcast. Comment after comment and story after story in the Gospels about Jesus relates to the treatment of the poor, generosity to those in need, mercy to the outcast, and scorn for the wealthy and powerful. And his philosophy is embedded with the central importance of taking care of others, loving others, treating others as you would want to be treated. There is no virtue of selfishness here, there is no "greed is good," there is no invisible hand of the market or looking out for Number One first. There is nothing about poor people being lazy, nothing about the undeserving poor being leeches on society, nothing about how I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps so everyone else should, too. There is nothing about how in nature, "the lions eat the weak," and therefore we shouldn't help the poor because it weakens them. There is nothing about charity or welfare corrupting a person's spirit.

What there is: quote after quote about compassion for the poor. In Jesus' very first sermon of his ministry, the place where he launched his public career, he stated the reason he had come: to bring good news to the poor, liberty to the captives, to help the oppressed go free, and that he was here to proclaim a year of favor from the Lord -- which in Jewish tradition meant the year that poor debtors were forgiven their debts to bankers and the wealthy. In Luke 6, Jesus says the poor and hungry will be blessed, and the rich will be cursed. He urges his followers to sell all their possessions and give them to the poor. The one time he really focuses on God's judgment and who goes to heaven is in Matthew 25, where he says those who go to heaven will be those who fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited those in prison, gave shelter to the hungry, and welcomed the stranger -- and those who don't make it were the ones who refused to help the poor and oppressed.

And he was a really serious class warrior, too -- he wasn't just into helping the poor; he didn't seem to like rich folks very much. In Matthew 6, he focuses on the love of money as a major problem. In Luke 11, he berates a wealthy lawyer for burdening the poor. In Luke 12, he says that the wealthy who store up treasure are cursed by God. In Luke 14, he says if we throw a party, we should invite all poor people and no rich people, and suggests that the wealthy already turned down their invitation to God's feast, and that it is the poor who will get into heaven (a theme repeated multiple times). He says that the rich people will have a harder time getting to heaven than a camel trying to pass through the eye of a needle. He chases the wealthy bankers and merchants from the Temple.

I have never heard a conservative Christian quote any of these verses -- not once, and I have been in a lot of discussions with Christian conservatives, and heard a lot of their speeches and sermons. The one verse they always quote (and I mean always -- I have never talked to a conservative Christian about economics and not heard them quote this verse) is the one time in which Jesus says that "the poor will always be with us." The reason they love this quote so much is that they interpret that line to mean that in spite of everything else Jesus said about the poor, that since the poor will always be with us, we don't need to worry about trying to help them. Apparently since the poor will always be with us, we can go ahead and screw them. But Jesus making a prediction that there will always be oppressive societies doesn't mean he wanted us to join the oppressors. By clinging desperately to that one verse in the Bible, and ignoring all the others about the poor and the rich, Christian conservatives show themselves to be hypocrites, plain and simple.

Whole article...

Drivel.

Jesus wasn't Robin Hood. If God had wanted us to be fascists.. He'd have simply made us fascists. What value are we to Him if our good works are not done freely? There's no point in allowing Free Will, if we don't have choices.

"Progressives" are nothing more than modern fascists. They've just found a nicer sounding word for the same old dog-n-pony show. It's a facade for socialism just like it was in Mussolini's day. They believe they can regulate private business to the point of de facto state ownership. They don't believe in the rights of the individual to his own property or to his own benefit. They believe in the collective, and right of might.

It's a filthy ideology that dehumanizes the individual person under the guise of love for humanity, one that removes CHOICE.... choice that was given to us by God.

So, who the fuck do you think you are to try and take it away?

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith

"I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our country's most agile military force--the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. I suspected I was part of a racket all the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service." - Smedley D. Butler (1881-1940)

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Socialism/Communism never works in the end. It's best to just stand up for Freedom & Liberty instead. Socialism/Communism is a very dangerous gamble at best. What Freedoms does one have to give up to get those possible Government freebies? There has to be balance in a truly free society. Right now the Government is disturbing this balance in this country and elsewhere. Too much Government is bad. I just wish more people would realize this.

 

[KMAN]

I see now why leftists are so angry and bitter all the time. Their ideology is a guaranteed loss. How? Let me explain.

If the right wins in elections or talking points, the left loses. Thats a loss. Easy enough.

But if the left wins? Well, we are seeing time and time again throughout society where socialism and communism have failed. The entitlement lifestyle always fails. Greece is a perfect example. The USSR. North Korea. Cuba. Venezuela. If Canada had to spend money on national defense, they'd be in trouble to. Luckily, they got us. But, Spain is in trouble. England is in trouble. Germany is in trouble. All the socialist and communist states have failed or are failing.

So, if the left wins this culture war, all of the lefties will eventually end up rioting in the streets because they lost their benefits or free food or free rent or whatever. Whats the saying? "Eventually you run out of other people's money."?

So, the lefties know they've latched onto a failed philosophy. So, win or lose, they end up losing either way.

And before some bitter, whining lefties start crying "OH YEAH well how has that capitalism worked out for America, huh?"

It's worked out so good, our poor have obesity problems. So good, our minority black population would be the 5th richest nation on Earth if counted seperately. So good our "poor" on average own 2 cars, a color TV, fridge, washer and dryer, have air conditioning, microwave, cell phone, and get subsidized food, shelter and education.

Sorry lefties. If you beat us in this ideological battle, well, we're all gonna lose and end up like Greece one day. But if we win, well, we'll keep erecting crosses over top of our Wal-Marts and driving pickup trucks, while you still lose. Either way, you lose!

Amen brother... Just try to find a rich socialist country.... Not gonna happen... yet libs keep wanting to turn this into a socialist country..

 

[Rinata]

I see now why leftists are so angry and bitter all the time. Their ideology is a guaranteed loss. How? Let me explain.

If the right wins in elections or talking points, the left loses. Thats a loss. Easy enough.

But if the left wins? Well, we are seeing time and time again throughout society where socialism and communism have failed. The entitlement lifestyle always fails. Greece is a perfect example. The USSR. North Korea. Cuba. Venezuela. If Canada had to spend money on national defense, they'd be in trouble to. Luckily, they got us. But, Spain is in trouble. England is in trouble. Germany is in trouble. All the socialist and communist states have failed or are failing.

So, if the left wins this culture war, all of the lefties will eventually end up rioting in the streets because they lost their benefits or free food or free rent or whatever. Whats the saying? "Eventually you run out of other people's money."?

So, the lefties know they've latched onto a failed philosophy. So, win or lose, they end up losing either way.

And before some bitter, whining lefties start crying "OH YEAH well how has that capitalism worked out for America, huh?"

It's worked out so good, our poor have obesity problems. So good, our minority black population would be the 5th richest nation on Earth if counted seperately. So good our "poor" on average own 2 cars, a color TV, fridge, washer and dryer, have air conditioning, microwave, cell phone, and get subsidized food, shelter and education.

Sorry lefties. If you beat us in this ideological battle, well, we're all gonna lose and end up like Greece one day. But if we win, well, we'll keep erecting crosses over top of our Wal-Marts and driving pickup trucks, while you still lose. Either way, you lose!

Thank God you right wing fringe nutcases are few.

 

[Bfgrn]

Your blind worship of the aristocracy is about to become YOUR major embarrassment...

If "personal responsibility" applies to me, then it applies to everyone. NO one has the right to rob another human being of their right to life, liberty or their pursuit of happiness. That includes not ONLY me, but Dow Chemical, Exxon Mobil, BP and any other polluter. If my kid develops asthma because he or she is breathing poisons from a coal burning energy plant, WHO is responsible to pay for their medical care? WHO will be 'personally responsible'? If my kid develops cancer from exposure to PCB's and carcinogens from swimming in polluted lakes, WHO pays for their chemotherapy and exorbitant medical costs...ME??? If my child is robbed of LIFE by those illnesses WHO will be 'personally responsible'?

Maybe you can make the case that it's the cost of PROGRESS, the root word of progressive...but that would expose your true hypocrisy...

You need to get an adult education, be taught the real price all of us pay for corporate socialism and corporate welfare; it's called cost externalization. And you need to be schooled on the REAL founding father's beliefs...

A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when.

Corporations could not own stock in other corporations

They were prohibited from any part of the political process.

Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation.

But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good

And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

Jan Edwards and Molly Morgan: Abolish Corporate Personhood

Why don't you go talk to the fucking Corporatist-In-Chief then if you're so worried about corporatism? There's been more corporatism under Barack Obama than we've ever seen in this country. Why don't you extract Jeffrey Immelt out from under his ass before you regale us with tales of "corporatism".


Republicans recognize the need for some regulation in order to protect the liberties of the general public. We just believe that it's not necessary to use a Sherman tank when a flyswatter will do. We don't have to have government takeovers of entire industries in order to solve problems.

Oh... and this bit about "progress" being the root word for "progressivism". Wake up. No... grow up. It's about incrementalism, making "progress" toward a fascist goal, bit by bit. You can tell that, by watching their actions and ignoring their lying words.

Unalienable rights are those which do not impede the rights of others. You don't have a right to poison people no matter whose property you're on.

This is the basis of Liberty. Do as you please, just so long as you're not hurting anybody else in the exercise of your own pursuits.

SO, if I poison people, it's the Sherman tank for me. If Dow Chemical, Exxon Mobil or BP poison people a flyswatter will do...Thank you for proving my point.

Your fascism charge is moronic. Fascism, communism or any form of authoritarianism can ONLY exist when a government and a willing segment of that citizenry place property and material wealth ahead of people; human beings. Authoritarianism is a trait that is exclusive to conservatives. Liberals believe everyone is equal. Conservatives believe in a hierarchy. Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy. The most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of conservative common people that the aristocracy (CEO's at Dow Chemical, Exxon Mobil, BP) are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality.

Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

Now, what do you want to be schooled on next, the right's LOVE for collectivism?

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer

 

[Murf76]

SO, if I poison people, it's the Sherman tank for me. If Dow Chemical, Exxon Mobil or BP poison people a flyswatter will do...Thank you for proving my point.

Your fascism charge is moronic. Fascism, communism or any form of authoritarianism can ONLY exist when a government and a willing segment of that citizenry place property and material wealth ahead of people; human beings. Authoritarianism is a trait that is exclusive to conservatives. Liberals believe everyone is equal. Conservatives believe in a hierarchy. Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy. The most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of conservative common people that the aristocracy (CEO's at Dow Chemical, Exxon Mobil, BP) are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality.

Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

Now, what do you want to be schooled on next, the right's LOVE for collectivism?

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer

You know, it's no wonder your posts are always such nonsense. Your slavish devotion to leftist ideology has left you utterly twisted, to the point where you apparently have no ability to read without adding your own dogmatic slant.

Conservatives are NOT in support of chemical companies poisoning people.
Do you understand how sick that accusation is? How out of touch with reality?

Understand the purpose of Fascism. It was a system put into place by Benito Mussolini in order to install socialism under the facade of a compromise. This daily hysteria we see from leftists regarding corporations was intrinsic to its adoption.

If we understand Socialism as government ownership of the means of production, and Capitalism as private ownership of the means of production... Fascism is the "third way" between them, supposedly splitting the difference. In actuality though, the result is de facto government ownership of production, because industry becomes utterly controlled via onerous regulation.

And if you'll bother to do your homework, you'll find early "Progressives" in enthusiastic approval of Mussolini's new system. You'll also find that while they shared your hysteria about private business, they were racists and eugenicists, who didn't seek only to collectively order the business world, but the people themselves.

All collectivist ideologies are essentially the same. It really doesn't matter to the end product if you call it communism, or socialism, or fascism, or progressivism. They all result in the same thing... tyranny by the elitist few (the social "planners") over the many. Individual Liberty cannot coexist with a collectivist system. It prioritizes the individual over the group. It refuses to be socially "planned". It respects the unalienable rights of citizens as sacrosanct, their property an undeniable right.

This is the BIG PICTURE.... Individual Liberty v. Collectivism. All other areas of political discord take a back seat to this question. Are we individuals with unalienable rights... or are we cogs in the machine of elitist social planning?

The purpose of government was to guarantee those rights. That's why it's a just and right thing to utilize regulatory law in order to prevent overt harm to citizens. It's completely appropriate to tell a chemical corporation that they can't dump waste into our streams. It's an overt action which causes distinct harm to innocent bystanders. It is NOT appropriate to dictate corporate pay rates just because individual citizens aren't smart enough to buy their stocks wisely and their wealth offends your tender sensibilities. There's no overt harm being done that people aren't able to address themselves through choice to buy or not buy a product or stock.

You people keep getting lost in "issues" and don't seem to have any understanding whatsoever of what's actually at stake. You rely on some sort of inexplicable trust that you won't be taken advantage of by the elitist social planners, that you will somehow always be protected and prioritized as individuals. But that's not what collectivism is about. It's about the collective. It's only the LAW, set down by our U.S. Constitution, which protects you as an individual. And the depredations that you allow upon our ancient contract with government WEAKENS your protection.

You have no way to know what kind of people our future leaders will be, or what they will do with the power you're allowing them to take. Right now, you agree with the cult of personality surrounding the current administration, because you agree with them on "issues". But what will you do when they no longer reflect your values and yet maintain the power to "plan" your social structure in the arbitrary manner of their choosing, simply because they adopt a different view of what's in the best interest of the collective?

You've missed the Big Picture. It's not "Conservatives v. Liberals". It's about Individualism (Liberty) v. Collectivism. And you're on the side of The Machine, not the human being who is in possession of innate natural rights and whose government was tasked to protect those rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If liberalism is so bad, why is it that over the decades, it's the liberal policies that win and conservatism that loses?

Does that mean that the American form of government and way of life is simply a bad idea that the People are wrongly advancing?

 

[rightwinger]

If liberalism is so bad, why is it that over the decades, it's the liberal policies that win and conservatism that loses?

Does that mean that the American form of government and way of life is simply a bad idea that the People are wrongly advancing?

All the conservatives manage to accomplish is to reign in Liberal Policies

They never accomplish anything on their own

 

[Murf76]

If liberalism is so bad, why is it that over the decades, it's the liberal policies that win and conservatism that loses?

Does that mean that the American form of government and way of life is simply a bad idea that the People are wrongly advancing?

Classical liberalism is good.

"Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the 19th century in England, Western Europe, and the Americas. It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets."

(more...)
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's Progressivism that's bad, as it is completely antithetical to Classical Liberalism. Conservatives are Classical Liberals in most of their views. What becomes confusing is that Social Liberalism is a subtext of Classical Liberalism, where Conservatives and modern "Liberals" disagree on issues like abortion and homosexual marriage, with Conservatives on one side of the spectrum and "Liberals" on the other.

The subtext is not the main conflict we face. The new breed of Progressive has coopted a modern liberal view on social issues, and seeks to make that the focal point of the conflict. All the while, the main impetus of Progressive Central Planning is hidden, unseen due to the tumult caused between opposing social views within the populace.

What we end up with is more like this:
Classical Liberal
w/Conservative Social Values

v.

Progressive Collectivist
w/Liberal Social Values

So, when you view the conflict as "Conservative v. Liberal", you're just looking at the subtext which describes social values. Not the Big Picture conflict which deals with "Individualism v. Collectivism".

 

[NYcarbineer]

If liberalism is so bad, why is it that over the decades, it's the liberal policies that win and conservatism that loses?

Does that mean that the American form of government and way of life is simply a bad idea that the People are wrongly advancing?

Classical liberalism is good.

"Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the 19th century in England, Western Europe, and the Americas. It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets."

(more...)
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's Progressivism that's bad, as it is completely antithetical to Classical Liberalism. Conservatives are Classical Liberals in most of their views. What becomes confusing is that Social Liberalism is a subtext of Classical Liberalism, where Conservatives and modern "Liberals" disagree on issues like abortion and homosexual marriage, with Conservatives on one side of the spectrum and "Liberals" on the other.

The subtext is not the main conflict we face. The new breed of Progressive has coopted a modern liberal view on social issues, and seeks to make that the focal point of the conflict. All the while, the main impetus of Progressive Central Planning is hidden, unseen due to the tumult caused between opposing social views within the populace.

What we end up with is more like this:
Classical Liberal
w/Conservative Social Values

v.

Progressive Collectivist
w/Liberal Social Values

So, when you view the conflict as "Conservative v. Liberal", you're just looking at the subtext which describes social values. Not the Big Picture conflict which deals with "Individualism v. Collectivism".

"Big government" is needed to advance the social agenda because otherwise conservatives will use state's rights to perpetuate social injustice.

The reason that modern day conservatives love to hark back to the merits of liberalism of the past reinforces what is exactly my point. Liberalism of the past won over the conservatism of the past. What conservatives of the past once fought against, modern conservatives now accept/embrace/defend. They are however, in the process, conceding that their conservative predecessors were wrong.

And future conservatives will look back on the conservatives of the present, and concede, in large measure, that you were wrong. The liberalism of today will be the center/right of a couple generations from now.

 

[EriktheRed]

Liberal politics are a lose-lose situation

You mean like in '06 and '08?

 

[EriktheRed]

I see now why leftists are so angry and bitter all the time.

I've seen lots of anger and bitterness on the other side since November of '06.

 

[EriktheRed]

I can see the OP is one of those our-shit-never-stinks kinds of conservatives. They're the most fun to laugh at.

 

[Murf76]

"Big government" is needed to advance the social agenda because otherwise conservatives will use state's rights to perpetuate social injustice.

The reason that modern day conservatives love to hark back to the merits of liberalism of the past reinforces what is exactly my point. Liberalism of the past won over the conservatism of the past. What conservatives of the past once fought against, modern conservatives now accept/embrace/defend. They are however, in the process, conceding that their conservative predecessors were wrong.

And future conservatives will look back on the conservatives of the present, and concede, in large measure, that you were wrong. The liberalism of today will be the center/right of a couple generations from now.

What you, and other collectivists like you, fail to understand... is that you have NO RIGHT to change the system that was agreed upon at ratification of the Constitution, not without adopting amendments. You have no authority over us without that document save right of might. And THAT is a double-edged sword indeed.

The contract is with Classical Liberalism, not Progressivism. Break the contract and anarchy ensues. There is NO United States of America outside of agreed upon, Constitutional law.

So it doesn't really matter what YOU want. Go start your own country and "plan" it any way you like it. This one already has a definable system of governance.