"Progressive" is a liberal euphemism

[AmericanFirst]

But it's for their own good!

"Or so the Germans would have you belive..."​

CONs resent paying money to live in the United States, but applaud other people giving their LIVES for this nation.

Libtards don't know what it means to live in a free country.

 

[regent]

Or as General MacArthur said before the Congress:
"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."

 

[The T]

Or as General MacArthur said before the Congress:
"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."

Agreed. I AM a Liberal Founding thinker.

 

[regent]

Or as General MacArthur said before the Congress:
"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."

Agreed. I AM a Liberal Founding thinker.

Now what is liberalism, the core values, not the means to achieve those values?

 

[daveman]

Or as General MacArthur said before the Congress:
"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."

Yeah. Can you tell me what modern liberals have in common with classical liberals, other than the label?

Because that's all I can see.

 

[Dragon]

Yeah. Can you tell me what modern liberals have in common with classical liberals, other than the label?

Because that's all I can see.

This might help, if you have the attention span for it:

As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could no employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe.

The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

I prefer liberal, mighty proud to be one I am

 

[daveman]

Yeah. Can you tell me what modern liberals have in common with classical liberals, other than the label?

Because that's all I can see.

This might help, if you have the attention span for it:

As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could no employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe.

The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

The first paragraph, about Jefferson's act of charity, has little to do with modern liberals, who define charity as "government taking from those who earn and giving to those who don't".

As for the second paragraph, can you tell me any land-owning liberals who have given their property to the less fortunate?

 

[Dragon]

[
The first paragraph, about Jefferson's act of charity, has little to do with modern liberals, who define charity as "government taking from those who earn and giving to those who don't".

As for the second paragraph, can you tell me any land-owning liberals who have given their property to the less fortunate?

I knew you wouldn't get it.

Stop thinking about means and start thinking about ends. That's what classical liberals like Jefferson have in common with modern liberals. That's if you're actually asking the question you asked, instead of throwing verbal spitwads, as is your wont.

 

[ginscpy]

for barbaric practices like partial-birth abortion.

Like the Nazi's "Final Solution" was a euphemism for mass-murder.

You would have thought the Nazi officials at the Wannesse Conf were talking about the weather.

As a matter of fact - they did talk about the weather. (mild for winter)

Then they planned out the murder of all the Jews in Europe - then when that business was done - they did some socializing and went home.

 

[Cowman]

for barbaric practices like partial-birth abortion.

Like the Nazi's "Final Solution" was a euphemism for mass-murder.

You would have thought the Nazi officials at the Wannesse Conf were talking about the weather.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

God you guys are lame.

Embryos are not people. If they were, then the thousands of frozen embryos in fertility labs would have the right to own guns.

And having watched my mother die in a horrible suffering manner, I am a big believe in euthanasia.

We treat our dogs better than we treat people.

Based on your TWISTED LOGIC, newborn babies are also "not people", and therefore cannot own guns, because they are also 100% dependent on somebody else for survival. The same "logic" would apply to ADULTS who can't take care of themselves independently, right?

So if your mother was suffering so much and you had to watch it, WHY didn't you shoot her or strangle her or starve her to death, so you could spare yourself from the "pain" that your mother caused you?

I guess the BEST way to explain your position is to call it "The Circle Of Death", where unborn babies and old people are at the mercy of a greater power (in this case, the government and the court system) that decides whether or not they are "viable" human beings.

You and your ilk are just as fucked up in the head as Adolph Hitler and his sicko henchmen.

 

[Dragon]

Based on your TWISTED LOGIC, newborn babies are also "not people", and therefore cannot own guns

Maybe you haven't noticed this, but newborn babies in fact CAN'T own guns.

The real point for me about embryos isn't their dependence but the fact that they don't have brains or nervous systems, and therefore can't have thoughts, feelings or personality. If it doesn't have a functioning brain, it's not a person. It may be "human," but so is what I flush down the toilet every day. So what?

 

[The T]

Yeah. Can you tell me what modern liberals have in common with classical liberals, other than the label?

Because that's all I can see.

This might help, if you have the attention span for it:

As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could no employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe.

The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

The first paragraph, about Jefferson's act of charity, has little to do with modern liberals, who define charity as "government taking from those who earn and giving to those who don't".

As for the second paragraph, can you tell me any land-owning liberals who have given their property to the less fortunate?

Jefferson would tell modern-day incarnations of Liberals to get lost.

 

[daveman]

[
The first paragraph, about Jefferson's act of charity, has little to do with modern liberals, who define charity as "government taking from those who earn and giving to those who don't".

As for the second paragraph, can you tell me any land-owning liberals who have given their property to the less fortunate?

I knew you wouldn't get it.

TRANSLATION:

"Dammit, just shut up and agree with me because I'm smart!!"

Stop thinking about means and start thinking about ends. That's what classical liberals like Jefferson have in common with modern liberals. That's if you're actually asking the question you asked, instead of throwing verbal spitwads, as is your wont.

I've seen the ends the left supports. It has little to do with personal liberty.

Really, I don't know why you guys try to pull off this charade. It's ludicrous.