YouGov poll: 43% of Republicans could imagine supporting a military coup in the United States

[Correll]

Billy's post was anything but "loony". Indeed, it was quite intelligent.

That you can't differentiate says volumes about you!

Billy posted the traditional historical definition of "liberal".

His point that it has nothing to do with the modern American "liberal" is completely true.

YOu ignored that fact to attack a strawman.

That was dishonest and cowardly of you.


I called you on your bullshit, and instead of responding seriously or honestly, you doubled down on your dishonest and cowardly behavior.

As to be expected from a Clown.

That you don't care how this reflects on you says volumes about YOU.

That you suffer from the same dementia that affects the other poster is not my problem.

Neither of you has the requisite authority to redefine the term liberal.

Deal with it.

We are not "redefining" the term, you are.

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom withrepresentative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.[1][2]

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[3] Notable individuals whose ideas have contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law,[5] utilitarianism,[6] and progress.[7]

In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, neo-classical liberalism advocated Social Darwinism.[8]Right-libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism"



So, if you were a serious or honest person, you would admit that you were wrong on this minor point, and that would be the end of it.

But instead, you are a Clown, and you cannot be anything but dishonest and rude.

 

[Derideo_Te]

From your own link;

Many modern scholars of liberalism argue that no particularly meaningful distinction between classical and modern liberalism exists. Alan Wolfe summarises this viewpoint, which:[74]

reject(s) any such distinction and argue(s) instead for the existence of a continuous liberal understanding that includes both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes... The idea that liberalism comes in two forms assumes that the most fundamental question facing mankind is how much government intervenes into the economy... When instead we discuss human purpose and the meaning of life, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are on the same side. Both of them possessed an expansive sense of what we are put on this earth to accomplish. Both were on the side of enlightenment. Both were optimists who believed in progress but were dubious about grand schemes that claimed to know all the answers. For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth-century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end... [M]odern liberalism is instead the logical and sociological outcome of classical liberalism.​

Had you been honest enough to quote your own link entirely you would have seen that it utterly refutes what you claim.

But you have already flushed your own credibility so this isn't going to make any difference.


From your own link too;

Right-libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism"

Right-libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right-libertarianism

See also: Right-wing anarchism​

Right-libertarianism (or right-wing libertarianism) refers to those libertarianpolitical philosophies that advocate both self-ownership and distribution of resources in accordance with theentitlement theory of justice. Since this results in unequal distribution of natural resources, egalitarians generally oppose the latter.[1] Right libertarians strongly support private property rights and free-marketcapitalism. This position is contrasted with that of some versions of left-libertarianism, which maintain that natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarianmanner, either unowned or owned collectively.[2] Right-libertarianism includes anarcho-capitalismand laissez-faire, minarchistliberalism.[note 1]​

Your Libertarian cult, like all religions, tries to redefine itself as being who the Founding Fathers were. Only you are nothing even remotely close to them. Your Libertarian cult would destroy everything they created.

 

[Correll]

From your own link;

Many modern scholars of liberalism argue that no particularly meaningful distinction between classical and modern liberalism exists. Alan Wolfe summarises this viewpoint, which:[74]

reject(s) any such distinction and argue(s) instead for the existence of a continuous liberal understanding that includes both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes... The idea that liberalism comes in two forms assumes that the most fundamental question facing mankind is how much government intervenes into the economy... When instead we discuss human purpose and the meaning of life, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are on the same side. Both of them possessed an expansive sense of what we are put on this earth to accomplish. Both were on the side of enlightenment. Both were optimists who believed in progress but were dubious about grand schemes that claimed to know all the answers. For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth-century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end... [M]odern liberalism is instead the logical and sociological outcome of classical liberalism.​

Had you been honest enough to quote your own link entirely you would have seen that it utterly refutes what you claim.

....

Err, the fact that I did not cut and paste the entire Wikipeida article is proof that I am dishonest?! LOL!!!


"Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedomwithrepresentative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom"

This is not what modern "liberals" are about.

Despite what Alan Wolfe might have to say about it.

And say, why did you not cut and paste the very next sentence?


"According to William J. Novak, however, liberalism in the United States shifted, "between 1877 and 1937...from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Dealstatism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism"

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Many modern scholars of liberalism argue that no particularly meaningful distinction between classical and modern liberalism exists.

Of course they do. How else could the Left make their overwhelmingly humorous and phony connection with the Founding Fathers?

 

[Derideo_Te]

From your own link;

Many modern scholars of liberalism argue that no particularly meaningful distinction between classical and modern liberalism exists. Alan Wolfe summarises this viewpoint, which:[74]

reject(s) any such distinction and argue(s) instead for the existence of a continuous liberal understanding that includes both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes... The idea that liberalism comes in two forms assumes that the most fundamental question facing mankind is how much government intervenes into the economy... When instead we discuss human purpose and the meaning of life, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are on the same side. Both of them possessed an expansive sense of what we are put on this earth to accomplish. Both were on the side of enlightenment. Both were optimists who believed in progress but were dubious about grand schemes that claimed to know all the answers. For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth-century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end... [M]odern liberalism is instead the logical and sociological outcome of classical liberalism.​

Had you been honest enough to quote your own link entirely you would have seen that it utterly refutes what you claim.

....

Err, the fact that I did not cut and paste the entire Wikipeida article is proof that I am dishonest?! LOL!!!


"Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedomwithrepresentative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom"

This is not what modern "liberals" are about.

Despite what Alan Wolfe might have to say about it.

And say, why did you not cut and paste the very next sentence?


"According to William J. Novak, however, liberalism in the United States shifted, "between 1877 and 1937...from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Dealstatism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism"

Because I knew you would and therefore you would prove me correct about the fallacy of your Libertarian cult's fallacious and mendacious claims about "classical liberalism".

And no, I don't expect you to have made that connection because cultists like you and your ilk lack the cognitive skills necessary.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Many modern scholars of liberalism argue that no particularly meaningful distinction between classical and modern liberalism exists.

Of course they do. How else could the Left make their overwhelmingly humorous and phony connection with the Founding Fathers?

Ironic given that the only "phony connection with the Founding Fathers" is the one being fallaciously claimed by the dishonest Libertarian cultists like yourself.

 

[paulitician]

Sadly, it may be the only solution left. The Politicians are corrupt Illuminati NWO bastards. However, military action might not be the final answer. Personally, i see much carnage and misery before we can rebuild our nation. The complete collapse will have to come first.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Many modern scholars of liberalism argue that no particularly meaningful distinction between classical and modern liberalism exists.

Of course they do. How else could the Left make their overwhelmingly humorous and phony connection with the Founding Fathers?

Ironic given that the only "phony connection with the Founding Fathers" is the one being fallaciously claimed by the dishonest Libertarian cultists like yourself.

Well, here we are!

Prove it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Sadly, it may be the only solution left. The Politicians are corrupt Illuminati NWO bastards. However, military action might not be the final answer. Personally, i see much carnage and misery before we can rebuild our nation. The complete collapse will have to come first.

I hope not.

 

[Correll]

From your own link;

Many modern scholars of liberalism argue that no particularly meaningful distinction between classical and modern liberalism exists. Alan Wolfe summarises this viewpoint, which:[74]

reject(s) any such distinction and argue(s) instead for the existence of a continuous liberal understanding that includes both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes... The idea that liberalism comes in two forms assumes that the most fundamental question facing mankind is how much government intervenes into the economy... When instead we discuss human purpose and the meaning of life, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are on the same side. Both of them possessed an expansive sense of what we are put on this earth to accomplish. Both were on the side of enlightenment. Both were optimists who believed in progress but were dubious about grand schemes that claimed to know all the answers. For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth-century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end... [M]odern liberalism is instead the logical and sociological outcome of classical liberalism.​

Had you been honest enough to quote your own link entirely you would have seen that it utterly refutes what you claim.

....

Err, the fact that I did not cut and paste the entire Wikipeida article is proof that I am dishonest?! LOL!!!


"Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedomwithrepresentative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom"

This is not what modern "liberals" are about.

Despite what Alan Wolfe might have to say about it.

And say, why did you not cut and paste the very next sentence?


"According to William J. Novak, however, liberalism in the United States shifted, "between 1877 and 1937...from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Dealstatism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism"

Because I knew you would and therefore you would prove me correct about the fallacy of your Libertarian cult's fallacious and mendacious claims about "classical liberalism".

And no, I don't expect you to have made that connection because cultists like you and your ilk lack the cognitive skills necessary.

My point was based on the traditional definition of Liberalism posted about, again for you.

Anyone with any knowledge of current events can see that modern "liberals" do not meet that definition.

YOu are the one that cited Alan Wolfe as though his statements are better than our own analysis of current events, I was just pointing out the you were exhibiting behavior you slammed me for.

Do you want to argue that modern libs believe in economic freedom? Or Civil RIghts?

 

[paulitician]

Sadly, it may be the only solution left. The Politicians are corrupt Illuminati NWO bastards. However, military action might not be the final answer. Personally, i see much carnage and misery before we can rebuild our nation. The complete collapse will have to come first.

I hope not.

You have to have complete collapse in order to rebuild a nation. The System is so thoroughly corrupted.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do you want to argue that modern libs believe in economic freedom? Or Civil RIghts?

It wasn't you feckless Libertarian cultists who were supporting gay marriage, was it?

No, it was "modern libs" who were, and still are, supporting equal civil rights for all Americans.

 

[sealybobo]

Ok, this is sad, this is just plain, old sad:

YouGov | Could a coup really happen in the United States?

Wow.

"One nation, under G-d, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".

Just to remind.

-Stat

The rich already tried taking over America before.

Business Plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When The Bankers Plotted To Overthrow FDR

The newly elected president pursued an ambitious legislative program aimed at easing some of the troubles. But he faced vitriolic opposition from both sides of the political spectrum.

"The president has not merely signed the death warrant of capitalism, but has ordained the mutilation of the Constitution, unless the friends of liberty, regardless of party, band themselves together to regain their lost freedom." SOUND FAMILIAR?

Those words could be ripped from today's headlines. When Roosevelt finally took office, he embarked on the now-legendary First Hundred Days, an ambitious legislative program aimed at reopening and stabilizing the country's banks and getting the economy moving again.

Critics on the right worried that Roosevelt was a Communist, a socialist or the tool of a Jewish conspiracy. Though it's barely remembered today, there was a genuine conspiracy to overthrow the president.

The Wall Street Putsch, as it's known today, was a plot by a group of right-wing financiers.

"They thought that they could convince Roosevelt, because he was rich they thought that they could convince Roosevelt to relinquish power to basically a fascist, military-type government.

The conspirators had several million dollars, a stockpile of weapons and had even reached out to a retired Marine general, Smedley Darlington Butler, to lead their forces.

"Had he been a different kind of person, it might have gone a lot further," Denton says. "But he saw it as treason and he reported it to Congress."

Much like the birther movement tried to say Obama is a muslim, these guys said Roosevelt was actually a secret Jew.