Only Liberals Are Pro-Liberty

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is called a fetus.

Or would you deign to extend your definition of un-born baby to the egg and the sperm that constitute it.

A baby 39 weeks after conception is a fetus deserving no constitutional protection?

Is the death penalty murder?

Why don't you show me the statistics on abortions at 39 weeks.

Statistics? We're still talking about babies.

Is the death penalty murder?

 

[Photonic]

A baby 39 weeks after conception is a fetus deserving no constitutional protection?

Is the death penalty murder?

Why don't you show me the statistics on abortions at 39 weeks.

Statistics? We're still talking about babies.

Is the death penalty murder?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A baby 39 weeks after conception is a fetus deserving no constitutional protection?

So the conservative ‘solution’ is to violate an American’s privacy rights and authorize the state to dictate to private citizens how they’ll address personal, private matters – doesn’t sound very ‘small government conservative.’

And has it ever occurred to any conservative that there are other more effective ways to end abortion rather than violating privacy rights and expanding the authority of government?

 

[occupied]

It is impossible to separate the small government conservatives from the theocratic christian right, most of the time they are the same people who somehow hold both conflicting beliefs, no wonder they are so damned grumpy.

 

[dblack]

[So the conservative ‘solution’ is to violate an American’s privacy rights and authorize the state to dictate to private citizens how they’ll address personal, private matters – doesn’t sound very ‘small government conservative.’

Hmm... I wonder where they got their inspiration?

 

[jaffeh]

Among liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, only liberals are consistently pro-liberty across the board. Conservatives are consistently anti-liberty, and libertarians are neither one nor the other.

Liberty is the ability of ordinary people to live their lives without being under the domination of others, whether of government or of any private power.

Newsflash! Anytime you depend on the government for your welfare check, Health Care, Social Security Retirement, whether or not you have employment, etc. . . . . you don't have any liberty. Rather you are "chained" to whatever the Federal Government can afford to give you in the form of entitlements. True liberty is going out and getting your OWN job, providing for your OWN income, and planning for your OWN retirement accounts. I'd rather not have the Government do anything for me that a little hard work, responsibility, and self determination can otherwise do to establish my own lifestyle.

I pretty much agree except for the Social Security part. I'm almost fifty seven, and I've paid into it since I was seventeen. People getting back at least what they paid in is not "entitlement" in your basic terms...getting something for nothing.

I think it's kind of a big business notion for people to "save" for their retirement. I've worked every day since shortly after college, teaching mostly. It took me until I was about forty five before I actually had any money left at the end of the paycheck even though I'd put in the full week's effort every week and worked ethically and steadily.

I've paid into retirement funds, all I could, and it's about enough, all told, to get me to, about age 75 according to calculators on the Internet. If I'm frugal.

I know frugal. I've become a tightwad, and I have a little personal nest egg, but stuff like repairs on my almost paid for 1950 vintage house I paid sixty two thousand for six years ago and needing car repairs and needing a computer that works well to teach online classes I'm required to teach...stuff costs.

And as "regular people" go, I'm well off. Fourteen thou left on the house, no car payment, no other debt at all.

And if I live past seventy five, hey, I'm on the street.

THAT is what entitlement for the most wealthy has given us since the right wing elected Reagan.

 

[OODA_Loop]

there is no liberty without self-accountability and the results that come from a lack of it

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A baby 39 weeks after conception is a fetus deserving no constitutional protection?

So the conservative ‘solution’ is to violate an American’s privacy rights and authorize the state to dictate to private citizens how they’ll address personal, private matters – doesn’t sound very ‘small government conservative.’

And has it ever occurred to any conservative that there are other more effective ways to end abortion rather than violating privacy rights and expanding the authority of government?

A baby 39 weeks after conception is a fetus deserving no constitutional protection?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Among liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, only liberals are consistently pro-liberty across the board. Conservatives are consistently anti-liberty, and libertarians are neither one nor the other.

Liberty is the ability of ordinary people to live their lives without being under the domination of others, whether of government or of any private power.

Newsflash! Anytime you depend on the government for your welfare check, Health Care, Social Security Retirement, whether or not you have employment, etc. . . . . you don't have any liberty. Rather you are "chained" to whatever the Federal Government can afford to give you in the form of entitlements. True liberty is going out and getting your OWN job, providing for your OWN income, and planning for your OWN retirement accounts. I'd rather not have the Government do anything for me that a little hard work, responsibility, and self determination can otherwise do to establish my own lifestyle.

I pretty much agree except for the Social Security part. I'm almost fifty seven, and I've paid into it since I was seventeen. People getting back at least what they paid in is not "entitlement" in your basic terms...getting something for nothing.

I think it's kind of a big business notion for people to "save" for their retirement. I've worked every day since shortly after college, teaching mostly. It took me until I was about forty five before I actually had any money left at the end of the paycheck even though I'd put in the full week's effort every week and worked ethically and steadily.

I've paid into retirement funds, all I could, and it's about enough, all told, to get me to, about age 75 according to calculators on the Internet. If I'm frugal.

I know frugal. I've become a tightwad, and I have a little personal nest egg, but stuff like repairs on my almost paid for 1950 vintage house I paid sixty two thousand for six years ago and needing car repairs and needing a computer that works well to teach online classes I'm required to teach...stuff costs.

And as "regular people" go, I'm well off. Fourteen thou left on the house, no car payment, no other debt at all.

And if I live past seventy five, hey, I'm on the street.

THAT is what entitlement for the most wealthy has given us since the right wing elected Reagan.

I'm almost fifty seven, and I've paid into it since I was seventeen.

Imagine, if you'd been able to put those 40 years of contributions into the stock market, how much you'd have now.

 

[Toro]

Newsflash! Anytime you depend on the government for your welfare check, Health Care, Social Security Retirement, whether or not you have employment, etc. . . . . you don't have any liberty. Rather you are "chained" to whatever the Federal Government can afford to give you in the form of entitlements. True liberty is going out and getting your OWN job, providing for your OWN income, and planning for your OWN retirement accounts. I'd rather not have the Government do anything for me that a little hard work, responsibility, and self determination can otherwise do to establish my own lifestyle.

I pretty much agree except for the Social Security part. I'm almost fifty seven, and I've paid into it since I was seventeen. People getting back at least what they paid in is not "entitlement" in your basic terms...getting something for nothing.

I think it's kind of a big business notion for people to "save" for their retirement. I've worked every day since shortly after college, teaching mostly. It took me until I was about forty five before I actually had any money left at the end of the paycheck even though I'd put in the full week's effort every week and worked ethically and steadily.

I've paid into retirement funds, all I could, and it's about enough, all told, to get me to, about age 75 according to calculators on the Internet. If I'm frugal.

I know frugal. I've become a tightwad, and I have a little personal nest egg, but stuff like repairs on my almost paid for 1950 vintage house I paid sixty two thousand for six years ago and needing car repairs and needing a computer that works well to teach online classes I'm required to teach...stuff costs.

And as "regular people" go, I'm well off. Fourteen thou left on the house, no car payment, no other debt at all.

And if I live past seventy five, hey, I'm on the street.

THAT is what entitlement for the most wealthy has given us since the right wing elected Reagan.

I'm almost fifty seven, and I've paid into it since I was seventeen.

Imagine, if you'd been able to put those 40 years of contributions into the stock market, how much you'd have now.

Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out. The answer is generally "no."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I pretty much agree except for the Social Security part. I'm almost fifty seven, and I've paid into it since I was seventeen. People getting back at least what they paid in is not "entitlement" in your basic terms...getting something for nothing.

I think it's kind of a big business notion for people to "save" for their retirement. I've worked every day since shortly after college, teaching mostly. It took me until I was about forty five before I actually had any money left at the end of the paycheck even though I'd put in the full week's effort every week and worked ethically and steadily.

I've paid into retirement funds, all I could, and it's about enough, all told, to get me to, about age 75 according to calculators on the Internet. If I'm frugal.

I know frugal. I've become a tightwad, and I have a little personal nest egg, but stuff like repairs on my almost paid for 1950 vintage house I paid sixty two thousand for six years ago and needing car repairs and needing a computer that works well to teach online classes I'm required to teach...stuff costs.

And as "regular people" go, I'm well off. Fourteen thou left on the house, no car payment, no other debt at all.

And if I live past seventy five, hey, I'm on the street.

THAT is what entitlement for the most wealthy has given us since the right wing elected Reagan.

I'm almost fifty seven, and I've paid into it since I was seventeen.

Imagine, if you'd been able to put those 40 years of contributions into the stock market, how much you'd have now.

Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out. The answer is generally "no."

Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out.

Imagine how much you'd be able to take out, if your contributions were in the market, instead of wasted on government spending.

The answer is generally "no."

Of course, otherwise there'd be no $11 trillion shortfall, IIRC.

 

[Photonic]

I'm almost fifty seven, and I've paid into it since I was seventeen.

Imagine, if you'd been able to put those 40 years of contributions into the stock market, how much you'd have now.

Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out. The answer is generally "no."

Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out.

Imagine how much you'd be able to take out, if your contributions were in the market, instead of wasted on government spending.

The answer is generally "no."

Of course, otherwise there'd be no $11 trillion shortfall, IIRC.

Because government revenue just materializes out of thin air!

 

[Wiseacre]

I don't believe I have ever read a more twisted alteration of reality than the OP. It's really sad that he and many others around here actually believe it to be true, and even sadder that it's useless to offer any kind of rebuttal.

 

[Oddball]

Among liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, only liberals are consistently pro-liberty across the board. Conservatives are consistently anti-liberty, and libertarians are neither one nor the other.

Liberty is the ability of ordinary people to live their lives without being under the domination of others, whether of government or of any private power.

Government action, w/r/t the issue of liberty, falls into three general categories. The first two categories are direct government infringement of liberty, and government protection of the people against the infringement of liberty by private power.

Liberty may be infringed directly by law or government force, or directly infringed by private non-government force, or indirectly infringed by an economy that denies people the means to the economic success that is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of liberty. (There is no liberty without property.) This brings up the third category: government action to promote economic equality and provide for social welfare.

When government action directly infringes liberty, the pro-liberty position is to oppose this. Thus, a pro-liberty advocate would oppose government action that tries to control people's sexual behavior unreasonably, denies reproductive rights, or violates the due process or other protections of the Bill of Rights, among other things.

Liberals and libertarians, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.

When government action restrains private power from infringing liberty, e.g. with regulations on the financial industry, protection of workers' rights, or environmental protection laws, the pro-liberty position is to support this.

Liberals, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives and libertarians adopt anti-liberty positions.

When government action attempts to narrow income gaps, raise wages, and provide for social welfare and safety nets, the pro-liberty position is to support this.

Again, liberals adopt pro-liberty positions in this context, while libertarians and conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.

Liberals are pro-liberty.

Conservatives are anti-liberty.

Libertarians are neither pro-liberty nor anti-liberty, but are, instead, anti-government, which they often seem to think means they are pro-liberty, and in some matters -- when the government really is the major threat to liberty -- they are. But not consistently.

Only liberals consistently defend liberty. And conservatives never do.

Liar.

Liberoidals are all about freedom killing laws and regulations.

They've been all in favor of anti-recreational drug laws, smoking bans, anti-gambling laws, seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, insane environmentalist whacko laws and regs that crush private property rights, stupid trans fat bans, USAPATRIOT act, TSA, and a veritable shitload of other individual liberty crushing nanny state bullshit.

Seriously....Lay off the cheap Mexican brick weed.

 

[Photonic]

I don't believe I have ever read a more twisted alteration of reality than the OP. It's really sad that he and many others around here actually believe it to be true, and even sadder that it's useless to offer any kind of rebuttal.

Fundamental attribution error - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Photonic]

Among liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, only liberals are consistently pro-liberty across the board. Conservatives are consistently anti-liberty, and libertarians are neither one nor the other.

Liberty is the ability of ordinary people to live their lives without being under the domination of others, whether of government or of any private power.

Government action, w/r/t the issue of liberty, falls into three general categories. The first two categories are direct government infringement of liberty, and government protection of the people against the infringement of liberty by private power.

Liberty may be infringed directly by law or government force, or directly infringed by private non-government force, or indirectly infringed by an economy that denies people the means to the economic success that is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of liberty. (There is no liberty without property.) This brings up the third category: government action to promote economic equality and provide for social welfare.

When government action directly infringes liberty, the pro-liberty position is to oppose this. Thus, a pro-liberty advocate would oppose government action that tries to control people's sexual behavior unreasonably, denies reproductive rights, or violates the due process or other protections of the Bill of Rights, among other things.

Liberals and libertarians, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.

When government action restrains private power from infringing liberty, e.g. with regulations on the financial industry, protection of workers' rights, or environmental protection laws, the pro-liberty position is to support this.

Liberals, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives and libertarians adopt anti-liberty positions.

When government action attempts to narrow income gaps, raise wages, and provide for social welfare and safety nets, the pro-liberty position is to support this.

Again, liberals adopt pro-liberty positions in this context, while libertarians and conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.

Liberals are pro-liberty.

Conservatives are anti-liberty.

Libertarians are neither pro-liberty nor anti-liberty, but are, instead, anti-government, which they often seem to think means they are pro-liberty, and in some matters -- when the government really is the major threat to liberty -- they are. But not consistently.

Only liberals consistently defend liberty. And conservatives never do.

Liar.

Liberoidals are all about freedom killing laws and regulations.

They've been all in favor of anti-recreational drug laws, smoking bans, anti-gambling laws, seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, insane environmentalist whacko laws and regs that crush private property rights, stupid trans fat bans, USAPATRIOT act, TSA, and a veritable shitload of other individual liberty crushing nanny state bullshit.

Seriously....Lay off the cheap Mexican brick weed.

Patriot act was signed in by a republican.

 

[Liberty]

Among liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, only liberals are consistently pro-liberty across the board. Conservatives are consistently anti-liberty, and libertarians are neither one nor the other.

Liberty is the ability of ordinary people to live their lives without being under the domination of others, whether of government or of any private power.

Government action, w/r/t the issue of liberty, falls into three general categories. The first two categories are direct government infringement of liberty, and government protection of the people against the infringement of liberty by private power.

Liberty may be infringed directly by law or government force, or directly infringed by private non-government force, or indirectly infringed by an economy that denies people the means to the economic success that is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of liberty. (There is no liberty without property.) This brings up the third category: government action to promote economic equality and provide for social welfare.

When government action directly infringes liberty, the pro-liberty position is to oppose this. Thus, a pro-liberty advocate would oppose government action that tries to control people's sexual behavior unreasonably, denies reproductive rights, or violates the due process or other protections of the Bill of Rights, among other things.

Liberals and libertarians, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.

When government action restrains private power from infringing liberty, e.g. with regulations on the financial industry, protection of workers' rights, or environmental protection laws, the pro-liberty position is to support this.

Liberals, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives and libertarians adopt anti-liberty positions.

When government action attempts to narrow income gaps, raise wages, and provide for social welfare and safety nets, the pro-liberty position is to support this.

Again, liberals adopt pro-liberty positions in this context, while libertarians and conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.

Liberals are pro-liberty.

Conservatives are anti-liberty.

Libertarians are neither pro-liberty nor anti-liberty, but are, instead, anti-government, which they often seem to think means they are pro-liberty, and in some matters -- when the government really is the major threat to liberty -- they are. But not consistently.

Only liberals consistently defend liberty. And conservatives never do.

Liar.

Liberoidals are all about freedom killing laws and regulations.

They've been all in favor of anti-recreational drug laws, smoking bans, anti-gambling laws, seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, insane environmentalist whacko laws and regs that crush private property rights, stupid trans fat bans, USAPATRIOT act, TSA, and a veritable shitload of other individual liberty crushing nanny state bullshit.

Seriously....Lay off the cheap Mexican brick weed.

Patriot act was signed in by a republican.

So you think it is 100% impossible for republicans to do liberal things? wow. Love the ignorance. Give us more.

 

[Photonic]

Liar.

Liberoidals are all about freedom killing laws and regulations.

They've been all in favor of anti-recreational drug laws, smoking bans, anti-gambling laws, seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, insane environmentalist whacko laws and regs that crush private property rights, stupid trans fat bans, USAPATRIOT act, TSA, and a veritable shitload of other individual liberty crushing nanny state bullshit.

Seriously....Lay off the cheap Mexican brick weed.

Patriot act was signed in by a republican.

So you think it is 100% impossible for republicans to do liberal things? wow. Love the ignorance. Give us more.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Oddball]

Patriot act was signed in by a republican.

It passed 98-1 in the Senate, fool.

 

[hortysir]

LOL I knew this one would bring 'em out of the woodwork.

Toro and Shackles reveal themselves as libertarians, confusing anti-government with pro-liberty. That was pretty predictable w/r/t Shackles but Toro's posting history is more confusing.

More government does not equal more liberty