Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans.
Will Rogers
The left believes in government. The right believes in freedom.
- Thread starter Hoosier4Liberty
- Start date
Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans.
Will Rogers
Hoosier4Liberty
Libertarian Republican
- Oct 14, 2013
- 465
- 87
- 78
- Thread starter
- #142
Liberals oppose the right to self-defense, the right to religious liberty, the right to start your own business, the right to open a coal mine, the right to drill for oil, etc. etc. etc. You're not standing up for the little guy when you're passing massive taxes on businesses while giving subsidies to big solar. And what about the freedom to choose your healthcare?
Liberalism in America was taken over by the progressives, particularly the two Roosevelts, William Jennings Bryan, and Woodrow Wilson. I'm a liberal in the vein of Grover Cleveland, Abraham Lincoln, and Thomas Jefferson.
bendog
Diamond Member
I wish you idiots would stop trying to elect people to end soc sec and medicare. It's getting very tiresome to see these dems winning in what is still a center right country.
There is a nice little country in Africa that is a libertarians wet dream, Somalia. Maybe you should emigrate and become tribal lord.
Holy shit you little high schooler. You have completely gone off the deep end. And at such a young tender age. Must be your parents made you like you are.
Squawk..polly want a cracker....squawk.... polly want a cracker. Polly got a job? Polly needs to go back to school. Squawk.
Stay around long enough and you might get educated here. But I doubt it.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
What's so ironic is when asked about believing in God
the tables are turned, where they say they believe in people.
So now I equate harassing people for not believing in God
with penalizing people for not believing in Government-run health care.
In a country where a SINGLE atheist can sue to remove a "cross from a public building" costing thousands of dollars and imposing a 5,000 fine per day it is not removed,
because that PERSON does not believe in God and is "imposed upon by Government"
where is the lawsuit from half the FU nation who not only feels "imposed upon"
for not believing in Government mandates on health care through insurance,
but is FINED for not buying insurance, and is BLAMED for not sharing faith in government?
Why this discrimination against people who believe in separating people's free choice
and state rights from federal government? At least THAT separation is written into the Constitution. When it comes to "separation of church and state" it only takes one atheist to complain, and this concept isn't even written but implied and is still enforced. When it comes to "separation of state and federal govt" those views don't count? ???
They don't use the Constitution to defend their rights, so they rely on political party.
If we all used the Constitution as rule of law, we'd be equal under law. They don't have faith in that. They want to use politics to use govt to defend their faith, but complain when the religious right oversteps public bounds and wants to use laws and govt to push theirs.
Just like two bullies fighting over who is going to get the gun to shoot the other first, instead of using guns to defend the laws not attack bully or threaten back and forth.
Lawyers do this all the time -- hired to fight for one side at the expense of the other, not to enforce justice equally for all sides. this adversarial culture subverts democratic due process. we hire lawyers to do it, and keep funding and electing politicians to do the same.
Makes you wonder how long it would take to change if we started hiring lawyers to do mediation, collection of restitution, and negotiation of settlements of debts and damages, all by consensus between the parties instead of forcing by fighting and bullying. And if we started only hiring or voting for officials who raised and invested money into direct solutions instead of campaigns, and advertised their effective projects online for free as their ads?
the tables are turned, where they say they believe in people.
So now I equate harassing people for not believing in God
with penalizing people for not believing in Government-run health care.
In a country where a SINGLE atheist can sue to remove a "cross from a public building" costing thousands of dollars and imposing a 5,000 fine per day it is not removed,
because that PERSON does not believe in God and is "imposed upon by Government"
where is the lawsuit from half the FU nation who not only feels "imposed upon"
for not believing in Government mandates on health care through insurance,
but is FINED for not buying insurance, and is BLAMED for not sharing faith in government?
Why this discrimination against people who believe in separating people's free choice
and state rights from federal government? At least THAT separation is written into the Constitution. When it comes to "separation of church and state" it only takes one atheist to complain, and this concept isn't even written but implied and is still enforced. When it comes to "separation of state and federal govt" those views don't count? ???
They don't use the Constitution to defend their rights, so they rely on political party.
If we all used the Constitution as rule of law, we'd be equal under law. They don't have faith in that. They want to use politics to use govt to defend their faith, but complain when the religious right oversteps public bounds and wants to use laws and govt to push theirs.
Just like two bullies fighting over who is going to get the gun to shoot the other first, instead of using guns to defend the laws not attack bully or threaten back and forth.
Lawyers do this all the time -- hired to fight for one side at the expense of the other, not to enforce justice equally for all sides. this adversarial culture subverts democratic due process. we hire lawyers to do it, and keep funding and electing politicians to do the same.
Makes you wonder how long it would take to change if we started hiring lawyers to do mediation, collection of restitution, and negotiation of settlements of debts and damages, all by consensus between the parties instead of forcing by fighting and bullying. And if we started only hiring or voting for officials who raised and invested money into direct solutions instead of campaigns, and advertised their effective projects online for free as their ads?
Hoosier4Liberty
Libertarian Republican
- Oct 14, 2013
- 465
- 87
- 78
- Thread starter
- #148
You progressives just don't get it. Somalia's not the beacon of economic freedom as the government doesn't exist...you need a government which protects basic property rights and the rule of law. Our ideals are Singapore, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and Switzerland.
Index of Economic Freedom: Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity by Country
Sallow
The Big Bad Wolf.
The "right" should stop living in a country formed by the "left" and establish their own country that doesn't have the "burden" of government.
For me?
I dig the "leftist" Constitution of the United States. Written by Liberals.
For me?
I dig the "leftist" Constitution of the United States. Written by Liberals.
Sallow
The Big Bad Wolf.
Hong Kong? You mean that Commie City in a Commie Country?
Yeah I bet it's your ideal.
By the way..all the cities you mention?
Have national healthcare.
And Somalia?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi_wZMYY_PM]Irtokte Gun market in Mogadishu, Somalia - YouTube[/ame]
A freakin GUN MARKET!
WHATS NOT FOR YOU GUYS TO LOVE???
Hoosier4Liberty
Libertarian Republican
- Oct 14, 2013
- 465
- 87
- 78
- Thread starter
- #151
Those countries may have national healthcare, but they also have a lot fewer regulations, lower corporate taxes, and fewer anti-energy policies than the USA. Under Obama, economic freedom's gone from #5 to #12. Clearly, liberal policies hurt economic freedom, even if those countries are slightly more liberal on healthcare than we are(a lot of our hc system is already gov't-run).
You can't have property rights and the rule of law without some form of government. Why would a corporation ever open shop in a place where he doesn't know if he'll survive without getting stabbed by someone who would never face consequences? Libertarians believe in a limited government, not a nonexistent one.
Mac1958
Diamond Member
.
Always fun to watch partisan ideologues on end tell me what partisan ideologues on the other end want and think.
The ideological mind is a fascinating thing. I think you folks literally talk yourselves into believing some of this stuff. That's how you can be so rabid.
.
Always fun to watch partisan ideologues on end tell me what partisan ideologues on the other end want and think.
The ideological mind is a fascinating thing. I think you folks literally talk yourselves into believing some of this stuff. That's how you can be so rabid.
.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Herein lies your problem...gross ignorance. You really need to stop listening to clowns like Glenn Beck.
The progressive movement was not a handful of ideologues. It was a HUGE bipartisan groundswell of predominantly middle-class reformers who emerged during the 1890s. It was supported by the masses and rejected only by plutocrats, racists and far right wing ideologues like the WHOLE GOP and conservative movement today which is infested with ignorant radical morons.
Thomas Jefferson would have stood firmly with the progressives. He would have seen it as the same fight his generation fought against the British East India Company.
From Populism to the Progressive Era, 1900–1912
The Progressives believed government should be more active in promoting the welfare of the people. However, although they agreed with some of the ideas of the Populists, the Progressives were generally much more conservative. They were often alarmed at the radicalism of the Populists and believed in reforming society and government rather than proposing sweeping changes to the Capitalist system. For example, they rejected the Populist idea of direct government control or ownership of railroads. They also rejected major changes to the monetary system, such as using both gold and silver to back the dollar. Instead, the Progressives believed that government should use its powers to more actively regulate the financial system and prevent the growth of monopolies. They also hoped the government would be more active in promoting social justice and human welfare.
In short, the Progressives were middle-class reformers who believed in the preservation of private property but opposed the laissez-faire policies of the past. They hoped to reduce government corruption and increase efficiency by appointing a new generation of college-educated experts to key government positions. In doing so, the Progressives were optimistic that government regulation could protect all members of society within the existing Capitalist system. They sought reform rather than revolution, and feared that sweeping changes or retreat from Capitalism would disrupt the economic growth of the previous decades.
Despite a number of similarities, the Progressives were as diverse as the issues they championed. Some sought social justice through anti–child labor laws, prison reform, workplace safety regulations, public health programs, or minimum wage laws. Others focused on providing more services, such as public utilities and urban sanitation. Still others believed that the key to reform was to make the political system more democratic. By exposing the misdeeds of corrupt businesses and politicians and empowering voters to have more control over their government, the Progressives believed that voters would naturally support reform candidates and demand more accountability. A small number also fought for more rights for women and minorities, although issues of race and gender often divided the Progressives. Still others championed the developing fields of social and political science, searching for ways to make government and society more efficient.
Even if they supported a diverse range of goals, the Progressives themselves usually had a few things in common. They were generally well educated and shared a common faith in the power of public education to improve society and reform the political system. They generally supported local government initiatives aimed at providing better schools, sanitation, roads, and municipal services like utilities and public transportation. Progressives rejected Socialism but also rejected the notion that the private sector could regulate itself or that existing charitable organizations were sufficient to provide for the needy.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
You really need to ENGAGE in debate and stuff your haughty 'holier than thou' narcissism.
Mac1958
Diamond Member
I'm more than happy to, when the debate is with someone who can be intellectually honest.
You folks represent maybe 20% of the population, max, yet you're a big part of the problem.
The rest of us have to deal with the effects of your behaviors.
.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
My behavior? Heaven forbid I exercise my first amendment rights. I will ALWAYS stick up for people who are being swindled, trampled and crushed by plutocrats, aristocrats, Wall Street thieves, insurance cartels and any other group of barracudas who try to feed on We, the People.
American4Americ
Doge of Venezia
Are you sure?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Liberals FREAK OUT Over MAGA Sheriff SEIZING BALLOTS As DEMOCRATS BEG Supreme Court To STOP HIM!- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 6
-
HSS survey on drug and alcohol use.- Started by Woodznutz
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
