Why do people hate Liberals?

[thanatos144]

Fox was defending you saying you knew the difference between modern and classical liberal. Then you said there is no difference.

I have not expressed my views on drugs or abortion. What do you think they are?

I know the difference the result is the same. The only liberals that did good were the founders and all after them are scumbags

The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags. I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.

But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .

. . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart. The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice. Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.

And nobody wants to see that or admit it.

If you do as the founders you are conserving it thus you are a conservative not a liberal because your not trying to liberate us from their constitution. Do you see the distinction?

 

[RKMBrown]

I know the difference the result is the same. The only liberals that did good were the founders and all after them are scumbags

The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags. I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.

But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .

. . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart. The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice. Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.

And nobody wants to see that or admit it.

If you do as the founders you are conserving it thus you are a conservative not a liberal because your not trying to liberate us from their constitution. Do you see the distinction?

So you are saying the founders would have destroyed the government 1sec after creating it because their view was to change whatever government has been established? lol

You are confusing the concept of political view with the concept of change for change sake.

 

[Foxfyre]

I know the difference the result is the same. The only liberals that did good were the founders and all after them are scumbags

The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags. I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.

But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .

. . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart. The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice. Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.

And nobody wants to see that or admit it.

If you do as the founders you are conserving it thus you are a conservative not a liberal because your not trying to liberate us from their constitution. Do you see the distinction?

Good observation. The modern American conservative is the true classical liberal, i.e. they embrace the liberalism of the Founders. But now the conservative does not try to reinvent but rather tries to identify, preverve, and protect--CONSERVE--those concepts the Founders wrote into the Constitution, preserve and promote the basic American values of personal responsibility and accountability. The modern conservative promotes the right to exhibit social virtues that promote the best in society, and CONSERVE the concept of self governance rather than have our rights and privileges dictated to us by a authoritarian central government.

Many who call themselves conservative are not by the definition above. But unless we can agree on the definitions, no discussion of the topic will take place.

 

[Foxfyre]

I suspect we can't even all agree on a definition of unalienable rights.

For me, an unalienable right is the freedom to be or do whatever requires no contribution or participation by another person. Whenever another person is necessary to contribute or participate, it is no longer a right but rather a privilege, a component of social contract, or a coercion.

So, there is no unalienable right to:

Food
Shelter
Clothing
Transportation
Education
Healthcare
Electronic communications
Entertainment
Employment
Income
Or whatever other material things our heart desires.

An unalienable right, however, is to pursue and acquire any or all of these things through our own efforts or the voluntary generosity of others and/or to engage in social contract to make them available to ourselves and/or others.

 

[thanatos144]

The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags. I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.

But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .

. . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart. The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice. Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.

And nobody wants to see that or admit it.

If you do as the founders you are conserving it thus you are a conservative not a liberal because your not trying to liberate us from their constitution. Do you see the distinction?

So you are saying the founders would have destroyed the government 1sec after creating it because their view was to change whatever government has been established? lol

You are confusing the concept of political view with the concept of change for change sake.

Do you have a mental dysfunction that makes it impossible to understand what is written???? The founders created a amendment system to make changes as needed.

 

[thanatos144]

I suspect we can't even all agree on a definition of unalienable rights.

For me, an unalienable right is the freedom to be or do whatever requires no contribution or participation by another person. Whenever another person is necessary to contribute or participate, it is no longer a right but rather a privilege, a component of social contract, or a coercion.

So, there is no unalienable right to:

Food
Shelter
Clothing
Transportation
Education
Healthcare
Electronic communications
Entertainment
Employment
Income
Or whatever other material things our heart desires.

An unalienable right, however, is to pursue and acquire any or all of these things through our own efforts or the voluntary generosity of others and/or to engage in social contract to make them available to ourselves and/or others.

Life , Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Foxfyre]

I suspect we can't even all agree on a definition of unalienable rights.

For me, an unalienable right is the freedom to be or do whatever requires no contribution or participation by another person. Whenever another person is necessary to contribute or participate, it is no longer a right but rather a privilege, a component of social contract, or a coercion.

So, there is no unalienable right to:

Food
Shelter
Clothing
Transportation
Education
Healthcare
Electronic communications
Entertainment
Employment
Income
Or whatever other material things our heart desires.

An unalienable right, however, is to pursue and acquire any or all of these things through our own efforts or the voluntary generosity of others and/or to engage in social contract to make them available to ourselves and/or others.

Life , Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Not happiness, but the pursuit of happiness. Those were three things the Founders used as examples of unalienable rights though of course happiness can also be included in that when it doesn't require participation or contribution from other(s).

The problem with modern American liberalism is the presumption that people are entitled to those things at the expense of others - entitled as a fundamental right to have others provide many if not all of the things on that list up there when they do not provide them for themselves.

That is one of the single most grievous assaults on liberty and unalienable rights as has occured as the modern American liberal government systematically dismantles the concepts the Founders wrote into the Constitution and slowly but surely transfers more and more power to itself until it holds it all.

 

[dblack]

I suspect we can't even all agree on a definition of unalienable rights.

For me, an unalienable right is the freedom to be or do whatever requires no contribution or participation by another person. Whenever another person is necessary to contribute or participate, it is no longer a right but rather a privilege, a component of social contract, or a coercion.

Right. The key aspect to a right be in 'unalienable' is that it doesn't require another person to actively facilitate. It is a freedom that you'd have even if there were no other people in the world. So, for example, the freedom of speech is unalienable. Even if there were no one else around, you would still be free to express yourself. The freedom to be heard, on the other hand, is not unalienable because it requires that someone else listen.

I don't know whether to blame the conflation around this on historians, or on Jefferson for being too subtle for his own good, but it's really frustrating to see the 'unalienable right' concept get muddied up with dumb debates over whether they are 'god-given' or produced by state mandate. As an atheist, I see neither as literally true. But it seems obvious that 'god-given' was an idiom for 'innate'. I can see why critics of Jefferson's views would have seized on the 'god-given' terminology and strawmanned it. But I'm confounded as to why so many of his supporters buy into the same misconception.

 

[Foxfyre]

I suspect we can't even all agree on a definition of unalienable rights.

For me, an unalienable right is the freedom to be or do whatever requires no contribution or participation by another person. Whenever another person is necessary to contribute or participate, it is no longer a right but rather a privilege, a component of social contract, or a coercion.

Right. The key aspect to a right be in 'unalienable' is that it doesn't require another person to actively facilitate. It is a freedom that you'd have even if there were no other people in the world. So, for example, the freedom of speech is unalienable. Even if there were no one else around, you would still be free to express yourself. The freedom to be heard, on the other hand, is not unalienable because it requires that someone else listen.

I don't know whether to blame the conflation around this on historians, or on Jefferson for being too subtle for his own good, but it's really frustrating to see the 'unalienable right' concept get muddied up with dumb debates over whether they are 'god-given' or produced by state mandate. As an atheist, I see neither as literally true. But it seems obvious that 'god-given' was an idiom for 'innate'. I can see why critics of Jefferson's views would have seized on the 'god-given' terminology and strawmanned it. But I'm confounded as to why so many of his supporters buy into the same misconception.

Some of the great thinkers who identified and promoted a concept of unalienable rights were not religious men; some agnostics among the group, one or two Atheists. But it is the concept and definition, not the label attached to it, that is important.

The non religious understood it as 'natural rights' or that which existed before government. It was only logical that those who did accept and believe in God would attribute those rights as being God given. Different terminology. Same concept.

 

[Bfgrn]

Fox was defending you saying you knew the difference between modern and classical liberal. Then you said there is no difference.

I have not expressed my views on drugs or abortion. What do you think they are?

I know the difference the result is the same. The only liberals that did good were the founders and all after them are scumbags

The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags. I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.

But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .

. . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart. The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice. Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.

And nobody wants to see that or admit it.

Your total disregard for our ancestors is beyond startling, it is ignorance fueled by your narcissism.

The Progressive Movement was a huge BI-partisan ground swell movement of our ancestors who were confronting the stench and changing what America had become. The Gilded Age saw corporations gain way too much power in America. And a small group of elites ruled this country and controlled our government. A country our founding fathers believed should be controlled by We, The People.

 

[RKMBrown]

I suspect we can't even all agree on a definition of unalienable rights.

For me, an unalienable right is the freedom to be or do whatever requires no contribution or participation by another person. Whenever another person is necessary to contribute or participate, it is no longer a right but rather a privilege, a component of social contract, or a coercion.

So, there is no unalienable right to:

Food
Shelter
Clothing
Transportation
Education
Healthcare
Electronic communications
Entertainment
Employment
Income
Or whatever other material things our heart desires.

An unalienable right, however, is to pursue and acquire any or all of these things through our own efforts or the voluntary generosity of others and/or to engage in social contract to make them available to ourselves and/or others.

Minor corrections for accuracy:

So, there is no unalienable right to [be provided with]:

Food
Shelter
Clothing
Transportation
Education
Healthcare
Electronic communications
Entertainment
Employment
Income
Or whatever other material things our heart desires [to obtain].

An unalienable right, however, is [the right] to pursue and acquire any or all of these things through our own efforts [and] the voluntary generosity of others. Additionally, by engaging in [voluntary] social contracts [we should also be able] to make them available to ourselves and/or others[, such as through insurance plans, for the folks who prefer less risk in life].

 

[Foxfyre]

I know the difference the result is the same. The only liberals that did good were the founders and all after them are scumbags

The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags. I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.

But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .

. . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart. The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice. Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.

And nobody wants to see that or admit it.

Your total disregard for our ancestors is beyond startling, it is ignorance fueled by your narcissism.

The Progressive Movement was a huge BI-partisan ground swell movement of our ancestors who were confronting the stench and changing what America had become. The Gilded Age saw corporations gain way too much power in America. And a small group of elites ruled this country and controlled our government. A country our founding fathers believed should be controlled by We, The People.

Total disregard for our ancestors? I think not. The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that We the People should call all the shots and tell government what it is required to do and what it cannot do. That concept no longer exists.

For instance, do you Bfgn, believe you are entitled to have your healthcare provided to you as a fundamental right if you cannot purchase it yourself from your own earnings? Do you want the government to have the power to force me to pay for your healthcare if you cannot do that for yourself?

 

[rightwinger]

The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags. I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.

But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .

. . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart. The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice. Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.

And nobody wants to see that or admit it.

If you do as the founders you are conserving it thus you are a conservative not a liberal because your not trying to liberate us from their constitution. Do you see the distinction?

Good observation. The modern American conservative is the true classical liberal, i.e. they embrace the liberalism of the Founders. But now the conservative does not try to reinvent but rather tries to identify, preverve, and protect--CONSERVE--those concepts the Founders wrote into the Constitution, preserve and promote the basic American values of personal responsibility and accountability. The modern conservative promotes the right to exhibit social virtues that promote the best in society, and CONSERVE the concept of self governance rather than have our rights and privileges dictated to us by a authoritarian central government.

Many who call themselves conservative are not by the definition above. But unless we can agree on the definitions, no discussion of the topic will take place.

I find it humorous that modern conservatives finally get around to embracing liberal values from 235 years ago

The key to liberalism is change. Change to meet the challenges of each succeeding generation. Our founding fathers were pushing a liberal value of all men are created equal. A common man was as good as royalty.
Later liberals pushed for an end to slavery, worker rights, women's rights, civil rights, environmental protections, the rights of the handicapped and gay rights

But conservatives slap themselves on the back for finally embracing the values of liberals from235 years ago

 

[rightwinger]

The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags. I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.

But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .

. . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart. The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice. Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.

And nobody wants to see that or admit it.

Your total disregard for our ancestors is beyond startling, it is ignorance fueled by your narcissism.

The Progressive Movement was a huge BI-partisan ground swell movement of our ancestors who were confronting the stench and changing what America had become. The Gilded Age saw corporations gain way too much power in America. And a small group of elites ruled this country and controlled our government. A country our founding fathers believed should be controlled by We, The People.

Total disregard for our ancestors? I think not. The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that We the People should call all the shots and tell government what it is required to do and what it cannot do. That concept no longer exists.

For instance, do you Bfgn, believe you are entitled to have your healthcare provided to you as a fundamental right if you cannot purchase it yourself from your own earnings? Do you want the government to have the power to force me to pay for your healthcare if you cannot do that for yourself?

I think being cared for when you are sick is a basic human right

Not just for the wealthy

 

[RKMBrown]

I know the difference the result is the same. The only liberals that did good were the founders and all after them are scumbags

The quote function is malfunctioning like crazy this morning, but I have to protest a bit that all after the Founders are scumbags. I know you know the difference between the liberalism of the Founders and what passes for modern American liberalism now and how they are polar opposites.

But I won't say that all who followed the Founders were 'scumbags' because the Founders concepts and principles--you know those concepts and principles that pretty much nobody on this thread are willing to identify and discuss?. . . .

. . .anyhow they worked pretty darn well for more than 150 years until the modern day liberalism introduced by Teddy Roosevelt gained sufficient momentum that it all started falling apart. The falling apart was so gradual at the beginning most folks didn't even notice. Now it is a massive speeding freight train that threatens to swallow us all up whole.

And nobody wants to see that or admit it.

Your total disregard for our ancestors is beyond startling, it is ignorance fueled by your narcissism.

The Progressive Movement was a huge BI-partisan ground swell movement of our ancestors who were confronting the stench and changing what America had become. The Gilded Age saw corporations gain way too much power in America. And a small group of elites ruled this country and controlled our government. A country our founding fathers believed should be controlled by We, The People.

You say that like building a company is a bad thing. What a dumb ass.

 

[RKMBrown]

Your total disregard for our ancestors is beyond startling, it is ignorance fueled by your narcissism.

The Progressive Movement was a huge BI-partisan ground swell movement of our ancestors who were confronting the stench and changing what America had become. The Gilded Age saw corporations gain way too much power in America. And a small group of elites ruled this country and controlled our government. A country our founding fathers believed should be controlled by We, The People.

Total disregard for our ancestors? I think not. The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that We the People should call all the shots and tell government what it is required to do and what it cannot do. That concept no longer exists.

For instance, do you Bfgn, believe you are entitled to have your healthcare provided to you as a fundamental right if you cannot purchase it yourself from your own earnings? Do you want the government to have the power to force me to pay for your healthcare if you cannot do that for yourself?

I think being cared for when you are sick is a basic human right

Not just for the wealthy

citizen #1 works his whole life saves up 1million dollars.. gets cancer spends half of his money on cancer treatment.

citizen #2 lives on welfare his whole life saves up nothing.. gets cancer and we spend the other half of citizen #1's savings on citizen #2's cancer treatment.

And you get a hard on for this scenario because you are most like citizen #2?

It's wrong because theft is wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your total disregard for our ancestors is beyond startling, it is ignorance fueled by your narcissism.

The Progressive Movement was a huge BI-partisan ground swell movement of our ancestors who were confronting the stench and changing what America had become. The Gilded Age saw corporations gain way too much power in America. And a small group of elites ruled this country and controlled our government. A country our founding fathers believed should be controlled by We, The People.

Total disregard for our ancestors? I think not. The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that We the People should call all the shots and tell government what it is required to do and what it cannot do. That concept no longer exists.

For instance, do you Bfgn, believe you are entitled to have your healthcare provided to you as a fundamental right if you cannot purchase it yourself from your own earnings? Do you want the government to have the power to force me to pay for your healthcare if you cannot do that for yourself?

I think being cared for when you are sick is a basic human right

Not just for the wealthy

Having the right to seek available care when you are sick is a basic human right, yes.

But you having a 'right' to force me to provide or pay for your care is not.

Do you see the difference?

What is the difference between my paying for your healthcare and being forced to provide you clothing, shelter, food, and water all just as important to your health as my furnishing you healthcare?

 

[Dragonlady]

citizen #1 works his whole life saves up 1million dollars.. gets cancer spends half of his money on cancer treatment.

citizen #2 lives on welfare his whole life saves up nothing.. gets cancer and we spend the other half of citizen #1's savings on citizen #2's cancer treatment.

And you get a hard on for this scenario because you are most like citizen #2?

It's wrong because theft is wrong.

First off, it's not an all or nothing scenario. 1% of people are very wealthy, and another 1% are on welfare their whole lives. What about the other 98% of the population? How about the 15% of Americans who have no health insurance at all?

What about the guy who has worked hard all of his life at low paying jobs and has no medical insurance. Is he to be left to die because he his savings are inadequate to cover the cost of his treatment? How about the fact that half of the bankruptciesi in the US are the result of medical costs?

Taxation is price we pay to live in a first world country, with infrastructure, a stable government and a healthy well-educated work force, all of which improves the quality of life. That is not theft.

 

[numan]

You say that like building a company is a bad thing. What a dumb ass.

Building a company in a free enterprise environment where there is lively competition to create a better product is a good thing.

Building a multinational monopoly which interferes in government to rob and exploit the public and destroy its competition -- and which uses brainwashing advertising to make people believe an inferior product is "new and improved" -- that is definitely a bad thing.

It's wrong because theft is wrong.

I would hesitate to make such a blanket statement when it is a case of thieves who are being robbed.
After all, why has Robin Hood been so popular for so many centuries?
I say, stick it to King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham !!

.

 

[numan]

'

We live in a republic not a democracy

We live in a militarized gangster state which has a thin veneer of republican formalism.

Only people with childish minds are taken in by the window-dressing.

.