Why do you support liberalism?

[hyakku]

Would you feel good driving down a highway where all speed limits had been removed?

Works for the Germans

They just kinda recommend what they think works and let you decide whether you like it. I think it's called voluntary compliance.
That's not really true. On the autobahn there are parts where there actually is a limit, parts where its just suggested, and parts where there aren't. There are also rules to passing. Finally, it doesn't just "work out" for no cost, if you crash and you're going above the suggested speed you will be prosecuted, and in fact in some cases if YOU get hit, but you were the one speeding, the other driver can get the costs split between the two of you.

Be careful what you wish for. And for all that, they only really go like 85-90 on average there anyway.

As for this OP, if you meant actual liberalism from the 18th century or so, then I support it because it maximizes people's freedoms while balancing out the reality that despite their being a need for small government, there still is a need for it in crucial aspects and seeks to reach that balance through an equilibrium of personal freedoms, individual rights, and provision of equal opportunity, not material goods.

There is definitely some value in traditional conservatism too, but I prefer the liberals even to many libertarians in the sense that there are truly times where I know for a fact that people simply couldn't handle or desire that degree of freedom on a mass scale (like Ron Paul's dismantle the entire treasury. If you aren't going to replace it you must be ******* tripping to think Americans will suddenly start bartering or figure out how to make their own dollar bills).

 

[editec]

The right wing "the government ***** up everything they have a hand in" reflects their simplistic views of how modern societies operate.

Their yearning for the "good ole days" when the government minded their own business would bring us polluted air and water supplies, unsafe food and drugs, unsafe workplaces, rampant discrimination......oh for the "good ole days"

And the 'evil corporate America will screw us all if given the chance' isn't equally as simplistic and stupid?

You you have no concept of social contracts and you prove my point about the left wanting zero personal accountability. Why does a third partyu (government) need to step into the middle of an agreement of payment for goods/services between two parties? That's how the free market works unchecked. If you don't like the terms of the deal don't take it. You don't apparently get that the way free markets operate from a business stand point is doing what the consumer wants. Obviously a drug company endangering it's clientele is not in their best interests. The system is self regulating, It doesn't require government.

America has a fifty year period when corporations were largely unregulated, their products not tested for safety.

That was before the Republican Party became progressive, incidently

If you don't know what it was like back then, you ought to educate yourself.

 

[Christopher]

he's not conservative, though you can try to claim such....he is the perfect example of liberal, the liberal that I have known.....

Don't brush that paint too widely.

The meaning/definition of some words change over time and "liberal" and "conservative" are two examples.

 

[editec]

People who use the words liberal or conservative as an insult don't know what the **** they're talking about.

That isn't obvious?

 

[HUGGY]

The right wing "the government ***** up everything they have a hand in" reflects their simplistic views of how modern societies operate.

Their yearning for the "good ole days" when the government minded their own business would bring us polluted air and water supplies, unsafe food and drugs, unsafe workplaces, rampant discrimination......oh for the "good ole days"

And the 'evil corporate America will screw us all if given the chance' isn't equally as simplistic and stupid?

You you have no concept of social contracts and you prove my point about the left wanting zero personal accountability. Why does a third partyu (government) need to step into the middle of an agreement of payment for goods/services between two parties? That's how the free market works unchecked. If you don't like the terms of the deal don't take it. You don't apparently get that the way free markets operate from a business stand point is doing what the consumer wants. Obviously a drug company endangering it's clientele is not in their best interests. The system is self regulating, It doesn't require government.

You are a predator and a fool. You seem to suggest that delivering the product without regard to the impact of the methods is justified. The mountain of evidense of the stupidity of that philosophy is evident from walmart to the drug cartels.

 

[rightwinger]

he's not conservative, though you can try to claim such....he is the perfect example of liberal, the liberal that I have known.....

Don't brush that paint too widely.

The meaning/definition of some words change over time and "liberal" and "conservative" are two examples.

The definitions don't change. What changes is the issues of the day and how they should be resolved.

Conservatives embracing liberal policies from 60 years ago does not change the fact that they were liberal policies for their day

 

[rightwinger]

The right wing "the government ***** up everything they have a hand in" reflects their simplistic views of how modern societies operate.

Their yearning for the "good ole days" when the government minded their own business would bring us polluted air and water supplies, unsafe food and drugs, unsafe workplaces, rampant discrimination......oh for the "good ole days"

And the 'evil corporate America will screw us all if given the chance' isn't equally as simplistic and stupid?

You you have no concept of social contracts and you prove my point about the left wanting zero personal accountability. Why does a third partyu (government) need to step into the middle of an agreement of payment for goods/services between two parties? That's how the free market works unchecked. If you don't like the terms of the deal don't take it. You don't apparently get that the way free markets operate from a business stand point is doing what the consumer wants. Obviously a drug company endangering it's clientele is not in their best interests. The system is self regulating, It doesn't require government.

America has a fifty year period when corporations were largely unregulated, their products not tested for safety.

That was before the Republican Party became progressive, incidently

If you don't know what it was like back then, you ought to educate yourself.

The idea that companies will somehow self regulate to protect workers and the American public has never worked. Other than government regulation and oversight, the only thing keeping companies in check is the threat of lawsuits for safety, workplace or environmental violations.

Conservatives are trying to eliminate that too

 

[Founder]

Practically everyone on this forum is very narrow minded, and ill-informed. Thus we have a clatter of voices yelling at each other without any understanding of anything. Sadly, that is the condition of most people through most of history.

The Germans went from the one extreme of the failed Wiemar Republic to the failed policies of Hitler, and no one could tell any of them that both extremes were failures that needed to be corrected, and both regimes were equally evil.

We have the same thing here today. The left and right do nothing but point fingers at each other without any understanding of the actual situation that they are yelling about.

We don't need un-controlled business, and we don't need controlled business, we need something in between where business has rules to follow in the national interest, and then are left to do what they know how to do.

We can't have business, or anyone, polluting our water, air and soil, but we can't have government managing our farms and factories either. But neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to be able to understand this.

Republicans want to let chemical companies make ever more dangerous poisons (80,000 so far, and adding 3000 new ones every year) that are killing all of us by degrees, all of them which can be found in all our bodies, while Democrats want the government to run all business like in the former USSR. Then note this, that the government has been proved to be the biggest polluter of all, so go figure that one.

We need something like a national council of the nation that can make decisions that favor no particular side. The Senate was designed to be that by the Founders, but even they could not deal with slavery and the Civil War ensued, and since then we have ruined the Senate even more, making it nothing but a carbon copy of the House.

This is one reason Monarchy has been favored in history as it creates a single person beholden to no one who can knock heads together and look out for the national interest. Our President should do this, but just about none do.

Obama had a chance to be President for all of us, instead he decided to be a pimp for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the radical wing of the Democrat Party. Now he is toast.

Reagan came closest to being a President of ALL the people, and that is what we need. I favor Sarah being our best hope for a President of ALL the people who rules in the Public Interest.

 

[rightwinger]

I favor Sarah being our best hope for a President of ALL the people who rules in the Public Interest.

All you need to know about Founder

 

[Bern80]

America has a fifty year period when corporations were largely unregulated, their products not tested for safety.

That was before the Republican Party became progressive, incidently

If you don't know what it was like back then, you ought to educate yourself.

And what trajedies bestruck our country as a result?

 

[Tom Clancy]

I favor Sarah being our best hope for a President of ALL the people who rules in the Public Interest.

All you need to know about Founder

Permission to slap Founder.

 

[rightwinger]

I favor Sarah being our best hope for a President of ALL the people who rules in the Public Interest.

All you need to know about Founder

Permission to slap Founder.

 

[hyakku]

Practically everyone on this forum is very narrow minded, and ill-informed. Thus we have a clatter of voices yelling at each other without any understanding of anything. Sadly, that is the condition of most people through most of history.

The Germans went from the one extreme of the failed Wiemar Republic to the failed policies of Hitler, and no one could tell any of them that both extremes were failures that needed to be corrected, and both regimes were equally evil.

We have the same thing here today. The left and right do nothing but point fingers at each other without any understanding of the actual situation that they are yelling about.

We don't need un-controlled business, and we don't need controlled business, we need something in between where business has rules to follow in the national interest, and then are left to do what they know how to do.

We can't have business, or anyone, polluting our water, air and soil, but we can't have government managing our farms and factories either. But neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to be able to understand this.

Republicans want to let chemical companies make ever more dangerous poisons (80,000 so far, and adding 3000 new ones every year) that are killing all of us by degrees, all of them which can be found in all our bodies, while Democrats want the government to run all business like in the former USSR. Then note this, that the government has been proved to be the biggest polluter of all, so go figure that one.

We need something like a national council of the nation that can make decisions that favor no particular side. The Senate was designed to be that by the Founders, but even they could not deal with slavery and the Civil War ensued, and since then we have ruined the Senate even more, making it nothing but a carbon copy of the House.

This is one reason Monarchy has been favored in history as it creates a single person beholden to no one who can knock heads together and look out for the national interest. Our President should do this, but just about none do.

Obama had a chance to be President for all of us, instead he decided to be a pimp for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the radical wing of the Democrat Party. Now he is toast.

Reagan came closest to being a President of ALL the people, and that is what we need. I favor Sarah being our best hope for a President of ALL the people who rules in the Public Interest.

How do you end something so mentally acute with an advocacy for someone who has contended that the earth may be 6,000 years old?

Damn, I thought someone finally got it - _ -.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Of course, troll thread gets troll responses. Big surprise.

"troll" being an indefinable term which the idiot at issue could not define if her pathetic life DEPENDED ON IT...

She of course DESPERATELY NEEDS to pretend that the term has a meaning, the problem here; as it always is; is that where she TRIES TO DEFINE IT, she is IMMEDIATELY exposed as a FOOL...

LOL... And a FOOL IN THE EXTREME.


But MODBERT does the BEST she can ... and without regard to how PATHETIC that is, how unsound the reasoning; how invalid the logical construct; we need to give her credit where credit is due... few idiots would have the courage to post the insipid drivel she puts up as reasoned argument; but that's probably because THOSE idiots were fairly high functioning and had the means to learn.

Modbert is not gifted in that deptartment; but.... She DOES THE BEST SHE CAN... Godbless'er.

As Progressives go... She's top notch...

 

[Toro]

Practically everyone on this forum is very narrow minded, and ill-informed. Thus we have a clatter of voices yelling at each other without any understanding of anything. Sadly, that is the condition of most people through most of history.

Like, if Africa is a continent or a country for instance.

 

[Dante]

I'd love to see some of the answers here.

Because I have a brain?

 

[Political Junky]

Without Liberals we'd still be under the British. Conservatives, anti-change, were Royalists.

 

[Founder]

Without Liberals we'd still be under the British. Conservatives, anti-change, were royalists.

FALSE: The Tories were the today Liberals of that day, when the word Liberal had a different meaning exactly the opposite of what is has today. The Whigs in England were the Conservatives of today and they supported our independence, or at least our fair treatment at the hands of the Lib-Tory party in England.

This problem arises out of the proclivity of "Liberals" to change their name constantly and even steal the good names of other groups in order to cover their evil purposes. They STOLE the name Liberal and used it like wolves in sheep's clothing to deceive and destroy.

Now that they have dirtied the word Liberal, they are now abandoning it, and again changing their name to another stolen name, this time, "Progressive."

 

[Tom Clancy]

Without Liberals we'd still be under the British. Conservatives, anti-change, were Royalists.

You obviously don't know the meaning of Liberalism back then.

 

[Dante]

Without Liberals we'd still be under the British. Conservatives, anti-change, were Royalists.

You obviously don't know the meaning of Liberalism back then.

liberalism? it was a radical and liberal act to see the Colonies as independent of the Crown