Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What Ohioisthebest is completely failing to recognize is that the OP is looking for positive examples of liberalism. What he has posted completely fails almost all of the criteria.
"Can any of you provide one or more examples of a high tax, large government sovereign nation that lasted at least a decade in the last 100 years with over 5 million citizens that has a vibrant economy, a strong middle class, decent human rights, laissez-faire economics, private, efficient self-regulation of education, social, and environmental quality, a free press, and free access to assault weapons for all?"
I , as a liberal, want to see a country that lives up to our founding ideals of "Freedom and Justice for All" that is realized by equal access to education, health care, jobs and business creation regardless of sex, race, religion or wealth. I want to see an economy and stock market sufficiently regulated to keep the gamblers, monopolists and thieves from robbing the small, and some large, investors blind. I want to see a population sufficiently armed and trained to defend themselves against violent criminals. I want to government big enough to support armed forces sufficient to protect ourselves and our, carefully chosen, allies, free from the threat of invasion by thieves or religious totalitarians. I do not want a military so out of control it goes around the globe picking fights to justify its size. I do not want a military being used to enforce exploitative business deals and international monopolies such as perpetrated by the international financial and petroleum consortiums.
I want a LIBERAL government that governs for all of its citizens not just the ones with enough wealth to buy the government for their own exclusive benefit. I want a government paid for by the people that actually own most of the land, businesses and wealth. I want a government that actually is “Of the People, by the People and for the People.” That is my definition of a Liberal government.
I made it though most of this thread until it was hijacked by OITB. The only consistent theme in his argument is his opposition to Big Government, He is apparently afraid big government will take away his freedom to be a petulant teenage boy forever. He is afraid of having parents that won't put up with his behavior. Too bad, grow up Ohio.
What Ohioisthebest is completely failing to recognize is that the OP is looking for positive examples of liberalism. What he has posted completely fails almost all of the criteria.
"Can any of you provide one or more examples of a high tax, large government sovereign nation that lasted at least a decade in the last 100 years with over 5 million citizens that has a vibrant economy, a strong middle class, decent human rights, laissez-faire economics, private, efficient self-regulation of education, social, and environmental quality, a free press, and free access to assault weapons for all?"
If glenn beck says otherwise, history has no fact in the eyes of the brainwashed
What Ohioisthebest is completely failing to recognize is that the OP is looking for positive examples of liberalism. What he has posted completely fails almost all of the criteria.
"Can any of you provide one or more examples of a high tax, large government sovereign nation that lasted at least a decade in the last 100 years with over 5 million citizens that has a vibrant economy, a strong middle class, decent human rights, laissez-faire economics, private, efficient self-regulation of education, social, and environmental quality, a free press, and free access to assault weapons for all?"
Well the OP retooled my Conservatopia thread, so the laissez-faire economics was poor editing, I think. He should have said mixed economy. I presented a few pretty strong and successful examples in the second post, and one poster did make a good counter argument about beer. I think I will concede that Ben Franklin would not appreciate Norwegian beer prices.
Yea, the Ohio dude lowballed it, but people should have given him the sound of on hand clapping.
In any case, points taken. In Norway, no cheap beer, in Canada, a foreigner might need to pay for emergency services. Any other knocks on the despotic, socialist regimes of Canada, Norway, Germany, Australia, Denmark,etc.? Keep 'em coming.
Maybe the Nazism was a right-wing ideology but it was definetely not an American right-wing style ideolgy.
In 1932, Nazi Party spokesman Joseph Goebbels said that the Nazi Party was a "workers’ party", "on the side of labour, and against finance."
Nazi propaganda posters in working-class districts emphasized anti-capitalism, such as one that said: "The maintenance of a rotten industrial system has nothing to do with nationalism. I can love Germany and hate capitalism."
Philosopher Stephen Hicks writes: "The issue about how socialist the Nazis were is, in part, a judgment call about long-term principles and short-term pragmatism."
Hicks argues that the Nazis claimed to be more devoted to socialism than the Soviet Bolsheviks: the Russians were preoccupied with economics while
the Nazis thought socialism should control not only economics but breeding, religion and other intimate details of life.
Maybe the Nazism was a right-wing ideology but it was definetely not an American right-wing style ideolgy.
In 1932, Nazi Party spokesman Joseph Goebbels said that the Nazi Party was a "workers’ party", "on the side of labour, and against finance."
Nazi propaganda posters in working-class districts emphasized anti-capitalism, such as one that said: "The maintenance of a rotten industrial system has nothing to do with nationalism. I can love Germany and hate capitalism."
Philosopher Stephen Hicks writes: "The issue about how socialist the Nazis were is, in part, a judgment call about long-term principles and short-term pragmatism."
Hicks argues that the Nazis claimed to be more devoted to socialism than the Soviet Bolsheviks: the Russians were preoccupied with economics while
the Nazis thought socialism should control not only economics but breeding, religion and other intimate details of life.
Nazism was a spin off of Mussolini's fascism, both far right on the political scale. Today's republicans and especially the tea party are not nazism, rather a neo-fascism.
Here's a brief video explaining fascism and how it syncs nearly perfectly in harmony with today's right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
