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.
First off, I'm not on the right. Secondly, the private sector does move to make profit, I never sadi different. Liberals are the very definition of big government. I don't say that to attack liberals. it's just a fact. Everytime a liberal politician gets the chance they expand the size of government. I never said conservatives don't do the same, but the thread is about liberalism.
The rest of your post make little sense. You want to eliminate duplication in government? So did Eisenhower, Nixon, Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama. Just goes to show you how government operates. But of course it is much better thn the private sector.
The facts do not support your claim. Government expanded under Reagan and shrank the most of any modern president under Clinton.
I don't think anyone's claiming government is better than private sector. It's just acknowledging that unfettered capitalism has significant costs that can be mitigated by government.
You really should educate yourself on the history of political parties. The Democrats were the conservative party of the south and the GOP was the liberal party until well into the 20th century. Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and the rest were liberals by any definition. While the shift was well underway, the Civil Rights Act signed by Lyndon Johnson is what lost the South for the Democrats, as he predicted it would.
You should educate yourself. Democrats tried to block women's rights and rights for minoirties. That's a fact. No way around it. Lincoln and Tedy were certainly not liberals. That's just rewriting history.
Democrats let KKK member Robert Byrd stay in the party and even promoted him to positions of power.
Every time I see someone mentioning smaller government I envision what they really mean. They mean only one Party, Theirs. They mean fewer regulations for Big Business since after all money is the be all and end all for some. It means no social programs lending a helping hand to any citizen in need of help, if you cannot carry your weight then just die already. It means lots of laws governing personal behavior. It will mean no more minimum wages or child labor laws, work and be happy you have a job, complaining is grounds for arrest and re-education. It means the end of SS and Medicare, don’t have enough saved and want the money you paid in back, too bad get over it. It means the middle-class, or what is left of it will be stuck with paying the bills since at that point the right will have found a way to remove all taxes on Rich and Big Business, since after all we know when the rich are happy they will throw a few crumbs the way of the little people. It will mean religion into the schools and science either distorted or removed. It will means laws passed on how someone’s religion tells them we should be living, no matter that the majority do not agree. It will mean the burring of books and the attempt to remove ideas and those that voice them. It will mean building walls around our nation so we can live free to enjoy our paranoia. It will mean wars and more wars based religious beliefs and greed. It will mean a nation of haves and have nots with little in-between. It will be a Nation ready for a fall and it will not be pretty. So, no thanks, I'll pass, balance and common sense are what we need. Can our government be trimed and become more efficient, apsolutely, but if we are talking a nation run by one Party, Left or Right, I am tottally against it.
ONE last thought: at this moment one Party is attempting to destroy the other Party from the ground up, this should be setting off alarm bells all across this nation, because if they are successful all of the things I mentioned above plus many more will come to pass.
Casper
I don't think anyone's claiming government is better than private sector. It's just acknowledging that unfettered capitalism has significant costs that can be mitigated by government.
I never said government shrank under Reagan.
You people are working form the assumption that I am a conservative. You should not make assumptions. As you are not good at them.
Liberals also fought to give blacks and women the right to vote.
Proven over and over again, women had the right to vote in many states before 1920. Nationally, it was to get the woman's vote for the democrats... Harding won the next Presidential election hands down, by getting the women's votes.
Democrats did not approve of the civil rights act. JFK voted NO twice on it. More Republicans voted yes than Democrats, by 2-1.
But Democrats were more conservative than they are now.
I never said the free market provides a utopia. I also never said I was against all regulation. Or governemnt. I said the free market provides services better and cheaper than government. And there is no proof that it has failed.
Why is quality of life so ****ty in countries with big governments?
I don't have a clue as to what is going on in Virginia. I doubt they "forced" people to drive cars. There is no evidence that what you say about conservatives is true. For example, George Bush and Republicans were just in charge of government a few years ago. Please give me examples of where they restricted, or even attempted to, rights of women, minorites, interracial marriages etc... Some of then wanted to profile Muslims at airports but it never gained any traction. Other than that you can't name one thing that conservatives did to restrict rights of any certain group. Not one.
Like all of western Europe and Skandinavia? The countries rated with the highest quality of life actually do have sizable government interference in their markets. The down side is that they tend to lack innovation and vibrancy like we have here, but they do have very high quality of life for the average person.
I keep giving you evidence, and you simply say "there's no evidence". I can't really help you. Virginia house passed a bill that would require investments be made to only accommodate automobile use. That's about as big government interference as you get.
Allowing discrimination is the same as advocating for it. Just study history and you'll see a consistent theme. That said, I think liberals go way too far in crippling certain segments of society by making them dependent on handouts. That's just as immoral as letting the markets run willy nilly over everybody who can't compete in them.
You should educate yourself. Democrats tried to block women's rights and rights for minoirties. That's a fact. No way around it. Lincoln and Tedy were certainly not liberals. That's just rewriting history.
Democrats let KKK member Robert Byrd stay in the party and even promoted him to positions of power.
Wow. Um... yeah. Democrats were the conservative party at the time you're talking about, as I explained in the post. Let the party affiliation go.
I never claimed nor cared what party affiliation you are. You simply claimed that liberal presidents expand government every chance they get. I proved you wrong by pointing out that government shrank most in modern times under a liberal president.
Likewise, research has shown that the stockmarket does best under liberal presidents. The economy thrives absolutely best under a liberal president and conservative congress, so let's hope that holds true, even though we have split congress.
"When the Quakers were founded...one of their principles was and is equality of the sexes. So I never had any other idea...the principle was always there."
-Alice Paul-interview, 1974
Militant Suffragettes (Paul in England)
Though Alice's upbringing was steeped in suffrage ideals, it was during her stay in England that she was transformed from a reserved Quaker girl into a militant suffragist.
National Woman's Party, Picketing and Prison Where NAWSA (National American Women's Suffrage Association)concentrated a majority of its effort upon state campaigns, Paul wanted to focus all energy and funding upon a national amendment. While NAWSA endorsed President Wilson and looked to members of the Democratic Party as allies, Alice Paul wanted to hold Wilson and his party responsible for women's continued disenfranchisement (a tactic of British Suffragettes). In 1914, after initially forming a semi-autonomous group called the Congressional Union, Paul and her followers severed all ties to NAWSA and, in 1916, formed the National Woman's Party (NWP)
http://www.alicepaul.org/alicepaul.htm
No, YOU have no idea what you're talking about. The GOP up until a few decades ago was the liberal party of the North, while the Democrats were the conservative party of the South. So stop posting Alice Paul's bio and start actually reading what I post and what you post. Or is that too difficult for you?
Republicans are the ultimate big government party right now. They want to use the Federal government as a tool for shaping society and culture. You can't get much more big government than that.
No, YOU have no idea what you're talking about. The GOP up until a few decades ago was the liberal party of the North, while the Democrats were the conservative party of the South. So stop posting Alice Paul's bio and start actually reading what I post and what you post. Or is that too difficult for you?
That just happened to me in this thread. I explained that the Democrats used to be our conservative party, and a poster just went right on about how Democrats were against women's rights and supported the KKK and all that.
Very strange. I don't know if it's a reading comprehension issue or a willful denial of history or what.
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.
you have no idea what you are talking about.
