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 is a liberal??? In the year 2012, it is a person who wants the Government to tell them what to eat, how to spend their money, what to drive, how to heat their home, and how to vote. In summary, it's basically a person who cannot make it on their own and needs assistance in every facet of their life, and is willing to give up their freedoms to be taken care of..
That's childish.
If I want a car that has an airbag, the only way I will get it is if it available on production cars. No car company is going to put them on for me. Airbags, mandated by the government, have saved countless lives. Nobody can claim that's a bad thing.
Yes, government has mandated many fuel and safety specifications for cars, and it was good that they did.
If I want clean air and clean water, the only way I'm going to get it is if the factories and businesses aren't dumping wastes into the air and water. The only way I'm going to get that is if there are government regulations.
I see nothing wrong with government regulations that lower my consumption of heating fuels or electricity.
It has nothing to do with my lack of ability to 'make it on my own or my need for assistance in every facet of my life.' It has everything to do with standards that collectively better the people that wouldn't be available individually.
Typical Obama lovers response. You must have gotten that answer off of Media Matters before it was spread to state run TV..
You go ahead and take their handouts and keep drinking the "global" koolaid while you give the feds more of your freedom. Thank god their are more people who believe in freedom who will stand up for individual freedom and not buy into the liberal " earth first, people are horrible" mentality.....
Childish huh.... While your on the BO "take", I'm preparing for the worst ON MY OWN!!!! You see what liberalism has gotten Greece?? It's coming here soon!!!
If I want a car that has an airbag, the only way I will get it is if it available on production cars. No car company is going to put them on for me. Airbags, mandated by the government, have saved countless lives. Nobody can claim that's a bad thing.
Yes, government has mandated many fuel and safety specifications for cars, and it was good that they did.
If I want clean air and clean water, the only way I'm going to get it is if the factories and businesses aren't dumping wastes into the air and water. The only way I'm going to get that is if there are government regulations.
I see nothing wrong with government regulations that lower my consumption of heating fuels or electricity.
It has nothing to do with my lack of ability to 'make it on my own or my need for assistance in every facet of my life.' It has everything to do with standards that collectively better the people that wouldn't be available individually.
And usually business people love it.
"Well, mam, we don't want to charge you $6,000 for an HVAC system but the government is mandating us to do so."
When government came to the conclusion that everyone should have a home business owners rejoiced and it drove the cost to buy a home up dramatically.
When government came to the conclusion that everyone should have a college education schools and their investors rejoiced and it drove the cost up to go to college dramatically.
When government started programs to subsidize health care, medicine and low-incomes you got more of all three and it drove the cost up substantially.
Now we've got a crisis in all of the above. If I'm not being self-delusional the responsible party for those crises is self-evident.
If I'm being self-delusional I'll simply ignore those very easy to understand facts and push for more and more subsidies.
As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.
- George Washington
Quote:
On the left of the political spectrum, things are more complicated. The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the economic sphere, then, almost anything goes.
At the same time, 20th century liberals continued to be influenced by the 19th century liberalism's belief in and respect for civil liberties. In fact, as the last century progressed, liberal support for civil liberties grew and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) began to proudly claim the label "civil libertarian." Since liberalism was the dominant 20th century ideology, public policy tended to reflect its beliefs. By the end of the century, people had far fewer economic rights than they had at the beginning. But they had more civil rights.
As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.
- George Washington
Of course what the word "liberal" meant in George Washington's time bears little to no resemblance to what it means now.
No liberal today would qualify a statement about the people as "those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community." There is no sense in today's liberal that a person's behavior should be linked to what they are entitled to from the government. Thus Obama's repeal of welfare reform.
Nor would today's liberals limit it to the "protections" of the civil government. That's far too narrow and would not allow for public education, healthcare, food stamps, social security, etc.
If you disagree, please explain how someone with a solid understanding of economics can support programs that have been proven to be fiscally insolvable such as social security or medicare?
Also, please explain how a person who supports programs that take responsibility for the future away from the individual and give it to government can honestly say they trust people to take care of themselves?
lol @ funding S.S. being an issue of "understanding economics."
In the 18th century 'liberal' would have meant Lockean-derived individualism. In other words, not unlike today's libertarianism.
Except that libertarians are a confused bunch today running around as conservatives (but many are simply "conservatives" masquerading as libertarians... whatever that means).
But Locke preceded George Washington by nearly a century. I would have thought more along the lines of Thomas Paine to be what liberalism entailed. It is also worth noting what Washington saw as some of the tenets of liberalism (and I get the feeling much of it was missing at the time).
In the 18th century 'liberal' would have meant Lockean-derived individualism. In other words, not unlike today's libertarianism.
EXACTLY, "liberal" meant enlightened secular rationalism and "laissez faire" government
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.
EXACTLY, "liberal" meant enlightened secular rationalism and "laissez faire" government
