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.
My favorite Prime Minister who lead the country for 20 years said this is the definition of liberalism.
"Toward a more just society"
Very simple and very true.
I guess NO economic prosperity for ANYONE is "just" (as in equal), and unfortunately it's the inevitable result of "more of the same" Big Government taxation, regulation and uncertainty that strangles economic activity and sends business and its money overseas.
Obama is a one-trick-pony who has a single idea: ever-bigger Big Government racking up unlimited debt for the taxpayer, so that a select few Special Interests and campaign contributors can get taxpayer windalls. But since Obama knows nothing of the economy or business, his windfalls seem to exclusively fall on only losers that don't survive long enough to produce jobs or tax revenues. Solyndra alone will cost taxpayers $849 million in losses, and would never have been established without the promise of massive taxpayer inflows. Other failed "green" companies Obama gave taxpayer money to: Solar Trust of America, Bright Source, LSP Energy, Energy Conversion Devices, Abound Solar, SunPower, BeaconPower, Ecotality, A123Solar, Unisolar, Azure Dynamics, Evergreen Solar, Ener1.
More than $!0 billion was distributed under the Department of Energy’s Section 1603 grant program, which offers cash payments to renewable energy companies. Despite demands by the House Energy & Commerce Committee for the Administration to document what the taxpayer got in return for $10 billion List of Failed Obama Green Energy & Solar Companies in the Billions, no information has been provided.
Apparently most voters understood that our economy would not improve under Obama, but they didn't care. Social issues were more important: we won't have abortion outlawed (which affects very few of us), but we will have another 4 years of less jobs, lower wages, and a social safety net that sounds nice but cannot be sustained by unlimited borrowing and printing of worthless dollars. Take a clue Republican Party: drop the religious nuts. You might win an election and save us all.
Obama's much-lauded empathy and concern for the "little guy" seem to be forgotten in his massive give-aways. With all those trillions in "stimulus," how much was given to the "little guy"? That would be 2% of a worker's taxable income for 2011 and 2012, --and it wasn't GIVEN to the worker, it was a REDUCTION in what is normally confiscated from that same worker under the Social Security tax. It was nice, but did it make a difference and increase spending. Hardly.
I hope young adults and those who come after them will be happy with their choice of equal poverty and economic stagnation for all, since the government safety net they like so much won't be able to handle ALL of those freebies forever. Tax revenue and prosperity come with jobs, and those are going away thanks to Obama's policies.
I see this term thrown around alot, but I don't even think this term has much meaning. If you aren't a fan of brain-dead anarcho-capitalist/anti-intellectual/religiously fuelled political ideologies, well then, you must be a "liberal", no matter what your thoughts on neoliberalism happen to be. "Liberal" is just another way of saying "n######" I guess, somebody to hate.
A liberal is anyone who sees Fox News/Limbaugh/Beck as right wing entertainment.
Obvioulsy, the original definition of "liberal" is not the meaning of this thread.
So, since it has changed and it is loose in its meaning depending on the person, I will tell you what a liberal is to me in this day and age.
A liberal is a person who has a very naive ideal. They believe in collectivist concepts, that the "whole" is always more important than the individual. They covet this ideal, they worship the concept of people being held to a conduct that requires them to always place the concern of the group above the individual, even at their own detriment. They believe so strongly that they think infringement on the individual regardless of the offense is acceptable to achieve this goal. The end justifies the means with them. A person or person(s) can die/suffer to achieve this goal because what matters is the collective, not the individual for to worry about the individual is selfish and contrary to the whole.
Because they believe this, lying, cheating, stealing and yes... even killing another is acceptable. They have a grand view of the world and if they can just achieve it, all will be well and everyone will be happy and prosperous.
When they fail, they disregard such as the fault of some "individual" who didn't help the collective. They are delusional because they have no integrity, because all aspects of behavior are acceptable to the achievement of their goal, they become corrupted by it and use that to dismiss the failures of their invalid ideal. All who oppose become enemies who are the fault and who must be punished for their objection. They do not believe in civility unless such practice is the result of their victory. If such victory can not be achieved civilly, then anything and everything is acceptable to establish their rule.
They are fascists, totalitarians, Marxists, socialists, and communists using all the tools to achieve the control they need, to establish their rule and to dictate to the masses as they "feel" is the best means to civilizations survival. They start as idealist, innocent and full of hopeful naivety, but because of the principals they hold, and the lack of constraints to achieve their goals, they are no different than the most vile and oppressive opponents they accuse.
Maybe you can explain to us all here how such an ideal has been promoted and pursued in the form of government that liberals have supported?
I didn't speak as a collectivist. But then, if you had an identity outside of collectivism, ability to decipher, you would have a clue of what I posted there.
But, in your defense, I have also posted later that as a citizen who is liberal, I choose to stand up against authoritarians. So if you were to ask how I have done so, consider gay marriage. I support it, because I believe marriage is an individual's premise, and contract with whoever he/she chooses. It is none of my business to outlaw that. Authoritarianism is about that, I'm opposed to authoritarianism.
I didn't speak as a collectivist. But then, if you had an identity outside of collectivism, ability to decipher, you would have a clue of what I posted there.
But, in your defense, I have also posted later that as a citizen who is liberal, I choose to stand up against authoritarians. So if you were to ask how I have done so, consider gay marriage. I support it, because I believe marriage is an individual's premise, and contract with whoever he/she chooses. It is none of my business to outlaw that. Authoritarianism is about that, I'm opposed to authoritarianism.
Got it?
You aren't opposed to authoritarianism, you merely oppose such against your beliefs. If it coincides with your belief, you are a staunch supporter of authoritarianism. Make no mistake, you are exactly what you accuse of the far right side of the spectrum. Both of you are the same, each seeking to dictate to the populace your ideology.
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.
What is a "liberal"?
