Schools of thought in classical liberalism (radical, Brown, party, economic)
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.
The name of the game for the Globalists is to centralize power and control. Unfortunately, most people across the political spectrum support some kind of increase in centralized authority. Conservatives do it with religion and the warfare state. Liberals go the opposite extreme by trampling on religion and by supporting increased economic regulation and the welfare state (whose primary purpose is to bribe people into submission).
The name of the game for the Globalists is to centralize power and control. Unfortunately, most people across the political spectrum support some kind of increase in centralized authority. Conservatives do it with religion and the warfare state. Liberals go the opposite extreme by trampling on religion and by supporting increased economic regulation and the welfare state (whose primary purpose is to bribe people into submission).
The name of the game for the Globalists is to centralize power and control. Unfortunately, most people across the political spectrum support some kind of increase in centralized authority. Conservatives do it with religion and the warfare state. Liberals go the opposite extreme by trampling on religion and by supporting increased economic regulation and the welfare state (whose primary purpose is to bribe people into submission).
Liberals of the 1960s would not vote for 99% of todays democrats.
That may be true.
Just one example I could give:
Senator Daniel Moynihan, a Democrat from New York, said in 1965 that having kids out of wedlock was a social disaster. He primarily focused on the out of wedlock birth rate among African Americans, as this was the group with the majority of out of wedlock births at the time...But even then, their out of wedlock birth rate was less than 20%. Now the out of wedlock birth rate is around 40% for the populace at large.
When Dan Quayle said having kids out of wedlock was a disaster in 1992 he was mocked for it on the TV show Murphy Brown.
Now, a few on the liberal side of the spectrum are finally admitting Dan Quayle was right:
Senator Daniel Moynihan, a Democrat from New York, said in 1965 that having kids out of wedlock was a social disaster. He primarily focused on the out of wedlock birth rate among African Americans, as this was the group with the majority of out of wedlock births at the time...But even then, their out of wedlock birth rate was less than 20%. Now the out of wedlock birth rate is around 40% for the populace at large.
When Dan Quayle said having kids out of wedlock was a disaster in 1992 he was mocked for it on the TV show Murphy Brown.
Now, a few on the liberal side of the spectrum are finally admitting Dan Quayle was right:
Daniel Moynihan, one of the greatest senators in our history, would be drummed out of the party today. JFK might be. There is a movement to do that to Dianne Feinstein, not a great senator but a confirmed moderate, because she doesn't go along with today's brand of Democratic radicalism.
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.
