NationStates Jolt Archive

I've seen x number of posts that have called liberals lefties and communists (man the board is politicized today eh?), and in my usual attitude I’m sick of it.

Liberalism is not left the entire idea of liberalism is its centre, you frigging idiots, Hell the entire idea is from before the terminology left and right came into existence at the time of the French revolution, and it predates most modern leftist theories such as socialism or Marxism by a good 50-100 years.

It originated in England in the late renaissance/ early enlightenment (of course the idea of England being liberal back then will terrify most Americans because you view us as some kind of tyrannical oppressors) and was basically founded by a amalgamation of the Whig Party (then the liberals, now the liberal democrats) and several social reformers Such as Jeremy Bentham, John Locke, and Later People like Adam Smith (yes the founder of modern capitalism had a hand in this great leftist conspiracy) David Hume, John Stuart Mill, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant.

The Entire Theory Of Liberalism centres around ideas such as the rights of individual, the separation of Church and State, Democratic Accountability of the Government, Universal Suffrage.


The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.
John Stuart Mill



"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."
-Geogre Washinton


To sum it up Dignity, equality, liberty and property

Wait... Wait Wait Wait, was not that the things the Continental congress fought for.... No it couldn’t be, that would make people in American pandering liberals and liberalism un-American.

Was not America a country, that was founded on these liberal ideas that they felt Europe had so rejected?

Nah crap it must just be me.

So why don’t all you Conservative’s stop telling liberals to get out of American if they don’t like it, and realise YOU should be the ones being told to get out, Because YOU are living in the wrong kind of country.

Were as the ideas of the Left place, equality higher than civil liberties, for example socialism requires that wealth should be redistributed. (which shakes my faith in it at times)

/Rant over
(sorry its been a politically heated day here today, and as an actual leftist i felt i had to step in and defend the liberals)

Classic liberalism, of the Hayek/Freidman kind is usually considered fairly right wing, however most people don't think of those guys as liberals, even though that is how they described themselves.

In the US however, the socialists realized they had a big image problem after WWII so they started to call themselves liberals - and the name stuck.

Most liberals in the US these days are fairly socialist in attitude. As the majority of posters on this board seem to be from the US, I suppose this is why the word is most frequently used this way.

hmm that makes sense, i just wanted to point out the current hypocrisy in the Religious far right pro-all America movement that’s growing in the U.S, If the founding fathers saw it they would probably start throwing up blood.

I think we are getting our wires crossed though, liberalism has always been centrist though, the right is not concerned with the right of the individual its concerned with promoting the welfare of the powerful minority

It's just American terminology. A lot of words change when they cross the pond.

I'm a true Liberal! Hooray for me!





I <3 Adam Smith

I <3 John Locke

And if they saw some nancy brit post about religion the way it is posted here, they would probably whoop some ass again.

[/rampant nationlism]

Why are all leftist liberal proto-communist such anti-religious bigots?

hmm that makes sense, i just wanted to point out the current hypocracy in the Relgious far right pro-all america movement thats growing in the U.S, If the founding fathers saw it they would probally start throwing up blood.

I don't know what the founding Fathers would say.

Some of them were okay with things like the sedition acts, and some of them were slave owners.

It's just American terminology. A lot of words change when they cross the pond.

Not really from what i can see, conservatives, are not liberal in my sense either, for many of their policies are very right, for example abstinence first education, anti abortion lobby, arrest without trial. Just a few ones that come directly into conflict of the liberal policies of the rights of the individual and Right to a Trial

America has a distorted image of liberalism i admit, but in simple terms bassicaly our liberals are everybody else's conservatives and vice-versca.

The problem is not liberals in it self. I'm a "liberal".

I think our borders should be open and let anybody in. We should be proud that aliens want to get in our country so badly and they're very hard-working people.

I'm against the war, I don't need no bombs around me.

Instead of funding military, police, and education (Let's face it children are dumb.) we should be spending that money on health-care and the enviorment.

I believe most narcotics should be legalised and legislated like ciggerates and alchahol combined. The hassle they give people for these menial toxins only shows you how you wouldn't be able to get away with murder on your crack-pipe, the worse the drug, the worse the rules. But I don't believe in prohibition of any sort.

So why am I not rallying along side pinkos talking about how Bush is the devil? Because I think liberal in my country, I think fuck-heads who starve innocent people to death, kill babies just to prove a point, and censor my very thoughts so they can feel all high and mighty.

They need to make a new party afflitation for these and the reverse who try to shove the Bible down our throats and go to klan meetings.. "bastards".

I have a question for the Republicans here. If all the 'liberals' in America gave up their socialist attitudes and became true liberals/libertarians, would Republicans be OK with them?

Not a likely situation, but most Republicans say that they want a nation of liberty and that they oppose Democrats because of socialism.

And if they saw some nancy brit post about religion the way it is posted here, they would probably whoop some ass again.

[/rampant nationlism]

Why are all leftist liberal proto-communist such anti-religious bigots?

That was some of my own beliefs creeping in, and I’m not bigot thank you very much as a matter of fact as that implies ignorance a facet I don’t possess, I was a catholic before loosing my faith, and consider my self very well educated on Christianity considering its a core component of my own education by choice.

and completely off topic the continentals only one because of French aid.

But if I had been alive back then I would have fought with the continentals congress because more of less its what I believe in (the political debates of today have influenced me some what), and despite what you want to believe one of the biggest influence on the American revolution was the English revolution that preceded it 100 years earlier but ultimately was a failure.

As for the Nancy bit, go f*ck your self mate.

I've just come to the conclusion the reason the western world it shit these days is because we’ve lost sight of this liberalism, true liberalism that is not what you would call socialism.

Perhaps we need to give it another go.

I prefer to call myself a centrist as I'm pretty middle of the road on a few things but left on others and again, right on others as well. Names change as the times do in this world. So any name given to a group who favors particular views is pretty much void.

Lincoln was a republican and won with the support of the north, he was quite progressive in his movements until the republican party began to grow corrupt and thus led into the Progessive Era of politics where the democrats once favoring slavery began to favor progressive or in some cases "left" attitudes such as the sufferage movement and social issues that in the era of Lincoln where particularly republican views.

So essentially, any party can have any particular person in it. It's just time that decides which views you have correlate to a particular party. I'm definently centrist but with my republican views I could be considered a republican. Although if you take my views on the right and apply them to Lincoln's time, I'd be a democrat.

So in closing, the entire structure of both parties flip-flopped at one time or another :D

Not really from what i can see, conservatives, are not liberal in my sense either, for many of their policies are very right, for example abstinence first education, anti abortion lobby, arrest without trial. Just a few ones that come directly into conflict of the liberal policies of the rights of the individual and Right to a Trial

The american right has two camps. The old time liberals - think Milton Freidman and his bunch - and the social conservatives - think Jerry Falwell.

In recent history, more social conservatives could also be found on the left of the economic spectrum - think Senator Byrd, Senator Zell Miller however this is becoming increasingly rare. Additionally, there used to be more socially liberal types on the right, like Sen. Jeffords (-sp), but this is not so common these days.

US politics has become more polarized over the past twenty years.

I just vote for the guy who looks like he has the best hair.. just kidding!

I have a question for the Republicans here. If all the 'liberals' in America gave up their socialist attitudes and became true liberals/libertarians, would Republicans be OK with them?

Not a likely situation, but most Republicans say that they want a nation of liberty and that they oppose Democrats because of socialism.

Put it this way: If the Democratic Party announced that tomorrow, (and meant it), if the "LIberals" in America were to make that change... they would find themselves in the overwhelming majority here in the States. Most of the Growth on the right (including Republican victories in Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency) has been due to the lurching shift to socialist dogmas by the yahoos that hijacked the word "Liberal" in the 1970's. a change like you describe would rob the Republicans of the majority of their support nationwide.
This is exactly why it will not happen.
Right now, the Leftists have the lock on the Dems, and that lock is giving the bible-boys a lot of help, since the Classical Liberals, which represent a lot of the middle-american centre, and the Libertarians really have nowhere else to go if they don't like or want Socialism.

America has a distorted image of liberalism i admit, but in simple terms bassicaly our liberals are everybody else's conservatives and vice-versca.

The problem is not liberals in it self. I'm a "liberal".

I think our borders should be open and let anybody in. We should be proud that aliens want to get in our country so badly and they're very hard-working people.

Dude, closed borders during a war, opening them is asinine. Al-Queda is recently planning to do an attack through the open borders. Sheesh some people.

I'm against the war, I don't need no bombs around me.

Instead of funding military, police, and education (Let's face it children are dumb.) we should be spending that money on health-care and the enviorment.

I disagree, Education, police (though i don't like them), healthcare and envirnoment are all important.

I believe most narcotics should be legalised and legislated like ciggerates and alchahol combined. The hassle they give people for these menial toxins only shows you how you wouldn't be able to get away with murder on your crack-pipe, the worse the drug, the worse the rules. But I don't believe in prohibition of any sort.

I'd rather illegalize alcohol and ciggerattes.

So why am I not rallying along side pinkos talking about how Bush is the devil? Because I think liberal in my country, I think fuck-heads who starve innocent people to death, kill babies just to prove a point, and censor my very thoughts so they can feel all high and mighty.

They need to make a new party afflitation for these and the reverse who try to shove the Bible down our throats and go to klan meetings.. "bastards".
Whatever...

Here's a question, has american lost sight of the ideas on which it was founded on.

I'd rather illegalize alcohol

Because this worked soo well in the 1920's

I've always thought of it this way: liberals want to help other people. Conservatives don't.

That sounds biased, but it's not intended to be. Nonetheless, I would personally consider conservatism to be more sinister than liberalism. Again, sorry if I've offended you. (personally, I'm a moderate libertarian---I'm not doing this to make myself appear a saint).

Since sinister is the Latin word for "left", that means conservatives should be considered more left than liberals.

I loathe George Bush. He is considered a conservative. I suppose that means I'm a liberal. But I'm far from a Socialist.


Edit: In response to Scouser's new question: Hell yeah. Even Hamilton, the big-central-government-loving industrialist, would be shocked at the degree to which the commerce clause has be used to expand the power of the national government. Whatever happened to "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"? No Child Left Behind, the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage, etc, are violations of what was considered 213 years ago to be one of the most basic rules for the new government

I have a question for the Republicans here. If all the 'liberals' in America gave up their socialist attitudes and became true liberals/libertarians, would Republicans be OK with them?

Not a likely situation, but most Republicans say that they want a nation of liberty and that they oppose Democrats because of socialism.

Well you say republican like it is some monolithic block.

Frankly, yes, a great number of republicans would be totally okay with it. (Especially in the voting base).

Most republican voters tend to be socially liberal, and economic policy tends to govern their choice. Indeed a study of attitudes in the 2004 election by the Economist (hardly a pro Bush publication, though centre right) that fewer people were motivated to vote for moral reasons (i.e. gay marriage) than in any election in recent history.

The socially conservative wing of the party/neo-con wing, which tends to be more authoritarian and which also sometimes has socialist tendencies of its own may well not be happy with them however.

And if they saw some nancy brit post about religion the way it is posted here, As for the Nancy bit, go f*ck your self mate.As for both of you, cease and desist immediately.

Salchicho, there is no cause for random flamebait.

Scouserlande, there is no cause for you to validate the flamebait by flaming.
Liberalism is not left the entire idea of liberalism is its centre, you frigging idiotsStarting off a topic with a flamebait directed at all readers isn't the wisest course. If you can't control what you post because you're angy IRL, go somewhere else. We don't want or need to be insulted.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Put it this way: If the Democratic Party announced that tomorrow, (and meant it), if the "LIberals" in America were to make that change... they would find themselves in the overwhelming majority here in the States. Most of the Growth on the right (including Republican victories in Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency) has been due to the lurching shift to socialist dogmas by the yahoos that hijacked the word "Liberal" in the 1970's. a change like you describe would rob the Republicans of the majority of their support nationwide.
This is exactly why it will not happen.
Right now, the Leftists have the lock on the Dems, and that lock is giving the bible-boys a lot of help, since the Classical Liberals, which represent a lot of the middle-american centre, and the Libertarians really have nowhere else to go if they don't like or want Socialism.
Thanks for answering. However, I think it's more a matter of Americans becoming more capitalist than Democrats going more socialist. For example, think back to when Democrats were more of a socialist party (think FDR and LBJ) - and they were a hegemonic power in US politics. I think the American people have moved right more than Democrats have moved left.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin


Tell me again how the republican party is liberal.

I've always thought of it this way: liberals want to help other people. Conservatives don't.

That sounds biased, but it's not intended to be. Nonetheless, I would personally consider conservatism to be more sinister than liberalism. Again, sorry if I've offended you. (personally, I'm a moderate libertarian---I'm not doing this to make myself appear a saint).

Since sinister is the Latin word for "left", that means conservatives should be considered more left than liberals.

I loathe George Bush. He is considered a conservative. I suppose that means I'm a liberal. But I'm far from a Socialist
Nope, the Terry Schiavo case proves Bush is a Liberal, he is only for State's right when States agree with him.

As for both of you, cease and desist immediately.

Salchicho, there is no cause for random flamebait.

Scouserlande, there is no cause for you to validate the flamebait by flaming.
Starting off a topic with a flamebait directed at all readers isn't the wisest course. If you can't control what you post because you're angy IRL, go somewhere else. We don't want or need to be insulted.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator


Sorry, i realise now that was a lightheart comment prehaps.

Why are all leftist liberal proto-communist such anti-religious bigots?Just an aside: I don't know about being bigots, but Marx called religion the "opiate of the masses," meaning that religion was part of the superstructure that the elite ruling classes used to maintain their own power and keep the working class under control.

Someone who is a communist might agree with this idea, and so would view religion as being a tool used to oppress the proletariat and prevent the communist revolution.

I don't really want to argue this, I just wanted to answer what I perceived to be a half-serious question sprinkled with intolerance.

Here's a question, has american lost sight of the ideas on which it was founded on.

Yes. Though this isn't a completely bad thing. I personally like the fact that legally blacks aren't considered three fifths of a person.

I've always thought of it this way: liberals want to help other people. Conservatives don't.
Explain please. I assume you mean that liberals are pro-welfare and education funding, whereas conservatives are against it. This wouldn't be a mystery if you were on the left yourself, but you are a libertarian, so would you also say that you don't want to help other people?

Well you say republican like it is some monolithic block.

Well they are one policial party. It's not like a made a sweeping statement about "ALL conservatives" or anything like that.

The socially conservative wing of the party/neo-con wing, which tends to be more authoritarian and which also sometimes has socialist tendencies of its own may well not be happy with them however.
Yes I've noticed these socialist tendencies. But if the majority of Republicans are not authoritarian, why is the social conservative/neocon wing of the party the most dominant and powerful (at least it appears to be).

Just an aside: I don't know about being bigots, but Marx called religion the "opiate of the masses," meaning that religion was part of the superstructure that the elite ruling classes used to maintain their own power and keep the working class under control.

Someone who is a communist might agree with this idea, and so would view religion as being a tool used to oppress the proletariat and prevent the communist revolution.

I don't really want to argue this, I just wanted to answer what I perceived to be a half-serious question sprinkled with intolerance.

Well not just that, Marx could be said to have had something coming close to respect for religion. The "opiate of the people" is a shortening of what he actually said:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people"

He just realised that it was a product of society rather then truth. Also that its cause wasn't to oppress, but to give people a false, illusionary sense of happiness.

The outdated French system of left/right is very inadequate, since it refers to those who desire social change and reform and those who do not. Since what constitutes social reform changes over time, the reformists of hundreds of years ago might very well disagree with the reformists of today.

200 years ago, the "left", those who desired social change, were advocates of increased economic and civil rights. They were "left" because the system in place at the time was radically different to their ideal system. Of course, today, when many of their views have become established, those interested in reform may be after a different result, and so the definitions of "left" and "right" have completely shifted.

In the interest of clarity, it is not particularly helpful to refer to yourself or others as left or right wing, but perhaps better to use terms which describe specific philosophies as oppose to vague directions. Words like Capitalism, Socialism, Libertarianism and Authoritarianism is various combinations provide far more comprehensive descriptions of philosophy than plain left or right.

Tell me again how the republican party is liberal.

Many of the ideas of the "old" Republican party were "liberal" in the sense that they fought for personal freedom and civil rights. An Example: The 196(4?) vote on the civil rights act was passed by 82% of Republicans while only 66% of Democrats voted yes. Slavery was ended by the Republican party, and they were the first to favor womens suffrage in 1896.

However, today there is a huge divide between this faction, which was in many ways similar to libertarians, and the neoconservative faction, which is very heavily influenced by the conservatism of Leo Strauss. The exoteric Straussians, like conservatives, prefer to emphasize America's continuity with the classical and Christian sources of Western civilization.

So why am I not rallying along side pinkos talking about how Bush is the devil? Because I think liberal in my country, I think fuck-heads who starve innocent people to death, kill babies just to prove a point, and censor my very thoughts so they can feel all high and mighty.


Impales baby on pike trying to get point across (catch the pun?).

Now look what you made me do.

I've always thought of it this way: liberals want to help other people. Conservatives don't.

I believe it's mo like..

Liberal: This glass is half full! Let's leave it here and look around, i bet there's a whole gallon somewheres!

Conversavtives: This glass is half empty! Let's hide it so no-one takes it away from us!

Both see the milk.
Both like the milk.
Both are just too fucking stupid to drink the milk they got.

...Got milk?

Tell me again how the republican party is liberal.

Compare Rudoph Guliana to Robert Byrd.

You are trying to shoehorn at least four or five groups under one umbrella.

Look FDR and Harry Truman regularly tried to piss all over every kind civil liberty, and both of them were well for the gays being locked up. (Both Dems).

The senior elected democrat in the country used to be the Grand Poobah or something of the KKK in west virgnia.

You can't divide US politics into sharp party lines, so asking something like 'tell me again how the republican party is liberal' is a completely meaningless statement.

You also have to learn that there is far more seperation between local (state house and congressional delegation) parties and national (presidential) parties than in most countries.

Republicans in the NE, and west tend to be socially liberal, pro-choice, pro affimative action, pro gay marriage.

Democrats in the South tend to be conservative.

From your perspective (I'm assuming you are from Liverpool or its environs) Mary Landrieu, from lousiana is a republican, and Susan Collins from Maine is a Democrat. Actually the opposite is true. Nevertheless Collins is far more liberal that Landrieu.

This is probably the fault of the foriegn press which never seems to grasp the workings of the US system.

I've always kind of thought that modern American libertarians were the true old-time liberals. Here, I'll give you a rundown:

This is yet another opportunity to plug my libertarian cause. We believe in freedom and liberty. Small, less intrusive governement and one that doesn't do stupid, pointless things like regulate the airwaves and discriminate against gays. We believe in lower taxes and free market, also. That makes us superior to the dems and pubs, wouldn't you agree? There's also some republicans and democrats that run who are close to us, like Ron Paul of Texas.

Well, here's our party site, with some libertarian news along with our platform:

www.lp.org

and here's our wiki, which does a pretty good job of describing our beliefs, even if it isn't very flattering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

And here's a site about Ayn Rand, who was pretty close to us philosophically:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer

Compare Rudoph Guliana to Robert Byrd.

You are trying to shoehorn at least four or five groups under one umbrella.

Look FDR and Harry Truman regularly tried to piss all over every kind civil liberty, and both of them were well for the gays being locked up. (Both Dems).

The senior elected democrat in the country used to be the Grand Poobah or something of the KKK in west virgnia.

You can't divide US politics into sharp party lines, so asking something like 'tell me again how the republican party is liberal' is a completely meaningless statement.

You also have to learn that there is far more seperation between local (state house and congressional delegation) parties and national (presidential) parties than in most countries.

Republicans in the NE, and west tend to be socially liberal, pro-choice, pro affimative action, pro gay marriage.

Democrats in the South tend to be conservative.

From your perspective (I'm assuming you are from Liverpool or its environs) Mary Landrieu, from lousiana is a republican, and Susan Collins from Maine is a Democrat. Actually the opposite is true. Nevertheless Collins is far more liberal that Landrieu.

This is probably the fault of the foriegn press which never seems to grasp the workings of the US system.


Sorry, the parties in Britain, well except labours flying leap to the centre right, have pretty much stuck to their initial ideologies since there conception, that’s probably because we’ve had more than one for about 100 years now

Can I apologise to everyone about the initial rant nature of this, I’ve got a bit of a temper on me, doesn’t take much to get it going.
.

I've always kind of thought that modern American libertarians were the true old-time liberals. Here, I'll give you a rundown:

This is yet another opportunity to plug my libertarian cause. We believe in freedom and liberty. Small, less intrusive governement and one that doesn't do stupid, pointless things like regulate the airwaves and discriminate against gays. We believe in lower taxes and free market, also. That makes us superior to the dems and pubs, wouldn't you agree? There's also some republicans and democrats that run who are close to us, like Ron Paul of Texas.

Well, here's our party site, with some libertarian news along with our platform:

www.lp.org

and here's our wiki, which does a pretty good job of describing our beliefs, even if it isn't very flattering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

And here's a site about Ayn Rand, who was pretty close to us philosophically:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer

Nice, i think the whole world would breath a sigh of relief if a third party managed to get into the senate and congress, You be amazed what good a third voice on an issue can do. Go for it, one lives in hope

Scouserlande:

Just curious how you managed to reconcile Hume and Smith with Rousseau in respect to econmic and political views.
Hume and Smith are clearly part of the Liberal tradition, maybe even the true founders of it, but Rousseau is much more a socialist than a liberal, with interests in the state as a controlling influence rather than a neutral framework.

I feel that both David And Jean-Jacques would be spinning in their graves. (They hated each other in life). Adam, would probably just stand back and watch though.

The confusion of leftist and liberal in the US is not the result of liberals adopting leftist attitudes nor of leftists disingenuously calling themselves liberals. The confusion begins with American right-wing politics. About fifty years ago a war ended in which a right-wing political philosophy was shown to have abandoned all decency in pursuit of weird pseudo-scientific political aspirations. It was a hard blow for the right. As a result many who sympathized with right wing notions abandoned "modern" ideas that had been employed to promote their agenda (social darwinism in particular) but, understandably, were not so willing to give up the core convictions themselves. So they turned to traditional sources for confirmation of their positions, thus becoming "conservative" and soon began spreading their own philosophies through communities that had always looked to such traditional sources for their morality, thus changing the meaning of the term conservative.
For these folks who were newly arrived at such traditional morality there was a huge problem (it was a huge problem for everyone on a practical level but for them it was epistemological) which was a world power superficially devoted to a modern idea and promoting leftist ideas. The problem for the new right was that they believed in Marxist/Leninist dialectics, but they were repulsed by where it was going.
So they established the only significant right wing movement of the post fascist era: anti-communism. If you look at the contemporary work these people were writing at the time you can see that I am right, they believed that everything they loved was doomed, that the West could not win and were determined to sell victory to the Soviets and their allies as dearly as possible.
Then came Gorbachev. Gorbachev gave up the fight and the anti-communists won. But they are (were) ANTI-communists. Which meant they defined themselves though opposition to a group that was now at the least insignificant if not entirely irrelevent. So, rather than go through a difficult transformation (an idea antithetical to the notion of conservatism) they simply redirected their demonizing energy onto domestic liberalism. Out of habit they tend to confuse the new Satan with the old Satan.

Flattar

Scouserlande:

Just curious how you managed to reconcile Hume and Smith with Rousseau in respect to econmic and political views.
Hume and Smith are clearly part of the Liberal tradition, maybe even the true founders of it, but Rousseau is much more a socialist than a liberal, with interests in the state as a controlling influence rather than a neutral framework.

I feel that both David And Jean-Jacques would be spinning in their graves. (They hated each other in life). Adam, would probably just stand back and watch though.

hahah

1. I’m not Scouse, I’m Scottish just to clear that up. I thought my name was funny and there we go scouserlande

2. Yeah I was a bit hot headed when i wrote the initial piece for this thread, perhaps Rousseau was a poor choice i was debating about putting him in, but IMO the French revolution started out on a liberal stance in the days of the tennis court oath, but when Robespierre really started to take over that’s when it became socialist, so that’s why I put him in, to show the 'French' side of liberalism I suppose

Poor choice I suppose

So why don’t all you Conservative’s stop telling liberals to get out of American if they don’t like it, and realise YOU should be the ones being told to get out, Because YOU are living in the wrong kind of country.

The meaning of the word Liberal has changed over time.

Today's conservatives believe the things the liberals of the 1700's believed - Jefferson for example. The conservatives of the 1700's were monarchists, and are now extinct.

Today's liberals however are simply morons.

The meaning of the word Liberal has changed over time.

Today's conservatives believe the things the liberals of the 1700's believed - Jefferson for example. The conservatives of the 1700's were monarchists, and are now extinct.

Today's liberals however are simply morons.

To me, conservatives in the U.S seem to put great stock in individual rights such as gun ownership, private property, but ironically little stock in the rights of the individual (i believe there is a distinction, perhaps just a fault in my langue, perhaps I mean certain individual rights over others) such as freedom of speech and right to a trial by jury. As things such as Camp X-ray, and the Patriot and further 'spying' acts seems to confirm to me.

Today's liberals however are simply morons.
Helpful.

The libertarians are the largest third party in America, and definitely the most influential. Ron Paul, although techinically a Republican, can be considered our unofficial extension into the US house. We have more people in office than all other third parties in America combined. This sound like more than it is, though, since most of those positions aren't even as high as state senator. It's good progress for a third party, though, and I would be surprised if we gained 5 or 10 seats in various state congress's in the 2006 elections. Our biggest bases are in Massechussettes, New Hampshire, and Arizona. We used to have people in state legislature in Alask, NH, and a few other places. If we could break down the third party barrier, it would be terrific.

The two other biggest third parties are Greens, who are simply euro-type heavy democratic socialists, and the "constitution" party, who are basically fascist Republicans who crap on the constitution just as much. Libertarians are the only real oppostition.

but ironically little stock in the rights of the individual (i believe there is a distinction, perhaps just a fault in my langue, perhaps I mean certain individual rights over others) such as freedom of speech and right to a trial by jury

I know several conservatives (not me, I'm a centrist) , and none of them support the restriction of the aforementioned. There is a definite break between "conservative" and "far right", as a true conservative would support the democratic traditions of America and a far right would support only their own power.

The libertarians are the largest third party in America, and definitely the most influential. Ron Paul, although techinically a Republican, can be considered our unofficial extension into the US house. We have more people in office than all other third parties in America combined. This sound like more than it is, though, since most of those positions aren't even as high as state senator. It's good progress for a third party, though, and I would be surprised if we gained 5 or 10 seats in various state congress's in the 2006 elections. Our biggest bases are in Massechussettes, New Hampshire, and Arizona. We used to have people in state legislature in Alask, NH, and a few other places. If we could break down the third party barrier, it would be terrific.

The two other biggest third parties are Greens, who are simply euro-type heavy democratic socialists, and the "constitution" party, who are basically fascist Republicans who crap on the constitution just as much. Libertarians are the only real oppostition.

You really need to get in there, i was looking over the past presidential candidates somewhere and saw that only once did three parties stand the Sd-ram or somthing (social democracts) put a cadiate forward in the 20'ies i think, i rember being suprised at the them being quite close, but as for a third party to an outside it appears that was the one and only time it came close to being a reality.

Precisely, a commie of the 40s or even a hippy from the 60s would spit at a liberal by today's standards.

Though the conservatives of then would smack thier descendants upside the head. "*Smack!* Your idiocy has caused this to happen! See what you get for masturbating?!?! :mad: "

One thing that struck me about the last US election was that Kerry was far more European in feel and policy, while Bush was more American. By this I mean that when the Founding Fathers left England and Europe, they did so as religious hard-liners who could not tolerate the status quo which they saw as depraved and corrupt. Rather than being liberal they were fundamentalist individualists, thrown up by the extremes of Protestant mysticism and the frustrations of absolutist monarchies.

The Europeans were the ones who were prepared to allow tolerance but for the price of conformity - hence the Church of England founded by Elizabeth I, which was a political solution to a political problem. Here you could believe what you liked so long as you were prepared to conform exteriorly. The Puritans refused to tolerate this and sought to purify this situation first from within, then by revolution from without, and when this wasn't possible by washing their hands and setting out for their own Utopia. They were far from libertarian. They were religious fanatics with a heavy individual conviction about being right.

Thanks for answering. However, I think it's more a matter of Americans becoming more capitalist than Democrats going more socialist. For example, think back to when Democrats were more of a socialist party (think FDR and LBJ) - and they were a hegemonic power in US politics. I think the American people have moved right more than Democrats have moved left.

My father was a Kennedy Democrat. He tends to refer to the Johnson administration as "The Coup D'Tat"-he's a republican now, but only because the Democratic Party has gone so far to the left of what it was when he was a young man who joined the Air Force on the day Kennedy was sworn in.

Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat, did you know that? Campaigned for Kennedy... said, "I didn't leave the party, they left me" when discussing it in an interview (this was many years prior to his brains going to Alzheimer's land).

Zell Miller's statements in the Republican National Convention were quite telling about who's been shifting where.

If you go back and read the statements, speeches, and legislation of historical Dems, you find that Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D. Washington State) was/would be quite to the right of the modern Democratic Leadership-in fact, he'd be to the right of most Republicans today, and only slightly left of GW Bush (Scoop was more Libertarian).

FDR would still be a "Liberal" by today's standards, but only barely left-of-centre, he'd be accused by all sorts of Lefties here as being a 'Vicious NeoCon'.

Truman would be to the right of Buchanan today. Scary thought, ain't it?

JFK lowered taxes, stood up to the proliferation of Communist Doctrine, signed the Civil-Rights-Act, and celebrated American Prosperity and Power. Most of his 'admirers' forget these things. It's ok, most of his detractors do, too... even while pushing policies that are in harmony with JFK's, both on Taxation, and, on Foreign affairs.
Kennedy would be much more mainstream as a modern Republican than as a modern Democrat, using current definitions. His little brother, on the other hand...

The pendulum since about 1962 has been swinging steadily left-but now, it's going the other way-this will reverse when the Republicans get too comfortable with their majority, when they radicalize beyond the endurance of the people-just the way the Democrats did in the late '80s through today. The big shift came with a set of events that occurred in fairly close order:



1. the House Post Office Scandal.
2. Waco/Ruby Ridge.
3. The Term Limits fiasco and the lawsuits therein, which pushed a lot of people's buttons not because of any particular support for term-limits, but because of the arrogance of elected politicians in filing lawsuits to overturn something that won general support in the populace.
4. Congressional Pay Raises, the 3 Million Dollar Gymnasium, and several other wastes of taxpayer money (Junkets to nice places out-of-district on taxpayer dime...)
5. Mogadishu, which is why, if you protested the war you were eligible to fight, it's a good idea to support the soldiers over the local warlords now that you're in public office.


The problem was Arrogance of Power, at times blatant, at times subtle, but it was combined with a definite disconnect where the voters were concerned.
Here in Washington State, Maria Cantwell was thrown out in favour of a retired teacher, who promised to serve a limited number of terms...and did.

Oh, she's a Senator now-and considerably less of a dogmatic leftist than she was when she was thrown out of Congress. She's the first Democrat in a long time that I can vote for-but that's because she learned the lesson of '94, she doesn't take it for granted that everyone out here is a die-hard Leftist waiting to be born. i.e. she actually represents the state, rather than the Democratic National Comittee. Now, if we could just get rid of Patty Murray...

Mom's the same, she's changing her party to republican because she's sickend by the democrats of today. And she stuck by through the whole Clinton administration which she found as an embaressment in itself.

That's why i registerd independant, cause i'm an "independant thinker".

I don't need no demoRAT accusing me of rascism simply cause i laugh at a joke some comedian said and won't lick that particular ethnic group's ass.

And i don't need no rePUNKlokin saying how I'm going to burn in hell because I think some other ethnic group is perfectly exseptable.

Both piss me off cause they both theink they're better then me. That's not a party thing, that's a Europeon thing which unfourtanatly all Americans descend from.

Mom's the same, she's changing her party to republican because she's sickend by the democrats of today. And she stuck by through the whole Clinton administration which she found as an embaressment in itself.

That's why i registerd independant, cause i'm an "independant thinker".

I don't need no demoRAT accusing me of rascism simply cause i laugh at a joke some comedian said and won't lick that particular ethnic group's ass.

And i don't need no rePUNKlokin saying how I'm going to burn in hell because I think some other ethnic group is perfectly exseptable.

Both piss me off cause they both theink they're better then me. That's not a party thing, that's a Europeon thing which unfourtanatly all Americans descend from.


Being independent is both good, and bad. It's good, because you can choose to 'vote the person', and bad because you're going to be eternally choosing the lesser of two evils-evils that were chosen for you by someone else.
In 2000, I voted for GW because Gore's book scared me, his background and personal power scared me.
So, I ended up holding my nose, and voting for someone I felt no real affection for.
in 2004, John Kerry was chosen by the Democratic Party. I know what a bar-room-rambo sounds like, I looked at his voting record in congress, I chose the "Honest" crook over the Lying sack of doo-doo whose war-stories were paper-mache, and whose actions in congress were directly to the opposite of his stated beliefs in the campaign.
i.e. I chose Bush as the lesser of two evils, Twice. Unless the Democratic Party can find a better man, I guess I'll have to continue looking elsewhere, and hoping that the luck holds out and we don't get someone in office that understands the Imperium that's been handed to the Presidency.

Yeah i chose bush too, but for differant reasons.

Kerry was a pussy. :p

I mean really, he had no ambition, no "this is what i believe and this is what we're going to do". He'd just be your dancing bear and change his story to make it sound the way you wanted to hear it. Had Howard Dean been the leading democrat i'd've voted differantly, i liked Dean.

But alas, the democratic party as a whole are all ass-holes and don't want someone with passion and a vision, they want a drone that will let some douche pull thier strings and run our country into the ground.. moreso.. xP

Unfortunately, the word "liberal" has been appropriated by very illiberal people. Seriously folks, the modern Democratic party stands for heavy regulation of the economy, protectionism, massive nationalization (of education, health care, retirement etc.), various restrictions on individual rights (gun bans, political correctness etc.), and these are all anything but liberal positions. A true liberal would in fact not allow Social Security and welfare recipients to vote - just read John Stuart Mill (who BTW was the main advocate of universal suffrage in UK at a time when only a few per cent were allowed to vote).

I believe it, like i said, America just needs to wake-up and realise our "conservatives" are otherwise the world's liberals.

That's why we're so cool. :cool:

I believe it, like i said, America just needs to wake-up and realise our "conservatives" are otherwise the world's liberals.

That's why we're so cool. :cool:

What, No there not, not by a long shot, What the term liberalist is not what the american republican party is at present.

*snip*

Just because you don't like who is standing next to you, doesn't mean they are not standing next to you, it means you just don't like them.

Just as I don't like some of the loonies who consider themselves "Right" or "Conservative"...

But instead of trying to convince myself that I am not standing next to them I confront them, that way I cannot be accused of being a Hypocrite when I also confront the other side.

Besides, it's much easier for me to confront "my side" of the equation, since they are standing right next to me, or at least claim to be.

How about you do a bit more "policing" on your side of the equation, instead of denying that you are there.

By the way... The "middle" is the middle; neither side gets to claim some victory over it. Because if they did, I would contend it would be the Party that is IN Power and not the one looking in from the outside, on all levels of the Federal Government.

Sucks to be a part of a minority, doesn't it... Welcome to my World over a decade ago. Hopefully you will learn something from it, as I believe a good many Conservatives have.

Regards,
Gaar

Truman would be to the right of Buchanan today. Scary thought, ain't it?

Are you sure? The guy started the UN, which Buchanan is adamantly against!

*snip*

To be completely honest im not sure what i am today, this morning i would have died for socalism, a month ago i was a committed communist (A partiular lecture really pissed me off ok), now i feel like a 18th centuary revolutionary liberarlist.

America has a distorted image of liberalism i admit, but in simple terms bassicaly our liberals are everybody else's conservatives and vice-versca.

The problem is not liberals in it self. I'm a "liberal".

I think our borders should be open and let anybody in. We should be proud that aliens want to get in our country so badly and they're very hard-working people.

I'm against the war, I don't need no bombs around me.

Instead of funding military, police, and education (Let's face it children are dumb.) we should be spending that money on health-care and the enviorment.

I believe most narcotics should be legalised and legislated like ciggerates and alchahol combined. The hassle they give people for these menial toxins only shows you how you wouldn't be able to get away with murder on your crack-pipe, the worse the drug, the worse the rules. But I don't believe in prohibition of any sort.

So why am I not rallying along side pinkos talking about how Bush is the devil? Because I think liberal in my country, I think fuck-heads who starve innocent people to death, kill babies just to prove a point, and censor my very thoughts so they can feel all high and mighty.

They need to make a new party afflitation for these and the reverse who try to shove the Bible down our throats and go to klan meetings.. "bastards".

you're sure that aliens are hard-working people?

or did they just hear about the free meals they could get here... as well as a driver's license... that they could get free medical care if they're not on the books with a social security number or other such documentation?

If we're going to keep letting people in, we need to PUT THEM to work so they don't become a drag on the economy.
-------------------------------------------
Joke i heard yesterday:

This guy from Afghanistan has emigrated to America just today... he's walking down the street, so very happy to be in the USA. He wants to tell people about it!

He goes up to an African-American-looking guy and says, "Thank you for letting me into your country. I am happy to be in America."

The guy replies, "I'm not an American; I'm an African."

Our Afghani emigree next decides to share his glee with someone of a latin background. The Latin one replies, "I'm not an American; I'm a Mexicano."

The Afghani, in this fashion, accosts several more people, none of whom say they are Americans.

so the next person he finds, he asks, "Where are all the Americans? I've been here for three hours and I have yet to meet a real American!"

The person replies, "They're at work; they'll be finished at 5:00"

Sucks to be a part of a minority, doesn't it... Welcome to my World over a decade ago.
Are you talking about 1992 - 94? Clinton had practically a Republican platform, he was so right-wing! You don't understand at all.

Are you talking about 1992 - 94? Clinton had practically a Republican platform, he was so right-wing! You don't understand at all.

..except for the audacious tax rates we ended up with... highest since FDR apparently.

I've just come to the conclusion the reason the western world it shit these days is because we’ve lost sight of this liberalism, true liberalism that is not what you would call socialism.

Perhaps we need to give it another go.

The reason the Western world is shit these days is not because we have lost sight of some political ideal. It is what I like to call "rampant corporatism." Bush's phrase "ownership society" is a redundancy, because everything is owned, one way or another, by a corporation. And even when there is a recession or the economy is in a down swing, the non-CEOs pay the bill. Look at healthcare, for God's sake. More and more people are losing their coverages, and yet the health care industry as a whole is turning a massive profit! Exxon Mobil made record profits last year, raking in over 29 billion dollars! Why? 'cause gas is up to 2.25 in the U.S.

The reason the Western world is shit these days is not because we have lost sight of some political ideal. It is what I like to call "rampant corporatism." Bush's phrase "ownership society" is a redundancy, because everything is owned, one way or another, by a corporation. And even when there is a recession or the economy is in a down swing, the non-CEOs pay the bill. Look at healthcare, for God's sake. More and more people are losing their coverages, and yet the health care industry as a whole is turning a massive profit! Exxon Mobil made record profits last year, raking in over 29 billion dollars! Why? 'cause gas is up to 2.25 in the U.S.

It's all due to the decline in traditional religion (which is no bad thing) its self an ideological power vacuum which is being exploited by fundamentalist and corporatism, the popularist media isn’t helping much either.

P.S. We are probably the most right wing, pro business of all of the Western, or First World, if you will, nations. Our conservatives aren't their liberals.

..except for the audacious tax rates we ended up with... highest since FDR apparently.
What? Clinton raised taxes to 70%? I didn't know that.

There's one bad thing about being a libertarian.

Vote left, vote right, you're screwed either way...

What? Clinton raised taxes to 70%? I didn't know that.
Carter did, and they were at 72% at their highest point if I remember my history correctly.

NM, you were referencing Carter in your statement.

America's roots are in liberalism. The constitution is a panegyric on liberalism and liberty as we understand it. Jefferson was an absolute liberal and perhaps the US needs to reclaim what liberal really means.

I've seen x number of posts that have called liberals lefties and communists (man the board is politicized today eh?), and in my usual attitude I’m sick of it.

Liberalism is not left the entire idea of liberalism is its centre, you frigging idiots, Hell the entire idea is from before the terminology left and right came into existence at the time of the French revolution, and it predates most modern leftist theories such as socialism or Marxism by a good 50-100 years.

It originated in England in the late renaissance/ early enlightenment (of course the idea of England being liberal back then will terrify most Americans because you view us as some kind of tyrannical oppressors) and was basically founded by a amalgamation of the Whig Party (then the liberals, now the liberal democrats) and several social reformers Such as Jeremy Bentham, John Locke, and Later People like Adam Smith (yes the founder of modern capitalism had a hand in this great leftist conspiracy) David Hume, John Stuart Mill, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant.

The Entire Theory Of Liberalism centres around ideas such as the rights of individual, the separation of Church and State, Democratic Accountability of the Government, Universal Suffrage.





To sum it up Dignity, equality, liberty and property

Wait... Wait Wait Wait, was not that the things the Continental congress fought for.... No it couldn’t be, that would make people in American pandering liberals and liberalism un-American.

Was not America a country, that was founded on these liberal ideas that they felt Europe had so rejected?

Nah crap it must just be me.

So why don’t all you Conservative’s stop telling liberals to get out of American if they don’t like it, and realise YOU should be the ones being told to get out, Because YOU are living in the wrong kind of country.

Were as the ideas of the Left place, equality higher than civil liberties, for example socialism requires that wealth should be redistributed. (which shakes my faith in it at times)

/Rant over
(sorry its been a politically heated day here today, and as an actual leftist i felt i had to step in and defend the liberals)
If you want to use a definition of liberalism that is over two centries old they you will need to resolve the contradictory dilema of why these same liberals tolerated and even fought for the institution of slavery.

Carter did, and they were at 72% at their highest point if I remember my history correctly.

NM, you were referencing Carter in your statement.
Yes. Carter =/= Clinton.

Why are all leftist liberal proto-communist such anti-religious bigots?
:rolleyes:

What? Clinton raised taxes to 70%? I didn't know that.

70%? No. I think during Clinton's term(s), taxes were around 40%.

I have a question for the Republicans here. If all the 'liberals' in America gave up their socialist attitudes and became true liberals/libertarians, would Republicans be OK with them?

Not a likely situation, but most Republicans say that they want a nation of liberty and that they oppose Democrats because of socialism.

I would not only be OK with them, I might even be willing to put one in office.
:D

Socialism = bad. Capitalism = good. Its what I love about the US.

I think we need less taxes, less gov't spending, and less gov't invovlement.

Laissez faire, baby.

(And yes, the problem of this thread seems to be one of semantics.)

The USian left is not very liberal. The amount of control they wish over people's lives is too much. Racial qoutas, hate speech codes at universities, sensitivity training (reeducation camps anyone?). They attempt to have the courts ban just about anything they find slightly offensive. COnstantly running to the courts to enforce the will of the minority when they fail to convert most people to their way of thinking is hardly a classic liberal quality.
The USian right has its own problems in regard to being classically liberal but this thread be about left/liberal so I won't bother about them.

..except for the audacious tax rates we ended up with... highest since FDR apparently.Better higher taxes to pay for our government expenses than no taxes at all to pay for our government expenses. Just a bit of wisdom, you know. Government shouldn't use credit cards.

What exactly about Socialism is bad, hmm? I don't remember anybody in Amsterdam being pissed off at the place (it's heavily socialized). The same goes for Sweden.

What exactly about Socialism is bad, hmm? I don't remember anybody in Amsterdam being pissed off at the place (it's heavily socialized). The same goes for Sweden.
From what I can gather, Americans really don't like paying taxes? But they're ok with paying for healthcare, education and childcare. Weird.

Classical liberals here and everywhere are few and far between.

From what I can gather, Americans really don't like paying taxes? But they're ok with paying for healthcare, education and childcare. Weird.

We just place more trust in the private sector. Europeans place more trust in the government. Both sides have there good and bad points. I can't see why such animosity is created over the issue.

I liked Ferris Bueller's take on it, "I have a test today, its on European socialism. I mean really, I'm not European, I have no plan of becoming European so who gives a crap if they are socialist? I could be an anarchist fascist and it still wouldn't change the fact that I don't own a car!"

We just place more trust in the private sector. Europeans place more trust in the government. Both sides have there good and bad points. I can't see why such animosity is created over the issue.

I liked Ferris Bueller's take on it, "I have a test today, its on European socialism. I mean really, I'm not European, I have no plan of becoming European so who gives a crap if they are socialist? I could be an anarchist fascist and it still wouldn't change the fact that I don't own a car!"
Damn straight.

We just place more trust in the private sector. Europeans place more trust in the government. Both sides have there good and bad points. I can't see why such animosity is created over the issue.

I liked Ferris Bueller's take on it, "I have a test today, its on European socialism. I mean really, I'm not European, I have no plan of becoming European so who gives a crap if they are socialist? I could be an anarchist fascist and it still wouldn't change the fact that I don't own a car!"

To be an U.S. Charity, I am pretty sure that 80% plus has to go to the "recipient" and so it can only spend 20% facilitating their efforts.

Show me ANY Government Agency that is that efficient.

Hell yes we hold our private giving to a higher standard, do you get any lower standards than the Government sets?

Regards,
Gaar

To be an U.S. Charity, I am pretty sure that 80% plus has to go to the "recipient" and so it can only spend 20% facilitating their efforts.

Show me ANY Government Agency that is that efficient.

Hell yes we hold our private giving to a higher standard, do you get any lower standards than the Government sets?

Regards,
Gaar

I understand your post and agree, I personally perfer the private sector to the public sector any day of the week but. . .Why did you qoute me? I don't see the connection.

70%? No. I think during Clinton's term(s), taxes were around 40%.
So Frangland was lying to me.

The USian left is not very liberal. The amount of control they wish over people's lives is too much. Racial qoutas, hate speech codes at universities, sensitivity training (reeducation camps anyone?). They attempt to have the courts ban just about anything they find slightly offensive.
Yes I agree! (up to this point)

The private sector exists to make profits plain and simple. Why trust it with our healthcare, education, childcare?

It just seems out of whack to me. I'm not saying to government is the ideal situation either. But I think it's the lesser of two evils.

The private sector exists to make profits plain and simple. Why trust it with our healthcare, education, childcare?

It just seems out of whack to me. I'm not saying to government is the ideal situation either. But I think it's the lesser of two evils.
I've experienced the difference-just contrasting the Government-provided "Health Care" in the Military, with that available from Physicians in private practice was enough. sure, they might be able to sew you up, but that's only because a wound is obviously leaking. Misdiagnosis, long waits, and one-size-fits-all medication (MOTRIN, the Army's FAVOURITE drug. It sends My kidneys into fire and agony far worse than the original injury)... oh, did I mention the wait? Then, there's going to the V.A.... A man can die of old age before he sees a doc.

Now, Military beaurocrats are more efficient and professional than Civilians, in my experience (which has, sadly, grown larger and larger with time.) Comparably, then, if we use other government offices as an example, trusting in a Government-Health-Care structure will leave more people worse off. This is also shown by overall achievement differences between Public Education, and the more expensive kind.
Public schools... oh boy... you can generate hours and hours of ranting on those. Everything from ZT policies so that the Administration doesn't have to take the risk of using judgement, to the crap quality of the product, even in good districts... I wouldn't want to go to a hospital run like Everett High School, thankyewverymuch.

Classic liberalism, of the Hayek/Freidman kind is usually considered fairly right wing, however most people don't think of those guys as liberals, even though that is how they described themselves.

In the US however, the socialists realized they had a big image problem after WWII so they started to call themselves liberals - and the name stuck.

Most liberals in the US these days are fairly socialist in attitude. As the majority of posters on this board seem to be from the US, I suppose this is why the word is most frequently used this way.

Sorry for jumping in late, some supporting evidence for ya:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
-- Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential Candidate in 1936, 1940, 1944 and 1948, co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

If anyone wants links, just do a google on the quote itself.

The governement is far, far less efficient that the private sector.

And if they saw some nancy brit post about religion the way it is posted here, they would probably whoop some ass again.

[/rampant nationlism]

Why are all leftist liberal proto-communist such anti-religious bigots?

I'm actually right wing, and a liberal. I'm far from pro-communist. I'm far from a bigot, over here anti-religion is the thinking man's option.

The governement is far, far less efficient that the private sector.

But we are the government.

And corporations don't give a shit about anyone. Profit is all.

Somethings require government. Familiar with the "tragedy of the commons"?

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
-- Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential Candidate in 1936, 1940, 1944 and 1948, co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

That is rather Orwellian.

I've experienced the difference-just contrasting the Government-provided "Health Care" in the Military, with that available from Physicians in private practice was enough. sure, they might be able to sew you up, but that's only because a wound is obviously leaking. Misdiagnosis, long waits, and one-size-fits-all medication (MOTRIN, the Army's FAVOURITE drug. It sends My kidneys into fire and agony far worse than the original injury)... oh, did I mention the wait? Then, there's going to the V.A.... A man can die of old age before he sees a doc.

Now, Military beaurocrats are more efficient and professional than Civilians, in my experience (which has, sadly, grown larger and larger with time.) Comparably, then, if we use other government offices as an example, trusting in a Government-Health-Care structure will leave more people worse off. This is also shown by overall achievement differences between Public Education, and the more expensive kind.
Public schools... oh boy... you can generate hours and hours of ranting on those. Everything from ZT policies so that the Administration doesn't have to take the risk of using judgement, to the crap quality of the product, even in good districts... I wouldn't want to go to a hospital run like Everett High School, thankyewverymuch.

Well I live in Australia, and the standard of public healthcare is generally very high. Maybe the problem is what your government is prepared to do, not with government healthcare as a whole?

I see excellent doctors for free and intend to work in the public sphere when I qualify. Many of the best hospitals are public, and ALL the teaching ones are. We can't expect the private sector to invest in the future of medicine can we? :rolleyes: They just make money from it...

I understand your post and agree, I personally perfer the private sector to the public sector any day of the week but. . .Why did you qoute me? I don't see the connection.

I believe I was supporting your assertion.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Regards,
Gaar