Liberalism. Whats good about it? Whats not?

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Opinions?

 

[GhostFox]

I think social liberalism is great to a degree. Economic liberalism is akin to flushing your money down the toilet. The ideal govt. is Socially Liberal and Economically Conservative.

 

[Ikerous]

I think social liberalism is great to a degree. Economic liberalism is akin to flushing your money down the toilet. The ideal govt. is Socially Liberal and Economically Conservative.

Mmmm.. libertarian

 

[GhostFox]

Mmmm.. libertarian

Pragmatic liberatarian to be exact

 

[Gray Fox]

Liberalism sucks ass, to rightwing, now socialism is kickass. and conservatism is just plain retarted.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

I love it when people refer to things as being "retarted". It just reeks of irony.

 

[Korgoth]

I think social liberalism is great to a degree. Economic liberalism is akin to flushing your money down the toilet. The ideal govt. is Socially Liberal and Economically Conservative.

social liberal/economic conservative? Sounds exactly opposite to what we have in the US right now.. So if its exactly opposite to what the perfect goverment would be... hmmm

 

[Gray Fox]

coservatism is plain retarted, humans are meanth to progress, everything else does, so we need to, who do you think the progressiefs or the coservatives were who wanted to abolish slavery and who wanted it to stay the way it was. it's a fact that they are allways on the wrong side history.

 

[GhostFox]

it's a fact that they are allways on the wrong side history.

Maybe in your weird made up history books. Your example about slavery alone shows your ignorance on the subject.

 

[No Limit]

Your example about slavery alone shows your ignorance on the subject.

How so?

 

[Bodacious]

How so?

The republican party opposed the expansion of slavery. Becaus of Lincoln's views on slavery and promises to end it the sout, lead by democrats, seceded.

 

[The Monkey]

I think it the best way at the moment. Conservatism...well, I don't like the was that they focus on slow progress and used the means of the past. I think too much of conservatism will slow down the progress of humanity. And communism...well, even if USSR and eastern europe weren't true communists, they were still using a socialist form of economy, and their economy went into pieces thanks to that.

 

[Ikerous]

The republican party opposed the expansion of slavery. Becaus of Lincoln's views on slavery and promises to end it the sout, lead by democrats, seceded.

Thats entirely true, but back then Republicans were liberal and democrats were conservative. So his point still stands.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

coservatism is plain retarted, humans are meanth to progress, everything else does, so we need to, who do you think the progressiefs or the coservatives were who wanted to abolish slavery and who wanted it to stay the way it was. it's a fact that they are allways on the wrong side history.

Whats your definition of progress grey fox? because human progress is a whole lot different from ecconomic progress.

 

[Gray Fox]

Slavery is more about human progress them economic.

 

[Korgoth]

Is it not slavery to be forced into military service? Is it not slavery to work 40 hours a week, while barely making enough to stay alive, all the while the fat cats in washington are bringing home well over ten fold what you do? Is it not slavery when the corporations own the politicians who write our laws, laws supposed to represent us, but are more for convieniance to their owners, who in fact abuse us every day?

 

[Tr0n]

Tr0nism is the best.

 

[GhostFox]

Is it not slavery to work 40 hours a week

If you feel it is, then don't work.

 

[Gray Fox]

Well it is how you look at it, I agree with you innervision that it is bad, but it's unfortunatly the best we have till now, but my point is that conservatives on the right and the left want to keep it that way, but fact is we need to evolve constantly, it is unnatural not to. My rant against conservatism wasnt a rant about the rightwing but just about conservatism on both sides.

 

[Korgoth]

If you feel it is, then don't work.

Way to selectively quote and take it out of context, go away...

 

[GhostFox]

Way to selectively quote and take it out of context

If you feel it was taken out of context, then please fully explain it. Because all one can get from your post is that you'd like to sit on your ass and have the govt. hand you things.

 

[dream431ca]

May I remind the Americans in the crowd today that Canada has a liberal government...which is COMPLETELY different than the american idea of liberal. So liberal (at least in Canada) is not too bad...although here in Canada..anyone in power here is a complete moron....same with the united states as you can see

 

[Korgoth]

If you feel it was taken out of context, then please fully explain it. Because all one can get from your post is that you'd like to sit on your ass and have the govt. hand you things.

How about instead of this:

Is it not slavery to work 40 hours a week

You quote this:

Is it not slavery to work 40 hours a week, while barely making enough to stay alive, all the while the fat cats in washington are bringing home well over ten fold what you do?

And then add your response which was:

If you feel it is, then don't work.

And then tell me where I said I wanted to stay home and get handouts from the goverment? I'm not the one taking advantage of the system. I DO work 40 hours a week, I only make about a dollar more than minimum wage, which is barely enough for me to drive to work and back. Also factor in the social security that i've paid in and will never see. Add to that the fact that I've had to work for a temp service for the last year because no one is hiring in my area, and I believe i have a heart condition but no insurance to do anything about it. Then blow it out of your ass because you have no idea what you're talking about, or who you're talking to...

 

[Pogrom]

Something that really baffles me is the 'minimum wage' thing in the USA. It is not just very low, it is mind-numbingly low.

In Australia, my very first real job (at age 15) netted me about AU$15 an hour. That's about US$11.50.

Then when I started uni, I was working in an entry level hospitality job (bellboy in a hotel) and made more than that. Higher pay on weekends too.

There should be a cap on what executives get paid. They should not be able to earn more than 2-3 times an average workers salary.

Back on topic - social liberalism does not have any drawbacks as far as I can tell. Of course, there will be those naysayers who cry doom at anything weakening their particular brand of ideology.

Social libertarian = me.

 

[gh0st]

Well it is how you look at it, I agree with you innervision that it is bad, but it's unfortunatly the best we have till now, but my point is that conservatives on the right and the left want to keep it that way, but fact is we need to evolve constantly, it is unnatural not to. My rant against conservatism wasnt a rant about the rightwing but just about conservatism on both sides.

Hm. If your idea is aborting children and handing heroin out to addicts, then I dont want to evolve along with you. But to each their own.

To the person who said that conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history... I would say that you are utterly incorrect. To see the past requires you to apply some context. Your definition, basically that liberalism brings about positive changes, can be taken to its logical extreme, and say that liberalism simply brings about "changes" in general. In this time, liberalism has brought us murdering Terri Schiavo, and communism in soviet russia, as well as the rise of the Nazi party (which, contrary to its western highly conservative counterpart, was formed entirely out of liberal and "forward thinking" ideals).

Conservatism and liberalism has brought us great presidents and leaders. Saying one is good or bad is utterly wrong. I do, however, disagree with the liberal notion that typically presidents who expand the government are good. I feel thats wrong. But the point is, conservatism isnt backwards and old school like you make it out to be - not at all.

 

[GhostFox]

I DO work 40 hours a week, I only make about a dollar more than minimum wage, which is barely enough for me to drive to work and back. Also factor in the social security that i've paid in and will never see. Add to that the fact that I've had to work for a temp service for the last year because no one is hiring in my area, and I believe i have a heart condition but no insurance to do anything about it.

Any of that is relevant how?

There should be a cap on what executives get paid. They should not be able to earn more than 2-3 times an average workers salary.

And you think this would be effective how? Is the govt. supposed to keep the extra money? Or use it to give a free ride to people who haven't earned it? Poverty (by degree) and Unemployment are necessities of any functioning economy. Deal with it.

 

[Korgoth]

Hm. If your idea is aborting children and handing heroin out to addicts, then I dont want to evolve along with you. But to each their own.

To the person who said that conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history... I would say that you are utterly incorrect. To see the past requires you to apply some context. Your definition, basically that liberalism brings about positive changes, can be taken to its logical extreme, and say that liberalism simply brings about "changes" in general. In this time, liberalism has brought us murdering Terri Schiavo, and communism in soviet russia, as well as the rise of the Nazi party (which, contrary to its western highly conservative counterpart, was formed entirely out of liberal and "forward thinking" ideals).

Conservatism and liberalism has brought us great presidents and leaders. Saying one is good or bad is utterly wrong. I do, however, disagree with the liberal notion that typically presidents who expand the government are good. I feel thats wrong. But the point is, conservatism isnt backwards and old school like you make it out to be - not at all.

So your saying the current administration hasn't expanded goverment?

 

[ComradeBadger]

Extremes at both ends are stupid, 'retarted' if you will.

Neither political viewpoint has shit all todo with evolution - despite what you may like to think.

 

[gh0st]

So your saying the current administration hasn't expanded goverment?

Never said I liked the current administration.

 

[Korgoth]

just checking, not pointing fingers.. I just wasn't clear..

 

[Gray Fox]

To the person who said that conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history... I would say that you are utterly incorrect. To see the past requires you to apply some context. Your definition, basically that liberalism brings about positive changes, can be taken to its logical extreme, and say that liberalism simply brings about "changes" in general. In this time, liberalism has brought us murdering Terri Schiavo, and communism in soviet russia, as well as the rise of the Nazi party (which, contrary to its western highly conservative counterpart, was formed entirely out of liberal and "forward thinking" ideals).

Terri schiavo wan't murderd, medical experst say that she was a vegetable, if you do not believe them be my guest, but remmeber modern medicen also invented the machines that kept here alive, if you do not trus modern medice why take advantage of it.
There was nothing progressive about the nazis, exept maybe their economic policies, nothing at all.

Conservatism and liberalism has brought us great presidents and leaders. Saying one is good or bad is utterly wrong. I do, however, disagree with the liberal notion that typically presidents who expand the government are good. I feel thats wrong. But the point is, conservatism isnt backwards and old school like you make it out to be - not at all.
__________________

Yes conservatism is retarted, by conservatism I do not mean rightwing not necesairly, tehre have been many good republican progressive presidents. But no good conservatist presidents.

 

[Leonard]

There was nothing progressive about the nazis, exept maybe their economic policies, nothing at all.

I don't want to hijack this thread so I will keep this short.

The germans thought they were progressive.

From the German standpoint, they were ultra-progressive; even their economic policies.

 

[Gray Fox]

Explain that further, cause antisemetism and blaming shit on the jews is nothing new, their economic policies resembled keynes ideas which were new at that time, but as far as I see Hitler wasn't a progressive unless you consider taking ultra conservatism to whole new level progressive.