Anyone care to say what liberalism is and defend it?

lol

Cato: does anyone know what liberalism is or where it came from?

To say that the framers unilaterally supported conservatism is egregiously misinformed. At least to the extent of what we understand conservatism in today's modern society.

The founders didn't recognize with either conservativism nor liberalism, they mostly identified with as either federalist or anti-federalist. But if we are going strictly by the definitions I gave, they certainly didn't want to preserve or respect the traditions that existed, so we would hardly consider them conservatives. Seeing as they removed and reinvented these institutions through violent means, they wouldn't be considered liberals either.

Looking at history through your political goggles gives a distorting effect on what is seen.

Those who look as if they're challenging the powers that be.

The truth is, it's just the other hand in the sockpuppet show.

I'll just watch, but thank you.



x

well **** !

so conservatism and liberalism are actually the same and both are for indivdual rights and civil liberties eh ?

so actually our government consists of just 2 parties of which both are against the very government they comprise ?

is that why Bush created the Patriot act and Obama extended it ? they were losing sleep at night over civil liberties so they had to make sure we must have warrantless wiretapping, torture and indefinite detention without charge or access to lawyers ?

why yes if the dictionary says it - it must be true !

i have news for you people YOU HAVE NO ******* CLUE NONE OF YOU !

now. i will explain to you fools so you understand:

LIBERALISM:

love your fellow negroes and mexicans and fruitcakes. hate people who love jesus. decry selfishness and money as great evils then buy ultra-expensive macintosh computers and gear and spend tens of thousands of dollars on trendy clothes. hard working people must work harder to finance those who barely work so they can work even less. sharing is only virtuous if it is mediated by brute force of IRS. a few polar bears drowning is the new holocaust. millions of people dying through starvation from economic effects of the carbon tax is a small sacrifice to help the bears.

CONSERVATISM:

no sex before marriage, only white people are people, negroes and mexicans are apes, jews are con artists, america is jesusland, we must destory every nation that doesn't worship jesus ( except Israel which we should fight for till death - why ? - nobody knows ) abortion is murder, murdering children with napalm is fighting for freedom, fighting for freedom is terrorism.

In theory, yes. In actuality, no.



Yes and no. There are many parties but only 2 of them have any real power.





Our system is far from perfect. That much is obvious.

First of all you're wrong about all of that.

America's Founders were to a man all radicals and traitors, who not only acknowledged they were in the eyes of England but occasionally acknowledged themselves as such. They were anything but "conservative." The Tories were the conservative ones, American colonists who thought it best to remain part of England: don't rock the boat; hold tradition dear; maintain the status quo; serve or at least acquiesce one's obedience the established authority: and these are the pillars of conservatism. And most of the Fouders, revolutionaries and radicals though they all were, wanted to remain part of England too. The American Revolution didn't become about splitting away from England until after the war started; it began as an effort to compel the Crown to permit colonial representation in Parliament, to win seats in the Houses of Lords and Commons - an effort which the Crown spurned, so opening itself to the charge of tyranny. When the war ended and the colonies suddenly found themselves on their own, most of the common people were dismayed and horrified; and many of the Founders themselves were at a loss for what to do. At the end of the Revolutionary War the Founders were left with no central government, 13 different currencies at 13 different exchange rates, no colony that was not close to bankruptcy, debilitating inflation everywhere, and a huge war-debt not only to France but also to the soldiers of the Continental Army which had been only sporadically and poorly paid throughout the War. The installation of the Articles of the Confederation as the first US government did next to nothing to alleviate any of these problems since the Articles gave the new states autonomy within their own borders, and the states which came through the War in anything close to decent financial shape refused to impoverish themselves further by shouldering the debts owed to the Continental Army, and to France and America's other mercenary allies. (Had the French Revolution not broken out when it did, it's very likely the French Crown would have gone to war with the US to recoup its considerable financial losses - and, already crippled by debt, the depletion of resources, and with its former soldiers smarting from debts still owed to them by the country they fought for, France would likely have annexed the new American states in whole or part as its own territory.)

And so the Founders met semi-secretly in Philadelphia (actually stipulating their meetings must take place on the 2nd floor of what later became known as Independence Hall, so that passersby in the street couldn't hear their treasonous deliberations) to hammer out the form of the Constitution which would take partial power away from the states which had already proved over a decade since the ending of the War, that they could not be trusted on their own to act responsibly or cooperatively, and concentrate federal power in a central government patterned after Parliament, with the House of Representatives and the Senate analogous to the Houses of Commons and Lords, respectively. And the wielder of Executive power would be our President - and recall that many wanted Washington, the first President, installed as our King instead. So even as radical as the founders were politically, they could barely separate themselves from the idea of kingship, and could not abandon the parliamentary form of legislative government at all. What they did that was new was create, in effect, and elective kingship with very limited powers, directly defined by law. The separation and dynamic balancing of the Legislative, Executive and Judiacial branches of government was also new, as was the injunction removing the church from the state and declaring the two separate and distinct entities. (To this day the Monarch of England remains the titular head of the Church of England with at least theoretical authority within that body, and likewise the Monarchy remains at least theoretically under the theological dominion of the Church.) But the fact remains that America's Founders were traitors not once but twice: the first time against the Crown, and the second time when they plotted to publicly undermine (which was the purpose of The Federalist Papers) and then finally overthrow the political authority of the Articles of Confederation - which was in fact the legal government of the United States of America at that time.

These are not the actions of "conservatives" by any stretch of the imagination.

Liberalism: Weekends (Wilson), Social Security (FDR), Unemployment compensation (FDR), child labor laws (FDR), Interstate freeway system (Eisenhower), Civil Rights (Johnson), Medicare (Johnson) Environmental protection (Nixon).

Massive unfunded expansion of Medicare (Bush 43).

Show of hands: who hates child labor laws?

i do.

it's better for kids to work than to waste their lives in school.

Schooling: The Hidden Agenda

of course what's even better than getting paid - is getting laid !

we deny kids both - out of the kindness of our hearts.

Quite right, Darwinist. Extreme-right Americans seem to have been so eaten up with hatred that they have gone into mad mental spasm. Liberalism is the normal ideology of capitalism everywhere, except when deep crisis leads it to hand power to lower-middle-class fascism for a while. It was Liberals and Radicals in Britain who supported the American traitors, and conservative Americans who trecked north to Canada to escape the traitors' power. I think we are seeing the final results of Senator McCarthy's intellectual terror now: back to Salem and the triumph of superstitious ignorance over humanity.

Yeah, who needs education anyway?

/sarcasm

somebody ban this fool before i teach him how to use that soup between his ears.

and fascism is the normal ideology of nazi germany - SO ******* WHAT ???

do you even ******* know what the word NORMAL means ?

i'll tell you one thing it doesn't mean - IT DOESN'T MEAN RIGHT.

you have no ******* clue. please do me a favor and watch TERRORSTORM:

DIY-AV • View topic - Terrorstorm ( 2006 ) Google Video

and don't come back until you did.

thank you.

did you read the article ?

i don't agree with many of his points but i admire his courage for approaching this controversial subject with at least some degree of intellectual honesty.

the main point he makes and the one i agree with is that we neither understand education system nor do we want to understand it. we just want kids to go to school and study long and hard PERIOD.

we don't want to ask questions like what should kids study or why. we DON'T GIVE A ****. we just want them off the streets. we treat them like we treat garbage or homeless people - we don't care what is done as long as it we don't have to see it on the street when we're enjoying our ice cream.

Learn to read and write before you do this tedious ranting at ME, child. You make yourself look like a ignorant peasant - or perhaps that is what you are? I understood that the USSR had a rather good educational system. Perhaps you were shot in the head while escaping? We must, where possible, think the best of even the lowest of mankind!

I am going off what YOU SAID. I don't think kids are wasting their time in schools, although that time could be better spent if we put any effort into improving our educational system.

if you consider having two engineering degrees from one of the best schools in the world ( New York University ) as being a peasant, then i guess i am.

and thanks for the advice. i AM learning to read and write in my 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th languages. that's not counting Latin in which i am temporarily stuck.

by the way, it's aN ignorant peasant, not "a" ignorant peasant ...

Let me guess your first two languages are English and rhetorical badgering?


It means nothing to say you are learning other languages, anybody could say that. When you can speak (fluently) in other languages, maybe then I'll be impressed.

I can speak English, Russian and Ukrainian. I didn't count Ukrainian because it is similar to Russian.



captain obvious strikes again :p

German and Spanish is smooth sailing for me.

But Chinese is like banging my head on the table. Chinese is the language that separates the men from the boys so to speak