Posts with the tag liberals

Progressive vs Liberal (Since we are talking about liberalism)

Rob-33704 — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 10:40:16 EDT

In a previous post Liz wrote:

"In my opinion, and I'm sure others may disagree as well as agree since this is after all a democracy, I think that the bottom line for this election is really about wrestling our government out of the hands of conservatives and into the hands of progressives--and that includes conservative Democrats as well as conservative Republicans"

I agree with Liz' statement.

A basic tenent of "liberalism" is an economy based upon "freedom from restraint". In other words, liberalism is in agreement with the so called "free market" economic policies of the republican party.

This is because liberalism is a product of the Industrial Revolution. Our political philosophy must move beyond the paradigm of the Industrial Revolution just as the leaders of the business world have moved beyond it.

In terms of his response to the economic conditions of his time the last "progressive" democratic president was Franklin Roosevelt. As I recall he was elected to four terms.

Truman was a conservative, Kennedy was a moderate, and all of the others have, in fact, been
"liberals" in terms of their allegiance to free market forces.

Globalization has snuffed out the free market forces unleashed by the Industrial Revolution.

Globalization is also snuffing out whatever effectiveness liberal political philosophy was capable of exhibiting.

As for gridlock - there is no gridlock.

Congress enacts legislation all of the time.

Politics is the art of compromise.

The simple truth is - the economic differences of the "liberals" and the "conservatives" in Washington are not great enough to result in meaningful legislation

What is a Lib-Con?

Rob-33704 — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:35:26 EDT

The term lib-con does, of course, result from combining the words liberal and conservative.

Lib-Con is in fact a far more accurate way of describing people who have traditionally been described as liberals.

The reason that the term lib-con is more appropriate is - "liberalism" is a product of the Industrial Revolution and a basic tenent of liberalism is an economy based upon "freedom from restraint".

If something is unrestrained then it is permitted to develop as it wishes.

Liberalism, therefore, endorses the exploitation of people.

Though a liberal may not be conservative regarding social issues they are, in fact, a lib-con.

Our political philosophy must move beyond the paradigm of the Industrial Revolution just as the leaders of the business world have moved beyond it.

Economic forces must be "restrained" because their natural tendency is to eliminate competition and if left unrestrained they will crush everything.

We need a "PROGRESSIVE" approach to economic issues, not a lib-con approach.

Liberal Defined

Rob-33704 — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:09:12 EDT

The following definitions are courtesy of www.merriam-webster.com

Main Entry: libÂ·erÂ·al
Pronunciation: Ë�li-b(É�-)rÉ�l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lÄ"odan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century

"of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism."

Obviously, we must now define liberalism.

Main Entry: libÂ·erÂ·alÂ·ism
Pronunciation: Ë�li-b(É�-)rÉ�-Ë�li-zÉ�m
Function: noun
Date: 1819

"a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity"

Haven't you always thought that was a trait characteristic of the republicans? Wait, there is more......

"a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard"

An economic theory??? Freedom from restraint??? Self-regulating markets????

Haven't you also thought those were traits characteristic of the republicans??? But there is more.....

"a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."

Finally we find the part most of us are familiar with.

The problem is that to be a liberal you have to be 66% republican.

A true liberal has good intentions but they expect the free market - which requires competition and there isn't any - to fund those good intentions.

The good intentions of liberals can, therefore, never be translated into actions which actually benefit the majority of the citizenry.

Sound familiar?????

That's why I'm a Progressive and not a liberal.

Remembering the REAL Opponent

Liz — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:14:25 EDT

That would be the Republican Party
AFTER THE CONVENTIONs ARE OVER THE MUD AND FUR WILL FLY
SO LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF THE STUNTS THAT THE REPUBLICANS PULLED IN 2004

“Republicans Admit Mailing Campaign Literature Saying Liberals Will Ban the Bible”
This mailing was not from some outrageous lunatic, it was sent out from the Republican Party. These mass mailings went out to West Virginia and Arkansas. [Two of the top five states in our nation with the lowest literacy rate—not too difficult to see the cynicism through this one, is it?] The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/24/politics/campaign/24bible.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/04/faith/index.html

Calling all True Card Playing Democratic Librocrats!

Liz — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:53:02 EDT

If you love to play cards. If you are a liberal and a Democrat with Republican friends, then you must go here and purchase a deck of "Royal Flush Impeach Bush Cards"

and even if you don't play cards LOL go here just to listen to the GREAT SONG.

http://www.impeachbushcards.com/

bring on the lone star liberals!

annie b (mcliberal) — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:54:15 EST

from today's ny times:

http://www.nytimes.com:80/2008/03/04/opinion/04swartz.html?th&emc=th

McCain, situational ethicist

Democrat in Durham, NH — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 05:55:35 EST

Conservatives accusing liberals of doing things they intend to do themselves is a tactic that we're pretty well aware of now. That liberals are practicing "situational ethics" is an old canard from the eighties, when we were also called the "me generation" and selfish. All of which, turned out to be true, but not in the way conservatives meant it. For, what they were really complaining about was that liberals are self-directed and behave according to their own principles, rather than doing what someone else tells them. In other words, conservatives were/are complaining about the fact that liberals aren't, first and foremost, obedient.

The Liberal's Fighting Legacy

ibtrippen — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:16:58 EST

I read a post on a conservative blog last night that claimed, essentially, that liberals would not start or fight wars. I think it important that every liberal know how to respond to such an accusation, so here it is: liberals have been our traditional fighters, we just don't like to fight UNNECESSARY wars.

the obama enigma

annie b (mcliberal) — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:00:03 EST

so who is this guy? and let's make sure we find out before it's too late. from the washington post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/23/AR2008022301816.html

I Do Not Apologize For Being A Social Progressive

FreedomOfSpeech — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:45:22 EST

I do not apologize for being an African American women with Native American Heritage who cares about issues regarding RACE. I do not apologize for taking a HUMANE approach to addressing Immigration and my belief that the Mexican Immigrants deserve justice. I do not apologize for being concerned about the genocide taking place in Darfur. I do not apologize for being concerned about the rise in Anti-Semitism in this country among so called Liberals no less. I do not apologize for confronting and attacking the xenophobia against those in the Muslim Community from both sides of the aisle. I do not apologize for caring about matters pertaining to RACE , RELIGION and HUMAN BEINGS !

It is true. I am not a "pigmentally privileged" Pseudo-Liberal who only cares about things that effect me in my own little world. I do not apologize for being so consumed by the affairs of other HUMAN BEINGS , that I don't have time to think about a little cute baby polar bear in danger. I am too distracted by the injustice committed against other HUMANS by a government that is sending an entire generation of Americans to their death in an unjust war, that I cannot think about trying to save a whale or a certain type of tree or bird. When I think about Africa , I think about the up rise in violence as a result of the mass injustice involving the elections in Kenya. I am not thinking about trying to save the Gorillas.

I do not apologize for putting the affairs of HUMAN BEINGS over ANIMALS and PLANTS and if that means I am not a "Liberal" so be it. Because I am not. I am a Social Progressive and I care about the issues that effect HUMANS because I am not so stuck in my own little world , that I feel the only people worth fighting for , must look like me and I don't place the injustice against an animal over the injustice against a human being whether that human looks like me or not. I do sign every "Save a Whale" petition , but , I would rather see a flood of e-mails asking me about PEOPLE and not the Grey Wolf or a Baby Seal all the time.

Take this however you please. I no longer care about that. I am sick and tired of being attacked for bringing up issues by people who don't give a damn about the issues I am bringing up in the first place. They hate when I bring up these issues because they don't involve them. People who are so self centered , they only see their own world and everything in their own world. The only time I see these same critics of mine address an issue that involves other people , it is when the issues effects the majority of people that look like them. Other than that, it's a "non-issue". So , I don't care anymore. I will still talk about RACE and PEOPLE ! Because they obviously , wont. But they sure will b*tch about it while at the same time, asking me to help them save a damn whale.

They want me to help them address their causes , but they don't want to help me address mine. Those selfish , self centered souls !

Rwanda and the Clintons

Liz — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 05:58:02 EST

RWANDA AND THE CLINTONS

Bill is now crowing in Iowa that Hillary wanted him to intervene in Rwanda but he didn’t listen.

Yet out of the other sides of their mouths their campaign claims that Hillary is a fighter for the people. Well it’s not much of a fighter who cannot even convince her own husband to intervene in genocide. I’ll wager that 99% of the wives of America could do better with their husbands than that.

Bill Clinton not only refused to intervene to save 800,000 people from being chopped to death with machetes, he even refused to convene his Cabinet to discuss it.

He refused to provide aircraft to jam Hutu Power radio transmissions that were directing the massacres. His administration said that the $8,500-per-hour cost to the United States was too much to pay. It has been estimated that since 10,000 Rwandans were being killed each day, the cost came to $20 per life.

Can you get much more Corporate America than this? The Clinton’s were not even willing to fork over $20 to save a human life. How do you think THIS will play on the Republicans show time for the election? --a heck of a lot better than Obama’s drug experimentations when he was an adolescent.

Several African nations asked the United States for the use of 50 armored personnel carriers. The Corporate Centrist Clinton administration was not even willing to loan this equipment. Instead, they demanded $15 million and they left the carriers on a runway in Germany while the United Nations went begging for the money.

Keep in mind that while the UN was trying to find the money that over 300 black Africans were dying every hour.

Any one who thinks that they want to reinstate the Clinton regime should be forced to watch HOTEL RWANDA until they come to their senses.

Ron Paul's Racists Supporters Are Turning Off G.O.P. / But Liberals Love Him ?

FreedomOfSpeech — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:18:46 EST

Ron Paul's supporters consist of Racists , nut ball conspiracy freaks and idiot liberals who either don't know how to research or are simply okay with supporting a bigot. I don't know. Ron Paul has a strange following. Very strange. LINK

I personally am not worried about him as a candidate. But I am very suspicious that Republicans and not Democrats , are the ones who are rejecting Ron Paul and his bigoted views and racist friends . It should be the other way around. I am a little confused. Well, not "totally". Anyone know what's going on with this ?

obama: another liberal doomed to fail?

annie b (mcliberal) — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 03:21:15 EST

this is the problem with having an "aura."

Link

moveon.org is unmoved

annie b (mcliberal) — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:56:04 EDT

Link

also from today's post

moveon.org: momentum or menace?

annie b (mcliberal) — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:53:51 EDT

Link

from wapo

liberals and conservatives

Gary — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:32:07 EDT

This report is in two parts

I. The contributions liberals and conservatives have made to our civilization
II. How liberals and conservatives want to the government to control our lives

I. The contribution liberals and conservatives have made to our civilization. First the liberals. Here is just a few.

40-hour workweek
Vacation pay
Sick leave
Pension plans
Social security
Medicare
End of slavery
End to segregation
End to miscegenation laws
End to sodomy laws
Women’s suffrage
Child labor laws
Anti pollution laws
Allowing Native Americans, African Americans and women to become educated
The largest surplus in our nation’s history (when Clinton left office)

Now the conservatives’ contribution

Scroll down…I'm thinking

Scroll down….I'm thinking

AH YES. I thought of one. The national federal debt. The current one is the largest of all federal debts created by all previous presidents combined.

Part II

How do liberals and conservatives want the government to control your lives? First the conservatives

Conservatives wants the government to tell you when life begins and what you can do with your body.
Conservatives wants the government to tell you who you can have sex with.
Conservatives wants the government to tell you whom you can marry.
Conservatives wants the government to tell you when the end of your life will beâ€"not giving you a choice---stay alive no matter if in pain or on life support (as long as they don’t have to pay to keep you aliveâ€"then that is a private sector issue)
Conservatives wants the government to tell you what kind of drugs you can have at the end of your life.
Conservatives wants the government to tell you what kind of pain medicine you can have.

Now the liberals

Liberals wants the government to make sure corporations are held responsible for polluting the air and water and for manufacturing safe products

Liberals wants the government to assist with food, shelter, health care, and education among other things to those who are the “least of these”

We can all help to reduce Abortion numbers in America by Electing Democrats

Marshall Adame — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:00:06 EDT

Our respect, in society, for the “Rule of Law is what gives the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights true validation and power
Marshall Adame

The abortion issue is the favorite subject of almost no American politician. The argument is endless because in a country where many very different people, of varied belief systems live together, the differences between them and the various interpretation of principle becomes the root of continual disagreement and turmoil, both public and private.

I believe that the American people are greater than our differences however serious, or great in the realm of politics, spirituality, or social injustice.
No subject highlights this gulf separating many of us from each other greater than the issue of abortion.

The left and right extremes from both political spectrums have convinced much of America that each is right and there is no opinion, other than their own, that is valid or worthy of consideration. Even common sense does not prevail.