Being a Liberal makes the most sense. Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Reading all that just makes the idea seem perfect. What's up with people opposing liberal media and being against a liberal agenda? Why be conservative? I feel like that is holding us back from forward progress. The only problem I see with Liberalism is that it covers such a broad range of topics that it's hard to accommodate for them all and please everyone at the same time. Though, that isn't the problem Liberalism, it's people, certain people. It's also why I voted for Obama even though I didn't know too much about him. I like the ideas on the liberal side of thought moreso than the conservative one and that's what I feel my my only other choice in the upcoming election is not who I will vote for. Their ideas just aren't appealing. I did like that Christie guy though. :P
Liberalism in politics and liberalism in ideaology are two completely different things in reality. It basically boils down to the question, "how much freedom is too much freedom?".
classical liberal and neo-liberal are not the same thing, when people bash "liberal" they are bashing "neo-liberals" or "progressives" people who do not seek freedom, people who seek their ethical doctrine of social good forced onto everyone uniformly or imposition of thought or mind control. the largest argument against libertarians (classical liberals) is that some dont see individual freedoms as piratical.
Because todays liberals don't stand for liberty and equal rights. Libertarians do. And conservatives most reflect a libertarian agenda.
It's a common misconception. Liberals today are more "progressive". Taking liberties away from one group and giving them to another.
airshocker
Like how there are many conservatives in America against gay marriage and letting gays in the military? Or pushing for the bible in schools? Seems like it's the conservatives who are taking the liberties away. Give one example on how Liberals are taking away from one group and giving to another? Don't say taxing the rich more and giving to the poor either because the rich are already in the top 1%
Also it's liberals who have been fighting for equal rights among races, genders and sexual orientations for years now. It's always been the conservatives who've been holding them back, just look at history and look at what you see today.
Conservatism does hold us back. I mean why can't we just make gay marriage legal overnight? Because some people don't think it's right or natural? Ugh.
"I voted for Obama even though I didn't know too much about him." Why do I have a feeling that a lot of people did this. Remember her? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
Like how there are many conservatives in America against gay marriage and letting gays in the military? Or pushing for the bible in schools? Seems like it's the conservatives who are taking the liberties away. Give one example on how Liberals are taking away from one group and giving to another? Don't say taxing the rich more and giving to the poor either because the rich are already in the top 1%
Also it's liberals who have been fighting for equal rights among races, genders and sexual orientations for years now. It's always been the conservatives who've been holding them back, just look at history and look at what you see today.XileLord
[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]"I voted for Obama even though I didn't know too much about him." Why do I have a feeling that a lot of people did this. Remember her? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI obama >>>> palin
Being a Liberal makes the most sense. Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Reading all that just makes the idea seem perfect. What's up with people opposing liberal media and being against a liberal agenda? Why be conservative? I feel like that is holding us back from forward progress. The only problem I see with Liberalism is that it covers such a broad range of topics that it's hard to accommodate for them all and please everyone at the same time. Though, that isn't the problem Liberalism, it's people, certain people. It's also why I voted for Obama even though I didn't know too much about him. I like the ideas on the liberal side of thought moreso than the conservative one and that's what I feel my my only other choice in the upcoming election is not who I will vote for. Their ideas just aren't appealing. I did like that Christie guy though. :PZumaJones07
Modern day American liberals and conservatives essentially work within the framework of liberalism.
No one political persuasion can ever be called by all as the one that makes sense. And modern liberals arn't are about freedoms like the defenition might say. That'd be Libertarian.
In Canada our Liberal party is a "moderate left wing" party. And there not completely for personal freedom.
. No one political persuasion can ever be called by all as the one that makes sense. Abd modern liberals arn't are about freedoms like the defenition might say. That'd be Libertarian.
Fundai
Modern libertarians aren't for freedoms either. Look at Ron Paul.
. No one political persuasion can ever be called by all as the one that makes sense. Abd modern liberals arn't are about freedoms like the defenition might say. That'd be Libertarian.
DroidPhysX
Modern libertarians aren't for freedoms either. Look at Ron Paul.
hmmmmm.... Well maybe some one needs to create a "different" political Ideoligy if both have goten stale... :P
. No one political persuasion can ever be called by all as the one that makes sense. Abd modern liberals arn't are about freedoms like the defenition might say. That'd be Libertarian.
DroidPhysX
Modern libertarians aren't for freedoms either. Look at Ron Paul. if youre not an anarchist youre not for personal freedoms?
Modern libertarians aren't for freedoms either. Look at Ron Paul.
Necrifer
Pretty sure he's a Social Conservative, but whatever.
he is a huge social conservative, but he does not believe in imposing his views on others vie legislation so his social views are a moot point in the political arena
he is a huge social conservative, but he does not believe in imposing his views on others vie legislation so his social views are a moot point in the political arena
surrealnumber5
I don't think they're moot if he's running for president. Hypothetically, given his views, he would probably veto bills and just leave it up to the states to determine laws on social issues. Meaning that red states could keep gay marriage illegal, impose abortion restricions, etc, while a more "liberal" president would try to make the states follow federal law on these issues.
I have to say that the Tea Party gives conservatives a bad name.
DroidPhysX
[QUOTE="Fundai"]
. No one political persuasion can ever be called by all as the one that makes sense. Abd modern liberals arn't are about freedoms like the defenition might say. That'd be Libertarian.
DroidPhysX
Modern libertarians aren't for freedoms either. Look at Ron Paul. I think you have us confused with someone else. And just as there are different degrees of liberalism and conservatism, the same goes for Libertarianism. Libertarianism is pretty much freedom in all things; socially liberal, fiscally conservative. True libertarianism is to even believe in open borders there is so much freedom lol.
Saying that, what about Ron Paul made you believe this?
Political libertarianism in modern America is basically "anything goes outside of what the constitution says". That is good and all, except the constitution is not exactly an exact guideline on how to run a succesful America. The world is a MUCH different place than it was when the constitution was drafted, and to be honest our forefathers heads would probably explode at the travesty that we call modern Humanity.
Political libertarianism in modern America is basically "anything goes outside of what the constitution says". That is good and all, except the constitution is not exactly an exact guideline on how to run a succesful America. The world is a MUCH different place than it was when the constitution was drafted, and to be honest our forefathers heads would probably explode at the travesty that we call modern Humanity. chandlerr_360
[QUOTE="chandlerr_360"]Political libertarianism in modern America is basically "anything goes outside of what the constitution says". That is good and all, except the constitution is not exactly an exact guideline on how to run a succesful America. The world is a MUCH different place than it was when the constitution was drafted, and to be honest our forefathers heads would probably explode at the travesty that we call modern Humanity. SpartanMSU
No, it is not.
Haha, yeah well in my defense libertarianism is not exactly a unified ideaology.
. No one political persuasion can ever be called by all as the one that makes sense. Abd modern liberals arn't are about freedoms like the defenition might say. That'd be Libertarian.
Fundai
Modern libertarians aren't for freedoms either. Look at Ron Paul.
hmmmmm.... Well maybe some one needs to create a "different" political Ideoligy if both have goten stale... :P
Freedomterianals?
I wish some huge figure would POUR a bunch of money into starting a new and legitimate party. Like a celebrity, a smart one. Like Colbert. :P
There's a p. big difference in between the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" that you'd find on Wikipedia and the parties alleged to have said correspending political ideologies in the U.S., where both of the parties seem fairly neoliberal.
[QUOTE="chandlerr_360"]Political libertarianism in modern America is basically "anything goes outside of what the constitution says". That is good and all, except the constitution is not exactly an exact guideline on how to run a succesful America. The world is a MUCH different place than it was when the constitution was drafted, and to be honest our forefathers heads would probably explode at the travesty that we call modern Humanity. chandlerr_360
No, it is not.
Haha, yeah well in my defense libertarianism is not exactly a unified ideaology.
Yes, but libertarianism has nothing in it's ideology which inherently supports the constitution for the sake of itself. The term you are looking for is 'constitutionalism' - which some, but not all, libertarians (see: Ron Paul) adhere to, but merely because parts of it fit their political ideology.
There's a p. big difference in between the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" that you'd find on Wikipedia and the parties alleged to have said correspending political ideologies in the U.S., where both of the parties seem fairly neoliberal.
coolbeans90
But I don't think that's true. Rick Perry had a good minute where he was looking to be a contender for president and since he is my governor, I was interested in his track record. Anyone with a sound mind would in no way consider Perry a good leader of people, but the fact that Perry appeals to some (mostly conservative) scares me about what they really want for our country. They may label themselves as neoliberals, but why don't we see it in action? It's like they're waiting for reelection so that they can get the credit of turning things around. But for now they'll keep disagreeing with everything the other side is doing to keep from moving forward.
There's a p. big difference in between the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" that you'd find on Wikipedia and the parties alleged to have said correspending political ideologies in the U.S., where both of the parties seem fairly neoliberal.
ZumaJones07
But I don't think that's true. Rick Perry had a good minute where he was looking to be a contender for president and even though he is my governor, I know his track record, and anyone with a sound mind would in no way consider Perry a good leader of people. The fact that Perry appeals to some (mostly conservative) scares me about what they really want for our country. They may label themselves as neoliberals, but why don't we see it in action? It's like they're waiting for reelection so that they can get the credit of turning things around and disagreeing with everything the other side is doing to move forward.
Reading this post, I see that you are certainly conflating definitions - basically textbook and colloquial ones. In terms of economics, Perry, like Obama, would support primarily neoliberal policy.
Because todays liberals don't stand for liberty and equal rights. Libertarians do. And conservatives most reflect a libertarian agenda.
It's a common misconception. Liberals today are more "progressive". Taking liberties away from one group and giving them to another.
thegerg
Like how there are many conservatives in America against gay marriage and letting gays in the military? Or pushing for the bible in schools? Seems like it's the conservatives who are taking the liberties away. Give one example on how Liberals are taking away from one group and giving to another? Don't say taxing the rich more and giving to the poor either because the rich are already in the top 1%
Also it's liberals who have been fighting for equal rights among races, genders and sexual orientations for years now. It's always been the conservatives who've been holding them back, just look at history and look at what you see today. Taxing in order to provide services for people is a textbook example of taking from some to provide for others. Why should we overlook it? Look at this way
Say there's 10 slices in one pie, the rich own 9 slices of that pie while the rest (the poor and medium **** are left to fight over for the last slice of pie. Tell me how this is American, tell me how this is Christian (or any of the major religions) and tell me how this is fair? How can the wealth be distributed so unevenly? It sure the hell hasn't always been like that.
All the libs want to do is distribute the wealth more evenly (like it was in the past) among the people, even many conservatives want this. We got 50+ million Americans living in poverty right now with a unemployment rate of 9.1% and you're going to complain about taking a tiny bit away from the 1% and giving to provide for the 99%? You're going to call that "taking" from them? Far as I'm concerned they've taken from us.
I think you have us confused with someone else. And just as there are different degrees of liberalism and conservatism, the same goes for Libertarianism. Libertarianism is pretty much freedom in all things; socially liberal, fiscally conservative. True libertarianism is to even believe in open borders there is so much freedom lol.
Saying that, what about Ron Paul made you believe this?
vfibsux
There's a caveat in libertarianism. Or at least, in Ron Pauls version (and the people that support that version).
He is all for states rights correct? Thus, he wants to repeal federal guidelines for things such as abortion rights. Giving the states the power to decide the legality of abortion would in fact restrict freedoms of citizens since some states would ban abortion entirely (and any social issue the Warren Court decided). So in essence, its empowering government and restricting freedom.
Because todays liberals don't stand for liberty and equal rights. Libertarians do. And conservatives most reflect a libertarian agenda.
It's a common misconception. Liberals today are more "progressive". Taking liberties away from one group and giving them to another.
thegerg
Like how there are many conservatives in America against gay marriage and letting gays in the military? Or pushing for the bible in schools? Seems like it's the conservatives who are taking the liberties away. Give one example on how Liberals are taking away from one group and giving to another? Don't say taxing the rich more and giving to the poor either because the rich are already in the top 1%
Also it's liberals who have been fighting for equal rights among races, genders and sexual orientations for years now. It's always been the conservatives who've been holding them back, just look at history and look at what you see today. Also, could you provide an example of conservatives "aking away from one group and giving to another?" I'm just not too sure what you're getting at. Can you bold where I said the conservatives were doing that? I simply pointed towards gay marriage (which many democrats are still battling for) saying it seems like they are the ones taking liberties away, not the other way around.
btw bro it was a response to what the guy before me said and I wasn't getting at anything, only pointing out the flaws in the other guys post.
Reading this post, I see that you are certainly conflating definitions - basically textbook and colloquial ones. In terms of economics, Perry, like Obama, would support primarily neoliberal policy.
coolbeans90
It is confusing. The words we use should better fit what they're describing. Dang liberals stealing good words to describe themselves. :evil:
Bit of over-exaggerating yeah, but it's just a example to prove a point.
Not exagerating so much as disregarding the fact that median household income hasn't shrunk - ergo their amount of pie, so to speak, hasn't gotten smaller.
Reading this post, I see that you are certainly conflating definitions - basically textbook and colloquial ones. In terms of economics, Perry, like Obama, would support primarily neoliberal policy.
ZumaJones07
It is confusing. The words we use should better fit what they're describing. Dang liberals stealing good words to describe themselves. :evil:
I blame the socialists. Ever since Obama got elected, words mean nothing. They take our money, our jobs, our freedom and our words.
[QUOTE="thegerg"] Taxing in order to provide services for people is a textbook example of taking from some to provide for others. Why should we overlook it?
thegerg
Look at this way
Say there's 10 slices in one pie, the rich own 9 slices of that pie while the rest (the poor and medium **** are left to fight over for the last slice of pie. Tell me how this is American, tell me how this is Christian (or any of the major religions) and tell me how this is fair? How can the wealth be distributed so unevenly? It sure the hell hasn't always been like that.
All the libs want to do is distribute the wealth more evenly (like it was in the past) among the people, even many conservatives want this. We got 50+ million Americans living in poverty right now with a unemployment rate of 9.1% and you're going to complain about taking a tiny bit away from the 1% and giving to provide for the 99%? You're going to call that "taking" from them? Far as I'm concerned they've taken from us.
**** man how bad does it have to get in the U.S? I wasn't commenting on whether or not it is fair, or American, or Christian. I was simply asking why we should overlook such a blatant example of taking from some to provide for others when you are asking for an example of taking from some to provide for others. I also said "Don't say taxing the rich more and giving to the poor either" though if you want to really get down to it .....yeah that's taking from some and providing from others. I guess I just don't see the problem with that in this case, you might hold a different opinion.
Log in to comment