we should note that FDR did something similar
No, that's just a leftists typical dumb comparison.Since Venezuela is the "leftist" dream, can we call Saudi Arabia the "rightist" dream?
Yeah, there was a government before Obama, so since Obama didn't start the government, nothing his admin does with it is his fault.
No, that's just a leftists typical dumb comparison.
I hear leftwing twits all the time in this country spout moronic ideas that actually ARE in practice in places like Venezuela. Mostly the class-envy drivel, how people that are successful at business should be punished for it. In Venezuela, the actually do that sort of stupid shit. The subservient worship of a Dear Leader figure just because he holds an office, wears nice suits, and knows how to spout populist drivel is also the same mindset.
Meanwhile, I've never seen anyone on the right pine away for rule by a monarchy. Sharia law and catering to islamic radicals isn't a big right wing trait either- in fact, does it even need pointing which side is more accepting of that?
You know, theres a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say we need to go green fastest we need to start investing in solar.
Every progressive Democrat gets a woody whenever they fantasize about being able to force people to do what they think is best.
Venezuela sounds like a liberal idiot's paradise.
Very different from the "Religious Right" and wanting to legislate their morals?
Er....yeah.
What's happening in the OP is pretty much the opposite of liberalisation.
Very different from the "Religious Right" and wanting to legislate their morals?
Very different from the "Religious Right" and wanting to legislate their morals?
Er....yeah.
What's happening in the OP is pretty much the opposite of liberalisation.
Modern day classic liberals are called libertarians. It's odd how little support libertarians have even though America was a libertarian country for most of its history.Classical liberalism is much different than current progressives ideology wise.
No, quite the same. The left and right are the same, they just worship different gods.
Both the left and the right recruit from the same pool. People that find it more comfortable to substitute an established belief system than to do their own thinking.Hoffer argues that even when their stated goals or values differ mass movements are interchangeable, that adherents will often flip from one movement to another, and that the motivations for mass movements are interchangeable. Thus, religious, nationalist and social movements, whether radical or reactionary, tend to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics and rhetorical tools.
Modern day classic liberals are called libertarians. It's odd how little support libertarians have even though America was a libertarian country for most of its history.
This is quite true.The threat of the far right forcing me to pray or forcing me to convert to a religion is virtually non exiatant outside of the fantasies of a bunch of pussy liberals bleating like thats the case.
The threat of far leftists fucking up the healthcare system, forcing wealth redistribution schemes on everyone, destroying jobs and ecomonic growth because their professor told them marx had some swell ideas, cramming political correct bullshit down everyone's throat, wanting to limit what people can earn/say/think/eat/do, coughing up environmental doomsday schemes designed to empower bureaucrats and stifle citizens, basically tossing freedoms in the toilet in worship of somr dear leader....
Thats like a daily onslaught.
Wake up. Modern liberalism is pretty much the opposite of liberty. Its all about empowering a government master and trying to punish people that aren't down with that.
Classical liberalism is much different than current progressives ideology wise.
You simply don't know the difference between modern liberalism and classic liberalism. Look it up.Or maybe you're tieing yourselves in knots by redefining terms to slander opposing viewpoints. How about you just use the terms as they were meant to?
You simply don't know the difference between modern liberalism and classic liberalism. Look it up...
Please enlighten us because it sure as hell looks like you're talking bullshit.Don't need to look it up. I know what liberalism is.
It's not my problem that you guys try to redefine words to gain political points. Just stick to what the terms actually mean and then you wouldn't limit your political thinking so much.
Perhaps being as you are saying that we are misrepresenting the term maliciously you could enlighten us as to the 'true' definition.
People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.
On the left of the political spectrum, things are more complicated. The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the economic sphere, then, almost anything goes.
At the same time, 20th century liberals continued to be influenced by the 19th century liberalism's belief in and respect for civil liberties. In fact, as the last century progressed, liberal support for civil liberties grew and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) began to proudly claim the label "civil libertarian." Since liberalism was the dominant 20th century ideology, public policy tended to reflect its beliefs. By the end of the century, people had far fewer economic rights than they had at the beginning. But they had more civil rights.
In the history of politics, there is only one fundamental, abiding issue: It is individualism vs. collectivism. Do individuals have the right to pursue their own happiness, as Thomas Jefferson thought and as the Declaration of Independence deemed self-evident? Or do we have an obligation to live our lives for the community or the state, as most societies have claimed throughout most of history?
Meanwhile, I've never seen anyone on the right pine away for rule by a monarchy. Sharia law and catering to islamic radicals isn't a big right wing trait either- in fact, does it even need pointing which side is more accepting of that?