Modern American liberals are statists, plain and simple.
I looked up 'classical liberal' and 'liberal' on Wikipedia and they say pretty much the same thing.
From 'Classical Liberalism...
"Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[1] It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism."
From 'Liberalism'...
"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property."
I don't see enough difference there to quibble over. Each one should adopt one thing from the other.
If that definition were true then liberals would have uniformly opposed Obamacare, preferring an individual tax-funded health savings plan instead. Since liberals consistently support infringements on freedom and liberty, that definition cannot be accurate.I looked up 'classical liberal' and 'liberal' on Wikipedia and they say pretty much the same thing.
From 'Classical Liberalism...
"Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[1] It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism."
From 'Liberalism'...
"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property."
I don't see enough difference there to quibble over. Each one should adopt one thing from the other.
If that definition were true then liberals would have uniformly opposed Obamacare, preferring an individual tax-funded health savings plan instead. Since liberals consistently support infringements on freedom and liberty, that definition cannot be accurate.
I'd concentrate on what means are used to move toward what ends. Both change depending on the subject matter.
Classical liberals tended view government a great deal more suspiciously in the areas where modern liberals do not now, and vice versa.
Did you read Limbaugh's book?
And I'm sure you don't know anything about it.
You seem at times to get all your news exclusively from hot air... Don't see any irony in this statement?
You prove my point...lol!
That's literally like saying
1
2
3
Potato
How on earth does what I said prove your point?
Thats like having Geobbels write a children book. lol
I wonder how many people who will, no doubt, trash this book have actually read it. I haven't, so maybe it is complete garbage. On the other hand, I'm not offended either by the thought of a book that's actually positive about our nations beginnings.
Can you crotique the book based on your acqiured knowledge of it's content?
This is what eats at the leftwingnuts.
My post was about the irony of you telling people to think for themselves whilst you only get your news from far right wing sources riddled with commentary and little information.
Is that supposed to be a serious question, because it's falling into the "lacking thought" column?
Liberals consider the Constitution liberal? Why then do they want to scrap it? :shock:
Greetings, apdst. :2wave:
Anyone in the US who actually claims to be "oppressed" is full of it.
I've been saying that about the blacks for years. Glad to see you were paying attention.eace
Can you crotique the book based on your acqiured knowledge of it's content?
Is that like a critique?
Anyone in the US who actually claims to be "oppressed" is full of it.
I've been saying that about gays for years.
That amd Rush Limbaugh wrote it.
Chris Matthews could write the exact same book and they would call it the greatest literary work in recent history.
Not a single Libbo in this thread can crticize the books based on anything other than the fact that Rush Limbaugh authored them.
So the answer is no. Kewl, thanks for sharing your... opinion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?