Liberalism

[Berserker]

What is Liberalism? and do you believe Americans only embrace it in times of crisis?

Personally I believe Americans follow liberalism.

 

[Punk Hazard]

All I know is I'm apparently liberal.

 

[Cunning Linguist]

This is liberalism:

You must be registered for see links

And no not really. Americans aren't that liberal. Most people hate the government until they need something. They're more concerned about what's good for them versus what's good for the country. They hate taxes, entitlements and aid-based programs while clinging to their guns and bibles. Obviously this isn't everyone, but the number is large enough to where this is a good example

 

[Sonne2]

RikerSalad, your sig's character power lvl is over 9000.

I'm sorta liberal, but not far left.

 

[Sonne2]

This is liberalism:

You must be registered for see links

And no not really. Americans aren't that liberal. Most people hate the government until they need something. They're more concerned about what's good for them versus what's good for the country. They hate taxes, entitlements and aid-based programs while clinging to their guns and bibles. Obviously this isn't everyone, but the number is large enough to where this is a good example

As an American, I'm glad I'm not a part of that majority lol.


Sadly, this group of people are more active and take part in politics more than the normal american, ex. the rise of the tea party, or a very recent example the number of seats in congress are more far right republican, while the democrats are entirely outnumbered.

 

[Cunning Linguist]

As an American, I'm glad I'm not a part of that majority lol.


Sadly, this group of people are more active and take part in politics more than the normal american, ex. the rise of the tea party, or a very recent example the number of seats in congress are more far right republican, while the democrats are entirely outnumbered.

I'm glad I'm not a part either. The reason they are so prominent is the fact that they are supported by the elderly and rich, and they have nothing better to do than complain and vote. Meanwhile most democrats are middle class or poor and they are busy working. That's why democrats are not as outspoken in politics

 

[Berserker]

This is liberalism:

You must be registered for see links

And no not really. Americans aren't that liberal. Most people hate the government until they need something. They're more concerned about what's good for them versus what's good for the country. They hate taxes, entitlements and aid-based programs while clinging to their guns and bibles. Obviously this isn't everyone, but the number is large enough to where this is a good example

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the belief of equality, natural rights, freedom of speech all liberal ideologies. The right to own a gun and have religion is liberal no? I do see alot of people objecting more taxes but isn't that because people feel we get taxed enough or they don't want to support wars the U.S wage.

Btw what do you think of my 2nd question.

 

[Aim64C]

You really can't compare American and European politics, honestly.

Europe is defined by fascist governments. The only difference between the political parties in Europe is what they want to force you to do or not do. An actual belief in restrained powers of government doesn't exist. The government is allowed to command the people, even if the people get to elect who commands them.

American politics was initiated under completely different notions of how a government should operate. The Federal government was the government formed by the union of states - each of which are supposed to be capable of full autonomy. The Constitution outlines the powers the states give up to become a part of the federation of states, as well as defines the structure and processes for establishing law and reviews thereof at the federal level.

The Bill of Rights was added because states refused to adopt a Constitution without the rights of the citizens being established at the federal level. The Bill of Rights is a set of exclusions of government power - they are not meant to 'empower' the people so much as they are meant to castrate the power of government by forbidding it from establishing certain varieties of laws. It also clearly defined any power not expressly stated to belong to the Federal government by the Constitution or an amendment thereof is a right -reserved- to the States. In other words, if it isn't in the Constitution or an Amendment giving the Federal government the power, the Federal government can't make a law about it (or that it is legally defunct).

The U.S. was built upon the concept of limited government.

American Liberalism is, realistically, the belief that the government has both the responsibility and obligation of providing for its citizens as well as writing laws to protect them from poor decisions.

American Conservatism is more varied. Most who follow the Republican line of thinking are generally just an opposition party to the above policies, but are in favor of government backing of industry and laws aimed at establishing a 'moral' society.

Realistically, both are equally fascist and represent the vile arrogance of people. Both appoint the government as an entity that can come to your door, hold a gun to your head, and extract your livelihood from you.

It has taken many different forms through the ages, and the process has been obfuscated under layers of monetary policies - but it is no less a process of rape than it has been any other time. "Back in the day," in the Ottoman Empire, if you were a farmer - you had to wait for the tax assessor to come by and assess your crops before you could conduct commerce with them. Well, due to some difficulties, it wasn't until late October when the tax assessor got around to a particular region of what is known as the Balkans.

People had done what they needed in order to survive - while it wasn't uncommon for people to allow crops to spoil to avoid punishment, it's not exactly their fault that the Ottoman empire can't get their logistical accounting taken care of. So, they bartered, traded, ate, and life went on.

Until the Ottoman assessor came through and had the whole region pillaged by the army.

It doesn't matter what those running for office promise. The very fact that they are running on the idea that they will give you something when they get there means they intend to take it from someone else. If you are okay with taking something from others by force, or forcing others to comply with your sense of morality, then you are a fascist.

There is not a single government on the face of the planet that produces anything. Everything a government has, does, and exchanges comes from the people who comprise its citizen and tax base. Be exceptionally wary of those who promise to "fix," "protect," and "secure." Be it a guy you meet at the bar who you suspect of just trying to get between your legs or a politician who wants to see the country in his image - be exceptionally wary.

"But, Aim, we have to look out for other people. We'll have people dying in the streets if we don't force the greedy to take care of them!"

By this, you have already rendered yourself powerless. If the 'greedy' are truly so powerful that the only way for you to have any influence over the course of events is to construct a proxy-pirate to forcibly extract from them, then what makes you think your violence will be successful?

Why not simply turn your automation against you?

And if you have the power to stand up in mass and invade their homes to take their stuff... then perhaps the greedy people of the world are not nearly as powerful and influential as you believe - and focusing on their belongings is therefor completely unnecessary in terms of taking care of those who have been stricken by injustice.

The concept of portraying every wealthy person as the epitome of selfish greed is a ploy used by the warlords of society to gain influence over people and therefor immense power. They convince people that they are helpless and that the only way they can be taken care of is if they nominate a champion to do glorious battle with the dregs of the corrupt.

And it works like a charm. Every. Single. Time.

What's the difference between a Serbian and a Bosnian?

Damned if I know, but they've killed the hell out of each other since the distinction was made.

The Chinese killed the shit out of themselves, as well.

Americans think racism has to do with the color of skin and with regions of descent. The reality is that race is a purely political construct used to create a collective identity and then appeal to it for the sake of gaining power. Just look at how various portions of the U.S. views the others. One only has to look at some of the views stated in this thread to see how the evil has already been seeded inside of them, and it is no different than the evil that fuels racism and causes them to completely reject the notion of 'those people' being considered 'people.'

It fills me with a rage that I can't quite describe. Not at the people who have been victims of it. While they are not without fault - most of them have literally been raised in an era of incomprehensibly massive government that tells you where to be in the morning, what you will learn, what the important parts of history are, how regulations protect people (the implication being that every company out there will kill you if it can lower the cost of production by a dollar - .... that's because the only way governments know how to do business is to kill people for not complying... or lock them up in a cage for 20 years rather than have the stones to accept responsibility for ending someone's life), what jobs are needed in the market place, what you should be paid, how much you should have for retirement, what doctors to see, etc, etc.

It's easy to understand how those people would not naturally interpret the government as being an interference in their life, as it's all they've known. Though any self-respecting person should be able to see through the rouse.

Regardless, it angers me to no end that politicians will -knowingly- destroy the lives of their supporters in order to make them increasingly dependent upon the system that allows the politician to greater enact their personal vision of how things should be.

That is the definition of self-important arrogance. That is the definition of evil.

 

[Poptart]

left? right? im the guy with the gun.

 

[nightwolf888]

i'm somewhat in the middle left, i support marriage equality , i'm prochoice but i'm strongly against gun control and i'm not sold on humans causing climate change

 

[Aim64C]

I'm glad I'm not a part either. The reason they are so prominent is the fact that they are supported by the elderly and rich, and they have nothing better to do than complain and vote. Meanwhile most democrats are middle class or poor and they are busy working. That's why democrats are not as outspoken in politics

I am not going to tell you who or what to support, but I am going to tell you that you are -way- off base, here.

First off, voter trends with regards to class, education, and occupation are a mixed bag, and depend upon which part of history you are talking about:

You must be registered for see links

"To fill the void until then, consider the data on party identification from 2008 and 2010. (Party identification is less volatile than votes so it will give insight on the political foundation under the vote.) The figure below shows the percentage of General Social Survey respondents – whites only — who said they were Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. Rates of Republican identification rise 30 percentage points from 20 to 50 percent from the lowest family income group to the highest, while Democratic identification falls off from 43 to 23 percent. Thirty percent of voters identified with neither party. These Independent voters often decide elections. In 2008, Barack Obama got 56 percent of the independent vote, including that of voters with incomes of $100,000 or more. This tendency mutes the effect of class on voting. Now in 2012, a slight majority of white independents voted for Romney."

As for who finances the parties?

You must be registered for see links

As you can see, it's a mixed bag.

That's because of how campaign finance laws work (for one), and also because we have so empowered our government that corporations will pay to either A) keep from being regulated out of business (because most of the regulations are decided not by industry experts, but by politicians who have no concept of what they are regulating) or B) impose regulations that force out market competition.

An example of B can be found, here:

You must be registered for see links

This is why the 'dirty secret' you aren't told is that large oil companies actually financially back and support environmental regulation, because it makes the costs of operation so obscenely expensive (often with very little actual benefit to the environment - the new emission standards in the example would reduce emissions by 0.1%) as to keep people from starting new businesses to break into the market and to force smaller competitors out of the market, entirely.

This is why regulation and campaign finance reforms don't work:

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

" If campaign finance regulation is founded on faulty assumptions, the continued call for additional regulation seems to be driven by a single-minded determination to ignore the consequences of such regulation on the electoral process. The goal of campaign finance reform has been to lower the cost of campaigning, reduce the influence of special interests, and open up the system. In all three aspects, the FECA amendments of 1974 appear to have been a fantastic failure. Congressional campaign spending, in constant dollars, nearly tripled between 1974 and 1992. Congressional election contributions by PACs, in constant 1992 dollars, increased from $101 million to $179 million over the same period, while the number of PACs rose from 608 to 4,268.[58] House incumbents, who in 1976 outspent challengers by a ratio of 1.5 to 1, by 1992 outspent challengers by almost 4 to 1.[59] Meanwhile, incumbent reelection rates in the House reached record highs in 1986 and 1988 before declining slightly in the 1990s.[60]

In an examination of the effects of campaign finance laws on American elections and American political life, it becomes apparent that campaign finance regulation helps to close off political challenge and ossify the political system, stifles grassroots political activity, artificially constricts the political debate and the voices heard in that debate, distorts the political process in favor of the wealthy and powerful, and is ultimately incompatible with the First Amendment to the Constitution. In short, campaign finance regulation is undemocratic."

 

[Aim64C]

i'm somewhat in the middle left, i support marriage equality , i'm prochoice but i'm strongly against gun control and i'm not sold on humans causing climate change

Honestly, you're using the wrong grounds to determine "where you are."

You're not in the middle. Your standings are closer in line to Libertarians - or for small governments.

You don't think the government should be telling people what to do at every step of their lives. You don't understand why Republicans are so hot on the abortion and homosexuality issues when they are supposed to be for less government, not more of it.

You have to look at the core of the issues and where they come from.

Republicans can be defined as conservatives who are too undisciplined to realize when the only difference between their stance on an issue and a Democrat's stance on the issue is who should be living in fear of arrest. Hence, both are fascist, as Democrats are not for true liberty of the individual. They are for selective liberty and the confiscation of earnings to be distributed based on arbitrary determination of necessity (Marxists).

I shouldn't say that every Democrat is for that - but that is how the Democratic party line votes. It is just that the voting Republicans have started to notice that their party is getting out of hand and out of line, but the nature of Democrat policy and leanings is that they will not realize they have been taken for fools until hyper-inflation sets in.

Even then, most have been brainwashed into believing it is somehow caused by "the 1%" - when it's a combination of horrible policies on top of an ignorant public backing sociopaths.

But I'm kind of ranting, at this point.