Liberals are NOT socialists.

You'd better run and catch up to that turnip truck. Like the stereotypical right-winger, you're comparing the U.S. system to that of Hong Kong, apples and oranges.

Hong Kong is a bit smaller in square miles, which has obviously escaped your notice. Money made there is not by the old fashioned way, no, most is through the hard work of stock brokers. Not much industrial pollution from that now, is there?

You are also forgetting the abject greed of U.S. businessmen, which was bad enough before the “baby boomers” took over, but now has this country in deep debt and deep sh!t.

You also forget Hong Kong rarely invades other nations, and then fights decade(s) long wars in those countries. All the tax cuts you right-wingers demand for your beloved “job creators” NEVER consider this fact.

There is a reason this country needs strong governmental controls placed on the free market. Too much freedom has permitted this parasitic system we now have. The United States would have 75% of the population living below the poverty level if you conservatives and neoconservatives had your way.

Like all of the “ideal” plans offered up by the right wing, they always ignore many various situations being experienced by the different segments of the U.S. population. For your fantasy policies to work in the Unites States, genocide must be included as a big part in each and every one.

You conservatives and neoconservatives would gain a significant measure of credibility if you would come down for a reality check. You people have been away from the real world for so very, very long.

 

The rich here with their taxes alone pay for our military.

High density in a small place usually means more pollution.

They used to be industrial then progressed past that just like we did. Richer economies tend to move cleaner more cerebral an efficient work as they progress. This is a good thing.

No need for genocide, that is crazy hyperbole. Removing the war on poverty would have no negative affects. Obama erased any gains made during that time.

Local distribution of environmental money would e more efficient. The federal government moves to slow. Takes decades to fix a problem.

 

When you come back to reality, you might see the truth, but until then, enjoy your fantasies. They are all you right-wingers have to lean on.

 

Dont forget the facts and data!

 

You mean the pejorative "populist" which means people whoare merely only empathising with the public, (usually through rhetoric or proposals) to increase their appeal across the political spectrum? Or the technical term which is someone who is a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people?

 

The pejorative sense. Like the kind of populists you find in Latin America, just a bit more subdued.

 

The issue for me is collectivism. There are many brands and flavors. There is communism, socialism fascism etc. For me, they are all pretty much the same. They focus on empowering a centralize government to "fix" us all for the "common good".

The classic use of liberal means the opposite of authoritarianism. However, collectivists are completely dependent upon authoritarian rule to force everyone to do their bidding. The two cannot be separated. Therefore, the modern day liberal in the US is anything but the classic liberal of old. In fact, classical liberalism is the antithesis of the modern day liberal.

 

Well, I was going to let this go, but since you attacked Christians, I must now return your insult. As you can see, I'm not a very good Christian. I still haven't mastered the art of that turning the other cheek thing. But putting a metaphorical boot in somebody's ass is just so much more fun. So here it goes.

You're using an outdated definition. Like it or not, that word no longer means what you want it to mean. The progressives hijacked it, and now it's theirs. By your definition, that would make you a libertarian today.

There you go. See? That was a friendly ass kicking, wasn't it? Not too rough. Have a nice day.

 

You do realize that would also describe the Tea Party to a tee right?

 

Not quite.

The meaning of words do indeed change, but it hasnt been the same everywhere as in america. Id est, liberal still means liberal in the UK (i think). every country actually has their own definition (even if it differs just by a little bit).and those change slowly all the time. me, i prefer the absolute etymologically logical meaning.

 

Liberals are socialists, they want welfare for the poor and that means redistributing the wealth.

Socialism is redistributing wealth in its simplest form, and conservatives don't believe in that, they want privatization of everything, with the government only serving to protect liberties in the military from foreigners, and even that can be privatized with military contractors.

American liberals are the real deal, the real definition of liberalism, as we honor its core principles of socialism, while UK/European/Antipode liberals perverse its meaning to mean two different things at once, which isn't acceptable in America.

 

Agreed, the modern day liberal is a collectivist authoritarian, whom forces the wealthy minority to send us their wealth in the form of taxation.

 

Not an ass kicking at all. You just made an assertion. There is a whole world that is not the US and who use the term differently, just like you use all those measurements we got rid of years ago. American Social democrats are idiots if they call themselves liberals but then social democrats generally are idiots,

 

Most non-insane people support non-starvation for the poor, not everyone supports a socialization of property and production in general. The term "liberal" describes the latter.

 

Liberal in the UK are still liberals. they beleive in the free market and are sceptical of government. In farnce Liberals are to the right of the main conservative parties on economic issues .

- - - Updated - - -

Liberalism is not rooted in socialism at all. You aren;t a liberal. You are some sort of social democrat.

 

I always thought of them as Commies.

 

Well not quite populists are twigs of of nearly every branch of the politcal tree. The only thing they have in common are a willingness to believe crap loads of mutually contradictory ideas poorly examined and a susceptibility to consiracy theory claptrap well beyond the norm. They tend to get called right wing when they lean nativist even if their economic policies are hard left. For instance in the Case of both LePen and the BNP the only difference betwen they and the rest of the soclalists is that they would restrict all those social programs to people who were born in their countries, France and Britain Respectively. Most of the people who believe in 9/11 conspiracy claptrap are, on the other hand, left leaning populists.

 

We must keep in mind that liberal means "free, unchecked, unregulated, not restrained,nunhindered" etc. One can interpret that in many ways. anarchists might refer to freedom from and lack of interference by government, while a social democrat can rwefer to the freedom from poverty and hinders imposed by one's socio economic state. Both can rightly be called liberal, as both want freedom, albeit different kinds.

 

Social democrats cannot be called as liberal.

 

Liberals feed the poor with other people's money, that is socialism in not too many words.

Liberalism is rooted in socialism, all the redistribution of wealth liberals support for their welfare spending is socialist.

For example, European liberals support universal health care, and universal health care is socialist in nature.

The conservatives support economic freedom, meaning everything is privatized, and nothing is socialized. That is not liberalism, and that is what is confusing to Europeans liberals.

 

No European liberals are confused socialists, and European Socialists are Communists.

American liberals are proper socialists and aware of it, and American conservatives are Capitalist.

 

The intention of most liberals is the preservation of capitalism. Capitalism wouldn't last long without welfare.

 

In America European Liberals would be classified as socialists according to our books, and what Americans think is really what matters in the end, concerning world affairs.

Our military force gives us that luxury.

 

Social Security gets mugged all the time but not by the people who pay into it.

http://rense.com/general95/greatss.html

 

Yes, liberal socialists preserve capitalism to use it for our own expenses in welfare spending.

And it's not that Capitalism wouldn't last long without welfare, but welfare wouldn't last long without Capitalism to pay for it.