What's specifically is wrong with liberalism?

[MattTheSkywalker]

I understand your point maing, but the reality is thats exactly what you and I would be doing.

Although hardly naive, Im constantly amazed at the new ways in which they go out of their way to give away my money. Encountered a mom some time back who receives a $500-$600 stipend from social security because her 2 year old child is dyslexic. Not even to use for education/remediation, but just cause.

WTF

How do you even diagnose a two year old with that disorder, and even if it is possible, how does it in any way burden the mother with extra costs or expenses?

We could talk about wasting dollars all day long bor, and the drug war too.
The idea of intervention by government, whether based on a conservative ideology or a liberal one, is always wrong, and represent (by definition) liberalism, when they occur.

A lot of conservatives are hypocrites. But our country has moved so far LEFT that conservative politicians have to be that way to get elected.

Libertarian ideas like phasing out Social Security and corraling public education / vouchers seem radical. Scary how liberal this country is.

 

[IHateAmerica]

You are factually incorrect sir

Let me spell it out for you. You said something to the effect that liberalism involves sacrificing individual rights for the greater good. How does an act gutting the first, third, fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth amendments in the name of fighting terrorism not appy?

As for congress not reading the act, it was Ron Paul (R-Tex) who said this to the New York Times.

 

[jerseyart]

We could talk about wasting dollars all day long bor, and the drug war too.
The idea of intervention by government, whether based on a conservative ideology or a liberal one, is always wrong, and represent (by definition) liberalism, when they occur.

A lot of conservatives are hypocrites. But our country has moved so far LEFT that conservative politicians have to be that way to get elected.

Libertarian ideas like phasing out Social Security and corraling public education / vouchers seem radical. Scary how liberal this country is.

Conservatism at its root isnt anarchy, just minimalism. The government has its place, even with respect to intervention. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many conservative thinkers who would abolish child labor laws, the military, law enforcement or a host of other programs or services.

Government does have an obligation to further the most basic societal interests in order for it to thrive.

I think drugs are a cusp issue, and as I noted earlier, I vacillate on the matter. Im unure whether the purity of the policy with respect to libertarian ideals outweighs the reasonably anticiapted harm to society as a whole.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Let me spell it out for you. You said something to the effect that liberalism involves sacrificing individual rights for the greater good. How does an act gutting the first, third, fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth amendments in the name of fighting terrorism not appy?

As for congress not reading the act, it was Ron Paul (R-Tex) who said this to the New York Times.

You were not talking to me, but I will talk to you anyway.

The PA is a liberal piece of legislation. If you are trying to use this to prove the Bush is a liberal.....guess what? He is. This is far from news, and it does not disprove anything or call any ideologies intio question.

Don't confuse "Republican" with "conservative".

I like beer. And raspberries.

 

[Evil_Frisky]

I like beer. And raspberries.

Dat's all Folks

 

[jerseyart]

Let me spell it out for you. You said something to the effect that liberalism involves sacrificing individual rights for the greater good. How does an act gutting the first, third, fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth amendments in the name of fighting terrorism not appy?

As for congress not reading the act, it was Ron Paul (R-Tex) who said this to the New York Times.

Your claim was that it was passed without a chance of being read by represntatives in the government when the particulars were debated in the public arena even before passage.

As to the rest, it "guts" nothing, although it does place more restrictions on a number of them than we have known in the past.

As I stated to UA, no one on either side of the aisle suggests they are dieal, just temporarily necessary.

Ill ask you the same question I did him. Which of the provisions do you find unnecessary and why.

Dont waste our time with some lame "all fo them" response

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Conservatism at its root isnt anarchy, just minimalism. The government has its place, even with respect to intervention. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many conservative thinkers who would abolish child labor laws, the military, law enforcement or a host of other programs or services.

Yep, government has its place, agreed, and it needs money, too. I like term limits as a solution to most federal government woes. And also the line item veto.

Government does have an obligation to further the most basic societal interests in order for it to thrive.

Society does not have interests that differ from individual interests. Society is merely a collection of individuals. Government should allow individual interests to thrive, acting only to protect and preserve the rights of individuals.

I think drugs are a cusp issue, and as I noted earlier, I vacillate on the matter. Im unure whether the purity of the policy with respect to libertarian ideals outweighs the reasonably anticiapted harm to society as a whole.

To me, drugs are a no-brainer. You either own your body or you don't. The current drug policy has had little to no effect on preventing drug use and related crime; further, it has driven the cost of drugs up, progressively lowering the threshold at which people are willing to take the chance at being involved in the game.

I worry when I hear the phrase "society as a whole", even when conservatives say it

 

[IHateAmerica]

You were not talking to me, but I will talk to you anyway.

The PA is a liberal piece of legislation. If you are trying to use this to prove the Bush is a liberal.....guess what? He is. This is far from news, and it does not disprove anything or call any ideologies intio question.

Don't confuse "Republican" with "conservative".

I like beer. And raspberries.

I agree with you, just with the people watching Faux News did too. Also, I think the term "liberal" has a special definition in the United States, or connotation at the very least, which is unheard of elsewhere.

 

[IHateAmerica]

Your claim was that it was passed without a chance of being read by represntatives in the government when the particulars were debated in the public arena even before passage.

As to the rest, it "guts" nothing, although it does place more restrictions on a number of them than we have known in the past.

As I stated to UA, no one on either side of the aisle suggests they are dieal, just temporarily necessary.

Ill ask you the same question I did him. Which of the provisions do you find unnecessary and why.

Dont waste our time with some lame "all fo them" response

Here are a few I dont like:
The national database for 'suspected terrorists' sections 301 and 306. Immunity to law enforcement engaging in spying against the American people section 312. Section 102 makes news gathering illegal. Section 106, secret trials. Section 322 allows Homeland security to extradite citizens whereever they wish. Section 411, expands crimes punishable by death. Sections 122 and 123 allow for domestic surveillance wirhout a court order.
Section 110 removes sunset clause from first Patriot Act.

The only thing you have to hate now are freedom fries.

 

[Razorguns]

This country hasn't become as liberal as people think.

I mean, we all just voted in a conservative president once again -- even after all the tree-huggin' pinko liberal facist media were predicting for months, some huge hippie backlash of epic proportions during the election.....

NOT!

Biggest Liberal Michael Moore lovin' OWNING in history as far as i'm concerned. Nov 2004.