'Liberal' in America

[DanteGabriel]

Oh, mcbigski. I'm so glad you're around so I never have to challenge my own caricaturized view of right wingers.

I was objecting to painting Britain in a positive light, I wasn't trying to do so for America. Both have been genocidal and oppressive, it's just that one has done more of it. Personally, I say let the Revolution sweep both of them away.

And I was objecting to painting the slaveholding US in a positive light. ;)

[Asarlai]

And I was objecting to painting the slaveholding US in a positive light. ;)

Good, then we're agreed. Fight the power and such.

[awesome possum]

Lincoln was a Republican, yet freeing saves would be considered a "liberal" act, today. Somewhere along the line, labels and definitions according to political party, have been...swapped.

If there were still slavery in the US today, freeing those slaves would hardly be considered a "liberal" act. It would be considered "the only way to act."

One of the most incorrect statements I've yet encountered online, and that's saying a lot.

Don't worry, just wait til his next post. You gotta learn that trying to reason with mcbigski is akin to reasoning with a brick wall built by hateful, stubborn ignorance.

If only Reagan had succeeded on that front. How much bigger was the government of 1988 compared to 1980?

I dunno, about 200,000 jobs bigger?

1. 
   
2. Under Reagan, Social Security spending went from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion.
   
3. Farm programs: $21 billion to $51 billion.
   
4. Medicare: from $43 billion in 1981 to $80 billion in 1987.
   
5. Federal entitlements: 197 billion to 477 billion.
   
6. Gross Federal Debt: from 900 billion to 2.7 trillion.
   
7. Five-cent-per-gallon tax on gas.
   
8. Social Security tax: increase of 165 billion.
   
9. Foreign aid: from 10 billion to 22 billion.
   

Shall I go on?

[DanteGabriel]

I dunno, about 200,000 jobs bigger?

1. 
   
2. Under Reagan, Social Security spending went from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion.
   
3. Farm programs: $21 billion to $51 billion.
   
4. Medicare: from $43 billion in 1981 to $80 billion in 1987.
   
5. Federal entitlements: 197 billion to 477 billion.
   
6. Gross Federal Debt: from 900 billion to 2.7 trillion.
   
7. Five-cent-per-gallon tax on gas.
   
8. Social Security tax: increase of 165 billion.
   
9. Foreign aid: from 10 billion to 22 billion.
   

Shall I go on?

Don't forget that whole shadow government operation he had, illegally funnelling money from arms sales to Iranian terrorists to support the regime-changing activities of Central American terrorists.

For someone who so mistrusted government, Reagan sure was enthusiastic in bringing it to bear when it suited his purposes.

Oh wait, that's because Reagan was a treasonous, hypocritical, rouged-up charlatan.

[Asarlai]

Don't forget that whole shadow government operation he had, illegally funnelling money from arms sales to Iranian terrorists to support the regime-changing activities of Central American terrorists.

Yeah, but that can be said for many US Presidents, don't forget. Look what they did to poor Salvador Allende: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Oh wait, that's because Reagan was a treasonous, hypocritical, rouged-up charlatan.

Hypocritical, yes, but treasonous?

[Shael]

For the unrestricted right to fetus extermination by the woman who's uterus contains the fetus, is what I meant, (had thought that was obvious, as opposed to desiring that every fetus be instantly terminated regardless of anything else, but I clearly misjudged that it was obvious.)

I know what you meant. Obviously only an insane person would think that liberals are pro fetus extermination, if we take those words at face value.

The point I and others have made in this thread is that it's impossible to engage effectively about complicated issues with someone who decides to use such hyperbolic language. And that people who do use language like that aren't interested in engaging to begin with. I shouldn't have to give you the benefit of the doubt when listening to you. You could have said that liberals are "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion" even, and I would have said, yup. Instead you come out dick swinging with PRO FETUS EXTERMINATION, just to show that you're only about division instead of debate. You're not interested in being taken seriously, so I won't.

[Asarlai]

I know what you meant. Obviously only an insane person would think that liberals are pro fetus extermination, if we take those words at face value.

The point I and others have made in this thread is that it's impossible to engage effectively about complicated issues with someone who decides to use such hyperbolic language. And that people who do use language like that aren't interested in engaging to begin with. I shouldn't have to give you the benefit of the doubt when listening to you. You could have said that liberals are "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion" even, and I would have said, yup. Instead you come out dick swinging with PRO FETUS EXTERMINATION, just to show that you're only about division instead of debate. You're not interested in being taken seriously, so I won't.

Yeah, whatever side you're on, it's pretty obvious that abortion is killing an individual, not exterminating the group as a whole.

Fetus extermination sounds like some Nazi plot.

[Dornish]

Yeah, whatever side you're on, it's pretty obvious that abortion is killing an individual, not exterminating the group as a whole.

Depends on what you mean by "individual". Frankly, the mouse I just trapped was more an individual than a fetus pre brain development.

[Swordfish]

Yeah, it is, but at least that oligarchy of the rich has to deal with a voting public.

A distinction without meaning when the oligarchy of the rich simply provides a different version of the same oligarchically controlled candidate for which the public can vote.

Last I checked, the liberals are the ones who want to shrink the military, which is a pretty large force for "inflict[ing] force and coercion on the populace."

Setting aside for a second that that response is more or less a non-sequitor, that the US military is hardly the most insidious method by which our government engages in force and coercion against it's constituents, and that we are talking specifically about government 'liberals' and not private ones, the obvious question here is, 'since when'?

ETA: And just because it's the fourth of july, and I do so enjoy fireworks:

Why the left fears libertarianism.....

But Barack Obama is really what has made the left-liberal illusion fold under the weight of its own absurdity. Here we had the perfect paragon of left-liberal social democracy. He beat the centrist Hillary Clinton then won the national election. He had a Democratic Congress for two years. He had loads of political capital by virtue of following a completely failed and unpopular Republican administration. The world welcomed him. The center cheered him. And what did he do?

He shoveled money toward corporate America, banks and car manufacturers. He championed the bailouts of the same Wall Street firms his very partisans blamed for the financial collapse. He picked the CEO of General Electric to oversee the unemployment problem. He appointed corporate state regulars for every major role in financial central planning. After guaranteeing a new era of transparency, he conducted all his regulatory business behind a shroud of unprecedented secrecy. He planned his health care scheme, the crown jewel of his domestic agenda, in league with the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

He continued the war in Iraq, even extending Bush’s schedule with a goal of staying longer than the last administration planned. He tripled the U.S. presence in Afghanistan then took over two years to announce the eventual drawdown to bring it back to only double the Bush presence. He widened the war in Pakistan, launching drone attacks at a dizzying pace. He started a war on false pretenses with Libya, shifting the goal posts and doing it all without Congressional approval. He bombed Yemen and lied about it.

He enthusiastically signed on to warrantless wiretapping, renditioning, the Patriot Act, prison abuse, detention without trial, violations of habeas corpus, and disgustingly invasive airport security measures. He deported immigrants more than Bush did. He increased funding for the drug war in Mexico. He invoked the Espionage Act more than all previous presidents combined, tortured a whistleblower, and claimed the right to unilaterally kill any U.S. citizen on Earth without even a nod from Congress or a shrug from the courts.

release the hounds.....

[Shael]

Far be it for me to speak for him, and please correct me if I'm wrong Asarlai, but I think when he says "the populace," he's talking about the world populace, not just the American people. It's still certainly a debatable statement, but makes a bit more sense from that viewpoint.

Obviously, we don't live in fear of our own military in the U.S. Maybe in fear of our military's budget. I think the most recent events available here that would beg such a conclusion are things like Kent State or whatever. In the past.

[Shryke]

Anyone who thought Obama was a far-left commie-liberal wasn't paying the least bit of fucking attention to any source of actual information (ie - they were watching US news, the poor idiots).

Obama ran as a centrist compromiser and has govererned roughly along those lines. (unfortunately, he's compromising with madman)

A distinction without meaning when the oligarchy of the rich simply provides a different version of the same oligarchically controlled candidate for which the public can vote.

I love that your solution to this problem is "why bother with the pretense?".

[Smashing Young Man]

Interesting piece, Swordfish. Who is that blogger/commentator?

The idea that Obama is some radically leftist socialist commie is one of the most laughable tropes ever. I think that post made an excellent argument to back that up.

I think Obama is a pragmatist who want to seek re-election and wants statues of him erected around the world hailing his accomplishments. I think that is his true ideology as opposed to being a tried and true liberal or conservative or anything else. Heh, I actually think that Romney is quite similar in this regard.

And the inverse is true of Bush, who the left constantly tried to paint as a rightwing nutjob; he was anything but.

[DanteGabriel]

Hypocritical, yes, but treasonous?

Sold weapons to a state sponsor of terrorism. Sorry, I don't buy that he had no idea that this was operating out of his National Security office. His administration was bailed out by the death of a CIA Director and the Democrats' refusal to press the case.

[The Dude]

And the inverse is true of Bush, who the left constantly tried to paint as a rightwing nutjob; he was anything but.

That would be silly if it were actually true. There are much more substantive reasons to criticize his administration.

[Lord O' Bones]

The noise to signal ratio on the board in response to even mild critisms of the left tend run extremely high, to be fair, it's usually the same old folks screeching every time.

Part of the problem is that all too often when a conservative poster makes a post that I still personally agree with 90% of there is that one fucking sentence that sinks the whole post. Either pointlessly dickish, somehow bigoted, or just completely ignorant of facts or simple decency.

I used to fight for you guys as I was one of you and still am in many ways. But it just got too fucking exhausting.

Nowadays, unless a lefty says something stupid enough like "Swordfish hates gays" or Ser Scot is impolite" I just don't have the energy.

[Asarlai]

Depends on what you mean by "individual". Frankly, the mouse I just trapped was more an individual than a fetus pre brain development.

Individual has a very clear definition, something along the lines of "one." Of course, if you want to tempt me into an abortion debate, I'd be happy to oblige, though it might not be the most enjoyable thing here.

Far be it for me to speak for him, and please correct me if I'm wrong Asarlai, but I think when he says "the populace," he's talking about the world populace, not just the American people. It's still certainly a debatable statement, but makes a bit more sense from that viewpoint.

Yes, I was saying that the US military does far more ill to the people (of the world) than a progressive tax system does to the people of the US. Remember, we're not the American species, we're the Human species.

[Dornish]

Individual has a very clear definition, something along the lines of "one." Of course, if you want to tempt me into an abortion debate, I'd be happy to oblige, though it might not be the most enjoyable thing here.

Hell no. Individual, when used as a noun, implies sentience in some contexts. Something that cannot be possessed without a functioning brain. Therefore the word may be correct, so long as the context of sentience is not assumed.

[sologdin]

a federal Constitution that was as close to a libertarian, or "classic liberalism" ideal as we've been it terms of the lack of government control over the individual. That was the American starting point.

excepting, as to both sentences, the articles of confederation?

[Asarlai]

Hell no. Individual, when used as a noun, implies sentience in some contexts. Something that cannot be possessed without a functioning brain. Therefore the word may be correct, so long as the context of sentience is not assumed.

in·di·vid·u·al

   [in-duh-vij-oo-uhl]

–noun

1. a single human being, as distinguished from a group.

2. a person: a strange individual.

3. a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item.

There you go. Argue about #2 all you want, #1 and #3 objectively apply.

[Dornish]

in·di·vid·u·al

   [in-duh-vij-oo-uhl]

–noun

1. a single human being, as distinguished from a group.

2. a person: a strange individual.

3. a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item.

There you go. Argue about #2 all you want, #1 and #3 objectively apply.

Words like 'being' and 'entity' imply self awareness which is an even bigger can of worms than sentience. Having human DNA doesn't make a life valuable, nor does having a human body. The mind is what we value, the body is just a fancy case.