What does being a "Liberal" mean? (US)

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

He'd have to ice about a million parasites that lurk around Washington to make it work,

I would support the use of a few well placed tactical nukes.

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by monster

Well how long has he been dealing?

Oh, its been on the sly for quite a while now..

[infinite monkey]

*snort*

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

The only thing I can see no reason for is your bigotry against bestiality. Suppose I have some chickens in the back yard. I am allowed to kill them and eat them, but I'm not allowed to stick my wang in them, not even in private. Can you tell me why not?

Don't play with your food?

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

With that platform Lookout could be a good president. He'd have to ice about a million parasites that lurk around Washington to make it work, but that would be regarded as one of his greatest achievements.

I think a progressive tax is better. I think the socially provided safety net should include education, medical care and financial support for those unable to work through age or illness, plus some kind of paid keep-you-busy work for the capable unemployed. Putting medical care in the safety net makes it appropriate to require people to take certain precautions, like seat belts.

The only thing I can see no reason for is your bigotry against bestiality. Suppose I have some chickens in the back yard. I am allowed to kill them and eat them, but I'm not allowed to stick my wang in them, not even in private. Can you tell me why not?

1) Kill all the lawyers. Severely beat all remaining lobbiests.

2) I support all of those ideas on a state level. If you are using the safety net you should have to see the people paying for it.

3) I said no wangs in the neighbor's cat. Yours is yours.

[ZenGum]

I shalt not covet my neighbour's pussy.

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Bullitt, my post was *edit, cuz i'm stupid*[NOT not, i really meant NOT meant as screw you, but more of a where does it stop? Personally I feel those are all controls the federal government shouldn't be involved with. If the states want to do so and they can convince their voters to go for it, then more power to them. I seriously have a problem with the federal government expanding to control more and more of our lives.

No worries I didn't take it as such. I agree it does have to stop somewhere because I too feel that government control over our lives should be as limited as possible, while still looking out for the greater good. Seatbelt/helmet is just an area I think government mandated usage is ok. In many other areas I would rather people left to make their own decisions.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by lookout123

1) Kill all the lawyers. Severely beat all remaining lobbiests.

2) I support all of those ideas on a state level. If you are using the safety net you should have to see the people paying for it.

3) I said no wangs in the neighbor's cat. Yours is yours.

Oooh! Pick me as your running mate.

I'd also like to ad a ban on "American" corporations that have their offices in the Bahamas and their manufacturing in any place other than the 50 states. No weasely loopholes.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I would support the use of a few well placed tactical nukes.

Neutron bombs and I'd be ok with it. Why leave a mess and destroy innocent buildings?

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

No worries I didn't take it as such. I agree it does have to stop somewhere because I too feel that government control over our lives should be as limited as possible, while still looking out for the greater good. Seatbelt/helmet is just an area I think government mandated usage is ok. In many other areas I would rather people left to make their own decisions.

But this is part of the problem. Everyone wants some special exemption or exception and we end up back where we started.

[footfootfoot]

Which is why we have "Scofflaws"

[richlevy]

I think you are confusing liberal and conservative with libertarian and authoritarian.

In my opinion, both liberals and conservatives have espoused authoritarian ideas. The concept of gay marriage is one example. The argument being that if gay couples are allowed to marry, it will 'spoil' marriage for some heterosexuals.

That's sort of like passing a law that only people who have more than $1 million dollars can own a Mercedes because otherwise millionaires will stop buying them.

Looking at the number of restrictive amendments to the Constitution proposed by 'conservatives', I can only wonder about the cries of 'states rights!' that went up during the Civil War and the Civil Rights era.

My political compass profile lists me as a libertarian leftist. In my opinion that means that as long as my neighbor doesn't engage in behavior that threatens me and adheres to some basic zoning concepts, I'm ok. Gay wedding in his backyard? I'll send a fruit basket. Wild drug fueled screaming orgy in his pool? I'll buy earmuffs.

It's when he or she stockpiles a ton of explosives or wants to open a toxic waste site that I believe that I have the right to point to the zoning laws and/or basic rules on public safety.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by richlevy

The concept of gay marriage is one example. The argument being that if gay couples are allowed to marry, it will 'spoil' marriage for some heterosexuals.

That's sort of like passing a law that only people who have more than $1 million dollars can own a Mercedes because otherwise millionaires will stop buying them.

Actually, it's more like passing a law that only people who have more than $1 million dollars can own a Mercedes because otherwise baby Jesus would cry.

It's an understandable mistake Rich.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by richlevy

I think you are confusing liberal and conservative with libertarian and authoritarian.

In my opinion, both liberals and conservatives have espoused authoritarian ideas. The concept of gay marriage is one example. The argument being that if gay couples are allowed to marry, it will 'spoil' marriage for some heterosexuals.

That's sort of like passing a law that only people who have more than $1 million dollars can own a Mercedes because otherwise millionaires will stop buying them.

Looking at the number of restrictive amendments to the Constitution proposed by 'conservatives', I can only wonder about the cries of 'states rights!' that went up during the Civil War and the Civil Rights era.

My political compass profile lists me as a libertarian leftist. In my opinion that means that as long as my neighbor doesn't engage in behavior that threatens me and adheres to some basic zoning concepts, I'm ok. Gay wedding in his backyard? I'll send a fruit basket. Wild drug fueled screaming orgy in his pool? I'll buy earmuffs.

It's when he or she stockpiles a ton of explosives or wants to open a toxic waste site that I believe that I have the right to point to the zoning laws and/or basic rules on public safety.

so much this.

its too late (well, early, at this point) for me to formulate a full response. but, this is a broad-strokes explanation of my own vision of libertarian liberalism/ libertarian-socialism. I believe that the role of government in telling people what they CAN'T do should be limited, but the role of government in telling people what economic/potentially-harmful-to-others rules they can enforce, especially when it comes to helping the poor and the sick and the otherwise needful, should be strong and positive.

[Uday]

Liberal means something different here than it does in my country, I think.

In my country, it means one who encourages more individual liberty, more education, and the idea that economy is best served by encouraging growth from the bottom up, not the top down, by which I mean free enterprise at the individual level, rather than that of huge corporations that do not need any help.

In this, I am definitely a liberal.