And I honestly can't wrap my mind around why anybody would actually want a straight democracy in a country this big. Simple "rule of majority" is fine for low populations but 300 million people is something else entirely.
I thought Clinton was really good with the budget, and it seems that the republicans failed in the budget, not the democrats. So, unless they're lying, they can't use that in support of the republicans.
It was more of a joke on America. They say "we want liberties" but at the same time "we hate liberalism". I understand how it works, it's just a funny observation.
where the **** are you getting your definition of liberalism from?
Liberalism is about pluralism, revolution and equality. Human rights may have evolved from these ideal opposing a authoritarian system, but are certainly not central or even logical end points to liberal political philosophy.
If anything, and this is seen in academia more so than the real world, liberalism is working against constitutional rights. Who was more in favor of printing the cartoons of Mohammed? Conservatives. Why didn't liberals want to print them? Because it was insensitive to pluralistic and multi-cultural concerns.
Conservatism, which also supports these rights and evolved as a reaction to authoritarianism, focuses on the individual, and is thus MUCH better suited to deal with individual rights.
Bardock's commentary is, I believe, based upon the Eurpoean definition of liberalism as an economic idea, as opposed to the States where it is used as a social one (though there is a lot of 'croos-contamination' going on here), which is why he sees no contradiction above.
As ever, I will remind people that Thatcher famously declared herself as a liberal, so saying the Tories are so is not actually an extraordinary statement. But that's because they are talking of liberal markets, and liberation from over-regulation, and that kind of thing. Rolling back the frontiers of the state.
Quite a few disagreements begin from this irritating dual meaning of the term.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Feb 27th, 2008 at 05:20 PM
European liberalism is fairly analogous to libertarianism here. I'd equate "classic liberalism" (as modern Americans use it) to social democracy, but a little less concentrated.
By "recently" I meant the last thirty years, but Clinton was certainly an exception.
Clinton was a rare president as far as the budget goes. He was a reasonable man back then. Way back then. Back then he wasn't a fool. He was too smart too be smart with the economy...he just listened to Alan Greenspan and stayed away from national health care. Hillary was something else too. Now they both promise too much.
Well, in the last 30 years, Clinton was the only democrat to be president, so who the hell are you refering to?
[SPOILER - highlight to read]: Yes, Carter is the only other one. But come on, Carter wasn't your average democrat. And even so, he was good on the economy aswell. Want to go back further? JFK LBJ did good on the economy, FDR, come on.
__________________
Bulbasaur, the original... Pepe.
Last edited by Raz on Jan 1st 2000 at 00:00AM
Last edited by It's xyz! on Mar 1st, 2008 at 06:18 PM
That's news to me. To fund his Great Society initiative and the Vietnam war, the deficit after only five years was 44.8 billion dollars. He's like Obama is now. He hoped to solve problems by throwing money at them. He is the moron that cemented entititlement programs into the federal budget. After him, Presidents spent ten years trying to control the inflation.
79-81: Dem -- Dem -- Carter
81-83: Dem -- Rep -- Reagan
83-85: Dem -- Rep -- Reagan
85-87: Dem -- Rep -- Reagan
87-89: Dem -- Dem -- Reagan
89-91: Dem -- Dem -- Bush I
91-93: Dem -- Dem -- Bush I
93-95: Dem -- Dem -- Clinton
95-97: Rep -- Rep -- Clinton
97-99: Rep -- Rep -- Clinton
99-01: Rep -- Rep -- Clinton
01-03: Rep -- Dem -- Bush II
03-05: Rep -- Rep -- Bush II
05-07: Rep -- Rep -- Bush II
07-09: Dem -- Dem -- Bush II
Mostly it's a case of one being Rep the other being Dem, and I doubt making a conclusion is very legit, but my opinion is the Dems should take the credit. The early 90s is when the economy increased greatly, Dems had control of both houses, the economy went down in the late 90s and 00s, Reps had control of both.
KMC Community Forums
Feb 27th, 2008 02:57 PM
