Republican Nomination?

Originally posted by Lord Follen
and equal participation in this gov are NONexistant... seeing as this is not even a "democracy"... for a "democracy" it would be governed by the people. what we have here is a representational gov, that i dont think works

And that is a bad thing why?

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.

Originally posted by Quark_666
And that is a bad thing why?

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.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Forty years ago that might have been true. If you wanna know why liberalism is bad in America it's because recently it seems to refer to a liberal budget, not just a liberal society.

Then again, nobody in America has been good with the budget recently.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not quite that easy, but yes, you could say that about classic liberalism. Obviously that does not mean that everyone that calls themselves liberal will want that. Why are you confused about that.

It's a representative democracy. Meaning it is a democracy.

socialism on the other hand is a most digusting and oppressive idea that should never even be considered.

Originally posted by lord xyz
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.

Not really.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really.

Originally posted by lord xyz
What are you refering to?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Basically all. Mostly that it is not a funny observation.

Don't explain to me the basics behind them, I already know, but it is funny to say you hate an ideology, but like the core of the ideology.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I think it is, how can you hate liberalism, but not liberties when liberalism is about giving liberties?

Don't explain to me the basics behind them, I already know, but it is funny to say you hate an ideology, but like the core of the ideology.

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.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I think it is, how can you hate liberalism, but not liberties when liberalism is about giving liberties?

Don't explain to me the basics behind them, I already know, but it is funny to say you hate an ideology, but like the core of the ideology.

Obviously Ush is right, I am talking about the difference between European definitions of liberalism and the liberals of America.

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.

Originally posted by Strangelove
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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Quite odd as they are pretty much contrary.

Originally posted by lord xyz
[QUOTE=10246701]Originally posted by Quark_666
[B]Forty years ago that might have been true. If you wanna know why liberalism is bad in America it's because recently it seems to refer to a liberal budget, not just a liberal society.

Then again, nobody in America has been good with the budget recently.

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.

Originally posted by lord xyz
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.

Yeah, you had me rolling on the floor 😘

Originally posted by Quark_666
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.

Yeah, you had me rolling on the floor 😘

Spoiler:
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.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, in the last 30 years, Clinton was the only democrat to be president, so who the hell are you refering to?

Spoiler:
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.

Haven't you heard? Congress controls the budget.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, in the last 30 years, Clinton was the only democrat to be president, so who the hell are you refering to?

Spoiler:
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.

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.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Haven't you heard? Congress controls the budget.

But lets talk about congress then.

From wikipedia

House majority -- Senate majority -- Pres:

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.

Originally posted by BigRed
LBJ did good on the economy?

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.

Hahahaa... The clown McCain welcomed an endorsement from the religious-nut John Hagee.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/02/29/mccain-hedges-on-hagee-endorsement/?mod=googlenews_wsj

John Hagee is an evangelical leader who authored the book "Jerusalem Countdown", a doomsday book.