Re: When I Look Upon Pelosi & Reid I Get......
Charles said:
eridumass
I'm aware. If it was as conservative as you think obvious, we'd see different results for the expansion of "eminent domain", a true right to keep and bear arms, etc. It is a measure of how "liberal" the U.S. has become that you feel they are "conservative", whatever that means to you, my friend.
For the "liberals" on this forum, if you really get your way, you may see gulags indeed, but they'll be brought to you by the likes of "liberals" ... socialists and their ilk have a very bloody history.
If you think so-called "conservatives" are so evil, and "liberals" so wonderful, remember who brought us the murders in Waco, TX. Your "liberal" friends.
There's plenty I don't like about Bush and his friends. But, I'm a libertarian, and I see little "progressive" or "liberal" in people like Hillary, or Pelosi. Or in the crudeness of people like brewer.
Charles, do you really believe that the liberals here are the sort of liberals that are of the same ilk as the purported socialists with a bloody history? Totalitarian governments tend to call themselves socialist or communist when they are not even close. I have no respect for those governments and they never, ever were liberal. Liberal is Sweden and Norway, not Soviet Russia or some other so called socialist republic. Liberals in no way have a bloody history.
Webster's definition of liberal:
Liberal
(lib'er el, lib'rel), adj 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. 2. (often cap.) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform. 3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism. 4. Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties 5. favoring of permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers. 6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies. 7. Free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners. 8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc. 9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: A liberal donor 10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation. 11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule. 12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts. 13. of, or pertaining to, or befitting a freeman. -n 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion. 15. (often cap.) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain. [1325-75; ME < L liberalis of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to liber free + -alis -al] –lib'er-al-ly, adv –lib'er›al›ness, n
Let's see, a liberal believes in individual freedom, tolerance and generosity. This is what I believe.
Now, I have a very hard time getting my arms around the libertarian philosophy. So, the basic philosophy is that you are free to do what you want provided it does not interfere with or harm another person or another person's property. I have a real hard time understanding how a libertarian would see to the building and maintaining of infrastructure like roads, sewers, etc. And if it is ok to take your money and land for infrastructure, isn't it even more ok to collect taxes for social welfare like for the fda, for schools, or for medicaid or SSI? How about taxing to support a war you don't believe in? Or conscription?
You cannot have a society without rules. That is anarchy. Inevitably rules will result in some interference with people and their property. We live in a crowded complicated world; it comes down to deciding what rules we do want and why.
Yes, Brewer is a crude liberal. And JG is rude libertarian. But if you are a libertarian, I am sure you wouldn't want us to censor either one of them.
Another time, maybe we can talk about the Supreme Court and the many faces of conservativism and liberalism. But for the most part, it is 5 to 4 in favor of conservatives and those conservatives are much more conservative than they have ever been before in my lifetime.
Regarding eminent domain, know that a sovereign nation has the power to take from anyone unless the people in that nation agree to restrict their government. In the US, we amended our constitution and agreed that the federal government cannot take property for public use without just compensation.
If you look back in the records for ownership of your land, the first individual owner got the land from the United States, who, using its sovereign power, bought it (from someone else who took it) or seized the land for itself when creating this nation.
So it only is your property because someone took it in the first place.
It isn't like God gave someone a deed.
