More examples of Republican nannyism and interfearing w/ freedom...

SmarterThanYou said:
neither. they are both totalitarians under different names. You cannot be for 'freedom' if you are not for total freedom.
Click to expand...

The MAJORITY of Democrats voted against this constitutional amendment to limit speach....

The VAST MAJORITY of Republicans voted FOR this constititional amendment to limit speach.
 
Jarod said:
The MAJORITY of Democrats voted against this constitutional amendment to limit speach....
Click to expand...
and a MAJORITY of Democrats voted FOR gun control

Jarod said:
The VAST MAJORITY of Republicans voted FOR this constititional amendment to limit speach.
Click to expand...

BOTH parties are not about freedom, they are about control. Their ideas of 'control' are just in different forms.

I repeat, neither party is about freedom, but about totalitarianism.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and a MAJORITY of Democrats voted FOR gun control



BOTH parties are not about freedom, they are about control. Their ideas of 'control' are just in different forms.

I repeat, neither party is about freedom, but about totalitarianism.
Click to expand...

I agree that both parties have that element.... I was reciently told that the the Republicans did not.

The more "liberal" position is more freedom, I agree that the Democrats are often not liberal enough.
 
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom; worthy of a free man, gentlemanlike, courteous, generous"[1]) is the belief in the importance of individual freedom. This belief is widely accepted today throughout the world, and was recognized as an important value by many philosophers throughout history. The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote praising "the idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed".[2]

Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. John Locke is often credited with the philosophical foundations of modern liberalism. He wrote "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."[3]

In the 17th Century, liberal ideas began to influence governments in Europe, in nations such as The Netherlands, Switzerland, England and Poland, but they were strongly opposed, often by armed might, by those who favored absolute monarchy and established religion. In the 18th Century, in America, the first modern liberal state was founded, without a monarch or a hereditary aristocracy.[4] The American Declaration of Independence includes the words (which echo Locke) "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."[5]

Liberalism comes in many forms. According to John N. Gray, the essence of liberalism is toleration of different beliefs and of different ideas as to what constitutes a good life.[6]

This is the defination I am using when I call myself a liberal.

It is directly contradictory to being a dictator...!
 
Jarod said:
I agree that both parties have that element.... I was reciently told that the the Republicans did not.

The more "liberal" position is more freedom, I agree that the Democrats are often not liberal enough.
Click to expand...

thats not true

and i actually think STY makes a good point, both parties want to control our lives. both parties also claim to offer more freedom. libbies want to control and interfere the 2nd, conservatives by and large want to interfere with marriage....
 
Jarod said:
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom; worthy of a free man, gentlemanlike, courteous, generous"[1]) is the belief in the importance of individual freedom. This belief is widely accepted today throughout the world, and was recognized as an important value by many philosophers throughout history. The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote praising "the idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed".[2]

Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. John Locke is often credited with the philosophical foundations of modern liberalism. He wrote "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."[3]

In the 17th Century, liberal ideas began to influence governments in Europe, in nations such as The Netherlands, Switzerland, England and Poland, but they were strongly opposed, often by armed might, by those who favored absolute monarchy and established religion. In the 18th Century, in America, the first modern liberal state was founded, without a monarch or a hereditary aristocracy.[4] The American Declaration of Independence includes the words (which echo Locke) "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."[5]

Liberalism comes in many forms. According to John N. Gray, the essence of liberalism is toleration of different beliefs and of different ideas as to what constitutes a good life.[6]

This is the defination I am using when I call myself a liberal.

It is directly contradictory to being a dictator...!
Click to expand...

using that definition, neither party can claim they are true liberals
 
Jarod said:
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom; worthy of a free man, gentlemanlike, courteous, generous"[1]) is the belief in the importance of individual freedom. This belief is widely accepted today throughout the world, and was recognized as an important value by many philosophers throughout history. The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote praising "the idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed".[2]

Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. John Locke is often credited with the philosophical foundations of modern liberalism. He wrote "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."[3]

In the 17th Century, liberal ideas began to influence governments in Europe, in nations such as The Netherlands, Switzerland, England and Poland, but they were strongly opposed, often by armed might, by those who favored absolute monarchy and established religion. In the 18th Century, in America, the first modern liberal state was founded, without a monarch or a hereditary aristocracy.[4] The American Declaration of Independence includes the words (which echo Locke) "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."[5]

Liberalism comes in many forms. According to John N. Gray, the essence of liberalism is toleration of different beliefs and of different ideas as to what constitutes a good life.[6]

This is the defination I am using when I call myself a liberal.

It is directly contradictory to being a dictator...!
Click to expand...

Since you have repeated this I am now convinced that your IQ is below 85. :palm:
 
Yurt said:
using that definition, neither party can claim they are true liberals
Click to expand...

I never said either party were true liberals... I belive the Democratic party is more liberal than the Republicans party.

I personally believe I am Very Liberal, and much more liberal than the Democratic party, and am very proud of that!
 
Yurt said:
you're an idiot

allowing creation to be taught in schools is about freedom you nitwit....you're the one who wants to take away that freedom....understandably as it most likely will violate the establishment clause, but full freedom would allow it to be taught

flag burning....there are people on both sides of the aisle opposed to it
Click to expand...

My God, why not teach Voodoo, Scientology and Dianetics as well. :palm:
 
ZappasGuitar said:
OMG dial back the hyperbole a couple HUNDRED points why don't ya!
Click to expand...

He relies on it because otherwise all he's got is:

image_medium.jpg
 
tom prendergast said:
My God, why not teach Voodoo, Scientology and Dianetics as well. :palm:
Click to expand...

Yurtie's a doofus. Creationism is a religious belief, on a par with the above.

If creationism will be explored in a class devoted to, say, comparative religions, that's up to the school district to decide. I don't see how it can be taught as a standalone class in a public school, and certainly not as a science.
 
christiefan915 said:
Yurtie's a doofus. Creationism is a religious belief, on a par with the above.

If creationism will be explored in a class devoted to, say, comparative religions, that's up to the school district to decide. I don't see how it can be taught as a standalone class in a public school, and certainly not as a science.
Click to expand...

no its not. i am not surprised your intellectual shortcomings are similar to tom's. you guys get along so well, i just assumed it was because you're a pill, but now i realize you're both also mental midgets.

there is some scientific evidence for creationism, the flood etc....thus, teaching could be done in line with education. i suggest you read a book by harold g. coffin instead of making ignorant posts like the above.
 
Southern Man said:
Since pornography denigrates women, damages families and especially children, promoting it would be the position of the modern American liberal.
Click to expand...

Some porn does denigrate women. But most pays them far better than the male actors involved.

How does it damage families and children?
 
WinterBorn said:
Some porn does denigrate women. But most pays them far better than the male actors involved.

How does it damage families and children?
Click to expand...

Southern Man's kids found his stash under his bed and they've never looked at him the same since.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top