(06-22-2014 05:06 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Those are FISCAL liberal ideas, not SOCIAL liberal ideas.

No they are not sir, because each one of those cases are pushed by social liberalism. Government programs for the poor, govt enforced eating habits, gun control and nationalized health care programs are enacted because of social initiatives. They are in fact called social programs for a reason. They are "society engineering," and they are attached to the ideology. Fiscal liberalism merely means no limits or broad limits on spending. Why they spend are depending on the social cause.

Well, then, your definition of social liberalism is different from mine. And it sure as hell isn't anything even remotely close to any libertarian ideas.

(06-22-2014 05:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:06 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Those are FISCAL liberal ideas, not SOCIAL liberal ideas.

No they are not sir, because each one of those cases are pushed by social liberalism. Government programs for the poor, govt enforced eating habits, gun control and nationalized health care programs are enacted because of social initiatives. They are in fact called social programs for a reason. They are "society engineering," and they are attached to the ideology. Fiscal liberalism merely means no limits or broad limits on spending. Why they spend are depending on the social cause.

Well, then, your definition of social liberalism is different from mine. And it sure as hell isn't anything even remotely close to any libertarian ideas.

What do you think social liberalism is man. It's finding new ways to define everyone as a victim and to impose some kind of greater control. The very essence is that we cannot make decisions for ourselves and the rule must be for the greater good. Liberals just find new victims, but the reason is always the same. Whatever their cause, you can rest assured it's going to cost us money and our freedom.

Social conservatives believe in keeping laws on damaging entities because they understand by allowing them to flourish, they end up costing people their liberties and the establisment. Limits on drugs are a prime example.

(06-22-2014 05:16 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:06 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Those are FISCAL liberal ideas, not SOCIAL liberal ideas.

No they are not sir, because each one of those cases are pushed by social liberalism. Government programs for the poor, govt enforced eating habits, gun control and nationalized health care programs are enacted because of social initiatives. They are in fact called social programs for a reason. They are "society engineering," and they are attached to the ideology. Fiscal liberalism merely means no limits or broad limits on spending. Why they spend are depending on the social cause.

Well, then, your definition of social liberalism is different from mine. And it sure as hell isn't anything even remotely close to any libertarian ideas.

What do you think social liberalism is man. It's finding new ways to define everyone as a victim and to impose some kind of greater control. The very essence is that we cannot make decisions for ourselves and the rule must be for the greater good. Liberals just find new victims, but the reason is always the same. Whatever their cause, you can rest assured it's going to cost us money and our freedom.

Social conservatives believe in keeping laws on damaging entities because they understand by allowing them to flourish, they end up costing people their liberties and the establisment. Limits on drugs are a prime example.

I now understand the problem. You're hopelessly confused, and I don't even know where to start to explain it. I'll take your future comments with a very large grain of salt.

ETA: Before giving up, let's try this:

Social liberalism = freedom from Big Brother
Fiscal liberalism = spending money, particularly redistributing money.

(06-22-2014 05:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:16 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:06 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Those are FISCAL liberal ideas, not SOCIAL liberal ideas.

No they are not sir, because each one of those cases are pushed by social liberalism. Government programs for the poor, govt enforced eating habits, gun control and nationalized health care programs are enacted because of social initiatives. They are in fact called social programs for a reason. They are "society engineering," and they are attached to the ideology. Fiscal liberalism merely means no limits or broad limits on spending. Why they spend are depending on the social cause.

Well, then, your definition of social liberalism is different from mine. And it sure as hell isn't anything even remotely close to any libertarian ideas.

What do you think social liberalism is man. It's finding new ways to define everyone as a victim and to impose some kind of greater control. The very essence is that we cannot make decisions for ourselves and the rule must be for the greater good. Liberals just find new victims, but the reason is always the same. Whatever their cause, you can rest assured it's going to cost us money and our freedom.

Social conservatives believe in keeping laws on damaging entities because they understand by allowing them to flourish, they end up costing people their liberties and the establishment. Limits on drugs are a prime example.

I now understand the problem. You're hopelessly confused, and I don't even know where to start to explain it. I'll take your future comments with a very large grain of salt.

I think I pretty much just dismantled you entire argument and I am far from the one who is confused. You can fight it all you want, but anyone who understands political ideology knows that I am right.

Your ideology is flawed and I am explaining why. The problem is you have the wrong labels on each container.

(06-22-2014 05:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:16 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:06 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Those are FISCAL liberal ideas, not SOCIAL liberal ideas.

No they are not sir, because each one of those cases are pushed by social liberalism. Government programs for the poor, govt enforced eating habits, gun control and nationalized health care programs are enacted because of social initiatives. They are in fact called social programs for a reason. They are "society engineering," and they are attached to the ideology. Fiscal liberalism merely means no limits or broad limits on spending. Why they spend are depending on the social cause.

Well, then, your definition of social liberalism is different from mine. And it sure as hell isn't anything even remotely close to any libertarian ideas.

What do you think social liberalism is man. It's finding new ways to define everyone as a victim and to impose some kind of greater control. The very essence is that we cannot make decisions for ourselves and the rule must be for the greater good. Liberals just find new victims, but the reason is always the same. Whatever their cause, you can rest assured it's going to cost us money and our freedom.

Social conservatives believe in keeping laws on damaging entities because they understand by allowing them to flourish, they end up costing people their liberties and the establisment. Limits on drugs are a prime example.

I now understand the problem. You're hopelessly confused, and I don't even know where to start to explain it. I'll take your future comments with a very large grain of salt.

ETA: Before giving up, let's try this:

Social liberalism = freedom from Big Brother
Fiscal liberalism = spending money, particularly redistributing money.

No. NO! That is incorrect. You are under the wrong impression. Ask a social liberal if they agree that the government should stay out of our lives.

You don't understand the difference between fiscal liberalism and social liberalism. No problem. No need to discuss further. Knowing that, now your comments make sense.

Just rest assured, no libertarian is ever going to embrace your idea of social liberalism. George W. Bush is more of a social liberal by your definition than is the average libertarian.

(06-22-2014 12:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 12:52 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  The country is not ungovernable. Doesn't mean there aren't things that are broke. Checks and Balances, between the three branches of the Federal Government and between the States and Feds, need to be restored. Then fix what the responsibilities of each branch, IE ending Executive Orders.

It's not going to happen until you have a president who believes that power needs to be transferred back to the legislative branch and back to the states. The temptation to be an imperial president is so great, I'm not sure it can ever happen.

I agree with you and this is a large reason I am skeptical of libertarians ability to stay true to their principles.

(06-22-2014 12:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 12:52 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  The country is not ungovernable. Doesn't mean there aren't things that are broke. Checks and Balances, between the three branches of the Federal Government and between the States and Feds, need to be restored. Then fix what the responsibilities of each branch, IE ending Executive Orders.

It's not going to happen until you have a president who believes that power needs to be transferred back to the legislative branch and back to the states. The temptation to be an imperial president is so great, I'm not sure it can ever happen.

I equate this to what happened to me as President of a civic club. Members were constantly coming to me with ideas for projects and other things that committees are set up to handle. They would get pissed with me when I would say..."Has this been put before the______committee?"
This is what the Executive branch should be doing. We have a system and the Constitution spells out how it is supposed to do business. How about fcking following it? That would solve most of the problems we face now.

(06-22-2014 05:47 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 12:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 12:52 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  The country is not ungovernable. Doesn't mean there aren't things that are broke. Checks and Balances, between the three branches of the Federal Government and between the States and Feds, need to be restored. Then fix what the responsibilities of each branch, IE ending Executive Orders.

It's not going to happen until you have a president who believes that power needs to be transferred back to the legislative branch and back to the states. The temptation to be an imperial president is so great, I'm not sure it can ever happen.

I agree with you and this is a large reason I am skeptical of libertarians ability to stay true to their principles.

No need to worry about it. The system is rigged to stop a third party. No fcking way are current gangs going to share power. They will do ANYTHING to stop it.

(06-22-2014 05:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You don't understand the difference between fiscal liberalism and social liberalism. No problem. No need to discuss further. Knowing that, now your comments make sense.

Just rest assured, no libertarian is ever going to embrace your idea of social liberalism. George W. Bush is more of a social liberal by your definition than is the average libertarian.

No sir. It is you who is confused.

Let's hear your idea of a socially liberal society and how you propose bringing that about.

Is this a fair statement?
democratic social liberals believe in the the individuals right to not be discriminated against and are willing to pass legislation to ensure it.
Libertarian social liberals also agree on the individuals rights, but will not pass any legislation effecting it one way or the other.

(06-22-2014 06:43 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Is this a fair statement?
democratic social liberals believe in the the individuals right to not be discriminated against and are willing to pass legislation to ensure it.
Libertarian social liberals also agree on the individuals rights, but will not pass any legislation effecting it one way or the other.

Not really, because there are not two definitions for social liberalism.

What libertarians label social liberalism is more in line with anarchy, and what role they want the federal govt to take differs depending on which libertarian you talk to.

(06-22-2014 05:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 12:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 12:52 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  The country is not ungovernable. Doesn't mean there aren't things that are broke. Checks and Balances, between the three branches of the Federal Government and between the States and Feds, need to be restored. Then fix what the responsibilities of each branch, IE ending Executive Orders.

It's not going to happen until you have a president who believes that power needs to be transferred back to the legislative branch and back to the states. The temptation to be an imperial president is so great, I'm not sure it can ever happen.

I equate this to what happened to me as President of a civic club. Members were constantly coming to me with ideas for projects and other things that committees are set up to handle. They would get pissed with me when I would say..."Has this been put before the______committee?"
This is what the Executive branch should be doing. We have a system and the Constitution spells out how it is supposed to do business. How about fcking following it? That would solve most of the problems we face now.

not trying to piss in your kool-aid, but really?????....that system was developed when almost all were farmers.....

that system allowed the current one to develop.....

I don't have the answer and won't pretend to.....but our current system is akin to a 78 rpm record....

I prefer farming, but those days are long gone.

(06-22-2014 06:49 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 06:43 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Is this a fair statement?
democratic social liberals believe in the the individuals right to not be discriminated against and are willing to pass legislation to ensure it.
Libertarian social liberals also agree on the individuals rights, but will not pass any legislation effecting it one way or the other.

Not really, because there are not two definitions for social liberalism.

What libertarians label social liberalism is more in line with anarchy, and what role they want the federal govt to take differs depending on which libertarian you talk to.

Couldn't you say that about just about any political point of view/ Let me ask you this. Are social conservatist activist in that they would employ the government, thru legislation, to impose their moral beliefs on the public?

(06-22-2014 07:41 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 06:49 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 06:43 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Is this a fair statement?
democratic social liberals believe in the the individuals right to not be discriminated against and are willing to pass legislation to ensure it.
Libertarian social liberals also agree on the individuals rights, but will not pass any legislation effecting it one way or the other.

Not really, because there are not two definitions for social liberalism.

What libertarians label social liberalism is more in line with anarchy, and what role they want the federal govt to take differs depending on which libertarian you talk to.

Couldn't you say that about just about any political point of view/ Let me ask you this. Are social conservatist activist in that they would employ the government, thru legislation, to impose their moral beliefs on the public?

If you are speaking about legal drug use and abortion, I hope so. If you are talking about making laws about how people have sex, I would suggest those people are not proponents of social conservatism.. but insanity.

(06-22-2014 06:01 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You don't understand the difference between fiscal liberalism and social liberalism. No problem. No need to discuss further. Knowing that, now your comments make sense.

Just rest assured, no libertarian is ever going to embrace your idea of social liberalism. George W. Bush is more of a social liberal by your definition than is the average libertarian.

No sir. It is you who is confused.

Let's hear your idea of a socially liberal society and how you propose bringing that about.

Easy. Pick up a copy of Milton Friedman's book, Capitalism and Freedom, go to pages 35-40, somewhere in there depending on edition is about a two-page essay on the proper role of government. That is socially liberal, probably more fiscally conservative than you are, and nowhere even remotely close to anarchy. Read that and then tell me where you disagree.

(06-22-2014 08:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 06:01 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You don't understand the difference between fiscal liberalism and social liberalism. No problem. No need to discuss further. Knowing that, now your comments make sense.

Just rest assured, no libertarian is ever going to embrace your idea of social liberalism. George W. Bush is more of a social liberal by your definition than is the average libertarian.

No sir. It is you who is confused.

Let's hear your idea of a socially liberal society and how you propose bringing that about.

Easy. Pick up a copy of Milton Friedman's book, Capitalism and Freedom, go to pages 35-40, somewhere in there depending on edition is about a two-page essay on the proper role of government. That is socially liberal, probably more fiscally conservative than you are, and nowhere even remotely close to anarchy. Read that and then tell me where you disagree.

I want to hear your idea of a socially liberal. fiscally conservative world. Conservatives are born that way. We don't get our ideology from a book.

Nobody's born with an ideology.

(06-22-2014 08:34 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Nobody's born with an ideology.

I beg to differ.

(06-22-2014 08:27 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 08:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 06:01 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You don't understand the difference between fiscal liberalism and social liberalism. No problem. No need to discuss further. Knowing that, now your comments make sense.

Just rest assured, no libertarian is ever going to embrace your idea of social liberalism. George W. Bush is more of a social liberal by your definition than is the average libertarian.

No sir. It is you who is confused.

Let's hear your idea of a socially liberal society and how you propose bringing that about.

Easy. Pick up a copy of Milton Friedman's book, Capitalism and Freedom, go to pages 35-40, somewhere in there depending on edition is about a two-page essay on the proper role of government. That is socially liberal, probably more fiscally conservative than you are, and nowhere even remotely close to anarchy. Read that and then tell me where you disagree.

I want to hear your idea of a socially liberal. fiscally conservative world. Conservatives are born that way. We don't get our ideology from a book.

lol, no one is born with an ideology...