Actually Birkenstocks are too formal for me, and I'm a vegetarian not a vegan. Sounds like someone needs a hug.
Then left has a system for destroying Western civilization
- Thread starter Brushy Bill
- Start date
I was enjoying that back and forth with the beaverIs this that 'maturity' of which you like to speak?
People completely oblivious to the reasons a civil rights movement was needed in the US to begin with are surely enraged at such efforts today.
IMO, the nobility of the civil rights movement cannot questioned, but the unintended consequences of our actions should be addressed head on in adult like fashion. This is where politics get in the way of honest solutions to problems; problems that exist as well as problems we create. It's OK to say 'oops, let's revisit/rework this.'
That's a legitimate take. Sometimes corrections aimed at imbalances can create imbalances in time. But lets be careful of backlash from people just looking for opportunities to return to those "good one days". I'm sure there is one or two on here.
I'm feeling lucky today. Could you go stand in a crowd of protestors today? Maybe the next attack or shots or vehicle will mow you down.
My definition of "liberalism" is pointless when it comes to the historical accuracy of WV's quote.
Look it up......the Founding Fathers were considered "classical" liberals........which may not be modern liberals, but for them back in their day they were "modern" liberals.........
What MWV refuses to admit is that the FFs were 'classical' liberals, and he's a 'modern' liberal. The modern liberal coopted the term and have been using incorrectly for decades. It's a tactic they've become quite adept at.
Not exactly. Liberalism, to me, is a ideology rooted in progress and breaking from traditional and entrenched ideology (in a political sense). The founding fathers ideals were substantially progressive for society in the 18th century. They sought to establish a political standard that broke away from the traditional model of monarchy that was heavily rooted in traditional views of man's relationship to god. In addition, our founding father's focus on individual liberty without those individual rights being derived through a divinely "appointed" king or queen were also liberal by definition.
So you did,you posted while I was typing. Your definitions are still incorrect, even if your terminology isn't.
Liberalism is liberalism. Modern vs classical is irrelevant when discussing the definition of the ideology.
Greek and Roman architecture is called "classical" as well......although many modern architecture and engineering methods are based off of it........same goes for "classical" liberalism.......no matter what, it's still "liberal", just the times have changed.
The founders broke away from the monarch for economic reasons and reasons of self rule.
Slavery was ended thanks in large part to the rise of the Abolitionist movement, which was rooted in religious ideology.
I posted on here yesterday about a radio station in CA disinviting (in)famous atheist Richard Dawkins because he criticized Islam like he's been criticizing Christianity for decades. Dawkins catches grief for consistently applying the standard of classical liberal values such as freedom of expression, freedome of (and from) religion), rights for minorities, etc. and he catches grief for it. So does the atheist Sam Harris and he catches grief for it too. Sam Harris wrote a book with former Muslim radical but now just regular Muslim guy that favors a secular society Maajid Nawaz and he caught grief for that too. The atheists are pretty much the only ones that haven't completely lost their heads in all this.
Pretty sure the FFs weren't socialists like you modern day capitalism hating, big government loving hooligans are.
There is nothing that says liberalism is anti religion. Protestant movements in America in the 18th century were liberal as well
Actually, the debates highlighted by the Federalist Papers were very similar to the arguments against socialist attitudes today. Hamilton's desire for a central bank, and his lack of desire for a bill of rights mirrored many of the socialist principles the right seeks to identify with the left today. The debate over the role of government existed amongst the FF during the formation of the nation. It's part of what makes us great. Compromises were reached, and positives and negatives existed ---- what's sad it that many today fail to see who the FF really were, and what really makes our Constitution so great. Compromise and respect for opposition ideology.