Why aren't liberals happy?

[unregistered]

 

[MisterChillax]

Where again do Cons support forums like literotica.com and the liberal view on sexuality?

I love it when liberals are attacked on a website that wouldn´t exist if it wasn´t for liberalism. You have posted here only like 10 thousand times.

Liberals aren´t by definition unhappy or happy. They advocate a political view point. Turns out through history very successfully and convincingly.

 

[HoHoBomb]

weed is illegal

 

[unregistered]

 

[bluegypsy]

Bullshit! No founder contemplated or supported the kind of big government we see today.

Try googling "Alexander Hamilton." He argued extensively for a strong federal government, and basically saw the states as pesky but necessary administrative units. "In my opinion, the real danger in our system is that the General Government will prove too weak rather than too powerful." (Hamilton to George Washington, July 30, 1796)

 

[KingOrfeo]

BTW, did you know that Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek were redistributionists?

It is also worth pointing out that while classical liberals are often painted as being opposed to all government intervention in the marketplace, this is not strictly true. Adam Smith, for example, actually supported subsidies to the unemployed as well as fledgeling businesses (although he was uneasy about the latter due to his fears that businesses would lobby against being removed from the subsidy rolls), as well as progressive taxation, while Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek proposed replacing the existing welfare programs and minimum wage with negative income taxes that would provide living wages to all citizens, not the complete elimination of welfare. Where Friedman and Hayek stopped short of social liberalism was in opposing redistribution of wealth for the sake of bringing living standards closer together, although they have been criticised by others further to the right economically for supporting any redistribution at all.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Try googling "Alexander Hamilton." He argued extensively for a strong federal government, and basically saw the states as pesky but necessary administrative units. "In my opinion, the real danger in our system is that the General Government will prove too weak rather than too powerful." (Hamilton to George Washington, July 30, 1796)

In, fact, here's the plan Hamilton proposed at the Constitutional Convention:

Unsatisfied with the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan, Alexander Hamilton proposed his own plan. It also was known as the British Plan, because of its resemblance to the British system of strong centralized government.[17] In his plan, Hamilton advocated virtually doing away with state sovereignty and consolidating the states into a single nation.[17] The plan featured a bicameral legislature, the lower house elected by the people for three years. The upper house would be elected by electors chosen by the people and would serve for life.[17] The plan also gave the Governor, an executive elected by electors for a life-term of service, an absolute veto over bills.[17] State governors would be appointed by the national legislature,[17] and the national legislature had veto power over any state legislation.[17]

Hamilton presented his plan to the Convention on June 18, 1787.[17] The plan was perceived as a well-thought-out plan, but it was not considered, because it resembled the British system too closely.[17] It also contemplated the loss of most state authority, which the states were unwilling to allow.

Show me where he contemplated the gigantic oppressive Leviathan that puts itself upon the American people today...he couldn't possibly have, and didn't.

Now, what Hamilton contemplated was not necessarily a "gigantic oppressive Leviathan," but you would call it that without hesitation if anyone proposed it today.

 

[unregistered]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Show me where he contemplated the gigantic oppressive Leviathan that puts itself upon the American people today...he couldn't possibly have, and didn't.

Hamilton was a pretentious bastard from the West Indies who wanted to be aristocracy. Well, what we have in America these days is creeping feudalism where the lords and soldiers absorb more and more of the wealth the peasants create. The whole scheme works nicely with the Liberal totalitarian sense of entitlement to run things.

 

[Sean]

Tell me, did any of their musings contemplate the Hobbesian administrative state we're staring at today. Be advised, I've read all of their major works.

But you couldn't understand any word with more than two syllables.

 

[bluegypsy]

Show me where he contemplated the gigantic oppressive Leviathan that puts itself upon the American people today...he couldn't possibly have, and didn't.

Read KingOrfeo's post above. Most modern-day conservatives (and indeed, many of Hamilton's contemporaries) would call his proposed system of government "gigantic and oppressive." He mostly lost the argument, but it goes to show you that the founding fathers were just as divided then as our government (and country) is today.

 

[bluegypsy]

Hamilton was a pretentious bastard from the West Indies who wanted to be aristocracy. Well, what we have in America these days is creeping feudalism where the lords and soldiers absorb more and more of the wealth the peasants create. The whole scheme works nicely with the Liberal totalitarian sense of entitlement to run things.

This "pretentious bastard from the West Indies" won the Battle of Yorktown, served as Washington's right-hand man, wrote the Federalist Papers, set up the Treasury Department, and designed our financial system, all before he turned 40. What have you done for your country lately?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Hamilton was a pretentious bastard from the West Indies who wanted to be aristocracy. Well, what we have in America these days is creeping feudalism where the lords and soldiers absorb more and more of the wealth the peasants create. The whole scheme works nicely with the Liberal totalitarian sense of entitlement to run things.

Feudalism is one thing, and an administrative-bureaucratic state is quite another thing -- in fact, an incompatible thing.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Tell me, did any of their musings contemplate the Hobbesian administrative state we're staring at today. Be advised, I've read all of their major works.

I haven't, but I'm sure they must have said something or other about "the Hobbesian administrative state we're staring at today," because it already existed in their time, in every country of the industrialized world.

 

[julybaby04]

Why are Liberals unhappy?

That really is a very good question. Same can be said of conservatives as well.

Perhaps the definition of what makes each person happy is the culprit. Doubting that this will ever be the same for everyone means groups of people will probably not be happy...ever.

I think finding happiness while dealing with groups of unhappy people is a good way to go about it.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I think finding happiness while dealing with groups of unhappy people is a good way to go about it.

Works for rapists!

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Sadly, you'll need a functioning intellect and an historical perspective to continue the discussion. They didn't found every industrialized nation in the world.

Hayek and Friedman did not found any nations.

 

[julybaby04]

Works for rapists!

 

[Squibbs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rruPvO6PNLI

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Where again do Cons support forums like literotica.com and the liberal view on sexuality?

I love it when liberals are attacked on a website that wouldn´t exist if it wasn´t for liberalism. You have posted here only like 10 thousand times.

Liberals aren´t by definition unhappy or happy. They advocate a political view point. Turns out through history very successfully and convincingly.

Point this out to these busters on here all the time and there's never a straight answer for it. They don't (and can't) go anywhere else because they're pressed bitches afraid of being lost in the faceless, colorless, individual-lacking derp sauce of their own throng.

They can never handle this hypocritical truth of their bullshit. And they'll always need the liberalism of this site to complain about it.

 

[unregistered]

 

[IrezumiKiss]

http://replygif.net/i/1081

Awww geez.

Old pressed out-of-date bitch is topic dropping "hip hop" and "hipster" in a desperate search for a reason to get in a last-word post like he knows what he's been spoonfed a few days ago.

Somebody stop him before he mentions "twerking."

 

[Sean Renaud]

To be fair these scandals are breaking down faster than you'd expect if everything so far is true. We've got IRS apparently not only going after liberal groups but the only group they actually did anything more than pester was liberal. That's not to claim that it's ok but that just doesn't look like Darth Barraka sent out his hit squad. Bengazi is STILL looking like nothing and the AP break down is the last one standing.