It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Forgotten Liberals

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Seeing as how I consider myself more of a Republican than a Democrat I will try to make this objective as possible. Democrats here on ATS and even some open minded Republicans should enjoy this look at two Democrats who have shaped the Liberal element within the party itself and sought to fix the observed problems in this country. Their views may not align on every issue but they have one idea in common; Justice.

It should also be noted that this is part 1 of a 5 part series which I hope to have all published shortly here on this site. If this thread is bust then I will leave it as is and shall not continue on with the series as there would be no receptive audience but if it does okay then I shall continue with the series.

Part 1: The Forgotten Liberals
Part 2: Populism and the Democratic Party
Part 3: Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats
Part 4: The Republican era 1896-1932
Part 5: Tea Party ancestry

William Jennings Bryan



There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests up on them. – Cross of Gold Speech (July 9, 1896)

William Jennings Bryan is a man remembered for many different reasons. To the anti-imperialists he is a champion of peace, to the poor farmer he is a defender of his lifestyle, to the Liberal at heart he is the ally of all the downtrodden, and to the intellectual he is remembered as someone who is closer to a flat earth type than anyone who should revered.

In 1896 he ran for President of the United States from Nebraska at the age of 36, his victory at the party convention was a serious upset to the establishment who backed the Bourbon wing of the party whose champion was Grover Cleveland. Cleveland was a near perfect as we would call today in America “Libertarian”. But with the panic of 1893 and the serious economic burden placed on Western farmers and small business owners the Republicans won 130 seats in the 1894 House election for a 357 seat house and the Democratic Party became fractured.

The 1892 Presidential Election featured a strong performance by Populist James Weaver whose movement was hostile to banks, railroads, and the elites. This surprise showing would only foreshadow the nomination of the dark horse candidate William Jennings Bryan to be the youngest nominee for President in American history. His message of agrarianism and economic populism rang from Virginia to Idaho. He railed against the gold standard being kept in place for the betterment of business at the expense of farmers as the deflation seriously damaged their ability to stay afloat.

He wanted to inject silver into the currency market to inflate the currency thereby allowing farmers to sell their goods. This passionate idea manifested itself in perhaps the most widely known speech in American political history. More people have heard of this speech than perhaps any other, rivaled only by Richard Nixon’s ‘Checkers Speech’.

On the 9th of September 1896 at the Democratic National Convention Bryan was not expected to be the nominee but when he entered stage with his fiery rhetoric and emotional oratory he brought the participants to their feet. Just merely posting the letters does do his speech justice but unfortunately we have no audio of it. Here are a few excerpts:

This is not a contest between persons. The humblest citizen in all the land, when clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error. I come to speak to you in defence of a cause as holy as the cause of liberty—the cause of humanity.
We object to bringing this question down to the level of persons. The individual is but an atom; he is born, he acts, he dies; but principles are eternal; and this has been a contest over a principle.
If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost. Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

At the end of his speech he reached his arms out wide in a Christ-like manner for 5 seconds, when he brought his arms down the crowd went mad according to the New York Times. It was reported that the crowd nearly became a mob as they rushed the stage. Further in the NYT report it stated that “a wild; raging irresistible mob” had been unleashed.

Cross of Gold Speech

Bryan lost the 1896 Presidential election to William McKinley when under his Presidency the largest buildup of trusts in our nation’s history occurred. But that did not stop Bryan, no, he ran again in 1900 this time with a new target: imperialism. McKinley was reluctant to enter into the Spanish-American War which was instigated by yellow journalism he nevertheless did intervene. Fears of imperialism then begun with talk of annexing the Philippines becoming a critical issue. Those who feared we were becoming an empire quickly ran to Bryan’s defense when in 1900 he staged another run for the Presidency, this time as an anti-Imperialist. He said in a speech during his run:

The nation is of age and it can do what it pleases; it can spurn the traditions of the past; it can repudiate the principles upon which the nation rests; it can employ force instead of reason; it can substitute might for right; it can conquer weaker people; it can exploit their lands, appropriate their property and kill their people; but it cannot repeal the moral law or escape the punishment decreed for the violation of human rights.

This time he received the backing of Andrew Carnegie and other millionaires who abhorred the idea of empire. But he lost once again, losing worse than he did in 1896. That did not deter him however as he gave it one last try in 1908. He proposed income and inheritance taxes, requiring disclosure of campaign contributions, and opposed the use of our navy for collection of private debts. He argued that the Republican Congress spent too much money, they wanted centralization of government, and favored monopolies. His principled conviction would carry on into his services within the Wilson administration when he stepped down as Secretary of State over his disagreement with intervention in WWI.

One thing that has made Secularists and intellectual Liberals laugh at Bryan was his opposition to Evolution. Contrary to how people criticize him it was not because he was a “flat earther” it was actually because at the time Darwinism was associated closely with Social Darwinism, something he believed would give the elite an excuse to disregard the poor entirely. In a 1905 speech on evolution he stated:

The Darwinian theory represents man reaching his present perfection by the operation of the law of hate, the merciless law by which the strong crowd out and kill off the weak. If this is the law of our development then, if there is any logic that can bind the human mind, we shall turn backward to the beast in proportion as we substitute the law of love. I choose to believe that love rather than hatred is the law of development.

As the suffrage movement begun to heat up during the Wilson administration 1913 Bryan argued in favor of a constitutional amendment for women’s suffrage, alongside prohibition of alcohol. Yet he is not remembered for most of the things I listed here, except the Cross of Gold Speech, but is remembered for his part in the Scopes Monkey Trial. According to historian Ronald L. Numbers Bryan was not as much of a creationist as modern day fundamentalist Christians:

William Jennings Bryan, the much misunderstood leader of the post–World War I antievolution crusade, not only read the Mosaic "days" as geological "ages" but allowed for the possibility of organic evolution—so long as it did not impinge on the supernatural origin of Adam and Eve.

One last quote, and this one is quite important, is by his autobiographer Michael Kazin who stated of Bryan’s legacy:

Bryan was the first leader of a major party to argue for permanently expanding the power of the federal government to serve the welfare of ordinary Americans from the working and middle classes....he did more than any other man-between the fall of Grover Cleveland and the election of Woodrow Wilson-to transform his party from a bulwark of laissez-faire to the citadel of liberalism we identify with Franklin D. Roosevelt and his ideological descendants.

Alfred Emanuel Smith, Jr.




No sane local official who has hung up an empty stocking over the municipal fireplace, is going to shoot Santa Claus just before a hard Christmas.

Al Smith is almost completely forgotten today but that is definitely a tragedy. Had Smith not run for President in 1928 then the modern Democratic Party would not exist, Franklin Roosevelt probably would not have been President and so much more. He definitely changed the political field even though he lost a landslide election to Herbert Hoover. But it was because of him the Republicans last Presidential win in New York City, along with most other major cities, was in 1924.

He was a Catholic born and raised on Manhattan’s Lower East Side, humorously claiming “the Brooklyn Bridge and I grew up together”. His family was of many different backgrounds; Irish, German, Italian, and Anglo-Irish, while his religion was Roman Catholicism. Smith never attended high school or college yet went on to become a successful Governor of New York and became a businessman. His relationship with the very corrupt Tammany Hall political machine would draw questions to his record but always showed that he himself was uncorrupted.

Smith was known a strong Progressive in the state and a reformer who was elected Governor of New York in 1918, lost re-election in 1920, but was elected again in 1922, 1924, and 1926. During his tenure he strengthened laws concerning workers’ compensation, children and women’s labor, and women’s pensions. In 1928 he began his run for President of the United States during the peak of the “roaring ‘20s”. With Republicans enjoying firm controlling over government, the economy booming, the KKK almost extinguished, and prosperity reining supreme it was nearly impossible to imagine a Democrat defeating a Republican for President, especially Hoover who was viewed as the “great humanitarian” for his saving of millions of starving Ukrainians during the famines.

Reporter Frederick William Wile made the observation that what truly defeated Smith was the three P’s: Prohibition (which he opposed), Prejudice (hated him for his Catholicism) and Prosperity (economy was booming). The nativists decried that he would answer to the Pope and not the Constitution. Catholics who had been split in their voting in 1920 and 1924 because of Wilson’s betrayal voted en masse for Smith, along with women. This also marked the first time Republicans broke through in the South with Herbert Hoover carrying a few “Solid South” states, mostly due to Smith’s Catholicism. Not to mention his very foreign accent to most Americans when he would take to the airwaves, most people were not accustomed to the urban New York City accent he featured.

So what does Smith have to do with changing the Democratic Party? Well William Bryan moved the party from States’ Rights and Laissez-faire to modern day economic interventionism, Al Smith moved the party from the rural and Southern communities to the urban areas. Because he was a Progressive reform from a deep urban center with an immigrant background his support was strong among other immigrant and urban centers, something the Democrats built on in 1932 with the election of Franklin Roosevelt. Since that time no Republican Presidential candidate has been able to reclaim the major American cities from the Democrats.

It could be argued that his struggle against religious and ethnic discrimination helped propel the party towards a more civil rights structure. As he brought together the discriminated against religious minorities (Jews and Catholics) he also influenced the Democratic Party in later years under Roosevelt to bring in racial minorities who had long found refuge in the Republican Party, thus stripping them of that voter base. Most blacks first voted for a Democrat when they cast their ballots for Franklin Roosevelt. The loyalty of racial minorities soon turned to the Democrats.

But just because Smith began this turn it does not mean he liked the man who built on it. During the 1932 Democratic presidential nomination they were enemies. Because of the rivalry was so deep at the convention he worked with William McAdoo and William Randolph Hearst at an attempt to block Roosevelt’s nomination at several ballots. When this coalition fell apart and Roosevelt won the nomination Smith campaigned on his behalf. Yet this did not last into his Presidency where Smith broke with the New Deal agenda and joined the American Liberty League which was an anti-Roosevelt group.

He believed the New Deal was not a friend of good-government Progressive ideals that also disagreed with the idea of working closely with business. Smith believed the New Deal was destroying individual freedom and rapidly expanding government beyond a reasonably desirable goal. This he could not support so they published relentless attacks against Roosevelt until 1936 when the League realized it was not succeeding. By 1940 it was disbanded. The anger towards the Democratic government by many Conservative and business oriented Democrats was strong, so strong that Smith even endorsed the Republican rival Alf Landon in 1936 and Wendell Willkie in 1940 against Roosevelt.

While it may appear that he was more Conservative and Individualist than the Roosevelt Democrats he still set the stage for not only the New Deal but the entire New Deal coalition which would last until 1968. The demographic alliance for the Democrats would last even until this day with Barack Obama performing 70, 80, and 90% in most major American cities, winning the Roman Catholic and Jewish votes, the racial minority votes, and the overall urban votes.


edit on 9/11/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Classical Liberalism is today's Libertarianism.
Liberalism and Socialism/Marxism should never be considered hand in hand .. Todays "Liberals" are a shame to the word, it means absolutely nothing compared to what it once met. Perhaps this is why Libertarians are much disliked by "Liberals" (Progressives) for being Conservative, and much disliked by Conservatives for being too Liberal.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 




There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests up on them. – Cross of Gold Speech (July 9, 1896)
Why go on after this. As simply laid out as one can get I think.

Do we as a people trust our wealth in the hands of a few who promise that they are keepers of democracy and that they will let this wealth rain out upon our economy? Reagan promised this and this approach has been the stated goal of the more conservative aspects of the political spectrum since. It does not seem to be trickling down. Does it?

Now I'm off to read the rest of the piece.

Hey, did'nt you just post a fond farewell a few days ago? I have noticed another long post since then. You gonna cut back or what?



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TerryMcGuire
 


I decided that instead of leaving ATS I will just take a different approach to it. Rather than continuing the same path of endless arguing I want to do something more constructive, this is an example of that. It is my hope that this is more fulfilling for me and the members of ATS. The arguing, it just is not for me any more.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Educational thread. Please continue


obligatory 2nd line.
edit on 11-9-2011 by justwokeup because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
More great work Misoir, ATS's very own political historian!

In find the morphing of political ideas and agenda very interesting, its seems as if
ideological goalshave mutated tremendously in the last 235 years. One things all
ideologies seem to agree on, is that party policies often times dishearten and anger
the individuals that comprise the parties. From Bush's Big Government liberalism,
to Obama's Big Business conservatism, it seems that Republicans and Democrats
often times feel betrayed by their "leaders". Hopefully new voices can remove the corrupted
forces in both mainstream ideological streams.

I think there is also a new change happening right now... I think the Libertarian movement
is being infiltrated with new members who are trying to adopt social issues as part of the
libertarian platform. It may not be self evident now, but I have had more than a few run ins
with self proclaimed libertarians who champion typically evangelical ideas. I think it is possible
that these new "libertarians" like a portion of the freedom aspects, but they are also unwilling
to adopt a liberal attitude towards homosexuals, immigrants and abortion. I think the evidence is
clear to see in people like Perry and Bachman who claim to wield the support of the once
libertarian Tea Party movement. IMO they are very far from what the Tea Party
started as with Ron Paul, never the less they are staking the ground trying to differentiate
themselves from the GOP, somehow...

We will see if Liberals start shaking things up too, I suspect that liberals are afraid to rip
Obama a new one because they fear the Bachman/Perry-esque "libertarian" agenda more
than Obama's pro business overtures.

Wonderful thread, can't wait to read the next one!
edit on 11-9-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


The way I would explain the situation you just described is that we were witnessing the fracturing of the “fusionism” idea created at the onset of the Cold War by Frank Meyer of the National Review. Its goal was to unite the Traditionalist Conservatives, Libertarians, and Social Conservatives into one current which formed the Barry Goldwater Conservative movement. This fusion finally solidified itself as the governing ideology of the GOP under Ronald Reagan. If you were to break them down individually it would look like this:

Traditionalists – “Burkean Conservatives” who believe in maintaining order, respect for authority, isolationist foreign policy, and values similar to that of a romanticized Great Britain.
Libertarians – These Libertarians were of a more Conservative persuasion and believed in fighting the Cold War but no other wars after it ended.
Socials – They did not care much about the size of government so long as the morality of society is maintained, also hawkish foreign policy.

They were united around their opposition to the Cold War, it stopped the infighting. However as the CW began to wind down the infighting began with one side trying to take control. The Neoconservatives are the Social Conservatives of the pact who believed in “Compassionate Conservatism”, they won the argument and launch a relentless assault known as the Culture Wars. The Traditionalists were also culture warriors but disagreed with the expanding size of government economically. Libertarians mostly stuck around for the small economic crumbs tossed to them but even this part basically died in the ‘80s.

What we witnessed with the rise of the Tea Party movement was the culturally Conservative but Libertarian branch of the Fusionism braking out. You could call it the Libertarian breath of fresh air after being suffocated by the Social Conservatives. It did not take long but by the end of 2009 the Tea Party became another case of fusionism as the Social Conservatives and Traditionalist jumped in the movement. They decided to move the movement socially and economically to a more statist level but less statist than the Neoconservatives.

See the Libertarian branch of Fusionism is what we would call “Paleolibertarian”, Murray Rothbard and Robert Taft are two good examples. Culturally they are conservative, unlike the Libertarians found in the Libertarian Party, ACLU, or parts of the Democratic Party. They adhere to cultural values and believe they should be maintained except are not believers in government enforcing any form of communitarian ideas in regards to it. A true Paleolibertarian would be disgusted by gay marriage but believe the federal government should not be involved. Ron Paul is basically a perfect example of a Paleolibertarian.

My question for today however is if Fusionism can sustain itself without the Cold War because as I stated earlier, once the Cold War ended one faction overtook the entire movement. The Tea Party was the Libertarian faction declaring it still alive and angry. Traditionalists have generally been so destroyed by the neocons that they are almost non-existent today. But they were the first to rebel against this takeover. It was Pat Buchanan in 1992 who challenged George Bush, he also ran in 1996. By 2000 when he ran it was the end of his allegiance to the GOP. Pat Buchanan is a Traditionalist; they form the “Paleoconservative” branch of fusionism. They are culturally the most conservative, often labeled reactionary, despise all wars beginning with Bosnia, reject politically correct entirely, oppose free-trade, speak openly against the “New World Order”, and want to limit immigration.

What raises my interests now is whether the Tea Party will go the way of the Traditionalists. Ever wonder why George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of a “humble foreign policy”? He was trying to take the Pat Buchanan Traditionalist votes because he knew they were a powerful group. That is what I think Rick Perry is doing in 2012, he is stealing the Ron Paul votes to kill the Libertarian rebellion like Bush killed the Traditionalist rebellion.

You will hear a much more Libertarian rhetoric from people today in the GOP just like you heard a lot more Traditionalist rhetoric in the GOP around 2000. Yet just like in 2000 they will betray their own rhetoric. The Social Conservative wing is not prepared to hand over power to anyone for any reason. Our only hope in the Republican Party is that Rick Perry is nominated and he is destroyed in 2012 against Obama, it would stop the GOP from hijacking the rebellion entirely.

edit on 9/11/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 




Hopefully new voices can remove the corrupted forces in both mainstream ideological streams.


While it's been that way essentially throughout history -- that no Government has ever truly strived for the benefit of her people without regard to its self as an entity -- I think Democracy gives us a special sense of wrong.

We elect officials based on their promise. They then break their promises. So we elect a new person, they break their promises. It's no wonder the USA sees an ideological switch at least once every 8 years .. we are tired of the old corrupt bastard and his party so we get a new one. The new one, especially if they have too much power (2008 election) they abuse the system, break their promises and the USA sees another ideological switch.

We HATE our own Congress. Something's wrong with that. We support our President based on party affiliations, regardless if they stand by their words.. i believe simply because Humans need and expect a leader in any form.



It may not be self evident now, but I have had more than a few run ins with self proclaimed libertarians who champion typically evangelical ideas.


So have I
On numerous occasions. And people who claim Beck or Palin are Libertarians.. it's the Neocon movement infiltrating them .. Foxnews showed "Conservatives" waving the yellow Gadsden Flag and using keyword like "Libertarian Ideologies" and all of a sudden a huge portion of the Social Conservative Republicans think just because they don't agree with the Governments fiscal policies makes them Libertarianish.

People are stupid.

reply to post by Misoir
 




Ron Paul is basically a perfect example of a Paleolibertarian.


So would I .. except if I started telling people "Hey, I'm a Paleolibertarian" they may think I'm claiming to be a dinosaur.

Personally I think the best merging of political beliefs would be Libertarian coming together with a Workers party, what the Democratic party once stood for before Progressive Marxist took over the show. Combine personal freedom, Small government and a strong protection for blue-collar workers and union rights, working to rebuild the middle/working class and our economic production.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I'm sorry I take offense at your broad brushing T Partiers that way. Just my personal opinion as I've been to rallies and I know what T Partiers DONT want in Washington. They DONT want SOCIALISM AND INCOME REDISTRIBUTION. Its not the way of our Founding Fathers. Look again if you think that its all about corporatism. You are otherwise just singing the old song of old liberals.
edit on 11-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Being against "Socialism" does not make someone a Libertarian, and it was Libertarian ideology that first took off with the Tea Party. It went from being the fringe right-wing to being a Neocon Republican circus. I went to several rallies when they first started, I'd be ashamed to be seen at one today.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Great Thread . I am waiting for you to possiblly Post a few of your thoughts on the Two Most Notorious Liberals of the 20TH Century, Woodrow Wilson and FDR . IMO these two Men have effected this Country in such Drastic ways that I feel a Deep Sadness over what my Beloved Country has become Today because of their Policies when they were in Office .
edit on 11-9-2011 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I'm sorry I take offense at your broad brushing T Partiers that way. Just my personal opinion as I've been to rallies and I know what T Partiers DONT want in Washington. They DONT want SOCIALISM AND INCOME REDISTRIBUTION. Its not the way of our Founding Fathers. Look again if you think that its all about corporatism. You are otherwise just singing the old song of old liberals.
edit on 11-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


I am singing my old song simple because that is what I see, the Tea Party is crawling with good old
GOP establishment players and it is now promoted by FOX news, the same organization that pushed and promoted
the "liberal" policies the TEA PARTY is here to """"fix"""". I am not saying that you are a completely fake
conservative, I am just saying that your party has moved on and made the wrong friends.

I expect the TEA PARTY to end the Corporate subsidies and contracts that contribute to the fabled income
re-distribution, besides the low hanging fruit of Seniors, the unemployed and the Lazy bottom feeders
(who I agree act in very bad faith).

Honestly, all fighting spirit aside, I thought of Perry and Bachman as being the quintessential neocons,
I really don't think they are libertarian or for liberty. I think they are for their own, personal interpretation of
what American freedom entails.


Also, I have always thought of Rockpuck as being a libertarian, from way back. Being a liberal of some,
I always thought he could be a bit cold sometimes, yet I never thought of the guy being a corporate
cheerleader.


On the other hand you and several of the new Tea Party crowd do not strike me as being conservative in
the non RINO way. You guys are fairly consistent in your praise and defense of what amounts to be the
corporate status quo... I think you should leave the Tea Party and let it be different from the GOP.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Being against "Socialism" does not make someone a Libertarian, and it was Libertarian ideology that first took off with the Tea Party. It went from being the fringe right-wing to being a Neocon Republican circus. I went to several rallies when they first started, I'd be ashamed to be seen at one today.


I am not and never have been a NEOCON. I do not support Establishment GOP at this time, but I can tell you I would vote for Perry just to get that nut out of the WH. Yes sociaism is exactly that which our Founding Fathers would not like to see prevail, any maore than they would like to see a tyrannical King. Why? Because Socialism is nothing but Totalitarianism with a smiley face.
You think Libertarianism means you can support any old thing with abandon? Hmmm? Then why would you support the very apparatus which is a bridge to communism? Why support a movement which espouses more and more govt regulations and a stranglehold of business and free enterprise? If you were for free enterprise you would know that the conservative movement is for free enterprise and against Totalitarianism and Big Govt.
Also I see you have some Masonic symbols in your avatar. And yet here you stand in abject condemnation of me and my compatriots. And why? Because you seem as prone to making stereotypes as any one else. Do you really understand the esoteric components? Or do you just hate Christians because you think they are vanilla?
I have been a practitioner of yoga since 1975 and was a Theosophist by 77. The rest I won't tell you about. You know absolutely nothing about me based on my affiliation as a Tea Partier and your judgement I assure you is incorrect. Your insistence that you stand on the high moral ground is nothing to me but an empty shell.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Janky, I will say the same thing to you I just said to the other guy, that you don't know me, you don't know what I/ve done for 30 years, and anyone can be a "Libertarian" these days. Do Libertarians feel they own the Tea Party by being associated with that Party? Sounds to me like an elite club then. Then they can be all smug and say stupid things like all conservatives are for corporatism. I am in fact shocked that a Libertarian would even say such a thing, but in my view, it is only left leaning people run with that argument. Everyone else knows that free enterprise means you cannot put an arbitrary limit on growth without flirting with Marxist Socialism. I am not for giant oligopolies or monopolies, or for corporations running government. If anything, I have been yelling about how the UN Agenda 21 uses terms like "public-private partnership". Guess what that means? If you have a head on your shoulders you will admit the meaning of it and who is implementing it today.
Perhaps I am not the typical Tea Partier, because I don't fit the neat little stereotype whats his face Master Mason thinks he can put on me.

Where's the line between the communist hatred of the bourgeoisie and capitalism, and a healthy dislike for corporate monsters running our lives? Maybe I should start a thread on that and see what happens.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Ummm yah, Sarah Palin is the one talking about getting rid of crony Capitalism. Of course Obama said that too, and we have seen what fruit he produced.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 





Being against "Socialism" does not make someone a Libertarian



I never claimed that it did. Sooo to be Tea party we must be Libertarian? Whoever said that? Oh wait it was you. You think that advocating abortion makes you Libertarian? What about the rights of the unborn. Abortion is no champion of the child's rights. What else makes you think you are uniquely Libertarian? Free Enterprise? OK , so when did being against socialism mean being against free market? I get pretty sick of people declaring everyone conservative is somehow NEOCON. That term is thrown around in a ridiculous manner. Maybe the problem you have is religion? So anyone who is not a Mason must have your contempt.
I truly expect to see a deeper understanding from you.
And I have one more question for you. When did the Founding Fathers declare the Libertarian Party to be the foundation of the Constitution? There is a Socialist wing of the Libertarian party, and that is what kept me from going in that direction. When did our Founding Fathers espouse the govt grifting of our paychecks and redistributing it in all sorts of social programs and agendas?
As for defense...does not Article 1 sec 8 dispose the US govt as providing for the common defense ?
edit on 11-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
need to get rid of crony government and the biggest pushers of that are well

liberals they dont stand for what the use to but they take then name and then when thats not good enough because liberals have given themselves such a bad rap they call themselves progressives.

liberal doesnt mean what it use to and the most liberal people around today and the democrats aint the republicans its that most hated notorious group of like minded individuals who think a smaller less powerful and less intrusive government.

and they have become those most hated then that crowd who calls themselves liberal when they are anything but tries to marginilize then by lumping them with the gop or say meh they are the same people.

when they arent its a sad fact of the current state of the union when the teaparty are more liberals than the "liberals"

smaller government means more freedom big government pushers and the people who push for it is what we all know today as liberals.

really do wish i could forget liberals i do wish they would act like the name they take but who are any of us kidding that box will never be close and point of fact people have been trying to close that box since the founding of this country.

but really whats in a name actions speak and they have spoken loud and clearly for decades the same arguements of today have been had every day since this country began.

we need less government

no no moron we need more government..................fill in the rest.
edit on 11-9-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I cannot read all of this nonsense, but the thing that has me horked off, are the people that do not want the fed in our life. That being said, they want a federal marriage amendment and an anti abortion amendment. Figure that one out, and please intelligently justify it too me. If you mention the bible, it is not intelligent.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 

You have a photo of a far right wing religious nut job as your avatar. How could anyone possibly take your comments seriously.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


You and I had an interesting conversation the other night, and I think we both agree that we need smaller government. However, being Agnostic, none of these republican religious asses are going to bring in my vote. The Republican party needs to find a candidate that can win the middle. The ones they have now, are seriously sucking hind teat.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join