Isn't that just a little bit like the way "liberal" has taken on an entirely new meaning in the US? If I meet someone from there and proclaim myself to be a liberal I have to explain that my idea of liberalism is far more connected to John Stuart Mill than the supposed "liberalism" of the US Democrats.
the USA thread -
- Thread starter La Rocque
- Start date
Isn't that just a little bit like the way "liberal" has taken on an entirely new meaning in the US? If I meet someone from there and proclaim myself to be a liberal I have to explain that my idea of liberalism is far more connected to John Stuart Mill than the supposed "liberalism" of the US Democrats.
Wolfman Von Jones
The trouble with you
Well they are considering no one else in the world really plays American football aside from Americans so who is there to contend with really. So there ya go fuck you world, and fuck you Salami
.N
Dark_Silence
Member
in Belgium, the party we also call "liberal" looks more like republicans...
QRV
historyphobic
I believe 'liberal' has really varied connotations depending on the country you're in. Just as 'conservative'.
Matse
Customized individuum
- Jan 17, 2007
- 928
- 1
- 18
- 34
Bush's new budget for the US for the next year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7226985.stm
Longer article in German:
http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/haushalt16.html
Military defense is raised by 7.5% to 515bn $.
Spending on the social system is reduced by 16bn and is supposed to decrease by 619bn $ in the next 10 years.
I just think it is ridiculous to increase spending on military in a financial crisis. I understand the concept of spending more money in bad times to help the economy and save money in the good times but what that government does is just wasting a lot of money.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7226985.stm
Longer article in German:
http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/haushalt16.html
Military defense is raised by 7.5% to 515bn $.
Spending on the social system is reduced by 16bn and is supposed to decrease by 619bn $ in the next 10 years.
I just think it is ridiculous to increase spending on military in a financial crisis. I understand the concept of spending more money in bad times to help the economy and save money in the good times but what that government does is just wasting a lot of money.
DisplayofCharacter
Are You Scared Enough?
That's because Bush refuses to collect taxes from those that can afford to pay them and won't use the money this country already has to improve it internally. His first veto in office (if not first ever, than first in a long time) was when a democratic majority passed a bill to improve the infrastructure for something involving water, be it flood prevention or drought prevention, something like that (the bill passed anyway). It looks to me as if it pains him to pass anything that doesn't involve military spending or keeping the rich richer. He continues to solidify those types of divisive tactics that are largely harmful, especially because less and less people are joining the military now (it looks to me like the money is being spent on pet projects anyway).
I can only hope Congress vetos the proposition.
What I am mainly referring to is the public debate in the US, where people who want a greater role for the state, socialised medicine, etc., basically a slightly more social democratic model of governance, are called "liberal" scum who want a communist regime (perhaps I'm exaggerating slightly...), which isn't quite what liberalism is about. Granted, there are many 'different' kinds of liberalism, but the reason why in Belgium, as D_S noted, or elsewhere in Europe, 'liberals' are usually placed on the right side of the political spectrum is because they identify with classical liberalism (which is why I mentioned Mill - the state's role should be minimal in order to secure complete individual freedom, so that the individual may realise his/her full capacity, etc.).
Basically, there is a difference between social liberalism, classical liberalism and market liberalism, but each distinction tends to mean the same all over the world. It seems only in American public discourse that liberalism is conflated into one single meaning, namely that of social liberalism, advocating positive liberty. Thus, people who want a welfare state are called liberals there, whereas we would associate them more with social democracy here. But perhaps my exposure to US public debate has been somewhat limited (since I don't live there), so if I'm mistaken and the average American's conception of what is "liberal" just happens to be more nuanced, then I guess I should read more. But in general, I find it confusing, sometimes, to read American political viewpoints that claim that wanting a state-regulated market is a trademark of being liberal.
GONE Ridin' Hood
Professor.
- Jul 8, 2005
- 1,805
- 2
- 38
- 37
QRV
historyphobic
GONE Ridin' Hood
Professor.
- Jul 8, 2005
- 1,805
- 2
- 38
- 37
Right, now that was totally unnecessary. I reckon you are not a very smart person since you go and insult everyone for no reason. And you do so in a very lousy way to be honest 
.
Cheers!
.Cheers!
DisplayofCharacter
Are You Scared Enough?
Poor Yankees, the only thing that they need nowadays is another Republican president
Nevermind. I don't feel like deleting this because it ups my post count, so I won't.
Super Tuesday is now. Yay, I'm pertinent.
EDIT: OP HERE, DISREGARD THAT, I SU......... (etc. etc. etc.)
QRV
historyphobic
Right, now that was totally unnecessary. I reckon you are not a very smart person since you go and insult everyone for no reason. And you do so in a very lousy way to be honest
Cheers!
Your global warming thread was a utter failure. Your urge to save the world is candid and naive, your suggestions to stop global warming are beyond idiotic, and everybody pretty much made it clear there. There's no need to repeat that episode. So, really, piss off.
QRV
historyphobic
So, Supertuesday and Hillary's leading the polls so far. McCain's winning on the other side. Surprise. But, since Ron Paul was ruled out of the elections, it doesn't really make a difference who wins or loses. If you believe in conspiracy theories, all leading candidates are part of the evil Buildover group, which rules the world under the principles of just ruling it because they can. Next thing, they'll create a North American federation and they'll put microchips under our skins to keep us all under constant vigilance.
No worries, though, because after that Robocop will come and save us.
Sorry, I'm terribly bored and evidently uninspired.
No worries, though, because after that Robocop will come and save us.
Sorry, I'm terribly bored and evidently uninspired.
GONE Ridin' Hood
Professor.
- Jul 8, 2005
- 1,805
- 2
- 38
- 37
Well, I don't believe it was a failure, there were lots of replies, it had like 4 or 5 pages if I'm not mistaken. That's a lot considering how "active" the forum is nowadays. The last part is called sarcasm, but I guess you're too stupid to understand that.
There's no point in having this discussion with you, you're certainly not worth it, so stop it.
QRV
historyphobic
rahvin
keeper of the flame
LBRH's thread about global warming was fairly successful, in my opinion. I don't share his views and sometimes ridicule him for them, but that thread got a lot of on-topic replies, and he didn't take offense for even the nastiest of them, which I believe is commendable. The trick should be to read other users' low opinion of our opinion and take it in stride. We would have the discussion minus the annoyance of a million broken hearts.
Back on track, I was hoping for something better on the part of Obama.
Back on track, I was hoping for something better on the part of Obama.
QRV
historyphobic
Yeah, it was a successful thread in the sense it received a lot of replies and there was enough substantial discussion, I'll grant that. But it was a failure in what refers to his teaching about the evils of taking daily showers and equally imbecilic stuff. Now, not taking offense for such amount of crap is one thing; but coming back to say exactly the same things (and in the exact same clichéd enthusiastic tone) after he got those replies is just dumb and masochistic. But well, I guess that doesn't concerns me.
|ngenius
Little Grasshopper
QRV's blunt and straightforward style of writting is shocking, yet somehow funny. Maybe it is the avatar, which manages to put him out of trouble when he says something like the above.
|ng.
|ng.
I'm actually baffled. No matter how much time i spend pondering on the subject, i can not fathom why on earth LBRH happily invited QRV to check out his thread. When you're so proud of your own thread you ought to remember who participated in it, or at least its exact title.
Similar threads
