everything I've ever posted reinforces reality. this may help you https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...classical-liberal-is-making-a-comeback-218667 as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
I know what classical liberalism is and I support it. I embrace social liberalism that developed in the post WWII period. But at not point would I describe you as a liberal.
On intimidation. The State Dept's IG just concluded this. When THIS POTUS attack you, especially a government worker, your job is in danger. Your personal life, as Dr. Hill's testimony has shown, is also under attack by angry mobs. Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, a foreign service officer who spent 15 years in government, says she was falsely portrayed in conservative media as a "Muslim spy," a member of the "deep state," and someone who was disloyal to Trump. She complained to her boss about the articles, but the Trump administration did nothing to correct the stories. Instead, Nowrouzzadeh was re-assigned from her top foreign policy post. The State Department's inspector general on Thursday concluded that her treatment violated government policy, saying that "perceived political opinions, perceived association with former administrations and her perceived national origin" led to her demotion.
I believe today’s testimony is to setup that Trump and Crew had a shadow, unaccountable, team ran by Rudy Giuliani trying to shape policy in Ukraine that was at odds with our officially stated goals. This will bolster the impeachment claim.
Agree, seems silly and is giving Trump fans an easy "own the libs!" line of attack with their "these hearings are a bunch of snowflakes crying over hurt feeling because she got fired" lines.
If you have feelings, you are a lib ? But I was wondering the same. May play well to Women. Maybe she seemed cold and detached in the closed-door testimony and so this is a technique to humanize her. And if that's the case, it has worked.
Very good! I think you will enjoy this rather long quote, if you aren't familiar with John C. Goodman and his Goodman Institute for Public Policy Research, and even if you are, and I'm guessing you are. ;-) There's a lot more at the link provided. The political philosophy of the 19th Century, its political labels and how those labels are used today, with all the differences that exist between the two eras, has always fascinated me. I think much of what he writes about still applies to our early 21st Century. While I don't agree with every bit of what he writes here (and in the rest of his column), I agree with a great deal of it. Full disclosure - my SO has multiple degrees in sociology. One thing Dr Goodman got wrong, however, was that "virtually every Democratic politician in the South was an advocate of segregation and Jim Crow laws." He forgot about Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas, who I saw in President Kennedy's motorcade going up Broadway in Houston the day before JFK was murdered. Senator Yarborough was the only Southern Senator to vote for every civil rights bill from 1957 to 1970. Classical Liberalism vs. Modern Liberalism and Modern Conservatism By John C. Goodman In the history of politics, there is only one fundamental, abiding issue: It is individualism vs. collectivism. Do individuals have the right to pursue their own happiness, as Thomas Jefferson thought and as the Declaration of Independence deemed self-evident? Or do we have an obligation to live our lives for the community or the state, as most societies have claimed throughout most of history? Yet if this is the paramount political issue, why is it not forthrightly debated in presidential elections and in other contests for public office? The reason is that American political debates tend to be dominated by modern liberalism and modern conservatism — approaches to politics that are properly called “sociologies” rather than “ideologies.” Modern liberalism is not completely collectivist; nor is it completely individualistic. It has elements of both doctrines. The same is true of conservatism. Neither view provides a coherent approach to politics, built up from first principles. Instead, they both reflect a process that is akin to picking items from a dinner menu. What is chosen is a matter of taste rather than a matter of thought. Just as people with similar tastes in food tend to frequent the same restaurants, people with the same tastes in politics tend to vote for the same candidates. What that leaves us with are candidates, platforms and political parties whose ideas are inconsistent and often incoherent. The thoughtful voter may sometimes vote for the conservative, sometimes for the liberal and sometimes just abstain. The classical liberal perspective will not solve this problem, but it will help us better understand it. Classical Liberalism as an Ideology Classical liberalism was the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers. It permeates the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women. 1 Basically, classical liberalism is based on a belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in the Declaration of Independence. In 1776, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they had only such rights as government elected to give them. But following British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it’s the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can both form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights. The 19th century was the century of classical liberalism. Partly for that reason it was also the century of ever-increasing economic and political liberty, relative international peace, relative price stability and unprecedented economic growth. By contrast, the 20th century was the century that rejected classical liberalism. Partly for that reason, it was the century of dictatorship, depression and war. Nearly 265 million people were killed by their own governments (in addition to all the deaths from wars!) in the 20th century – more than in any previous century and possibly more than in all previous centuries combined. 2 All forms of collectivism in the 20th century rejected the classical liberal notion of rights and all asserted in their own way that need is a claim. For the communists, the needs of the class (proletariat) were a claim against every individual. For the Nazis, the needs of the race were a claim. For fascists (Italian-style) and for architects of the welfare state, the needs of society as a whole were a claim. Since in all these systems the state is the personification of the class, the race, society as a whole, etc., all these ideologies imply that, to one degree or another, individuals have an obligation to live for the state. Yet, the ideas of liberty survived. Indeed, almost everything that is good about modern liberalism (mainly its defense of civil liberties) comes from classical liberalism. And almost everything that is good about modern conservatism (mainly its defense of economic liberties) also comes from classical liberalism. Modern Liberalism and Modern Conservatism as Sociologies One of the difficulties in describing political ideas is that the people who hold them are invariably more varied and complex than the ideas themselves. Take Southern Democrats, for example. For most of the 20th century, right up through the 1960s and even into the 1970s, virtually every Democratic politician in the South was an advocate of segregation and Jim Crow laws. This group included Arkansas Sen. J. William Fulbright (a favorite of the liberal media because of his opposition to the Vietnam War); North Carolina’s Sen. Sam Ervin (an ardent constitutionalist and another liberal favorite because his Senate hearings led to the downfall of Richard Nixon); Lyndon Johnson (who as president changed his public views on race and pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964); such economic populists as Louisiana Gov. Huey Long and Alabama Gov. George Wallace; West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, one-time Ku Klux Klan member and king of pork on Capitol Hill; and small government types, such as South Carolina’s Sen. Strom Thurmond (who changed his views on race, began hiring black staffers and then switched parties and became a Republican). (the rest at the link) http://www.goodmaninstitute.org/how...vs-modern-liberalism-and-modern-conservatism/
The transformation is complete. Trump really has won....... he has succeeded in dragging everyone down into the gutter......... we no longer have a government......... we have a reality show with the democrats and republicans taking center stage......... Adam Schiff is mad as hell and he isn't going to take it anymore!....... Donald Trump is the embattled mob boss that constantly is juggling the consequences of his vices....... Rudy Guiliani is Sammy the Bull Gravano and is destined to die in prison........Nancy Pelosi is Skeletor and the American people are indifferent observers. This fact that this country is still functioning is amazing.
