Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Turning the tables

August 2, 2013

Regarding Charles Reeder’s challenge to Mr. Underwood in the July 22 issue, I can provide an obvious answer to his challenge to Mr....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(31)

JerryfromRI

Aug-05-13 5:19 PM

"Hey Phil, you're right and I'm wrong. I don't understand the difference between the two political ideologies. I only comment here because I like to watch myself type. None of the self-proclaimed libertarians who comment here take hypocritical positions that damage the "libertarian brand"."

--

Evidently the connection between this letter's title "turning the tables" and my response to Phil's query were lost on you all.

Sigh.

It was so well executed too.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GoBB62

Aug-03-13 10:36 AM

OK, so far, I have 2 non-answers from Hazy. Any other left-wing empty suits wanna take a shot?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Aug-03-13 8:53 AM

Carl you are full of it. Your knowledge of liberlas and liberalism is woefully inaccurate.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Aug-03-13 8:49 AM

Well Premier those who are boooooored are boooooring to begin with.

Carl liberals are not socialists. If Phil insists that libetarians and conservatives are two different topics then so is liberal and socialist. They are not one and the same.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Aug-03-13 6:35 AM

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

Ronald Reagan

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Aug-03-13 6:33 AM

Oh that wasn't rhetorical? Sure. At the time JFK felt that way, many doctors claimed smoking for good for people's health.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GoBB62

Aug-02-13 10:23 PM

A few months back, you said I don't answer your questions Hazy. Since you couldn't answer mine, I guess that makes you a hypocrite!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Aug-02-13 7:33 PM

" Then explain why a liberal democrat President in the 60's proposed cutting taxes to increase revenue."

I've got a better idea. Explain why the primary "Republic" presidential icon of modern times raised taxes over 11 times, supported banning AK 47's, and initiated a massive amnesty program for undocumented immigrants.

Considering how violently today's "Republic" party has veered, Ronald Reagan couldn't win a primary for a local committee seat. And yet today's "republics" still hold him up as an icon. Bizarre.

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Aug-02-13 6:16 PM

"The principles of liberalism have not changed, they are basically the same." They have changed, "classical liberalism" embraced and emphasized individual responsibility, self-reliance, personal liberty and a free market. Somewhat the same as the Republican elitists profess. Liberalism today embraces a government and a societal function that must be involved in individual lives providing for their basic needs, even to the extent of curtailing personal liberties of those they provide for and those that they take from. Modern liberals also prefer a mixed economy socialist/capitalist economy over a freed market. Liberals today, including both Democrats and Republicans, are more socialist and bigger government than the classical liberals of the Founders era. Libertarians are closer to the Founders philosophically but are still off the mark.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GoBB62

Aug-02-13 4:58 PM

"The prinicples of liberalism have not changed, they are basically the same." -chuck

Then explain why a liberal democrat President in the 60's proposed cutting taxes to increase revenue. And then show me one liberal democrat today who would agree with that.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Aug-02-13 2:30 PM

Hey Phil, you're right and I'm wrong. I don't understand the difference between the two political ideologies. I only comment here because I like to watch myself type. None of the self-proclaimed libertarians who comment here take hypocritical positions that damage the "libertarian brand".

Have a great day!

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Aug-02-13 2:12 PM

;)

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Aug-02-13 1:46 PM

Jerry, I suspect you’re confusing conservative with libertarian; two different things.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Aug-02-13 12:50 PM

The prinicples of liberalism have not changed, they are basically the same.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Aug-02-13 11:58 AM

Phil-

Perhaps you should pay a little more attention. I have nothing to be gained by making a baseless claim.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Aug-02-13 11:34 AM

Jerry, I don’t get where you came up with your examples; I know of no libertarians who would support them.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Aug-02-13 11:14 AM

It seems to me that many (not all) of our resident libertarian commentators don't seem to have a good grasp of what libertarian-ism is all about. They are quick to offer a government solution to a problem they've identified while seemingly oblivious to the hypocrisy of their position. Examples of which might include supporting marijuana prohibition and marriage discrimination based on gender.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Aug-02-13 10:09 AM

"Phil doesn't know liberalism at all." - CMReeder

*

MOST proponents (of Teabaggery) derive a SIGNIFICANT degree o' "comfort", thru their never-ending/"ever-vigilant" pursuit of ignorance.

*

See:

Sicko (Michael Moore) - Tony Benn [YouTube]

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Aug-02-13 9:53 AM

"...but neo-liberalism is consistent with collectivism which is contrary to individual freedom and Capitalism." - philunderwood

*

Were you...like...home-schooled...or, do you get your English-language instructions (primarily) from talk-radio?

Neoliberalism: a label for Economic liberalism, advocates of which support economic liberalization, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and decreasing the size of the public sector while increasing the role of the private sector in modern society. (Wikipedia)

*

You folks need to learn how to ask questions, more often.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Aug-02-13 9:47 AM

" To me, the obvious answer is the United States, up until the early 18th Century when the liberals/socialists set out to take over the country."

I hadn't previously realized that slavery was a "libertarian principle."

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Aug-02-13 9:16 AM

Liberalism has changed in principles 180% from the time our country was founded and the present, so any claims like Chuck makes are irrelevant.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Aug-02-13 8:48 AM

Phil doesn't know liberalism at all.

You know after hearing for years how our Founders were conservative and libertarians. They were in fact liberals. Our Constitution is based on liberal philosophies.

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Aug-02-13 8:44 AM

LOL

He doesn't know when the 18th century was! So I still do not have an answer to my question.

Very good Carl you get an 'A'. Early America was in fact classical liberalism.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Aug-02-13 8:40 AM

Present day or neo-libertarians differ from many conservatives and collectivists in that they champion the rights of individuals and Capitalism or as Sham says the principles of the enlightenment. How these principles are applied to different issues may vary between libertarians, but the principles are consistent. Classical liberalism shared those principles, but neo-liberalism is consistent with collectivism which is contrary to individual freedom and Capitalism.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Aug-02-13 8:13 AM

"If he actually means the 1800's, I suppose he may have a point...at least for the adult white male landowners of our nation." - Kelaine

*

'Tis TRUE!!!!!!

*

19th Century/Victorian Era: The Victorian era was notorious for the employment of young children in factories and mines, as well as strict moral values involving modesty and gender roles. (Wikipedia)

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 31 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web