What is liberalism?
The definition of "liberalism" has changed continually throughout history, and even today it means different things to different people. One of the more fundamental definitions is that liberalism is openness to progress and change. By contrast, conservatism attempts to conserve the traditions and received truths of the past. Liberalism has also been defined as generosity, tolerance, open-mindedness and willingness to give.

In the 18th century, liberals and libertarians were one and the same: both championed free markets, individual liberty and a greatly reduced role for government and aristocracy. This has led to one definition of liberalism: that liberals oppose political absolutism in all its forms, be they monarchist, feudal, military, clerical or communitarian. However, there is considerable difference of opinion on how to run a decentralized society. Today, liberals generally believe in a large and free private sector that is generously defined, defended, and promoted by the public sector. In other words, a balance between individual and group behavior.

For example, consider the free market: liberals believe that individuals should be free to do whatever they please on the market, within the law. The law is determined by democratic government, and not only prohibits simple crimes like theft and murder, but commercial crimes like fraud, copyright infringement, insider trading, breach of contract, price gouging, etc. Without these laws, the market would function either poorly or not at all. For instance, if we did not have copyright laws discouraging people from pirating all their software, computer programmers could not even make a profit, and would have no incentive to produce.

Yet another function of government is to defend the free market -- for example, with police and military forces.

Yet a third function of government is to promote the free market. A dramatic example is Eisenhower's Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, which authorized the creation of over 40,000 miles of interstate highway. These highways interconnected, accelerated and expanded the U.S. economy, with profound results. They allowed the middle class to migrate from the cities to the suburbs, with an enormous increase in privacy and quality of life. Highways are but one example of how publicly funded infrastructure has increased commerce -- others include railroads, canals, satellite communications, and even the Internet. (The net began as a project funded by the Pentagon and public universities.) Much of this infrastructure was too huge and expensive to be funded by private companies, and languished undeveloped until the public sector stepped in. What distinguishes liberals from other political parties is that liberals advocate a greater degree of government support, defense and promotion of the free market.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/ShortFAQ.htm

I cut and paste interesting articles and sometimes responces are cut and paste.its just my way of getting info out there that many have enjoyed and I have the E mails to prove it or others get all worked up over. I dont make it personal so I often ignore your personal comments but I dont feel I owe anyone any explanation asto who or what iam all about. So... here is an interesting comment for you and yes its a cut and paste........................................... you choose to live

--under the illusions of mass-marketing
--or under the yoke of slavery to dishonest government
--or in the confines of fear of this or that version of God
-- or behind the bars of your own ignorance,
then you should NOT read my posts.

Only people who yearn to find broader awareness and deeper understanding of how the world works should read this.

Everyone else can just stay in their own chosen confinements of the life they choose and be satisfied with their immediate gratification of ignorance
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12766

Maybe if you stopped posting such skewed propaganda and trumping it as the true truth. Your last source, which I just reported on and how weak of a source he is, is just one example of many you have used that are so obviously based in bias and propaganda.

Only people who yearn to find broader awareness and deeper understanding of how the world works should read this.

with all due respect I doubt you can understand most of what you post...if you could then you'd be reading the material and posting your own opinions based on what you gleamed from your reading..just because you acquired the knowledge to cut and paste I'm not sure what other knowledge you possess so why would I take your lead in what I should read...

if you look at your post you said 'I" four times you and yours 10 times....I think we can keep "I"s and "you"s out of our discusion

leahmarie
I happen to agree with most of what madman posts (and thats because I read what he posts),having noticed your last thread where you admitted to not reading his posts yet going ahead and attacking the man for his opinion seemed not only very strange but also hinted of bashing.
I cant help it if you see me about, as I said I like madman's posts that's why Im here.

So, while statistics show that the economy does better under Democratic leadership and worse under Republican leadership

attacking the man for his opinion seemed not only very strange but also hinted of bashing.

pasting is not giving your opinion...it's merely giving the writers opinion..all mad does is he finds anything that is insulting to an American and posts it...mad's opinion can be summed up in 3 words..."I hate America"

its more like this "I hate what is wrong with america"

a geat place to start would be campaign finance reform, get the rich out of the game, and then a direct popular vote eliminateing the electoral collage

Would do you not like about the current rules of campaign finance and what would changes would you like to see?

I don't see a problem with the rich being the candidates...as Romney showed with all his money he still lost out to McCain who was almost out of money at one point. People with money are most always the leaders in our society and why would anyone want to have just a regular guy who does not have the aspirations to be a leader to run for office. I understand that your in a union and your pay scale is dictated by an agreement that was implemented by union leaders on your behalf but you could have chosen a different path and ventured out on your own to carve your path to whatever heights you chose. Everyone has that choice and some like yourself are happy to be followers while others chose to take chances, some succeed and some fail. Why would you not want those who have succeeded and have shown to be a leader not make the effort to become your President.

There are pluses and minuses to the popular vote and the electoral college. Why do you consider the popular vote to be better? One glaring disadvantage of the popular vote is the minorities vote is lost

I guess the big problem with the wealthy leading is that when too much power is given to one reace/social class/or anything by that matter , they will become corrupt.....no matter who they are.

Maybe if you stopped posting such skewed propaganda and trumping it as the true truth. Your last source, which I just reported on and how weak of a source he is, is just one example of many you have used that are so obviously based in bias and propaganda.

the problem would not go away even if the wealthy were not leading cause whoever was leading would end up as mere puppets of the wealthy. I have no problem of the wealthy leading because they have proven they have what it takes to lead. You don't step ahead of the crowd by playing it safe.

and yes I agree there are pros and cons to everything...nothing is perfect except the choices we make for ourselves