Liberalism always achieves the exact opposite of its intent

Jim Quinn of the 'Quinn and Rose' radio program has a saying that proclaims: "Liberalism always achieves the exact opposite of its stated intent!". As I see it, the operative word here is "stated". Leaving classical liberalism aside, and considering only the liberals of today, do you think this is true of false?

This is a poll, You are free to provide examples, but they are optional.

I would say they have the oppisite of there intent. Like the welfare system, should be to help get people on there feet(as it would've been intneded). Instead you have lifers on the system and there kids become lifers. When you give someone something there is no reason to work for it. So we are actually creating our own problems


So the answer is liberalism always achieves the exact opposite of its intnet.




Eric

Looks like Coalfire beat me to it!

Welfare: Meant to help the poor get back on their feet. Instead, it creates generations of dependents who wouldn't work if their lives depended on it ... and folks who vote democrat -- that's it's REAL intention: votes.

Taxes: Libs think taxing the crap out of people helps the economy by giving the government the money it needs to get things done. Instead, government just grows bigger, and screws up EVEN MORE aspects of life, besides the USPS & Amtrak. The more money that comes in, the more they spend ... just like a heroin addict. People have less money to spend, so they pull back, further hurting the economy. It's a lose-lose every time, yet they still do it ... just like a junkie revived from an overdose.

I could go on all day, but I need to get some air ...

ALWAYS achieves...? ALWAYS?
Never say never.
Never say always.

OK, for the sake of furthering the discussion only, let's say that perhaps modern liberalism actually achieves its stated intent up to 10% of the time. Would that make their overall ideological perspective better and more worth adhering to?

It is always an evil doctrine because anything that thinks in terms of the collective at the expense of individual achievement can only work evil. The present economic mess is the direct result of that thinking when President Bush abandoned conservative principles and cooperated with liberals. It continues today under our present idea log President.

franco b wrote:It is always an evil doctrine because anything that thinks in terms of the collective at the expense of individual achievement can only work evil. The present economic mess is the direct result of that thinking when President Bush abandoned conservative principles and cooperated with liberals. It continues today under our present idea log President.

This hits the nail on the head! Your analysis of the individual vs. the collective is spot on, and I fully agree that Bush was anything but a conservative, and I believe that Obama has walked directly in his footsteps.

it is just odd, when I learn for fact, that many of the , so called handouts, are being gratefully snapped up by people who call themselves, "Conservatives". "do what I "say, preach and protest" not what I do" I guess..

franco b wrote:It is always an evil doctrine because anything that thinks in terms of the collective at the expense of individual achievement can only work evil.

Then how come you stated that "Islam condemns the materialism of the west, and rightly so?" You talk so much I guess you didn't notice your own contradiction.

Dann757 wrote:

franco b wrote:It is always an evil doctrine because anything that thinks in terms of the collective at the expense of individual achievement can only work evil.

Then how come you stated that "Islam condemns the materialism of the west, and rightly so?" You talk so much I guess you didn't notice your own contradiction.

I wish you would point out the contradiction. If I substituted Christian churches for Islam it would also be true. If you think I am an advocate of Islam you would be wrong. I am an advocate of all the truly spiritual of all the great religions. The same view that Gandhi held. I would suggest you look up Sufism which is an aspect of Islam to learn about tolerance. You would be welcome at their services.

In yesterday's news Muslim mobs killed an American Ambassador and attacked our embassy in Egypt. The excuse was a film put out by an American Christian (so called) crackpot. Neither Islam nor Christianity was truly represented in the actions of those idiots. What's behind it is the same lust for riches and power that sees nothing wrong in corrupting their respective religions in reaching that goal.

Franco, I believe that was an American Jew with a bunch of Jewish backers that put the film out.

samhill wrote:Franco, I believe that was an American Jew with a bunch of Jewish backers that put the film out.

If that is so then the motive is pretty clear. To try to commit the US to war on Israel's enemies. I thought it was the same nut who was burning the Koran.

samhill wrote:Franco, I believe that was an American Jew with a bunch of Jewish backers that put the film out.

And that matters because...? And that justifies the attack and murder of a US Embassy official because...?

It matters because to know who is pulling the strings and why is important.

No-one claimed the attack was justified except the Arab fanatics.

Nobody or nothing justifies an attack on a U.S. Embassy but you have to know who is trying to do what before starting a war & who would benifit from a war this isn't just a radom attack IMO it was already planned for 9/11.