The best magazine
Yes, often their tempers flare, and it is quite obvious that neither one is going to convince the other of anything at all.
They just have to agree to disagree and that's as far as that's ever going to go.
Nevertheless, not long ago, I was discussing this with a friend of mine at a coffee house and he said to me; "What Is Wrong With Liberalism With Limits?" My answer was; "Nothing Once You Get Your Definitions Straight!" You see, liberalism as in the days of our founding fathers is much different than what the Democrats project in politics today, which is more of a socialism wrapped in a smiley face.
In fact there is a very good book out that I would recommend to you it's called; "Liberal Socialism" and the red book actually has a smiley face on the cover, with the little Hitler-like mustache.
You see, Hitler was a socialist, something that many people fail to realize or remember.
This is not to say that the socialists in the United States that make up the largest percentage of the Democratic Party are NAZI-like, because it's obvious they aren't.
But, we also must understand that the Democratic Party does not in any way resemble the liberalism of our founding fathers, further if you will look up in the Webster's dictionary definition of liberal you will find that it is almost the opposite of what Democrats today stand for.
Our founding father liberals were much more like model Reagan Republicans, and they resembled more libertarians, than conservatives or Democrats.
So when we are asked what is wrong with liberalism with limits, the answer really is nothing, that would be fine, that would be a wonderful way to run our country.
We know it works, we know from history it works better than socialism.
So, I am all for it, but don't call me a liberal in the modern sense for saying so.
Please consider this and everyone, if you're going to argue politics get your definitions straight and not from the New York Times.
Source: ...