Liberals and their place in politics

Too often these days I hear this disgusting, blood-curdling phrase: "Liberals are dirty, and traitors to the great country of America"

Why? Because they want to progress America into the modern age with the rest of the world. Why not call the Amish traitors for not believing in the use of technology? Liberals are no more traitors to the US than Republicans or Neo-Cons. It seems to me, the real traitors are those who claim the liberals to be traitors.

I myself am a democrat, so for some reason I automatically get pegged as a liberal. Yes I believe in gay marriage, Stem-Cell research, and abortion as a WOMAN'S CHOICE. Those are just my beliefs. I don't believe hate speech should be banned, that's an infringement on my 1st ammendmant right. I don't believe in affirmative action. Why should a minority get accepted into a school over a non-minority with the same abilities. Why do we have a debt to pay for what OUR ANCESTORS did to THEIR ANCESTORS hundreds of years ago. I didn't do anything to them. I believe n letting the Nazi's stick around. Freedom of speech man.

I'm friends with many a republican and those who could be considered Neo-Cons. They respect me and realize I am not a liberal. These are people who are STAUNCHLY AGAINST my beliefs, but I'm not a traitor to them. They agree the traitors are those who speak out against a political group.

So why should one group get pegged just for their beliefs? Answer me that.

Note: I'll try and refine this later, someone else needed on the comp. so I had to rush.

[edit on 20/2/06 by SFRemmy]

Liberals are dirty, and traitors to the great country of America. Hilary Clinton is kind of like a flying piece of burning hog feces. she will get dominated in 2008, she is a stealing lying witch and i personally think she and Bill Clinton are two of satans demons

Originally posted by myles91
Liberals are dirty, and traitors to the great country of America. Hilary Clinton is kind of like a flying piece of burning hog feces. she will get dominated in 2008, she is a stealing lying witch and i personally think she and Bill Clinton are two of satans demons

why did this libelous statement not even recieve a warn?

am i missing some sort of joke here?

Originally posted by SFRemmy
Too often these days I hear this disgusting, blood-curdling phrase: "Liberals are dirty, and traitors to the great country of America"

Why? Because they want to progress America into the modern age with the rest of the world. Why not call the Amish traitors for not believing in the use of technology? Liberals are no more traitors to the US than Republicans or Neo-Cons. It seems to me, the real traitors are those who claim the liberals to be traitors.

I myself am a democrat, so for some reason I automatically get pegged as a liberal. Yes I believe in gay marriage, Stem-Cell research, and abortion as a WOMAN'S CHOICE. Those are just my beliefs. I don't believe hate speech should be banned, that's an infringement on my 1st ammendmant right. I don't believe in affirmative action. Why should a minority get accepted into a school over a non-minority with the same abilities. Why do we have a debt to pay for what OUR ANCESTORS did to THEIR ANCESTORS hundreds of years ago. I didn't do anything to them. I believe n letting the Nazi's stick around. Freedom of speech man.

I'm friends with many a republican and those who could be considered Neo-Cons. They respect me and realize I am not a liberal. These are people who are STAUNCHLY AGAINST my beliefs, but I'm not a traitor to them. They agree the traitors are those who speak out against a political group.

So why should one group get pegged just for their beliefs? Answer me that.

Note: I'll try and refine this later, someone else needed on the comp. so I had to rush.

[edit on 20/2/06 by SFRemmy]

I have to say anybody who is uses the phrase "Dirty Liberal" is just taking part of the propaganda machine, Same with the "Ignorant Conservative" crowd, People who are willing to label fellow americans and then hate them are usually part of the "Our Team Vs. Their Team" crowd , They believe that by blaming others and fueling that blame with hate that it will somehow make the world better , I've met plenty of Liberal thinking Conservatives as well as Conservative thinking Liberals.

Its not as bad as it was election time, People were choosing sides like it was their home football team, THrowing insults despite the fact that they would never be man(or woman) enough to say that to another person face to face, But their are alot of smart people here as well as the real world , The world isn't black and white and neither are the categories we can fit it, especially when people are trying to choose it for us.

When people use that kind of hate , and try to put other americans into a certain kind of Label where they can identify and hate them with all their heart. They are taking part in old strategies used people like stalin and hitler!

Real people aren't 100% this side or that. Its an ignorant way to think. and there is alot of debatable crap good and bad.

myles91 post looks more like a bad attempt at a joke, if he is serious he is just a troll , it would be better to ignore him.

My advice, when you see crap like that posting here or anywhere else, Do Not Lower yourself to their level and take a side! If you do you are playing their game and joining thier team ,regardless of the position you play in the arguement, People like this should carefully studied so you can later learn how to properly ignore or maybe deal with them.

There is nothing wrong with having a political opnion! there is with automatically thinking the other side is less human and unworthy of existing just becuase they fall into whatever label you think they belong to.

all I can say is

DEny Hate!

Either I misssed something or I misinterpreted. But you made it sound like I was encouraging the one sided debates. If it came off that way I didn't mean to. It was meant more as a be open minded towards others thing. Sorry.

Originally posted by SFRemmy
Either I misssed something or I misinterpreted. But you made it sound like I was encouraging the one sided debates. If it came off that way I didn't mean to. It was meant more as a be open minded towards others thing. Sorry.

actually i thought i was agreeing with you, I was trying to say when people think like that it leads to one sided debates. Sorry for the misunderstanding dude

I tend to think that "liberal" is just a buzzword used as a political reengineering tactic during the Reagan era. In fact, the word "liberal" was coined during Reagan's campaign to separate Republicans from Democrats (Someone can correct me on this fact if I'm wrong).

However, I just wanted to ask:

How come one's more "liberal" if they support things like Affirmative Action?

Does it make someone more "liberal" if they support these things and still remain a Democrat?

For example, is Senator Barack Obama (D.-Ill) more "liberal" for supporting Affirmative action? Or, is Senator John Conyers (D.-Mich.) more "liberal" for believing in an equal playing field for all Americans despite the glass ceiling? Is Senator Diane Feinstein(D.-Ca.) more"liberal" because she also believes in these things?

Is "liberal" so much a dirty word that we should throw it out and start another definition to define Democrats and their beliefs?




[edit on 15-3-2006 by ceci2006]

Liberal has been around since early 1900's. We need the term liberal, from its root "free" to being open-minded. I remember hearing in 1980 an elderly Republican women speek and agreeing with many of her views; sadly, she said, her views were not being listened to at the convention. So, yes, there began the throwing out of Republican liberal views.
Now, and this is important, Hitler's office IV-A dealt with Liberalism as an enemy of the nation.

Unfortunatly, liberals seem to have a place at the table.

I say unfortunatly for almost all economic planks, and a few social ones.

Economically, they betray everything that this country was founded on considering the liberal school of thought generally tends to be a varying shade of socialism, with large chunks of overt communism.

They espouse rights while they (using different terms) advocate the removal of them by many means.

Don't get me wrong though, I am very anti-GOP as well, for many of the same reasons.

I tend to think of the two as weights on a scale....if you removed all the liberal, or all the conservative ideology, you end up with one very off balanced scale! I also think that we tend to change those veiws, depending on just what is happening around us. if the scale is tipped too far toward one end of the spectrum regarding a certain issue, you will find more people leaning towards the opposite end. if we didn't do this, well, our boat would capsize and sink!! so I guess neither side is good or bad, but rather both are necessary to keep us centered and on course.

Dawnstar: I think you are right and wrong.

They do counter balance themselves, but not in any way that benefits the people of this country.

Taxes are far too high. I propose removing all Federal Income Tax with no replacement.

The Federal Government defies it's very title, certainly in the meaning it was written as. It's not really small by any stretch.

I'd remove all Federal Social programs.

I'd remove the Department of Energy, Education, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services (mostly on the last one).

I'd return the Senate to State vote rather than popular.

I'd remove the Federal Reserve.

There are many more that you will not find in the corrupted filthy parties we have now that constantly betray the oath they took.

cutting taxes won't help much unless the start cutting spending, this borrowing to cover their shortfall is going to cost us all much more in the long run......so I would require that any future taxcuts be required to have an budget cut in it to compensate for the lost revenue.

do away with the income tax?? how will the president and congress get paid? obviously there will have to be some form of tax, if we are to have any type of federal government whatsoever. we can change the tax structure all we want and they will still be robbing us blind if they don't do some meaningful budget cuts..

it is just how we should do that that the liberal and the conservative disagree. you say that we should just do away with all social programs. I agree they should be revamped to insure that only those who are truly in need are eligable and then the benefits they recieve should never go beyond what the people who aren't eligable have access to. But, I also think that these handouts have serves as a sort of corporate welfare project also, the less dependant people are on their employer to pay their rent, and buy their food and clothing the more able the companies are to offer wages that don't cover these needs while charging insane prices for them. So, I would suggest that while we are cutting the social programs we also cut the corporate welfare also. otherwise, we will still be paying for those people's needs, it will only be through subsidies to businesses to help bail them out when they find that their employees are refusing to work, are homeless, or are starving, finding higher paying jobs, ect.

and well, we are in a war, and according to those who started it, biological weapons are a big threat. thus, health care issues should be a national defense concern, it isn't but then, that just shows you how this administration is either very incompetatent or doesn't believe what they are saying themselves. they should be throwing more money into the health department, not cutting it.

I've got a feeling that you would prefer to have all these things addressed by the states, but I got a feeling that we would have a bunch of state governments with the same kind of problems as the federal government is having. and poorer states and communities would be unable to meet the educational, health, and social welfare concernes while the more endowed communities and states would be enjoying the benefit of less taxes. that is, until the mass migrations out of these poorer areas began. so, I would want some legislation before all this took place requiring that the free flow of people across the states borders should in no way be interferred with....

we can just let the more affluent of this country and the business community reap the full outcome of what they have sowed. and well, just to make their lives a little more miserable, can we go back to the idea that...

"No state shall make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payments of debts." article 1, section 10, American Constitution.

[edit on 5-5-2006 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by dawnstar
cutting taxes won't help much unless the start cutting spending, this borrowing to cover their shortfall is going to cost us all much more in the long run......so I would require that any future taxcuts be required to have an budget cut in it to compensate for the lost revenue.

I don't disagree. The garbage from the right is even more insulting than the garbage from the left. At least the left tells you they want to do it first.

do away with the income tax?? how will the president and congress get paid? obviously there will have to be some form of tax, if we are to have any type of federal government whatsoever. we can change the tax structure all we want and they will still be robbing us blind if they don't do some meaningful budget cuts..

I don't know, probably the same way they did before 1913 when the income tax was established.

You do know that the income tax is only about 50% of the government's revenue per year right?

That's about the same amount as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined. Get rid of them and the income tax. Sounds very nice to me.

So, I would suggest that while we are cutting the social programs we also cut the corporate welfare also. otherwise, we will still be paying for those people's needs, it will only be through subsidies to businesses to help bail them out when they find that their employees are refusing to work, are homeless, or are starving, finding higher paying jobs, ect.

I think we should do away with Corporate welfare, tax breaks, and subsidies. If you can't turn a buck, tough.

We have monopolies or virtual monopolies for this very reason. I'd also dump Amtrak.

As for Health Care, it's a priviledge honestly. Much like education. I do not think we need to get rid of every part of every department, however.

The EPA does a good job while the FDA is terrible. We'd have to take very critical looks at the purpose of each and if it's even Constitutional.

I've got a feeling that you would prefer to have all these things addressed by the states, but I got a feeling that we would have a bunch of state governments with the same kind of problems as the federal government is having. and poorer states and communities would be unable to meet the educational, health, and social welfare concernes while the more endowed communities and states would be enjoying the benefit of less taxes.

You make it sound like the vast majority of things is not already being done at the State level.

It is, although Federal encroachment has been going on for decades. If you eliminated Income Tax and replaced it with nothing, you wouldn't be able to apply today's "rich/poor" demographic.

The monopolies would fall due to actual compitition (I'd expect), and things would be vastly different.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I think we should do away with Corporate welfare, tax breaks, and subsidies. If you can't turn a buck, tough.

We have monopolies or virtual monopolies for this very reason.

Not necessarily. In fact, those industries that are most heavily subsidized (fossil fuels, agriculture) are actually less monopolistic than some that are less subsidized (health care, water). A lot has to do with the characteristics of the market and whether it is intrinsically a free market, or one with captive buyers.

As for Health Care, it's a priviledge honestly. Much like education.

Nothing either "is" or "is not" a privilege objectively. To say that something "is" a privilege actually means that you think it should be one, i.e. should be available only to the wealthy, not to everyone. (Unless you are stating as a matter of observable fact that it IS available only to the wealthy, e.g. ownership of a Rolls-Royce. And I don't think that's what you meant.)

With that understanding of what you were actually saying, please enlighten us as to why you think medical care -- often a necessity of survival -- should be a privilege instead of a right. And the same for education, please.

If you eliminated Income Tax and replaced it with nothing, you wouldn't be able to apply today's "rich/poor" demographic.

I have no idea why you think that would be so, unless you refer to the fact that a lot of income statistics come from tax returns. In that sense, unless some other source of information replaced income tax returns, I suppose you "wouldn't be able to apply" the rich/poor demographic, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't exist.

[edit on 28-5-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

[edit on 28-5-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Not necessarily. In fact, those industries that are most heavily subsidized (fossil fuels, agriculture) are actually less monopolistic than some that are less subsidized (health care, water). A lot has to do with the characteristics of the market and whether it is intrinsically a free market, or one with captive buyers.

Ok, true. Perhaps that was too simplistic. Actually, I know it was too simplistic, so I conceed the point.

It does not, however, change my mind about subsidies and their worth.

Originally posted by Two Steps ForwardNothing either "is" or "is not" a privilege objectively. To say that something "is" a privilege actually means that you think it should be one, i.e. should be available only to the wealthy, not to everyone. (Unless you are stating as a matter of observable fact that it IS available only to the wealthy, e.g. ownership of a Rolls-Royce. And I don't think that's what you meant.)

Well, you bring philosphy to a discussion of practicality, which is fine. I actually prefer philosphic thought, although it's seemingly rare.

Healthcare is a service that can be bought, therefore it is a priviledge. The end result of my logic is simply to say that each man/woman is responcible to earn what he must for what he wishes to have for him/her and the dependant family members, including shelter, food, clothing, heat, etc. I do not limit this to healthcare.

Additionally, because one must fend for themselves does not mean that it (healthcare in this instance) is outside of the financial boundries of the majority.

As for education, it comes down to liberty, quality, and constrant.

I find that government education does not provide for liberty in choice. Pretty simple.

I do not find government education to be a benefit overall considering our standing internationally.

I also find that with everything government touches, it becomes entrenched in the legal system due to the supposed neutral position of the government in all things rights related, legislation, government pork issues, etc. It places many contraints that are not found in private education.

I think public education is one thing that has contributed to the lack of involvement by parents. Trust of the government to do what the family should be doing is often to the detriment of the people.

Originally posted by Two Steps ForwardI have no idea why you think that would be so, unless you refer to the fact that a lot of income statistics come from tax returns. In that sense, unless some other source of information replaced income tax returns, I suppose you "wouldn't be able to apply" the rich/poor demographic, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't exist.

I simply meant that you would not be able to apply today's demographics to America should income tax be removed.

They would change and are therefore unuseful when talking about what it would be like without income tax.

They would obviously still exist, although we could get them from different sources.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Healthcare is a service that can be bought, therefore it is a priviledge. The end result of my logic is simply to say that each man/woman is responcible to earn what he must

All right, let's talk about that. What does it mean to "earn"?

The impression I get from people of eco-libertarian/anarcho-capitalist persuasion most of the time is that they regard the economy as the equivalent of an infinite, fallow field that anyone can go plow and plant. But it's not like that. The economy is owned by a relatively few people, and those people call the shots as to who can earn what and how. That's not an accident, either. The rules of the game are set up that way. They were designed to encourage accumulation of great wealth and power in a few hands, and reduce as many other people as possible to servitude to those few wealthy people. The avenues out of that servitude are few and difficult: ownership of a self-supporting farm or small business, or a professional skill that allows the worker to call the shots rather than the boss.

In our complex, interactive economy, all wealth (or nearly all wealth) is produced collectively, not individually. How that wealth is divided up is determined by the rules of the game, codified in property law, contract law, business law, employment regulations, tax law, immigration policy, international trade treaties, and so on. Change the rules, and you change the divisions.

The current rules allow any individual with lots of native ability and drive and a bit of luck to move from the working class to one of the middle classes (small business owners, small farmers, or professionals). But the amount of ability and drive and luck required are relative, not absolute: that is, I have to have, not X amount of intelligence and drive, but more of them than those competing with me for the relatively few such economic slots that exist.

What that means is that the way the rules are set up now, the system requires that there will be a few very big winners, a somewhat larger number of minor winners, and a majority of people just barely making it and in servitude to the big winners. Change the rules, and those percentages would shift.

So -- to me, the word "earn" does not imply an infinite fallow field that I can plow and plant. It implies a fat cat sitting on a pile of goods, saying, "if you want a share, you have to serve me." And anything that reduces this servitude is, to my way of thinking, a blow for freedom.

So I have a problem with anything that is a necessity being a privilege. It increases the power of the fat cats and the servitude of everyone else to those fat cats.

TSF: I guess the crux of this would come down to: Do you see our economy as a zero sum game or not?

That would seek to answer many questions, but I would say that natural humanity seeks structure and control in many ways.

However, would you say that the nature of Capitalism is to place money in the hands of the few? At this point the answer is yes, but more due to the banking/lending industry now.

While we have massive suburban sprawl, ownership has been one thing that could be taken better advantage of for the people rather than for the few.

Also, it seems to me that when the government realizes they can bribe the people with their own money, we have a serious problem, so while I am no "Anacho-Capitalist", I am a Capitalist with realistic aims.

However, I'm not sure exactly what the problem is with any of my specific proposals.

That may be a good start.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
TSF: I guess the crux of this would come down to: Do you see our economy as a zero sum game or not?

No, that's too simplistic. A zero sum game is one in which all gains and losses total to zero. Since the economy is capable of growth, that isn't the case; it's possible for everyone to win, and also for everyone to lose -- although neither of those has ever actually happened.

However, in another sense, it could be consider a zero-sum game, if you measure gains and losses in terms of the percentage of the whole rather than in absolute amounts. Also, the claim that the economy is not a zero-sum game, while factually accurate, is often used to justify policies contributing to the concentration of wealth in few hands. It cannot do so, because, although the economy is capable of growing and thus isn't a zero-sum game properly so called, a broad and relatively equal distribution of wealth can be shown to make it grow MORE than great concentration of wealth, both theoretically and historically.

However, would you say that the nature of Capitalism is to place money in the hands of the few? At this point the answer is yes, but more due to the banking/lending industry now.

As capitalism has historically existed, yes. There is a whole structure of laws and rules centuries old that helps that happen. Why, for example, do we assign "ownership" of a business to the person or persons who put the money into it, rather than those who put the brains or the labor into it? There's nothing in natural law says it has to be like that, but having it be like that assigns ownership to those who are already rich. And that's why it's done.

In the end, it's not even really about wealth, but about power, personal power, the ability to tell other people what to do and have them do it. The goal of the corporate elite is, ideally, to reduce everyone to a state in which they can only make a living by serving that elite on the elite's own terms. That's why the rules and laws are set up so it's hard to acquire land and make a living farming, hard to start a small business and have it be successful, hard to acquire a professional degree and make a living that way. Why? Because those are the three paths to independence, defining our three genuine middle classes. Why, beginning with the Reagan administration, has the government worked so diligently to reverse the protections, the union-friendly policies, and the worker-friendly economy of the 1950s and 1960s? Not so much because it saves industry capital outlays as because the working class in those decades was doing so well that it acquired some of the independence of the middle classes and couldn't be dominated the same way.

While we have massive suburban sprawl, ownership has been one thing that could be taken better advantage of for the people rather than for the few.

Are you talking about home ownership? If so, then you're right -- but that, again, is something that's being attacked by current policy. And it's becoming increasingly difficult to accomplish.

Two Steps: First off, I was just clearing the air and that question. Fine, you think it's too simplistic, which I tend to agree, but some discuss in these terms and I though it good to at least ask.

I am not using it to justify or nullify anything.

Second, I do not think the business ownership model is bad. Money creates property and physical infrastructure. Not just the physical assets, but also the profitability of the company determines its worth.

Does that mean the people that put labor into the company should have some form of ownership?

No. They provide labor or intellectual property for money. It's a trade they willingly submit to for their own gain.

Thirdly, I think the largest shift in power occurred when lending institutions became entrenched in everything. You can finance your house, car, furniture, electronics, flooring, appliances, etc, etc, etc.

This has removed power from the people by further centralizing money. Now we have a two-fold centralization between the banks and the government.

All headed by the Federal Reserve. Being a private bank has been good and bad, but I'd say more so the latter the further along the line we get.

One more thing. I think we need serious change as soon as we can get it. The baby boom generation profited most from the credit industry, in the form of home ownership. Creating large pools of individual wealth.

What happens when they die and the large wealth transfer happens? I don't know, but I'd like to see some changes in government before that happens.

We always seem to get into theory. I'd like to move more to practicality.