Liberals and Equality

[KittenKoder]

Harry ... the marriage thing, it stopped being your religious right once it became a legal contract, so your religious leaders also surrendered the protection of the freedom of religion as well, thus no, homosexual couples should have that same legal right. If you really don't care what religion others follow, then why are you so against having other religious ideals for marriage, christians didn't invent it, they weren't even the first ones to use it, and many ancient cultures had gay marriage. Cannibalizing a ritual does not give you exclusive rights to it.

Flat tax though is the best tax. Progressive tax hurts those common laborers who worked twice what another did just as much as the rich.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Colorado, this first paragraph is just a rediculious statement. Just switch the liberals labels with conservatives, and the statement is just as true.

I agree. I just wish people wouldn't be so damned brainwashed by the media, church, tv, etc. and have experiences through which to form informed opinions.

Again, this statement is just as rediculious, The very same thing could be said for conservatives. The exception is that conservatives believe in our constitution, and make changes to stay within the borders of the constitution.

Well, if we all want the same thing, let's do it and stop bickering over the details!

How about throwing out the current tax system, and have a flat tax? It is fair for everyone. Let's not punish the wealthy for making the American Dream come true.

As logical as your idea sounds (and I used to share it) the tax system just isn't that simple, and maybe it can't be. What I've learned makes sense, as an example: the Board of Investors/Owners of Wal-Mart are taxed at a higher rate than a middle class citizen. It seems unfair except that Wal-Mart benefits more from the government than the middle class citizen. How? Because the government regulates the market to avoid monopolies so that Wal-Mart is able to compete (though that might be invalid as Wal-Mart would probably be the monopoly). Wal-Mart gets many of its products from industries that benefit from the Dept. of Interior and the Dept. of Commerce. Wal-Mart is able to protect itself with the Dept. of Justice and prosecute theft among other crimes against Wal-Mart. The DoD protects the country so Wal-Mart can continue to operate. And these are just some of the ways in which the very wealthy benefit more from the government than your average joe.

Homosexuals have every right that I do. If they want civil unions, I'm all for it. But, traditional marriage between a man and a woman is not negotiable. God never intended it to be anything different.

If a man marries a woman and receives all the same public recognition and rights homosexuals do through civil unions, then homosexuals are still 2nd class citizens because straight people get the right to marry and homosexuals do not. Separate but equal is not equal, as we learned before the Civil Rights movement. That is segregation. Your God never intended the same genders to intermarry, but my God wants everyone to marry whom they love no matter what gender. Your religious beliefs being made into law infringe upon my religious beliefs. I do not enjoy the freedom of religion. My religious beliefs do not infringe upon yours because you can marry whom you love and are not forced to marry the same gender. Homosexuals under current civil union laws do not have the same rights that married couples enjoy. Therefore homosexuals do not have every right you do. And do not have equal rights nor equal status in this country as straight people do. The same goes for polygamists. Marry whom you love in the way your beliefs intend you to. The government should have nothing to do with it.

The missle shield is meant to not only protect us, but also the protection of the free world.

But those whom we perceive as enemies feel threatened by the missle shield. It antagonizes them which doesn't protect us but threatens the free world.

That' is up for debate, but fact being is the Middle East really hasn't liked us for a long time no matter what we do. Look at all the attacks they did with us in the 1990's culminated with 9-11-2001. But, they do like our dollar to come their way.

Have you researched any of the political and covert operations we supported or were responsible for in the Middle East? There are reasons they're pissed and it isn't our freedom. They don't care about our freedom.

Yes we should cut back in due time. Let's not wreck the economy of the world in a rush to do so. How about energy independence first, with drilling our oil? At the same time getting an affordable alternative energy.

You may change your tune in 20 years when water costs $10 a gallon. That may not be the case and I sure hope not, but if we don't change and change soon it is a possible future and I'd rather go through a limited chaos now than a permanent lowered quality of life in the future where my children live in a world of global regret. There's too much evidence to just ignore climate change, whether man made or not.

And thanks for not becoming insulting and calling me a fascist idiot or a demlib or some other such right-wing term for liberals. And plainly stating your opinions. That's the only way there can be understanding between people of differing perspectives. That and compassion and patience.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're right, I trust in private morality, but only to a certain degree. Everyone should enjoy liberty to the extent that it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. embrace uncertainty and live without fear and anxiety.

I appreciate your application of each of these premises to yourself, but at the same time you must remember that they are societal as well. So, what is your private morality that differs from the Judeo-Christian or Judicial? The devil is in the details, isn't it: if you libs, or progessives, Democrats, NEOCOMS, or title-de jour, want breasts revealed at half-time, or cigarettes forbidden in one's home, is this a question of private morality? Who decides where liberty is infringed?

I don't think liberals are destroyer of custom and convention unilaterally.

Quibble much? Am I to understand that you converse with traditionalists before you destroy custom? Are parents to be notified before their youngster has an abortion? Can we have a say in what new morality is to be taught in schools?

I think it would be better to describe us as reformers of irrational custom and convention, especially where it infringes upon the happiness of others.

You actually don't see that we will not own the 'irrational' term, and make claims of happiness that might differ from your's?

the old society is inferior

Please specify.

If the Conservative belief were true, that about custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace, then why has the human race never been a race of peace?

I commend to you "The Naked Ape," by Desmond Morris.

We believe that change is more likely to be better than the evils now present in the current systems. We do our best to foresee new abuses and make revisions to minimize such abuses. And we think progress is better for the human condition than the past.

Could not be a more perfect example of our differences. A mirror image of item C in my tutorial.

What makes you think that we want a uniform society beyond the issue of liberty?

What libs want is an open society where the only evil is pointing out the evil and selfishmess of others. "Judge not" is your motto.

We want everyone to enjoy the same human rights and freedoms. We view the wealthy as perverting the system to their ends and able to better avoid the reach of law.

You want everyone to enjoy the same... as long as they are not the rich??? This class hate is typical of you libs. Did you know that most of the millionaires in the US earned their money, they didn't inherit it... unless their names were Kennedy.
You just want everyone to be equal, but some make the rules for equality, a la "Animal Farm"- some being more equal than others.

We aren't Maoists, followers of Pol Pot,

Who do you think Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot were. They were lib-progressives. Where do you suppose the term NEOCOM comes from?

There seem to be vast gaps in your education re: economics and history. I'm betting that you are the product of government schools. Put that 132 IQ to use, get thee to a library.

I have yet to have an opinion about private property.

Did you know that before "...pursuit of happiness" there was Locke and "life, liberty, and property"?

so many abuses of the capitalist and democatic systems in this country.

In what other countries have you lived? Judging by immigration patterns, this is, objectively, the best in the world. As far as inequities, see item G in the tutorial. I think you agree with this one.

When have we ever advocated for involuntary collectivism?

There's that history deficiency again:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

BTW, you do know that Conservatives are far more generous and charitable than the libs, don't you?

Can we agree that oftimes individuals make their own problems? How about we ask for responsibility and carefully think about behaviors that result in a less than desirable direction for society. Unlke libs, I believe that we should judge personal behavior.

"Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. But to make a good person do bad things requires religion."

This is wrong as well as bigoted. It demonstrates that your directed reading has been perverted. We Conservatives understand human nature patently better that you libs. We know that all are capable of evil. See how you have personified item G.

Why can't we all just get along? Why not? Answer that for me. Jesus wanted the same thing!

Are you arguing that Jesus would have been a Secular-Progressive? He would not have been judgemental? Please, he would have tossed you out of the temple.

I'm always open to revise my opinions and I know that the only thing I really know is that there is a lot that I don't know.

The outlook is far better than you seem to believe. You are in charge of your life. Let's talk again.

 

[Peejay]

A man who does not profit from enterprise and makes little to no money, owes nothing because he gained nothing. A man who is satisfied to work a factory job or be a mechanic and earn a modest living owes an amount in taxes that reflects his earnings. A man who plays the system for everything he can and becomes wealthy, owes more than the previous two. If you use our system and exploit it's benefits for wealth, you have to pay for the system in proportion. You have to pay for the agencies needed to keep you from raping everyone and everything on your way to the top. You have to pay for the FAA and the highway because you use it to the most advantage for gaining wealth. What, do you expect the farmer to help pay for the things that bring you wealth ? He doesn't fly or ship products across the country or play the market. He doesn't owe the money to pay for these things, the people that use them do. What business does he have with the SEC ? None. That's yours to pay for if your business creates the need.

And social programs ? The question you have to ask here is are you ready for people to start dying out in your street ? If you won't pay to feed them a meager meal for life, will you pay for the body to be collected and disposed of ? It will cost one way or the other. The system basically says, if you won't give it, we will take it. Many don't, so we do. We take it. Just the same as the farmer who doesn't use the new county industrial complex gets to pay a share for it anyway. It is taken from him.

Of course, we can try to go back to "mine is mine", there was a time when that was the way things were. It didn't work out so well. Too many people living and dying in abject poverty. And that's the thing, you can not create wealth without, at the same time, creating poverty. The character of a nation can be judged by the condition of the elderly, the ill and the poor. We don't allow for the kind of ridiculous wealth that we have and at the same, people dying in the streets. That is the stuff of revolution. The same people you view as less deserving or less "work smart" can still rise up and take your shit. It's no secret what a hungry man will do anymore than what a greedy man will do. They will both take. There is a big difference however, in taking out of need and taking out of greed.

 

[Bern80]

A man who does not profit from enterprise and makes little to no money, owes nothing because he gained nothing. A man who is satisfied to work a factory job or be a mechanic and earn a modest living owes an amount in taxes that reflects his earnings. A man who plays the system for everything he can and becomes wealthy, owes more than the previous two. If you use our system and exploit it's benefits for wealth, you have to pay for the system in proportion. You have to pay for the agencies needed to keep you from raping everyone and everything on your way to the top. You have to pay for the FAA and the highway because you use it to the most advantage for gaining wealth. What, do you expect the farmer to help pay for the things that bring you wealth ? He doesn't fly or ship products across the country or play the market. He doesn't owe the money to pay for these things, the people that use them do. What business does he have with the SEC ? None. That's yours to pay for if your business creates the need.

Is there any tie to reality in this asanie rant anywhere in our future?

And social programs ? The question you have to ask here is are you ready for people to start dying out in your street ? If you won't pay to feed them a meager meal for life, will you pay for the body to be collected and disposed of ? It will cost one way or the other. The system basically says, if you won't give it, we will take it. Many don't, so we do. We take it. Just the same as the farmer who doesn't use the new county industrial complex gets to pay a share for it anyway. It is taken from him.

Who do think you're talking to? Did I miss a post where someone said we should do away with social programs?

Of course, we can try to go back to "mine is mine", there was a time when that was the way things were. It didn't work out so well. Too many people living and dying in abject poverty. And that's the thing, you can not create wealth without, at the same time, creating poverty. The character of a nation can be judged by the condition of the elderly, the ill and the poor. We don't allow for the kind of ridiculous wealth that we have and at the same, people dying in the streets. That is the stuff of revolution. The same people you view as less deserving or less "work smart" can still rise up and take your shit. It's no secret what a hungry man will do anymore than what a greedy man will do. They will both take. There is a big difference however, in taking out of need and taking out of greed.

We never were a mine is mine society. We were a, I get to keep what I have earned society and you have no right to take from me what you have not earned. I refuse to see why people like yourself think there should be this extradoirinaly value on skills sets that everyone has. How exactley do you propose we value things relative to others if not based on their scarcity and demand for them? Why on earth do you view it beneficial that we bend over backwards to keep people from being even remotely uncomfortable as oppossed to having them adopt skills that are of actual value? the premises under which you contrive this crap is so off the wall it makes ones head spin. Why again should someone simply get to take from me for no other reason than that they refuse to push themselves past the most basic of skill sets?

 

[Peejay]

[

Why again should someone simply get to take from me for no other reason than that they refuse to push themselves past the most basic of skill sets?

Because we can. Live with it. Or don't.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Harry ... the marriage thing, it stopped being your religious right once it became a legal contract, so your religious leaders also surrendered the protection of the freedom of religion as well, thus no, homosexual couples should have that same legal right. If you really don't care what religion others follow, then why are you so against having other religious ideals for marriage, christians didn't invent it, they weren't even the first ones to use it, and many ancient cultures had gay marriage. Cannibalizing a ritual does not give you exclusive rights to it.

Flat tax though is the best tax. Progressive tax hurts those common laborers who worked twice what another did just as much as the rich.

Kitty you got me mixed up with Meister.....he post like that so i get the blame for his twisted posts LOL....it looks like i posted it but that is the way it showed up after i hit the quote button,but all i was responsible for was the very last thing said......

 

[KittenKoder]

While Bern is an idiot, Peejay, why is it you think EVERY rich person is so evil? Bill Gates ... started with NOTHING, became rich because he knew how to market and produce a product with almost no overhead or manufacturing costs ... that's genius and not abusing any system in any way. He paid his employees well to, even hired dropouts and rebels when he first started up. Then, to top it all off, he donates millions to local charities, without the media even knowing. The most attention he has gotten is from a name on a plaque with all the other donaters.

Then there's Gordan, the Chef from England, though he doesn't have to pay taxes here still, let's pretend he does to see what "progressive taxes" woud be punishing. He started off, him and his mom broke, nothing, barely enough to eat. Learned how to cook from her, then practiced the motions and studied other chefs ... eventually earning himself the position of one of the greatest chefs in the world. That's hard to get, all the others who hold the titles had schooling and family support, he did it with nothing. Now he owns and operates several restaurants around the world, making millions. Now he is going around helping people with their failing restaurants, helping THEM make a profit on their hard work, and succeeding. All for free, well, not only for free he remodels their businesses, kitchens, even replaces all old equipment for them.

Taxing these two more than someone else just because they have a lot of money would not only hurt them (who worked their asses off) but also those they help with that money. They are not the exceptions either. The plaques that have Bill Gates name also have a few others who donate about the same amount, the arrogant Steve Jobs even donates. Many successful business men go into small businesses and family run places to help teach them the "tools of the trade". So to paint al the wealthy as evil ... that's just as bad as painting all the poor as lazy.

 

[KittenKoder]

Harry ... the marriage thing, it stopped being your religious right once it became a legal contract, so your religious leaders also surrendered the protection of the freedom of religion as well, thus no, homosexual couples should have that same legal right. If you really don't care what religion others follow, then why are you so against having other religious ideals for marriage, christians didn't invent it, they weren't even the first ones to use it, and many ancient cultures had gay marriage. Cannibalizing a ritual does not give you exclusive rights to it.

Flat tax though is the best tax. Progressive tax hurts those common laborers who worked twice what another did just as much as the rich.

Kitty you got me mixed up with Meister.....he post like that so i get the blame for his twisted posts LOL....it looks like i posted it but that is the way it showed up after i hit the quote button,but all i was responsible for was the very last thing said......

Oh, sorry, the quotes got messed up in the post I was responding to and I had to guess.

 

[Bern80]

Why again should someone simply get to take from me for no other reason than that they refuse to push themselves past the most basic of skill sets?

Because we can. Live with it. Or don't.

Consideer this your opportunity to make a slighly more intelligent response. This is the reality of your statement.

That no expectation should be put on people.

That people are entitled to a standard of living through which no effort of their own is required.

That if you don't have what you want (as oppossed to what you earn) you have the right to take it from those that have.

You talk a big game in this new barbaric world you have created. I hope you are prepared for the fact that people will defend the property they earned that you for some inexplicable reason feel you have a right to. If those are the rules, pray you get me before I get you.

 

[KittenKoder]

Because we can. Live with it. Or don't.

if that is the world you envision that you just get to take what you feel you are entitled to from others that earned it I assume you are prepared when people choose to defend it. If you attempt to steal from me what you have not earned from me, you won't be living, period. Just wanna make sure we'er clear on the 'rules' is all.

First ... stop fucking up the quotes.

Second ... *smirk* if I took from you, you would never know it.

 

[Bern80]

While Bern is an idiot

Few things are more idiotic than answering a constructive argument with name calling.

 

[Bern80]

Because we can. Live with it. Or don't.

if that is the world you envision that you just get to take what you feel you are entitled to from others that earned it I assume you are prepared when people choose to defend it. If you attempt to steal from me what you have not earned from me, you won't be living, period. Just wanna make sure we'er clear on the 'rules' is all.

First ... stop fucking up the quotes.

Second ... *smirk* if I took from you, you would never know it.

Said the woman who fucked up the quote in post 89.

 

[KittenKoder]

While Bern is an idiot

Few things are more idiotic than answering a constructive argument with name calling.

... and nothing more idiotic than returning the favor by only quoting part of a post.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

The strongest person can ignore an insult yet retort with well worded and well hidden insults, jokes, and wisecracks instead. Not only does it make you actually look smart, it's more interesting and enjoyable to read. Also, it makes the trolls, ignorant fools, and just plain old dumbasses look more foolish then they have to resort to old foul mouthed insults.

However, the biggest point that I was hoping you would figure out, is that by doing that you are also showing the same flaw as "my god is better than your god" which many organized religious zealots use.

Conceded. I typed before I thought and made myself out to appear foolish.

 

[Bern80]

While Bern is an idiot

Few things are more idiotic than answering a constructive argument with name calling.

... and nothing more idiotic than returning the favor by only quoting part of a post.

It was the only thing directed at me. It has been my experience here that those on the left use arguments that are based on faulty premises. So my guess is when you call me an idiot it is based on the idea that you believe I think or believe something that I probably really don't.

 

[KittenKoder]

Few things are more idiotic than answering a constructive argument with name calling.

... and nothing more idiotic than returning the favor by only quoting part of a post.

It was the only thing directed at me. It has been my experience here that those on the left use arguments that are based on faulty premises. So my guess is when you call me an idiot it is based on the idea that you believe I think or believe something that I probably really don't.

So you admit you couldn't counter anything I posted, or you agree but don't want to admit it because then you'd have to admit I am right with that as well ... damn ... I wasn't even trying with that one.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I appreciate your application of each of these premises to yourself, but at the same time you must remember that they are societal as well. So, what is your private morality that differs from the Judeo-Christian or Judicial? The devil is in the details, isn't it: if you libs, or progessives, Democrats, NEOCOMS, or title-de jour, want breasts revealed at half-time, or cigarettes forbidden in one's home, is this a question of private morality? Who decides where liberty is infringed?

Phew. Maybe we should start our own thread as these posts are getting long!

Okay. So my private morality differs from Judeo-Christian in that I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality and that it is as natural as heterosexuality. If it wasn't natural, why does it exist? I don't think abortion before the 2nd trimester is wrong. I don't think nudity is wrong as that is natural as well. How does nudity hurt someone? If you want to go about nude and are raped...well, you chose to be nude. I don't care what someone does in their own homes as long as it doesn't harm someone else i.e. murder, child abuse, etc. They can smoke if they want to. But if they have kids, then it becomes an issue of public concern since the child can't protect itself from its parents.

I disagree with Judicial morality because I think its wrong to simply throw people in prison and have a punishment based justice system. I think capital punishment is wrong. Not because liberals have dished this out to me and I ate it up, but because of the inherent problems with these systems. Now, do I know what we should do instead? No. I haven't studied psychology, sociology, criminology enough to know what would work better, but I think educating prisoners, instead of using them as slave labor makes more sense. 2/3 or prisoners return to prison because of the problems with the prison system. Rehabilitation seems better to me than punishment. I understand that we can't have people who have committed murder, theft, child abuse, etc. just out free to do as they please, but I think putting them in a small, concrete cell for no reason but to punish them not only doesn't help them, but it doesn't help society either.

And that's just the surface. In fact, to go on would just be too much as I'll end up taking a whole page of this thread just to reply to your post.

Want to start a new thread? Just you and me so we can avoid the insults and haranguing of others?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/70314-politicalchic-and-coloradomtnman-discussion-cont.html

 

[Gunny]

You know what? Its pointless defending what liberals actually stand for against people who have been propagandized by the conservative political machine.

Liberals stand for equality, freedom, peace, love, and the best quality of life we can all attain ethically. You might not understand the ways we want to go about doing it, but we aren't lying. The progressive tax system is equal because those who make the most reap the most because of the government. Equal rights for homosexuals so they can love and marry and have the same status in this country as the rest of us. We don't want to continue the missile shield because it antagonizes our enemies more than it protects us. We don't think we should have invaded Iraq because it antagonizes our enemies in the Middle East. Instead, we should try to lead the world in a peace movement. We should cut back on using fossil fuels because climate change may adversely affect the world's biodiversity and human populations and quality of life. What the hell is so wrong with that? That's just some of what we want to do.

Just as it is pointless defending what liberals actually are to leftists and progressives who wrongly label themselves "liberals."

 

[Gunny]

'What gives you the idea that the progressive tax system is meant to promote equality?'

Because it tries to close the disparity making things closer to equal financially. Yet, no one would dare hit a beautiful woman with a baseball bat in the face so unattractive women could close some of the beauty gap. Once again, liberals have no guilt about taking from those who work hard and earned, but they would have an objection to closing the gap of luck also known as the genetic lottery for those who just happen to have more of something. What a bunch of immoral, hypocritical people...

Ah, you're just a troll. No one would hit an unattractive women in the face to give someone else gain either, asshole. Again, people are taxed equally, income is not...nice selective reply on your part.

Again, your response is bullshit.