@WryCatcher
This was your quote from the thread "Another Liberal Myth Exploded"
You claim liberals, by your definition, aren't envious. Yet, from the rhetoric, anyone who earns millions of dollars through fair business are manipulative and unsympathetic with the plight of the poor. Anyone who encourages "prosperity" are vilified by said liberals.
Anyone who wants to take someone off of food stamps or welfare and give them a paying job are accused of being unsympathetic to the poor. There are union backed protests demanding $15/hr minimum wages from fast food restaurants, and yet you accused Blues of posting up twisted memes. The one percent versus the 99 percent punchline comes to mind.
There is consistent braying over how Republicans favor the rich and Democrats favor the poor. I was hoping you could address that particular statement. How do Republicans favor the rich? How do Democrats favor the poor? How are Republicans unsympathetic to the poor?
Your insistence on liberals not being envious can be debunked by the support of "a level playing field" or the promotion of inclusion over performance or feeling over competition or outrightly discouraging competition altogether.
In what way does this not reflect envy?
You insisted that "Liberal speech and writing is rooted in hope for change, change for the better by pragmatic men and women of good will," but simply by the insistence of liberal Democrats, they are the only pragmatic men and women of good will. By what good will do you enable apathy among millions of Americans by not encouraging a poor family to strive for a job instead of living off a meager government paycheck each month?
What hope is there in letting them strive for nothing more than government assistance?
What change does this constant flow of government assistance effect?
Defend yourself.
(This thread is open to debate for the named participants at any time period during a 24 hour calendar day)
This was your quote from the thread "Another Liberal Myth Exploded"
You claim liberals, by your definition, aren't envious. Yet, from the rhetoric, anyone who earns millions of dollars through fair business are manipulative and unsympathetic with the plight of the poor. Anyone who encourages "prosperity" are vilified by said liberals.
Anyone who wants to take someone off of food stamps or welfare and give them a paying job are accused of being unsympathetic to the poor. There are union backed protests demanding $15/hr minimum wages from fast food restaurants, and yet you accused Blues of posting up twisted memes. The one percent versus the 99 percent punchline comes to mind.
There is consistent braying over how Republicans favor the rich and Democrats favor the poor. I was hoping you could address that particular statement. How do Republicans favor the rich? How do Democrats favor the poor? How are Republicans unsympathetic to the poor?
Your insistence on liberals not being envious can be debunked by the support of "a level playing field" or the promotion of inclusion over performance or feeling over competition or outrightly discouraging competition altogether.
In what way does this not reflect envy?
You insisted that "Liberal speech and writing is rooted in hope for change, change for the better by pragmatic men and women of good will," but simply by the insistence of liberal Democrats, they are the only pragmatic men and women of good will. By what good will do you enable apathy among millions of Americans by not encouraging a poor family to strive for a job instead of living off a meager government paycheck each month?
What hope is there in letting them strive for nothing more than government assistance?
What change does this constant flow of government assistance effect?
Defend yourself.
(This thread is open to debate for the named participants at any time period during a 24 hour calendar day)
Last edited:
