What is the ideal Liberal world?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KMAN, Jul 11, 2008.

  1. KMAN
    Offline

    KMAN Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Thanks Received:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +269
    I am a conservative so I may have this all wrong but here is my serious understanding of what liberals want.

    1.) Universal Healthcare - Does this include all healthcare? Or only certain things? If only certain things, who decides? If 2 gay lovers have anal sex and get AIDS, does that mean other Americans pay for their treatment?

    2.) Abortions - Government should fund abortions, including partial birth abortions?

    3.) Affirmative action? Qualifications don't matter only race, correct?

    4.) Gay Marriage - Gays should have the same right to marry and have the same benefits as heterosexuals?

    5.) Thinks the environment and animals are more or equally as important as humans.

    6.) Believe that the theory of Global Warming is caused by humans. Let's just be fair though, there has been no proof yet.

    7.) Anti-War - meaning all disagreements can be resolved by means of communication.

    8.) Believe that the government should be more in control than the individual.

    9.) Anti death penalty

    10) Progressive tax - The more you make the more you should be taxed... I assume this is an effort to make everyone earn the same amount of money, yes?

    Am I correct on these statments?

    Just trying to understand more.....
     
  2. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    I don't know if I qualify to speak for liberals but I'll take a shot at it since I have little doubt mnay here assume I must be..

    Yes, I think that is probably correct. Liberals think universal health care is the solution

    Don't know about funding them, but allowing them is definitely on the agenda.

    wrong

    Yes

    Wrong

    Wrong

    wrong

    .

    Wrong

    Wrong

    Right

    Wrong

    Some of them

    You apparently believe that all liberals are exactly on the same page on every issue.

    Plus you tend to overstate (drastically) what they believe, and tend to credit them with the goofiest possible reason for believing it too.
     
  3. CharlestonChad
    Offline

    CharlestonChad Baller Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,845
    Thanks Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Ratings:
    +128
    All liberals don't think alike. All conservatives don't think alike. There are shades of gray. No KMAN, please stop trolling the USMB.
     
  4. Reality
    Offline

    Reality Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    390
    Thanks Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +17
    Well labels don't do much for me. Here are my thoughts.

    Setting aside your homophobia, I don't know what the appropriate way on health care really is. The issue does cut to the heart of my thoughts on progressivism, however. There are two issues that cut to the heart of reducing social welfare and programs: education and health care. Lifting up individuals starts with education. Sick kids don't learn. The ability to live and developing critical thinking abilities for the individual will, in part, allow communities to accumulate wealth and lift themselves out of poverty.

    Secondly, health care costs are destroying American families. There is plenty of information on bankruptcy claims partially related to health care costs. People get sick and never recover financially. There is nothing beneficial about that situation. Everyone looses. Health care providers, individuals, insurance co's and tax coffers suffer.

    Thats pretty much propaganda fed to you by the "right to invade the body of Americans" click. I don't have any problem with no govt funding for abortion. I have a problem with dictating to Americans what can happen with their body. Abortion is distasteful. So are many other things. That doesn't give the govt the right to legislate behavior. It would be a much better scenario if abortions didn't happen, but not by government mandate. Educational programs have had the most dramatic effect on reducing abortions, not legislation.


    Ok, now I'm getting annoyed. Based on the prose of your question, your only knowledge of Affirmative Action comes from the GOP propaganda machine and ignorance.

    Affirmative Action is a system that requires ONLY those employers that benefit from federal funding to give preference to candidates and applicants who are members of protected classes (this includes women and the disabled, neither of which are races) ONLY WHEN those applicants meet the minimum qualifications for a position. A job description is formed prior to a search for someone to fill that role is launched, thus the minimum qualifications are determined ahead of time.

    Before you decide to be against something you should try to learn something about the topic.

    What churches do is there own private business. The government has no right to deny tax benefits to two people who wish to file a marriage license.

    No, I just think the environment is important at all and don't have the audacity to think that a living thing, the earth, is indestructible. Nor do I think a creationist view contains any biblical evidence that the good Lord created an indestructible environment or is protecting the ecological system He created from harm.

    "Proof" doesn't happen in science. Take any introductory level college science class. Scientists gather evidence to develop theories based on that evidence. The composition of water, H2O, is technically just a theory. Should the ability to detect another chemical science is not aware of at this point is developed, it is possible science will develop an alternate theory of water's composition. This is true of everything science has taught us.

    As far as global warming, here is the scenario in its most basic form. The greenhouse effect theory has been rather settled theory in the scientific community since late in the 19th century. Quite simply, there is stuff that rises into the atmosphere the prevents the rays of the sun reflecting off of earth from escaping earth's atmosphere. One of those things is carbon. Carbon in the atmosphere is measurable and is at it's highest level ever and continues to rise. The most accepted theory as to why is human activity, esp the use of fossil fuels. I'm far from educated enough scientifically to really be able to determine if global temperature rise is actually happening, but its certainly feasible. It just seems like smart policy to reduce those emissions in an effort not to piss the planet off. Combine that with the geo-political situation regarding oil, and it seems like incredibly coherent policy.

    This is a rather new GOP talking point that holds less water than a paper towel. George H.W. Bush's Secretary of State, James Baker, traveled to Syria 13 times on purely diplomatic missions. The talks that Clinton facilitated between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Syria over the Golan were at least in part a result of Baker's diplomacy. Without the ground work laid by Baker, Clinton would have been doing that diplomatic work that made those talks possible, not facilitating the talks.

    Is H.W. and James Baker terrorist sympathizers? Of course not, they are statesmen, a concept the current adminstration is almost alone in not understanding.

    Another logical fallacy. Govt is in the singularly unique position of being able to craft national policy that benefits the individual (as previously mentioned, education is in my view the most important area). In the United States we do not have a pure capitalistic system. We also do not have a socialist system. We have what non-propagandized people call a mixed economy. The balance we strike between collectivism and capitalism is something that we should continue to debate on an ongoing basis. Going two feet into either system would be ill advised.

    If the govt is to execute just one innocent person, that is a murder that every American citizen is guilty of. I refuse to be a murderer. It's very unlikely this has not already happened. If you'd like more information on people wrongfully convicted of horrible crimes, see:

    The Innocence Project - Home

    For instance, there is a rather disturbing case in Alabama currently.

    The Innocence Project - News and Information: Innocence Blog: Still no DNA test for Alabama man; July 31 execution date set

    Furthermore, we have a judicial system that rewards police officers and district attorney's for convictions. When it is in the personal interest of people hired by the government to bring home convictions, regardless of justice, its a bad idea to kill people based on that.

    I personally advocate a consumption tax and a dramatic cut in the IRS. Take the same tax rate from every person at the cash register. Its transparent, its equal, its cost effective and everyone pays.

    No, but your political party is sure happy you think you are.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,589
    Thanks Received:
    5,907
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,016
    Most Liberals do in fact argue the Government should pay for abortions for those that can not afford their own. The argument being that to deny those poor the money is to deny them the right to an abortion.

    Environment and animal rights are fringe things. Though the press is strongly behind making global warming into a big bogue man.

    A lot of Liberals may be for Gay marriage BUT a lot of Democrats are against it.

    And yes Liberals think Affirmative action designed just to give those poor oppressed minorities more than equal treatment is a good thing. Why? Because us whiteys are all racist and do everything we can to keep those non whites down. It is called white Guilt and liberals are FULL of it.

    As for Government, YES Liberals want more Government, now of course they will tell you it is just for your own good. They just want to take care of us retards and hicks. Anyone not one of them, in other words. Of course you will find that such new laws and restrictions somehow will exempt the Liberal leaders, after all they deserve something for all that hard work taking care of us.

    Liberals are only against any war they did not start. And they have started a few.

    Not completely sure the death penalty is a liberal thing. Kind of doubt it.

    And yes taxing the shit out of anyone with money is the Liberal thing, of course they will ensure loopholes they can use exist to protect their fortunes.
     
  6. KMAN
    Offline

    KMAN Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Thanks Received:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +269
    I am seriously trying to understand your point of view... Not trying to cause any fights.

    Thanks.


    1.) Where in the constitution does it say all Americans have a right to healthcare... and this is coming from someone who has a kidney disease but I don't expect you to pay for it.

    2.)Isn't an abortion the same as killing someone? You are against killing an innocent man with the death penalty but you are all for killing an innocent baby?

    3.) So if a federally funded company has more women then men, they must hire a man for the position? Even if both man and woman candidates meet the minimum requirements and the women has a much better resume?

    4.) Let's just eliminate the government from the marriage business altogether... Wouldn't that be easier?

    5.) Ok. I don't believe in harming the environment either but (maybe because I am a Christian) I believe in doing what it takes to take care of my family first, then worry about other things next.

    6.) If the theory is so well known why do over 31000 scientists disagree with this theory? You do know that plants benefit from CO2 right? And you do know that the average Carbon dioxide content in the air is between 0.03% (300 ppm) and 0.06% (600 ppm). That 600 CO2 particles out of a million! How in the world can this be the cause of global warming? With this theory wouldn't it get hotter every year?


    7.) Ok, both parties agree that war is sometimes necessary... But why do Democrats want to cut the military?

    8.) Wouldn't it be more beneficial to teach people to take care of themselves instead of relying on the government? When you increase programs to help people who don't want to help themselves doesn't that create more dependency on the government?

    9) I agree I don't want to execute an innocent man, but if it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt that someone murdered 20 people and the person admits to it, what is wrong with ensuring he doesn't do it again when he gets out in 20 years?

    10) Here, here, I'm with you on that... Personall I'd like to eliminate all income taxes.

    11) I forgot one. it seems like Liberals are for letting people come to this country illegally. Is that true?
     
  7. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    You do know that Scientist all agree that water vapor is by far the single worst global warming contributing factor and CO2 is less than .04% of the atmosphere right.

    So how long before Water Vapor is listed as a pollutant.

    so much for all those new cars that only give out "harmless" water vapor.
     
  8. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,560
    Thanks Received:
    13,013
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,439
     
  9. AllieBaba
    Offline

    AllieBaba BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    33,778
    Thanks Received:
    3,648
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +3,650
    Let's hear it for Ingrid Betancourt, who was kidnapped while trying to "negotiate" with FARC and held hostage for years.

    Liberals should keep her picture in front of them and give her a ring whenever they are thinking about "negotiating" with terrorists. I watched her Larry King interview and the thing she said that stood out was that she couldn't conceive of actually being taken and/or hurt.

    It's called insular elitism. I'll bet she feels a little different about negotiating with terrorists today.
     
  10. KMAN
    Offline

    KMAN Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Thanks Received:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +269
     

Share This Page