What Leftism Does to People

[Nosmo King]

The bottom line, dear Nosmo, is that you would put extra burden on the corporations. I would remove the ability of the corporations to buy influence. And at the same time remove the ability of those in the federal government to enhance their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes by using the people's money to dispense favors or benevolence on anybody.

And at THAT same time we remove a great potential to enslave people, tear families apart, create permanent underclasses and permanently unemployed, and an entitlement mentality that generates the kind of inexcusable behavior we are seeing among some of the Occupy groups.

I am not saying there is no room for charity or benevolence in a moral society. I am saying that it does not have to come from the federal government and, as often as it isn't, it is counter productive and leaves a huge opportunity for corruption and graft when it comes from the federal government. The temptation for misuse of unlimited resources confiscated from others is too great for both those in government and the beneficiaries of government largesse. But Leftism wants government to have that power regardless.

In other words, I think Klavan would agree that Leftism is willing to make people dependent, needy, and potentially angry in order for some Leftists to feel noble and righteous. Which could be another way of saying that Leftism makes people awful.

Any burden I would put on corporations would be:

1) Pay your taxes (nothing more than we would expect from anyone else. If corporations are people [as we have been told in the Citizens United decision] this "burden" should be a responsibility.

2) Restrict executive pay to a mere 75 times the pay rate given to the average employee (75 times as much shouldn't be regarded as restrictive. Who among us would dare whine about making 75 times the minimum wage, let alone the wage earned by an average employee?)

3) Respect environmental, work place safety and consumer protection regulations. (Again, if corporations are 'people', we ask actual people to respect the laws, why should corporations be regarded as different? Especially if those corporations have had a proven track record of harming workers, tthe environment or consumers)

And I can't understand how federal programs to aid the elderly, the poor, and the disabled are any more the cause of corruption and graft than programs run by private of church enterprises. Anytime money is gathered to distribute to the needy, the temptation for corruption exists. Hell, anytime any money is gathered together for any reason, the temptation for corruption exists.

 

[Foxfyre]

The bottom line, dear Nosmo, is that you would put extra burden on the corporations. I would remove the ability of the corporations to buy influence. And at the same time remove the ability of those in the federal government to enhance their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes by using the people's money to dispense favors or benevolence on anybody.

And at THAT same time we remove a great potential to enslave people, tear families apart, create permanent underclasses and permanently unemployed, and an entitlement mentality that generates the kind of inexcusable behavior we are seeing among some of the Occupy groups.

I am not saying there is no room for charity or benevolence in a moral society. I am saying that it does not have to come from the federal government and, as often as it isn't, it is counter productive and leaves a huge opportunity for corruption and graft when it comes from the federal government. The temptation for misuse of unlimited resources confiscated from others is too great for both those in government and the beneficiaries of government largesse. But Leftism wants government to have that power regardless.

In other words, I think Klavan would agree that Leftism is willing to make people dependent, needy, and potentially angry in order for some Leftists to feel noble and righteous. Which could be another way of saying that Leftism makes people awful.

Any burden I would put on corporations would be:

1) Pay your taxes (nothing more than we would expect from anyone else. If corporations are people [as we have been told in the Citizens United decision] this "burden" should be a responsibility.

2) Restrict executive pay to a mere 75 times the pay rate given to the average employee (75 times as much shouldn't be regarded as restrictive. Who among us would dare whine about making 75 times the minimum wage, let alone the wage earned by an average employee?)

3) Respect environmental, work place safety and consumer protection regulations. (Again, if corporations are 'people', we ask actual people to respect the laws, why should corporations be regarded as different? Especially if those corporations have had a proven track record of harming workers, tthe environment or consumers)

And I can't understand how federal programs to aid the elderly, the poor, and the disabled are any more the cause of corruption and graft than programs run by private of church enterprises. Anytime money is gathered to distribute to the needy, the temptation for corruption exists. Hell, anytime any money is gathered together for any reason, the temptation for corruption exists.

On what basis do you give the government the authority to tell anybody how much they are allowed to earn? How do you do that without taking away the unalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness however a person defines that?

But you started out saying that the playing field should be leveled to keep corporations from buying influence from the government. What happened to that concept? Now you are saying that is no different or no more corrupting than the Salvation Army? You are kidding, right?

I honestly don't care how corrupt the transactions between thieves are. So long as honest people and their property are left out of it.

I do care if it is MY money taken in taxes that is used in a corrupt, careless, incompetent, or wasteful manner. All you have to do is visit any inner city projects that have been there for a few years to see the shameful legacy of government 'benevolence'. Or read the thoughtful writings of William Raspberry (a liberal by the way) or Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams or Shelby Steele or any number of others who have done extensive studies on the broader consequences of federal 'poverty' programs.

With all the evidence that the federal programs are causing as many problems as they solve--the Occupy groups continue to riot in the streets--why is it so important to you that the federal government do this rather than the people in any given state taking care of their own?

 

[logical4u]

Actually, what the Left wants is a level playing field. Corporations have skewed the rules so they are favored at the expense of those without the means to really access law makers.

Policies have been enacted to make it not only easier, but more profitable to take jobs out of America. CEOs in the executive suite are making exponentially more than those responsible for actually producing the goods. Golden parachute bonuses cover the tracks of those who hit the throttle so hard that the companies over heat and fall apart like a Chinese motorcycle. Executives are lauded for their ability to dismantle American companies and sell off the productive parts. Bankers dream up nefarious schemes to defraud their customers by imposing petty fees and surcharges. Wall Street investors 'create' wealth from junk bonds and derivative while pension funds suffer the consequences.

And that's the way American Capitalism was designed to work via Supply Side policy.

I love Capitalism. But I want rules to apply. The same way society works better when rules of compartment are imposed, Capitalism can easily run awry when nothing but the profit motive is considered.

And those rules are regulations. Regulations with consequences other than "too big to fail".

Social Conservatives are big on rules. A woman cannot control her reproductive fate. A homosexual cannot marry the person they love. Christian ethics and Christian dogma should be applied to American secular governance.

But the same people championing such repression are perfectly willing to let Capitalism run rough shod over the working class so larger profits might be gleaned.

I wonder why folks who advocate smaller, less intrusive government only want it in the personal arena, but not when their very livelihoods are in the balance?

The democrats seem to be the ones "pushing" this agenda. If the congressional bills were required to be under one-page (compared to the several novel length Obama-care bill), it would be much harder to insert loop-holes for favoritism among industries. I am aware that the republicans do this too. Just with Pelosi, Reid and Obama, the corruption odor in Washington has become over-powering. What is worse, they lie to the press, and the press reports it as fact.
Again: if congressional bills were short and to the point, it would be harder to deceive the public and "favor" the corrupt.

 

[logical4u]

Reality never enters these discussions, instead assumptions abound. But....

Hunger & Poverty In America - YouTube

Please, present "reality" (that implies facts with evidence, not your opinion).

 

[Chris]

Actually, what the Left wants is a level playing field. Corporations have skewed the rules so they are favored at the expense of those without the means to really access law makers.

Policies have been enacted to make it not only easier, but more profitable to take jobs out of America. CEOs in the executive suite are making exponentially more than those responsible for actually producing the goods. Golden parachute bonuses cover the tracks of those who hit the throttle so hard that the companies over heat and fall apart like a Chinese motorcycle. Executives are lauded for their ability to dismantle American companies and sell off the productive parts. Bankers dream up nefarious schemes to defraud their customers by imposing petty fees and surcharges. Wall Street investors 'create' wealth from junk bonds and derivative while pension funds suffer the consequences.

And that's the way American Capitalism was designed to work via Supply Side policy.

I love Capitalism. But I want rules to apply. The same way society works better when rules of compartment are imposed, Capitalism can easily run awry when nothing but the profit motive is considered.

And those rules are regulations. Regulations with consequences other than "too big to fail".

Social Conservatives are big on rules. A woman cannot control her reproductive fate. A homosexual cannot marry the person they love. Christian ethics and Christian dogma should be applied to American secular governance.

But the same people championing such repression are perfectly willing to let Capitalism run rough shod over the working class so larger profits might be gleaned.

I wonder why folks who advocate smaller, less intrusive government only want it in the personal arena, but not when their very livelihoods are in the balance?

The democrats seem to be the ones "pushing" this agenda. If the congressional bills were required to be under one-page (compared to the several novel length Obama-care bill), it would be much harder to insert loop-holes for favoritism among industries. I am aware that the republicans do this too. Just with Pelosi, Reid and Obama, the corruption odor in Washington has become over-powering. What is worse, they lie to the press, and the press reports it as fact.
Again: if congressional bills were short and to the point, it would be harder to deceive the public and "favor" the corrupt.

The length of bills is not deceiving the public.

That would be FoxNews.

 

[Foxfyre]

Reality never enters these discussions, instead assumptions abound. But....

Hunger & Poverty In America - YouTube

Please, present "reality" (that implies facts with evidence, not your opinion).

The 'evidence' shows that Americans have been losing ground in this interminable recession. The problem with the left is they look to government to 'fix' that instead of seeing that it is primarily the government that has CAUSED it. Leftism doesn't respect the American experiment as the Founders saw it--a government that secures our rights and then gets out of the way and allows us to exercise them and live our lives and form whatever sort of society we wish to have. The reason I can say that with confidence is because nobody who respects or embraces that concept is a leftist.

 

[logical4u]

Actually, what the Left wants is a level playing field. Corporations have skewed the rules so they are favored at the expense of those without the means to really access law makers.

Policies have been enacted to make it not only easier, but more profitable to take jobs out of America. CEOs in the executive suite are making exponentially more than those responsible for actually producing the goods. Golden parachute bonuses cover the tracks of those who hit the throttle so hard that the companies over heat and fall apart like a Chinese motorcycle. Executives are lauded for their ability to dismantle American companies and sell off the productive parts. Bankers dream up nefarious schemes to defraud their customers by imposing petty fees and surcharges. Wall Street investors 'create' wealth from junk bonds and derivative while pension funds suffer the consequences.

And that's the way American Capitalism was designed to work via Supply Side policy.

I love Capitalism. But I want rules to apply. The same way society works better when rules of compartment are imposed, Capitalism can easily run awry when nothing but the profit motive is considered.

And those rules are regulations. Regulations with consequences other than "too big to fail".

Social Conservatives are big on rules. A woman cannot control her reproductive fate. A homosexual cannot marry the person they love. Christian ethics and Christian dogma should be applied to American secular governance.

But the same people championing such repression are perfectly willing to let Capitalism run rough shod over the working class so larger profits might be gleaned.

I wonder why folks who advocate smaller, less intrusive government only want it in the personal arena, but not when their very livelihoods are in the balance?

But why is it the leftists look to the corporations to "fix it" and not to government? Because to the leftist, the government is the supreme power and therefore must be revered, respected, and deemed to be without serious sin. Therefore the anger, dissatisfaction, and frustration must be directed to somebody else and the "rich" or the "corporations" are convenient targets.

How about we level the playing field and take away the corporations ability to buy influence by making it illegal for the federal government to dispense ANY form of charity or benevolence or favor on ANYBODY unless they do the same simultaneously for EVERYBODY? That takes away the ability of anybody to buy influence. And it takes away the ability of those in government to use the people's money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

At the same time require those in Congress to fund their own retirement plans and health plans out of their salaries as most of us have to do, and end the liftime salaries and benefits for retiring elected officials. And that gives nobody an incentive to run for public office for personal benefit but rather would again encourage true public servants to serve.

This would seem to be attractive to those who have not been made dependent on entitlements or given an entitlement mentality.

Not so attractive to the Occupy folks, I would think, who should be occupying Washington and demanding their elected leaders clean up THEIR act. They are definitely targeting the wrong people to punish.

Liberals don't expect corporations to fix anything! They won't. they are not motivated to. They are motivated to get as much as they possibly can. As much money, as much power, as much influence as possible. It's government that can and must fix it.

Government establishes the rules we all play by. As Social Conservatives wish government to control personal lives, Liberals want government to be the buffer between the rabid dog Capitalism has become and a true arena of fair play.

Should a corporation be able to open a smelting plant in a residential neighborhood? Should a corporation be able to exploit the workforce by paying them less than what is fair while paying the executive suite exorbitant bonuses even if that corporation fails? Should a corporation avoid paying its fair share of taxes after exploiting the infrastructure and environment and workforce?

The government is answerable to the people. That's where their power comes from. Corporations are answerable to stock holders. But even when corporate heads screw up, their personal culpability is rewarded by lavish bonuses and compensation.

And what is it that needs fixed? The balance, which has served American Capitalism so well until the corporations gained the upper hand in government policy. The balance between executive pay and worker pay. The balance between community needs and corporate needs. The responsiblity corporations used to hold to their workers, their community neighbors and their stock holders.

Wealth, real wealth isn't earned by producing today. It's reaped from owning, selling and getting the most out of workers (even if that means the workers are now outside the United States and paid slave wages), the environment (by ridiculing the safeguards that ensure safe water, air and soil) and bending the rules of the market (by selling worthless junk bonds as premium holdings).

We hear Conservatives ridiculing labor as greedy, selfish and lazy. We hear Conservatives ridicule workplace safety regulations as intrusive, wasteful and costly. We hear Conservatives ridicule environmental regulations as onerous and restrictive. All to what end? So that corporations, those benevolent corporations can 'create' jobs? For whom? Asians, Latin Americans? Who do Conservatives figure the ultimate consumer of the products will be once the workers wages and quality of life and personal property values are consumed by the same corporations who ruined the show?

I know liberals don't like to hear this: social conservatism is individual responsibility/integrity/honor. It does not matter what the profits might be, if you have honor and integrity, you take care of the environment while building the business. You take care of the communitiy because your family lives there. If a conservative society is not promoted, you have corruption; deceit, theft, debasing human life, invasions (occupying), and murder.
Conservatives are not "ridiculing labor". Conservatives are ridiculing "unions" (especially those that seem to be touting the communist ideals). If the "unions" want to vote for their own bosses, guarentee work week and vacation hours, and have a $20 minimum wage , according to "OWS" (Obama' chickens coming home to roost), that is the way of Greece, Italy, and other failing European nations. They have already given us a vision as to where that leads (we have not seen how ugly it will get, but we know that it will be worse). Why would anyone in this country support that? Do you really want to see the country collapse? If you already know (or should know) that the wealthy in this country do not have enough money to support the gov't for a single year (not even counting paying off the debt), who do you think the gov't is going to squeeze for that money? Hint, it will be the middle and lower class (the ones that do not pay income tax, now).

The corporations are not in charge. Were you paying attention to the ones that "failed" and the ones that "were too big to fail"? They were selected by the gov't, using our tax dollars. The corporations have been set up as the fall guy after being used by the gov't officials to launder money for campaigns. The Constitution was designed that everyone (including corporations) were "equal" under the law. It was gov't politicians that wrote the laws to give their buddies/families an edge. You are focusing on the magicians' trick. Watch the magicians.

 

[logical4u]

Actually, what the Left wants is a level playing field. Corporations have skewed the rules so they are favored at the expense of those without the means to really access law makers.

Policies have been enacted to make it not only easier, but more profitable to take jobs out of America. CEOs in the executive suite are making exponentially more than those responsible for actually producing the goods. Golden parachute bonuses cover the tracks of those who hit the throttle so hard that the companies over heat and fall apart like a Chinese motorcycle. Executives are lauded for their ability to dismantle American companies and sell off the productive parts. Bankers dream up nefarious schemes to defraud their customers by imposing petty fees and surcharges. Wall Street investors 'create' wealth from junk bonds and derivative while pension funds suffer the consequences.

And that's the way American Capitalism was designed to work via Supply Side policy.

I love Capitalism. But I want rules to apply. The same way society works better when rules of compartment are imposed, Capitalism can easily run awry when nothing but the profit motive is considered.

And those rules are regulations. Regulations with consequences other than "too big to fail".

Social Conservatives are big on rules. A woman cannot control her reproductive fate. A homosexual cannot marry the person they love. Christian ethics and Christian dogma should be applied to American secular governance.

But the same people championing such repression are perfectly willing to let Capitalism run rough shod over the working class so larger profits might be gleaned.

I wonder why folks who advocate smaller, less intrusive government only want it in the personal arena, but not when their very livelihoods are in the balance?

The democrats seem to be the ones "pushing" this agenda. If the congressional bills were required to be under one-page (compared to the several novel length Obama-care bill), it would be much harder to insert loop-holes for favoritism among industries. I am aware that the republicans do this too. Just with Pelosi, Reid and Obama, the corruption odor in Washington has become over-powering. What is worse, they lie to the press, and the press reports it as fact.
Again: if congressional bills were short and to the point, it would be harder to deceive the public and "favor" the corrupt.

The length of bills is not deceiving the public.

That would be FoxNews.

I believe you are mistaken, sir.

 

[Chris]

The democrats seem to be the ones "pushing" this agenda. If the congressional bills were required to be under one-page (compared to the several novel length Obama-care bill), it would be much harder to insert loop-holes for favoritism among industries. I am aware that the republicans do this too. Just with Pelosi, Reid and Obama, the corruption odor in Washington has become over-powering. What is worse, they lie to the press, and the press reports it as fact.
Again: if congressional bills were short and to the point, it would be harder to deceive the public and "favor" the corrupt.

The length of bills is not deceiving the public.

That would be FoxNews.

I believe you are mistaken, sir.

They been the main promoters of Politifacts Lie of the Year for the last two years in a row.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/

 

[logical4u]

The length of bills is not deceiving the public.

That would be FoxNews.

I believe you are mistaken, sir.

They been the main promoters of Politifacts Lie of the Year for the last two years in a row.

PolitiFact | PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'Death panels'

PolitiFact | PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care'

Can you tell me what taxes are raised/created in the Obama-care bill?

 

[Sky Dancer]

There is no such thing as leftism. There are individuals who see what government should do differently. What divisive pundits like Andrew Klavan do is try to make people who have different ideas on how to work with a societal issue, not get along with each other. Even hate each other.

Leftism is as much a stereotype as "rightism". There are a wide variety of positions that citizens take on pending legislation and referendums. I'm as left leaning in many of my views as they come, but I don't think government is the answer to anything. But RW posters would like to tell me what I believe rather than ask me what I think after I have studied a legislation. Government is inefficient and wasteful. Nonetheless, we need government. The problem is that we don't all agree on what government should do. When it's voting time, I spend a LONNGGG time studying the candidates and the ballot measures. I read both sides, and then I decide what I think is best for the country. I vote my conscience. That's what good citizens do, on both sides of the aisle.

The OP and FF manifesto is that liberals are bad people or that a left leaning position on something makes people "awful"people. That's what Fox News and RW pundits would have their listeners believe. It's wrong. It's absurd, and hateful. This is a flame thread. It promotes the idea that the only decent people in this country are those with conservative views. That is so wrong. I'm sick of this kind of discussion. We have some serious problems in our country and this kind of BS doesn't help. It's mean spirited tripe. It's propaganda and it's ugly.

Shame on you, FF, for picking Andrew Klavan as a role model.

 

[Si modo]

I doubt Klaven is Foxy's role model. Where you got that idea is beyond me.

However, the facts described in Klaven's essay are simply facts. Many of the OWS protestors are acting and behaving quite ugly.

Be that as it may, history certainly does indicate that governments who go entitlement crazy create a society that eventually implodes on itself.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I believe in government by, for, and of the people, constituted not merely to protect the wealth and position of the extremely rich and powerful, but the welfare and prosperity of all of the people.

I believe in the values I was raised with in school, where I was taught the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which told me that our government exists to serve the people and protect the rights of the people.

I believe in the values I learned in church as a child, where I was taught that the worship of money is evil, that we should help each other - particularly those who are most in need - and in the Golden Rule.

I believe in honest pay for honest work, and in freedom from all tyranny, whether it be imposed by invaders or from a home-grown power base.

I believe that abridgement of our individual rights is unacceptable, whether the tyrants are agents of government, commerce, or religious institutions.

And I believe that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance in protecting and promoting those values.

I am a proud liberal. These are my beliefs.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I doubt Klaven is Foxy's role model. Where you got that idea is beyond me.

However, the facts described in Klaven's essay are simply facts. Many of the OWS protestors are acting and behaving quite ugly.

Be that as it may, history certainly does indicate that governments who go entitlement crazy create a society that eventually implodes on itself.

Klavan and FF are not content to criticize the protestors, they seek to demonize all liberals.

 

[Foxfyre]

I doubt Klaven is Foxy's role model. Where you got that idea is beyond me.

However, the facts described in Klaven's essay are simply facts. Many of the OWS protestors are acting and behaving quite ugly.

Be that as it may, history certainly does indicate that governments who go entitlement crazy create a society that eventually implodes on itself.

Yeah, that's the thing isn't it. Sky follows me around from thread to thread to thread accusing me of being 'holier than thou', citing dreams about taking a baseball bat to somebody who is 'holier than thou', accusing me (and others) of being judgmental which in her world is apparently anybody who expresses an opinion she doesn't like and accuses me of just about every uncomplimentary trait in her repertoire. But she sure doesn't have any problem judging me. Hypocrisy is alive and well, yes?

Andrew Klavan as my role model? The man does have a lot of common sense but he is far closer to Sky's role model than mine on most social issues. The only place he and she part company is he doesn't care how people love, laugh, or live so long as they don't expect HIM to pay for it.

And at the end of the day we are still left with Klavan's thesis that it is from leftism, not from conservatism, that we get groups like the disgusting, angry, hateful, antisocial, and destructive mobs that some of the OWS groups are. And as much as she accuses you or me or anybody else who recognizes that, it still remains the truth.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The Republican healthcare plan:

Don't get sick. If you do get sick, die quickly.

But yeah, liberals are "awful people".

FF cannot argue her point. Her politics are the politics of division. She has no interest in discussing social issues. Just attack the person. She has to resort to calling anyone with political arguments to the left of hers: "disgusting, angry, hateful, anti-social and destructive" people.

She is such an egoist, she interprets other people's nightmares as to be about her.

Here are the list of policies I'd rather discuss: Single payer healthcare, public option insurance, increased stimulus spending, increased funding for green energy R&D, higher taxes for the wealthiest 1 %.

"Where in the constitution does it say anything about healthcare?"

"Article One, Section 8, 'Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfaree of the United States . . . ' The Supreme Court has held . . . repeatedly . . . that this gives the Congress power to spend money on things like Social Security and Medicare.

Is the right to life a fundamental human right? FF will say "yes." Great . . . because people are losing their "right to life" every day . . . because they don't have adequate healthcare. Is it alright with you, Ms. Dittohead, if we help those Americans exercise their right to life?

FF does not argue policy. She starts flame threads like this one with Klavan crap.

 

[bripat9643]

You're a fucking lefty. Who do you think you're fooling with this shit? I'm dead certain you come out on the same side of almost every issue as Nazi Pelosi.

There is no such thing as leftism. There are individuals who see what government should do differently. What divisive pundits like Andrew Klavan do is try to make people who have different ideas on how to work with a societal issue, not get along with each other. Even hate each other.

Leftism is as much a stereotype as "rightism". There are a wide variety of positions that citizens take on pending legislation and referendums. I'm as left leaning in many of my views as they come, but I don't think government is the answer to anything. But RW posters would like to tell me what I believe rather than ask me what I think after I have studied a legislation. Government is inefficient and wasteful. Nonetheless, we need government. The problem is that we don't all agree on what government should do. When it's voting time, I spend a LONNGGG time studying the candidates and the ballot measures. I read both sides, and then I decide what I think is best for the country. I vote my conscience. That's what good citizens do, on both sides of the aisle.

The OP and FF manifesto is that liberals are bad people or that a left leaning position on something makes people "awful"people. That's what Fox News and RW pundits would have their listeners believe. It's wrong. It's absurd, and hateful. This is a flame thread. It promotes the idea that the only decent people in this country are those with conservative views. That is so wrong. I'm sick of this kind of discussion. We have some serious problems in our country and this kind of BS doesn't help. It's mean spirited tripe. It's propaganda and it's ugly.

Shame on you, FF, for picking Andrew Klavan as a role model.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe in government by, for, and of the people, constituted not merely to protect the wealth and position of the extremely rich and powerful, but the welfare and prosperity of all of the people.

I believe in the values I was raised with in school, where I was taught the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which told me that our government exists to serve the people and protect the rights of the people.

I believe in the values I learned in church as a child, where I was taught that the worship of money is evil, that we should help each other - particularly those who are most in need - and in the Golden Rule.

I believe in honest pay for honest work, and in freedom from all tyranny, whether it be imposed by invaders or from a home-grown power base.

I believe that abridgement of our individual rights is unacceptable, whether the tyrants are agents of government, commerce, or religious institutions.

And I believe that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance in protecting and promoting those values.

I am a proud liberal. These are my beliefs.

Hogwash.

You can't believe any of that and be a liberal.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I believe in government by, for, and of the people, constituted not merely to protect the wealth and position of the extremely rich and powerful, but the welfare and prosperity of all of the people.

I believe in the values I was raised with in school, where I was taught the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which told me that our government exists to serve the people and protect the rights of the people.

I believe in the values I learned in church as a child, where I was taught that the worship of money is evil, that we should help each other - particularly those who are most in need - and in the Golden Rule.

I believe in honest pay for honest work, and in freedom from all tyranny, whether it be imposed by invaders or from a home-grown power base.

I believe that abridgement of our individual rights is unacceptable, whether the tyrants are agents of government, commerce, or religious institutions.

And I believe that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance in protecting and promoting those values.

I am a proud liberal. These are my beliefs.

Hogwash.

You can't believe any of that and be a liberal.

That's EXACTLY what I believe, take it or leave it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I believe in government by, for, and of the people, constituted not merely to protect the wealth and position of the extremely rich and powerful, but the welfare and prosperity of all of the people.

I believe in the values I was raised with in school, where I was taught the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which told me that our government exists to serve the people and protect the rights of the people.

I believe in the values I learned in church as a child, where I was taught that the worship of money is evil, that we should help each other - particularly those who are most in need - and in the Golden Rule.

I believe in honest pay for honest work, and in freedom from all tyranny, whether it be imposed by invaders or from a home-grown power base.

I believe that abridgement of our individual rights is unacceptable, whether the tyrants are agents of government, commerce, or religious institutions.

And I believe that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance in protecting and promoting those values.

I am a proud liberal. These are my beliefs.

Hogwash.

You can't believe any of that and be a liberal.

What she believes is in her post starting with bashing Republicans and then moving in to judge me and tell me what I think even as she accuses me of being 'holier than thou'. Jesus knew what he was talking about with that log in the eye thing.