Coloradomtnman
Rational and proud of it.
- Thread starter
- #21
You would think that because you are probably the most reactionary poster on USMB, Willow.
Rightwing Reactionary Perception of (Modern) Liberalism
- Thread starter Coloradomtnman
- Start date
You would think that because you are probably the most reactionary poster on USMB, Willow.
Coloradomtnman
Rational and proud of it.
- Thread starter
- #22
Only to spend the money in other areas- mostly socialized healthcare, feeding the world, lining their own pockets, and giving 'minorites' jobs they aren't qualified for
-except conservative talk radio
Yet every liberal politician does.today's iberals are not Classical Liberals
Because they pay off the Republicans
Because idiot libs thought it'd drive up the price of crop and increase profits, ending the Great Depression.
Actually, you want to prop them up and pay for it with taxpayer dollars
yet the libs pushed it through...
Noone has a 'right' to end another life for their own convenience. The Libertines had to lie about being raped to pass that law: that shows the character of the movement
True, IF it's a non-legally-binding ritual. If they want it to be legally binding, they act in the State's stead.
That's simply not true.
You are not most libs
Both sides want to legislate morality. The Rights, under the influence of the religious idiots, rail against drugs, sex, 'foul language'.... The left wants to rail against junk food, 'right-wing hate radio', alcohol...
Stopping murderers is not entirely possible. Let's decriminalize it!
They are.
Only because ignorant libtards play the race card and make it a race issue. Racism is rampant among the Left
All evidence to the contrary
I think you are confusing Democrats with liberals. Not the same thing despite how much the media and conservatives think they are.
Gunny
Gold Member
Sure you don't mean modern American politics? I've met very few people who actually are either 100% conservative or 100% liberal.
Words mean things. Liberal has a definition. It is not representative of a political party nor political mindset that wants to control everyone else and tell them what to do and how to live and what's best for them. However, fascism seems to define it very well.
Both parties are controlled by fascists who want to tell others how to live, who try to obfuscate their real identities and intentions by calling themselves "conservatives" or liberals."
A true liberal doesn't give a crap what you're doing nor what you believe in so long as you aren't screwing with what they are doing and/or what they believe in.
Coloradomtnman
Rational and proud of it.
- Thread starter
- #24
Hear hear!
Indiana Oracle
The Truth is Hard to Find
This has not crossed ideological chasm. It never will be crossed so long as one man thinks he knows better than another. In the meantime the ideologues shout from rooftops.
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,101
- 2,180
Coloradomtnman
Rational and proud of it.
- Thread starter
- #27
What about unnecessary and dishonest wars? How much do we spend on social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, education and job training programs in comparison to Iraq and Afghanistan?
About 100 to 1 per annum thus far. And you do realize don't you that we were already at war with Iraq and that the shooting had already restarted vis a vis Iraq before the second Bush took office?
How much have we spent on Wallstreet and Auto Industry bail outs? Oil subsidies?
In the case of the former far too much we shouldn't have spent one thin dime. In the case of the latter sense the depletion allowance was ended 30 years ago under Carter I don't know of any. The depletion allowance was pretty much of a category with the sort of write-offs all businesses are given on vehicles and other equipment. The offset went primarily to helping move oil fields from primary to secondary and then tertiary production. Which by the way is where we are at with all US on shore production at the moment.
This is a capitalist economy and I'm not going to buy a piece of shit car. There's probably a lot which should be done by the US auto industry to come out of this stronger and better than before and I hope that's what happens. Considering how things work in the bewildering confusion of American politics and its constant meddling in the markets, I doubt that it will.
First this hasn't been a purely capitalist economy in decades. That's part of the problem if not all of it. Especially when it concerns the auto makers. Part of the problem is of course that goliath industries like GM can't turn on a dime without sacrificing something. And something is usually quality. You ever here the old line ' The hurrier I go the behinder I get'? That applies wholesale to the US auto industry over the last five decades. Every time the government changes a set of the rules regulations and what have you concerning the auto makers production techniques, gas mileage requirements, etc, etc, etc, the carefully thought out and laid down plans for next year that you just finalized a week ago now have to be completely redrawn from the ground up and you now have a week to accomplish a task that normally requires six months.
2nd We have thousand if not millions of lobbyists for but one reason and that one reason is because the government has chosen to involve itself in private industry to the extent it has over the last five decades. Businesses hire lobbyist for exactly the same reason a private citizen usually buys a hand gun - self defense.
I really think we should limit the amount of litigation that happens in the US if just because of medical costs. I don't think all of us will go broke keeping many of us from filing bankruptcy because of medical debt.
Many of us don't. In fact the number percentage wise is fairly small. Does it happen of course. Is that in and of itself a reason to involve the feds? No.
About 100 to 1 per annum thus far. And you do realize don't you that we were already at war with Iraq and that the shooting had already restarted vis a vis Iraq before the second Bush took office?
How much have we spent on Wallstreet and Auto Industry bail outs? Oil subsidies?
In the case of the former far too much we shouldn't have spent one thin dime. In the case of the latter sense the depletion allowance was ended 30 years ago under Carter I don't know of any. The depletion allowance was pretty much of a category with the sort of write-offs all businesses are given on vehicles and other equipment. The offset went primarily to helping move oil fields from primary to secondary and then tertiary production. Which by the way is where we are at with all US on shore production at the moment.
This is a capitalist economy and I'm not going to buy a piece of shit car. There's probably a lot which should be done by the US auto industry to come out of this stronger and better than before and I hope that's what happens. Considering how things work in the bewildering confusion of American politics and its constant meddling in the markets, I doubt that it will.
First this hasn't been a purely capitalist economy in decades. That's part of the problem if not all of it. Especially when it concerns the auto makers. Part of the problem is of course that goliath industries like GM can't turn on a dime without sacrificing something. And something is usually quality. You ever here the old line ' The hurrier I go the behinder I get'? That applies wholesale to the US auto industry over the last five decades. Every time the government changes a set of the rules regulations and what have you concerning the auto makers production techniques, gas mileage requirements, etc, etc, etc, the carefully thought out and laid down plans for next year that you just finalized a week ago now have to be completely redrawn from the ground up and you now have a week to accomplish a task that normally requires six months.
2nd We have thousand if not millions of lobbyists for but one reason and that one reason is because the government has chosen to involve itself in private industry to the extent it has over the last five decades. Businesses hire lobbyist for exactly the same reason a private citizen usually buys a hand gun - self defense.
I really think we should limit the amount of litigation that happens in the US if just because of medical costs. I don't think all of us will go broke keeping many of us from filing bankruptcy because of medical debt.
Many of us don't. In fact the number percentage wise is fairly small. Does it happen of course. Is that in and of itself a reason to involve the feds? No.
Last edited:
The premise of this thread is excellent.
I hate waste in government but I don't hate government, it is a necessity.
I am a liberal but I don't use credit cards, I live within my means.
I am not offended by foul language but I never swear in front of people who are.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with safe premarital sex or sex in general but I have never been unfaithful to my wife in 29 years.
I think all criminals should be punished but I don't think people should be treated as criminals unless convicted in a court of law, until they should have the full protection of the law.
I want our country to be defended against all likely military threats but I don't think we need to spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined, most of the rest of the world are our allies or not hostile.
I am agnostic, but having been raised in a fundamentalist Christian family I am aware of their sensabilities and their desire to convert everyone to their beliefs. Christians have every right to "spread the Gosple" and no right to use the power of government to do so.
I could go on, but you catch my drift.
I hate waste in government but I don't hate government, it is a necessity.
I am a liberal but I don't use credit cards, I live within my means.
I am not offended by foul language but I never swear in front of people who are.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with safe premarital sex or sex in general but I have never been unfaithful to my wife in 29 years.
I think all criminals should be punished but I don't think people should be treated as criminals unless convicted in a court of law, until they should have the full protection of the law.
I want our country to be defended against all likely military threats but I don't think we need to spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined, most of the rest of the world are our allies or not hostile.
I am agnostic, but having been raised in a fundamentalist Christian family I am aware of their sensabilities and their desire to convert everyone to their beliefs. Christians have every right to "spread the Gosple" and no right to use the power of government to do so.
I could go on, but you catch my drift.
Gunny
Gold Member
Not bad. I don't claim to be 100% liberal, nor 100% conservative. I hold different beliefs depending on the topic.
I will use abortion as an example (and if the whacko abortion freaks try and derail this thread into another abortion debate they can count on their shit getting cut out and shitcanned).
My personal belief is, abortion is wrong. It's murdering an unborn human being. I would never consent to, nor be party to an abortion that involved me directly.
This is usually where the leftwinggoobs cut in and start their ad hominem attacks and non sequitur comments. Because the fact is, yes, it is my personal belief that if you condone abortion you are condoning murder; which, questions their core values.
What they don't get is that I'm not telling them what to do. I'm not telling them what to believe. They can't even claim I voted against them since the Supreme Court usurped the 10th Amendment and made the decision for all without benefit of representation of the majority.
It comes down to insecure people not being able to handle being told someone disagrees with them and having to throw a little hissy fit. They can't tolerate the fact someone disagrees with them. Tolerance is a tenet of liberalism.
Other side of the coin. While it is the extremists who have acted ... to me protesting abortion by blowing up abortion clinics and murdering people inside is the epitome of hypocrisy and intolerance.
If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. If you have allowed yourself to be sold that it's something other than what I believe it is, knock yourself out. You won't find me standing in your way. I have to answer to God for ME, not YOU.
Which brings us to the next example. I am a Christian and I believe there is a God. If you don't like it, tough shit. But all I ever see on this board are the Godless doing their damnedest to disprove His existence when you can't. Every thread devolves into personal attacks on Christians. All attacking Christians shows me is MORE insecurity.
Why should you give a fuck what I believe? Rest assured I don't care what YOU believe. Difference is, you anti-God squad fucks have to prove your insecurity. You don't see me trying to convert you. Believe what you want. Again, I have to answer to God for ME, not YOU.
Both examples are examples of liberalism. Yet I have been branded a conservative for years because I vote against the leftist Democratic party. Why? You sorry fascist fucks abandoned liberalism and became even worse than those you accuse, trying to force your beliefs down everyone's throats. You are as judgmental as any "conservative" and about as self-aware of the fact as a fucking rock.
Clean your own fucking houses before you presume to come tell me what's wrong with mine.
Alpha1
NAVY
- Jun 3, 2007
- 1,719
- 193
- 48
For this reply we'll assume Liberals and Democrats are synonymous..
Liberals want to increase the size of government.
Liberals want to nationalize healthcare and the auto industry.
Liberals are extremists when it comes to the environment. They all have been bamboozled into the global warming and the green movements.
Liberals want to outlaw or oppress Christianity, but they're fine with Islam.
Liberals think that pedophiles should be protected under law.
Liberals want to control our personal lives, but conservatives want fewer laws regarding personal liberties.
Liberal believe you can legislate social attitudes i.e. Affirmative Action, Same Sex Marriage, etc.
Liberals want to open the borders to immigrants, conservatives want to close them and enforce stricter illegal immigration laws.
Liberals are weak when it comes to enforcing laws.
Liberals want to increase the size of government.
Liberals want to increase government spending.
Liberals want to nationalize healthcare and the auto industry.
Liberals are extremists when it comes to the environment. They all have been bamboozled into the global warming and the green movements.
Liberals want to outlaw or oppress Christianity, but they're fine with Islam.
Liberals hate the military.
Liberals think that pedophiles should be protected under law.
Liberals want to control our personal lives, but conservatives want fewer laws regarding personal liberties.
Liberals are PC and want to legislate being PC with Hate Speech laws.
Liberal believe you can legislate social attitudes i.e. Affirmative Action, Same Sex Marriage, etc.
Liberals want to open the borders to immigrants, conservatives want to close them and enforce stricter illegal immigration laws.
Liberals are weak when it comes to enforcing laws.
Gunny
Gold Member
Bullshit, Leftwinger fascists want to increase the size of government. Liberals don't need a fucking government. Fascists need a government.
Gunny
Gold Member
Shit, c'mon you gutless leftwingers ... defend youselves. You claim to be liberal, bring your shit. I'm sick of you MFer's trying to make yourselves look like something other than the fascists you are.
As stated previously what is far to often called liberals in this country are in point of fact leftist.
I'm still waiting for one of these leftist dingbats to explain to me how the hell taking money and or property from a and giving it to b promotes the general welfare which is what they claim the welfare state does.
I'm still waiting for one of these leftist dingbats to explain to me how the hell taking money and or property from a and giving it to b promotes the general welfare which is what they claim the welfare state does.
DamnYankee
No Neg Policy
- Apr 2, 2009
- 4,516
- 441
- 48
True enough, from the first paragraph on down. But that was the point really. Insert the word "modern" into either and what you have is a punch bowl filled with fruit punch. Each "side" seems to have forgotten what the principles are, and the only things that's important now is the almighty ballot. I'm sure you saw the political maneuvering by Obama (an excellent example) from the beginning of his campaign through the final months of the general election. Nothing quite so "modern" as a politican running for higher office....
DamnYankee
No Neg Policy
- Apr 2, 2009
- 4,516
- 441
- 48
I answered above: infrastructure. If citizenship confers on the individual rights, and property is defined as one of those rights, having or allowing the sharing of that right is a function of politics. Neither conservatism nor liberalism has been able to resolve that dilemma, extremes are a third world nation or socialism. Third world status is ugly for most, and socialism is an ideal that can't deal properly with people and their nature, or the existing situation. Thus the European models of democratic socialism, at this point in history, work best as proven by the recent happiness test. And happiness is part of the preamble.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Musk and Henry Ford's racism is "the rich tradition of rabble-rousers."- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 1
-
Trump announces 'full and immediate ceasefire' between India and Pakistan- Started by EvilEyeFleegle
- Replies: 8
-
All Future Admissions to US Service Academies will be based “exclusively on merit”- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 9
-
D.C.-area economy starts to show deep impacts of federal spending cuts
- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 7
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
BREAKING: Letitia James Served With Federal Grand Jury Subpoena- Latest: John Edgar Slow Horses
-
