Thanks. For the most part you didn't get personal or judgemental about what I wrote. I also didn't put this out there as I believe this but as This is the liberal perspective. I should've written that but it didn't occur to me.
Just gonna focus on your points
Climate change is the obvious one that jumps out here (and maybe the whole of academia as well). I'm not making a generalization when I say AGW is a belief held primarily by liberals. Yet there is significant peer reveiwed scientific work out there that suggests otherwise. Along with this is the naivete that scientists are above playing politics, after all they generally get their research money from politicians.
But you see, that's arguable. There is significant peer reviewed scientific work that suggests that global warming has been accerlerating in the last 100 years. And scientists generally get their research money from many different places that are outside political influence: the NSF, state universities and colleges, etc. Not that scientists aren't fallible. But the logic is, what if global warming is accelerating? Whether we cause it or not, shouldn't we, based on the current models, attempt to slow if not halt it to avoid a lowered-quality of life?
Contradicts the 'need change' paragraph. Based on historical research rarely has goverment shown that it can be trusted with your tax dollars.
Sure, that's why we want REFORM.
Large corporations are in a better position to provide better compensation to their employees.
Then why don't they. Yes, I know some do. But I can think of lots of examples where they don't.
'Beacon of humanity' is too often confused with coddling, which is ultimately detrimental to society, where liberals are concerned.
Isn't there some kind of middle ground?
Neither is the opposite.
This is simply not looking at the whole. Only recently have we seen that things in France aren't exactley hunky dory for a lot of people. Have you seen their unemployment rate?
No system is perfect. Look at ours! I would say the liberals see more of the good in those systems and assume that conservatives have been propagandized into fearing anything associated with communism, such as socialism even though those countries' economies are hardly socialist.
Which should never be an excuse to do all you can to help yourself first.
And a liberal would contend that we should empower people TO help themselves first.
Rights tend to take on the role entitlements that people don't really have under liberalism. Best example: You are entitled to PURSUE happiness. You are not entitled to happiness.
I guess I don't understand your point in context to mine. Feel free to expound and, I hate to say, spell it out for me. My liberal bias might be clouding the view of the picture your painting.
Contradicts #2 in 'other' section. Also contradicts human rights trumping everything where abortion is concerned unless you are operate under the ridiculous beleif that any child not expelled from the womb is not human.
It is subjective that the belief that unborn fetuses are not human is ridiculous. That smacks of the same kind of self-righteousness that conservatives find so abhorrent in liberals.
The perspective of historical accuracy I would say in many cases they do. If that's the position then a hell of a lot of cities need a name change ( i.e. San(St.)Francisco).
I'm sure REASONABLE exceptions can be made.
Most people are go to have an understandable problem welcoming with open arms strangers that have shown to be dangerous to society. But we do have a prision overcrowding problem. If Obama wants to stimulate the ecomomy he could create an awful lot of jobs by building a suffcient number of prisons.
Agreed for the most part, but I don't think building more prisons is going to help with crime and the extremely high rate of repeat offenders.
A group not very different from government whom you claim we should trust.
Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. Liberals DON'T trust the government, but we think it CAN be made to be trustworthy, but not without vigilance.
This is a cowardly vailed way of saying we should spare no expense on education. Educated people know however that throwing money at people doesn't make them smarter.
Well, you didn't need to get personal. That wasn't what I was saying, however, spending money on education never hurt.
Need to address the contradictions above. The argument itself is horribly flawed. The right to have a gun is not what CAUSES guns death. If that were true there should be A LOT more deaths. The need argument is flawed as well, unless of course you are willing to give up something else that you someone arbitrarily decided you dont need. It is similar to arguing that cell phone use while driving causes deaths and the ridicuous solution would be banning all cell phones. It is mispriortized argument as well. Cars are involved in far more deaths. It is an unfair argument (you say liberals are all about fairness). Compared to the number of guns that exist in the U.S. and responsible owners that use them, gun deaths and violence is but a fraction of that. How is it fair to punish many for the sake of a very few (who are criminals and thus probably aren't goint to adhere to a gun ban anyway). There simply is not one logical argument for banning guns. NONE. PERIOD.
I personally don't know how I feel about gun control. I was an expert rifleman in the Corps, and I like venison and elk A LOT! But we do have one of the highest murder rates in the world. What do you think is the cause?
Thwarting reform has been blocked by both right and left. The right tried to reform Fannie and Freddie under Bush for example. It was blocked by the left controlled congress.
Conceded.
I have had LLLOOOOOONNNNGG discussions about this one. For most able bodied people there is simply very little that is IMpossible. Some will have to work harder than others yes, but the only true limitation is one's level of motivation. What you don't acknowledge won't change and if you dont' indentify the things you have control over or are accountable that are keeping you from reaching your goals then you wont' reach your goals. That unfortunately works against human nature. Human nature is blame outside sources for our failures.
I agree with you but I don't think this takes into account the whole picture. What about the specific reasons I gave in my OP? Do you agree that large corporations and wealthy people reduce opportunity of the middle class?
It has been my experience that liberals aren't happy with a level playing field, what they really want are equal outcomes.
I think that is a biased opinion and one based on the surface of the liberal movement. I, for one, don't think that.
Thanks again for the thoughtful responses, and I would appreciate if you left judgements like "cowardly" out of your responses since I haven't insulted you... The golden rule and all, you know.
