What do liberals want the US to be?

[Redfish]

- Who has less anti-Semitism, US, Saudi Arabia, Greece, or Europe?
- Which Country has the best Environmental Regulations, US, Russia, India, Or China?
- Which Country is most tolerant of homosexuals? US, Saudi Arabia, Syria, India, or China?
- Which Country has the strongest Middle Class? US, Cuba, Venezuela, or Mexico?
- Which Country has the least slavery? US, China, India, or Kenya?


US is quite an Exceptional Country. Clearly, US is the most progressive Country in the World. Stop hating America, goddamnit!

False premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have

So Germany? Denmark? Norway? ETC lol

YOU WANT TO MAINLY COMPARE US TO 3RD WORLD NATIONS?



80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.

Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite

the gap between rich and poor has grown under obama. That is a FACT. Liberalism only helps the elites like Gruber, Obama, Oprah, and Soros.

 

[Dad2three]

It would help if people could learn at least enough of the basics of political science to realize liberalism is an ideology with certain tenets rather than just describing a person. This Manichaean insistence that people are divided into just two political groups is part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

People can call themselves "liberal" all they want, but unless they are operating from the standpoint of advancing liberal values, they are just left wing fundamentalists.

The shortest answer I can give here , though, is that liberalism places greater value on social justice than social order. The "conserve" in conservatism refers to the preservation of social order over social justice.

LOL!! That is ADORABLE!

Next, when they're asked to define "Social Justice" will come the obscurant rant which inevitably results in our learning that 'social justice' can't really be defined... that such means different things to different people, and how big a mistake it is to try and pigeon hole people and their respective tenets into narrow definitions... blah blah blah.

First, "Liberalism' is not an Ideology. Collectivism is an Ideology, within which Liberalism is mired... Left-think is an unprincipled, wholly unsustainable series of rationalizations, which serve no purpose beyond isolating the individual from all responsibility for their actions. The purpose of this is to separate those individuals from the rights which those responsibilities sustain. As the purpose of collectivism is to use the collective as a means to set people who are otherwise incapable of achieving material wealth, with material wealth.

Left-think rests entirely upon Relativism.

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.

It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity which is essential to truth.

And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

The Fundamental "Tenets" of Left-think are: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance... and that is why the Left seeks to serve 'social justice', because social justice SOUNDS like 'Justice'.

But it not only does not SERVE JUSTICE, "Social Justice" serves INJUSTICE. It is the anti-thesis of justice... thus it is a LIE.

The Left are, in every sense of the word: The Enemy of America. They are the advocates of Foreign Ideas which are Hostile to American Principle... and they are determined to separate Americans from any sense of recognition of those principles.

They are not reasonable people. They cannot be reasoned with... and there is no compromise that can be achieved which will ever render them anything less than a virus within our culture which must be destroyed, to the last adherent of such, if we're to survive as a culture.

And in terms of understand 'social justice' and its advocacy, that is all there is to it.

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson



The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. Money is their god. They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it.

 

[rightwinger]

Thanks to everyone who has posted so far on this thread. I was very serious with the question in the OP. But so far not one liberal has been able to provide a specific cogent response. Billo came the closest.

It seems to me that liberals want everyone to have the same material things, for the government to care for everyone, and for everyone to love everyone else. The want a crime free nation that takes care of the poor and destitute of the entire world.

Simply stated, liberals live in a fantasy world where everyone puts flowers in their hair and dances around the may pole singing "I'd like to buy the world a coke" and "imagine".

Are your reading skills that poor?

Show where any liberal advocated everyone have the same material skills or that the government take care of everyone including the whole world

Provide the post numbers

I don't know what you mean by 'material skills'. I never said that. Unless I missed it, it is quite clear that liberals want some form of taxation and rebates that effectively make all citizens equal in terms of income. Liberals want single payer healthcare, is that not wanting the govt to take care of everyone?

Show me the post where anyone on this thread said everyone should have the same material things? Now you claim we are saying everyone should have the same income

You are not lying to us are you?

nope, that underlying theme is in every liberal want list. But specifically see posts 163,172,175,176,190

Which of those posts comes remotely close to this claim?

 

[BluesLegend]

Nope, the OP was a serious question and I wanted serious responses. I had my suspicions as to how you libs would respond and you confirmed them.

You libs have no idea what you really want. You deal in theory, emotion, and feeeeeeeeeeelings, not reality.

thanks for the confirmation.

"You libs", "You libs", "You libs"

Are you a child?

The world is not as simplistic as you wish to make it. Now, I realize you are not particularly bright and so need to reduce all the complexity of the world down to your ability to comprehend it, this tendency fed, no doubt by all the A.M. radio demagogues who keep drumming home the message, but the world is not a simple binary system. Sure, you have been conditioned to see politics in terms of just two competing tribes, and you react accordingly by playing the part of right, proper little ideological warrior for yours, but grow the **** up, child, and try actually learning a little bit about politics instead of just parroting all the simple-minded good guy/bad guy crap. .

Let me highlight the areas of your post that are text book liberal...wow it was worse than I thought. Your post has the rotted festering stench of elitist liberal, you fail to make a single rational argument you simply insult and attempt to paint the poster as uneducated. That's some classic liberal right there.

 

[Redfish]

It would help if people could learn at least enough of the basics of political science to realize liberalism is an ideology with certain tenets rather than just describing a person. This Manichaean insistence that people are divided into just two political groups is part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

People can call themselves "liberal" all they want, but unless they are operating from the standpoint of advancing liberal values, they are just left wing fundamentalists.

The shortest answer I can give here , though, is that liberalism places greater value on social justice than social order. The "conserve" in conservatism refers to the preservation of social order over social justice.

LOL!! That is ADORABLE!

Next, when they're asked to define "Social Justice" will come the obscurant rant which inevitably results in our learning that 'social justice' can't really be defined... that such means different things to different people, and how big a mistake it is to try and pigeon hole people and their respective tenets into narrow definitions... blah blah blah.

First, "Liberalism' is not an Ideology. Collectivism is an Ideology, within which Liberalism is mired... Left-think is an unprincipled, wholly unsustainable series of rationalizations, which serve no purpose beyond isolating the individual from all responsibility for their actions. The purpose of this is to separate those individuals from the rights which those responsibilities sustain. As the purpose of collectivism is to use the collective as a means to set people who are otherwise incapable of achieving material wealth, with material wealth.

Left-think rests entirely upon Relativism.

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.

It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity which is essential to truth.

And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

The Fundamental "Tenets" of Left-think are: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance... and that is why the Left seeks to serve 'social justice', because social justice SOUNDS like 'Justice'.

But it not only does not SERVE JUSTICE, "Social Justice" serves INJUSTICE. It is the anti-thesis of justice... thus it is a LIE.

The Left are, in every sense of the word: The Enemy of America. They are the advocates of Foreign Ideas which are Hostile to American Principle... and they are determined to separate Americans from any sense of recognition of those principles.

They are not reasonable people. They cannot be reasoned with... and there is no compromise that can be achieved which will ever render them anything less than a virus within our culture which must be destroyed, to the last adherent of such, if we're to survive as a culture.

And in terms of understand 'social justice' and its advocacy, that is all there is to it.

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson



The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. Money is their god. They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it.

total bullshit. You have no idea what conservatism believes.

Do you think the liberals in hollywood and the media do not worship money? Do you think Obama's buddy Imelt (CEO of GE) does not worship money? How about Soros?

Under a totally liberal government, all the money and all the power would be concentrated in a very small group of super elites like Gruber, and the rest of us would be EQUALLY miserable.

You assholes have no idea what you are asking for.

 

[Dad2three]

It has historically been the states that violate the rights of minorities. It has been the states that have historically been neglectful of their responsibilities towards its citizens.

It has been the states who historically have been the most corrupted by powerful interests that would turn a state into a semi-private fiefdom

You meant the Southern States that was controlled by Democrats.

You can believe that drivel or actually read up on history books.
I would suggest the latter.

Yes, the Southern States that were controlled by White Christian Conservative Democrats

Same old dirty tricks, they changed their names to liberal not their tricks.
The 19th century, Southern Democrats comprised whites in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 1850s they held that slavery was a good thing and promoted its expansion into the West.

After Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s they controlled all the Southern states and disenfranchised the blacks (who were Republicans). The "Solid South" gave nearly all its electoral votes to Democrats in presidential elections. Republicans seldom were elected to office outside some mountain districts

The Negroes were Republicans in name only. They couldn't vote -- remember?

Your history link is so terrible it is humiliating to respond.

for one thing: "the elderly, and disabled." thing? FDR and Social Security. Whom did it cover?

Quotes by Madison and Franklin taken out of context. geeze.

Talk about not knowing history?
African Americans could vote 1865. The first one to be elected was Edward Brooke in 1966.
The 15th amendment to the US Constitution was ratified in 1870 and gave former male slaves the legal right to vote. However, many southern states added requirements such as literacy tests and poll taxes that were designed to keep blacks from voting. In 1957, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act that made it difficult to deny voting rights based on race.
African Americans were granted the right to vote in the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Taken out of Context?
The quote from Ben Franklin comes from his writtings where he is is talking about - On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, 1766

You say, poor labourers cannot afford to buy bread at a high price, unless they had higher wages. Possibly. But how shall we Farmers be able to afford our labourers higher wages, if you will not allow us to get, when we might have it, a higher price for our corn?
By all I can learn, we should at least have had a guinea a quarter more if the exportation had been allowed. And this money England would have got from foreigners.
But, it seems, we Farmers must take so much less, that the poor may have it so much cheaper.
This operates then as a tax for the maintenance of the poor. A very good thing, you will say. But I ask, Why a partial tax? Why laid on us Farmers only? If it be a good thing, pray, Messrs. the Public, take your share of it, by indemnifying us a little out of your public treasury. In doing a good thing there is both honour and pleasure; you are welcome to your part of both.
For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."


"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis


Republicans only seem to have one solution to any problem - make life harder for those on the bottom.

 

[Redfish]

Thanks to everyone who has posted so far on this thread. I was very serious with the question in the OP. But so far not one liberal has been able to provide a specific cogent response. Billo came the closest.

It seems to me that liberals want everyone to have the same material things, for the government to care for everyone, and for everyone to love everyone else. The want a crime free nation that takes care of the poor and destitute of the entire world.

Simply stated, liberals live in a fantasy world where everyone puts flowers in their hair and dances around the may pole singing "I'd like to buy the world a coke" and "imagine".

Are your reading skills that poor?

Show where any liberal advocated everyone have the same material skills or that the government take care of everyone including the whole world

Provide the post numbers

I don't know what you mean by 'material skills'. I never said that. Unless I missed it, it is quite clear that liberals want some form of taxation and rebates that effectively make all citizens equal in terms of income. Liberals want single payer healthcare, is that not wanting the govt to take care of everyone?

Show me the post where anyone on this thread said everyone should have the same material things? Now you claim we are saying everyone should have the same income

You are not lying to us are you?

nope, that underlying theme is in every liberal want list. But specifically see posts 163,172,175,176,190

Which of those posts comes remotely close to this claim?

all of them. The theme is very obvious. I cannot help it if your reading comprehension skills are those of a dead slug.

 

[BluesLegend]

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Do you spend 80% of your day fuming about this? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Thanks to everyone who has posted so far on this thread. I was very serious with the question in the OP. But so far not one liberal has been able to provide a specific cogent response. Billo came the closest.

It seems to me that liberals want everyone to have the same material things, for the government to care for everyone, and for everyone to love everyone else. The want a crime free nation that takes care of the poor and destitute of the entire world.

Simply stated, liberals live in a fantasy world where everyone puts flowers in their hair and dances around the may pole singing "I'd like to buy the world a coke" and "imagine".

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson



Every Republican administration in memory has created record deficits - passing that money along to the wealthy, where it remains in the bank accounts and out of the economy.

 

[Redfish]

Nope, the OP was a serious question and I wanted serious responses. I had my suspicions as to how you libs would respond and you confirmed them.

You libs have no idea what you really want. You deal in theory, emotion, and feeeeeeeeeeelings, not reality.

thanks for the confirmation.

"You libs", "You libs", "You libs"

Are you a child?

The world is not as simplistic as you wish to make it. Now, I realize you are not particularly bright and so need to reduce all the complexity of the world down to your ability to comprehend it, this tendency fed, no doubt by all the A.M. radio demagogues who keep drumming home the message, but the world is not a simple binary system. Sure, you have been conditioned to see politics in terms of just two competing tribes, and you react accordingly by playing the part of right, proper little ideological warrior for yours, but grow the **** up, child, and try actually learning a little bit about politics instead of just parroting all the simple-minded good guy/bad guy crap. .

Let me highlight the areas of your post that are text book liberal...wow it was worse than I thought. Your post has the rotted festering stench of elitist liberal, you fail to make a single rational argument you simply insult and attempt to paint the poster as uneducated. That's some classic liberal right there.

well said, and accurate.

 

[Dad2three]

[
Israel is an ally just like the UK is an ally.
.

Really? How many troops did Israel send to Afghanistan and Iraq?

What defensive treaty obligations does Israel have with the US?

I don't have access to the US/Israel treaties, do you? If so, what do they say?

Israel is a small nation surrounded by enemies that want to destroy it. If you hate jews, that does not change that reality. Should we let the arabs murder all jews in Israel and make that land part of Syria?

Do you support what Germany did in the 1930s?

So your original premise was bullshit

 

[Redfish]

Thanks to everyone who has posted so far on this thread. I was very serious with the question in the OP. But so far not one liberal has been able to provide a specific cogent response. Billo came the closest.

It seems to me that liberals want everyone to have the same material things, for the government to care for everyone, and for everyone to love everyone else. The want a crime free nation that takes care of the poor and destitute of the entire world.

Simply stated, liberals live in a fantasy world where everyone puts flowers in their hair and dances around the may pole singing "I'd like to buy the world a coke" and "imagine".

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson



Every Republican administration in memory has created record deficits - passing that money along to the wealthy, where it remains in the bank accounts and out of the economy.

horseshit. when obama took office the national debt was 10T , it is now over 17T and will be over 20T by the time he leaves office. Obama will have added more to the national debt than all previous presidents COMBINED

Do you understand the difference between annual deficit and national debt?

 

[Redfish]

[
Israel is an ally just like the UK is an ally.
.

Really? How many troops did Israel send to Afghanistan and Iraq?

What defensive treaty obligations does Israel have with the US?

I don't have access to the US/Israel treaties, do you? If so, what do they say?

Israel is a small nation surrounded by enemies that want to destroy it. If you hate jews, that does not change that reality. Should we let the arabs murder all jews in Israel and make that land part of Syria?

Do you support what Germany did in the 1930s?

So your original premise was bullshit

that Israel is an ally? how is that premise inaccurate?

you made the claim about treaties, its on you to back up that claim.

 

[JoeB131]

this is a serious question, please only reply with serious comments.

what specifically do liberals want the US to become?
Tell us exactly what you want changed, and why.

I want a country where those who do the work actually get a fair share of the benefits of that work.

I want a country where racism, homophobia and sexism are a thing of the past.

I want health care as a right and not a commodity for those who we can squeeze money out of.

 

[bripat9643]

It would help if people could learn at least enough of the basics of political science to realize liberalism is an ideology with certain tenets rather than just describing a person. This Manichaean insistence that people are divided into just two political groups is part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

People can call themselves "liberal" all they want, but unless they are operating from the standpoint of advancing liberal values, they are just left wing fundamentalists.

The shortest answer I can give here , though, is that liberalism places greater value on social justice than social order. The "conserve" in conservatism refers to the preservation of social order over social justice.

LOL!! That is ADORABLE!

Next, when they're asked to define "Social Justice" will come the obscurant rant which inevitably results in our learning that 'social justice' can't really be defined... that such means different things to different people, and how big a mistake it is to try and pigeon hole people and their respective tenets into narrow definitions... blah blah blah.

First, "Liberalism' is not an Ideology. Collectivism is an Ideology, within which Liberalism is mired... Left-think is an unprincipled, wholly unsustainable series of rationalizations, which serve no purpose beyond isolating the individual from all responsibility for their actions. The purpose of this is to separate those individuals from the rights which those responsibilities sustain. As the purpose of collectivism is to use the collective as a means to set people who are otherwise incapable of achieving material wealth, with material wealth.

Left-think rests entirely upon Relativism.

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.

It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity which is essential to truth.

And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

The Fundamental "Tenets" of Left-think are: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance... and that is why the Left seeks to serve 'social justice', because social justice SOUNDS like 'Justice'.

But it not only does not SERVE JUSTICE, "Social Justice" serves INJUSTICE. It is the anti-thesis of justice... thus it is a LIE.

The Left are, in every sense of the word: The Enemy of America. They are the advocates of Foreign Ideas which are Hostile to American Principle... and they are determined to separate Americans from any sense of recognition of those principles.

They are not reasonable people. They cannot be reasoned with... and there is no compromise that can be achieved which will ever render them anything less than a virus within our culture which must be destroyed, to the last adherent of such, if we're to survive as a culture.

And in terms of understand 'social justice' and its advocacy, that is all there is to it.

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson



The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. Money is their god. They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it.

Liberal Dictionary:
===========================================
Greed - the desire to keep the money you have earned
compassion - coveting the money earned by others and taking it by force

 

[Dad2three]

Thanks to everyone who has posted so far on this thread. I was very serious with the question in the OP. But so far not one liberal has been able to provide a specific cogent response. Billo came the closest.

It seems to me that liberals want everyone to have the same material things, for the government to care for everyone, and for everyone to love everyone else. The want a crime free nation that takes care of the poor and destitute of the entire world.

Simply stated, liberals live in a fantasy world where everyone puts flowers in their hair and dances around the may pole singing "I'd like to buy the world a coke" and "imagine".

Are your reading skills that poor?

Show where any liberal advocated everyone have the same material skills or that the government take care of everyone including the whole world

Provide the post numbers

I don't know what you mean by 'material skills'. I never said that. Unless I missed it, it is quite clear that liberals want some form of taxation and rebates that effectively make all citizens equal in terms of income. Liberals want single payer healthcare, is that not wanting the govt to take care of everyone?

MORE BULLSHIT FROM YOU

"We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows."


Teddy Roosevelt spoke impassionedly about great wealth, saying that it is "not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.

 

[JoeB131]

horseshit. when obama took office the national debt was 10T , it is now over 17T and will be over 20T by the time he leaves office. Obama will have added more to the national debt than all previous presidents COMBINED

Do you understand the difference between annual deficit and national debt?

You understand that most of the things that caused the trillion dollar deficits at the begining of Obama's term were put in their by Bush- Tax cuts for the rich, wars that no one was paying for, etc.

 

[Redfish]

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Do you spend 80% of your day fuming about this? lol

he probably does. He dreams of being Robin Hood.

 

[BluesLegend]

Nope, the OP was a serious question and I wanted serious responses. I had my suspicions as to how you libs would respond and you confirmed them.

You libs have no idea what you really want. You deal in theory, emotion, and feeeeeeeeeeelings, not reality.

thanks for the confirmation.

"You libs", "You libs", "You libs"

Are you a child?

The world is not as simplistic as you wish to make it. Now, I realize you are not particularly bright and so need to reduce all the complexity of the world down to your ability to comprehend it, this tendency fed, no doubt by all the A.M. radio demagogues who keep drumming home the message, but the world is not a simple binary system. Sure, you have been conditioned to see politics in terms of just two competing tribes, and you react accordingly by playing the part of right, proper little ideological warrior for yours, but grow the **** up, child, and try actually learning a little bit about politics instead of just parroting all the simple-minded good guy/bad guy crap. .

Let me highlight the areas of your post that are text book liberal...wow it was worse than I thought. Your post has the rotted festering stench of elitist liberal, you fail to make a single rational argument you simply insult and attempt to paint the poster as uneducated. That's some classic liberal right there.

well said, and accurate.

Did you notice the liberal projection? That's another liberal constant.

 

[Redfish]

horseshit. when obama took office the national debt was 10T , it is now over 17T and will be over 20T by the time he leaves office. Obama will have added more to the national debt than all previous presidents COMBINED

Do you understand the difference between annual deficit and national debt?

You understand that most of the things that caused the trillion dollar deficits at the begining of Obama's term were put in their by Bush- Tax cuts for the rich, wars that no one was paying for, etc.

yep, and Bush's starting debt was inherited from Clinton and the failed dot com bubble. Whats your point?