What do liberals want the US to be?

[kaz]

These midterms were losses on historic levels. You can write them off if you like without dealing with that, please do.

These midterms were apathy on historic levels. The lowest voter participation rate since 1942. Winning because no one showed up to vote is not a mandate.

LOL, so since Democrats overwhelmingly didn't give a shit, that means that somehow they wanted Democrats to win. They just didn't show up because they didn't give a shit if they did. So it doesn't mean anything. They wanted Democrats. They just didn't give a shit.

Liberalism: The ability to simultaneously believe contradictory thoughts.

 

[kaz]

I should be able to take care of myself, but if god forbid, something were to happen to me I like the idea that the government is there to take care of me

Government takes care of you now, notice the source of your monthly check.

 

[Flash]

Equal opportunities. A place where everyone plays by the same rules and not having separate rules if you're rich or white than if you're poor or a minority.

Democracy does not not produce equal opportunity. It produces thievery by the plurality.

Using the force of government to take money from those that earned it and giving it those that elected the government is nothing more than thievery no matter how you look at it.

We the people my friend. Our government is us. We the people collectively bettering its society by having social programs that do that.

You are right. The idiots in the US are responsible for this out of control government and this bloated welfare state. It is greed.

Did you know that Social Security drastically reduced the number of elderly in poverty?

Do you know that Social Security has a 65 trillion dollar entitlement liability that is going to bankrupt this country in a few years? Especially with this idiot Obama putting all the illegals on it. The filthy government has spent the money that the people have paid into SS on other things and that is one of the main reasons we have to borrow almost a trillion dollars a year to fund the government.

I can be responsible for my own retirement thank you very much. I don't need the damn government screwing it up for me like they screw up everything else they touch..

Were you aware that the ACA has reduced the number of people without heath insurance by a large margin?

First of all being without health insurance in the US does not mean you don't get heath care if you need it. There were plenty of programs to provide free healthcare to the indigent before Obamacare.

Second of all Obamacare is nothing more than establishing another entitlement that just because somebody is alive that are entitled to have somebody else pay their bills. Disgusting.

Third of all this stupid welfare scheme cost an exorbitant amount of money. The shitheads that get the subsidies make out like bandits but the paying customers have larger premiums, much higher co payments and deductibles not to mention the 21 new taxes levied to fund the stupid program and the raiding of funds from Medicare.

 

[rightwinger]

I should be able to take care of myself, but if god forbid, something were to happen to me I like the idea that the government is there to take care of me

Government takes care of you now, notice the source of your monthly check.

I work for a small private company with 400 employees

 

[mudwhistle]

OK, now you need to define "social justice". Who decides what is "socially just" ?

I would suggest you read some John Rawls on the subject.

I suggest reading John Hawkins :

20 Examples of What Liberalism REALLY Is - John Hawkins - Page full

 

[rightwinger]

OK, now you need to define "social justice". Who decides what is "socially just" ?

I would suggest you read some John Rawls on the subject.

I suggest reading John Hawkins :

20 Examples of What Liberalism REALLY Is - John Hawkins - Page full

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I suggest reading John Hawkins :

20 Examples of What Liberalism REALLY Is - John Hawkins - Page full

Why would I want to read the mindless polemics of a man who is quite clearly an idiot?

 

[mudwhistle]

I suggest reading John Hawkins :

20 Examples of What Liberalism REALLY Is - John Hawkins - Page full

Why would I want to read the mindless polemics of a man who is quite clearly an idiot?

Because you might possibly learn something in the process.

We should never think ourselves to be too intelligent to hear opposing viewpoints.

 

[kaz]

I should be able to take care of myself, but if god forbid, something were to happen to me I like the idea that the government is there to take care of me

Government takes care of you now, notice the source of your monthly check.

I work for a small private company with 400 employees

You were retired before, is your name Jeremy Buttons by any chance?

 

[Mathbud1]

That does not at all define "level playing field." Can you please describe what you would see as a level playing field.

Equal opportunities. A place where everyone plays by the same rules and not having separate rules if you're rich or white than if you're poor or a minority.

Do you think we are there currently, or do you, right now, see a separate set of rules for wealthy and poor or for white and minority?

Also, do liberals "want to help those who need helping," or do they want government to "help those who need helping?"

We the people my friend. Our government is us. We the people collectively bettering its society by having social programs that do that. Did you know that Social Security drastically reduced the number of elderly in poverty?

So, in other words, yes liberals want the government to do the helping. So the statement that "liberals want to help people that need helping" is not completely accurate. If it was completely accurate, there is nothing stopping liberals from directly and individually helping anyone they want to help.

Our government is not us. Our government represents us. There is a distinction. No action that the government takes can be in accordance with the will of all of the people. There will be dissenters to every action or decision. A person who does not want to help people is not represented when the government helps people. A person who does want to help people is not represented when government does not help people, but they can still help people through other means.

So the liberal viewpoint is actually that We The People should have to help others whether we want to or not.

Accurate?

 

[Redfish]

Sure Bubba, sure

There are 2 parties (PERIOD, NO 3rd party since 1992 has done squat) the US. Weird how SOOOOOO many conservatives don't support either party, lol

Libertarians are frauds and parasites. Period

We are parasites, not wanting government money. LOL. you are a tool.

Yeah, I just love that "logic." Of course, it's just another example of the liberal propaganda technique where they accuse their critics of everything they are guilty of.

Libertarians are frauds and parasites but unfortunately have been successful in hiding their dangerous disease under war hating, and freedom loving. Sadly their freedom isn't freedom, it is chaos and opens the door to a real loss of democracy.



They unwittingly use the protections, benefits and accomplishments government has to offer to create their fortunes, while pompously declaring they did it all on their own.

Clueless igets, everyone.

LOL, the idea of government not taking care of you is just pure terror, isn't it?

I should be able to take care of myself, but if god forbid, something were to happen to me I like the idea that the government is there to take care of me

Your family should take care of you, not the rest of us. If you have no family then look to a church or other charity. The government is not your caretaker.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Seriously?

Liberals want a country that provides a level playing field for all people regardless of race, sex, sexuality or social class
Liberals want to help those who need helping

Define "level playing field."

And do liberals "want to help those who need helping," or do they want government to "help those who need helping?"

OK
There is a delicate balance between capitalists and labor. In recent years we have valued money earned through capitalism more than that earned through labor. Our economic policies are crafted by the capitalists and designed to minimize the collective power of labor

That does not at all define "level playing field." Can you please describe what you would see as a level playing field.

Also, do liberals "want to help those who need helping," or do they want government to "help those who need helping?"

That is a level playing field between the capitalists who make money through investing and workers who make money through labor

There used to be a time when we valued our workers. They had an expectation that if you worked hard and were loyal to your employer that you could support your family, have a decent quality of life and someday retire.
We used to expect more of our capitalists. Expected them to pay a decent wage to those producing their wealth, expected them to contribute more to the society from which they benefit so much. But we sold out to supply side economics

Now, who should "help those who need helping"?

I would like to see more of the burden shifted to the capitalist. Right now, it is the government (taxpayers) who are making up the difference in substandard wages

Where do you get the foolish idea that companies do not value their employees? That just a load of BS.

 

[Redfish]

OK, now you need to define "social justice". Who decides what is "socially just" ?

I would suggest you read some John Rawls on the subject.

I suggest reading John Hawkins :

20 Examples of What Liberalism REALLY Is - John Hawkins - Page full

JFK would be a conservative today. Is the following in concert with current liberal thinking?:

"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Of course not, today's liberals want to have everyone sucking the govt teat.

 

[rightwinger]

We are parasites, not wanting government money. LOL. you are a tool.

Yeah, I just love that "logic." Of course, it's just another example of the liberal propaganda technique where they accuse their critics of everything they are guilty of.

Libertarians are frauds and parasites but unfortunately have been successful in hiding their dangerous disease under war hating, and freedom loving. Sadly their freedom isn't freedom, it is chaos and opens the door to a real loss of democracy.



They unwittingly use the protections, benefits and accomplishments government has to offer to create their fortunes, while pompously declaring they did it all on their own.

Clueless igets, everyone.

LOL, the idea of government not taking care of you is just pure terror, isn't it?

I should be able to take care of myself, but if god forbid, something were to happen to me I like the idea that the government is there to take care of me

Your family should take care of you, not the rest of us. If you have no family then look to a church or other charity. The government is not your caretaker.

That would be nice

Churches and charities have proven themselves incapable of taking care of people in serious situations. They do what they can but quickly find themselves overwhelmed

I have known people who did quite well taking care of themselves until some catastrophy hits them. I have a neighbor who owned a small roofing company and was doing quite well until he fell off a roof and received a severe head injury. He was incapacitated and no longer able to work. His wife had to cut back on working to take care of him. With significant medical bills and no income having a "nanny government" to step in sure helps

 

[Mathbud1]

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.

Seriously?

Liberals want a country that provides a level playing field for all people regardless of race, sex, sexuality or social class
Liberals want to help those who need helping

Define "level playing field."

And do liberals "want to help those who need helping," or do they want government to "help those who need helping?"

OK
There is a delicate balance between capitalists and labor. In recent years we have valued money earned through capitalism more than that earned through labor. Our economic policies are crafted by the capitalists and designed to minimize the collective power of labor

That does not at all define "level playing field." Can you please describe what you would see as a level playing field.

Also, do liberals "want to help those who need helping," or do they want government to "help those who need helping?"

That is a level playing field between the capitalists who make money through investing and workers who make money through labor

There used to be a time when we valued our workers. They had an expectation that if you worked hard and were loyal to your employer that you could support your family, have a decent quality of life and someday retire.
We used to expect more of our capitalists. Expected them to pay a decent wage to those producing their wealth, expected them to contribute more to the society from which they benefit so much. But we sold out to supply side economics

Now, who should "help those who need helping"?

I would like to see more of the burden shifted to the capitalist. Right now, it is the government (taxpayers) who are making up the difference in substandard wages

You described in your post what you see as an un-level playing field. Not what you would describe as level. I am more interested in what you would see as level. Flesh that out a little please.

So you say you want more of the burden of helping people shifted to capitalists. So your initial statement of "liberals want to help those who need helping" should be revised to "liberals want someone to help those who need helping." Yes?

 

[rightwinger]

OK, now you need to define "social justice". Who decides what is "socially just" ?

I would suggest you read some John Rawls on the subject.

I suggest reading John Hawkins :

20 Examples of What Liberalism REALLY Is - John Hawkins - Page full

JFK would be a conservative today. Is the following in concert with current liberal thinking?:

"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Of course not, today's liberals want to have everyone sucking the govt teat.

It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives have twisted "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" into a JFK condemnation of social programs

JFK was making a plea for public service in advance of his Peace Corps initiative. JFK fought hard for social programs that became LBJs war on poverty

 

[Redfish]

Yeah, I just love that "logic." Of course, it's just another example of the liberal propaganda technique where they accuse their critics of everything they are guilty of.

Libertarians are frauds and parasites but unfortunately have been successful in hiding their dangerous disease under war hating, and freedom loving. Sadly their freedom isn't freedom, it is chaos and opens the door to a real loss of democracy.



They unwittingly use the protections, benefits and accomplishments government has to offer to create their fortunes, while pompously declaring they did it all on their own.

Clueless igets, everyone.

LOL, the idea of government not taking care of you is just pure terror, isn't it?

I should be able to take care of myself, but if god forbid, something were to happen to me I like the idea that the government is there to take care of me

Your family should take care of you, not the rest of us. If you have no family then look to a church or other charity. The government is not your caretaker.

That would be nice

Churches and charities have proven themselves incapable of taking care of people in serious situations. They do what they can but quickly find themselves overwhelmed

I have known people who did quite well taking care of themselves until some catastrophy hits them. I have a neighbor who owned a small roofing company and was doing quite well until he fell off a roof and received a severe head injury. He was incapacitated and no longer able to work. His wife had to cut back on working to take care of him. With significant medical bills and no income having a "nanny government" to step in sure helps

I have no issue for welfare for people like your roofer friend. None at all. The problem is that we are giving welfare and food stamps, and Secion 8 housing to able bodied people who could be working and supporting themselves. We have a system of generational welfare and it is responsible for the problems like Ferguson where young minority men have no jobs and no incentive to do anything but run the streets and sell drugs.

Thats the real issue that no one is willing to address. Because they are all scared of being called racist if they tell the truth.

 

[Redfish]

OK, now you need to define "social justice". Who decides what is "socially just" ?

I would suggest you read some John Rawls on the subject.

I suggest reading John Hawkins :

20 Examples of What Liberalism REALLY Is - John Hawkins - Page full

JFK would be a conservative today. Is the following in concert with current liberal thinking?:

"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Of course not, today's liberals want to have everyone sucking the govt teat.

It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives have twisted "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" into a JFK condemnation of social programs

JFK was making a plea for public service in advance of his Peace Corps initiative. JFK fought hard for social programs that became LBJs war on poverty

thats true, but his total context was much larger. JFK did not support a welfare state.

As to the so-called war on poverty, there are more americans in poverty today than when that failed libtardian policy was started. We have spent trillions to eradicate poverty and it has grown.

Liberalism does not work, never has, never will

 

[Mathbud1]

OK...let's look at where the playing field is not level
We have a wealthy class who get a disproportional say in how legislation is crafted and who it helps. Specific legislation includes tax structure, deductions, labor laws
Affirmative action was an immensely successful liberal program that helped all people. Yes, it did level the playing field

Does that mean you want to eliminate all wealth?

Or do you want to eliminate legislation?

Or something else?

Why do you guys always come back with such stupid responses?

How does advocating policies that don't directly make the rich wealthier equate to "eliminate all wealth"?

How is that a stupid response?

You said that the wealthy class has a " disproportional say in how legislation is crafted and who it helps."

I assumed that you meant they had such a say because they are able to spend their money to influence legislators.

How would you stop that?

I gave you two options that would stop that influence: eliminating wealth, or eliminating legislation. I also gave you the all-important third option: something else. A free pass to explain in your own words what you actually meant.

So?

Your response:
Does that mean you want to eliminate all wealth?

Totally unrelated to what I posted

What about it is unrelated?

"We have a wealthy class who get a disproportional say..." -> "Does that mean you want to eliminate all wealth?"

"in how legislation is crafted and who it helps." - > "Or do you want to eliminate legislation?"

I addressed two aspects of your complaint and invited you to explain your own resolution if neither of the ones I suggested fit your point of view.

Again, what about that is at all unrelated to what you posted?

What would you do to eliminate the "disproportional say" that the "wealthy class" has in our legislative process?

Eliminating wealth is not what you had in mind. Eliminating the legislative process is not what you had in mind. Ok. What did you have in mind?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Because you might possibly learn something in the process.

We should never think ourselves to be too intelligent to hear opposing viewpoints.

Mindless drivel that only acts to divide has precious little value no matter the political orientation.

If you need that sense of validation that comes with being part of a tribe, however, don't let me get in you way. I happen to think the world is a whole lot more complex than these extremely simple-minded dichotomies people like to foist, but I do realize some derive comfort from such simplification. The world must seem less scary to you when you only have to engage it this way.