What do liberals want the US to be?

[ScienceRocks]

Both extremes want to do bad for America. That is a fact.

 

[Mac1958]

Both extremes want to do bad for America. That is a fact.

No, I don't think that's their goal.

They're just so narcissistic, the partisan echo chambers in which they exist are so loud, they think that things MUST be done THEIR WAY, that they put party and political victory over country.

The effect is, yes, significant damage to the country, but I don't think that's the intent. They're just blinded by their ideology.

.

 

[kaz]

Oh Jesus... not this stupid shit again.

Do you want to pretend it didn't happen or wait for me to forget? This is why we'll get no where with fools like you who don't even know/remember what the **** happened to us once Bush got into office.

Remember he took Clinton's SURPLUS and squandered it. Him and his GOP party led by Tom Delay.

If Clinton ran a "surplus" then why did the national debt go up every year he was in office?

I have a secret for you, Beav, politicians lie. Shocking, isn't it?

DON'T KNOW WHAT A YEARLY BUDGET IS HUH? SHOCKING

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Begging the question. Why did the national debt go up every year he was in office if we ran a surplus. That's the first question I asked you, Sparky. There's a reason you're evading it, it shows your lie.

You don't know how a yearly budget works Bubba? SERIOUSLY?

DEFINITION of 'Budget Surplus'

A situation in which income exceeds expenditures. The term "budget surplus" is most commonly used to refer to the financial situations of governments; individuals speak of "savings" rather than a "budget surplus." A surplus is considered a sign that government is being run efficiently.

Budget Surplus Definition Investopedia

LOL, I work in finance, and I own my own business. I also was a math major as an undergrad. I understand numbers. Let's see how you do.

So read what you just wrote. A budget surplus is "a situation in which income exceeds expenditures." So, if income exceeded expenditures every year Clinton was President, how did the national debt go up? That makes no sense.

Here's an example.

Suppose on January 1, there is a national debt of $10T.

That year, there is a surplus. Income is $1.5T and expenditures are $1.0T.

On December 31 that year, the national debt would be $9.5T. A surplus means the debt goes down.

Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.

 

[Flash]

Conservative economic theories have never worked and never will.

Yea right, the Conservative ideas of letting Americans keep more of the money they earned and having fiscal responsibility always suck to Libtards while the dumbshits embrace the idea of stealing money from the American people who earn it and giving it away to welfare queens and using government to control every aspect of someone's life is always so appealing.

The only thing that Libtard economics have produced has been debt, high taxation, low economic growth and unemployment. Both political parties in the US practice Left Wing economics by having big government and a welfare state and that is the reason we are in such a big mess.

You are very confused about everything or else you are a troll just trying to get responses from really stupid statements.

 

[BlackSand]

Both extremes want to do bad for America. That is a fact.

No, I don't think that's their goal.

They're just so narcissistic, the partisan echo chambers in which they exist are so loud, they think that things MUST be done THEIR WAY, that they put party and political victory over country.

The effect is, yes, significant damage to the country, but I don't think that's the intent. They're just blinded by their ideology.

.

The middle doesn't get a pass on criticism just because their equally entrenched mentality falls in the middle.

The middle wouldn't exist without the ends and only gains power when it combines with either the right or left. To expect the far right or left will combine in order to defeat the middle ... Would simply ignore the benefit the middle gets in not taking a solid stand about anything.

The echo chamber runs from one end of the spectrum to the other and applies all the way across the board.

.

 

[Nosmo King]

No liberal wants a country where everyone is totally dependent on the state

Stop making shit up

progressive statists sure as hell do, and they are part of the modern "liberal" pantheon.

More bullshit on your part. You make up a position for liberals and then attack your phony position

The state has a role in any society. Most functions in our lives are best filled at the individual level but many are more efficiently performed by the state

So tramping over people's rights is a matter of efficiency?

Seig Heil, herr gruppenfuhrer.

Which of your rights have been trampled? Are you free to earn a living? Are you free to obtain property? Are you free to express your grievences?

How are you being repressed?

How about the right to the unfettered use of the product of one's labor?

The Right to Openly Market one's services to the public and to provide one's services without need of outside sanction?

The Right to hunt and fish without the burden of outside sanction?

Work through those and I'll get you some more... .

I get it. You don't want to pay taxes. Too bad. If you want the services government provides e.g. paved roads, a military capable of striking anywhere on earth within seconds, food and drug standards and navigable rivers and ports, you must pay taxes.

You want to hunt and fish anything and anywhere without regard to public safety and the conservation of our natural resources. Too bad.

Unfettered citizenry results in anarchy.

 

[rightwinger]

Conservative economic theories have never worked and never will.

Yea right, the Conservative ideas of letting Americans keep more of the money they earned and having fiscal responsibility always suck to Libtards QUOTE]

Yes, Conservatives want to allow Americans keep more of what they earn while they do everything possible to keep those earnings to a bare minimum. Low wages, inability to collectively bargain, no healthcare, slashed educational funding

 

[Mathbud1]

So you see the Fairness Doctrine as a method for reducing the influence that wealthy people have on the legislative process.

Is that because you see it as a method for reducing the influence that wealthy station owners have on the message being broadcast? The hope being that a more balanced message will lead to a more informed voting population?That this will then change who the voters elect? That the legislators will then be more free from the influence of wealthy people?

Sorry just trying to follow your train of thought.

Back in the 50s and 60s, people were wise enough to realize that since A.M. bandwidth is limited, that in order to avoid monopolization, it was necessary to implement certain requirements that ensured it served the public interests instead of merely the interests of those owning the stations. The fairness doctrine was the way to preserve that long-standing American tradition of free speech and access to a wide range of ideas so as to enable an informed electorate rather than having such ideas hand-selected for us.

The influence of money as it relates to radio should be obvious. It takes a lot of the stuff to broadcast, and in the years since the 60s, the trend has been towards conglomeration. There are fewer and fewer independent radio stations all the time, having been replaced by giants such as clear channel and cumulus, which have now merged, thus allowing for the monopolization of opinion even further.

The re-implementation of this doctrine that acted to conserve our American valuesin regards to free speech would certainly not end the ability of enormous corporations to control the political climate of this country, but it would at least provide for a little balance in the way this media operates.

That would assume that broadcast is the method of choice for Americans in receiving their news and other content. I would argue that in this day and age that is no longer remotely accurate. I NEVER listen to radio and I am far from alone in that. I much more likely to listen to streaming media, podcasts, etc even in the car. I read news online.

As you said yourself, the Fairness Doctrine was about the limitations on available bandwidth and the avoidance of monopolization. There has been a significant increase in the available means of transmitting and receiving information since that time. Do you still see it as expedient for the government to mandate the content that is broadcast in the current situation?

You CAN'T be honest can you? Without the Fairness Doctrine, right wingers just get to lie. Yes, other media is out there, but fed off of mostly Faux and right wing hate radio bullshit!


Tax cuts will bring in more revenues? lol. Biggest lie. Tax cuts create jobs? Second biggest. Obama a 'leftist, Marxist, Commie, etc' (He's Corp) 3rd biggest ...

What did I say that was dishonest?

Troll on friend. Troll on.

 

[kaz]

Where did he say that?

Post 649

Liar, that didn't say I'm OK with spending the million on a cruise missile.

Now it is getting interesting

So Libertarians are now advocating we zero out our defense budget in addition to letting your neighbor die from lack of a heart

What else do we have to look forward to in your Libertarian utopia?

Strawman

not really, but...

Can Dante show kaz where kaz said he would 'zero out our defense budget?' Dante clearly cannot since kaz did not say that. The word for that is strawman since that was the point rw addressed.

RW also begged the question when he assumed the only solution to a problem is government, but that's another topic.

 

[rightwinger]

Both extremes want to do bad for America. That is a fact.

Actually, both extremes are doing what they believe is best for America

The problem lies with the fact that what is best for America lies somewhere in the middle. The inability to compromise, the belief that win-win solutions are a defeat because the other guy gets to win too and the open hostility is what prevents us from reaching that middle ground

 

[BlackSand]

Actually, both extremes are doing what they believe is best for America

The problem lies with the fact that what is best for America lies somewhere in the middle. The inability to compromise, the belief that win-win solutions are a defeat because the other guy gets to win too and the open hostility is what prevents us from reaching that middle ground

If you are a butcher and someone walks in your store and demands you give them half your chicken at ... Doesn't mean letting them steal a quarter of your chicken is an acceptable answer.

Compromise is not always an acceptable solution.

.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, both extremes are doing what they believe is best for America

The problem lies with the fact that what is best for America lies somewhere in the middle. The inability to compromise, the belief that win-win solutions are a defeat because the other guy gets to win too and the open hostility is what prevents us from reaching that middle ground

If you are a butcher and someone walks in your store and demands you give them half your chicken at ... Doesn't mean letting them steal a quarter of your chicken is an acceptable answer.

Compromise is not always an acceptable solution.

.

More reason why our government doesn't work

The idea that compromise is somehow "stealing"
That I am so right in my convictions that any acknowlegement that the other guys beliefs may have merit is defeat

 

[Wyatt earp]

He is not talking about outright stealing, what made this country great was compromise. George Washington didn't want a second term because he didn't want to become a king
Reagan compromised with ripper
Elder George Bush went against his campaign promise and raised taxes
Clinton compromised with newt

 

[BlackSand]

More reason why our government doesn't work

The idea that compromise is somehow "stealing"
That I am so right in my convictions that any acknowlegement that the other guys beliefs may have merit is defeat

The problem is that the person demanding the chicken thinks he a right to what isn't his. Under what conditions do you think the butcher should have compromised and given up his chicken when demanded?

You don't to call it theft ... And if it just comes down whether or not you think you deserve the chicken ... Get your own chicken. If the butcher wants to help someone feed themselves ... Then the butcher can do it without the person demanding his chicken.

The butcher certainly doesn't need to hand over his chicken ... So the person demanding it can benefit from passing out free chicken.

.

 

[rightwinger]

More reason why our government doesn't work

The idea that compromise is somehow "stealing"
That I am so right in my convictions that any acknowlegement that the other guys beliefs may have merit is defeat

The problem is that the person demanding the chicken thinks he a right to what isn't his. Under what conditions do you think the butcher should have compromised and given up his chicken when demanded?

You don't to call it theft ... And if it just comes down whether or not you think you deserve the chicken ... Get your own chicken. If the butcher wants to help someone feed themselves ... Then the butcher can do it without the person demanding his chicken.

The butcher certainly doesn't need to hand over his chicken ... So the person demanding it can benefit from passing out free chicken.

.

Come back with a realistic analogy and we can talk

Right now, you present a biased analogy reinforcing that your side is always right and the other side is stealing from you

You are just proving my point

 

[Dad2three]

Like I said, BJ Bill was the best consercvative Prez since Ike, Obama looks to come in second place, unless he's turned by the GOP the next 2 years, he might beat Clinton

You didn't answer the question.

Sure I did. I can't help it if you are ignorant

No you didn't. You said Clinton was, "the best conservative prez". This means nothing. Do you support Clinton signing NAFTA or not? Stop being a coward and answer you mental midget.

I'm sorry you are a dense Bircher, but yes, I think BJ Bill was the best conservative Prez since Ike, as a liberal, I oppose conservatives,I hate bigots like you, and despise these libertarian ass wipes who, like you, believe in myth's and fairy tales!

This still doesn't answer the question on whether you oppose Clinton signing NAFTA. You just said you oppose conservatives, view Clinton as a conservative, but view him as the best of the Conservatives. That is absurd state as Clinton is not conservative in any sense, certainly not with NAFTA, but you are avoiding the question because you won't condemn Clinton. So do you oppose Clinton on signing NAFTA?

Libertarianism is born of Classical Liberalism, not Burkean Conservatism. As is free trade. Conservatives have always opposed free trade, so stop falsely pegging this to us. Even as you admitted, Federalists, the heirs to conservatism in the US, instituted the American System, with tariffs.

Sure Bubba, You are to dense to understand since Clinton signed NAFTA, I opposed NAFTA, since that, I must LOVE Clinton, the best conservative Prez since Ike. You are nothing but a bigoted, right winger. Call yourself whatever you want. Believe in fairy tales, I love the spaghetti monster in the sky myself. You wing nutters who want to hold onto 'tradition and custom', lets get a few slaves for you and make sure you strike your wife to make sure she puts you on the pedestal right?

 

[Dad2three]

I get it Bubba, WHY would a union with a heavy Hispanic membership support a path to citizenship when self deporting would work so well, lol

IF you were EVER honest and got off your Birch bullshit I might have a heart attack. Bet you think Uncle Walter was the reason the US lost in Vietnam too right? That gawdamn red right?

You admit they are primarily hispanic race based and wonder why Americans don't join them? Seriously? Why would any non-hispanic native born worker support a union that wants to bring in more immigrants just because they are hispanic?

Same with the AFL-CIO, both support amnesty. The AFL was originally a pro-American organization that opposed immigration to protect American jobs. Now they have sold out.
American Federation of Labor - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You mean unions support a path to citizenship? Shocking you Birchers hate it


Nov 20, 2014 - Breaking: Americans support a path to citizenship. About six in 10 support a new pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants

Not they don't. Half of Americans oppose Obama's executive Amnesty and citizenship to illegals.
Pew Poll Half of Americans Oppose Obama Exec Amnesty

However, none of this changes the fact that unons should support protecting their workers wages, regardless of political winds, and protect their interests.

Good for you Bubba, you don't take my posit, but instead make up your own and argue from there. Typical from you

Americans strongly support a path to citizenship.


About six in 10 support a new pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, according to a new poll from NBC News and Wall Street Journal. And that number jumps to a whopping 74 percent if you qualify that the undocumented immigrants must take steps like paying back taxes.

The very same poll, though, also asked people whether they support legal status -- shy of citizenship -- for illegal immigrants. Support for this, somewhat amazingly, is just 39 percent, with 48 percent opposed.



In other words, huge majorities support a path to citizenship. But on a path to legal status, it's reversed.

Americans strongly support a path to citizenship. That means less for Obama than you think. - The Washington Post

Amnesty is the path to citizenship. What both our polls shows is that it depends how the word the question. When they say a path to citizenship, as opposed to amnesty, since this is broad and can mean any number of things, it receives more support. When the poll says amnesty, Americans oppose it.

And this still doesn't address the point that unions shouldn't be based on polls, but on protecting their workers wages, which are threatened by immigration through increase labor supply. Simple economics.

Good you agree, my original posit was correct, and you changing it and arguing from that posit, was your normal right wing crap...

 

[Dad2three]

Do you want to pretend it didn't happen or wait for me to forget? This is why we'll get no where with fools like you who don't even know/remember what the **** happened to us once Bush got into office.

Remember he took Clinton's SURPLUS and squandered it. Him and his GOP party led by Tom Delay.

If Clinton ran a "surplus" then why did the national debt go up every year he was in office?

I have a secret for you, Beav, politicians lie. Shocking, isn't it?

DON'T KNOW WHAT A YEARLY BUDGET IS HUH? SHOCKING

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Begging the question. Why did the national debt go up every year he was in office if we ran a surplus. That's the first question I asked you, Sparky. There's a reason you're evading it, it shows your lie.

You don't know how a yearly budget works Bubba? SERIOUSLY?

DEFINITION of 'Budget Surplus'

A situation in which income exceeds expenditures. The term "budget surplus" is most commonly used to refer to the financial situations of governments; individuals speak of "savings" rather than a "budget surplus." A surplus is considered a sign that government is being run efficiently.

Budget Surplus Definition Investopedia

LOL, I work in finance, and I own my own business. I also was a math major as an undergrad. I understand numbers. Let's see how you do.

So read what you just wrote. A budget surplus is "a situation in which income exceeds expenditures." So, if income exceeded expenditures every year Clinton was President, how did the national debt go up? That makes no sense.

Here's an example.

Suppose on January 1, there is a national debt of $10T.

That year, there is a surplus. Income is $1.5T and expenditures are $1.0T.

On December 31 that year, the national debt would be $9.5T. A surplus means the debt goes down.

Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.

SERIOUSLY? You don't know paying off interest due on debt can still cause debt to increase? You SERIOUSLY went to college and can't understand what a yearly budget is? LOL. You are a disingenuous POS. I'm shocked. I linked you to investipedia already Bubba

You do know almost $1 trillion of PUBLIC debt WAS paid down under Clinton right? That excess PAYROLL taxes were put into bonds? lol AS REQUIRED BY LAW? WHAT DOES THAT DO BUBBA?

 

[BlackSand]

More reason why our government doesn't work

The idea that compromise is somehow "stealing"
That I am so right in my convictions that any acknowlegement that the other guys beliefs may have merit is defeat

The problem is that the person demanding the chicken thinks he a right to what isn't his. Under what conditions do you think the butcher should have compromised and given up his chicken when demanded?

You don't to call it theft ... And if it just comes down whether or not you think you deserve the chicken ... Get your own chicken. If the butcher wants to help someone feed themselves ... Then the butcher can do it without the person demanding his chicken.

The butcher certainly doesn't need to hand over his chicken ... So the person demanding it can benefit from passing out free chicken.

.

Come back with a realistic analogy and we can talk

Right now, you present a biased analogy reinforcing that your side is always right and the other side is stealing from you

You are just proving my point

Whenever you force one segment of society to provide for another ... And they have equal say-so in the law ... Then theft is the end result no matter what you want to call it.

It doesn't matter how you try and justify the theft ... You are forcing those who have something, to give it to people who don't. The idea you benefit from the ability to give stuff away only diminishes any justification you may pose.

You can put lace on a bowling ball and call it whatever you want ... It is still a bowling ball.

.

 

[Dad2three]

Conservative economic theories have never worked and never will.

Yea right, the Conservative ideas of letting Americans keep more of the money they earned and having fiscal responsibility always suck to Libtards while the dumbshits embrace the idea of stealing money from the American people who earn it and giving it away to welfare queens and using government to control every aspect of someone's life is always so appealing.

The only thing that Libtard economics have produced has been debt, high taxation, low economic growth and unemployment. Both political parties in the US practice Left Wing economics by having big government and a welfare state and that is the reason we are in such a big mess.

You are very confused about everything or else you are a troll just trying to get responses from really stupid statements.

You are nothing but an ignorant tool who must love hate talk radio, it's fits your IQ....

90%+ of current debt can be traced back to Reagan, Bush and Bush POLICIES. Think 'starve the beast'