What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

[BreezeWood]

You guys have been predicting the demise of Social Security for 75 years......what's taking so long?

It works.

The only way to sustain the Federal Government and repay Social Security at the same time, will be to print money, a lot of money, too much money ... hyperinflation. Never before has our government burrowed such incredulous amounts of money

... hyperinflation. Never before has our government burrowed such incredulous amounts of money


they keep hoping while the 2nd Great Republican Depression slowly sets in the not to distant past.

what the conservatives truly fear is the Goods and Services Economy and Mr. Trillion, the new kid on the block ... and an out of control prospering economy.

 

[logical4u]

I would say that the teachings of liberalism can be traced to the words and teachings of Jesus.

Yeah, this conversation is beyond you.

Jesus healed the sick. Conservatives say "Let him die."

Jesus chased the money lenders from the Temple. Conservatives have turned religion into big business.

The early Christian church lived as a collective where each believer shared all things in common. Conservatives are materialistic and of the "I, me, mine" mindset.

Jesus fed the multitudes. Conservatives begrudge the needy from receiving food stamps or school meals.

Jesus said "Blessed are the Peacemakers". Conservatives named a nuclear missile which can kill millions of people the "Peacemaker".

Jesus was tortured and executed. Conservatives are for torture, which they euphemistically call "enhanced interrogation". Most of them also support the death penalty. It probably upsets them that executions are carried out by painless means such as lethal injection though.

All in all, I would say that Liberals are much closer to the teachings of Christ than Conservatives. Conservatives seem diametrically opposed to most of Christ's teachings. They do seem to like Biblical law, when it suits their purposes - like justifying slavery and persecuting homosexuals.

Even Yeshua could not heal ALL the sick. Conservatives recognize that you can only do so much..... (even Hugo Chavez died).

Evidence that "conservatives" turned religion into "big business"?

Since you brought up the early church, why did the church STOP living as a collective? Does the phrase if you don't work, you don't eat sound familiar?

Conservatives believe each person should be able to keep most of what they make. The more productive a person is, the more wealth is created. The more wealth that is created is more investments into "comforts" (better food, shelter, and medical care). The other ways end in rationing, destruction, and starvation (over a period of time). Which do you support?

The libs have gone out of their way to target a small group of people to collect their wealth. The libs engage in class warfare. The libs mock morality (unless they are trying to manipulate a conservative). The libs encourage mob rule. How does this make "peace"?

The libs also practice "torture". They punish law abiding citizens that own guns by publishing their names and addresses (how tortured do you think a woman that was stalked and moved to protect herself is feeling?). They punish parents that have worked hard to get good jobs and want to provide for their families by taking funds (taxes) away from that family, forcing them to provide for other people's families health care and education, BEFORE they can provide for their own family's needs (talk about torture). They punish small business owners and corporations (without the current political connections) by making regulations and laws that grow the gov't, but shrink jobs, productivity, and wealth creation. The libs will not remove the worst of the criminals from society, and in many cases, make it harder to keep them in prison (and in some cases, just release them because citizens did not want their taxes raised AGAIN). What was it that you were saying about "torture"?

Please provide evidence of conservatives justifying slavery today (it is still practiced in countries that are not predominantly Christian, the same countries that the dems tell us are good, and we should not interfere there).
Please provide evidence of conservatives "persecuting" homosexuals. I thought "libs" were fact based people, but when the facts about the harmful effects of homosexuality are stated, you libs want to re-define "facts" as hate-speech and persecution? Disagreeing with a person's choices does not mean that you are "persecuting" them.....

Still waiting for you to state what you do believe, and how your "policies" indicate that......

 

[logical4u]

So it is Christian for individuals to help the poor, sick and unfortunate but Marxism when a government comprised of We the People does the exact same thing? As a Judeo-Christian nation isn't one of the guiding principles the welfare of the people themselves? Why does the means to the end transform from a Christian Principle into a Marxism tenet simply because it is being done by the more perfect union of we the people?

Chist doesn't coerce charity. Christ doesn't take money by force from indviduals to give to the needy.

There are no acts by 'we the people." There are only acts by individuals. Any time you hear someone claiming to be "the people" get the hell out of there. It's nothing but trouble.

Your position is that the government of We the People are using force and coercion in order to help the poor, sick and unfortunate?

Yes, along with the people scamming the system for millions of dollars (and lesser amounts too). It is creating a "mob mentality" (see Greece), that will weaken the country and the economy if there are not reforms.

 

[logical4u]

So your position is that a government of We the People are stealing?

My position is that for someone who believes in the principle of self-ownership, or the no harm principle, it is an ideological contradiction to say at one end that I am the owner of myself, and at the other, a mob has the right to determine where the fruits of myself ownership goes. Indeed, if a mob can take away your property for anything other than to maintain the right of self-ownership, then slavery becomes a viable option. The only question then becomes to what extent is slavery implemented?

Do you follow or is this over your head?

So your clarification is that the government formed by a more perfect union of We the People is a mob? Does this mean that Constitution does not give We the People the right to impose taxes and tariffs? How about the right to regulating commerce, enacting laws and defending the nation? Are those also nothing more than mob rule too?

If the people being "paid" (to stay poor) by the gov't have a larger voting block than the people paying the bills, then, yes, it becomes "slavery".

 

[logical4u]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

For conservatives, it’s easy. They either place their ideology on the principle of self-ownership as written by John Locke or the no harm principle as advocated by J.S. Mill. But what does the modern day liberal trace his/her ideological principles back to? What is the foundation of their thought? It can’t be the classical liberalism of the above stated philosophers (Which calles into qustion the reason they identify as "liberals"). So who/what? Is it “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”? Certainly a modern day liberal/progressive/democrat should be able to shine some light on this question.

Truth, Justice and the American Way......C Kent

Not seeing any of those from the current administration....

 

[logical4u]

Truth, Justice and the American Way......C Kent

Define justice.

As C Kent said.........Liberals defend justice for all. regardless of social standing, race, religion or relative super powers

Except Christians, conservatives, and white people....

 

[Oldguy]

Yeah, this conversation is beyond you.

Jesus healed the sick. Conservatives say "Let him die."

Jesus chased the money lenders from the Temple. Conservatives have turned religion into big business.

The early Christian church lived as a collective where each believer shared all things in common. Conservatives are materialistic and of the "I, me, mine" mindset.

Jesus fed the multitudes. Conservatives begrudge the needy from receiving food stamps or school meals.

Jesus said "Blessed are the Peacemakers". Conservatives named a nuclear missile which can kill millions of people the "Peacemaker".

Jesus was tortured and executed. Conservatives are for torture, which they euphemistically call "enhanced interrogation". Most of them also support the death penalty. It probably upsets them that executions are carried out by painless means such as lethal injection though.

All in all, I would say that Liberals are much closer to the teachings of Christ than Conservatives. Conservatives seem diametrically opposed to most of Christ's teachings. They do seem to like Biblical law, when it suits their purposes - like justifying slavery and persecuting homosexuals.

Even Yeshua could not heal ALL the sick. Conservatives recognize that you can only do so much..... (even Hugo Chavez died).

Evidence that "conservatives" turned religion into "big business"?

Since you brought up the early church, why did the church STOP living as a collective? Does the phrase if you don't work, you don't eat sound familiar?

Conservatives believe each person should be able to keep most of what they make. The more productive a person is, the more wealth is created. The more wealth that is created is more investments into "comforts" (better food, shelter, and medical care). The other ways end in rationing, destruction, and starvation (over a period of time). Which do you support?

The libs have gone out of their way to target a small group of people to collect their wealth. The libs engage in class warfare. The libs mock morality (unless they are trying to manipulate a conservative). The libs encourage mob rule. How does this make "peace"?

The libs also practice "torture". They punish law abiding citizens that own guns by publishing their names and addresses (how tortured do you think a woman that was stalked and moved to protect herself is feeling?). They punish parents that have worked hard to get good jobs and want to provide for their families by taking funds (taxes) away from that family, forcing them to provide for other people's families health care and education, BEFORE they can provide for their own family's needs (talk about torture). They punish small business owners and corporations (without the current political connections) by making regulations and laws that grow the gov't, but shrink jobs, productivity, and wealth creation. The libs will not remove the worst of the criminals from society, and in many cases, make it harder to keep them in prison (and in some cases, just release them because citizens did not want their taxes raised AGAIN). What was it that you were saying about "torture"?

Please provide evidence of conservatives justifying slavery today (it is still practiced in countries that are not predominantly Christian, the same countries that the dems tell us are good, and we should not interfere there).
Please provide evidence of conservatives "persecuting" homosexuals. I thought "libs" were fact based people, but when the facts about the harmful effects of homosexuality are stated, you libs want to re-define "facts" as hate-speech and persecution? Disagreeing with a person's choices does not mean that you are "persecuting" them.....

Still waiting for you to state what you do believe, and how your "policies" indicate that......

Care to address my Christian justification for being a "liberal" in post #131?

 

[logical4u]

So your clarification is that the government formed by a more perfect union of We the People is a mob? Does this mean that Constitution does not give We the People the right to impose taxes and tariffs? How about the right to regulating commerce, enacting laws and defending the nation? Are those also nothing more than mob rule too?

No one said anything about the Constitution. That is a separate argument that I would be happy to address in another thread, particularly James Madison’s federalist no. 41 (Last 4 paragraphs). Yet even the founding fathers recognized that there are some things that shall not be legislated on. My point is simple. No one has the right to impede the right of self-ownership for anything other than the right of self-ownership. You disagree? Good, you just made slavery a viable option. The idea that a group of people has the right to legislate one class of citizens into any service other than to the preservation of self-ownership is indeed, a very “modern liberal” stance. In many cases, a conservative one as well, but not to such an extent. In any case, your assertion that the mob is right in anything they wish to do because of a preamble of which grants no power to any branch of government as noted by the Supreme Court only shows that this subject is beyond your comprehension. The government has the right to tax but for what purpose? "The General Welfare." Not "Specific Welfare." This utilitarian phrase couldn't be clearer. But nonetheless, you have in no way shape or form addressed the question posed in the op.

The purpose of my questions is to solicit information surrounding your position. So far all that you have provided is little more than a selfish attitude where you are opposed to providing anything that contributes to the general welfare of the society that provides you one of the highest living standards in the history of the world. You are certainly entitled to hold that position but you don't seem to have any rational basis to support it. Instead everything that you posted is self serving. A society where everyone believed as you do would not function and would certainly be incapable of providing you with the standard of living to which you have become accustomed. Your feudal mindset seems based upon some primitive belief that you are an island and that you depend upon no one else for your welfare. Feel free to point out where this impression is wrong and how you are a good upstanding contributing member of this society. How you don't begrudge paying your taxes and support the constitution and the duly elected government of the people. I am looking forward to how you explain the cognitive dissonance between your mindset and your actions.

You are "assuming" that the "producer" has no religious tendancies (after all this country existed over one hundred years without welfare and food stamps, and there were no widespread reports of people starving in the streets). You are "assuming" the producer has no family, no assistants, no relatives or no responsibility. One of the great things about "producers" is that they want other people to produce, also. Take a look at history, was it the "poor" that built colleges, schools, hospitals and museums? Were those institutions built JUST for the wealthy? No, they were built for the "community" (common good).

It is "your mindset" that will allow the ugly head of slavery to rise in our midst, by voting to force the labors of others to be used for "your will" (told to you by the nearest news or politician). It is your will that will force others to be punished for not giving "enough" of their labors for "your will". It is your vote, that if not studied, and considered that will vote the rights of citizens away, and make all of us (that would include "you") into subjects.

 

[logical4u]

Define justice.

I wonder if he'll copy and paste from Plato's Republic?

As noted conservative and one per center L Luthor once said

Money is only for the rich.

Love how the "fact-based" liberals use fiction to demonstrate their knowledge?

 

[logical4u]

I base my liberal principles on the teachings of Jesus as well. He said that to be His follower, you had to give up your possessions. And He said that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus didn't think much of the rich at all. He was big on our responsibility to care for others, even total strangers. He had respect for the poor which is more than today's conservatives.

And the threat of an eternity in Hell isn't coercion? Much worse than anything the government can do to you.

Funny, conservatives tend to be more generous than libs.... Who doesn't care for the "poor"?

You want to preach Yeshua's teachings to manipulate conservatives, and then you want to criticize HIM for "coercion"? What a little hypocrit, you are.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"...no evidence that people in this country starved in the streets?"

I beg to differ. My mother lived through the depression, and she said that was exactly what was going on. My father got a job with CCC doing hard labor in 1930, and worked for a dollar a day, meals, and a cot in a barracks, and he worshiped FDR for the rest of his life.He said that the alternative was begging or stealing.

 

[logical4u]

American Liberalism also traces its intellecutal origins to the 17h Century European Enlightenment Philosophers - but it places a greater emphasis on equal opportunity, so that more people can own the property John Locke wants the government to protect. A private property sytem where the market winners use their concentrated wealth to fund elections, staff government, write policy and rig markets is not a private property system so much as it's a state maintained plutocracy.

In the broadest terms, American Liberalism respects the rights of all individuals to freedom. But, it feels that freedom is meaningless when their is such unequal access to wealth producing assets. If you're born into a family who can send you to a great univeristy, help you with buying a house, and serve as a general safetynet throughout life, than you have more "Freedom" than someone born into poverty - that is, you have an unearned head start in the competition for jobs and property. American Liberals believe that a political system that reinforces this kind of unequal access to property and its fruits are merely strengthening the old feudal aristocracy of pre-modern Europe. Deviously, instead of projecting an ideology of nobility and birth right, America's wealthy project a false ideology of "freedom", while also claiming persecution by a Stalinist State - (a state they happen to own through generous lobbying and election funding. Claims of persecution is populist bullshit of the rankest vintage, right? You had the ultra-wealthy getting out of their jets, just having bankrolled an election, but claiming to be John Galt. Tragically the GOP has found enough naive voters to buy into this stuff.).

American Liberals believe that Republicans use the power of the state to protect and expand the power of the already wealthy. American Liberals want the possibility of freedom and wealth accumulation to be available to all.

This is why they believe in a strong middle class, i.e., people not born wealthy but who have upward mobility based on liveable wages and affordable education/health care. In order to ensure upward mobility, American Liberals (not fake ones like Clinton or Obama) believe that rather than paying for useless wars in Iraq, money should go into increasing the access of hard working American families to college. I urge you to look not only at the GI Bill, but the state university systems developed in California and New York during the postwar years (the universities who are being defunded so we don't have to raise taxes on Mitt Romney's offshore millions]. These great institutions gave millions of middle class families access to a better life. It wasn't a hand out, as your side claims, it was an investment because these educated children formed one of the most productive work forces in history (until your side figured out they could get cheaper labor in China, and slowly began lowering middle class wages, benefits & education subsidies in order to give the investment class higher returns and lower taxes. This is why Reagan used the Cold War to expand markets to the developing world: cheaper operating conditions. Read the label on the your clothes and tell me where they were made).

When FDR gave Ronald Reagan's father a government job to help the Reagans weather the depression, it wasn't a hand-out by an interventionist government (as your side would have to claim). It was an investment in hard working Americans who would go on to make valuable contributions. [Of course, we can no longer make those investments because your side strategically constructs non-wealthy Americans who have fallen on hard times as Welfare Queens so as to justify cutting their education and subjecting them to austerity - in order to make room for the tax cuts of those who own government and use it's centralized power to create a subsidy and bailout system] Regardless, some say FDR's government investment in the Reagan family paid off. My point is that government has a role, however limited, to play in protecting not only the property of the wealthy, but the opportunity of the non-wealthy - otherwise you are going to go back to the absolutism of old Europe, where government existed primarily to protect the property and rights of the wealthy.

Thank you for "stating" your beliefs. I have some questions. I have taken portions of your statement out to discuss it in more detail.

places a greater emphasis on equal opportunity

Who is placing limits on opportunity by enforcing quotas and opening schools to people that are not here, legally? Who is passing laws to "limit" citizens' rights, and expand the authority of gov't to intrude into personal lives?



American Liberalism respects the rights of all individuals to freedom[/SIZE]. But, it feels that freedom is meaningless when their is such unequal access to wealth producing assets

This does not sound like you respect the rights of "all" individuals. It sounds like you resent people when they work hard and pass their wealth (their choice on how they spend their money) onto their children. What does that second part even mean? Are you saying if we don't all start out the same way, opportunity means nothing? Are you not aware that most people that achieve wealth in this country are not born that way?



American Liberals believe that a political system that reinforces this kind of unequal access to property and its fruits are merely strengthening the old feudal aristocracy of pre-modern Europe.

The only people that appear to believe they are feudal aristocracy in this country are the democrat politicians, that look down their noses at legitimate questions, and lecture the questioner on the manner of the question, or even if the questioner has the authority to ask them a question. Yet, the dem voters that claim to be against the royalty scene, continue to vote these arrogant windbags into office, again, and again.



American Liberals believe that Republicans use the power of the state to protect and expand the power of the already wealthy. American Liberals want the possibility of freedom and wealth accumulation to be available to all

How does stating your opinion of what Republicans are doing, tell us about where you stand? If you want the freedom of wealth accumulation to be available to all, why do you vote to punish those that are almost to the greater wealth accumulation? If you are taxing the people that make over $250,000 at a greater rate, are you not inhibiting their "possibility" of wealth accumulation?



This is why they believe in a strong middle class, i.e., people not born wealthy but who have upward mobility based on liveable wages and affordable education/health care.[/

There has been a democrat administration for the last four years, how is that whole middle class doing? Are their wages increasing? Opportunities in jobs increasing? Is health care "more" affordable? Just an observation: when the democrats say they are "for something", it usually turns out that they harm the very thing they tell their "followers" they will strengthen. Yet the democrat voters will keep voting for them, no matter how far into the hole they go (as long as the politician tells them it is someone else's fault).



believe that rather than paying for useless wars in Iraq, money should go into increasing the access of hard working American families to college.[/

The protection of the country is one of the requirements of the gov't in the Constitution. There is nothing about providing for individual's college tuition in the Constitution. Are you saying that you do not agree with the Constitution? Are you saying it is bad law, and you would prefer to destroy the greatest country in man's history, so you could have a dictator that would tell you what you want to hear, until after he was in power?



until your side figured out they could get cheaper labor in China, and slowly began lowering middle class wages, benefits & education subsidies in order to give the investment class higher returns and lower taxes.[/

So which party was all about bringing cheap labor into this country via illegal immigrants? Which party was all about raising the minimum wage to a point that companies found it was cheaper to send jobs overseas? If the gov't is raising minimum wages, does that strengthen or harm the middle class (do their wages rise, by the same amount or at all when minimum wage is increased)?

In short, it seems that you are using talking points and not telling us what you actually stand for in your political beliefs.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I lived through hyperinflation in the 70s

You bozos have been predicting it since Obama took office. What is taking so long?

The United States has NEVER went through a period of hyperinflation. If you did, bread would cost 1 billion dollars (not a joke).

 

[Freewill]

You guys have been predicting the demise of Social Security for 75 years......what's taking so long?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/283372-the-national-debt-mortgaging-our-future.html

It's not Social Security that will fail, its the dollar. Social Security is actually a good thing, and it funds itself, you pay into it, it's not a handout (however you should not be forced to pay into it). The government has borrowed more than 39 trillion from SS that it CAN NEVER repay. Check the link I gave you.

The only way to sustain the Federal Government and repay Social Security at the same time, will be to print money, a lot of money, too much money ... hyperinflation. Never before has our government burrowed such incredulous amounts of money until Bill Clinton authorized it in 1999 (Then Al Gore RIGHTFULLY ran on reverting back to a lockbox, when he realized the horror of what Bill Clinton had done). Then Bush won, and burrowed even more from SS, then Obama came and made even worse.

Remember that our government is ALREADY BROKE. That is why it is in major debt. Once the interest payments become unsustainable (interest will cost more than the Defense Budget by 2017), no one will lend money to the Federal Government anymore, because we wont even be capable of paying the interest. That's when the Fed prints like mad and hyperinflation starts.

--------------

The problem is the Federal Reserve (a private bank), which is mostly owned by the Rothschild Bank of England. You do know that the Federal Reserve has no obligation to the Federal Government, correct? That the Federal government has ZERO ownership of the Federal Reserve, correct?

When the US dollar crashes, EVERYTHING crashes with it. Social Security, Food Stamps, Government Pensions, Private Pensions, the entire stock market, private wages, public wages, food prices, gas prices, taxes, Medicare, Medicaid, property values, house values, any value, Energy costs, EVERYTHING, water...

Thankfully, I won't have to engage with the mobs that will be killing each other for every little morsel of food and drink of water, and probably cannibalizing. This is what you'll have to look forward to:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY4V3UUY95A]Looks like meat's back on the menu, boys! - YouTube[/ame]

I'll be in my my concrete basement, booby trapped upstairs and outside, watching from the basement windows with lots of guns and ammo. If I run out of ammo and the unarmed mobs try to take me down in my basement, I have my family's heirloom from the revolutionary war (an 18h Century Calvary Saber) combined with my Great Grandfather's family heirloom from Denmark (full suit of gothic armor that fits my height and weight with a kite shield) to slash down every mother ****** in the choke point between my basement door and steps before they take my food and rape my family.

I lived through hyperinflation in the 70s

You bozos have been predicting it since Obama took office. What is taking so long?

You are kidding right? Bought gasoline lately? Bought home heating oil lately? Bought milk lately? Bought a car or truck lately?

 

[logical4u]

So your position is that unfettered capitalist greed is the solution to every problem in the world. Furthermore you believe that any attempt to help the less fortunate is a mob trying to steal from you. Under your feudal mindset there will be no police or fire services because those are for the evil "common good". You will pay a toll on every road beyond your driveway because they must all be owned by capitalists. Your neighbors will be free to pollute your air and water since you have no right to deprive them of their rights to unfettered capitalist greed. Your grasp of how society actually operates as opposed to the utopian nonsense that you are advocating indicates a failure to grasp the most fundamental of principles.

That is the view of Corporatists pretending they are Conservatives. Both the Repulican and Democratic Parties are engines of destruction --- destruction of civil and economic liberities.

A true Classical-Liberal believes that no one rights may be restricted, so long as he does NOT INFRINGE upon the rights of others.

So pollution is easy to answer. Everyone has a right to Life. The rights that come under Life are so simple and basic, that it even sounds silly to discuss them. However, one of the rights of life is the right to breathe. If someone or something is making it toxic to breathe, then they are infringing on your right to life.

As such, Congress can make laws that are necessary and proper (or General Welfare Clause) to put an end to pollution, or limit it significantly.

That being said, Democrats abuse this and take it to the extreme, and they don't actually solve the pollution problem anyway. They prefer to "tax pollution," instead of "stop pollution."

This comes down to the lesser of two evils:
electricity: no perfect way to convert mechanical energy to electical energy (something is going to change) used for convienence (pumping water to people's showers, pumping away their toilet waste, using machines for things slaves were used for)
no electricity: less specific damage to environment, but more widespread harm to environment (fossil fuels burned in individual residences for heat, sewage in streets, less potable water available, slavery type labor again)

In other words: there would be no coal burning or nuclear plants, but there would be less people, because diseases would be widespread due to the lack of potable water, and the waste water not being treated (using electrical pumps to move both potable and waste water). People would use other people as slaves again, because there would not be saws, drills, lifts, cranes, etc to do the heavy labor.

So while it is easy to "say" let's not have _____. It does not mean that anyone else agrees with you, or even that you have considered the rammifications that will accompany your "wishes".

 

[logical4u]

Anyone who proclaims that liberalism=Marxism, is just an troll looking to stir up dissension, who has no interest in discussing the real world. I have only read half of this thread, and we are being called Marxists, and communists by several posters. These charges do not deserve the dignity of a response. I have never met a communist personally in the 68 years of my lifetime. It is the equivelent of us calling conservatives "fascists". I do not do that, and I expect posters to be mature enough not to call me a communist.

So you stand for the belief that you don't like to be called names?

 

[logical4u]

This is what confuses the right, resulting in conservative disdain for what they perceive as ‘liberal.’

Liberals are for the most part pragmatists, there is thus no single, specific ‘philosophical principle’ to which they blindly adhere.

Their guiding principles, among others, are the desire to predicate policy decisions on fact, not dogma, as conservatives are prone to do, to attempt to be consistent with the application of policy, and to ensure the laws of society benefit all citizens equally.

Indeed, much of the conflict between liberals and conservatives is not a conflict between competing ideologies, but a conflict between conservative dogma and liberals rejecting that dogma because liberals correctly understand its factual errors and failings.

For example, conservatives seek to establish drug testing as a condition of initial eligibility for public assistance applicants predicated on rightist economic dogma and animus towards those requesting assistance, oblivious to the fact that those receiving public assistance are no more likely to use drugs than the general public. Conservatives perceive making it more difficult to apply for government benefits as striking a blow against the ‘welfare state,’ when in reality they’re striking a blow against the Constitution.

That the courts have invalidated such measures is proof of that.

Facts:

abortion is the murder of an unborn child
homosexual or promiscuous behavior is harmful to individual's health and society
there is no evidence the world is warmer than in any point in living history
the biological, married parents are the most likely to raise productive children
deceiving others is corruption, and weakens society
laws passed to benefit specific groups are not about "equality"

Democratic policy doesn't "appear" to be concerned with "facts"....

Drug dealers are now teaching drug users how to scam the food stamp program to convert gov't handouts into cash for the drug dealers. (Sorry, there is another "fact", in case you want to live up to your statement about how you decide based on "facts").

half of those are just bigoted opinions

Which ones?
Please be specific.

 

[logical4u]

Oversimplified hogwash.

Please give me a single quote of Jesus from the gospels that support today's conservative principles. On the other hand, you could start with the sermon on the mount, and find it full of today liberal concepts....and that is just a small example of his sayings that liberals embrace.

KJV Matthew Chapter 5
1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
......

Not seeing rude, obnoxious, promiscuous, covetous, divisive or murdering babies as good things here, maybe you could expand on your thought, some....

I could, but you know as well as I that if Jesus were on earth today, he would not be preaching Republican values, and I certainly saw nothing here that would indicate otherwise.

Just pointing out that the leftists valued policies are not there (at the sermon on the mount). It appears there aren't many things there that the democrats support....

 

[Vandalshandle]

Anyone who proclaims that liberalism=Marxism, is just an troll looking to stir up dissension, who has no interest in discussing the real world. I have only read half of this thread, and we are being called Marxists, and communists by several posters. These charges do not deserve the dignity of a response. I have never met a communist personally in the 68 years of my lifetime. It is the equivelent of us calling conservatives "fascists". I do not do that, and I expect posters to be mature enough not to call me a communist.

So you stand for the belief that you don't like to be called names?

I certainly can not stop anyone from doing so, but I don't deal with such people in the real world, so I see no reason why I would interact with immature people who are incapable of having a civil discussion in the cyber world.

 

[logical4u]

"Facts:

abortion is the murder of an unborn child
homosexual or promiscuous behavior is harmful to individual's health and society
there is no evidence the world is warmer than in any point in living history
the biological, married parents are the most likely to raise productive children
deceiving others is corruption, and weakens society
laws passed to benefit specific groups are not about "equality"

Democratic policy doesn't "appear" to be concerned with "facts"....

Drug dealers are now teaching drug users how to scam the food stamp program to convert gov't handouts into cash for the drug dealers. (Sorry, there is another "fact", in case you want to live up to your statement about how you decide based on "facts"). "
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Not facts. Republican axiums and the gospel according to Glenn Beck

In order for them not to be facts:

abortion murders a puppy or a kitten?

homosexual or promiscuous behavior is touted as a way to live healthier and longer?

the earth was "never" warmer than it is today?

single parents have less problems with children than biological, married parents?

deceiving is a good thing?

laws that elevate a particular group's status does not remove another's "rights"?

Drug users and dealers are not scamming the system?

Please be specific.