Why do people hate Liberals?
- Thread starter Saigon
- Start date
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Smilebong
Gold Member
I don't know. I guess when they get to the place where they are valuable enough to the employer that they are worth giving vacation and benefits.
Okay liberals. You want the government to dictate to me the wages and benefits I will be required to provide to my employees as well as how much vacation, sick pay, and personal leave they will receive rather than leave that to me and my employees to agree on.
Please explain how giving government power to dictate that does not take away all the rights to my property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Once it has such power, please explain by what mechanism the government cannot require you to give up whatever government wants or require you to do whatever government wants you to do.
And then please explain why I should risk my time, talents, and property to provide jobs to others at all if I can work for the other guy and receive good pay and all those wonderful benefits whether I earn them or not.
Please explain how giving government power to dictate that does not take away all the rights to my property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Once it has such power, please explain by what mechanism the government cannot require you to give up whatever government wants or require you to do whatever government wants you to do.
And then please explain why I should risk my time, talents, and property to provide jobs to others at all if I can work for the other guy and receive good pay and all those wonderful benefits whether I earn them or not.
Smilebong
Gold Member
Because Politicians and the government collective knows better than you what is best for your business and the economy. *sarcasm off*
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
It is really, really, REALLY simple. Because if you as an employer won't, We, the People WILL. Taxpayers foot the bill. Food-stamps and other public assistance are not an indictment of government, they are an indictment of the cheap wages of American corporations and businesses.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,433
- 78,738
- 2,645
What do you call it when the government is listening to my phone calls and email without a warrant?
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,433
- 78,738
- 2,645
^ that's why centrally planned economies are the world's poorest and worse off
Perhaps if there was less meddling in how private citizens run their business, there would be far fewer people needing public assistance. For damn sure, if you make it not worth my while to run a business, you may be adding me to the rolls of those who need that public assitance as well as the folks who I won't be employing.
And where is it written that anybody is entitled to public assistance? How is it not a form of slavery to force Citizen A to support Citizen B when Citizen B is unwilling to do what is necessary to support himself? I may choose to assist Citizen B out of the goodness of my heart, but it should be my choice to do so, and not the government's prerogative to force me to provide for Citizen B.
Last edited:
Immanuel
Gold Member
- May 15, 2007
- 16,828
- 2,269
- 183
Immanuel
Gold Member
- May 15, 2007
- 16,828
- 2,269
- 183
Total hogwash. They are indictments of progressives who have the audacity to believe they are more compassionate, smarter, more tolerant and less corrupt than everyone else.
Immie
numan
What! Me Worry?
- Mar 23, 2013
- 2,125
- 241
- 130
I certainly agree with you, Uncensored.
I felt unease about George W. Bush long ago, as soon as I knew anything about him and his family. The date that unease crystallized into alarm was October 19, 2000 as I was watching a broadcast of the Al Smith Memorial Dinner. Candidate Al Gore made a number of witty and graceful self-deprecatory remarks. I thought: Whatever else he may be, he is an intelligent, well-bred gentleman.
Then Candidate Bush came to the podium and made a speech full of bumptiousness and crude self-praise, prefaced by these words [which were burned on my memory]:
"This is an impressive crowd: the haves and the have-mores.
Some people call you the elite. I call you my base."
My first thought was: "If this man is elected president, it will be a disaster." Then, immediately, I recalled the words of Keat's "Ode on a Grecian Urn":
"To what green altar, O mysterious priest,
Leadst thou that heifer lowing at the skies,
And all her silken flanks with garlands dressed."
I thought: "Yes, America will be a sacrificial animal, if this arrogant fool leads her."
A friend of mine said that the reason President Bush existed was to wake America up.
I do not see that his hope was justified, and I fear that it will take even greater disasters to make people wake up from the American Dream -- or rather, the American Nightmare.
.
Do do realize that the line you used of the "Have and have mores" was at the annual Al Smith dinner in which Presidents and and presidential hopefuls do their comedy routines? It was at the same dinner that Al Gore spoofed the Social Security lockbox metaphor with "I'll put Medicaid in a walk-in closet," joked the vice president. "I will always keep lettuce in the crisper."
Sometimes in our zeal to hate or denigrate somebody, we do only make ourselves look foolish, yes?
I respect Uncensored's opinion of W, and I agree on several fronts he tried to out liberal the liberals, but was that a betrayal if we knew what we were getting when we elected him? As bad as he was, I still believe Al Gore would have been much, much worse. Just as I didn't want Hillary or John McCain as president with all my heart, and both would make terrible presidents, but either would have been far less damaging to the country than Obama has been.
Liberalism has failed every place it has been tried.
I vote to give conservatism a chance.
Sometimes in our zeal to hate or denigrate somebody, we do only make ourselves look foolish, yes?
I respect Uncensored's opinion of W, and I agree on several fronts he tried to out liberal the liberals, but was that a betrayal if we knew what we were getting when we elected him? As bad as he was, I still believe Al Gore would have been much, much worse. Just as I didn't want Hillary or John McCain as president with all my heart, and both would make terrible presidents, but either would have been far less damaging to the country than Obama has been.
Liberalism has failed every place it has been tried.
I vote to give conservatism a chance.
numan
What! Me Worry?
- Mar 23, 2013
- 2,125
- 241
- 130
'
I know exactly what the Al Smith Dinner is, and Al Gore was perfectly in accord with its spirit.
However, if you went back and watched the performance of W. Bush, you would see how truly out of character with that spirit his performance was. The vulgarity, crude egotism and self-promotion of that man would make every drop of ink in my pen run cold if I tried to write it down.
.
I know exactly what the Al Smith Dinner is, and Al Gore was perfectly in accord with its spirit.
However, if you went back and watched the performance of W. Bush, you would see how truly out of character with that spirit his performance was. The vulgarity, crude egotism and self-promotion of that man would make every drop of ink in my pen run cold if I tried to write it down.
.
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,830
- 2,220
Yeah and I saw Obama do blah, blah, blah, <fill in made up subjective bullshit here>, blah, blah.
Cant you do any better than that, dumbass?
Well haters gonna hate. If you think he was vulgar, crude egotism? Self promotion more than anybody running for President? You really do live in your own little tiny world don't you. Actually both of them were very good at that dinner and both above reproach in both their content and their demeanor:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXsmHM-Otkg]October 2000: Gore vs. Bush - YouTube[/ame]
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,433
- 78,738
- 2,645
To this day liberals still haven't figured out that centrally planned economies are nightmarish hellholes that build fences and post armed guards not to keep people from entering illegally but to keep them from fleeing
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Last edited:
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Slavery Foxfyre? How ironic and revealing of you and your 'ilk'...
Slavery would be a mother and a father waking up each morning with the fear and anxiety of not knowing if they will be able to feed their children today.
So they are forced to grab a cup and come begging to you. Just image what POWER you could wield as a GOD.
Would you require them to come begging to you every day? Or would the 'kindness' in your heart allow them to come begging every other day??
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Totally false Frank. 'centrally planned economies' do not subscribe to social programs or what is called the welfare state.
The Forgotten Churchill
The man who stared down Hitler also helped create the modern welfare state
In 1908, when Asquith became prime minister, there were almost no models of state welfare anywhere on earth. The exception was Bismarck’s Prussia, which to the dismay of German Social Democrats had instituted compulsory health insurance in 1883. That created a sudden panic on the left. Karl Marx had died weeks before, so the socialist leader August Bebel consulted his friend Friedrich Engels, who insisted that socialists should vote against it, as they did. The first welfare state on earth was created against socialist opposition.
Welfare, what is more, had an imperial dimension. The Boer War had been won with a volunteer army, and the nation had been shocked to hear of the high incidence of ill health among recruits. An empire needs troops. There was nothing socialist about state welfare, and socialists were right to fear the specter of a national health service. They continued to fear it, and when years later the Beveridge report appeared, in December 1942, it proved a bestseller but was roundly condemned in a letter by Beatrice Webb, an old Fabian, as a disastrous idea—though fortunately, as she added, very unlikely to be acted on. In the event, Labour was the last of the three British parties to accept a National Health Service, and William Beveridge, whom I knew as a neighbor in his last years, was endlessly bitter about the derision that Labour leaders had once heaped on his ideas.
The forgotten truth about health provision is that socialism and state welfare are old enemies, and welfare overspending is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies. Nobody doubts that California is capitalistic, and its public debt is notorious; the People’s Republic of China, by contrast, is a major creditor in international finance. When the two Germanies united after 1990, the social provision of the capitalist West was more than twice that of the socialist East, and the cost of unification to West Germany proved vast. Talk of socialized medicine was always misleading if socialized implies socialist, and the very word probably guarantees that confusion. The British National Health Service of 1948, like the Canadian version that followed it 20 years later, always allowed for a flourishing private sector—a sector that has tended to grow with the years. It neither banned private medical care nor discouraged it. Only a competitive economy, what is more, is likely to generate a tax base big enough to maintain public hospitals, pensions, and schools. In short, a free economy needs state welfare, and state welfare needs a free economy.
more
Last edited:
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,433
- 78,738
- 2,645
Democrats are the slavery party
Your "Caring" is such total bullshit you should choke on it
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Trump orders the government to stop enforcing rules he doesn't like- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 8
-
Remember when posting the name ERIC CIARAMELLA, the TRUMP/Zelensky phone call whistleblower was banned?- Started by ColonelAngus
- Replies: 4
