Why Liberals Hate America

[rtwngAvngr]

Why do you look at every thing as being Lib = Bad, Con = good. Despite the reasons for the recession, you must admit that a liberal president had the economy running smoothly.

Ergo Liberals do not hate a thriving economy, also liberal (or at least moderate) economics do not neccesarily result in the death of a thriving economy, Ergo two of your above statements which you provided no evidence to back up in the first place are seemingly reduced to bullshit.

You said it. It was a coincidence.

Liberals do not want people to succeed in the private sector, then there is no need for government. In fact, they seek to teach people they can't make it without government. That's why they continually talk down the economy, even when it's good. Liberals hate hope. Liberals hate faith in anything except government.

 

[deaddude]

You said it. It was a coincidence.
Liberals do not want people to succeed in the private sector, then there is no need for government.

This is illogical, if people succeed in the private sector it does not eliminate the need for the government. First the government pays police officers, firemen, teachers, professors, bus drivers, and soldiers. The goverment creates, enforces, and interprets the law. The government pays for the War on Terror. The government keeps the internet which you are currently using running smoothly.

So according to you, if everyone succeeded in the private sector then crime would no longer be a problem, fires would put themselves out, our children would teach themselves through colledge, people would have no need of public transport, nor would we need a military, navy, airforce, CIA, FBI, or a marine core. Since crime would no longer be a problem we would not need laws, the war on terror would end immedialty, and the vastly complex machine which processes and directs data through the internet would keep itself in working order. Do you now see how idiotic that statement was?

Liberals hate hope. Liberals hate faith in anything except government.

A sweeping accusation that you do not back up. Why am not surprised?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This is illogical, if people succeed in the private sector it does not eliminate the need for the government. First the government pays police officers, firemen, teachers, professors, bus drivers, and soldiers.

But for liberals, the functions the government currently performs are not enough. They want the tentacles in all aspects of our lives, including the realm of personal financial success.

The goverment creates, enforces, and interprets the law. The government pays for the War on Terror. The government keeps the internet which you are currently using running smoothly.

So according to you, if everyone succeeded in the private sector then crime would no longer be a problem, fires would put themselves out, our children would teach themselves through colledge, people would have no need of public transport, nor would we need a military, navy, airforce, CIA, FBI, or a marine core. Since crime would no longer be a problem we would not need laws, the war on terror would end immedialty, and the vastly complex machine which processes and directs data through the internet would keep itself in working order. Do you now see how idiotic that statement was?

No one is espousing anarchy here. Try again, bozo.

IS taking things to an absurd extreme the only trick you have?

 

[deaddude]

Liberals do not want people to succeed in the private sector, then there is no need for government

I did not take anything to an extreme, no need for government means no need for government, I just pointed out the things that we would still need the government for, and you back peddeled.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I did not take anything to an extreme, no need for government means no need for government, I just pointed out the things that we would still need the government for, and you back peddeled.

Ok. not AS MUCH need for government. Happy, Pappy? You still lose.

 

[deaddude]

I did not lose anything, I got you to conceed a point. Thats enough for me.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I did not lose anything, I got you to conceed a point. Thats enough for me.

I misspoke when I said NO government. I really meant not AS MUCH government. So you agree that when individuals succeed on their own there is not AS MUCH need for government, and that's why libs hate non government dependant personal success?

 

[deaddude]

Just out of curiosity, exactly what funtions of the government would cease by everyone being sucessful in the private sector. (Aside of course from welfare, unemployment, and simialer programs.)

So you agree that when individuals succeed on their own there is not AS MUCH need for government, and that's why libs hate non government dependant personal success?

I do not even agree that liberals hate non government dependent success.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Just out of curiosity, exactly what funtions of the government would cease by everyone being sucessful in the private sector. (Aside of course from welfare, unemployment, and simialer programs.)

That's about it.

I do not even agree that liberals hate non government dependent success.

Well, what can I say. You're wrong. They want people to feel they can't succeed on their own. That's why they continually badmouth the economy, even when it's good.

Why else would they do that? To inspire hope?

 

[deaddude]

I will give another reason, partisanship. Liberals as a group dislike Bush, if Bush is doing well they down play it, if he is doing poorly the exagerate it. If a Dem gets the econmomy running well the exaggerate the success. Not to complicated.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I will give another reason, partisanship. Liberals as a group dislike Bush, if Bush is doing well they down play it, if he is doing poorly the exagerate it. If a Dem gets the econmomy running well the exaggerate the success. Not to complicated.

Ok. That sounds ok. That's probably partially true. But my dynamic is still true as well.

 

[deaddude]

Perhaps.

 

[ThomasPaine]

I will give another reason, partisanship. Liberals as a group dislike Bush, if Bush is doing well they down play it, if he is doing poorly the exagerate it. If a Dem gets the econmomy running well the exaggerate the success. Not to complicated.

And I'm sorry but I've read many of your posts in this thread. You brag and preen about Clinton's economy. But remember that post 1994 he was HEAVILY reined in by a republican house. Billy Jeff's attempt, with his "wife", to nationalize health care killed the seemingly permanent Dem majority in the House. After that ole slick willie had to compromise his otherwise socialist propensities and comply with Congress. Having said that let me state this NO GOVERNMENT POLICY OTHER THAN TAX CUTS AND LAIZZEE-FAIRE benefits the economy. The government doesn't run the economy, thank GOD, we, as citizens, do. I know that fact is uncomfortable to socialists but it's a fact. Government, as a rule, merely intruds economically, and in general screws the pooch. And another clue to you socialists, horror of horrors, the government of this great nation doesn't run the country, the citizens through their day to day actions do. The government of this nation runs the government of this nation that's it, once again THANK GOD!!!!!

 

[007]

And I'm sorry but I've read many of your posts in this thread. You brag and preen about Clinton's economy. But remember that post 1994 he was HEAVILY reined in by a republican house. Billy Jeff's attempt, with his "wife", to nationalize health care killed the seemingly permanent Dem majority in the House. After that ole slick willie had to compromise his otherwise socialist propensities and comply with Congress. Having said that let me state this NO GOVERNMENT POLICY OTHER THAN TAX CUTS AND LAIZZEE-FAIRE benefits the economy. The government doesn't run the economy, thank GOD, we, as citizens, do. I know that fact is uncomfortable to socialists but it's a fact. Government, as a rule, merely intruds economically, and in general screws the pooch. And another clue to you socialists, horror of horrors, the government of this great nation doesn't run the country, the citizens through their day to day actions do. The government of this nation runs the government of this nation that's it, once again THANK GOD!!!!!

And... along with what you pointed out T'Paine, the d'dude, like all other liberals, left out the fact that President Bush was left to fix the rotten, slipping economy he inherited from slick willie, and to top it off, had THE WORST ACT OF WAR AGAINST AMERICA IN HER HISTORY happen. Given that, I'd say President Bush's economy is doing better than any other presidents in DECADES taking into consideration what he's had to deal with.

 

[deaddude]

Again you are reading between the lines, I was not saying that Bush did not have the economy running smoothly, I was saying that liberal economics do not by neccesity result in the death of an economy. And yes Laizee Fare does bennifit the economy to a point, the one place that the government should be able to step in is with anti-trust laws. Competition is a system of a healthy economy. Surely you do not think that anti-trust laws hurt the economy in the long term?

And no I do not believe that libs are partisan first and American second. They think that their ideas (however misguided they seem to you) will actually turn out to be better for the country as a whole. Partisanship arises from a want to see ideas associatied with ones party inacted over others, this once agian stems from the belief that those ideas will be better for the country as a whole.

 

[archangel]

And I'm sorry but I've read many of your posts in this thread. You brag and preen about Clinton's economy. But remember that post 1994 he was HEAVILY reined in by a republican house. Billy Jeff's attempt, with his "wife", to nationalize health care killed the seemingly permanent Dem majority in the House. After that ole slick willie had to compromise his otherwise socialist propensities and comply with Congress. Having said that let me state this NO GOVERNMENT POLICY OTHER THAN TAX CUTS AND LAIZZEE-FAIRE benefits the economy. The government doesn't run the economy, thank GOD, we, as citizens, do. I know that fact is uncomfortable to socialists but it's a fact. Government, as a rule, merely intruds economically, and in general screws the pooch. And another clue to you socialists, horror of horrors, the government of this great nation doesn't run the country, the citizens through their day to day actions do. The government of this nation runs the government of this nation that's it, once again THANK GOD!!!!!

The people do not run the government...The Tri-Lateral does...has for quite some time...as a matter of fact both parties have members with high power government postions...Just to list a few...Both Bush Sr. and Jr,Bill Clinton,Colin Powell, even Condi Rice...the list goes on and on...both parties have dirty hands in respect to control of and how the government supports big business over the people...to think less is disingenuous!

Side note:Trilateral established by Rockerfeller 1973...a Shawdow government...goal is to put persons in office who support International Banking goals and big business....even Jimmy Carter is a member!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Again you are reading between the lines, I was not saying that Bush did not have the economy running smoothly, I was saying that liberal economics do not by neccesity result in the death of an economy. And yes Laizee Fare does bennifit the economy to a point, the one place that the government should be able to step in is with anti-trust laws. Competition is a system of a healthy economy. Surely you do not think that anti-trust laws hurt the economy in the long term?

And no I do not believe that libs are partisan first and American second. They think that their ideas (however misguided they seem to you) will actually turn out to be better for the country as a whole. Partisanship arises from a want to see ideas associatied with ones party inacted over others, this once agian stems from the belief that those ideas will be better for the country as a whole.

Liberal (socialist) policies do necessarily ruin the economy. Libs are antiamerican. They're more concerned about population control, pollution, and europeans liking us than they are about doing what's best for america.

 

[deaddude]

No they think that, not becomeing overpopulated like china, not flooding our rivers with industrial waste, not filling our air with smog, and having allies in other world powers is in America's best interest.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No they think that, not becomeing overpopulated like china, not flooding our rivers with industrial waste, not filling our air with smog, and having allies in other world powers is in America's best interest.

At what cost? Massive job losses. Weakening ourselves so as not to bring the envy of a weakened wrongheaded europe. No thanks.

I believe in basic environmental standards, but the kyoto agreement is insanity.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Liberal (socialist) policies do necessarily ruin the economy. Libs are antiamerican. They're more concerned about population control, pollution, and europeans liking us than they are about doing what's best for america.

"Libs are antiamerican."

That seems to be the only argument, if you wish to call it that, the 'conservatives' are able to make. But smearing politcal opposition as being "unpatriotic" is as old as politics, and is a favorite tool of totalitarian and fascist regimes.

It's quite simple, really, to lead a nation into war. Tell the citizens they are being attacked. Then brand the opposition to said war as "unpatriotic" and a threat to the nation. Such tactics were straght from Herman Goering's playbook. We need look no further than John 'Beaten by a dead man' Ashcroft's statement to the effect "You're either with us...Or with the terrorists..." for the evidence of this.