20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer

[longknife]

By John Hawkins @ Townhall.com @ 20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer - John Hawkins - Page 1

Liberalism doesn't convince with logic. It can't, because the policies liberals advocate don't work. So instead, liberals have to use emotion-based ploys and attack the motives of people they disagree with while attempting to keep conservative arguments from being heard at all. Why? Because they have no good answers to questions like these.

I can see the ranting responses already! They won't discuss the questions calmly, with some sense of decorum. Instead, they will attack the author or the poster, trying to drown out any criticism of their agenda. Read the questions at the above link.

 

[MaggieD]

By John Hawkins @ Townhall.com @ 20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer - John Hawkins - Page 1

I can see the ranting responses already! They won't discuss the questions calmly, with some sense of decorum. Instead, they will attack the author or the poster, trying to drown out any criticism of their agenda. Read the questions at the above link.

Liberalism doesn't convince with logic. It can't, because the policies liberals advocate don't work. So instead, liberals have to use emotion-based ploys and attack the motives of people they disagree with while attempting to keep conservative arguments from being heard at all. Why? Because they have no good answers to questions like these.

^^^ Other than the absolute nature of this statement, I think it's an excellent observation. The questions are outstanding. I'm going to start a thread on one of them and see what blows up.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

^^^ Other than the absolute nature of this statement, I think it's an excellent observation. The questions are outstanding. I'm going to start a thread on one of them and see what blows up.

Go for it.:lol:

 

[Jredbaron96]

Here I go.

1) A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?

I never said that if the bombers were conservative, then that proves that the right is evil. I never even suggested the bombers COULD BE conservative.

2) If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?

I don't believe Health care is a right, and even so, no.

3) How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?

What? I never said I wanted a big government or that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter.

4) What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that he’s earned that he should be able to keep?

"Fair" will never mean the same thing to two people who earn different levels of income.

5) Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes?

I would need to read up more before I make an educated statement.

6) Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it's pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they'd like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?

There's no such thing as an assault weapon. I fully support a persons right to own a firearm, that includes assault rifles.

7) If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?

Corporations are only awful, greedy, and bad for the country when they do awful, greedy and bad things.

8) How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn't doing well because we aren't spending enough money when we're already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?

Ask Krugman. I'm not him.

9) If Republicans don’t care about the poor, why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?

Study: Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable, but they give to different charities

10) Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn't change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we're seeing in Greece or Cyprus?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...ike-europe-follow-conservative-economics.html

11) Since we "all agree" with the idea that our level of deficit spending is "unsustainable," what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?

Statistically unlikely that we 'all agree'.

12) If we change God's definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what's the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?

I don't care what your god thinks.

That's all I can get right now. I'll write more later.

 

[Vern]

5) Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes?

I dont usually have to read very far to find the lie in a typcial conservative 'editorial'. I just cant believe the lie is the "tax cuts pay for themselves " lie. geez, that lie is so discredited I thought cons were pretending they never said it. anyhoo, here's actual republicans involved with the Bush Tax cuts telling you tax cuts dont pay for themselves

*Ed Lazear, chairman of the CEA in 2007: "I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves."

*Hank Paulson, Bush Secretary of the Treasury: "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves."

*Greg Mankiw, CEA chair from 2003-2005: "Some supply-siders like to claim that the distortionary effect of taxes is so large that increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. Like most economists, I don't find that conclusion credible for most tax hikes."

*Andrew Samwick, chief economist at CEA from 2004-2005: "No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset [from the Bush tax cuts] more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one."

Ezra Klein - The failure of conservative elites

I think Greg Mankiw really drives home the point with this statement

"N. Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors and a Harvard economics professor, wrote in his well-known 1998 textbook that there is “no credible evidence” that “tax revenues … rise in the face of lower tax rates.” He went on to compare an economist who says that tax cuts can pay for themselves to a “snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure.”[13]"

Claim That Tax Cuts "Pay For Themselves" Is Too Good To Be True — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Vern]

of course conservatives readily accept out of context quotes to prove a point (see the Barney Frank youtube videos) when they agree with something. Somehow I believe cons are hard at work trying to forget the above quotes ( I know fenton has already forgetten it). Here's Glen Hubbard, the father of the Bush Tax cuts

"
Additionally, when Glenn Hubbard served as chair of the CEA for President Bush in 2003, he wrote in the Economic Report of the President that “although the economy grows in response to tax reductions … it is unlikely to grow so much that lost tax revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity.”27
"

Claim That Tax Cuts "Pay For Themselves" Is Too Good To Be True — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

(same link above)

 

[Vern]

yea, it seems tax cuts are just another form of stimulus. And just like any stimulus, they cost money. Of course cons are already 'dismissing' the quotes above. Thats okay, unlike cons, I dont need quotes to prove a point, I'll just use facts.

Bush mailed out 40 billion in tax cuts in summer 2001 ( under Clinton's last budget). In 2003, Bush passed even more tax cuts. Notice how revenue declines on a nominal basis for 3 years and declines for 4 years as a % of GDP.

Year__ Revenue__%
2000___2025___20.6%
2001___1991___19.5
2002___1853___17.6
2003___1782___16.2
2004___1880___16.1
2005___2153___17.3
2006___2407___18.2
2007___2568___18.5
2008___2504___17.5
2009___2105___14.8


you have to go back to 1920 to find the last time revenue declined on a nominal basis for 3 years. You have to go back to 1983 to see the last time revenue didnt set a nominal record. you have to go back to 1945 for the last time revenue declined as a % of GDP for 4 years. See how I dont have to rely on quotes to prove a point?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2011-TAB/pdf/BUDGET-2011-TAB.pdf

 

[spud_meister]

1) A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?

Strawman. I've never made that argument.

2) If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?

Nope. That's another strawman.

3) How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?

Strawman. Context is important.

4) What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that he’s earned that he should be able to keep?

That's context dependent.

5) Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes?

Magic.

6) Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it's pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they'd like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?

Yes.

7) If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?

No.

8) How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn't doing well because we aren't spending enough money when we're already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?

Magic.

9) If Republicans don’t care about the poor, why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?

That's a question to ask Republicans.

10) Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn't change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we're seeing in Greece or Cyprus?

Magic.

11) Since we "all agree" with the idea that our level of deficit spending is "unsustainable," what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?

Nothing.

12) If we change God's definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what's the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?

Where did God define marriage? Fallacy.

13) In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it's feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?

That figure depends on the ratio of tax rates, not the absolute numbers. It doesn't make sense, you could still have low tax rates, and make the top 25% pay 86%.

14) If you win a lawsuit that's filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?

Because that's how the tort system works. Is this even a partisan issue?

15) How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?

I'm not.

16) A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What's the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?

Australia has a high minimum wage and low unemployment. That's a fallacy.

17) The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we've seen over the last century. Since we can't adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?

:lol: "thousands of years". Should say millions of years, but they don't want to isolate bible bashers. Personally, I don't think global warming is important.

18) We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn't government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states’ rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?

You want government to mirror Lady Gaga?

19) If people in the middle class aren't willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don't think it's worth the money, shouldn't we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?

That depends.

20) If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don't we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace?

Because that figure is an average, and lower-paying industries are often predominated by women.


Just to be clear. The one's I answered "magic" on are because I hate economics.

 

[cpwill]

yea, it seems tax cuts are just another form of stimulus. And just like any stimulus, they cost money. Of course cons are already 'dismissing' the quotes above. Thats okay, unlike cons, I dont need quotes to prove a point, I'll just use facts.

Bush mailed out 40 billion in tax cuts in summer 2001 ( under Clinton's last budget). In 2003, Bush passed even more tax cuts. Notice how revenue declines on a nominal basis for 3 years and declines for 4 years as a % of GDP.

Year__ Revenue__%
2000___2025___20.6%
2001___1991___19.5
2002___1853___17.6
2003___1782___16.2
2004___1880___16.1
2005___2153___17.3
2006___2407___18.2
2007___2568___18.5
2008___2504___17.5
2009___2105___14.8


you have to go back to 1920 to find the last time revenue declined on a nominal basis for 3 years. You have to go back to 1983 to see the last time revenue didnt set a nominal record. you have to go back to 1945 for the last time revenue declined as a % of GDP for 4 years. See how I dont have to rely on quotes to prove a point?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2011-TAB/pdf/BUDGET-2011-TAB.pdf

This is why I've consistently said that

A) tax cuts only pay for themselves over lengths of time and
B) there are greater growth opportunities (currently) in tax code simplification than in nominal rate reduction.

You do get dynamic effects from increasing the incentives for positive behavior and lowering barriers to the efficient allocation of resources. But there is no magic rule that says that those effects have to be enough to fully counteract the loss off revenue within 12 months, only that they will counteract it.

 

[HonestJoe]

If I can answer all those questions does that mean I can't be called a liberal?

 

[obvious Child]

1) A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?

Since when was Muslim exclusive of being Conservative? Extremist Islam is actually ridiculously Conservative in the social aspect. So much more than what Modern European and Americans would accept. In many ways, Extremist Islam reverts Women to essentially property and puts virtually all power and rights with the males. Socially, there is very little different from fringe Islam and Social Conservatives who would return us to the Middle Ages.

Hell, considering some of the posted statements from one of the bombers, HE IS CONSERVATIVE. He laments the decline in morals in America. Our free wheeling culture.

2) If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?

Bait question. First, this assumes that taxation is theft. That alone creates this as a fallacy. When you remove the fallacy of taxation = theft, no one is being forced to provide health care, food, shelter or a good education. People are rising to the demand created by government requests and funding for those. No one is being forced at gun point to do any of those.

3) How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?

What does this have to do with being a liberal? And when did liberals ever argue that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter? This is another silly bait question that has no bearing upon reality. In fact, it would seem that the Conservatives seem to have more of a problem here as they keep electing people who are wildly hypocritical in their behaviors regarding their characters and morals. Several extremely anti-gay candidates keep being elected despite having homosexual relations themselves. Some sleep with prostitutes and are reelected. Seems that such morals and characters of politicians don't matter to large numbers of Republican voters.

4) What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that he’s earned that he should be able to keep?

Depends on the job, and the context.

5) Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes

Would help if this question was true. Many times taxes have gone up and taxes gone down or stayed the same:

Tax Rates vs. Tax Revenues | Mercatus

Tax rates and revenue frankly are uncorrelated.

As for why revenue has gone up, could be a number of things from increased government spending boosting activity, more international trade, cheap interest rates boosting activity, the invention of things like the internet, commodity booms, so on and so forth.

I don't see the point in finishing this as several questions in the FIRST 5 are fallacies or bait, 1 is outright FALSE and one assumes something that simply doesn't make sense.

 

[obvious Child]

^^^ Other than the absolute nature of this statement, I think it's an excellent observation. The questions are outstanding. I'm going to start a thread on one of them and see what blows up.

Really? These questions are garbage. Some are outright false. And most are fallacies or bait that don't actually represent what exist.

 

[MaggieD]

Really? These questions are garbage. Some are outright false. And most are fallacies or bait that don't actually represent what exist.

Pick three and address them. That's what this thread is about and the only thing that will prove out your opinion.

Edit: I see you've done that. I'm getting ready to eat -- I'll address later. Thank you!

 

[obvious Child]

Any time.

Honestly, that list looks like it came from some nutjob who views what he wants to view and has no real grasp on reality. Extremist Muslims ARE Conservative, at least socially. Do you see areas under extreme Islam where people are drinking, music is playing, women have rights and generally have a high level of personal freedom? No.

 

[Redress]

20 retarded questions that will only appeal to the most hackish partisans who have no understanding of how the other side thinks. Thank you ever so much for wasting bandwidth on this ****.

 

[Medusa]

1) A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?

terrorising the innocent people to protest the politics of the governments (or with the intention of achieving any success in political arena ) has no right or left side in my opinion .

this child was killed in the marathon bombings and no partisanship brings him back to this life
View attachment 67146388

2) If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?

the fact that the humans 's basic needs for food shelter etc must be met has nothing to do with any " pro " thing ( teh first one is universal )

and in a real democracy ,nobody has to hold a gun to anybody to have their basic needs met

3) How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?

no problem unless they impose their own moral values on people to form the society and get political benefits

4) What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that he’s earned that he should be able to keep?

it is called justice...........

5) Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes?

maybe it depends on whose tax you cut . ( upper,middle

6) Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it's pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they'd like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?

there is no relationship between gun rights and abortion

but if you think there is

you can start supporting abortion rights as you support gun rights

7) If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?

have you ever heard of globalization ?

they dont need to close it to move overseas

8) How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn't doing well because we aren't spending enough money when we're already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?

money was invented to be spent :lol: not to conserve

9) If Republicans don’t care about the poor, why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?


maybe democrats are poorer than republicans .or our political lean doesnt determine our level of mercy

or some ultra rich people need to donate to charity organizations to be purified from their sins :lol:

and charity is a good thing but has no validity in a real democracy in which social justice is applied to all classes in that society. what a pity that people still need handouts in this millenium so that some others can feel so merciful

10) Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn't change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we're seeing in Greece or Cyprus?

so stop claiming to be a world power if you are that weak

11) Since we "all agree" with the idea that our level of deficit spending is "unsustainable," what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?

maybe it depends on what kind of spending you freeze

12) If we change God's definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what's the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?

polygamics are still hetero ,perverts are still hetero ,but gays are born gay and they have the right to have equal rights as the heteros

and USA is believed to be the country of freedoms ,not vatican


13) In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it's feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?


globalization is already a greedy monster taht never gets full .


and it usually exploits the most of the people in the world

teh rich always gets richer .

a great amount of income taxes are usually paid by the middle class although they earn less

poor gets poorer


14) If you win a lawsuit that's filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?

who can claim it ghosts ?

15) How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?

personally l support both the death penalty and abortion rights ,it has nothing to do with liberalism or conservativism .such decisions are related to your own conscience

but if you think abortion is murder , oppose every kind of murder including the death penalty

16) A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What's the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?

nobody has to lose their jobs unless greedy bosses steal from them


17) The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we've seen over the last century. Since we can't adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?

probably we humans damage the ecological balance on earth ,not animals or aliens .haha

Chernoblyl

View attachment 67146391

19) If people in the middle class aren't willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don't think it's worth the money, shouldn't we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?
what about upper classes ?

20) If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don't we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace?

are all females stupid ?


too stupid ( the questions ) but l answered..

 

[Redress]

Pick three and address them. That's what this thread is about and the only thing that will prove out your opinion.

Edit: I see you've done that. I'm getting ready to eat -- I'll address later. Thank you!

1) A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?

I don't think any one ever claimed seriously that if the bomber was a conservative it would prove the right is evil.

2) If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?

Who is being forced to do anything at gunpoint, and who is saying those things are a right?

3) How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?

I know of no one claiming the morals and character of politicians does not matter.

See Maggie, every single one of these things is ****ing retarded. How can any person look at them and not be able to apply basic reasoning to see they are ****ing retarded? The will to believe is so strong in some people...

 

[Redress]

Any time.

Honestly, that list looks like it came from some nutjob who views what he wants to view and has no real grasp on reality. Extremist Muslims ARE Conservative, at least socially. Do you see areas under extreme Islam where people are drinking, music is playing, women have rights and generally have a high level of personal freedom? No.

Oddly, from what I have read, these guys where most likely, as are most Chechen Muslims, ethnic Muslims, not religious ones. That distinction will be lost on some though...

 

[StillBallin75]

Oddly, from what I have read, these guys where most likely, as are most Chechen Muslims, ethnic Muslims, not religious ones. That distinction will be lost on some though...

Just from what I've been reading it seems to me that they're both.

 

[bonfire]

14) If you win a lawsuit that's filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?

I'll field this one. Huge legal bills are directly the result of a monopolized governmental system.

Government is the exclusive agent able to pass and enforce law. They monopolize the court systems, for the most part. So it should be no surprise that a monopoly produces high costs, lacks fairness, and is highly inefficient.

 

[Vern]

This is why I've consistently said that

A) tax cuts only pay for themselves over lengths of time and
B) there are greater growth opportunities (currently) in tax code simplification than in nominal rate reduction.

You do get dynamic effects from increasing the incentives for positive behavior and lowering barriers to the efficient allocation of resources. But there is no magic rule that says that those effects have to be enough to fully counteract the loss off revenue within 12 months, only that they will counteract it.

this is quite amazing. not surprising because I deal with fenton all the time but amazing. I've just proven beyond all doubt (not reasonable, all) that the Bush tax cuts hurt revenues and this guy literally just said "the jury is still out". amazeballs.

cp, republicans are no longer trying to spew the nonsense that tax cuts pay for themselves. why would you cling to such a failed ideology?

 

[bonfire]

Bait question. First, this assumes that taxation is theft. That alone creates this as a fallacy. When you remove the fallacy of taxation = theft, no one is being forced to provide health care, food, shelter or a good education. People are rising to the demand created by government requests and funding for those. No one is being forced at gun point to do any of those.

How is taxation not theft??

Do I have a choice whether to pay taxes or not? No

Will Men with guns break down my door and lock me in a cage for not paying taxes? Yes

I don't see how choosing between paying taxes or getting thrown in jail is a voluntary interaction??


Consider this. If I were to go to your house with a gun and demand 'taxes' from you, I'm sure you would consider that theft. Even if I used your money to directly benefit you, like building a road in front of your house, would you not still consider that theft? Why do you put government above common morality?

 

[WWGWD]

By John Hawkins @ Townhall.com @ 20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer - John Hawkins - Page 1

I can see the ranting responses already! They won't discuss the questions calmly, with some sense of decorum. Instead, they will attack the author or the poster, trying to drown out any criticism of their agenda. Read the questions at the above link.

Alright, I definitely want to take this one on. Lets see what this liberal has to offer, lol.

1) I don't think any reasonable person thought that if the bomber was conservative, that made conservatism evil. Conservatism is not evil, but just like any beliefs system, it can be manipulated into something evil, just like Islamist extremism.

2) I think this is common miss conception regarding the philosophy of liberalism. It's not that the things mentioned are believed to be inherent rights, is that we as a society should agree to provides certain things to all citizens, in an effort to improve the overall welfare of the country. Has that morphed and failed in many aspects over the years? Absolutely! But its not a matter of believing they are rights, like 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is a difference that liberals recognize.

3) I think on this one, there is a difference in definition of the word 'morals'. Often times, morality has a religious connotation. To liberals, those morals don't matter, because of where they are derived from. I think you can be someone who cheats on his wife, and still be a brilliant economist. But by that same token, a murderer is not the guy I want running the justice department. So I understand the criticism completely.

4) This is a great question actually! "Fair share" is absolutely a sticky issue, and not at all as simple as Democrats would like you to believe. It's based on the idea, that the contributions made by individual tax payers should not impact one economic class more severely then another. Meaning that, taxing a person who makes $5,000 year at say, $100, would have a substantially larger impact on that person's day to day life, then it would if that same $100 was taxed from a person that makes $500,000 a year. It's obviously a crude example, but that's the thought process.

5) I'm having quite a bit of trouble verifying this fact. Not saying it isn't accurate, but I'm still working on this one. So I'll give you this one, this liberal officially can't answer this question, lol.

6) I am in fact pro-choice, and yes, I do think that people should have access to 'assault weapons' (I hate that name), and whatever light bulb, and be allowed to choose where their social security contributions go. All of those things, should be looked at reasonably, with appropriate restrictions and incentives. What is considered 'appropriate', is the real debate here.

7) No one I have ever met says corporations are evil. They have a bottom line, and their priority is profit. There is nothing wrong with that, but when you put prioritize profit, over people, and make your money from exploiting people, government has a responsibility to recognize that, bring it light, and initiate a conversation about who to balance the two.

8) This is an enormously complicated question, but a fair one. Paul Krugman, and many others, subscribe to a Keynesian economic belief, that a nations economy does not work like the budgets of an individual household. The basic idea, as I understand it, is to create demand within an economy. When unemployment skyrockets, demand for even the basics drops, because people just don't have the money to spend. The idea is, that if the federal government creates a demand for things (using taxpayer dollars), business can then afford to grow their business and hire more employees. Now, that is the most basic of explanations. There are a number of other factors that contribute to this theory, and very little is able to be proven definitively.

9) I think you may want to look at these numbers a little closer. From what I see, Republicans give significantly more to religious institutions then Democrats do. Those religious institutions do a lot of good. I believe those numbers are also based on domestic charitable givings, to which I would say Democrats tend to give a significant amount to foreign causes. It is a fair assessment though, that Republicans give quite a bit, and I have no desire to diminish that fact. It's enormously significant.

10) No idea. I'm not an economist, and would not be able to make an estimation like that. So, there's two I can't answer.

11) This sort of action would be disastrous to our economy in it's current form. That kind of approach with kill what little recovery we have had and send us straight into a depression, I have no doubt about it. Our government spending absolutely needs a completely overhaul. I think it needs to be done incrementally, and intelligently. I'm a big believer in an independent group of economists, looking at each area of spending individually and cutting out all of the useless spending and inefficient programs. I think there is a LOT of wasteful spending that could significantly impact our budget issues.

12) I have a fundamental issue with this question. Why in the world, would a legal debate consist of "God's definition"? Why can't the definition of marriage simply be the 'union of two consenting adults"? For that matter, I don't why it's illegal for a brother and sister to be married. Legally, I don't know why it's the governments place to determine what consenting adults can and cannot be married. Furthermore, if marriage is a religious institution, then lets get rid of that word in our country. Civil unions for all!! You can get married in your church.

13) The short answer is no. The long answer, is that the focus should be on, how do we bring people out of poverty and into the middle class or above. Which is why liberals tend to advocate better education and welfare programs. That's how they believe you can achieve that goal. I personally think, that our recent history has demonstrated we are not doing that effectively, so maybe it's time to take a new approach.

14) 100% agree, it's a totally f'ed up way to get "justice".

15) There is a biological difference between a fully developed adult, and an embryo. The problem with this question, it's purely philosophical. You can't pose a question to someone that is based on your philosophy, because its then impossible to answer to anywhere near your satisfaction.

16) This is a question I admittedly have trouble answering, because I recognize it as a lip service policy by Democrats. Raising the minimum wage is an important step when addressing the issue of pulling people out of one economic class, up into another one. However, we are not at a place with our economy where that is even near possible.

17) It's a fair enough question. However, shifts in the earth are happening, and they're causing natural disasters that are killing lots of people. Why not try to reduce the changes that man has been making to the earth and see if it does any good?

18) Agreed! The long standing argument for strengthening the federal government, because it can serve the people more efficiently, is been shown over and over to fail. Significant powers and controls needs to be shifted to states and local government.

19) I honest to God can't understand this question. I don't at all believe 'the middle class aren't willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don't think it's worth the money'. So I guess that's three.

20) Super glad this question came up! This another issue that suffers from a serious narrative problem. This should not at all be a governmental issue. It's totally a cultural thing, that is less about what the private sector is paying for the same job, and more about the kinds of choices women make in their careers compared to men. What's considered value in the job market is a fair criticism of employers, but overall, it's not something government could ever even hope to help. Read a great article about it;
Why do women earn less than men? - Business - CBC News

There ya go, for what it's worth, lol.

 

[274ina]

20 questions the bourgeois cant answer, and the RW morons that follow them cant understand.

1 - why is bombing a texas (West, TX) town for profit Ok, and bombing by the poor (boston) results in massive police responce and charges?
(and they were both just as willful by the responsible individuals, with about the same result)

2 -why does every other western nation not have a healthcare crisis?

3 - Why do we have massive homelessness and 6 MILLION empty homes in USA?

4 - Why does a US CEO make 100 to 10000 times the pay of every other CEO in the world?

5 - Why does every other western nation have a safety net and we do not? (and yet we are the best and "richest"

6 - (refering to fair wages) Why does the USA worker get the same **** wage even if he makes $240,000 a year for his company?
( look at profits per employee in Wall street profit figures)

7 - Why has US corporations consistanly ignored USA laws for over 100 years? ( min wage and 8 hr day then, Union organixing and overtime laws now)

8 - ........ad some more.......

 

[obvious Child]

Oddly, from what I have read, these guys where most likely, as are most Chechen Muslims, ethnic Muslims, not religious ones. That distinction will be lost on some though...

Oh boy. The Chechen Muslim insurgency issue deserves its own thread. That stuff is complicated. But to summarize, Russia created its own problem when it refused to negotiate with the secular Chechens.