• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Are liberal stupid?

Are liberals stupid?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 100.0%
  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    9
You really are quite insane.

Gilluin said:
Yet liberals they were.

Over the course of 200 years, the term liberal has lost nearly all of it's original meaning. Washington, Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if they saw the rampant taxation and government intervention that modern day liberals advocate. Today, they'd most likely be classified as conservative leaning libertarians.


Gilluin said:
I see nothing wrong with the liberals of today in fact the people you term "liberal" aren't liberal enough for me. In my opinion the democrats are to far to the right for my tastes

Today's democrats are too far to the RIGHT? Even when the democratic party is funded by the likes of Peter Lewis and George Soros and groups like the ACLU. Please, further enlighten me on your views because you've sparked my interest.

Gilluin said:
and the republicans are starting to make Hitler look like a Gandi.

Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 6 million through mass genocide and millions more due to his imperialistic campaign. Republicans.... :confused:
 
The Real McCoy said:
You really are quite insane.

Over the course of 200 years, the term liberal has lost nearly all of it's original meaning. Washington, Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if they saw the rampant taxation and government intervention that modern day liberals advocate. Today, they'd most likely be classified as conservative leaning libertarians.

Today's democrats are too far to the RIGHT? Even when the democratic party is funded by the likes of Peter Lewis and George Soros and groups like the ACLU. Please, further enlighten me on your views because you've sparked my interest.

Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 6 million through mass genocide and millions more due to his imperialistic campaign. Republicans.... :confused:

It's true. Libertarian are the only real liberals. I've tried to argue it though and no one will believe me.
 
Kelzie said:
It's true. Libertarian are the only real liberals. I've tried to argue it though and no one will believe me.

Thank you!

It's notable that "conservative" views on economics in this country are considered "liberal" in other countries. Makes sense because in the good old US of A, capitalism has been dominant and progressive "liberals" seek a more regulated market while in other countries, economically progressive liberals push for a market more free from government restrictions.

I just like saying the word "liberal" with a Rush Limbaugh-esque vocal inflection on it.
 
The Real McCoy said:
Thank you!

It's notable that "conservative" views on economics in this country are considered "liberal" in other countries. Makes sense because in the good old US of A, capitalism has been dominant and progressive "liberals" seek a more regulated market while in other countries, economically progressive liberals push for a market more free from government restrictions.

I just like saying the word "liberal" with a Rush Limbaugh-esque vocal inflection on it.

I am a proud economic conservative. ;)
 
Gilluin said:
If it weren't for those "stupid liberals" of 1776 you would now be singing God save the queen as your national anthem. If it weren't for those "stupid liberals" the hambuger you eat might kill you. If it weren't for those "stupid liberals" children as young as 6 would be working in factories. If it weren't for those "stupid liberals" there would be no clean water and the skies would be polluted. I could go on and on; it is only the liberals who move society forward and make life safer and better for all of us.

Good point. I'm sure the conservatives of those day were talking about those traiterous liberals too -- they should support the government, and the military, they should all be hung for their comments. Imagine criticizing the government because we locked people away without trials. What's wrong with that? Who needs a lawyer anyway, if the Govt accused them they must be guilty. And they don't support the troops! There comments are demoralizing the troops, can't they see that? Without the troops there, the place would slide into chaos and anarchy, and everyone would be butchered by the indians. The King is God appointed, and we have the moral right to maintain order and ensure a proper government is in place for the good of the nation. Damn liberals.
 
Kelzie said:
I am a proud economic conservative. ;)

I used to be. Until I learned that meant borrowing $1/2 trillion a year from our future.

Now I am a proud economic liberal.
 
The Real McCoy said:
You really are quite insane.

My opinion is insane? In my view anyone who is conservative or backs the republican party is insane.


The Real McCoy said:
Over the course of 200 years, the term liberal has lost nearly all of it's original meaning. Washington, Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if they saw the rampant taxation and government intervention that modern day liberals advocate. Today, they'd most likely be classified as conservative leaning libertarians.

Actually they would be spinning in their graves to see how the modern day polititians are trying to make the USA a theocracy as evangelicals through the ballot box are trying to make this a christian nation.

The Real McCoy said:
Today's democrats are too far to the RIGHT? Even when the democratic party is funded by the likes of Peter Lewis and George Soros and groups like the ACLU. Please, further enlighten me on your views because you've sparked my interest.
yes they are to far to the right, but then I am no a Dittohead, Hanityite, or Colter sycophant.
This is the platform of my political party and even they are not enough to the left for me.
http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/

The Real McCoy said:
Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 6 million through mass genocide and millions more due to his imperialistic campaign. Republicans.... :confused:

The irony is that you do not see the irony in your statement. What is going on in Iraq right now is an "imperialistic campaign" for oil. If not why are we not in North Korea?
Hitler was to the far right on the political spectrum and Gandi was to the left. My anology was that the republicans are moving further to the right then Hitler hence moving Hitler towards Gandi on the political spectrum.
Hitler came to power using the jews as scape goats just as the republicans are tring to use glbt community as scape goats.
 
Iriemon said:
I used to be. Until I learned that meant borrowing $1/2 trillion a year from our future.

Now I am a proud economic liberal.

Let me rephrase. I am a proud economic conservative when it's done correctly.
 
Gilluin said:
My opinion is insane? In my view anyone who is conservative or backs the republican party is insane.

Yes, because you compare liberals of yore to modern day liberals.


Gilluin said:
Actually they would be spinning in their graves to see how the modern day polititians are trying to make the USA a theocracy as evangelicals through the ballot box are trying to make this a christian nation.

Technically, this is a christian nation. Perhaps not government sanctioned, but the vast majority of Americans have always been Christians. Fact is, these numbers are dropping. And please, provide me with some politicians who want to make our country a theocracy (save for a few fringe members of the radical/religious right wing)


Gilluin said:
yes they are to far to the right, but then I am no a Dittohead, Hanityite, or Colter sycophant.
This is the platform of my political party and even they are not enough to the left for me.
http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/


Please, do tell how the Democratic and Green parties are not far enough to the left for you.

Also, did you vote for Ralph Nader? If you did, technically it was a vote for Bush ;)


Gilluin said:
The irony is that you do not see the irony in your statement. What is going on in Iraq right now is an "imperialistic campaign" for oil. If not why are we not in North Korea?

I'm well aware of what I said and was well aware of what your response to it would be. First of all, we have committed no genocide. And if you're going to criticize conservatives for an "imperialistic" campaign then I'll take a shot at liberals and the most liberal president of the last 50 years: LBJ and his decision to go to Vietnam. As for North Korea, they pose no serious immediate threat... You probably wouldn't even be mentioning North Korea if it wasn't for G-Dubya.


Gilluin said:
Hitler was to the far right on the political spectrum and Gandi was to the left.

Hitler was to the FAR RIGHT?! You do know that the Nazi party was a SOCIALIST party, don't you?? Besides, most charts put him near dead center of the left-righ spectrum.

Gilluin said:
My anology was that the republicans are moving further to the right then Hitler hence moving Hitler towards Gandi on the political spectrum.
Hitler came to power using the jews as scape goats just as the republicans are tring to use glbt community as scape goats.

glbt community? Sorry, you lost me..
 
Last edited:
galenrox said:
*******IT WOMAN!!! I ****ING TOLD YOU ALREADY, YOU ARE ECONOMICALLY LIBERALS AS HELL! SOCIALISM IS LIBERAL, YOU CRAZY ASS BITCH!!!

Oh God yes. Let's start this one up again. She's been running around claiming to have smacked everyone on this. Well, you and Trojan anyway. When in truth we just threw our hands in the air and claimed, girls crazy. I've been sitting back watching her and Skil go at it. Learning her evil tactics. The only question I have left about Kelzie is does she do this on purpose because she's evil, or is she just friggin stubborn?
 
teacher said:
Oh God yes. Let's start this one up again. She's been running around claiming to have smacked everyone on this. Well, you and Trojan anyway. When in truth we just threw our hands in the air and claimed, girls crazy. I've been sitting back watching her and Skil go at it. Learning her evil tactics. The only question I have left about Kelzie is does she do this on purpose because she's evil, or is she just friggin stubborn?

I did not start it. Somebody else brought it up. I was just agreeing with them. I feel no need to bring it back up. Too many people agree with me, outside of galen and trajan. It's no fun if I don't have to prove that I'm right.


I did nothing wrong with SKIL. It's evil to call someone stupid. It's a lot more fun to sit back and let them work themselves in a frenzy and prove it for you.
 
The Real McCoy said:
Technically, this is a christian nation. Perhaps not government sanctioned, but the vast majority of Americans have always been Christians. Fact is, these numbers are dropping. And please, provide me with some politicians who want to make our country a theocracy (save for a few fringe members of the radical/religious right wing)

This is a secular nation were all religions are equal.



The Real McCoy said:
Also, did you vote for Ralph Nader? If you did, technically it was a vote for Bush ;)
Nader did not run as the green party candidate. David Cobb was.


The Real McCoy said:
I'm well aware of what I said and was well aware of what your response to it would be. First of all, we have committed no genocide. And if you're going to criticize conservatives for an "imperialistic" campaign then I'll take a shot at liberals and the most liberal president of the last 50 years: LBJ and his decision to go to Vietnam. As for North Korea, they pose no serious immediate threat... You probably wouldn't even be mentioning North Korea if it wasn't for G-Dubya.

Study history LBJ may have gotten us involved more deeply in Vietnam but Nixon, a conservate republican, Escalated and expaneded the war to Cambodia. Let me see Iraq was a immediate threat with no proven ties to terriosts, contained, and with no WMD. North Korea is not a immediate threat when they have proven ties to terrorists, have a standing trained military of over 1,000,000, and now has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the USA. I guess I don't get the logic but then I do not watch FOXX news.

The Real McCoy said:
Hitler was to the FAR RIGHT?! You do know that the Nazi party was a SOCIALIST party, don't you?? Besides, most charts put him near dead center of the left-righ spectrum.
I was taught, years ago, in government class that the Fascists, which the Nazi's were, are to the far right on the political spectrum being reactionists. The communists were to the far left of the political spectrum being radicals

The Real McCoy said:
glbt community? Sorry, you lost me..

GAY LESBIAN BISEXUAL TRANSGENDARED= GLBT
 
Iriemon said:
"Are liberal stupid"

LMFAO!

No, Conservative are stupid, and liberals is smart.

chuckle chuckle chuckle

Outstanding!

:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Gilluin said:
This is a secular nation were all religions are equal.

In the eyes of the government, yes. As far as the people go, deffinitely not. Please don't confuse government and people.


Gilluin said:
Nader did not run as the green party candidate. David Cobb was.

Not in 2000... but regardless, you didn't answer my question


Gilluin said:
Study history LBJ may have gotten us involved more deeply in Vietnam but Nixon, a conservate republican, Escalated and expaneded the war to Cambodia.

Johnson was the one who made the decision to go there in the first place, just like Bush was the one who decided to go to Iraq. Besides, millions upon millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians were slaughtered at the hands of leftists dictators.

Gilluin said:
Let me see Iraq was a immediate threat with no proven ties to terriosts, contained, and with no WMD.

Easy to say with hindsight being 20/20 but before 2003 it was common knowledge Iraq did have WMDs and there was the fear of Hussein using them. And no proven ties to terrorists?? Maybe not al Qaeda but try doing a little research on Saddam Hussein's history, particularly his ties with Arafat and the Palestinians.

Gilluin said:
North Korea is not a immediate threat when they have proven ties to terrorists, have a standing trained military of over 1,000,000, and now has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the USA. I guess I don't get the logic but then I do not watch FOXX news.

3 years ago, Iraq posed a greater threat than North Korea did. This may not be actually true but we didn't know then what we know today, try putting it in perspective. Besides, like I said before, North Korea was a miniscule issue before Bush started talking about them.


Gilluin said:
I was taught, years ago, in government class that the Fascists, which the Nazi's were, are to the far right on the political spectrum being reactionists. The communists were to the far left of the political spectrum being radicals

Fascism is a very loose term, applying much more to Italy in the 1920s & 30s than it does in Nazy Germany. Hitler's style of government was rather unique and generally falls in the center of the left-right spectrum.



Gilluin said:
GAY LESBIAN BISEXUAL TRANSGENDARED= GLBT

Ah.. I see. Well, I wasn't aware the GLBTs were being hoarded off to extermination camps. If you're going to continue with your Bush/Republican-Hitler/Nazi comparisons, please take it to the conspiracy forum... unless of course you enjoy ushering your extreme opinions into the slaughterhouse of logic.
 
Last edited:
galenrox said:
You are an extreme leftist economically, that's just how it ****ing works!!!

"Liberals" in America are leftists economically.

"Liberals" in other countries are righties economically.

That was the joke she was referring to...
 
The Real McCoy said:
Not in 2000... but regardless, you didn't answer my question

I voted for GORE in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 but I realized that It doesn't matter anymore so I am now voting my consicence; hence the Green party.
Hopefully as people get sick of the religious takeover of the republican party and the caving of the democratic party they will start switching to 3rd parties.



The Real McCoy said:
Fascism is a very loose term, applying much more to Italy in the 1920s & 30s than it does in Nazy Germany. Hitler's style of government was rather unique and generally falls in the center of the left-right spectrum.

Once again not what I was taught in government class but at least you admit that bush and the republicans are more to the right then the nazi's

The Real McCoy said:
Ah.. I see. Well, I wasn't aware the GLBTs were being hoarded off to extermination camps. If you're going to continue with your Bush/Republican-Hitler/Nazi comparisons, please take it to the conspiracy forum... unless of course you enjoy ushering your extreme opinions into the slaughterhouse of logic.


Ahh but here is the thing I can see it happening if evangelicals continue to gain power.
I am sure that Japanese americans thought they would not be hearded into concentration camps either but it did happen.
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html
 
galenrox said:
No! Listen, I have talked to everyone who knows a damn thing about economics, including the former chief economist for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, both my parents who met while working at the Federal Reserve (and my dad's a former finance professor at University of Chicago), several of my friends who have studied a lot of economics, etc, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM SAYS YOU'RE WRONG!! Now whoever the **** told you otherwise is an idiot, plain and simple, and you need to accept that you were talking to a lunatic who didn't know squat about whatever s/he was talking about! You are an extreme leftist economically, that's just how it ****ing works!!!

And just because it's so much fun poking a snarling dog:

This month I have come across three quite different texts that relate to the economic philosophy of Adam Smith, the 18th century moral philosopher from Glasgow who is widely regarded as the father of modern economics, or at least the father of the most cherished myths associated with liberal economics.

http://pl.net/~keithr/rf98_AdamSmithLiberal.html

Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate “liberals” — meaning the political type — have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neoliberalism

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRe...eralism.asp#PoliticalversusEconomicLiberalism

First was classic liberal economics, as understood by Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and other economists ot the nineteenth century

http://tqe.quaker.org/2004/TQE099-EN-Economics.html

Liberals wanted the removal of control over the economy, whether from the government or guilds. Adam Smith supported this idea.

http://www.unf.edu/classes/freshmancore/halsall/core2-07.htm

The liberal theory of economics is the theory of economics described by classical liberal authors such as Anders Chydenius, Adam Smith and the French Physiocrats. It is concerned with "natural liberty" as understood by these authors. Though Smith never used the term, today it is commonly known as laissez-faire. The concept of economic liberalism underpinned the move towards a free market economic system, and the subsequent demise of the mercantilist system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_theory_of_economics

If there's a foundational figure for our world, it must be Adam Smith. His Wealth of Nations is the text which finally does away with the existing ideas about political economy (mercantilism) and outlines what the nineteenth century calls "capitalist" thinking, or "classical liberal economics".
http://instruct.uwo.ca/anthro/301/notes-lib.htm




How pissed are you? I've got more if you want em....
 
Gilluin said:
Ahh but here is the thing I can see it happening if evangelicals continue to gain power.

If evangelicals continue to gain power? The group I'm seeing gaining power are the gays, fueled by the secular progressive movement.

Gilluin said:
I am sure that Japanese americans thought they would not be hearded into concentration camps either but it did happen.

And who was president during that time? Could it have been.... *dun dun dun* a LIBERAL!

No offense to FDR, I liked the guy... I'm just trying to demonstrate my point.
 
galen where the hell did you go? Off crying in a corner somewhere? Carefull, we talked about your mascara smearing...

Aww, don't be mad. I'm sure GWAR is a very neat band.
 
The group I'm seeing gaining power are the gays

Well only if they can wrestle power from the heterosexuals first.

Then maybe we can overthrow those damn whites that just LOVE to be president.

We need a Christian president. When was the last time we had one? When was the last time we honestly had a straight, white, Christian male as president? Honestly?

FIGHT THE POWER!! SMASH THE RAINBOW!
 
V.I. Lenin said:
Well only if they can wrestle power from the heterosexuals first.

I said "gaining power"... not "about to take over" or anything along those lines.. unless we're talking about San Francisco
 
Kelzie said:
It's true. Libertarian are the only real liberals. I've tried to argue it though and no one will believe me.

I guess it all depends on what your definition of liberal is.

There are definitely Liberals within the Democratic party - that just doesn't make the party as a whole Liberal.
 
Last edited:
galenrox said:
Don't humor her, she's just ****ing nuts and has no idea what a liberal is.

YOU HEAR ME KELZIE, YOU'RE ****ING NUTS!!!

Maybe. But at least I know what liberal economics is.
 
I have to at least defend myself here.....

The Real McCoy said:
It's called a typo... but that's neither here nor there.

My case for liberals being stupid:

They want stricter gun control when all this serves to do is tip the balance of gun ownership to the criminal world.

I'll admit that I'm not very well versed in the whole gun control thing, but....I sure do like having a 9 mil on either side of the bed :mrgreen:

They want more welfare when welfare doesn't work. (Clinton knew this)

I wouldn't necessarily say MORE welfare.....I just think we need to fix the system we have and people need to stop frickin' taking advantage of it, they instead need to get off of their lazy asses and do something for themselves. The government doesn't owe them anything.

They oppose free trade when free trade benefits evryone. (Clinton knew this too)

Free trade is cool with me.

They want "free health care" when no such thing exists.

Nope. But affordable health care would be nice.

They want us to be more involved with the UN when the UN is filled with corrupt, self serving countries who could give a **** about the international good.

I'm going to admit that I'm not very well versed in matters regarding the U.N., either......shut up, I didn't care about politics until a couple of years ago, I'm still learning! *ahem*

They seem to think the 1st amendment gives them "freedom FROM religion", not "freedom OF religion" which is what it really says.

The way I see it, it guarantees freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. We are free to practice any religion we like, and free to practice none at all if we so choose. But there shall also not be a state (or national....I don't think "state" was meant as in each individual state, like some people like to say. But I could be wrong. I didn't write it.) sponsored/endorsed religion.

They claim to be the ones for "equality" while supporting discrimination (through Afirmative Action)

I think everyone should be treated equally, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, political views, etc. With that being said, aside from establishing more equal treatment for gays.....the rest of it, people just need to shut up about it. If they didn't talk about it so much, it wouldn't be such a big deal, people wouldn't be thinking about it all of the time, and everything would fall into place.

They want us to lose in Iraq and hand an oil-rich nation over to al-Qaeda on a silver platter.

No, no, NO!!!!! I want our troops to do their mission and do it to the best of their ability. I may not agree with why we went to war (as far as Iraq is specifically concerned), but we're there and that's that. Might as well do the job and do it right.

They whine that we aren't doing enough to combat hunger in the world when this problem is caused by corrupt governments and much of the aid we provide goes to nefarious leaders. Then liberals complain about "nation building" and US intervention in foreign governments.

I'm more concerned about combatting hunger and such right here at home. I've said it many times, we should not be the world's babysitter. Other countries need to step up to the plate and take care of their own, just as we do.

They've infected the education system and the media with their liberalism, brainwashing our nation's youth and anyone else who is so easily swayed.

I guess that depends on where you live.....I thought my teachers were pretty conservative, actually....

They want to further unravel the fabric of the traditional American family and disintegrate communication between parents and their children. They'd rather see the government take the role of the parent.

NOOOOO!!!! I plan on doing everything in my power to make sure my marriage works, because I don't want my children to be the product of a divorce....I was, and sure, I turned out alright, but I don't want my kids to experience the emotional rollercoaster that goes along with having divorced parents. I also hope to be able to be a stay at home mom, or at least get away with only working part time or something, because I want to be able to spend as much time as possible with my children, to be there for them when they need me.

They support the 9th Circuit Court of appeals.

Eh.....not so much.

They dumb down our language through "Political Correctness"

Eh. If you say so. I tend to just say whatever I want, PC be damned.

They're too busy whining and complaining instead of winning elections.

Well, that's the politicians. I do what I can to better my own life, and I vote for who I think will best help better the lives of everyone, but I am but one person. It takes a lot more than that to win an election.

In short, they want a government that far exceeds it's constitutionally bound limits.

Nah, not really.....we leave that to Dubya.

:mrgreen:
 
Stace said:
I have to at least defend myself here.....



I'll admit that I'm not very well versed in the whole gun control thing, but....I sure do like having a 9 mil on either side of the bed :mrgreen:



I wouldn't necessarily say MORE welfare.....I just think we need to fix the system we have and people need to stop frickin' taking advantage of it, they instead need to get off of their lazy asses and do something for themselves. The government doesn't owe them anything.



Free trade is cool with me.



Nope. But affordable health care would be nice.



I'm going to admit that I'm not very well versed in matters regarding the U.N., either......shut up, I didn't care about politics until a couple of years ago, I'm still learning! *ahem*



The way I see it, it guarantees freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. We are free to practice any religion we like, and free to practice none at all if we so choose. But there shall also not be a state (or national....I don't think "state" was meant as in each individual state, like some people like to say. But I could be wrong. I didn't write it.) sponsored/endorsed religion.



I think everyone should be treated equally, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, political views, etc. With that being said, aside from establishing more equal treatment for gays.....the rest of it, people just need to shut up about it. If they didn't talk about it so much, it wouldn't be such a big deal, people wouldn't be thinking about it all of the time, and everything would fall into place.



No, no, NO!!!!! I want our troops to do their mission and do it to the best of their ability. I may not agree with why we went to war (as far as Iraq is specifically concerned), but we're there and that's that. Might as well do the job and do it right.



I'm more concerned about combatting hunger and such right here at home. I've said it many times, we should not be the world's babysitter. Other countries need to step up to the plate and take care of their own, just as we do.



I guess that depends on where you live.....I thought my teachers were pretty conservative, actually....



NOOOOO!!!! I plan on doing everything in my power to make sure my marriage works, because I don't want my children to be the product of a divorce....I was, and sure, I turned out alright, but I don't want my kids to experience the emotional rollercoaster that goes along with having divorced parents. I also hope to be able to be a stay at home mom, or at least get away with only working part time or something, because I want to be able to spend as much time as possible with my children, to be there for them when they need me.



Eh.....not so much.



Eh. If you say so. I tend to just say whatever I want, PC be damned.



Well, that's the politicians. I do what I can to better my own life, and I vote for who I think will best help better the lives of everyone, but I am but one person. It takes a lot more than that to win an election.



Nah, not really.....we leave that to Dubya.

:mrgreen:

It's good to see some liberals have working brains... props to you!
 
Back
Top Bottom