- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 139
- Location
- Pacific Northwest, Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
dragonslayer;456686 ***I won't even acknowledge your lame descriptions of Conservatives. Needless to say they're all backwards. I will insert my views on liberalism as to offset your ridculous assumptions. [B said:Liberal:[/B]
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
***Favorable to reform in religious affairs? Yeah I suppose you're right. Liberals want to sodomize marriage and the child bearing process. Liberals are against 'Faith initiative programs'. So by reform you mean to promote gay pride parades, infanticide on demand, and insert progressive books into our public school system that teach subjects on Johnny has two moms as presented by queer nation reprobates.
2. (often cap.) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
***Progressive political reform? Is this the part where you join forces with your co-patriots in marching on D.C. to protest any war, and in the meantime show disrespect and non-support for our troops? Perhaps its where you reform and revise our country's history so as to accept the millions of illegals into our melting pot of hard earned tax monies so that they can have free and unlimited access to our hospitals, our schools, housing, and to our jobs. Progressive to a liberal means to salute to the politically correct and multicultural infestation to America. Perhaps its progressive to accept Spanish as our #1 language as well.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
***Yeah, advocating liberalism, a failed ideology that has never worked any place its been tried.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
***Maximum freedom? You liberals have always been against the second amendment of gun ownership. Go ahead..deny it! You liberals will increase our taxes every time you get the chance. How is that progressive or showing freedom to our workers? Where is the freedom to invent, to progress etc inside the liberal unions? You're against all forms of Capitalism--to be replaced by liberalism/socialism as they are one in the same.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
***Sure, you want to have the freedom to burn the American flag; to take the Ten Commandments off of the front of government buildings; to present art in the form of a 'Piss Christ", and to throw pies in the faces of Republican speakers. I hear ya!
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
***Surely you're referring to the liberal congressmen that traveled to Iraq and pulled a Jane Fonda on our troops by siding with the enemy again. Perhaps it was the liberal insistence that we handcuff our military brass and our CIC during war by initiating investigations into wartime wire tapping, prisoner ettiquette etc.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
***This was your best one yet. Your liberal attitude has seen upwards to 30 million illegal imigrants wreak havoc on our country, and you're directly responsible for our loss in Vietnam, and you're doing your best to lose the Iraqi war, where we leave in total embarrassment, as would be the case with your cut-and-run enthusiasts. Think of Conservatives as being totally opposed to the aforementioned liberal traits, and you'll get a good idea of which political ideology suits our country best.
***I won't even acknowledge your lame descriptions of Conservatives. Needless to say they're all backwards. I will insert my views on liberalism as to offset your ridculous assumptions.
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
***Favorable to reform in religious affairs? Yeah I suppose you're right. Liberals want to sodomize marriage and the child bearing process. Liberals are against 'Faith initiative programs'. So by reform you mean to promote gay pride parades, infanticide on demand, and insert progressive books into our public school system that teach subjects on Johnny has two moms as presented by queer nation reprobates.
2. (often cap.) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
***Progressive political reform? Is this the part where you join forces with your co-patriots in marching on D.C. to protest any war, and in the meantime show disrespect and non-support for our troops? Perhaps its where you reform and revise our country's history so as to accept the millions of illegals into our melting pot of hard earned tax monies so that they can have free and unlimited access to our hospitals, our schools, housing, and to our jobs. Progressive to a liberal means to salute to the politically correct and multicultural infestation to America. Perhaps its progressive to accept Spanish as our #1 language as well.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
***Yeah, advocating liberalism, a failed ideology that has never worked any place its been tried.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
***Maximum freedom? You liberals have always been against the second amendment of gun ownership. Go ahead..deny it! You liberals will increase our taxes every time you get the chance. How is that progressive or showing freedom to our workers? Where is the freedom to invent, to progress etc inside the liberal unions? You're against all forms of Capitalism--to be replaced by liberalism/socialism as they are one in the same.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
***Sure, you want to have the freedom to burn the American flag; to take the Ten Commandments off of the front of government buildings; to present art in the form of a 'Piss Christ", and to throw pies in the faces of Republican speakers. I hear ya!
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
***Surely you're referring to the liberal congressmen that traveled to Iraq and pulled a Jane Fonda on our troops by siding with the enemy again. Perhaps it was the liberal insistence that we handcuff our military brass and our CIC during war by initiating investigations into wartime wire tapping, prisoner ettiquette etc.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
***This was your best one yet. Your liberal attitude has seen upwards to 30 million illegal imigrants wreak havoc on our country, and you're directly responsible for our loss in Vietnam, and you're doing your best to lose the Iraqi war, where we leave in total embarrassment, as would be the case with your cut-and-run enthusiasts. Think of Conservatives as being totally opposed to the aforementioned liberal traits, and you'll get a good idea of which political ideology suits our country best.
pstdkid he asked you which one you were...he didnt ask you to bitch about liberals. I find it funny how you can complain about liberals when I'm sure the money of atleast one liberal goes to that veteran welfare money you receive tax free.
ptsdkid, I can honestly say that if you were to never come on DP again, I would be very upset. I dont think I have read a post of yours that hasnt made me laugh -- and I do NOT mean that in a negative way, truly!
Rock on brother.
I got my definitions from the Information please dictionary for Liberal, middle of the road, and conservative.Conservative:
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
NeoConservative:
Advocating radical change, making destructive changes to
instutions, people and Government. Primarily very far to the right politically.
Strongly backed and assciated to big national and multinational companies. NeoCons see the USA as a bunch land, they see the people on that land as throw aways, labor, or obstacles.
Middle of the Road:
favoring, following, or characterized by an intermediate position between two extremes, esp. in politics; moderate.
Liberal:
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often cap.) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
:2wave:
***Its amazing to see these liberals come back time after time spewing and supporting their [nonsensical, directionless babbling continues]
I got my definitions from the Information please dictionary for Liberal, middle of the road, and conservative.
***Listen to and watch the actions of these new liberals to see if current beliefs hold up to those outdated views.
Let me now compare socialism to this 'New Liberalism' to see if you can glean similarities from the two.
SOCIALISM: refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.
NEW LIBERALISM or SOCIAL LIBERALISM: advocate a greater degree of government interference in the free market, often in the form of anti discrimination laws, civil service examinations, universal education (rejection of vouchers), and progressive taxation. This philosophy believes government should provide for general welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, amnesty for illegals and felons, and medical care for the sick. Does any of this sound like 'individualism' or 'capitalism' to you?
'Classical Liberalism' rejects these publicaly funded initiatives; it emphasizes free enterprise--a Conservative concept. Founding Fathers like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were considered 'Classical Liberals' or Democrat-Republicans. New Liberalism believes in pitting classes against one another by politicking to get the upper class to pay for everyone else's tax woes. I hear ya, the rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer. Cry me a river in that oversized pity pot...why doncha.
Modern American Liberalism peaked with FDR's New Deal, and with LBJ's Great Society. Social Liberalism in a nutshell--is combining support for government social programs, progressive taxation, and moderate Keynesianism with a broad concept of rights including education and health care.
It would be a stretch to find a modern day liberal that believed in individualism, competition in the market place, a free enterprise system, capitalism, a strong military, Jesus Christ, a positve ethical platform, inventors (as unions stole their individuality), tax cutting, and individual responsibility (since they have the ACLU and liberal lawyers on their side to help level out the playing field).
@ptsdkid: You do a lot of talking about religion and faith-based laws. Do you not believe in the First Amendment?
***Sure I believe in the first amendment. How does religion and faith-based initiatives have anything to do with that amendment. A faith-based intiative is not a law.
Furthermore, you speak of Medicare, SS, etc as a reason we are the world's largest debtor nation. I think that may have a lot more to do with our increasing imports verses decreasing exports, no? It seems our movement towards free trade (a Neo-conservative concept) is more of the issue.
***Social programs are a huge reason why we have become a great debtor nation, but are not the only factors. But if you were to cut those social programs in half, and parlay 100% of the savings toward the national debt, we could probably pay off the national debt in one day.
Did you ever think that our export to import ratio may very well be off balance due to the stringent rules and regulations put on our businesses by the government? The Sherman Act of 1890 continues to plague our economy to this very day. Free trade opens up global investment opportunities, which in turn adds to America's capitalistic outlook and burgeoning economy.
Combined with the fact that we have an absurdly large military and are engaging in nonsensical wars of conquest; now we have some issues.
***I remember liberals of the 1980's poking fun of Reagan's Starwars program, and of the liberal congress voting down every military appropriations bills that had come up for a vote. Raytheon and other high tech military defense corporations were left out of their billion dollar contracts to build Scud, Hawk and Patriot missiles because of the voting of an insecure pacifist congress. Somehow (with no help from liberal congressmen) we managed to build many of the aforementioned missles that were later used to help America win the first Gulf War.
And that War on Drugs is a quite expensive venture as well, while only restricting the freedom of the people to live their own lifestyle however they see fit.
***I don't see where the war on drugs is all that expensive or pertinent to America being a great debtor nation.
Prisons are overcrowded mostly due to your "tough laws" (often freedom-restricting or frivolous laws that have absurd penalties or are putting non-violent criminals in jail) and your commitment to an obsolete system of capital punishment.
***Prisons are overcrowed because we have such a high rate of criminally minded people. The sentences for our more dangerous felons are a joke. People are getting out in 5-7 years for murder. The recidivisim rate for these felons of lenient sentences is astronomical. Until we can get these liberal judges to show a firm hand by handing out jail time equal to the felon's crime--can we ever expect to see the prison population drop.
Capital punishment is a must if we are going to toughen up our punishment sentencing. I'd like to take it a step further where every video freak gets to film an execution. The hanging of Saddam Hussein saved at least another 1 million people from dying at a young age.
Plus the Pentagon 'misplacing' 2.3 trillion dollars prolly didn't help our overall financial situationYou also might note that due to Bush's oh-so-great economic policies, it seems that the dollar may collapse. Yes, collapse. The Fed is trying desparately to make the descent a slow one, but finds that it is inevitable that it will drop quite dramatically.
****Yeah, the only things I support Bush on are his committment to Christian ethics, and to his fight on terroism. He has been an abject failure on immigration policy and on his spending habits. But if it wasn't for the Bush tax cuts, we would be singing the songs of your basic banana republic nation.
And speaking of illegal immigrants, I wouldn't be singing the praises of modern conservatives if I were you. Reagan, as you may remember, gave total amenisty to millions of illegal immigrants and then did nothing to stem the tide of further illegal immigration. If would-be illegals think that if they hold out long enough they will just be given citizenship, isn't that a major incentive to give it a shot?
***Look back to the immigration act of 1965 when Ted Kennedy set the rules where open borders were basically the law of the land. See what Mr. Kennedy and John McCain are saying about illegal immigrants today to see if that is the road we want to pursue. I am all for strating out by building that 700 mile wall.
Then we have Mr. Bush, our current nation-killer. He's planning a similar amnesty program, this time it will be many millions more gaining amnesty. And what has he done for border security? Zilch. He built a wall that covers what, 700 miles? And it isn't well-manned, so even if the illegals didn't feel like just walking around the fence to an unfenced area, they could just cut through the fence in unmanned or undermanned areas. Oh, and not to mention Bush moving closer and closer to union with Canada and Mexico, via North American Union. Nice conservativism right there. Sounds more extreme than anything I've ever heard a Dem propose.
***I agree with you. Bush doesn't sound conservative at all to me. Again, other than tax cutting and strong on defense--Bush doesn't cut it with me.
It might interest you that Reagan and Bush have both raised the debt in record amounts in both of their administrations, so their "shining example" of fiscal responsibility and conservativism is not very bright.
***My view has always been to not worry about the debt. Most that debt goes to China anyway. So why pay them? Looks like it won't be long before we engage in war with China anyway, why give them more capital in which to use against us?
Personally, given the choice between the Democrat's taxing and spending verses the Republican's cutting and spending, I'd choose the former. Of course I'd prefer cutting taxes AND cutting spending, but the libertarians don't stand much of a shot in the current political landscape. :lol:
The government isn't supposed to recognize that religion even exists. Courts have held that this applies not only to Congress, but also to the other two branches. So if our executive says "We should start doing this because my religion says [blah]" then he is doing something expressly forbidden in the Constitution.***Sure I believe in the first amendment. How does religion and faith-based initiatives have anything to do with that amendment. A faith-based intiative is not a law.
The National Debt is currently at about 8.6 trillion dollars. Our annual spending on ALL Human Resources (Health/Human Services, Soc. Sec. Administration, Education Dept., Food/Nutrition programs, Housing & Urban Dev., Labor Dept., etc) is about 750 billion dollars annually. So, if we were to entirely cut out that and put the savings 100% into the National Debt, it would take about 11 and a half YEARS to pay it back, at its current number (not taking into consideration the interest it would accumulate, which would also have to be paid). The National Debt since 9/29/06 has risen at an average of about 957 million dollars daily. Let's throw that into the calculation. In 11 and a half years' time, we would have accumulated about an extra 4 TRILLION dollars to pay off, and that's just at the current rate of increase. The current rate of increase indicates that the National Debt will rise about 350 billion dollars annually, meaning only 400 billion would be actually touching the current debt (and remember we are assuming the ENTIRE Human Resources section of the government is cut). That will take about 21 and a half years to pay off. Hardly your "cut half and we will pay it back in a day" idea.***Social programs are a huge reason why we have become a great debtor nation, but are not the only factors. But if you were to cut those social programs in half, and parlay 100% of the savings toward the national debt, we could probably pay off the national debt in one day.
No. I think it is because there are many countries in the world that simply aren't as good as ours, and their citizens will work for wages that aren't fit for animals in America. You think we can compete with sweatshops in Southeast Asia? You think we can compete with people who will GLADLY take a quarter a day in payment? It just can't happen. Free Trade is not what built America's economy and is not what will save it. Tariffs, lower taxes, better education, less government, and punishing of outsourcers will be what can save us.Did you ever think that our export to import ratio may very well be off balance due to the stringent rules and regulations put on our businesses by the government? The Sherman Act of 1890 continues to plague our economy to this very day. Free trade opens up global investment opportunities, which in turn adds to America's capitalistic outlook and burgeoning economy.
As I remember it, "Star Wars" was a money pit that ended in failure.***I remember liberals of the 1980's poking fun of Reagan's Starwars program, and of the liberal congress voting down every military appropriations bills that had come up for a vote. Raytheon and other high tech military defense corporations were left out of their billion dollar contracts to build Scud, Hawk and Patriot missiles because of the voting of an insecure pacifist congress. Somehow (with no help from liberal congressmen) we managed to build many of the aforementioned missles that were later used to help America win the first Gulf War.
pstdkid he asked you which one you were...he didnt ask you to bitch about liberals. I find it funny how you can complain about liberals when I'm sure the money of atleast one liberal goes to that veteran welfare money you receive tax free.
--------------------------------------------------------
I'd say I'm in the middle of the road.
I don't agree ............ but ...................
I dont believe ................but .....................
I agreed .... but......................
I belive that ....................... but .......................
I belive ............ not .......................
So you don't support anything you believe in..................how wonderful to live of life with no principles to uphold.
The fact that you cannot see the principles in his post merely shows that you wouldn't know a principle if it walked up and kissed you on the face.
If you don't support what you state you believe in then you have no
principles. On each issue the poster claimed to support a BUT was issue saying but I won't stand up for it.
How easy to go through life not standing up for what you believe in.
Once again....you are only seeing what you want to see.
...so we don't have to go through this again...
Actually, it is. The federal gov't alone spends about 20 billion dollars annually on the War on Drugs and state+local governments add over 30 billion more. That's 50 billion a year to fight against the personal freedoms of Americans. That isn't even counting the amount spent for incarceration, extra police, trials, etc. That totals an additional 50 billion or so. Now we are at 100 billion dollars annually. And the amount of people in jail due to drug use is only on the rise. Furthermore, the prohibition of drugs has done nothing to improve the drug use and importation situation, in fact things have gotten exponentially worse. Also, the War on Drugs has been linked to various military operations, especially in Latin America, which would otherwise be entirely unnecessary.***I don't see where the war on drugs is all that expensive or pertinent to America being a great debtor nation.
Well, now we have a nice jump point to continue my agruments against the War on Drugs. The reason many violent criminals are serving such low sentences is that the prisons simply don't have room for them. Why? Because of the amount of people in jail for non-violent crime that pose no threat to the community - by far the largest of these groups is drug-related offenders. The amount of drug-related offenders in prison in the United States right now is more than all the people in prison for any crime in all of the EU. And guess what, Europe's population is much higher (about 200 million more). And what are we doing by putting non-violent criminals in jail? We are creating violent criminals. You said it yourself, once people go to jail their chance of going back is greatly increased. We are basically training the next wave of criminals. I've never been to jail, so I can't speak from personal experience. But from what I've heard, once you go to jail for an extended period of time, even just a year, you will come out changed. You have a whole new set of morals, because you would have never survived without creating a new mentality. And it isn't some light switch that you can just turn back off as soon as you are out of the big house. Are there cases of people coming out of jail and then leading successful lives? Absolutely. But the government sure doesn't make it easy on them. Think about this: You are one of the millions of non-violent criminals sent to jail. Let's say you were in possession of pot, a good amount, and you got 2 years. Now fast-forward. You are out of prison. Somehow, through it all, you kept a good attitude and used your time in the slammer as a learning experience. But now you have to rebuild your life in the real world. Going to find a new job? Yeah, not so easy when you have to put "felon" on your application. Maybe you live in a bad neighbor, can't afford anything better with the terrible job you have now (because no one else would accept you). Wanna buy a weapon to protect yourself? Sorry - felons not allowed. Well now you have to live in fear of robbery or worse all the time. Jeez, things aren't really looking up for you now. But you remember something that a friend you made in jail told you about. A gang of his in your area. You could have protection, opportunity to rise up economically, etc. Or you can be stuck in the dangerous, run down area you live for the rest of your days. Now crime is looking a bit more like the ONLY choice, isn't it?***Prisons are overcrowed because we have such a high rate of criminally minded people. The sentences for our more dangerous felons are a joke. People are getting out in 5-7 years for murder. The recidivisim rate for these felons of lenient sentences is astronomical. Until we can get these liberal judges to show a firm hand by handing out jail time equal to the felon's crime--can we ever expect to see the prison population drop.
Capital punishment often proves to be only determental to the community that instates it. There is little connection between the ending of capital punishment and increase in crime, showing that it is not a deterrent. Capital punishment is also more costly (often brings up greater amounts of appeals, longer trials, plus the issue of their holding on death row being much more expensive than regular cells), which is hardly a burden to place on a community already negatively affected by these criminals. Furthermore, capital punishment is (at least in my opinion) immoral, as it is lowering the authorities to the level of the criminal (killing is killing, whether state-sponsored or not). I believe that life in prison doing hard labor is a much better option, as they will be forced to give back to the community they harmed and not burden them further.Capital punishment is a must if we are going to toughen up our punishment sentencing. I'd like to take it a step further where every video freak gets to film an execution. The hanging of Saddam Hussein saved at least another 1 million people from dying at a young age.
He's not doing well on his Commandment following from what I can tell :2razz:****Yeah, the only things I support Bush on are his committment to Christian ethics, and to his fight on terroism. He has been an abject failure on immigration policy and on his spending habits. But if it wasn't for the Bush tax cuts, we would be singing the songs of your basic banana republic nation.
I'm definitely not trying to say the Democrats are any better. Heck, they don't even pretend like they are trying to fight immigration. But the Republicans have a quite terrible track record of their own, and I don't think any Dems gave amnesty to millions of illegals.***Look back to the immigration act of 1965 when Ted Kennedy set the rules where open borders were basically the law of the land. See what Mr. Kennedy and John McCain are saying about illegal immigrants today to see if that is the road we want to pursue. I am all for strating out by building that 700 mile wall.
You have to pay them, if they ask for it, otherwise your money will be worthless around the world. You can't just say, "I'm not going to pay you." The only reason money has any purchasing power is that it represents value. Without the value it represents, it is simply a green piece of paper with fancy writing on it.***My view has always been to not worry about the debt. Most that debt goes to China anyway. So why pay them? Looks like it won't be long before we engage in war with China anyway, why give them more capital in which to use against us?
Heh, I see what you are saying there. It is true that change to a tax-cutting and minimalist government is not going to happen via the Democrats, and the Republicans are much more likely to move to those ends, but I am very disturbed by the Neo-conservatives in the Republican Party who simply don't have any respect for the ideals that made the Republicans successful in the 20th century, and these big-wig Republicans in Washington rarely represent the true views of the average Republican (they get elected on the fact that they are called Republicans and the Democrats are even worse - really the Libertarians have more in common with the average Republican if you ask me). But I wasn't talking about long-term goals of each party, I was simply commenting that in a choice between tax and spend verses cut and spend, I would choose the former because it makes more economic sense and shows fiscal conservatism (not spending money you don't have).***True conservatives would have us cutting taxes and spending less. Just think if Bush could have gotten his privatizing 6% of Social Security into private accounts passed the liberals in congress. Privatizing social security and medical accounts are a form of investment which can only help boost our economy in the long run. But investing money into government programs rather than having tax monies support big government is not something that bodes well with the tax and spend Democrats. Never has been, and never will.
Stinger, do you not understand that people can have principles without wishing that the government would pass laws requiring everyone else to live by them?
BD you don't understand that the OP's positions are unprinicpled. To say you are for something but don't support it is unprincipled. You can always spot it when the but-monkey starts squealing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?