What do liberals want?

[Bobcat]

1. Increase spending on eduction by increasing primary k-12 funding for better school resources and better teachers with more reasonable pay. Yes, and test top of the world. Basic subjects like Calculus should be taught in early high school or even middle school in the future. Reduce tuition of colleges and universities to a point where it will not be a major factor in deciding which school to attend, if any.

2. Increase spending on science and technology, such as in nuclear energy, space exploration, break through in transportation such as flying cars that can be managed and driven entirely by computer systems and digital roads.

Paid for by the super rich who do not invest their own money, they are are over paid and under taxed, and cuts to the military down to 10% of national budget.

3. Improve international relations without jeopardizing the security of the nation. We should try to help and work together with other nations and learn from other cultures instead of alienating our selves more and more, look at what happened to Japan. Scripture says "love thy neighbors"

4. Promote a culture of free reasoned thinking instead of adhering to out dated ideology

5. Never have people like Romney in office

You were making a little sense until you threw in your partisan hate in number 5. You say you want reasoned thinking and then you display just the opposite with your comment about evil rich people and Romney-----------massive FAIL

 

[Bobcat]

Well, given that having a voter ID wouldn't solve the problem of voter fraud, I think my state is trying to suppress the vote for those who are likely to vote for Obama. The Federal Government knows who I am. I had a military ID that has expired one year previously. If the Federal GOvernment knows who I am, then surely Mississippi should accept that fact. Also, it was easier for me to get my Military ID than it was to get this voter ID.

You said you went to the DMV and got an ID, whats your problem now? Mississippi will always be a red state so your vote for obama won't change how your state's electors vote. But, you should be allowed to vote as well as all of the Obama supporters in south Jackson. Seems to me that your federal ID should be sufficient even if its expired. But if you have to make another rtrip to the DMV you should do it.

If even one fraudulent vote is allowed, then the system is corrupted. There are many reported cases of dead people voting and that should not be tolerated. Voter ID is not a big deal for 99% of voters. Sorry if you are one of the 1%, but thats life.

 

[Bobcat]

The CBO would disagree with you. I think they know how to crunch the numbers better than any of us would.

The CBO has said that obamacare will cost 3 times what the dems said it would cost. We cannot afford it, we are already bankrupt.

 

[Hairytic]

You said you went to the DMV and got an ID, whats your problem now? Mississippi will always be a red state so your vote for obama won't change how your state's electors vote. But, you should be allowed to vote as well as all of the Obama supporters in south Jackson. Seems to me that your federal ID should be sufficient even if its expired. But if you have to make another rtrip to the DMV you should do it.

If even one fraudulent vote is allowed, then the system is corrupted. There are many reported cases of dead people voting and that should not be tolerated. Voter ID is not a big deal for 99% of voters. Sorry if you are one of the 1%, but thats life.

I say that if even one Citizen is prevented from voting because of these laws then, they should come up with a better way to fight against fraud.

 

[Bobcat]

I say that if even one Citizen is prevented from voting because of these laws then, they should come up with a better way to fight against fraud.

whats your solution? Should they just let anyone walk in and vote without proving who they are or where they live?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Notice that "jobs," "free enterprise," "capitalism," "safety," "national wealth," and "national security" didn't make that list.

Was noticing just that. I would think a better economy so every could have jobs and pay their own way would make the list with SOMEONE.

 

[Daktoria]

Here's your chance my liberal friends. Give us 5 things that you want the US to do and why.

They must be specific, generalizations like " world peace" are not acceptable. So have at it, what 5 things do you want the US to do?

I guess what liberals want is the right to be mentally lazy bums in having government plan out their lives rather than planning out their own.

They also want the right to plan out other people's lives rather than letting other people plan out their own.

They just want the right to get angry at people for no reason, and force others to put up with it. They're rather weird people.

I can't honestly say I've ever come across a liberal who came up with a good idea, and I don't mean that politically speaking. I mean that socially and culturally speaking. It's like they're missing a part of their brain, and they just want to gobble up that missing part in others who have it.

Instead, liberals just put other people's ideas together, and suck up as obedient yes-men to charm authorities into becoming the next generation's pedigree. That way, they can exploit the next generation's thinkers by being born on top.

They're fatalists basically, and enjoy provoking others into doing what they want or else.

 

[waas]

I'm not a liberal, so this may not be my place to comment, but I suppose my two cents are no less valuable than those of the next guy.

Liberals are on the right track, but they're missing some very crucial pieces. As you may well know, the beat movement was one of America's potentially great reformist movements. The culture of non violence, spirituality and introspection were a perfect atmosphere for the dismantling of the country's great faults, no? The occupy movement was a good example as well.

To me, what we need in this country isn't a shift in current policies, but a radical shift in the entire capitalist system as a whole. However, sadly, Liberals present themselves as mere pro-business capitalists, fully unable to do this country permanent good.

 

[waas]

I guess what liberals want is the right to be mentally lazy bums in having government plan out their lives rather than planning out their own.

They also want the right to plan out other people's lives rather than letting other people plan out their own.

They just want the right to get angry at people for no reason, and force others to put up with it. They're rather weird people.

It's funny that you think this, Dak. It's pretty hard to take it seriously, so please provide some examples and/or citation.

Thanks, buddy. :2wave:

 

[Hairytic]

whats your solution? Should they just let anyone walk in and vote without proving who they are or where they live?

My solution is to make no new laws. THere isn't a real problem with voter fraud.
Election Day impersonation, an impetus for voter ID laws, a rarity, data show - The Washington Post

"A new nationwide analysis of more than 2,000 cases of alleged election fraud over the past dozen years shows that in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which has prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tougher voter ID laws, was virtually nonexistent.

The analysis of 2,068 reported fraud cases by News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project, found 10 cases of alleged in-person voter impersonation since 2000. With 146 million registered voters in the United States, those represent about one for every 15 million prospective voters."

 

[roughdraft274]

Almost all medical insurance has a maximum deductible, or max out of pocket amount, usually 5K or less, so no one with insurance could have 17K in medical expenses that they would have to pay

1. It's possible the person didn't have insurance, duh.
2. Before the healthcare bill many plans (including mine) had lifetime caps that you could hit and then the insurance company would cut you off.

Don't make blanket statements like that unless you just love being wrong. In that case, please continue.

 

[Daktoria]

It's funny that you think this, Dak. It's pretty hard to take it seriously, so please provide some examples and/or citation.

Thanks, buddy. :2wave:

Empiricism is elitism. It depends on the ability to access information in the first place.

That's another thing. Liberals are incapable of rational thought.

 

[Bobcat]

1. It's possible the person didn't have insurance, duh.
2. Before the healthcare bill many plans (including mine) had lifetime caps that you could hit and then the insurance company would cut you off.

Don't make blanket statements like that unless you just love being wrong. In that case, please continue.

OK, its possible that the guy in your earlier example could have had insurance and his bills could have exceeded the lifetime maximum. In that case its very hard to believe that he could not have gotten medicaid. But you are talking about a very rare case if the guy had too much money to qualify for medicaid and then went bankrupt from medical bills.

 

[waas]

Empiricism is elitism. It depends on the ability to access information in the first place.

That's another thing. Liberals are incapable of rational thought.

If you can't cite the information that is the basis of your argument, is that said argument not invalid?

That's another thing. Capitalists don't read.

 

[Daktoria]

If you can't cite the information that is the basis of your argument, is that said argument not invalid?

That's another thing. Capitalists don't read.

Validity isn't truth.

It isn't a matter of not reading. It's a matter of reading so much that you realize the more you know, the more you know you don't know.

 

[Bobcat]

My solution is to make no new laws. THere isn't a real problem with voter fraud.
Election Day impersonation, an impetus for voter ID laws, a rarity, data show - The Washington Post

"A new nationwide analysis of more than 2,000 cases of alleged election fraud over the past dozen years shows that in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which has prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tougher voter ID laws, was virtually nonexistent.

The analysis of 2,068 reported fraud cases by News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project, found 10 cases of alleged in-person voter impersonation since 2000. With 146 million registered voters in the United States, those represent about one for every 15 million prospective voters."

the voting system according to hairytic: I walk into the voter registration office in Jackson Ms and say my name is joe jones, they register me with no proof of ID. the next day I go to the registration office in Biloxi and do the same thing. on election day at 8AM and 10AM I vote in both places, then at noon I vote as harry hogan since I know harry isn't going to vote, then at 2 PM I vote as Mary smith because I know that Mary is in the hospital with an infected toe.

What a system, Hairy. Wonder why Washington and Jefferson did not think of it :lamo

 

[roughdraft274]

OK, its possible that the guy in your earlier example could have had insurance and his bills could have exceeded the lifetime maximum. In that case its very hard to believe that he could not have gotten medicaid. But you are talking about a very rare case if the guy had too much money to qualify for medicaid and then went bankrupt from medical bills.

I agree, that's probably a rare case, but there are alot of people that do go bankrupt from medical bills. And it's probably not as rare as you'd think. Just because you hit your lifetime limit, that doesn't mean you're poor. When I had my appendix taken out, all the bills totaled together cost 20,000. That's for a very simple, very quick surgery and a single night of recovery in the hospital. Let say my wife gets very sick, goes over the lifetime cap, and needs an invasive procedure. Easily could cost 100,000 or more, not to mention if she had to remain at the hospital for a prolonged period. That could very easily bankrupt someone. And I make too much for medicaid. My wife being sick doesn't change what I make.

People go bankrupt on medical bills often. It happens all the time. You're dismissing a very large statistic simply because you don't like it and that's not a fair analysis.

 

[waas]

Validity isn't truth.

It isn't a matter of not reading. It's a matter of reading so much that you realize the more you know, the more you know you don't know.

Dak, I'm not a liberal and I've said that on multiple occasions. We all know your argument is **** if you refuse give some citation for the statement that liberals

want the right to plan out other people's lives rather than letting other people plan out their own.

 

[hazlnut]

Empiricism is elitism. It depends on the ability to access information in the first place.

So people with 20/20 vision and good hearing are elitists?

Liberals are incapable of rational thought.

Do you have evidence of this?

 

[Daktoria]

Dak, I'm not a liberal and I've said that on multiple occasions.

...?

I never said you were (although left-libertarianism is close).

We all know your argument is **** if you refuse give some citation for the statement that liberals

No you don't.

Furthermore, burden of proof is on the affirmative. If liberals want to show they're willing to live their own lives instead of parasiting a sense of self, that's their prerogative.

It's everyone else's prerogative to be skeptical.

 

[spud_meister]

Beer and blowjobs.

 

[Daktoria]

So people with 20/20 vision and good hearing are elitists?

People who expect others to record every moment of their sight and hearing are elitists.

Do you have evidence of this?

Burden of proof is on the affirmative. It's up to liberals to prove they're rational.

 

[Hairytic]

the voting system according to hairytic: I walk into the voter registration office in Jackson Ms and say my name is joe jones, they register me with no proof of ID. the next day I go to the registration office in Biloxi and do the same thing. on election day at 8AM and 10AM I vote in both places, then at noon I vote as harry hogan since I know harry isn't going to vote, then at 2 PM I vote as Mary smith because I know that Mary is in the hospital with an infected toe.

What a system, Hairy. Wonder why Washington and Jefferson did not think of it :lamo

lol That isn't the way it works. FIrst you have to register to vote. By registering to vote, it would prevent me from voting anywhere other than the district I live in. We do not have open voting here. You can't just walk into every voting district and vote. They have your name on a list and when they hand you the ballot, they mark your name off the list. We also get a registration card listing the district and place we go to vote.

 

[hazlnut]

People who expect others to record every moment of their sight and hearing are elitists.

No. We expect you to use your sight and hearing.

Burden of proof is on the affirmative. It's up to liberals to prove they're rational.

Then first it's up to you to prove the burden is on the affirmative.

 

[Masada]

Ok, this thread is close enough to my recent thoughts on what is "best" for our economy and country.

Not even liberals can deny that when people are working, and earning money for themselves, they fair much better for themselves than they could ever do on welfare, foodstamps, medicaid, etc. Seriously, it's not even close. Most families utilizing welfare receive approximately $1000 per month in assistance. That's not much at all. It's a mere $12,000 per year. Granted, they can claim a tax deduction, or credit, for each child, but I'm just talking about welfare and foodstamps. Compare that to the average income of Americans of $50,000 per year. It's more than 4 times what a person can receive on welfare.

So, here's my question, if we all know that people are far better off when they AREN'T on welfare, why does the left emphasize welfare so heavily? I mean, the White House has a special website that trains people how to get ON welfare, or get MORE government assistance. Wouldn't the best thing we could do is get people OFF welfare? Now, there's an endless debate about "how" we do just that. Let's save that debate for another day. My main focus is the overall mentality and philosophy behind the left's position on welfare. They mock the ideals of "personal responsibility" and "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps". They didn't used to do this. Bill Clinton put into place a work provision in welfare, and it had a major impact.

I just don't understand why the left's focus is more on getting people ON welfare, and not getting them OFF? Benjamin Franklin said the best way to raise people from poverty was to "DRIVE them from it", and to stop making people "comfortable in their poverty". Contemplating his writings on the subject, I begin to gauk at the liberal position. The manifestations of the left's philosophies behind welfare actually increase the comfort level for those on welfare. By increasing benefits, extending unemployment out to 99 weeks, increasing payments for more and more children born out of wedlock, etc. This makes people MORE comfortable in their poverty.

Don't take me the wrong way. I have a deep compassion for the poor, and help the poor as much as I can with time and money. I was poor growing up as well, and I know how difficult it can be to make ends meet. But I witnessed what my family did. My father worked 3 jobs for a while. We grew a garden, and my mother was amazing at taking just a few food items, and stretching them throughout the week. They worked tirelessly trying to build a family business. And after 35 years of struggling, they had built a successful business, and they are financially comfortable now. We never took welfare. Never took food stamps. Never filed bankrputcy. We got by.

My family isn't unique. They are simply hard working people. There are lots of hard working people out there making it in this country. That's honorable. And instead of talking down to folks like my parents by telling them that "they didn't build that", or that society is just as responsible for their success as they are, Obama should be not only encouraging people to work harder, but utilizing government programs to push people FROM welfare, not to it.

Why do liberals oppose the idea of drug testing before a person can receive welfare benefits? Millions of Americans must pass random drug tests every single day in order to work. Why not people using welfare? There has to be more accountability for people using the safety net. What do you think goes through the mind's of people like Nancy Pelosi when she said the best way to stimulate the economy is through unemployment benefits??? Seriously? Does anyone here believe that? Why do liberals oppose block granting Medicaid to the states? It would give more oversight locally which would cut down on fraud and waste. Why do liberals oppose school vouchers? This would give parents the power to remove their children from failing schools, and give them a better chance at the education needed to succeed in this country. So why? Why do liberals support choice when it comes to abortion, but oppose choice when it comes to the education of our children?

These are all serious questions. I'm not bashing them, I'm trying to understand WHY! They say they want "affordable health care" for all. That's great, so do I. But wouldn't it be better for our economic future if those people could afford it themselves? Of course it would! Problem is, this isn't the quick fix that many Americans are looking for. It's not politically expedient for politicians to promote "the hard way but the best way". Bottom line is this, I've spoken to many liberals who tell me, "you can't make people become responsible". Oh really? Yes you can, over time. Responsibility is a "conditioned behavior". Meaning, you can "condition" a person to become more responsible. You would be surprised what people CAN do when they HAVE to do it. But I suppose that's just too harsh for the left. There are so many things we could be doing that "conditions" people to becoming more responsible. I've already mentioned a few.

Obama always says, "no one said this would be easy. The road is long, and challenging". Well, he's right. Problem is, he's leading us down the wrong road! The road of higher debts, more money printing, higher unemployment, higher commodity prices that hurt the middle and lower class, higher fuel prices that effect every single American, fewer tax payers, and thousands more regulations that slow business growth.....that's not the right road, and most Americans know it. We need our government to lead by example, and show a little responsibility. Start at the top America, get the government in check. They are out of control. We cant expect our citizens to be more responsible, when the leaders we've elected are completely and utterly irresponsible.