aquapub said:
You left no option for conservatives to address the actual problem with liberals. (You know, the problems voters continue to have with liberals).
Let me try to spell it out for you.
Think back the last fifty years and tell me if you can find an example of a liberal siding with anyone but America's enemies.
They wreck our economy by keeping labor unions alive- who send jobs overseas by needlessly strong-arming companies into bankruptcy, by refusing to let any (even minor) reforms happen to reign in frivolous lawsuits (which are also wrecking the health care system), by increasing taxes, by protecting the enormously costly illegal immigrant flood coming over the Mexican border, by forcing companies to put race over competence.
Al Queda attacked us for eight years under Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter let the Soviet Union walk all over us and had us pandering to third world nobody's.
Their ideas (or total lack thereof lately) NEVER deal with the ACTUAL source of the problem.
This is just a taste of why mainstream people hate liberals.
They work against America's interests (our national interests, economically and otherwise) at every turn of the road.
So comfort yourselves by painting us as unreasonable for protesting your egregious flaws. The left's total incapacity to escape its adolescent, irrational trappings is exactly why nobody elects their hatemongers, racists, pseudo-intellectual snobs, or bleeding-heart socialists anymore.
Okay, first off, Kennedy, a liberal, started the Vietnam war, and stood up to the Soviets big style in the Cuban Missile Crisis and invaded Cuba, just a taster of liberals siding with U.S. enemies.
Read the 9/11 commission, Clinton was all over al Qaeda, and Bush ignored them completely, until it became impossible to do so. Clinton actually handed over a comprehensive plan for dealing with Al Qaeda to the Bush Administration. He could have implemented it himself, but it would have been like invading a country a week before Bush took office, so he put his faith in Bush to implement the plan, he didn't. Now it probably wouldn't have foiled 9/11, but you said Clinton rolled over, not true pal.
And labour unions are a cornerstone of European democracy, and the weakness of the unions in the U.S. is perhaps one of the reasons for the surprising weakness of democratic forms in the U.S.. Out-sourcing has nothing to do with unions, except being possible due to their political impotence. Outsourcing has everything to do with 'Free' Trade and class war, objectives of big business. To blame it on unions is perhaps one of the strangest arguments I have ever made. Unless your a corporate CEO, then I would know you were just lying and didn't believe what you said.
Oh, and Republicans don't want to stop illegal Mexican immigrants, as the corporate backers like the cheap labour they can provide, so in a sense, strong unions would actually reduce illegal immigration. As to tort reform, well it's a tricky subject sure, but there have been some appaling results in attempts to sue big businesses, including the insurance companies as well as manufacturing, healthcare (not Doctors per se) and the system is highly biased toward giant conglomerates and big business, so yeah I want to see some reform, just not in the way you do I think.
Whats destroying healthcare in the U.S. is the privatisation of it and the belief that no-one is entitled to free healthcare.
And liberals believe in raising taxes, yeah sure thats true. On the rich, it's called progressive taxation, because it increases social equality, and ends up providing all kinds of benefits to the poor. The form of taxation Bush likes is called regressive taxation, because it increases social inequality and sends the rich/poor divide sky-rocketing. Now if I were to choose between a progressive tax-plan, or regressive tax-plan (these are economic terms, not liberal), then without even knowing anything I would pick the progressive, but as I do know about them, my choice remains the same.