Some reasons why you should be a liberal rather than a conservative

[Craig234]

How was this not locked from the get go?

How were yuou not banned from the get go? There's a better case for that than for this thread.

 

[nobodyknows]

That's your opinion, and I disagree heavily with it. There's nothing "liberal" about taking resources from someone by force and giving them to someone else. What is "liberal" is having the opportunity and ability to voluntarily offer your resources to others in need.

There is nothing "conservative" about paying people less money then is required to live on say nothing about setting some aside for their old age either. People with money don't "own" their employees , yet the rich in this country keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.

The goverment protectds the rich from the poor AND the poor from the rich.

 

[Sinsear]

How were yuou not banned from the get go? There's a better case for that than for this thread.

Maybe I'll go create a thread about how liberals are teh manifestation of evilz and see how far I get. I probably would get my thread locked and get banned. But trolls like you and douchebeam must give reacharounds to the authorities or something.

 

[bamacre]

No, I did not equate liberal and libertarian. I said the opposite.

I said not to make a pedantic argument about the word liberal; you chose to do so.

OK, from now on with you I deinf Lbertarian as "Nazi", Republican as "Maoist", and Economic as "aestehtic".

It's a waste of time when you are going to play word games and not deal with the actual definition of liberal.

Liberals and progressives - the terms are effectively synonymous - are FOR freedom.

Hate to tell you, the word freedom isn't limited to your narrow definition. Llibertarians point at families in 1900 slaving in factories 16 hours a day with members losing their lives to things like illness and say "that's freedom!" The concept of "economic freedom" insofar as recognizing that a certain amount of wealth is needed for manyh freedoms,a nd so that helping fight poverty so people have that level of wealth, is a progressive postion libertarians have no interest in - they just wrongly pretend their policies will help everyone do well, but never deal with the fact that that's hardly the case.

What *libertarian* principles are violated by that impoverished family in the factory in 1900? None. It's "freedom". But I can easily pount out vilations of PROGRESSIVE principles.

LOL, how ironic is it that you're claiming I am trying to "steal" the word "liberal," and then call me out for using it in its classical sense? You're the one calling yourself a "liberal," claiming it as your own ideology. You're the one stealing the word, and making it something else. And by definition, progressives aren't "for freedom" as you say. Just admit it.

 

[PJABBER]

tl;dr

I believe that welfare liberals will always find reason to complain about the injustice of it all, while classical liberals will be thankful for whatever opportunities may come their way.

http://www.break.com/index/the-worst-job-ever.html

Merry Christmas to everyone who has a job and best wishes for a better New Year to everyone who doesn't!

 

[Moonbeam]

How was this not locked from the get go?

It's my Christman present.

 

[bfdd]

No, I did not equate liberal and libertarian. I said the opposite.

I said not to make a pedantic argument about the word liberal; you chose to do so.

OK, from now on with you I deinf Lbertarian as "Nazi", Republican as "Maoist", and Economic as "aestehtic".

It's a waste of time when you are going to play word games and not deal with the actual definition of liberal.

Liberals and progressives - the terms are effectively synonymous - are FOR freedom.

Hate to tell you, the word freedom isn't limited to your narrow definition. Llibertarians point at families in 1900 slaving in factories 16 hours a day with members losing their lives to things like illness and say "that's freedom!" The concept of "economic freedom" insofar as recognizing that a certain amount of wealth is needed for manyh freedoms,a nd so that helping fight poverty so people have that level of wealth, is a progressive postion libertarians have no interest in - they just wrongly pretend their policies will help everyone do well, but never deal with the fact that that's hardly the case.

What *libertarian* principles are violated by that impoverished family in the factory in 1900? None. It's "freedom". But I can easily pount out vilations of PROGRESSIVE principles.

sigh what was happening then had nothing to do with libertarian principles and had everything to do with the government not protecting the basic rights we as civilians already had in place. we then created new laws which are basically rewrites of previous laws that strip rights away from other people/entities. what we needed then was the government to protect the rights of the people instead of making NEW laws to further gain control in order to "protect" the rights of the people.

 

[Moonbeam]

Maybe I'll go create a thread about how liberals are teh manifestation of evilz and see how far I get. I probably would get my thread locked and get banned. But trolls like you and douchebeam must give reacharounds to the authorities or something.

Probably true. I am a liberal and full of kindness and love. Your thread would be bitter and mean and generate nothing but hate, so naturally everybody will want to ban you.

What you want to do is start a thread on self pity, where you are a recognized genius level pro. You can give everybody lessons in pathos.

 

[Moonbeam]

tl;dr

I believe that welfare liberals will always find reason to complain about the injustice of it all, while classical liberals will be thankful for whatever opportunities may come their way.

http://www.break.com/index/the-worst-job-ever.html

Merry Christmas to everyone who has a job and best wishes for a better New Year to everyone who doesn't!

Opposing injustice is the Will of God no less than obligatory gratitude for all ones blessings. Merry Christmas to those who succeed in a sick system and to those who do not but especially to the latter, because the former will provide for themselves.

 

[iversonyin]

The liberals will bankrupt the government try to help the "poor". The ever over expanded government budget with NO offsetting income.

Why are the religious states are mainly conservatives and vote Republicans if they are following the Jesus way?

Yes, we should help the disadvantage. But the rest of population should not have to being forced to pay for ineffective programs and lack of common sense govt spending.

 

[ShawnD1]

Why are the religious states are mainly conservatives and vote Republicans if they are following the Jesus way?

If you are in the bible belt, you are more likely to....
-be a republican
-promoteexecution
-be divorced
-have a teen daughter who is pregnant
-live in a state that sucks
-die younger


When did Jesus teach any of that? When did Jesus tell people they should be underachievers in almost every aspect of their lives?

 

[Craig234]

The liberals will bankrupt the government try to help the "poor". The ever over expanded government budget with NO offsetting income.

Why are the religious states are mainly conservatives and vote Republicans if they are following the Jesus way?

Yes, we should help the disadvantage. But the rest of population should not have to being forced to pay for ineffective programs and lack of common sense govt spending.

No, actually, the liberals will enrrich the nation, just as we did with the new deal expanding and enriching the middle class, just as we did cutting the poverty rate by a third in the 60's, elder poverty from 90% to 10%.

 

[Craig234]

sigh what was happening then had nothing to do with libertarian principles and had everything to do with the government not protecting the basic rights we as civilians already had in place. we then created new laws which are basically rewrites of previous laws that strip rights away from other people/entities. what we needed then was the government to protect the rights of the people instead of making NEW laws to further gain control in order to "protect" the rights of the people.

Show me where in libertarian doctrine there are protections against crippling poverty for the familoy of factory workers in 1900 living in their shanty. Not just claiming it because it's convenient now.

And not some vague claim about how wonderful libertarian principles and laissez-faire economics are at making people rich that are in contradiction to the actual history of those policies.

Show me the doctrine that says the family has rights to protect it from the poverty of laissez-faire.

 

[Craig234]

LOL, how ironic is it that you're claiming I am trying to "steal" the word "liberal," and then call me out for using it in its classical sense? You're the one calling yourself a "liberal," claiming it as your own ideology. You're the one stealing the word, and making it something else. And by definition, progressives aren't "for freedom" as you say. Just admit it.

I said not to play pedantic word games, and you continue. The vast majority of hundreds of millions of Americans are wrong, and you are right to deny any modern definition of the word.

And by your asinine approach, I'm a Republican, because I support the US having a Republican form of government, and any confusion of people thinking I mean the Republican party is their error.

Progressives are for freedom. You have a sick definition of the word. My definition includes the freedom not to respond futher to your annoying behavior.

 

[Ozoned]

No, actually, the liberals will enrrich the nation, just as we did with the new deal expanding and enriching the middle class, just as we did cutting the poverty rate by a third in the 60's, elder poverty from 90% to 10%.

Won't happen without an economic recovery.

 

[Craig234]

Won't happen without an economic recovery.

Which is what progressives would help to happen. Reduce the massivce amount of waste in private society - thefinance industry should not be taking 41%of all the nation's profits for so many useless or harmful activties in addition to the good services they do, for example - as well as the public sector, reduce the ridiculous concentrations of wealth for there to be more cash fueling the economy, for example.

 

[Ozoned]

One reason is because, as a nation that is mostly Christian, we want to honor the work of Jesus and emulate his life.

Jesus cared for the poor as liberals do. He did not deny them because they were weak or unworthy. He was crucified with thieves, just like the right claims democrats are with it comes to taxing the rich and giving to the poor. That is part of ones religious duty anyway, so what matters if it is also the secular law.

Watch how in everything conservatives say about welfare there is this hate of folk who can't make it on their own, as if being lucky yourself to have capacity and the good fortune to have been born where you can make something of yourself, some how gives you the right of righteous indignation, and some sick need to look down your nose at those who have to struggle. Never mind that some people don't have much in the way of IQ to do lucrative work, or may have been badly damaged, emotionally, as children. Jesus came with his message for these, the meek who will inherit the earth.

So you can be a nice loving liberal or an egotistical pig conservative.

Do not post to tell me I'm trolling or that my thoughts are on a low level. They are posted in P&N which if filled to the brim with idiots. The above, while able to be put far more eloquently, I am sure, is still basic fact.

This is pretty funny. What would Jesus do?

I am OK with whatever you want to be. If your comfy in your own skin, I am happy for you.

But what Jesus never got the chance to learn,,,,,that there is a boundry that you shouldn,t get to cross, that you shouldn't let anyone cross, and that is the confines of my/your existance.

 

[bamacre]

Progressives are for freedom. You have a sick definition of the word. My definition includes the freedom not to respond futher to your annoying behavior.

Can you explain to me how Progressives are "for freedom," my definition of freedom, and why it is "sick?"

 

[Craig234]

Can you explain to me how Progressives are "for freedom," my definition of freedom, and why it is "sick?"

Yes, but you were already given plenty to chew on with the notion I posted of economic freedom as a policy priority that progressives haveand libertarians do not; you are asking these questions without answering mine, to point to where that 1900 family working in dire poverty in facotries has 'rights' protected that protect them from that poverty in the Libertarian doctrine, without platitudes about how libertarianism gives them the 'freedom to do better'. You ignored my requests not to waste my time with word games ignoring the current definition of 'liberal', repeatedly, leaving me less inclned to spend more time at the moment.

 

[totalnoob]

to point to where that 1900 family working in dire poverty in facotries has 'rights' that protect them from that poverty in the Libertarian doctrine

Nobody has a "right" to not be in poverty you tyrannical little shit. That implies the right to material goods produced by other men..and when you make any finite resource a right, you must necessarily enslave (to one degree or another) those providing the goods. In a free society there can be no such thing as a right to wealth. People have a right to WORK their way out of poverty but they do not have a right to use violence directly or indirectly (via government) against others. Your socialistic "rights" or "freedoms" (freedom front want, from need, etc) are a contradiction in terms. They are in fact CLAIMS being presented for collection in return for nothing. It is impossible to satisfy your definition of "rights" (claims to physical assets) without violating the fundamental rights of others to their life, liberty, and property. There can be no such thing as a right to violate rights. Your attempt to describe your barbaric ideas with words like "freedom" is an insult to the English language.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is pretty funny. What would Jesus do?

I am OK with whatever you want to be. If your comfy in your own skin, I am happy for you.

But what Jesus never got the chance to learn,,,,,that there is a boundry that you shouldn,t get to cross, that you shouldn't let anyone cross, and that is the confines of my/your existance.

I hear you but I don't know what you mean. What is this boundry and why didn't Jesus know about it, ect. These are words that are not rounded out so they paint a picture of what you invision here, seems to me.

 

[bamacre]

Yes, but you were already given plenty to chew on with the notion I posted of economic freedom as a policy priority that progressives haveand libertarians do not; you are asking these questions without answering mine, to point to where that 1900 family working in dire poverty in facotries has 'rights' protected that protect them from that poverty in the Libertarian doctrine, without platitudes about how libertarianism gives them the 'freedom to do better'. You ignored my requests not to waste my time with word games ignoring the current definition of 'liberal', repeatedly, leaving me less inclned to spend more time at the moment.

Yeah, and here we are in 2010 and we have people in poverty. And we're 14 trillion in debt.

 

[bamacre]

I hear you but I don't know what you mean. What is this boundry and why didn't Jesus know about it, ect. These are words that are not rounded out so they paint a picture of what you invision here, seems to me.

Are you any better than the Republicans claiming Jesus is on their side?

 

[Moonbeam]

Can you explain to me how Progressives are "for freedom," my definition of freedom, and why it is "sick?"

I don't know what Craig may mean, but to my mind talk of freedom doesn't make any sense. It's like talking about walking on your right leg. You can talk about it, but it makes no sense because walking requires a right AND a left leg.

It's not so hot to only have one leg. Not the end of the world but not what one would wish. The same with freedom alone. It's no good. To be free means you are free to do anything you like, such as rape murder and pillage.

A progressive believes that you can only have real freedom when there is real responsibility that goes with it, when ones commitment is to truth and not just freedom. The will to freedom is immature when it isn't grafted onto a responsible soul. Our job is to find the right balance between real and creative self expression and selfish self interest, to be free in a way that does not burden others.

This may mean the acceptance of all kinds of limitations, like on how much of the world's recourses you consume, how many children you have, how much property you own, etc.

Capitalism appeals to assholes who want to advance their own self interests over the good on the many. The unconscious aim of assholes is to destroy the world. When there is a cancer in the body it has to be cut out. Assholes don't like other people's knives. You will always find the assholes lined up as conservatives opposing the knives of regulation. Assholes are the last people to see that others really do know what is better for them than they do. Not everybody has wisdom.

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
I hear you but I don't know what you mean. What is this boundry and why didn't Jesus know about it, ect. These are words that are not rounded out so they paint a picture of what you invision here, seems to me.

Are you any better than the Republicans claiming Jesus is on their side?

M: What exactly does my question to him on his post have to do with whether I think I'm better? I don't see any connection there at all.

As to the answer to your question, of course I am better. That's why I started the thread. It is better to be a liberal which I am than to be a religious Republican, because they don't act as Jesus would act at all, as I mentioned above. They are Christians, in general, not because they have spiritual leanings, but for show and the moral superiority the exhibit at every turn but never practice. They are religious so they can point their bony religious fingers at others and condemn. That is not what it is to be a Christian. But don't forget there are here and there real Christians and they are much better than me. Being a real Christian is way above my pay grade.