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

[Moonbeam]

This is your stacked deck. These two statements simply are not true.

Here we go again. I said they are true, you say they aren't. Who am I going to believe. Can you guess?

So what do you mean by they aren't true, that they are never true, that they are seldom true, that they are true but not always true, what?

This thread proves they are true to some extent. All you have to do is read where folk verified what I said right after I said it.

As far as the rest. Do you deny that Jesus cared for the poor? Do you deny that Liberals are made fun of by being called 'bleeding heart' because they care where conservatives don't?

And I just can't imagine you're unaware that conservatives are known across the planet as the world's biggest assholes.

 

[bamacre]

Here we go again. I said they are true, you say they aren't. Who am I going to believe. Can you guess?

Perhaps I will answer for Ozone and teach him something, too.

Your statements...

Jesus cared for the poor as liberals do.

Watch how in everything conservatives say about welfare there is this hate of folk who can't make it on their own,

Jesus did care for the poor, but do "liberals?" From an ideological standpoint, that is there intent, yes. But let's look at reality. The idea of giving health care insurance to everyone has left millions without. The idea of making everyone a homeowner has failed, foreclosures are through the roof. Not to mention, the goal of government right now has been to get home prices up, not down. Cash For Clunkers caused prices of used cars to soar. And a final example, the biggest of banks went from nearly collapsing to reaping record profits and record bonuses while nearly 20% of Americans are out of work or underemployed. Jesus wasn't government. Government killed Jesus. Maintaining a position that "liberals" are doing "God's work" is ridiculous, and just as ridiculous when conservatives say the same about themselves.

As for your second statement, there's more truth here. But you won't find that argument from people like myself. This is the argument you'll get from fiscal conservatives who don't understand their own ideology.

 

[Ozoned]

Moonbeam views the direct and indirect social contributions of ALL conservatives as apathetic and totally worthless. It's called stereotyping.

Simple opportunity has no value to Moonbeam because if a poor person seizes upon it, The person that created it might make some money, the poor might gain some self worth, but Moonbeam gets no credit.

To show others that you love the poor like Jesus did,,,,, that is what is important to Moonbeam.

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonbeam views the direct and indirect social contributions of ALL conservatives as apathetic and totally worthless. It's called stereotyping.

Simple opportunity has no value to Moonbeam because if a poor person seizes upon it, The person that created it might make some money, the poor might gain some self worth, but Moonbeam gets no credit.

To show others that you love the poor like Jesus did,,,,, that is what is important to Moonbeam.

OK you are an idiot. I won't try any more to communicate with you.

 

[Moonbeam]

Perhaps I will answer for Ozone and teach him something, too.

Your statements...



Jesus did care for the poor, but do "liberals?" From an ideological standpoint, that is there intent, yes. But let's look at reality. The idea of giving health care insurance to everyone has left millions without. The idea of making everyone a homeowner has failed, foreclosures are through the roof. Not to mention, the goal of government right now has been to get home prices up, not down. Cash For Clunkers caused prices of used cars to soar. And a final example, the biggest of banks went from nearly collapsing to reaping record profits and record bonuses while nearly 20% of Americans are out of work or underemployed. Jesus wasn't government. Government killed Jesus. Maintaining a position that "liberals" are doing "God's work" is ridiculous, and just as ridiculous when conservatives say the same about themselves.

As for your second statement, there's more truth here. But you won't find that argument from people like myself. This is the argument you'll get from fiscal conservatives who don't understand their own ideology.

I toold you how I use the term progressive liberal. A progressive liberal doesn't give people anything as a gift, but only by subterfuge. I told you people don't value what they get for free. Naturally, you didn't pay for that truth as I did, so you can't value it even though I say it and it is true. In order to enjoy fresh tea you have to pour out that crap you have been drinking.

 

[Ozoned]

I toold you how I use the term progressive liberal. A progressive liberal doesn't give people anything as a gift, but only by subterfuge. I told you people don't value what they get for free. Naturally, you didn't pay for that truth as I did, so you can't value it even though I say it and it is true. In order to enjoy fresh tea you have to pour out that crap you have been drinking.

Moonbeam wants you to wipe your ass with a turd rather than toilet paper because he says it will work.

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonbeam wants you to wipe your ass with a turd rather than toilet paper because he says it will work.

If you weren't brain dead I doubt you would have just proved what I said, but in any case, I thank you.

 

[rudder]

Here we go again. I said they are true, you say they aren't. Who am I going to believe. Can you guess?

So what do you mean by they aren't true, that they are never true, that they are seldom true, that they are true but not always true, what?

This thread proves they are true to some extent. All you have to do is read where folk verified what I said right after I said it.

As far as the rest. Do you deny that Jesus cared for the poor? Do you deny that Liberals are made fun of by being called 'bleeding heart' because they care where conservatives don't?

And I just can't imagine you're unaware that conservatives are known across the planet as the world's biggest assholes.

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Yes Jesus helped the poor. He encouraged everyone to. He did not raise an army to strong arm people into giving. He encouraged people to give with their heart.

Maybe conservatives realize the government is a inefficient money pit and choose to give to charities where they know more of the donation will end up in the hands of the needy.

Raising the amount of taxes we pay to the federal government =/ helping the needy.

 

[Craig234]

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Yes Jesus helped the poor. He encouraged everyone to. He did not raise an army to strong arm people into giving. He encouraged people to give with their heart.

Maybe conservatives realize the government is a inefficient money pit and choose to give to charities where they know more of the donation will end up in the hands of the needy.

Raising the amount of taxes we pay to the federal government =/ helping the needy.

The bible also says to 'give unto Caesar what is Caesar's' - don'tworry about paying taxes - while the right-wing says 'try not to give what is Caesar's to Caesar's'.

One fundamnetal flaw in your argument is that you treat all goverfnment activity the same regarding poverty, when in fact some has a large effect reducing poverty, some is neutral, and some increases poverty.

But some else that's clear is that private charity is utterly inadequate ro socetal needs - it's a small, helpful icing on the cake, and much more is needed.

We've had your system - no personal taxes, charitable donations - for the whol 19th century and the results were pretty clear with the massive and widespread poverty, despite slave labor helping most of the time.

No, government programs are essential to poverty reduction, and they've mostly been great investments as well as they increase productivity, mostly, in contrast to Republican myths.

Republicans are so irrational in looking only at the abuse and not the larger picture, that if we applied their approach to, say, Enron, they'd b screaming to ban all energy ompanies and have people only use solar.

It makes no sense. It's based on ignorance, irrationality, and to an extent hatred for the poor.

While right-wing people do give more to private charity as you said, which falls far short of the need, I think if you cmpare what liberals are willing to pay in taxes for effective programs you would see the number reverse.

 

[Craig234]

Perhaps I will answer for Ozone and teach him something, too.

Your statements...



Jesus did care for the poor, but do "liberals?" From an ideological standpoint, that is there intent, yes. But let's look at reality. The idea of giving health care insurance to everyone has left millions without. The idea of making everyone a homeowner has failed, foreclosures are through the roof. Not to mention, the goal of government right now has been to get home prices up, not down. Cash For Clunkers caused prices of used cars to soar. And a final example, the biggest of banks went from nearly collapsing to reaping record profits and record bonuses while nearly 20% of Americans are out of work or underemployed. Jesus wasn't government. Government killed Jesus. Maintaining a position that "liberals" are doing "God's work" is ridiculous, and just as ridiculous when conservatives say the same about themselves.

As for your second statement, there's more truth here. But you won't find that argument from people like myself. This is the argument you'll get from fiscal conservatives who don't understand their own ideology.

Don't try to pretend that this corporate-owned bill that's for the corporations and not the poor is what liberals, who want 'Medicare for all'. universal single-payer healthcare, are for.

 

[Sinsear]

Don't try to pretend that this corporate-owned bill that's for the corporations and not the poor is what liberals, who want 'Medicare for all'. universal single-payer healthcare, are for.

Well they all voted for it.

 

[rudder]

The bible also says to 'give unto Caesar what is Caesar's' - don'tworry about paying taxes - while the right-wing says 'try not to give what is Caesar's to Caesar's'.

One fundamnetal flaw in your argument is that you treat all goverfnment activity the same regarding poverty, when in fact some has a large effect reducing poverty, some is neutral, and some increases poverty.

But some else that's clear is that private charity is utterly inadequate ro socetal needs - it's a small, helpful icing on the cake, and much more is needed.

We've had your system - no personal taxes, charitable donations - for the whol 19th century and the results were pretty clear with the massive and widespread poverty, despite slave labor helping most of the time.

No, government programs are essential to poverty reduction, and they've mostly been great investments as well as they increase productivity, mostly, in contrast to Republican myths.

Republicans are so irrational in looking only at the abuse and not the larger picture, that if we applied their approach to, say, Enron, they'd b screaming to ban all energy ompanies and have people only use solar.

It makes no sense. It's based on ignorance, irrationality, and to an extent hatred for the poor.

While right-wing people do give more to private charity as you said, which falls far short of the need, I think if you cmpare what liberals are willing to pay in taxes for effective programs you would see the number reverse.

When you say the words "right-wing" it does nothing to bolster your argument. I know why you use it being the partisan hack that you are... but being a conservative does not necessarily render someone a "right-winger." Otherwise, it would be safe to assume Joe Lieberman is a communist.

I find your brief mention of a bible quote interesting. Although I am far from a biblical scholar, even I can see that the quote does not convey the message you think it conveys. Jesus had preceded that statement by asking people whose picture was on their currency. When they responded with Caesar's name, Jesus then inferred that Caeser owned the currency and that you should give him that currency and that Caesar has a right only to the currency... not the people. It was not an endorsement for the Jews to have the okay to pay taxes to the Romans. Give unto Caesar that is Caesar's...Give unto God which is God's. That is what Jesus was trying to convey.

What can the government do to combat poverty? Well for one... small business hire the bulk of Americans. When those businesses grow and expand, they hire more people. Increasing the tax money to create stimulus to make it possible to hire people when they are not needed does nothing except increase the national debt. If you haven't notice we are running quite the deficit this year.

There are always going to be poor people. I offer what I can to the most needy. What have you done to help?

Blanket statements get you no where.

 

[Craig234]

When you say the words "right-wing" it does nothing to bolster your argument. I know why you use it being the partisan hack that you are... but being a conservative does not necessarily render someone a "right-winger." Otherwise, it would be safe to assume Joe Lieberman is a communist.

Most self-described 'conservatives' today are not IMO, and I use the phrase I feel is accurate to descrbibe the popular modern political movement, right-wing.

Contrary to your false analogy, this is not like calling them communists. I didn't say they're fascists, which is further to the right than they are and which is somewhat analogous to communist.

You dsisagree with my labels - that's partly the reason I use them, to point our my disagreement with the conventional labels and show how I think the situation is more acccurately. Glad you caught that.

I find your brief mention of a bible quote interesting. Although I am far from a biblical scholar, even I can see that the quote does not convey the message you think it conveys. Jesus had preceded that statement by asking people whose picture was on their currency. When they responded with Caesar's name, Jesus then inferred that Caeser owned the currency and that you should give him that currency and that Caesar has a right only to the currency... not the people. It was not an endorsement for the Jews to have the okay to pay taxes to the Romans. Give unto Caesar that is Caesar's...Give unto God which is God's. That is what Jesus was trying to convey.

I agree there's room to debate the meaning of the passage, but I don't think it's hard to show the modern right's anti-poor, rabid anti-tax mentality is not too close to the message in the passage.

You completely failed to address the point that your donations, if at all typical, far fall short of the need our society has for helping the poor both for moral reasons and for investment reasons.

We make choices in having a 'modern economy' that require some protective measures. We no longer have a society where you can easily walk over to some nice farmland, call it yours, and get by.

What can the government do to combat poverty? Well for one... small business hire the bulk of Americans. When those businesses grow and expand, they hire more people. Increasing the tax money to create stimulus to make it possible to hire people when they are not needed does nothing except increase the national debt. If you haven't notice we are running quite the deficit this year.

There are always going to be poor people. I offer what I can to the most needy. What have you done to help?

Blanket statements get you no where.

I'm sympathetic to small businesses. They are indeed an important and productive part of our economy, and are getting gouged by the big business policies, milked as cash cows by the rich.

We might agree to an extent on small business policies, even not for the same reason as I protect them from the threat above and you think you are protecting them from the poor below.

BTW, you closed your post with a blanket statement.

 

[Craig234]

Well they all voted for it.

So, your argument is to oversimplify legislation to say that when people support some things in a bill and oppose others, that you can say they are for every provision in the bill if they vote for it?

That's one of the oldest, cheapest, wrongest fallacies to use in an argument about Congress.

It's one thing if you can show that *on balance* the bill is so bad that their vote is indefensible, or you can show that they were FOR the bad provisions getting into the bill.

But when they were against those provisions getting in, you are saying something false.

As I have posted, this is a tough bill for progressives, because it has a lot of bad, but on the other hand the Republicans who gain by its failure are far worse for the country, and it can be argued the bill has good too.

For them, it can be aergued that passing this gutted bill with bad in it is the best way to get better healthcare passed later as well instead of setting the cause back another 20 years like last time.

It's a debatable point, but it contradicts your attack.

 

[BoberFett]

Well they all voted for it.

Only because them mean ol' Republicans tricked them into voting for it. Only in the mind of a Democrat can Bush and the Republicans be a bunch of stupid, inbred hicks, yet they still seem to be able to outsmart Democrats at every turn. The pile of lame excuses from these useless losers continues to grow.

"Buh, buh, buh Bush!"
"The stimulus isn't working like we said it would because of Republicans"
"The Republicans forced us to vote for this bad healthcare bill!"

 

[Ozoned]

The bible also says to 'give unto Caesar what is Caesar's' - don'tworry about paying taxes - while the right-wing says 'try not to give what is Caesar's to Caesar's'.

One fundamnetal flaw in your argument is that you treat all goverfnment activity the same regarding poverty, when in fact some has a large effect reducing poverty, some is neutral, and some increases poverty.

But some else that's clear is that private charity is utterly inadequate ro socetal needs - it's a small, helpful icing on the cake, and much more is needed.

We've had your system - no personal taxes, charitable donations - for the whol 19th century and the results were pretty clear with the massive and widespread poverty, despite slave labor helping most of the time.

No, government programs are essential to poverty reduction, and they've mostly been great investments as well as they increase productivity, mostly, in contrast to Republican myths.

Republicans are so irrational in looking only at the abuse and not the larger picture, that if we applied their approach to, say, Enron, they'd b screaming to ban all energy ompanies and have people only use solar.

It makes no sense. It's based on ignorance, irrationality, and to an extent hatred for the poor.

While right-wing people do give more to private charity as you said, which falls far short of the need, I think if you cmpare what liberals are willing to pay in taxes for effective programs you would see the number reverse.

With charity, I get to use the thing that is above everything else to liberals. I get to use my individual freedom to decide where my charity goes.

 

[bfdd]

Orangutan - http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sW65ilskO...LVg/0bbFvxcfzqs/s400/OrangutanBrunoTomato.jpg

Bonobo - http://www.petterik.nl/bonobo.jpg

you decide, my vote is for the Orangutan.

 

[Craig234]

With charity, I get to use the thing that is above everything else to liberals. I get to use my individual freedom to decide where my charity goes.

You learned nothing, it seems, from the lesson of our nation's first form of of government, that did not work, the Articles of Confederation - which followed the nifty idea you like of 'voluntary donations' more.

If voluntary donations were adequate for our society, I'd cheer you on and say great, let's not have taxes do that. You don't see me demanding our music industry or movie industry be a government tax system.

But they're not anywhere near enough for the need, and they won't be. Taxes work for it, donations are not enough, they're just a nice secondary help.

There's pragmatism and there's blind ideology.

Out nation was founded in large part by three men who saw the pragmatic need for a stronger central government with the power to do what was needed, and they argued with people who have views like yours in the Federalist Papers, which could also be titled "why the commonly held preference for everything to be voluntary will not work and we need a stronger federal government to be created".

That's not a carte blanche Stalinism, for the people who rush to extremes, but it is saying more is needed than 'donations'. But for some, it's hard to see the need if you are not personally affected.

The issues threatening our nation's economy are not the relatively small needs of the poor but the huge needs of the top who have the concentrated wealth.

 

[Atheus]

Sometimes I think you guys _actually_ don't know what the word liberal means.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Only because them mean ol' Republicans tricked them into voting for it. Only in the mind of a Democrat can Bush and the Republicans be a bunch of stupid, inbred hicks, yet they still seem to be able to outsmart Democrats at every turn. The pile of lame excuses from these useless losers continues to grow.

"Buh, buh, buh Bush!"
"The stimulus isn't working like we said it would because of Republicans"
"The Republicans forced us to vote for this bad healthcare bill!"

+1 :thumbsup:

 

[Muse]

I grew up in the LA ghetto, went to magnet schools all my life, and myself was a penniless immigrant, yet I never considered my family nor any of my peers as "poor." There is no such thing as "poor" in the US. If you want to see poor go to Africa.

Don't be so sure. You can't see everything that's going on. And consider this: If you are extremely poor in Africa, you have a lot of company. In the USA if you are homeless, indigent, in rags, have no money, are addled, down on your luck, sick and have a head full of insane fantasies you are not just pretty damn poor, you are shunned and far more alone than the indigent in Africa.

 

[Muse]

Jesus said "You will always have the poor . . ." Read your Bible!

When one brother asked Jesus to intervene on his behalf when his brother was to inherit all of his father's property, Jesus refused.

Jesus also preached "you can not deny Justice . . ." See the parables.

Jesus was very compassionate, he healed the sick and even rose some from the dead. He never intervened in matters of money!

Well, were Jesus to be a judge, he would have to intervene in matters of money. Someone's gotta do it...

 

[badnewcastle]

This is just another post showing how libs suck and need to stop reaching into all of our pockets to pay for people that don't care or want to work and make a living.

 

[Craig234]

This is just another post showing how libs suck and need to stop reaching into all of our pockets to pay for people that don't care or want to work and make a living.

Your post is just another post parroting the ignorant, false right-wing ideology/mythology. You don't have a clue about what it takes for a society to do well.

 

[fantolay]

There is no such thing as a poor person in the US. Please show me one poor person.

Quoted for truth.

Bravo.