What modern Liberalism has come to...

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Neither liberalism nor conservatism have any respect for freedom today.

Both parties like their tyranny...just in different areas.

Liberalism has a great respect for freedom. You want to play word games? Then back it up with more than a one-sentence post, be specific.

Reminds me of what a WA Supreme court judge told me at a party one night when we were discussing the differences. He said "Both Republicans and Democrats want and encourage you to go out into the world, be what you want to be, and earn a million bucks. The difference is that Democrats think they can spend it better than you can".

I think thats a fairly accurate generalization.

I don't. I think the Republicans want you to think you can, while they prevent you from being able to by allowing the wealthy to exploit you, and the democrats are in favor of reasonable programs than enrich the society and give Republicans the luxury of whining since they're well fed and not sick without medical care.

I lol'd
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: blackangst1

See my comment about prostitution.

Can you point me to credible evidence that our current illegal drug condition would be similar if the time, money, and energy WERENT spent on it?

I didnt think so. As I first said. It's speculation.

That line of argument is ridiculous. By that measure we can never determine the success or failure of any program ever. It would always be speculation. As someone else posted you are asking for evidence about a reality that never existed... surely you can see the gaping hole in your logic here?

Policies are usually measured by how effectively they achieve their goals in relation to how much time and money we spend on implementing the policy. I would love to see an argument about how the war on drugs is achieving its goal, and achieving it to an extent that outweighs the massive fiscal and social costs we are paying for it. Indulge me.

Success or failure is determined by benchmarks. Which benchmark are we using to determine it is an "epic" failure?

Ah ha, so it's no longer that we can't know because who knows what would have happened, now we're using benchmarks. What would you suggest?

Here's a good analysis on the whole issue. You might need a subscription to read it though. In effect, the argument is that the purpose of the war on drugs is to reduce drug use in the US right? Well, it appears to do so, but only on a very marginal level and only for a brief period of time. (much the same way that alcohol prohibition reduced alcohol consumption at first, but then saw its use skyrocket despite it being illegal.)

With that we get a whole host of public health problems, organized crime, violence, etc... etc. The costs are astronomical compared to what we're getting for it.

Fair enough. We'll draw I guess.

edit: removed the rest to other WOD thread.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Lets compare the national debt, then look at the biggest costs to the budget.

The fact social programs amount to the largest expenditure by far, then take into account our ever increasing debt...

How can you argue our social programs make the nation more prosperous?? Thats simply denying facts and letting emotions rule your thoughts. PERIOD. Today we spend more on social feel good bullshit then at any tiome previous, and we have the biggest debt ever. As for war spending, the ENTIRE military spending including war spending accounts for less the 25% of the budget, so dont even say thats the reason.

Everything else is just smoke and bullshit to make you feel good. The fact is most of my tax money doesnt go to raods and we both know it. Another bullshit argument.

Theres a vast difference between a minor tax to keep the basics of the country running and getting taxed at a 40% rate because of the bottom of the barrel assholes. Hey, its not *MY* fault these people cant save a few pennies is it? So why is it MY responsibility. Tell me again why *I* should be responsible for others?

And as I recall, NONE of these social programs are enumerated programs, so fuck all with that SC Justice siad. A Justice who I would bet my bottom dollar was a no good liberal, just like you.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Lets compare the national debt, then look at the biggest costs to the budget.

The fact social programs amount to the largest expenditure by far, then take into account our ever increasing debt...

How can you argue our social programs make the nation more prosperous?? Thats simply denying facts and letting emotions rule your thoughts. PERIOD. Today we spend more on social feel good bullshit then at any tiome previous, and we have the biggest debt ever. As for war spending, the ENTIRE military spending including war spending accounts for less the 25% of the budget, so dont even say thats the reason.

Everything else is just smoke and bullshit to make you feel good. The fact is most of my tax money doesnt go to raods and we both know it. Another bullshit argument.

Theres a vast difference between a minor tax to keep the basics of the country running and getting taxed at a 40% rate because of the bottom of the barrel assholes. Hey, its not *MY* fault these people cant save a few pennies is it? So why is it MY responsibility. Tell me again why *I* should be responsible for others?

And as I recall, NONE of these social programs are enumerated programs, so fuck all with that SC Justice siad. A Justice who I would bet my bottom dollar was a no good liberal, just like you.

Hahahaha, this was an awesome post. You're a special flower Specop, a very special one indeed.
 

fallout man

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,787
0
0
At times, I wonder whether many of the folks who are using the term "liberal" as the penultimate insult were mercilessly spanked as children while being called something similar.

There's just too much weird and creepy undercurrent in their claims and defamations--suggesting that something a bit more disturbing than a rational disagreement on socio-political issues is driving the thought-process.

I can see your DIRTY LIBERAL PILLOWS...
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Lets compare the national debt, then look at the biggest costs to the budget.

The fact social programs amount to the largest expenditure by far, then take into account our ever increasing debt...

How can you argue our social programs make the nation more prosperous?? Thats simply denying facts and letting emotions rule your thoughts. PERIOD. Today we spend more on social feel good bullshit then at any tiome previous, and we have the biggest debt ever. As for war spending, the ENTIRE military spending including war spending accounts for less the 25% of the budget, so dont even say thats the reason.

Everything else is just smoke and bullshit to make you feel good. The fact is most of my tax money doesnt go to raods and we both know it. Another bullshit argument.

Theres a vast difference between a minor tax to keep the basics of the country running and getting taxed at a 40% rate because of the bottom of the barrel assholes. Hey, its not *MY* fault these people cant save a few pennies is it? So why is it MY responsibility. Tell me again why *I* should be responsible for others?

And as I recall, NONE of these social programs are enumerated programs, so fuck all with that SC Justice siad. A Justice who I would bet my bottom dollar was a no good liberal, just like you.

Hahahaha, this was an awesome post. You're a special flower Specop, a very special one indeed.

Another glorious post by the forum intellectual elite.
 

fallout man

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,787
0
0
Originally posted by: Duwelon

Another glorious post by the forum intellectual elite.

Yeah. Makes sense to me.

Because you're that scrappy underdog who works against all odds only to prove to everyone that he was right all-along, you need a little resistance. It will make your ultimate triumph that much sweeter.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
buhahah your point of view is worthless. I love the illusion of healthcare. Your little mind couldn't work hard enough to earn enough money to get the healthcare you "think" you need.

Mr. Jones we have 1 last thing to try to keep you alive the success rate is 10% and we only expect it to increase your life by 3 months. <---this is the only shit you will be giving up and if you want that treatment you can still go buy it. Hell the good doctors only take CASH they won't take your "I'm a hard worker insurance"
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
buhahah your point of view is worthless. I love the illusion of healthcare. Your little mind couldn't work hard enough to earn enough money to get the healthcare you "think" you need.

Mr. Jones we have 1 last thing to try to keep you alive the success rate is 10% and we only expect it to increase your life by 3 months. <---this is the only shit you will be giving up and if you want that treatment you can still go buy it. Hell the good doctors only take CASH they won't take your "I'm a hard worker insurance"

... Said the dolt who thinks all he's giving up is experimental procedures.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Where did i say experimental?

you think because things only have a 10% success rate they are experimental? How about we are designed to die and its really hard to keep us from not doing that. In fact its impossible.
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Where did i say experimental?

you think because things only have a 10% success rate they are experimental? How about we are designed to die and its really hard to keep us from not doing that. In fact its impossible.

Why do you even want to argue the semantics? WHo gives a rats ass. You're just trying to change the subject.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
YOU brought up healthcare not me. I can't help it you're flat out wrong.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Lets compare the national debt, then look at the biggest costs to the budget.

You said that, but didn't provide the facts. If you had, you would have shown that your irrational over-focusing on programs for the poor - good programs, by the way - are a pretty tiny part of the budget, in spite of your ravings. Looking at where the money goes is helpful to the discussion.

The fact social programs amount to the largest expenditure by far, then take into account our ever increasing debt...

Yes, we need to get this under control, but people who have an agenda of the American public interest are the ones to do it, not the Republican crooks who steal from them.

Why don't you explain to the class why 'liberal' Bill Clinton got rid of the huge Reagan/Bush deficits and balanced the budget, while 'right-wing' George W. Bush has skyrocketed the deficit back up, where the entire (and wasteful) costs of the wars and security spending are only a third of the increase?

How can you argue our social programs make the nation more prosperous??

I can point out countless examples of how they do, but I don't say they all do. My own view is that programs can be justified as investments, and as 'morally justified'.

Thats simply denying facts and letting emotions rule your thoughts. PERIOD. Today we spend more on social feel good bullshit then at any tiome previous, and we have the biggest debt ever. As for war spending, the ENTIRE military spending including war spending accounts for less the 25% of the budget, so dont even say thats the reason.

See above, and the balanced budget under the last 'liberal' democratic administration - or the last balanced budget before THAT, under LBJ at the height of the 'great society'.

Everything else is just smoke and bullshit to make you feel good. The fact is most of my tax money doesnt go to raods and we both know it. Another bullshit argument.

You're arguing a straw man here, trying to replace my balanced support for moral programs with your straw man of an emotional 'damn the price, just throw money at it!'

Theres a vast difference between a minor tax to keep the basics of the country running and getting taxed at a 40% rate because of the bottom of the barrel assholes. Hey, its not *MY* fault these people cant save a few pennies is it? So why is it MY responsibility. Tell me again why *I* should be responsible for others?

It was an analogy to illustrate an idea, not a comprehensive summary of the budget.

You do no better with your ignoring of the real budget issues with the myopic focus on 'oh no a poor guy somewhere got $20 too much of TAXPAYER MONEY!'

You could use a big dose of David Cay Johnston to give you a sense of proportion on where the money is really going.

And as I recall, NONE of these social programs are enumerated programs, so fuck all with that SC Justice siad. A Justice who I would bet my bottom dollar was a no good liberal, just like you.

No such thing as a no good liberal - liberals are all about doing good, but there are no good anti-liberals who poison the society with their destructive, ignorant bad policies.
 

GoingUp

Lifer
Jul 31, 2002
16,720
1
71
I definately agree with point #1. It really seems that the Bush haters fall over themselves with glee when something goes wrong. It's almost like they're rooting for him to be worse so they can hate him more.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Lets compare the national debt, then look at the biggest costs to the budget.

You said that, but didn't provide the facts. If you had, you would have shown that your irrational over-focusing on programs for the poor - good programs, by the way - are a pretty tiny part of the budget, in spite of your ravings. Looking at where the money goes is helpful to the discussion.

I stopped here because your flat out lying and we both know it.

Anyone whos even glanced at the federal budget knows BY FAR the single biggest expense, upwards of 50% of the entire budget are social programs.

Which means you either have no idea what you're talking about or you simply choose to ignore facts and pound on about "morally justifiable" theft from honest hard working folks.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Duwelon

Another glorious post by the forum intellectual elite.

I can understand why you resent being called an idiot. If you didn't start threads like this, it would happen a lot less often. Looks like I was pretty spot on when I predicted you getting shredded.
 

Capitalizt

Banned
Nov 28, 2004
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Neither liberalism nor conservatism have any respect for freedom today.

Both parties like their tyranny...just in different areas.

Liberalism has a great respect for freedom. You want to play word games? Then back it up with more than a one-sentence post, be specific.

The dictionary definition of liberalism certainly respects freedom...but you and I both know that modern "liberals" (in America at least) do not adhere to this definition. It most closely describes modern libertarians...not liberals, who have no problem imposing government power in the economic sphere...with loads of regulation, taxation, wage laws, compulsory "contributions" to unemployment insurance, etc. There are countless areas in the private economy where modern "liberals" believe government should interfere. In the name of fairness or "social justice", they are more than happy to restrict the freedom of private individuals and businesses...to penalize risk taking and to cap profits gained through voluntary exchange on the free market. When it comes to economics, so-called "liberals" in America have have no problem imposing their brand of compassion by force.

I'm not about to argue with you on the need for these programs...That debate would take years. But it is foolish for you to deny that the left loves it's own brand of tyranny on the economic side of things. It does not respect freedom in those areas as much as it does in the social sphere. Honest lefties will admit this, and argue for the necessity to restrict economic freedom for some in the name of the "greater good". That is their side of things and SO BE IT! If you try denying this truth however, you only lose credibility.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
See above, and the balanced budget under the last 'liberal' democratic administration - or the last balanced budget before THAT, under LBJ at the height of the 'great society'.
umm LBJ did NOT balance the budget.

The last balanced budget previous to Clinton was 1969 under President Nixon.

Perhaps you can suggest that LBJ gets credit since the budget was passed under his administration, but let's not forget that in the previous year we had the biggest deficit ever up to that date. (except the WW 2 era) And it was the biggest by FAR. Twice as large as the largest previous deficit and three times as large as the prior year.

And before you give Clinton credit for the balance budget remember that prior to the Republican take over of congress Clinton had never even spoken of balancing the budget.

Go back and look at his 1996 budget link
On page 14 you will see his estimated deficits for years 1995 - 2000. Everyone of them had a deficit of at least $194 billion.

Also, Clinton did not run a liberal administration after his 1994 beating, except on social policies.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,682
40,038
136
That was one craptacular OP! Wow, it's like he tried to piece together an argument from the tattered remains of a talk radio script.

Should have taken eskimo's advice... :(





 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Lets compare the national debt, then look at the biggest costs to the budget.

You said that, but didn't provide the facts. If you had, you would have shown that your irrational over-focusing on programs for the poor - good programs, by the way - are a pretty tiny part of the budget, in spite of your ravings. Looking at where the money goes is helpful to the discussion.

I stopped here because your flat out lying and we both know it.

Anyone whos even glanced at the federal budget knows BY FAR the single biggest expense, upwards of 50% of the entire budget are social programs.

No, we don't, since I'm correct. You are dishonestly swappng 'social programs' with what I said - and lying in pretending that all the money is not going to 'honest hard working folks'.

It just shows again how you have a deluded, exaggerated enemy you have invented and how it's warped your view.

Which means you either have no idea what you're talking about or you simply choose to ignore facts and pound on about "morally justifiable" theft from honest hard working folks.

If you had not ignored the request for specifics, we could show how you're wrong. You still failed to produce the budget, the specifics.

Of course huge amounts of the budget (rightly) go to social spending - mostly to the 'hard working folks' you say you like. A small part of the budget goes to 'welfare' and similar.

You owe an apology for the 'lying' false attack, and I'm not holding my breath for it.
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Neither liberalism nor conservatism have any respect for freedom today.

Both parties like their tyranny...just in different areas.

Liberalism has a great respect for freedom. You want to play word games? Then back it up with more than a one-sentence post, be specific.

The dictionary definition of liberalism certainly respects freedom...but you and I both know that modern "liberals" (in America at least) do not adhere to this definition. It most closely describes modern libertarians...not liberals, who have no problem imposing government power in the economic sphere...with loads of regulation, taxation, wage laws, compulsory "contributions" to unemployment insurance, etc. There are countless areas in the private economy where modern "liberals" believe government should interfere. In the name of fairness or "social justice", they are more than happy to restrict the freedom of private individuals and businesses...to penalize risk taking and to cap profits gained through voluntary exchange on the free market. When it comes to economics, so-called "liberals" in America have have no problem imposing their brand of compassion by force.

I'm not about to argue with you on the need for these programs...That debate would take years. But it is foolish for you to deny that the left loves it's own brand of tyranny on the economic side of things. It does not respect freedom in those areas as much as it does in the social sphere. Honest lefties will admit this, and argue for the necessity to restrict economic freedom for some in the name of the "greater good". That is their side of things and SO BE IT! If you try denying this truth however, you only lose credibility.

Very well said, better than I could have. Liberalism today is about restricting freedoms on a whim, results of their actions be damned. Look at education, illegal immagration, social programs that were meant to be compassionate to minorities and poor people but only made them more dependant than they already were. I am a firm believer in the saying "give a man a fish, feed him for a day. teach a man to fish, feed him for a life time.". The only way our society will survive is if we have fishermen instead of people dependant on fishermen for their survival. As well meaning as many liberals probably are, they can't seem to grasp the concept that people working for what they have is in the best interests of everyone.

 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: Duwelon
I want to point out a few observations based on reading these forums for awhile as well as the news. If you consider yourself a liberal and don't agree at all with some of these, please post why if you care to forgoe the standard intellectually dishonest ad-h attacks and diversions like (well you believe...).

1) The liberal left on here finds anything bad for America as news. A bunch of marines die and they fall over themselves to post about it. They are addicted to bad news. Any enemy of the USA that comes out and speaks against us, the Liberal left give them all the audience they could ever want. This isn't all bad in itself, but it does speak to their world view. To the liberal left, the USA can do little good and anything good about the USA is not worth talking about to anyone or anytime.

2) The liberal left wants to give up their freedom of healthcare choices. Instead of having the freedom to go out, get a job, get whatever healthcare they want, the liberal left wants to give the responsibility (read: POWER) to the federal government. They'll happily hand over rights and responsibilty in exchange for tax funded healthcare. In a perfect world, I agree, but people are lazy and a lot more freedoms will be lost to control the general health of the average american to support the system.

3) The liberal left wants to give up the freedom of education. School vouchers? No way! The liberal left wants all children indoctrinated in failing liberal schools that they have control over. Nevermind the results of private schools or home schooling, they don't indoctrinate the kids into their atheistic and panthesistic point of view enough so they are completely willing to forgoe this freedom.

4) The liberal left doesn't want the rule of law. They want illegal immigration in droves because the people that immigrate are poor and easily controlled with federal handouts. They want the war of drugs destroyed because it attempts to bring minorities and slums out of the doldrums by prosecuting crimes that destroy lives and make people dependant on a substance instead of independent from even the state.

5) The liberal left wants to take pseudo science of climate change, call it settled law and enact legislature that will control every aspect of our lives from light bulbs to cars to homes.

It's going to be a dark day in America if Obama gets elected and signs into law every piece of trash legislature that comes to his desk that advances the liberal agenda.

Ah! The brain washed opinions of a ditto head. You would make the perfect employee for the "1984" "Ministry of Truth".
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Neither liberalism nor conservatism have any respect for freedom today.

Both parties like their tyranny...just in different areas.

Liberalism has a great respect for freedom. You want to play word games? Then back it up with more than a one-sentence post, be specific.

The dictionary definition of liberalism certainly respects freedom...but you and I both know that modern "liberals" (in America at least) do not adhere to this definition. It most closely describes modern libertarians...not liberals, who have no problem imposing government power in the economic sphere...with loads of regulation, taxation, wage laws, compulsory "contributions" to unemployment insurance, etc. There are countless areas in the private economy where modern "liberals" believe government should interfere. In the name of fairness or "social justice", they are more than happy to restrict the freedom of private individuals and businesses...to penalize risk taking and to cap profits gained through voluntary exchange on the free market. When it comes to economics, so-called "liberals" in America have have no problem imposing their brand of compassion by force.

I'm not about to argue with you on the need for these programs...That debate would take years. But it is foolish for you to deny that the left loves it's own brand of tyranny on the economic side of things. It does not respect freedom in those areas as much as it does in the social sphere. Honest lefties will admit this, and argue for the necessity to restrict economic freedom for some in the name of the "greater good". That is their side of things and SO BE IT! If you try denying this truth however, you only lose credibility.

Very well said, better than I could have. Liberalism today is about restricting freedoms on a whim, results of their actions be damned. Look at education, illegal immagration, social programs that were meant to be compassionate to minorities and poor people but only made them more dependant than they already were. I am a firm believer in the saying "give a man a fish, feed him for a day. teach a man to fish, feed him for a life time.". The only way our society will survive is if we have fishermen instead of people dependant on fishermen for their survival. As well meaning as many liberals probably are, they can't seem to grasp the concept that people working for what they have is in the best interests of everyone.

You can't seem to grasp that you understand liberals about as well as a fish understands bicycles - liberals want people to fish too.

One of the biggest problems in disucssing things in such ideological, vague descriptions is that you mis-frame the issue to fit the result you want. If it's about being given fish or learning to fish, then you prefer learning to fish, and therefore, you conclude, your ideology is correct as well. It's nonsense.

How about a question whether the fisherman should have to fish for the monopoly fish corporation and be barely paid enough to live on, and if he gets hurt too bad, and he has no right to fish any of the local waters because the corporation has bought all the rights - or the fisherman can have his own small fishing company, fishing on waterways with boating regulations keeping him safe, on waters where the fish are protected by the environmental policies, and he sells them in a market regulated for competition to exist.

Maybe that's a better metaphor for the choices we have, but you don't want it as it doesn't fit your narrow-minded straw man.

You can't see that your misguided ideology has prevented you from selecting effective approaches for society. You're just stuck in one little myth, 'all government sucks'.

I'm for the freedom of that fisherman, not for his suffering under a tyrannical public or private sector. You don't want that either, but try to cause it unwittingly.
 

Capitalizt

Banned
Nov 28, 2004
1,513
0
0
Unfortunately Craig, your philosophy prevents that fisherman from rising to anything beyond a fisherman. The moment he becomes successful at selling his fish and decides to branch out, forming his own corporation and franchising his fish business, he becomes the enemy of the left. Because his motivation is profit and he is GOOD at making it, most on the left will see him not as someone to be admired and rewarded for his hard work...but as someone to be distrusted, regulated, and controlled.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Unfortunately Craig, your philosophy prevents that fisherman from rising to anything beyond a fisherman. The moment he becomes successful at selling his fish and decides to branch out, forming his own corporation and franchising his fish business, he becomes the enemy of the left. Because his motivation is profit and he is GOOD at making it, most on the left will see him not as someone to be admired and rewarded for his hard work...but as someone to be distrusted, regulated, and controlled.

Wrong again. The left will prevent him from *abusive* practices that deny opportunity to others, but the left is not an enemy of large private companies.

The difference seems to be whether those companies should operate as 'win-win' operations for their owners and society, or should be allowed to 'get away with murder'.

Why don't we have just one, say, oil company? Is it because we 'hate them for becoming a rich company'? No, it's because they'll abuse the power and as a monopoly, consumers will suffer. Perhaps a better example for this forum are the prices of Nvidia graphics cards which have dominated the market for a while at prices for top models over $500 - and how AMD's new cards, offering comparable performance, are priced at $200 and $300 and it's not just 'evolution', Nvidia is slashing their prices on existing models over competition.

The government has an interest on behalf of society in preserving that healthy competition between effectively sized companies. The left isn't trying to get rid of big oil companies - just to challenge some abusive practices, such as the terrible negligence of Exxon that led to the Valdeez spill. In other words, your 'the left hates large companies' is a straw man.

In fact, I'd say that your argument is very weak as you have to make up these personalizations of how liberals sit around saying "they make a lot, so screw em!!!"

The left is *in favor* of people doing very nicely for being productive, and for *increasing* the opportunity for people to be rewarded by freeing some wealth for the rewards from those who have gotten so ultra wealthy that their hoarding of vast wealth has become a drain on the economy and turned the rest of society into their servants, instead of having as much chance for more wealth.

Your side is filled with fallacies about this, predicting doom and gloom when wages rise, when the minimum wages rise, when the top 2% are taxed more - all disproven.

You are simply driven, it appears from your posts, by ideology rather than by facts and a rational analysis.

No one I know would want the straw man left you describe, and presumably believe, of robotic leeches sucking the state for their needs and voting for their masters.

The sad thing is, you let yourself be manipulated by the propaganda that serves the interests of people quite unlike you.

It's like watching people vote for democrats because the Republicans want to blow up the world with nukes to speed the religious prophecies. Nice myth, but it's BS.