PDA

View Full Version : I am a (relative) liberal - ask me anything



Epimetheus
03-29-2013, 12:37 PM
Hello!

I was inspired by a conservative who opened a similar topic on a left-leaning (though non-political) forum. Here's the link to the thread, for those who are curious: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=332409

To copy his tagline: If there is anything that a member of CU would sincerely like to ask regarding either liberal beliefs or justifications thereof, I'd like to answer to the best of my ability.

As a caveat, I can't possibly speak for all liberals, and in many cases I won't even agree with them. Unlike the original poster of the linked thread, I am not involved in politics - my motive isn't to convert people to my way of thinking, even if I were articulate enough to be capable of this. But it will certainly be an interesting experience for me, and perhaps for others here as well.

In case it is helpful, here is a bit of information about myself.

Demographics: Young, male, non-religious engineer living in the Chicago suburbs.

Politics: One of the more fitting summarizations of my views I've read recently was Post-Modern group from Pew (http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/04/typology-group-profiles/). I've voted for the last two libertarian candidates for president, mostly out of wishing there was a viable third party. In midterms and local elections I tend to side with Democratic candidates. I don't consider Obama to be a particularly good or particularly bad president. Of the 2012 GOP presidential candidates, Huntsman was the only one who would have gotten my vote; Romney and Paul were ok. I disliked the rest of the field to varying degrees.

LukeEDay
03-29-2013, 12:48 PM
I will start with a simple question: Why do liberals hate baby's but love convicted murderers?

Molon Labe
03-29-2013, 01:06 PM
I will start with a simple question: Why do liberals hate baby's but love convicted murderers?

Their are shitloads of hypocrisy on the left.


Maybe the OP can watch this and list all the Fail and Cognitive dissonance on display.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyiNyEIrmzU

TVDOC
03-29-2013, 01:47 PM
I would only ask WHY are you a quasi-liberal?

You state that you are an engineer by profession (as am I), and by definition engineers are thinking people, with their cognative processes firmly rooted in facts.........

Liberalism is the antithesis of cognitive thought.......liberalism is firmly rooted in emotion, not the quest for truth. Liberals make up their own "facts and truth" as they go along, or bend them to fit their agenda.......unless you eventually develop some political maturity, and if you allow your admittedly ambivilant political philosophies to color your career......you'll make a lousy engineer...........

doc

Epimetheus
03-29-2013, 01:48 PM
I will start with a simple question: Why do liberals hate baby's but love convicted murderers?

I am indeed pro-choice, and I'm willing to go into that if people would like - not sure I would call it a 'simple' issue, however. I genuinely don't know what you're referencing with the second part - I personally have no love of convicted murderers


Their are shitloads of hypocrisy on the left.
Maybe the OP can watch this and list all the Fail and Cognitive dissonance on display.


Don't worry, these people make me cringe too.

DumbAss Tanker
03-29-2013, 01:56 PM
I just have a difficult time envisioning how anyone who can count beyond 10 with his shoes on and rationally observe the legacy of liberal social policies from LBJ onward can avoid becoming at least a fiscal Conservative, Social Conservative and Libertarian Conservative issues aside.

Epimetheus
03-29-2013, 02:36 PM
I would only ask WHY are you a quasi-liberal?

You state that you are an engineer by profession (as am I), and by definition engineers are thinking people, with their cognative processes firmly rooted in facts.........

Liberalism is the antithesis of cognitive thought.......liberalism is firmly rooted in emotion, not the quest for truth. Liberals make up their own "facts and truth" as they go along, or bend them to fit their agenda.......unless you eventually develop some political maturity, and if you allow your admittedly ambivilant political philosophies color your career......you'll make a lousy engineer...........

doc

To me, the tendency to seek or shape information to fit one's current viewpoint or agenda is simply a human trait, not a liberal or conservative thing. I absolutely agree that it is critical to overcome it in the engineering profession. I suppose if I could see some evidence that being liberal makes one worse at this, I would consider it. But as it stands, I don't see why this would be the case.

I don't think many politicians are outright lying through their teeth, but folks on both sides of the aisle twist facts into talking points that don't withstand even the most cursory examination. I'm sure you all can point to countless examples of Democrats doing this that I would agree with (Obama's sequester fear-mongering is a recent example); I consider Bachmann to be one of the worse examples of this on the conservative side.


I just have a difficult time envisioning how anyone who can count beyond 10 with his shoes on and rationally observe the legacy of liberal social policies from LBJ onward can avoid becoming at least a fiscal Conservative, Social Conservative and Libertarian Conservative issues aside.

I do not have firm views on fiscal policy; it's probably the topic I'm most interested in hearing about here.

Here's my starting point: I know enough about economics to know I don't know nearly enough about economics. We like to assume people are rational but they often aren't. We have tons of economics 'experts' who have organized themselves into tribes and throw rocks at each-other.

With so many variables involved in economics, it is difficult to really see what causes and effects are. Was Clinton our best fiscal president for having budget surpluses? Was he just lucky for being president during a bull market? Or was he actually bad for contributing to the events leading up to the 2007 collapse?

I'm guessing the first question wouldn't get a 'yes' here, but my point is that there are so many ways to slice data that it's easy for anyone to find some pattern that fits their preconceptions and run with it.

The debt does concern me somewhat, but I don't find analogies between government spending and household spending compelling. When the interest rates the US government gets are so low, it's seems almost impossible that the government wouldn't be able to get a better return on investment than that by borrowing, even if it is less efficient at spending money than corporations. So the answer isn't to have no debt. I can't tell you where I think we should draw the line, though.

Apocalypse
03-29-2013, 03:47 PM
I'll add some, and I'll use actual recent news items.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/580221_472463162824155_1314384857_n.png

Why is it the responsibility for tax payers to fund sex change operations? Its not necessary to save any one's life.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/541203_451061398302081_1962303364_n.png

Why is it the majority of violent people who act in this manor coming from the compassionate tolerant left? Last 10 major shootings, overwhelmingly have been committed by leftest. Why is that?

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/540092_472337459503392_742780003_n.png

Why is it evil and completely unacceptable for ordinary people to own a firearm for their family's protection, but those who are calling to get rid of guns the one's surrounded by, and committing some of the worst with them?

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/625635_472114162859055_220361797_n.png

Didn't Obama save the eccon? Is it not in a roaring recovery as he stated time and again thanks to his quick actions? Then why are those on food-stamps skyrocketing?

ABC
03-29-2013, 04:14 PM
Tarnation, Epi ...

You haven't at the moment shown yourself to have enough "cranial-rectal inversion" to put to you my favorite questions. :evil-grin:

Will just keep reading this thread and see where it goes.

Kudos to you anyway, for posting this topic in the first place.

~ ABC

txradioguy
03-29-2013, 05:09 PM
Why do you support a political philosophy that has failed every time it's been tried?

Odysseus
03-29-2013, 05:18 PM
Okay, exactly what beliefs do you hold that make you call yourself a liberal? How do you define liberal, as opposed to "progressive," socialist or communist? What differentiates those positions?

LukeEDay
03-29-2013, 05:39 PM
To me, the tendency to seek or shape information to fit one's current viewpoint or agenda is simply a human trait, not a liberal or conservative thing. I absolutely agree that it is critical to overcome it in the engineering profession. I suppose if I could see some evidence that being liberal makes one worse at this, I would consider it. But as it stands, I don't see why this would be the case.

I don't think many politicians are outright lying through their teeth, but folks on both sides of the aisle twist facts into talking points that don't withstand even the most cursory examination. I'm sure you all can point to countless examples of Democrats doing this that I would agree with (Obama's sequester fear-mongering is a recent example); I consider Bachmann to be one of the worse examples of this on the conservative side.



I do not have firm views on fiscal policy; it's probably the topic I'm most interested in hearing about here.

Here's my starting point: I know enough about economics to know I don't know nearly enough about economics. We like to assume people are rational but they often aren't. We have tons of economics 'experts' who have organized themselves into tribes and throw rocks at each-other.

With so many variables involved in economics, it is difficult to really see what causes and effects are. Was Clinton our best fiscal president for having budget surpluses? Was he just lucky for being president during a bull market? Or was he actually bad for contributing to the events leading up to the 2007 collapse?

I'm guessing the first question wouldn't get a 'yes' here, but my point is that there are so many ways to slice data that it's easy for anyone to find some pattern that fits their preconceptions and run with it.

The debt does concern me somewhat, but I don't find analogies between government spending and household spending compelling. When the interest rates the US government gets are so low, it's seems almost impossible that the government wouldn't be able to get a better return on investment than that by borrowing, even if it is less efficient at spending money than corporations. So the answer isn't to have no debt. I can't tell you where I think we should draw the line, though.

Understanding economics starts with understanding that you can't spend what you do not have, and to be able to spend more, you have to cut. A liberals view of economics is to spend more and tax more. There is no cutting back and there is no stopping the spending. They feel they can spend their way out of everything.

Case in point: They take the Keynesian theory to extreme. What Keynes said was to either 1) Cut taxes, 2) Raise spending, or 3) Do both. The liberals just want to spend and raise taxes. They have no realization of reality at all. They know absolutely nothing about economics. You will see that the Republicans do know, because they always say that they will agree to more spending if they cut taxes, or agree to more taxes is they cut spending. It is never the other way around.

Ad for Clinton. He was not the fiscal guru the liberals are claiming. His policies didn't raise the economy. The dot com bubble at the time did. He taxes the shit out of the winners who were making millions off their internet ventures. Then when that crashed, Bush lowered the tax rates. So anyone who thinks that Clinton is an economical genius is more stupid the Kardashians on Jeopardy.

Epimetheus
03-29-2013, 07:04 PM
Oh dear - hopefully I can keep up. Feel free to keep shooting questions my way, but it may start to take a bit longer before I can respond. I'll try not to forget anyone, though!


Why is it the responsibility for tax payers to fund sex change operations? Its not necessary to save any one's life.
My argument would be that Medicare's goals include quality-of-life improvements possible through medical treatment as well as live-saving operations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe drugs like acne medication and cholesterol medication are covered under Medicare for this reason. I'm pretty lukewarm on this argument, because it's difficult to objectively determine what a 'quality of life improvement' is.

If we've determined acne treatment is medical (because it improves quality-of-life) whereas botox is merely cosmetic, then which is a sex-change operation more similar to? I'm sure those looking to get those surgeries would argue it is very important for their emotional health, but if I were looking to have these removed from Medicare coverage this is the leg of the argument I would go after.


Why is it the majority of violent people who act in this manor coming from the compassionate tolerant left? Last 10 major shootings, overwhelmingly have been committed by leftest. Why is that?
Hmm, you'll have to give me more details for me to be able to respond in full. Three recent major shooting come to mind (Sandy Hook, Aurora, and that island in Norway), and the only one of those that I believe was politically motivated was carried about by a far-right individual. At any rate, I don't hold Breivik against conservatives - sick people are sick people... By the same token, Palin did not play any role in the Giffords shooting; the man in that article is an idiot.


Why is it evil and completely unacceptable for ordinary people to own a firearm for their family's protection, but those who are calling to get rid of guns the one's surrounded by, and committing some of the worst with them?
I would be surprised if any more than a tiny fraction of this country actively wanted to remove guns from the households of responsible people. At the end of the day, the question is, how do we balance our desire to reduce the likelihood of gun violence without unduly impacting (in cost, or time) the rights of Americans to purchase guns? I don't have any brilliant answers, but I think there are enough voices on both sides of this issue that whatever comes out of this gun control debate is not going to be particularly extreme in one direction or the other.


Didn't Obama save the eccon? Is it not in a roaring recovery as he stated time and again thanks to his quick actions? Then why are those on food-stamps skyrocketing?
Well, certainly I would expect it to have increased substantially over pre-recession levels, but it is interesting that it is still rising (the same thing is also occurring with the number of Americans on disability).

Paul Krugman would tell you it is because we did not spend enough during TARP. Others will say it's because Obama is screwing things up. To me, it seems like just another symptom of the unemployment rate remaining high, but then why is that happening? Is min wage killing jobs? Can the US no longer compete with cheap labor? Has automation killed low-medium skill jobs forever? Are companies retaining cash hoards rather than investing in new manufacturing / jobs because demand is low? If so, why is that?

I don't know the answers to these questions, and I tend to be quite skeptical of those who claim to know them for sure. These are complex issues. We can also wonder how things would have been different if McCain was elected, and again I'm going to be skeptical if anyone is sure it would currently be better or worse.


Tarnation, Epi ...

You haven't at the moment shown yourself to have enough "cranial-rectal inversion" to put to you my favorite questions. :evil-grin:

Will just keep reading this thread and see where it goes.

Kudos to you anyway, for posting this topic in the first place.

~ ABC
Thanks - it's been enjoyable so far.


Why do you support a political philosophy that has failed every time it's been tried?
Sorry - having trouble coming up with a response to this one. Could you be more specific about the political philosophy (I'm assuming we're talking about liberalism, but in what sense) and an example or two of where it's failed?

RobJohnson
03-29-2013, 07:16 PM
My argument would be that Medicare's goals include quality-of-life improvements possible through medical treatment as well as live-saving operations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe drugs like acne medication and cholesterol medication are covered under Medicare for this reason. I'm pretty lukewarm on this argument, because it's difficult to objectively determine what a 'quality of life improvement' is.



Acne medication and cholesterol drugs are not even in the same class.

Cholesterol drugs help combat future medical costs by lowering the risk of CHD.

I have never seen acne medication covered by Medicare. I have seen it covered by Medicaid and the freaking dermatologists write for every new name brand drug on the market that private insurance companies won't even touch and if they do it's with a very high co-payment. In fact, Medicaid covers OTC acne medications as well. Teenagers get pimples and they still get knocked up, taxpayers pay for that also.

JB
03-29-2013, 07:30 PM
I actually have no interest in your politics, policies, positions, values, morality, social or economic agenda. I've heard enough from enough liberals to know that I have and do not want anything to do with how they think or act and I do everything I can to keep them from gaining political power.

But Welcome to CU. :cool:

Epimetheus
03-29-2013, 07:59 PM
Okay, exactly what beliefs do you hold that make you call yourself a liberal? How do you define liberal, as opposed to "progressive," socialist or communist? What differentiates those positions?
Good question. I am going to struggle with this, as I've never really identified with any one group in particular and haven't spend significant time researching the full meaning behind the terms that can get thrown around pretty casually. Let me get back to you within the next day or so - don't want to hold up the rest of the thread.


Understanding economics starts with understanding that you can't spend what you do not have, and to be able to spend more, you have to cut. A liberals view of economics is to spend more and tax more. There is no cutting back and there is no stopping the spending. They feel they can spend their way out of everything.

Case in point: They take the Keynesian theory to extreme. What Keynes said was to either 1) Cut taxes, 2) Raise spending, or 3) Do both. The liberals just want to spend and raise taxes. They have no realization of reality at all. They know absolutely nothing about economics. You will see that the Republicans do know, because they always say that they will agree to more spending if they cut taxes, or agree to more taxes is they cut spending. It is never the other way around.

Ad for Clinton. He was not the fiscal guru the liberals are claiming. His policies didn't raise the economy. The dot com bubble at the time did. He taxes the shit out of the winners who were making millions off their internet ventures. Then when that crashed, Bush lowered the tax rates. So anyone who thinks that Clinton is an economical genius is more stupid the Kardashians on Jeopardy.
I disagree on the bolded point. I think this will be a key point in any discussion about fiscal policy, so I'll be happy to expand more on this.

Simply put, I don't believe debts and deficits are evils in-and-of themselves. Breaking my rule about making household analogies for government spending, here's an example:

The average family probably has a mortgage (debt) which is requiring interest payments of 3-5% annually. Say this family comes into $1000 (tax refund, gift, etc). I think it is an entirely prudent move to invest this money in the stock market, where you could expect an 8-10% annual return. Even though they aren't reducing their debt, they'll tend to come out ahead in the long run. Likewise, it would be reasonably prudent of the family to instead spend that $1000 on gym memberships or equipment. The math here gets a little fuzzier because it's difficult to quantify the benefits of this, but between increased life expectancy, reduced medical costs, and the general good feeling from being in shape, it seems to be a worthwhile investment.

But at the same time, this family cannot forget that it is indeed in debt. Any money they are not spending, or worse, spending on useless stuff, is essentially being put on a credit card at 3-5% interest (the opportunity cost of paying down the mortgage). So they shouldn't be buying Latte's at Starbucks every day until they are free of that debt, unless they think the return on investment is better than the interest rate they are paying.

The government gets a pretty sweet deal on debt. It's interest rates on debt are much lower than a family (or even a company, through shareholder expectations) would receive. This means it's pretty easy for the government to borrow money and use it in ways that are providing a return better than the interest it is paying, even if it isn't as efficient at spending money as the private market. So I don't think TARP was a bad idea in principle, nor did I immediately throw up my hands when I saw the senate budget contained yet more government spending than is currently occurring. But again, the same principle with returns applies - anywhere the government is wasting our money should be cut; even programs that are barely breaking even with their associated interest expense should probably be scrapped, scaled back, or made leaner, with those extra funds either paying down the debt or being moved to more efficient programs. Now the fun questions are - which programs are worthwhile and which are not, and how do we measure them? A lot of them are like the gym membership example, it's awfully hard to objectively determine what kind of return the government is getting on a lot of its investments.

*There are lots of other questions too - like what level of GDP:debt ratio is acceptable (depends on how confident we are that we will get the returns on our investments we are predicting, if interest rates will remain where they are, if there ever will be a run on US debt, and to what extent we would ever be willing to use our 'panic button' - inflating the debt away, and probably a bunch of other things) and so on.


Acne medication and cholesterol drugs are not even in the same class.

Cholesterol drugs help combat future medical costs by lowering the risk of CHD.

I have never seen acne medication covered by Medicare. I have seen it covered by Medicaid and the freaking dermatologists write for every new name brand drug on the market that private insurance companies won't even touch and if they do it's with a very high co-payment. In fact, Medicaid covers OTC acne medications as well. Teenagers get pimples and they still get knocked up, taxpayers pay for that also.
My mistake. Thanks for the correction. I have to imagine there are still medical treatments covered by medicare that fall into a grey area between cosmetic and medically necessary (perhaps restorative surgery after serious burns - neither life-saving nor cost-saving, but probably acceptable as a covered medical treatment in most people's views). The question is where to draw the line and on which side sex-change operations lie.

Edit: one more

I actually have no interest in your politics, policies, positions, values, morality, social or economic agenda. I've heard enough from enough liberals to know that I have and do not want anything to do with how they think or act and I do everything I can to keep them from gaining political power.

But Welcome to CU. :cool:
Fair enough - if you change your mind you're welcome to participate, but otherwise thanks for the welcome

DumbAss Tanker
03-29-2013, 08:29 PM
I do not have firm views on fiscal policy; it's probably the topic I'm most interested in hearing about here.

Here's my starting point: I know enough about economics to know I don't know nearly enough about economics. We like to assume people are rational but they often aren't. We have tons of economics 'experts' who have organized themselves into tribes and throw rocks at each-other.

People are rational economically, but that is in terms of their own frame of reference, and has nothing to do with values, aspirations, etc. in any direct way. For instance, if 99 weeks of UE comp are available instead of 13, people will tend to stay on it longer looking for the 'Best' job (By their own measure); food stamps, HUD rent supplements, free cell phones the same way...everything that takes the pain out of being low on the totem pole makes it easier for more people to stay low on the totem pole, and over time more tend to do it. The programs work as intended - a temporary leg up - for only the well-socialized of beneficiaries, but as an expected premium for going nowhere by an ever-growing entitlement-dependent class. Same kind of thing with disability - if you can qualify for it by any stretch (And there are plenty of lawyers specializing in entitlement law who will be glad to take and groom your case), getting the payments and staying home is a better deal than earning the same after-tax amount (Or less) by getting off your ass to work 40-plus hours a week...and a lot of people who aren't keen on working at all have realized that.


With so many variables involved in economics, it is difficult to really see what causes and effects are. Was Clinton our best fiscal president for having budget surpluses? Was he just lucky for being president during a bull market? Or was he actually bad for contributing to the events leading up to the 2007 collapse?

Presidents really have Jack to do with the economy, outside of very major executive branch actions like imposing CA emissions standards nationwide by regulatory fiat. The housing bubble had virtually nothing to do with G. W. Bush's policies, and everything to do with institutionalized Leftist race-related policies in DOJ's Civil Rights branch bureaucracy and a politically-neutral SEC that was asleep at the switch on the issue of derivative trading. Clinton's rep for having a fantastic economy was due to two things, the dot-com boom that he had nothing whatsoever to do with, and the fact that he had an opposition Congress for six years that wouldn't let him do any major expensive social programs. There was the little thing about the Cold War ending and some significant economic benefits from that which took a couple of years to mature.


I'm guessing the first question wouldn't get a 'yes' here, but my point is that there are so many ways to slice data that it's easy for anyone to find some pattern that fits their preconceptions and run with it.

It's really macro, not micro, on the economy during a President's term, i.e. trends and policy consequences rather than number-crunching. Right-wing pundits are often as guilty as Leftists on misapplying that, to be sure.


The debt does concern me somewhat, but I don't find analogies between government spending and household spending compelling. When the interest rates the US government gets are so low, it's seems almost impossible that the government wouldn't be able to get a better return on investment than that by borrowing, even if it is less efficient at spending money than corporations. So the answer isn't to have no debt. I can't tell you where I think we should draw the line, though.

Not that keen on the household analogy myself; after all, governments can do two things households can't - deficit spending and printing money. Both can be most useful in an emergency, unfortunately they have become institutionalized to the point that they are propping up the current fake recovery, such as it is. There have been ugly demonstrations of worst-case events when this happens, in post WW1 Germany and more recently Zimbabwe, though we aren't in immediate danger of ending up that way...we are, however, starting down the same roads they took.

Apache
03-29-2013, 09:03 PM
Keep going Epi... not sure what you are trying to accomplish, but you do have guts. I admire that in an opponent...:popcorn:

ReinMan
03-29-2013, 10:14 PM
I've a question: What do you see as the appropriate level of government involvement in the day-to-day lives of the citizens?

Should the federal government have a string to pull for every facet of life that can be construed to impact the well-being the general population?

Or should we move closer to the strict limitations of the Tenth Amendment? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

What would be your 'compass' that shapes your opinion on this?

LukeEDay
03-29-2013, 10:21 PM
I disagree on the bolded point. I think this will be a key point in any discussion about fiscal policy, so I'll be happy to expand more on this.

Simply put, I don't believe debts and deficits are evils in-and-of themselves. Breaking my rule about making household analogies for government spending, here's an example:

The average family probably has a mortgage (debt) which is requiring interest payments of 3-5% annually. Say this family comes into $1000 (tax refund, gift, etc). I think it is an entirely prudent move to invest this money in the stock market, where you could expect an 8-10% annual return. Even though they aren't reducing their debt, they'll tend to come out ahead in the long run. Likewise, it would be reasonably prudent of the family to instead spend that $1000 on gym memberships or equipment. The math here gets a little fuzzier because it's difficult to quantify the benefits of this, but between increased life expectancy, reduced medical costs, and the general good feeling from being in shape, it seems to be a worthwhile investment.

But at the same time, this family cannot forget that it is indeed in debt. Any money they are not spending, or worse, spending on useless stuff, is essentially being put on a credit card at 3-5% interest (the opportunity cost of paying down the mortgage). So they shouldn't be buying Latte's at Starbucks every day until they are free of that debt, unless they think the return on investment is better than the interest rate they are paying.

The government gets a pretty sweet deal on debt. It's interest rates on debt are much lower than a family (or even a company, through shareholder expectations) would receive. This means it's pretty easy for the government to borrow money and use it in ways that are providing a return better than the interest it is paying, even if it isn't as efficient at spending money as the private market. So I don't think TARP was a bad idea in principle, nor did I immediately throw up my hands when I saw the senate budget contained yet more government spending than is currently occurring. But again, the same principle with returns applies - anywhere the government is wasting our money should be cut; even programs that are barely breaking even with their associated interest expense should probably be scrapped, scaled back, or made leaner, with those extra funds either paying down the debt or being moved to more efficient programs. Now the fun questions are - which programs are worthwhile and which are not, and how do we measure them? A lot of them are like the gym membership example, it's awfully hard to objectively determine what kind of return the government is getting on a lot of its investments.

*There are lots of other questions too - like what level of GDP:debt ratio is acceptable (depends on how confident we are that we will get the returns on our investments we are predicting, if interest rates will remain where they are, if there ever will be a run on US debt, and to what extent we would ever be willing to use our 'panic button' - inflating the debt away, and probably a bunch of other things) and so on.

So you are one of these spend your way out of burdens type person. You agree with the tax more and spend more? Never cut back, if you need more money, just print it and tax it? Yeah, you are a liberal all right. People like you are the reason this country is in 16 trillion of debt. Soon to be 20 trillion.

patriot45
03-29-2013, 10:21 PM
Welcome to CU lib! Boy they wont even let you wander around for a minute! Fresh meat is rare! :biggrin-new:

Go start some threads of your own and then fight for your life!

Rockntractor
03-29-2013, 11:10 PM
Welcome to CU lib! Boy they wont even let you wander around for a minute! Fresh meat is rare! :biggrin-new:

Go start some threads of your own and then fight for your life!

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/3439586418_e78c8ba92b_z_zps21124260.jpg

NJCardFan
03-30-2013, 12:07 AM
I am indeed pro-choice, and I'm willing to go into that if people would like - not sure I would call it a 'simple' issue, however. I genuinely don't know what you're referencing with the second part - I personally have no love of convicted murderers


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRrh5b1AN20

txradioguy
03-30-2013, 08:48 AM
Sorry - having trouble coming up with a response to this one. Could you be more specific about the political philosophy (I'm assuming we're talking about liberalism, but in what sense) and an example or two of where it's failed?

Of course you are. :rolleyes:


Russia...China...North Korea...the European Union....specifically Spain...Greece Italy and Cyprus.

Rockntractor
03-30-2013, 11:06 AM
I hope E. P. Meth hasn't run off, he has quite a stack of questions to answer.

Epimetheus
03-30-2013, 11:23 AM
People are rational economically, but that is in terms of their own frame of reference, and has nothing to do with values, aspirations, etc. in any direct way. For instance, if 99 weeks of UE comp are available instead of 13, people will tend to stay on it longer looking for the 'Best' job (By their own measure); food stamps, HUD rent supplements, free cell phones the same way...everything that takes the pain out of being low on the totem pole makes it easier for more people to stay low on the totem pole, and over time more tend to do it. The programs work as intended - a temporary leg up - for only the well-socialized of beneficiaries, but as an expected premium for going nowhere by an ever-growing entitlement-dependent class. Same kind of thing with disability - if you can qualify for it by any stretch (And there are plenty of lawyers specializing in entitlement law who will be glad to take and groom your case), getting the payments and staying home is a better deal than earning the same after-tax amount (Or less) by getting off your ass to work 40-plus hours a week...and a lot of people who aren't keen on working at all have realized that.
I think this is all accurate. I believe one of the more important jobs of government is to minimize the amount of rent-seeking behavior taking place in the economy. To me, despite this inefficiencies I think it is worthwhile to have these programs in place, but there is a lot of room to consider how we might have the same positive impact using less money.

I can see why this issue upsets people, and it would probably be even more upsetting to me if I'd ever met someone who was purposely choosing to work less or not at all due to these programs, while I'm working into the evenings at my firm.


Presidents really have Jack to do with the economy, outside of very major executive branch actions like imposing CA emissions standards nationwide by regulatory fiat. The housing bubble had virtually nothing to do with G. W. Bush's policies, and everything to do with institutionalized Leftist race-related policies in DOJ's Civil Rights branch bureaucracy and a politically-neutral SEC that was asleep at the switch on the issue of derivative trading. Clinton's rep for having a fantastic economy was due to two things, the dot-com boom that he had nothing whatsoever to do with, and the fact that he had an opposition Congress for six years that wouldn't let him do any major expensive social programs. There was the little thing about the Cold War ending and some significant economic benefits from that which took a couple of years to mature.
I have never heard of these 'institutionalized Leftist race-related policies in DOJ's Civil Rights branch bureaucracy', but everything else here sounds about right to me.


Not that keen on the household analogy myself; after all, governments can do two things households can't - deficit spending and printing money. Both can be most useful in an emergency, unfortunately they have become institutionalized to the point that they are propping up the current fake recovery, such as it is. There have been ugly demonstrations of worst-case events when this happens, in post WW1 Germany and more recently Zimbabwe, though we aren't in immediate danger of ending up that way...we are, however, starting down the same roads they took.
I'll touch on this at the end of this post - somewhat related to another question.


Keep going Epi... not sure what you are trying to accomplish, but you do have guts. I admire that in an opponent...:popcorn:
It's mostly a learning experience for me, getting better at articulating my views and seeing which parts of my arguments are weakest.


I've a question: *What do you see as the appropriate level of government involvement in the day-to-day lives of the citizens?

Should the federal government have a string to pull for every facet of life that can be construed to impact the well-being the general population?

Or should we move closer to the strict limitations of the Tenth Amendment? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

What would be your 'compass' that shapes your opinion on this?
Whew, good question.. I doubt I will be perfectly consistent on this topic on an issue-by-issue basis. The policy wonk in me sees the appeal in all sorts of government initiatives to influence behavior, and my libertarian streak pushes back. Two examples:

I can totally see where the soda cup ban came from - while there are certainly massive gains we can get by reforming the healthcare system, if Americans simply took better care of their health in general this would save a lot of money as well. But even if this policy wasn't hopelessly poorly implemented, you'll have no trouble convincing me that this crosses the line of gov't interference in our lives.

On the other hand:

The DOMA case at the Supreme Court has recently reminded us just how many rights and benefits are afforded to married couples (something like 1100, I believe). I don't doubt the value of incentivizing marriage and families and support the policy, but what gives the government the right to do this? How different is this really from the soda cup ban?

These are the sorts of questions I ask myself about these kinds of topics in general - am happy to discuss specific issues as well.


So you are one of these spend your way out of burdens type person. You agree with the tax more and spend more? Never cut back, if you need more money, just print it and tax it? Yeah, you are a liberal all right. People like you are the reason this country is in 16 trillion of debt. Soon to be 20 trillion.
I wouldn't go that far. Firstly, I'm only a proponent of smart spending - you show me valueless spending and I'll argue it should be cut.

The time to pay down the debt is when our economy is rolling. This is why I wish Clinton had cut spending and Bush had not cut taxes. I'm sure I'm stepping on a land mine here, but I wish we had not spent trillions on the two wars in the middle east. Regardless, the position we're in is the position we're in, and I don't think austerity starting today is the correct solution (see Europe).

If the economy begins to recover and I continue to see no efforts to intelligently reform entitlements and health care spending and begin to bring down the deficits, I will be worried. But for now, I don't fear us going the way of post-WW1 Germany, modern Greece, Zimbabwe, etc.

Odysseus
03-30-2013, 12:12 PM
Good question. I am going to struggle with this, as I've never really identified with any one group in particular and haven't spend significant time researching the full meaning behind the terms that can get thrown around pretty casually. Let me get back to you within the next day or so - don't want to hold up the rest of the thread.

Interesting. You call yourself a liberal, but are unable to define the term, especially in the context of other ideologies of the left. Doesn't it bother you that you may be carrying water for radical ideologies with a history of horrific atrocities on their records?

JB
03-30-2013, 01:45 PM
Interesting. You call yourself a liberal, but are unable to define the term, especially in the context of other ideologies of the left. Doesn't it bother you that you may be carrying water for radical ideologies with a history of horrific atrocities on their records?Well, all my friends are liberals and my Alternative History and America Sucks professor said that Conservatives hate America and Republicans have a war on women or Christmas or Barney or someone...I forget who exactly and Sarah Palin thinks we should all hunt baby seals and eat their faces and pour their blood into the streets and shotguns and people that own machine guns and assault revolvers have killed more people than all the plagues, wars and communist governments ever have and you're an idiotic poopy-head if you believe in God and how does this Chee tshirt look on me.

Odysseus
03-30-2013, 05:33 PM
Well, all my friends are liberals and my Alternative History and America Sucks professor said that Conservatives hate America and Republicans have a war on women or Christmas or Barney or someone...I forget who exactly and Sarah Palin thinks we should all hunt baby seals and eat their faces and pour their blood into the streets and shotguns and people that own machine guns and assault revolvers have killed more people than all the plagues, wars and communist governments ever have and you're an idiotic poopy-head if you believe in God and how does this Chee tshirt look on me.

So much for keeping it civil. I'm quite serious. The term "liberal" was co-opted by communists in the 1930s and 40s when the evidence of communism rendered that term toxic. They began referring to themselves as "liberals in a hurry" and eventually dropped the last part. Before that, leftists called themselves Progressives, socialists and even fascists. The first fascist party was founded by Mussolini, who was a socialist who never abandoned the collectivist economics of that movement, but imposed a nationalist aspect which was later adopted by other fascist parties, most infamously the National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany (you may have heard of them). However, my point that you don't know the difference between what you call yourself and the various other movements on the left tells me that you have not reflected much about what you believe, much less why.

BTW, we had a professor of America Sucks Studies who used to post here under the name Wei Wu Wei. If he's the same one that you're studying under, please give him my regards.

DumbAss Tanker
03-30-2013, 06:05 PM
I kinda liked JB's post, myself...it summed up pretty well the mental state, worldview, and knowledge of Conservatism of the typical twenty-something self-styled Liberal.

:biggrin-new:

LukeEDay
03-30-2013, 06:50 PM
I kinda liked JB's post, myself...it summed up pretty well the mental state, worldview, and knowledge of Conservatism of the typical twenty-something self-styled Liberal.

:biggrin-new:

I agree. Liberals know nothing about economics, history, conservatives, or their own party ...

Epimetheus
03-30-2013, 07:10 PM
So much for keeping it civil. I'm quite serious. The term "liberal" was co-opted by communists in the 1930s and 40s when the evidence of communism rendered that term toxic. They began referring to themselves as "liberals in a hurry" and eventually dropped the last part. Before that, leftists called themselves Progressives, socialists and even fascists. The first fascist party was founded by Mussolini, who was a socialist who never abandoned the collectivist economics of that movement, but imposed a nationalist aspect which was later adopted by other fascist parties, most infamously the National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany (you may have heard of them). However, my point that you don't know the difference between what you call yourself and the various other movements on the left tells me that you have not reflected much about what you believe, much less why.

BTW, we had a professor of America Sucks Studies who used to post here under the name Wei Wu Wei. If he's the same one that you're studying under, please give him my regards.

The post you quoted wasn't written by me.

I don't attach much significance to what groups did in the past or what the fringe of groups do in the present. It doesn't bother me that the 'Democratic party' voted against the 13th amendment, since the current party would be nearly unrecognizable compared to the party in Lincoln's day. I don't blame Islam for fundamentalists, nor Christianity for the Westboro Baptist Church. And I don't believe the GOP is waging war on women because of Todd Akin's remarks.

I don't attach much significance to the terms 'liberal', 'conservative', 'socialist', 'communist', either. There are about as many definitions for these as there are individuals discussing them, and there are about as many ways to execute these ideologies in practice as there are groups practicing them. While they are convenient words to use as a starting point in a conversation, I don't think in-depth knowledge of their history or philosophical discussions about their meanings are a prerequisite to having thoughtful opinions on the issues of the day.

I always wonder why I see so many arguments about whether the Nazis were more 'liberal' or 'conservative'. To me, it's pretty clear that practically no Americans want to turn our country into 1930s-40s Germany.

Edit: As a note - responses may be a little slower from here on out. The holiday and work will limit my time to check this thread. Happy Easter, everyone

Edit 2: Not sure what the double-posting rules are here, so I'll add something to this post.

I kinda liked JB's post, myself...it summed up pretty well the mental state, worldview, and knowledge of Conservatism of the typical twenty-something self-styled Liberal.

:biggrin-new:
Is this genuinely how you view me? Because I really don't think I'm anything special in terms of knowing more about these things than friends of mine with similar views. And I'm sure a number of them could do a better job than me of answering these questions (particularly Odysseus')

txradioguy
03-30-2013, 08:53 PM
Interesting. You call yourself a liberal, but are unable to define the term, especially in the context of other ideologies of the left. Doesn't it bother you that you may be carrying water for radical ideologies with a history of horrific atrocities on their records?

IMO it's a purposeful dodge. Typical of Liberalism they work hard to hide their true beliefs and worldview so they can't be pinned down or held responsible for any aspect of what they believe in.

Much the same way Obama is in constant campaign mode to avoid any appearance of leadership or having his name associated with any piece of legislation or negotiation.

Rockntractor
03-30-2013, 09:05 PM
IMO it's a purposeful dodge. Typical of Liberalism they work hard to hide their true beliefs and worldview so they can't be pinned down or held responsible for any aspect of what they believe in.

Much the same way Obama is in constant campaign mode to avoid any appearance of leadership or having his name associated with any piece of legislation or negotiation.

debating with liberals is like nailing Jello to the wall, they will never own anything.

DumbAss Tanker
03-30-2013, 11:35 PM
Is this genuinely how you view me? Because I really don't think I'm anything special in terms of knowing more about these things than friends of mine with similar views. And I'm sure a number of them could do a better job than me of answering these questions (particularly Odysseus')

You in particular? No, you haven't actually said much of anything about what you believe or how you analyze things, really. My comments are more related to the braindead zombies in the described demographic groups that I encounter every day. You can wear the shoe if it fits, of course; your choice.

NJCardFan
03-31-2013, 12:07 AM
The post you quoted wasn't written by me.

I don't attach much significance to what groups did in the past or what the fringe of groups do in the present. It doesn't bother me that the 'Democratic party' voted against the 13th amendment, since the current party would be nearly unrecognizable compared to the party in Lincoln's day. I don't blame Islam for fundamentalists, nor Christianity for the Westboro Baptist Church. And I don't believe the GOP is waging war on women because of Todd Akin's remarks.

I don't attach much significance to the terms 'liberal', 'conservative', 'socialist', 'communist', either. There are about as many definitions for these as there are individuals discussing them, and there are about as many ways to execute these ideologies in practice as there are groups practicing them. While they are convenient words to use as a starting point in a conversation, I don't think in-depth knowledge of their history or philosophical discussions about their meanings are a prerequisite to having thoughtful opinions on the issues of the day.

I always wonder why I see so many arguments about whether the Nazis were more 'liberal' or 'conservative'. To me, it's pretty clear that practically no Americans want to turn our country into 1930s-40s Germany.

Edit: As a note - responses may be a little slower from here on out. The holiday and work will limit my time to check this thread. Happy Easter, everyone

Edit 2: Not sure what the double-posting rules are here, so I'll add something to this post.

Is this genuinely how you view me? Because I really don't think I'm anything special in terms of knowing more about these things than friends of mine with similar views. And I'm sure a number of them could do a better job than me of answering these questions (particularly Odysseus')

Wow, um, ok. Please allow me to show you answering these questions you told us to ask you:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-u95ZPmQVp-M/TYqICJGM_4I/AAAAAAAAHw0/kHOM6inHjbA/s1600/MATADOR%2B27.jpg

Now, you can tap dance around liberalism all you want but the truth is, liberal and progressive policies and ideology are responsible for more death and destruction than any other ideology including the Crusades. And unlike Feudal Christianity, liberalism hasn't outgrown this behavior. It's still alive and well in North Korea, China, Cuba as well as other leftist dictatorships around the world. Liberals like to blame this on conservatives but the truth is, it's your ideology, not ours, that will destroy this country. But thankfully for you, the left's little propaganda machine known as the MSM, the people will have a hard time getting the truth but the truth is out there no matter how people like your ilk try to give your history to conservatives.

txradioguy
03-31-2013, 06:46 AM
I don't attach much significance to the terms 'liberal', 'conservative', 'socialist', 'communist', either.

Of course you don't. Liberals do everything they can to avoid admitting what they are and what they support in a silly effort to be able to take any side of an issue at any time so as to always have the politically correct response.

Liberals also tend not to attach much significance to terms like "good and evil"..."right and wrong"..."guilty or innocent" "legal or illegal" et. al.

Their entire world view is millions of shades of gray. Never any absolutes.



There are about as many definitions for these as there are individuals discussing them, and there are about as many ways to execute these ideologies in practice as there are groups practicing them.

Not in the real world. That's a another Liberal ploy they use so as to be able to assign and pigeon hold every little special interest or .001% of the population into some kind of victim or special need status.



While they are convenient words to use as a starting point in a conversation, I don't think in-depth knowledge of their history or philosophical discussions about their meanings are a prerequisite to having thoughtful opinions on the issues of the day.

Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Liberals seem to like to treat every day as if it's day one of history in order to shape the world as they see it when they wake up. Because to use historical references and historical events would give people the avenue to judge what Liberalism is trying to to versus what this country has historically stood for.

You don't think they're important because a study of history would reveal what an abject failure socialism/progressissiveism/socialism really is.


So let me ask you again...why do you defend and ascribe to a political philosophy that has failed every time it's been tried?

Epimetheus
03-31-2013, 01:31 PM
So let me ask you again...why do you defend and ascribe to a political philosophy that has failed every time it's been tried?
This and many of the other statements you and others are making (all libs are relativists, all libs avoid history, etc) are incredibly sweeping generalizations - and I don't know what evidence there is to back them up.

You reject my claim that there are different interpretations and executions of political philosophies, and yet list 'Russia...China...North Korea...the European Union....specifically Spain...Greece Italy and Cyprus' as examples of liberal failures. Do you really believe these countries are run exactly the same way with the same principles?

You'll have to forgive my frustration showing through a bit here, but I really don't see how we can get a productive discussion along these lines ("liberalism sucks!" "no it doesn't" "yes it does", etc).

But to play along, here is a quick "No it doesn't". German political parties are more liberal than their American counterparts, and Germany seems to be doing fine. Norway, Sweden, and Finland are closer to socialism than I would like, but they seem to be doing well by most metrics too.

Edit: Another point I forgot to make. Even if I were to eventually concede that liberalism is responsible for the poor conditions in N. Korea, Cuba, etc (at the moment I'm quite unconvinced of this), why would this impact my views on Social Security, Gay Marriage, the Healthcare system, and so on? I can't see why it would, and therefore I would continue to vote for candidates that share as many of my views as possible. This is the primary reason I am not particularly interested in this line of discussion.

JB
03-31-2013, 01:53 PM
So much for keeping it civil.I wasn't addressing our new lib friend directly, just the liberal mindset of why they are the way they are.


BTW, we had a professor of America Sucks Studies who used to post here under the name Wei Wu Wei. If he's the same one that you're studying under, please give him my regards.Are you talking to me or indirectly referencing no one in particular as I was?

txradioguy
03-31-2013, 02:15 PM
This and many of the other statements you and others are making (all libs are relativists, all libs avoid history, etc) are incredibly sweeping generalizations - and I don't know what evidence there is to back them up.

I gave you five examples and you ignored them.

And now you act like this is a new question to you.

Typical.


You reject my claim that there are different interpretations and executions of political philosophies, and yet list 'Russia...China...North Korea...the European Union....specifically Spain...Greece Italy and Cyprus' as examples of liberal failures. Do you really believe these countries are run exactly the same way with the same principles?

Yes they were....and are.


You'll have to forgive my frustration showing through a bit here, but I really don't see how we can get a productive discussion along these lines ("liberalism sucks!" "no it doesn't" "yes it does", etc).

Your words not mine.

I asked a legitimate question. Showed where you were wrong in your broad generalities and purposeful avoidance of the hard questions.




But to play along, here is a quick "No it doesn't". German political parties are more liberal than their American counterparts, and Germany seems to be doing fine.

Except that Germany has the highest unemployment rate in the post war era. The economy has been shrinking steadily for the last three years. Major industries are primarily owned by the government. And because of EU and German regulations banking and small business are severely choked. Saying they are "doing fine" is a relative term.

It's akin to bragging about coming in first in a race where you are the only one participating.

European socialism and all of the nanny state oversight that is rampant here in the EU is what Obama is trying to turn the US into. Never mind the fact that the warning signs of it's failure are all over the place.



Norway, Sweden, and Finland are closer to socialism than I would like, but they seem to be doing well by most metrics too.

And in response to these typical retorts from a Liberal I would say 1) what is the population of the countries you listed and 2) what are the GDP's? It's an apples and oranges comparison that Liberals always use to try and justify why Socialism is the answer...when it's actually the exact opposite.


Edit: Another point I forgot to make. Even if I were to eventually concede that liberalism is responsible for the poor conditions in N. Korea, Cuba, etc (at the moment I'm quite unconvinced of this), why would this impact my views on Social Security, Gay Marriage, the Healthcare system, and so on? I can't see why it would, and therefore I would continue to vote for candidates that share as many of my views as possible.

Because they are all tied together. Though you'll never admit it. ALl of them insist on top down management over everyones daily lives.

All of them promise their people a perfect utopia where everyone is equal...and fail miserably on delivering that promise.

And they all strive to break down the societal and historical norms that are the basis for this country.

What you're voting for is the destruction of this country.



This is the primary reason I am not particularly interested in this line of discussion.

No you're not interested init because it deals in factual evidence and things that can disprove your Utopian dream.

And facts are an anathema to the hopey changey feelings and emotions that Liberalism is based in.

The discussion you're avoiding forces you to take a stand and actually defend what you claim to believe in.

And you can't do it. Not outside of the vacuum of Liberal group think.

Unreconstructed Reb
03-31-2013, 05:03 PM
debating with liberals is like nailing Jello to the wall, they will never own anything.

Debating with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon: they'll knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and then declare victory.

Unreconstructed Reb
03-31-2013, 05:08 PM
Why did you choose your screen name? Do you fancy yourself a fool?

Odysseus
03-31-2013, 06:03 PM
The post you quoted wasn't written by me.

Sorry, been a long day.


I don't attach much significance to what groups did in the past or what the fringe of groups do in the present. It doesn't bother me that the 'Democratic party' voted against the 13th amendment, since the current party would be nearly unrecognizable compared to the party in Lincoln's day. I don't blame Islam for fundamentalists, nor Christianity for the Westboro Baptist Church. And I don't believe the GOP is waging war on women because of Todd Akin's remarks.

Actually, the Democrats wouldn't be as unrecognizable as you think. The last serving KKK member in the senate was Robert Byrd (D-WV), and until he died, the current crop of Democrats treated him as if he was a national treasure and not a bigoted loon who cheerfully used the N-word in public and filibustered against the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts. For an example of the current racism of the party, just look at the treatment given to conservative blacks, such as Condoleeza Rice, Mia Love, Colin Powell (before he went back to the liberal plantation), Herman Cain, Michael Steele, Alan West or Herman Cain. While you're at it, they also overlook antisemitism and viciously bigoted comments directed towards Asians, as long as the comments originate among Democrats. They party also maintains its power through the manipulation of voting blocks through urban machines, something Lincoln would have recognized from his era. The only real difference is that the Tammany Hall bosses now style themselves as community organizers.

Your comment on Islam seems based on wishful thinking, since violent jihad is a basic function of Islam. It's not a bug, it's a feature.


I don't attach much significance to the terms 'liberal', 'conservative', 'socialist', 'communist', either. There are about as many definitions for these as there are individuals discussing them, and there are about as many ways to execute these ideologies in practice as there are groups practicing them. While they are convenient words to use as a starting point in a conversation, I don't think in-depth knowledge of their history or philosophical discussions about their meanings are a prerequisite to having thoughtful opinions on the issues of the day.

As Santayana said, those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it. The understanding of the roots of the ideology that you claim to believe in will show you the intent of those who established it, and possibly give you something to think about the next time you advocate for them. Finally, if you don't attach much significance to the term "liberal," why call yourself one? Words have meaning, and if you pretend that they don't, then there is no thoughtful discussion possible, since words are the tools by which we have such discussions, and your presence here becomes simply self-indulgence on your part.


I always wonder why I see so many arguments about whether the Nazis were more 'liberal' or 'conservative'. To me, it's pretty clear that practically no Americans want to turn our country into 1930s-40s Germany.

No, but many of them want to turn us into 1930s America, or 1970s Russia. The commonalities between Nazism, fascism, Progressivism, socialism and communism and the New Deal would be troubling to you if you bothered to look at them, but by not looking, you can blithely pretend that "labels don't matter" or some such variation of the theme, and evade responsibility for what you claim to believe. The fact is that labels do matter, which is why I asked you how you defined your liberalism vs. the other ideologies mentioned. If you haven't examined these, how would you know whether you are a liberal, a socialist, or even a Nazi, since you couldn't tell me the difference between them? Now do you understand why it matters, and why you need to be able to explain yourself?


Edit: As a note - responses may be a little slower from here on out. The holiday and work will limit my time to check this thread. Happy Easter, everyone

Edit 2: Not sure what the double-posting rules are here, so I'll add something to this post.

Is this genuinely how you view me? Because I really don't think I'm anything special in terms of knowing more about these things than friends of mine with similar views.

Well, I assumed that it was your response, but that it was sarcastic. If your friends feel the same way that you do, then are you here to defend their ideas, or are you here to test them? Are you a liberal because they say that you are, and you don't want to rock the boat (in which case, you're not so much a liberal as a member of a clique, and your understanding of the ideas of that clique are as shallow as the high school cheerleader who sees school spirit as a unifying ideal, even as she ignores the uncool kids from her school). If you can't tell the difference between what you believe and what a doctrinaire Marxist believes, then why should you expect us to know what sets you apart?


And I'm sure a number of them could do a better job than me of answering these questions (particularly Odysseus')

Yes, but you don't want me defining you, do you? After all, this is your thread, and you're the one who challenged us to ask you anything. My question, which you still haven't answered, is why do you call yourself a liberal, as opposed to any of the other leftist tags available?

patriot45
03-31-2013, 08:07 PM
Unreal! Don't you guys realize libs lie. They lie all the time. If they say something its a lie! Herding cats is like arguing with a lib, it aint gonna be reasonable!

Sonnabend
04-01-2013, 06:23 AM
Epimetheus: I have one for you then:

Given the high state of histrionics in Congress, and the Failure's ideals of "reasonable gun control", where do you stand on this?

Do you think this current idea of another assault weps ban will actually achieve anything?

Do you believe that the Founders were specific in that "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Given that the last shooting was by a lunatic who a/ should never have had access to guns b/ murdered his mother to get them c/ was not a legal or licensed gun owner d./ committed yet another massacre in a so-called gun free zone and e/ as a result has Congress screaming for more "controls" when the elephant in the room is standing there, trunk swinging, with the words "Gun Free Zone" arouind his neck?

Where do you stand with the fact that every single gun massacre has been in a gun free zone, including that jihadi Hassan who carried out his shooting on an Army base where..wait for it..wait for it..possession of use of firearms on the base was strictly prohibited? (And screamiong Allahu Akhbar as he did it?)

Do you believe that gun control will stop these massacres? Do you believe that gun control works?

How do you handle the fact that suicide is considered a gun crime, and that more than 98% of all gun crimes are committed with illegal guns?

How do you answer this cry for more gun control, based on the massacre in Belgium, whose nation enacted a total gun ban? Bear in mind the guy who did it was a three times convicted felon who got his hands on hand grenades and automatic weapons, despite all the laws that said he should never have been able to? (fat lot that did them, now, didnt it)

Do you think that any amount of "gun laws" will slow down or stop the possession and use of illegally obtained weapons?

I will caution you in all fairness that this question has a serious sting in its tail, so I do advise you to think and then reply.

I hope for a serious and reasoned response.

LukeEDay
04-01-2013, 10:48 AM
Epimetheus: I have one for you then:

Given the high state of histrionics in Congress, and the Failure's ideals of "reasonable gun control", where do you stand on this?

Do you think this current idea of another assault weps ban will actually achieve anything?

Do you believe that the Founders were specific in that "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Given that the last shooting was by a lunatic who a/ should never have had access to guns b/ murdered his mother to get them c/ was not a legal or licensed gun owner d./ committed yet another massacre in a so-called gun free zone and e/ as a result has Congress screaming for more "controls" when the elephant in the room is standing there, trunk swinging, with the words "Gun Free Zone" arouind his neck?

Where do you stand with the fact that every single gun massacre has been in a gun free zone, including that jihadi Hassan who carried out his shooting on an Army base where..wait for it..wait for it..possession of use of firearms on the base was strictly prohibited? (And screamiong Allahu Akhbar as he did it?)

Do you believe that gun control will stop these massacres? Do you believe that gun control works?

How do you handle the fact that suicide is considered a gun crime, and that more than 98% of all gun crimes are committed with illegal guns?

How do you answer this cry for more gun control, based on the massacre in Belgium, whose nation enacted a total gun ban? Bear in mind the guy who did it was a three times convicted felon who got his hands on hand grenades and automatic weapons, despite all the laws that said he should never have been able to? (fat lot that did them, now, didnt it)

Do you think that any amount of "gun laws" will slow down or stop the possession and use of illegally obtained weapons?

I will caution you in all fairness that this question has a serious sting in its tail, so I do advise you to think and then reply.

I hope for a serious and reasoned response.

Wow ... Let me add that the last SEVEN massacres were committed by LIBERALS!

NJCardFan
04-01-2013, 01:11 PM
I hope for a serious and reasoned response.
I like wimmins with big breastases.

Sonnabend
04-01-2013, 08:54 PM
Several.

And thanks, for blowing my key element in the question I posed up there. I didnt include that in my post for a good reason. :smilie_wall:

NJCardFan
04-02-2013, 12:13 AM
Several.

And thanks, for blowing my key element in the question I posed up there. I didnt include that in my post for a good reason. :smilie_wall:

LOL, sorry.

Sonnabend
04-02-2013, 12:33 AM
Then edit it out before he sees it. :p

Janice
04-02-2013, 12:46 AM
Then edit it out before he sees it. :p

Are you referring to Lukes reply?

Rockntractor
04-02-2013, 01:33 AM
He probably won't notice, most individuals from the hive have an IQ slightly higher than an artichoke, if he does notice it it may confuse him enough so that he shows it to his handlers and they will find him an appropriate talking point.

Sonnabend
04-02-2013, 02:58 AM
Janice, read my post and see what I left out. And what I hope DJones remembers to remove :smile-new:

LukeEDay
04-02-2013, 11:09 AM
I have another question for the liberal: Why do liberals hate our military, but love Islamic jihadist?

And another one: Why do liberals hate legal citizens, but love illegal aliens?

Another one: Why do liberals hate the US flag, but love the Mexican flag?

Another one: Why do liberals hate people who work for what they have, but love lazy people who refuse to get off their ass and get a job?

Another one: Why do liberals think that the top 1% (who pay over 80% of all taxes) aren't paying enough taxes, but people who only work two weeks out the year to get that big income tax return by claiming the 20 kids they have are paying too much?

Another one: Why do liberals hate Christians, but love Muslims?

Another one: Why do liberals want to keep a school from teaching creationism, but force a school to to teach evolution?

Another one: Why do liberals just plain hate God?

Another one: Why do liberals think that a gay couple should have more rights, and get special treatment over a straight couple?

Another one: Why do liberals want to force a church to marry a gay couple, when it is against everything the bible teaches?

Another one: Why do liberals have an average IQ of 10? Why are liberals so stupid?

Another one: Why do liberals based everything on emotion instead of facts and research?

Another one: Why do liberals ignore facts, and bend history to relate to their own agenda?

And the last one is a quote from Michael Savage: 'Liberalism is a mental disorder that is untreatable' ....

Epimetheus
04-02-2013, 11:12 PM
Actually, the Democrats wouldn't be as unrecognizable as you think. The last serving KKK member in the senate was Robert Byrd (D-WV), and until he died, the current crop of Democrats treated him as if he was a national treasure and not a bigoted loon who cheerfully used the N-word in public and filibustered against the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.
Byrd was pretty clearly racist. He claimed to have regretted his filibuster, but I'm not sure I buy it.


For an example of the current racism of the party, just look at the treatment given to conservative blacks, such as Condoleeza Rice, Mia Love, Colin Powell (before he went back to the liberal plantation), Herman Cain, Michael Steele, Alan West or Herman Cain.
You'll have to do more to convince me that this is racially motivated. Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin didn't exactly get wonderful treatment from their political opponents either.


While you're at it, they also overlook antisemitism and viciously bigoted comments directed towards Asians, as long as the comments originate among Democrats. They party also maintains its power through the manipulation of voting blocks through urban machines, something Lincoln would have recognized from his era. The only real difference is that the Tammany Hall bosses now style themselves as community organizers.
You'll have to forgive me taking this shot, but in response to some other posters: I'm surprised a party of low-IQ touchy-feely types could be this devious.

In all seriousness, it would not surprise me much if the DNC thought this way. Far too much of politics these days is thinking about how to get/stay elected, not actual thoughtful policy. I'd be very surprised if the average Democratic politician was this cynical, however.

And yes, Democrats aren't going to dwell on missteps or nutjobs in their ranks. You'll have a hard time convincing me that Republicans don't do the same thing.

Your comment on Islam seems based on wishful thinking, since violent jihad is a basic function of Islam. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Yikes. I dislike Islam more than other religions, but this is going too far in my opinion. Every Muslim I've met here in the states seems very unlikely to participate in violent jihad. I would attribute violence by Muslims much more to society in the Middle East than to the religion itself (indoctrinating children to hate the West, poverty, and so on). Now, since religion plays an important role in society, Islam clearly isn't blameless.


As Santayana said, those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it. The understanding of the roots of the ideology that you claim to believe in will show you the intent of those who established it, and possibly give you something to think about the next time you advocate for them. Finally, if you don't attach much significance to the term "liberal," why call yourself one? Words have meaning, and if you pretend that they don't, then there is no thoughtful discussion possible, since words are the tools by which we have such discussions, and your presence here becomes simply self-indulgence on your part.
When I started this thread, I assumed 'liberal' would be interpreted in the street-sense of the word used here in the US. That is, tending to agree with the policies of the Democratic Party (post Solid-South). I used 'relative' in the thread title because while I don't actually agree with Democrats on everything, I probably still share more of their viewpoints than most everyone here.

I'll agree that this isn't a great definition, particularly if we want to get into history, philosophy, etc. But if you pressed the average American to define liberal or conservative, I'd guess that'd is the response they'd give - particularly in this era of 'us vs. them' in politics.


No, but many of them want to turn us into 1930s America, or 1970s Russia. The commonalities between Nazism, fascism, Progressivism, socialism and communism and the New Deal would be troubling to you if you bothered to look at them, but by not looking, you can blithely pretend that "labels don't matter" or some such variation of the theme, and evade responsibility for what you claim to believe. The fact is that labels do matter, which is why I asked you how you defined your liberalism vs. the other ideologies mentioned. If you haven't examined these, how would you know whether you are a liberal, a socialist, or even a Nazi, since you couldn't tell me the difference between them? Now do you understand why it matters, and why you need to be able to explain yourself?
I would still tend to disagree. I am not claiming to believe in all aspects of classical liberalism or any other ideology (I should have clarified this earlier - apologies for the confusion), so therefore don't see how I am 'evading responsibility' for the Soviets, let alone North Korea or Hitler.

However, there can be no harm in researching these further. I can also see an argument that knowing the logical extreme (or purest form) of an ideology can help when making decisions about whether to support various policy choices (i.e. instead of agreeing with a stream of policies that ever so gradually trade freedom for security, recognizing the destination each step is leading toward). Unless you want me copy-pasting Wikipedia, I'm probably not going to be in a position to rigorously debate these ideologies or their history with you during the course of this thread.

I'll note that while I have yet to distinguish socialism, liberalism, communism, etc, I've also yet to see any justification for claims that they are all the same. In an effort to make this discussion more concrete, I'll lay out some statements. Feel free to accept or refute them as you will.

I do not believe "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Marx/communism) is an appropriate maxim to run a country by. It has a nice ring to it ('hooray no one suffers anymore'), but even if it were possible to objectively define what people's 'ability' and 'needs' were, no government would be adequately capable of executing on this principle. Additionally, the freedom to ascend or descend in social status is too important an incentive for people to be productive members of society to lose.
Likewise, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work" (Stalin/Soviet communism/socialism) is bad for the same reasons
"Equality of Outcomes" is even worse than the above two ideas.
"Equality of Opportunity" has a nice ring to it but in practice often turns into "Equality of Wealth" or "Bash people with lucky genetics back down to the level of others". Aside from these cases it seems to be a reasonable pursuit (e.g. Equal Opportunity Employment is fine with me)
Absolute "Equality of Wealth" is no better than "Equality of Outcomes". But it is concerning to me that our Gini coefficient is relatively high compared to the rest of the world (and high compared to what most Americans believe is a reasonable distribution of wealth), and that it has been rising consistently for a good 30 years.
I believe we have enough wealth and technology that we can afford to have a reasonably high minimum standard-of-living. The tricky bit is to set this up in a way that does not encourage people to become dependent on welfare / stop seeking to make contributions to society. I support universal health care, progressive taxation, and tend to oppose unions in their fights (you can call that progressive or not..)
I'm not a fan of nationalism, let alone the concept of a master race
I don't believe that governments plan economies better than the free market. But there are certainly uses for government to provide things the free market would not on its own.


Well, I assumed that it was your response, but that it was sarcastic. If your friends feel the same way that you do, then are you here to defend their ideas, or are you here to test them? Are you a liberal because they say that you are, and you don't want to rock the boat (in which case, you're not so much a liberal as a member of a clique, and your understanding of the ideas of that clique are as shallow as the high school cheerleader who sees school spirit as a unifying ideal, even as she ignores the uncool kids from her school). If you can't tell the difference between what you believe and what a doctrinaire Marxist believes, then why should you expect us to know what sets you apart?
That question was directed more at others than you. I've seen many 'All libs _____' comments here that would be pretty remarkable if true. I would hope that I would serve as a counterexample to some of them.

That aside, I think this comparison is unfair. I didn't take the time to answer your question precisely because my views on issues aren't based on WWOD ('What would Obama do?', in case the reference isn't clear). There are a number of issues I disagree with either my friends or Democrats on (you'll see this to an extent when I get to the gun control questions)


Yes, but you don't want me defining you, do you? After all, this is your thread, and you're the one who challenged us to ask you anything. My question, which you still haven't answered, is why do you call yourself a liberal, as opposed to any of the other leftist tags available?
Thank you for not putting words in my mouth, and I do genuinely appreciate your questions - hopefully some progress has been made towards satisfying them. If you still feel I am evading you, let me know and I can attempt to elaborate.

Lanie
04-02-2013, 11:44 PM
You said to ask you anything. What did the Easter bunny bring you?

Rockntractor
04-02-2013, 11:58 PM
You said to ask you anything. What did the Easter bunny bring you?

The Easter bunny is union, all he can deliver is eggs.

Epimetheus
04-03-2013, 12:04 AM
Easter Bunny brought me a Digiorno Pizza! My coworkers are bringing more than enough sweets into the office, though - I'm glad I don't have any here.

Didn't get the chance to go home to the family this year, but was still able to spend time with them thanks to the wonder of the internet :smile-new:

NJCardFan
04-03-2013, 01:01 AM
You'll have to do more to convince me that this is racially motivated.
So, you don't consider this racially motivated?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rgzrzqWGwoE/SaRZCkbg5QI/AAAAAAAAARI/12teSm1DrK0/s400/CondiPrissy.jpg

Or calling Colin Powell a house slave? But taking all of this away, if a conservative media outlet gave a black democrat half the grief black conservatives get from the liberal media machine, the cries of racism would be deafening. Hell, any criticism of Obama is met with cries of racism.


I would attribute violence by Muslims much more to society in the Middle East than to the religion itself
I guess the you're unfamiliar with a guy named Nidal Hassan.

Sonnabend
04-03-2013, 01:11 AM
and I do genuinely appreciate your questions

Good. Glad to hear it. Going to answer mine?

Epimetheus
04-03-2013, 10:05 AM
Good. Glad to hear it. Going to answer mine?

Yes, your question will be next - I just don't have the time to write multiple long responses to this thread on work days.

Molon Labe
04-03-2013, 01:12 PM
Do you believe one is Racist to be against the legislation called the Civil rights act of 1964?

Because I am against it. And based on your answer I'll explain why in a few but, I read in another post that Robert Byrd, who was a racist, was against this legislation. I wonder if there is another reason why someone might be opposed to it?

txradioguy
04-03-2013, 02:37 PM
I do not believe "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Marx/communism) is an appropriate maxim to run a country by. It has a nice ring to it ('hooray no one suffers anymore'), but even if it were possible to objectively define what people's 'ability' and 'needs' were, no government would be adequately capable of executing on this principle. Additionally, the freedom to ascend or descend in social status is too important an incentive for people to be productive members of society to lose.
Likewise, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work" (Stalin/Soviet communism/socialism) is bad for the same reasons
"Equality of Outcomes" is even worse than the above two ideas.
"Equality of Opportunity" has a nice ring to it but in practice often turns into "Equality of Wealth" or "Bash people with lucky genetics back down to the level of others". Aside from these cases it seems to be a reasonable pursuit (e.g. Equal Opportunity Employment is fine with me)
Absolute "Equality of Wealth" is no better than "Equality of Outcomes". But it is concerning to me that our Gini coefficient is relatively high compared to the rest of the world (and high compared to what most Americans believe is a reasonable distribution of wealth), and that it has been rising consistently for a good 30 years.
I believe we have enough wealth and technology that we can afford to have a reasonably high minimum standard-of-living. The tricky bit is to set this up in a way that does not encourage people to become dependent on welfare / stop seeking to make contributions to society. I support universal health care, progressive taxation, and tend to oppose unions in their fights (you can call that progressive or not..)
I'm not a fan of nationalism, let alone the concept of a master race
I don't believe that governments plan economies better than the free market. But there are certainly uses for government to provide things the free market would not on its own.

And yet...from all indications you support a political party that believes ALL of that.

Why is that?

Odysseus
04-04-2013, 06:52 PM
Byrd was pretty clearly racist. He claimed to have regretted his filibuster, but I'm not sure I buy it.

I don't. He was using racially vile language throughout his later years, but he wasn't the only Democrat with a checkered past who remained in the senate. Fritz Hollings was the former governor who first raised the Confederate flag over the South Carolina State Capitol in 1962, and he was making antisemitic and racist comments through his retirement in 2004. No Democrats sought to distance themselves from either of them.



You'll have to do more to convince me that this is racially motivated. Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin didn't exactly get wonderful treatment from their political opponents either.

Not a problem.


Democrats use racist invectives to denigrate black Republicans, demeaning them as “sellouts”, “Uncle Toms”, “House Negroes”, “House N-word”While claiming to be racially sensitive, Democrats use racist invectives to denigrate black Republicans, demeaning them as “sellouts”, “Uncle Toms”, “House Negroes”, “House N-word”, or worse. The list of black Republicans attacked by Democrats is long and includes RNC Chairman Michael Steele, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, General Colin Powell and Justice Clarence Thomas.
On the left-wing Internet website called “The News Blog,” Democrats posted a doctored photograph of RNC Chairman Michael Steele while he was the Lt. Governor of Maryland and running for a Senate seat. Democrats depicted Steele as a “Simple Sambo” with a blackened minstrel-style face, nappy hair and big, think red lips. The cartoon caption read: “Simple Sambo wants to move to the big house”. This contemptible racist stereotype is the same one Democrats used to demean black men during the era of slavery and segregation.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice was the object of particularly vicious racist attacks by Democrats. In addition to several other appalling images of Dr. Rice produced by several Democrats, cartoonist Jeff Danziger denigrated Dr. Rice as an ignorant, barefoot “mammy”, reminiscent of the stereotyped black woman in the movie “Gone with the Wind” about the slave era black woman who remarked: “I don’t know nothin’ ‘bout birthin’ no babies”. This is the type of racist stereotype Democrats used to demean black women during the era of slavery and segregation.
A video was shot by WKRN Video Journalist Beau Fleenor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdVjrBY5-F0)at Tennessee State University in Nashville, Tennessee that shows Al Sharpton demeaning Gen. Powell and Dr. Rice, when Sharpton was asked to give his opinions about whether Powell and Rice were “House Negroes”.
An article that appeared in a Portland, Oregon paper (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2002/10/27103.shtml)was one of many exposing how hardly a ripple of protest was made by black Democrats when Harry Belafonte publicly denounced Gen. Powell as a “House Negro”.
Posted on the Internet is an article entitled “A Black Man, The Progressive’s Perfect Trojan Horse” (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/the_progressives_perfect_troja.html) by black entertainer Lloyd Marcus exposing Democratic Party racism toward black Tea Party protesters.
The truth about Democratic Party racism can be harsh medicine, but is sorely needed to finally eject the race-baiting poison injected into our body politic by Democrats, the architects of modern-day racism. As stated by author Michael Scheuer, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s: slavery secession, segregation and now socialism. A prominent pundit affirmed that the Republican Party is the party of the four F’s: family, faith, freedom and fairness. Civil rights history details are in the NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter that is posted on the website of the National Black Republican Association (http://www.nbra.info/).




You'll have to forgive me taking this shot, but in response to some other posters: I'm surprised a party of low-IQ touchy-feely types could be this devious.

Democrats are hardly touchy-feely, unless you're talking about Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton around women. They are the heirs of a violent political movement consisting of big city machines, organized labor (which means organized crime, especially in the Teamsters), communists, socialists and assorted other thugs. The antiwar activists of the sixties preached non-violence, even as they blew up ROTC buildings and plotted murders.


In all seriousness, it would not surprise me much if the DNC thought this way. Far too much of politics these days is thinking about how to get/stay elected, not actual thoughtful policy. I'd be very surprised if the average Democratic politician was this cynical, however.

And yet, they are. I grew up in the Democratic Party in NYC in the sixties and seventies, and registered as a Democrat for my first election (although I voted for Reagan). I even worked at the DNC convention in 1980. I've seen how the party works up close, and it is monumentally corrupt.


And yes, Democrats aren't going to dwell on missteps or nutjobs in their ranks. You'll have a hard time convincing me that Republicans don't do the same thing.

Hardly. The most obvious example is the Republican response to David Duke, who won a Republican primary in Louisiana in 1990. The Republican Party refused to endorse him and actually endorsed the Democrat, Edwards, who eventually won. If a Nazi or Klansman were to get elected to congress, there is no way that the Republicans would permit him in the caucus, while the Democrats have no problem with Bernie Sanders, the Socialist Party senator from Vermont. When Todd Akin made his rape gaffe during the 2012 campaign, the entire party tried to get him to step down. Richard Nixon's resignation came after a group of Republican senators informed him that they would vote for conviction when the articles of impeachment were presented to the senate, after more than a few Republicans voted for the articles in the house. Not a single Democrat voted for Clinton's impeachment in either chamber. OTOH, no Democrat, no matter how nuts, evil or corrupt has ever lost his/her party's support. Al Sharpton, a racist demagogue with a criminal record, still has his endorsement sought by Democratic politicians. One of the only federal judges ever impeached by the US Senate, Alcee Hastings, now sits in the house as a member of the Democratic caucus.


Yikes. I dislike Islam more than other religions, but this is going too far in my opinion. Every Muslim I've met here in the states seems very unlikely to participate in violent jihad. I would attribute violence by Muslims much more to society in the Middle East than to the religion itself (indoctrinating children to hate the West, poverty, and so on). Now, since religion plays an important role in society, Islam clearly isn't blameless.


This shows me that you haven't read the Qur'an or any of the Hadiths. Don't confuse your extremely limited experience with Muslims in America with the practice of Islam thorughout the world. My experience with Islam includes American and foreign Muslims (I was at FT Hood when Nidal Hassan shot up the units that we were training), and the basic tenets are violent in a way that Judaism and Christianity are not. But, don't take my word for it, just slip into a mosque on a Friday night and listen to the sermon and see if the radicalism that I'm talking about isn't part of the imam's spiel.



When I started this thread, I assumed 'liberal' would be interpreted in the street-sense of the word used here in the US. That is, tending to agree with the policies of the Democratic Party (post Solid-South). I used 'relative' in the thread title because while I don't actually agree with Democrats on everything, I probably still share more of their viewpoints than most everyone here.

I'll agree that this isn't a great definition, particularly if we want to get into history, philosophy, etc. But if you pressed the average American to define liberal or conservative, I'd guess that'd is the response they'd give - particularly in this era of 'us vs. them' in politics.

I suspect that you agree with their viewpoints because you've only been exposed to the media's version of the other side.


I would still tend to disagree. I am not claiming to believe in all aspects of classical liberalism or any other ideology (I should have clarified this earlier - apologies for the confusion), so therefore don't see how I am 'evading responsibility' for the Soviets, let alone North Korea or Hitler.

But the Democratic Party is evading that responsibility. The prominent Progressives who supported Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and various other totalitarians would read like a who's who of the Democratic Party and western intelligentsia over the last century.

Just as progressives were generally enthusiastic about socialist movements in the Soviet Union and Europe, they were also overwhelmingly supportive of the fascist movements in Italy and Germany during the 1920s and 1930s. “In many respects,” writes journalist Jonah Goldberg, “the founding fathers of modern liberalism, the men and women who laid the intellectual groundwork of the New Deal and the welfare state, thought that fascism sounded like ... a worthwhile 'experiment'”:

H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”
The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”
The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made , an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.”
Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”
[I]McClure’s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”
After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”
Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”
NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”
New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”
Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.




Thank you for not putting words in my mouth, and I do genuinely appreciate your questions - hopefully some progress has been made towards satisfying them. If you still feel I am evading you, let me know and I can attempt to elaborate.

I try to deal in ideas, rather than personalities, which is why I tend to drive the hard-core leftists nuts. We can never beat them at personal attacks, they've written the book on it, but their ideas are bankrupt. Stick around for a while and you'll see.

Sonnabend
04-06-2013, 08:41 PM
Yes, your question will be next - I just don't have the time to write multiple long responses to this thread on work days.

That was four days ago.

Well?

LukeEDay
04-06-2013, 10:33 PM
That was four days ago.

Well?

He gave up.

Epimetheus
04-09-2013, 04:12 PM
Alright, not dead or in hiding yet - just on vacation. But while I will probably continue to be pretty inactive this week, I do have a bit of time at the moment.

Odysseus, that was an excellent response. It will take me some time to digest and get back to you, but thanks for your time.


Given the high state of histrionics in Congress, and the Failure's ideals of "reasonable gun control", where do you stand on this?
Here's a summary - some of these will come up in more detail later so probably best to respond to those sections than this:

We should not take guns away from responsible Americans or make it overly burdensome to buy/own guns...
...but I will support regulation that can be reasonably expected to reduce gun violence without breaking the two above principles
The assault weapons ban is not an example of the above. It is poor legislation.
Guns are not evil - people kill people (but they are not being caused to by Hollywood or Video Games)
Passing legislation based on emotion or hype usually leads to poor results (see Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/12/regulations_and_trade-offs)). Sweeping reform of gun control at this point would be a mistake.
The NRA proposal of putting guns, guards, and bulletproof glass at every school in response to the shooting is similarly an overreaction.



Do you think this current idea of another assault weps ban will actually achieve anything?
No, the assault weapons ban seems like a poor piece of legislation. It's vague, easy to get around, and focuses on cosmetic features of weapons.


Do you believe that the Founders were specific in that "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
Yes. However, this right was given for the purpose of allowing "a well-regulated Militia". I'm no Constitutional scholar, but this seems to allow for reasonable regulation of arms.

Now, we can argue about what constitutes 'reasonable' regulations. To me, pretty much anything short of making it illegal to buy/own guns is theoretically possible, so long as the benefit to the public can be shown. I've yet to be convinced of the effectiveness of the gun control measures we've introduced so far, but I'm open to the debate.

There seems to be agreement that we shouldn't be giving guns to the mentally ill or convicted felons, so expanding background checks and eliminating the Gun Show loophole seems to be a sensible approach to this.


Given that the last shooting was by a lunatic who a/ should never have had access to guns b/ murdered his mother to get them c/ was not a legal or licensed gun owner d./ committed yet another massacre in a so-called gun free zone and e/ as a result has Congress screaming for more "controls" when the elephant in the room is standing there, trunk swinging, with the words "Gun Free Zone" arouind his neck?
I don't believe these shooters are choosing Gun-Free Zones on purpose (or, therefore, that eliminating them would reduce the number of shootings occurring). Most are murder-suicides, with the perp either killing themselves or engaging the police in a hopeless firefight, so these people aren't looking for a location where they won't be fired upon.

I also don't believe eliminating Gun-Free Zones would limit the damage from these shootings; I'm not sure I'd trust some random Joe to respond appropriately and fire accurately in a chaotic situation. Police Officers receive a significant amount of training in how to respond to these types of stressful and fast-moving situations in a way that minimizes the risk to bystanders.

So, for the moment, I don't see any reason to get rid of gun-free zones; eliminating them wouldn't appear to reduce either the likelihood or severity of these tragedies.


Where do you stand with the fact that every single gun massacre has been in a gun free zone, including that jihadi Hassan who carried out his shooting on an Army base where..wait for it..wait for it..possession of use of firearms on the base was strictly prohibited? (And screamiong Allahu Akhbar as he did it?)
See above.


Do you believe that gun control will stop these massacres? Do you believe that gun control works?
To the first question, no. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that current regulations have prevented some violence, or that future ones could prevent more. But I don't think it would ever be possible to eliminate these types of tragedies altogether.

I haven't seen great evidence for the effectiveness gun control policy in the past, and strong evidence may always be out of reach due to the complexity of sociological factors causing crime and violence. It would be helpful to know which specific parts of gun control you disagree with to continue this discussion more specifically. Or do you believe all regulation of guns is inappropriate (even all of LBJ's Gun Control act in 1968)?


How do you handle the fact that suicide is considered a gun crime, and that more than 98% of all gun crimes are committed with illegal guns?
To an extent, I agree with your point. It is misleading to lump suicide in with murders and other violence when discussing gun violence, as people will tend to associate this statistic with the latter.

However, there is an argument that the presence of guns could be increasing suicide rates by being a lethal and available method of suicide with no preparation needed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17426563). While chronically suicidal people could find other ways to plan and commit suicide, guns may allow acute suicidal impulses to be potentially deadly as well. So I think it's fair to discuss suicide when it comes to gun control, but it should be clearly separated from violent crime when it comes to statistics.

Can you show me where the 98% statistic came from? This is surprising to me, so I'd be curious to read more.


How do you answer this cry for more gun control, based on the massacre in Belgium, whose nation enacted a total gun ban? Bear in mind the guy who did it was a three times convicted felon who got his hands on hand grenades and automatic weapons, despite all the laws that said he should never have been able to? (fat lot that did them, now, didnt it)
This is just an anecdote - a single instance. Belgium has markedly lower firearm-related deaths per capita than the US (Belgium: 0.23 homicides per 100,000, 2.43 per 100,000 including suicides. I'm not going to make the claim that Belgium is lower because of their gun control laws - I have no way to substantiate that and there are a lot of factors contributing to crime/violence/etc. Is there data showing an increase or decrease in firearm-related deaths following the total gun ban in Belgium? That would certainly be interesting to see.

Otherwise this appears to be a tragedy that could not be prevented by regulation. We'll never be able to regulate gun-violence out of existence, but that this occurred doesn't conflict with my position that if there exist reasonable regulations that will reduce violence without unduly infringing rights, they should be considered.


Do you think that any amount of "gun laws" will slow down or stop the possession and use of illegally obtained weapons?
Slow down? Maybe. Stop? No.

And whatever regulations come into effect, if any, I doubt we would ever retroactively apply them to guns that Americans already own and use.

txradioguy
04-09-2013, 04:50 PM
I doubt we would ever retroactively apply them to guns that Americans already own and use.

And yet athat's exactly what Obama and the rest f the Dems have proposed in the legislation they are shoving down our throats.

You're gonna be in for a world of surprise about how things work in the real world once you get out of school kid.

NJCardFan
04-09-2013, 05:45 PM
The NRA proposal of putting guns, guards, and bulletproof glass at every school in response to the shooting is similarly an overreaction.

And the left calling for banning assault rifles and high capacity mags and calls for banning private ownership of hand guns isn't? Limiting law abiding gun owners to only 7 bullets in a magazine isn't overreacting? My God you people are incredible hypocrites.


However, this right was given for the purpose of allowing "a well-regulated Militia".
The man who authored the amendment himself said that the militia is the whole of the people. In case this is still confusing, every swinging dick is a part of the militia.

Epimetheus
04-09-2013, 06:23 PM
And the left calling for banning assault rifles and high capacity mags and calls for banning private ownership of hand guns isn't? Limiting law abiding gun owners to only 7 bullets in a magazine isn't overreacting? My God you people are incredible hypocrites.
I noted that in the line directly above the one you quoted. I agree it would be hypocritical to support these things in the wake of a tragedy like this after dismissing the NRA's approach, but that's not what I'm doing.


And yet athat's exactly what Obama and the rest f the Dems have proposed in the legislation they are shoving down our throats.

You're gonna be in for a world of surprise about how things work in the real world once you get out of school kid.
Even Feinstein doesn't seem to be pushing for this, from what I've seen. Can you show me where Democrats are proposing retroactively applying any possible new regulations? The closest thing I've heard about is a voluntary program for people to return guns that they've purchased in return for cash at-or-above market value for their weapon. But again, this would be a voluntary program.

I've been out of school for about a year, though this is a short enough period of time that I can imagine I still sound like a student.

txradioguy
04-09-2013, 07:00 PM
I noted that in the line directly above the one you quoted. I agree it would be hypocritical to support these things in the wake of a tragedy like this after dismissing the NRA's approach, but that's not what I'm doing.

Uh-huh...sure.



Even Feinstein doesn't seem to be pushing for this, from what I've seen. Can you show me where Democrats are proposing retroactively applying any possible new regulations?

You didn't really think I'd refute your clim without evidence did you?


an the sale, transfer, importation or manufacturing of about 150 named firearms, plus certain rifles, handguns and shotguns fitted for detachable magazines and having at least one military characteristic.

- Strengthen the 1994 ban by moving from a two- to a one-characteristic test to determine what constitutes an assault weapon.

- Ban firearms with "thumbhole stocks" and "bullet buttons."

- Ban the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

- Ban high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

First off there is no such thing as an "assault" weapon. If that were the case...baseball bats and butter knives would be outlawed as well.

Many of the above named items that Franken Feinstein is trying to ban are already owned by lawful gun owners. And they would suddenly find themselves in possession of illegal items.

None of the gun grabbing measures that this Administration or the Dems are trying to pull off would have stopped ANY of the recent shootings.

Tell me...if there are already 1,600 federal laws concerning firearms and their ownership and use...what the hell is one more gonna achieve?


I've been out of school for about a year, though this is a short enough period of time that I can imagine I still sound like a student.

You sound very much like a student merely repeating what your clueless teacher has told you.

Molon Labe
04-09-2013, 07:25 PM
I see alot of confusion here.

It is impossible to separate the right to ones' life without supporting the 2nd Amendment.

ABC
04-09-2013, 09:16 PM
I see alot of confusion here.

It is impossible to separate the right to ones' life without supporting the 2nd Amendment.

I agree 100% Molon!
===============

Epi ...

I still admire you for coming back to answer the questions asked of you and your attempt to refute what the members came back with.

But, 73 posts later (or whatever it is) ... I must admit that due to medical problems on my hubby's part going on back here, plus my involvement in community planning at the moment ... I can no longer keep following this thread.

Am afraid my attention span at the moment is focused elsewhere.

In the end will have to agree with TVDOC, and what he said about being an "engineer" and your line of thinking. The two don't mix.

Good luck in here, and hopefully you will eventually "see the light!" :evil-grin:

~ ABC

Sonnabend
04-10-2013, 01:17 AM
Slow down? Maybe. Stop? No.

And whatever regulations come into effect, if any, I doubt we would ever retroactively apply them to guns that Americans already own and use.

I'm an Aussie, son, and the correct answer to my question was "No"

I come from a nation with these gun laws, and they do jack and shit to stop gun violence.

Sonnabend
04-10-2013, 11:25 PM
I don't believe these shooters are choosing Gun-Free Zones on purpose (or, therefore, that eliminating them would reduce the number of shootings occurring). Most are murder-suicides, with the perp either killing themselves or engaging the police in a hopeless firefight, so these people aren't looking for a location where they won't be fired upon.

Virtually every single gun massacre has been in a gun free zone. The only person armed was the shooter.


I also don't believe eliminating Gun-Free Zones would limit the damage from these shootings; I'm not sure I'd trust some random Joe to respond appropriately and fire accurately in a chaotic situation. Police Officers receive a significant amount of training in how to respond to these types of stressful and fast-moving situations in a way that minimizes the risk to bystanders.

I'm a shooter as well, and a recent series of tests and a small competition in my range saw me scoring more than 40% above most cops, who are not familiar with their firerarms, do not use or practice with them often enough, and any gun toting American is a better shot and knows his weapon far better than Deputy Dawg, witmness the utter stupidity opf the Los Angeles PissPoorGunMarksmanship Department when they shot at a car that was nothing like Dorners and had women inside. They lack training, they lack any form of fire discipline, and can be counted on to draw their weapons on almost any pretext, creating a worse situation when you combine that with their utter uselessness and incompetence at using anything more complicated than a slingshot.

Giving an imbecile a badge just means you've armed an idiot.


Yes. However, this right was given for the purpose of allowing "a well-regulated Militia". I'm no Constitutional scholar, but this seems to allow for reasonable regulation of arms.

The people ARE the militia, you fool.


So, for the moment, I don't see any reason to get rid of gun-free zones; eliminating them wouldn't appear to reduce either the likelihood or severity of these tragedies.

http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/gun-free-zone-cLR.jpg


Or do you believe all regulation of guns is inappropriate (even all of LBJ's Gun Control act in 1968)?

Aside from felons and the mentally ill, yes.


Can you show me where the 98% statistic came from? This is surprising to me, so I'd be curious to read more.

Sure. The regulations of illegal guns has been as successful as the war on illegal drugs. I live in a nation with huge gun laws, and I am not kidding when I tell you that within an hour, it is nowhere near impossible to get your hands on whatever you want. A recenrt gangland shooting and later arrest netted three Uzi's, grenades, there are rocket launchers still missing, guns stolen from police cars, shotguns, or if all else they make them themselves.

Making a thing illegal or restricted just means it has been driven underground. In the US as with everywhere else, whatever you want can be gotten for the right price.


Otherwise this appears to be a tragedy that could not be prevented by regulation. We'll never be able to regulate gun-violence out of existence, but that this occurred doesn't conflict with my position that if there exist reasonable regulations that will reduce violence without unduly infringing rights, they should be considered.

How's that war on drugs coming along?

Oh and here's the result of "gun control" in my city.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-shootings

NJCardFan
04-11-2013, 02:31 AM
I don't believe these shooters are choosing Gun-Free Zones on purpose

Yeah, they just happened to be floating by schools, malls, movie theaters, and supermarkets instead of biker bars, cop hang outs, and the hood because of random acts of violence. :rolleyes:


We'll never be able to regulate gun-violence out of existence,

Uh huh, and your ilk wants to put gun violence on steroids by removing guns from legal gun owners giving criminals zero resistance. Why you idiot liberals can't look at Chicago, Detroit, Camden, DC and see that more restrictive gun laws are counter productive boggles the mind . Why? Because you're too stupid to understand that at the end of the day CRIMINALS ARE GOING TO BREAK ANY LAW ON THE BOOKS BECAUSE, WELL, THEY'RE CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!!

My God you liberals are so freaking brain dead that you can't see the reality in front of your own nose.

Articulate_Ape
04-11-2013, 09:22 AM
"It is difficult to see what the causes and efects are"? Are you joking? We have a plethora of evidence what the effects of socialism are. Can you say EU? A crumbling Euro? Greece? France, Italy? Portugal? Germany? And all the rest? Good grief, man. We have witnessed and are witnessing the fruits of socialism every day, even in our own nation. What sane country would strive toward an economic model that is failing miserably right before its eyes?

We are tooling down a dangerous road and the Left (aka Liberals) is at the wheel. Wake up and smell the coffee, dude. If you are not a conservative in these day of destruction, you are on the wrong side of history.

txradioguy
04-11-2013, 10:11 AM
"It is difficult to see what the causes and efects are"? Are you joking? We have a plethora of evidence what the effects of socialism are. Can you say EU? A crumbling Euro? Greece? France, Italy? Portugal? Germany? And all the rest? Good grief, man. We have witnessed and are witnessing the fruits of socialism every day, even in our own nation. What sane country would strive toward an economic model that is failing miserably right before its eyes?

We are tooling down a dangerous road and the Left (aka Liberals) is at the wheel. Wake up and smell the coffee, dude. If you are not a conservative in these day of destruction, you are on the wrong side of history.

QFT

Odysseus
04-11-2013, 12:38 PM
Alright, not dead or in hiding yet - just on vacation. But while I will probably continue to be pretty inactive this week, I do have a bit of time at the moment.

Odysseus, that was an excellent response. It will take me some time to digest and get back to you, but thanks for your time.

Glad to be of help. I suspect that you are actually not impervious to reason, and many liberals are, and may thus be open to ideas that you've never been exposed to before. I'm always happy to teach.


Yes. However, this right was given for the purpose of allowing "a well-regulated Militia". I'm no Constitutional scholar, but this seems to allow for reasonable regulation of arms.

A few points. First, none of the rights in the Bill of Rights were "given" to us. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, which places limits on the federal government, not on the people. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are actually constraints on the authority of the federal government. For example, the First Amendment states, not that the people retain the rights to freedom of speech, worship or redress of grievance, but that congress shall make no law abridging those rights (and since congress was the sole legislative body, it was a blanket ban on federal constraints on these rights). The source of the authority of the federal government is the people, and the militia, as defined at the time and in subsequent legal writings, has always been the whole of the people. The congress has no more power to disarm the people than a minor child has to disarm his parents.


Now, we can argue about what constitutes 'reasonable' regulations. To me, pretty much anything short of making it illegal to buy/own guns is theoretically possible, so long as the benefit to the public can be shown. I've yet to be convinced of the effectiveness of the gun control measures we've introduced so far, but I'm open to the debate.

There seems to be agreement that we shouldn't be giving guns to the mentally ill or convicted felons, so expanding background checks and eliminating the Gun Show loophole seems to be a sensible approach to this.

Let us compare, again, the First and Second Amendments. One can argue that the founders' concern for free speech never anticipated the technological changes of mass printing, electronic broadcasting, social media or any of the other innovations which have made communications far faster and more pervasive than they were in colonial times. One can further argue that the abuse of free speech by the press has led to all manner of violence (media outlets have created wars, incited mobs, subverted the democratic process, corrupted politicians and destroyed empires), much more so than a single firearm in the hands of a madman. If the pen is mightier than the sword, then the 24-hour news network is a WMD, and a single columnist in the NY Times is more dangerous than a dozen Nidal Hasans. So, with that in mind, what "reasonable regulations" would you trust the government to impose on the media?


I don't believe these shooters are choosing Gun-Free Zones on purpose (or, therefore, that eliminating them would reduce the number of shootings occurring). Most are murder-suicides, with the perp either killing themselves or engaging the police in a hopeless firefight, so these people aren't looking for a location where they won't be fired upon.

You're wrong. The shooters don't turn their guns on themselves until the police have arrived and they are no longer able to continue killing. Many of them don't kill themselves, but count on the police to do it for them, and seek the opportunity to kill the most helpless people that they can find. This is why schools are especially inviting targets. Unarmed teachers and large numbers of children are the perfect victims for an armed killer. Every mass shooting of the last few years has been in a designated gun-free zone, with one exception, and that was the shooting of Gabby Giffords, which was more of a political assassination in execution than a planned mass murder.


I also don't believe eliminating Gun-Free Zones would limit the damage from these shootings; I'm not sure I'd trust some random Joe to respond appropriately and fire accurately in a chaotic situation. Police Officers receive a significant amount of training in how to respond to these types of stressful and fast-moving situations in a way that minimizes the risk to bystanders.

And yet, you are willing to trust some random Joe to elect the politicians who will establish the standards for police training and resonse? The authority to protect citizens is not a power that police take from a vaccuum, it is a delegated right of self-defense, and we are the ones who delegate it. We don't abrogate that right when we delegate it, and those who assume that it's a matter of trusting the average person to do the right thing miss the point, that it's a choice between trusting yourself, your friends, your neighbors and your community with the power of life or death, or trusting the career politicians who have increasingly become a class unto themselves with that power. You're assuming that a random Joe will or won't protect you when the time comes, but that misses the point, which is that you, as an adult citizen, have the right and responsibility to protect yourself. Don't worry about what Joe will do, but be prepared to do what you need to when the time comes. Take responsibility, rather than evade it.

So, for the moment, I don't see any reason to get rid of gun-free zones; eliminating them wouldn't appear to reduce either the likelihood or severity of these tragedies.


See above.


To the first question, no. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that current regulations have prevented some violence, or that future ones could prevent more. But I don't think it would ever be possible to eliminate these types of tragedies altogether.

I haven't seen great evidence for the effectiveness gun control policy in the past, and strong evidence may always be out of reach due to the complexity of sociological factors causing crime and violence. It would be helpful to know which specific parts of gun control you disagree with to continue this discussion more specifically. Or do you believe all regulation of guns is inappropriate (even all of LBJ's Gun Control act in 1968)?


To an extent, I agree with your point. It is misleading to lump suicide in with murders and other violence when discussing gun violence, as people will tend to associate this statistic with the latter.

However, there is an argument that the presence of guns could be increasing suicide rates by being a lethal and available method of suicide with no preparation needed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17426563). While chronically suicidal people could find other ways to plan and commit suicide, guns may allow acute suicidal impulses to be potentially deadly as well. So I think it's fair to discuss suicide when it comes to gun control, but it should be clearly separated from violent crime when it comes to statistics.

Can you show me where the 98% statistic came from? This is surprising to me, so I'd be curious to read more.


This is just an anecdote - a single instance. Belgium has markedly lower firearm-related deaths per capita than the US (Belgium: 0.23 homicides per 100,000, 2.43 per 100,000 including suicides. I'm not going to make the claim that Belgium is lower because of their gun control laws - I have no way to substantiate that and there are a lot of factors contributing to crime/violence/etc. Is there data showing an increase or decrease in firearm-related deaths following the total gun ban in Belgium? That would certainly be interesting to see.

Otherwise this appears to be a tragedy that could not be prevented by regulation. We'll never be able to regulate gun-violence out of existence, but that this occurred doesn't conflict with my position that if there exist reasonable regulations that will reduce violence without unduly infringing rights, they should be considered.


Slow down? Maybe. Stop? No.

And whatever regulations come into effect, if any, I doubt we would ever retroactively apply them to guns that Americans already own and use.[/QUOTE]


I noted that in the line directly above the one you quoted. I agree it would be hypocritical to support these things in the wake of a tragedy like this after dismissing the NRA's approach, but that's not what I'm doing.


Even Feinstein doesn't seem to be pushing for this, from what I've seen. Can you show me where Democrats are proposing retroactively applying any possible new regulations? The closest thing I've heard about is a voluntary program for people to return guns that they've purchased in return for cash at-or-above market value for their weapon. But again, this would be a voluntary program.

I've been out of school for about a year, though this is a short enough period of time that I can imagine I still sound like a student.


Uh-huh...sure.




You didn't really think I'd refute your clim without evidence did you?



First off there is no such thing as an "assault" weapon. If that were the case...baseball bats and butter knives would be outlawed as well.

Many of the above named items that Franken Feinstein is trying to ban are already owned by lawful gun owners. And they would suddenly find themselves in possession of illegal items.

None of the gun grabbing measures that this Administration or the Dems are trying to pull off would have stopped ANY of the recent shootings.

Tell me...if there are already 1,600 federal laws concerning firearms and their ownership and use...what the hell is one more gonna achieve?



You sound very much like a student merely repeating what your clueless teacher has told you.

One point, which is that there is a specific definition of assault weapons, derived from the first true assault rifle, the MP44 Sturmgehwer. An assault weapon is a firearm capable of selective fire (that is, it can fire semi-auto or full-auto). The M-16 is an assault weapon. The semi-automatic copy of the M-16, the AR-15, is not. Assault weapons are already illegal, or at least regulated to the point of de facto illegality. The weapons that Feinstein claims to want to ban (as opposed to the weapons that she admits to wanting to ban when she's off-camera) are not assault weapons.

NJCardFan
04-11-2013, 01:47 PM
Does everyone else find it funny that liberals want to ban guns but legalize drugs? In 2010, there were 31,000+ gun related deaths(suicide/homicide/accident) however there were 38,000+ deaths due to drug overdoses.

Rockntractor
04-11-2013, 02:12 PM
Does everyone else find it funny that liberals want to ban guns but legalize drugs? In 2010, there were 31,000+ gun related deaths(suicide/homicide/accident) however there were 38,000+ deaths due to drug overdoses.

Progressives made drugs illegal in the first place, they even had alcohol illegal for a time, they are riding a different hobby horse this time. Politicians have thought that by spouting the mantra that they are saving the children it will help them hold their political power, there is also the obvious fact that the people will have less power and also that a drugged population is even less powerful.

txradioguy
04-11-2013, 02:49 PM
Does everyone else find it funny that liberals want to ban guns but legalize drugs? In 2010, there were 31,000+ gun related deaths(suicide/homicide/accident) however there were 38,000+ deaths due to drug overdoses.

Or the fact that they want to ban smoking but are more than willing to let pot smokers suck all kinds of unfiltered crap into their lungs via a joint.

Molon Labe
04-11-2013, 03:53 PM
Does everyone else find it funny that liberals want to ban guns but legalize drugs? In 2010, there were 31,000+ gun related deaths(suicide/homicide/accident) however there were 38,000+ deaths due to drug overdoses.


http://brainsyndicate.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/gun.jpg?w=529&h=604

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BADcheBCcAAlZR2.jpg

http://gopthedailydose.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DO-YOU-REALLLY-THINK-THEY-HAD-A-GUN-PROBLEM.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CjJj3vAD-MA/US4UIF_EzcI/AAAAAAAABRs/UzRseTS6qGk/s1600/734512_10151649404825432_882703382_n.png

http://inkslingerblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/602937_192858847524217_1235130692_n.jpg

Janice
04-11-2013, 06:06 PM
I dont know how many murders are attributed to gun deaths but we know that according to ... "the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a report last August finding that CAFE contributes to between 1,300 and 2,600 traffic deaths per year."

- NRO, CAFE Kills (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/315236/cafe-kills-michelle-malkin)

And that ... "Depending on which study you choose, the total ranges from 41,600 to 124,800. To that figure we can add between 352,000 and 624,000 people suffering serious injuries, including being crippled for life. In the past thirty years, fuel standards have become one of the major causes of death and misery in the United States -- and one almost completely attributable to human stupidity and shortsightedness."

Also ... "According to the Brookings Institution, a 500-lb weight reduction of the average car increased annual highway fatalities by 2,200-3,900 and serious injuries by 11,000 and 19,500 per year. USA Today found that 7,700 deaths occurred for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards. Smaller cars accounted for up to 12,144 deaths in 1997, 37% of all vehicle fatalities for that year.

More@AmericanThinker - April 13, 2010 (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/death_by_cafe_standards.html)

And finally ... "the same cast of fable-tellers who falsely accused Mitt Romney of murdering a steelworker’s cancer-stricken wife is now directly imposing a draconian environmental regulation that will cost untold American lives.

On Tuesday, the administration announced that it had finalized “historic” new fuel-efficiency standards. (Everything’s “historic” with these narcissists, isn’t it?) President Obama took a break from his historic fundraising drive to proclaim that “by the middle of the next decade, our cars will get nearly 55 miles per gallon, almost double what they get today. It’ll strengthen our nation’s energy security, it’s good for middle-class families, and it will help create an economy built to last.”

NRO - August 29, 2012 (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/315236/cafe-kills-michelle-malkin)

"All kinds of impressive results are being promised for this latest set of regulations. It will "save" 1.8 billion barrels of oil over an otherwise unspecified "program life." It will reduce CO2 emissions by 960 million metric tons. It will, in other words, do all the swell things that the previous standards somehow failed to do.

What we don't hear is how many motorists and passengers will be killed. The Obama mileage standards are jammed up right at the very edge of the technically feasible -- and perhaps beyond. Automobile technology has progressed substantially since the 1970s, and gas mileage can be increased by utilizing a number of technical advances including computerization, fuel injection, stop-start engines, and hybrid vehicles. But the Obama standards demand more. As in the original CAFE legislation, they demand cars that are chopped down, lightened, and diminished. They demand cars that will kill their drivers and passengers.

With these new standards, a kind of threshold has been passed. Liberal policies are killer policies. Since the early 1960s, liberal programs, whether dealing with criminal justice, health care, the environment, or any other aspect of society, have brought premature death to an increasing number of Americans."

Death by CAFE Standards (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/death_by_cafe_standards.html)

I suppose my point being, our govt is pulling all the stops to impose new gun regulations (as if we dont have enough now... that are ignored or not enforced) which will not save one life. Yet, they completely ignore the onerous cafe standards (killing 10s of thousands and mutilating hundreds of thousands). Governments get away with things that private companies cant. Even policies that enable deaths outnumbering those of all American wars of the past seventy years. Deaths that are unnecessary, deaths that can be avoided, deaths that are being encouraged in order to solve problems that can be overcome in any number of other ways.

Sonnabend
04-14-2013, 12:15 AM
Odysseus: Gun control and suicide: the death rate amongst teens and early 20's adults in this country is three tiems the national average, and the restruictive gun laws have been in place a lot longer, yet the suicide rate continues. A lot of deaths are teens or early 20's and cars at highh speed. Want to bet that not all of them are "accidents"?





434 suicide deaths at ages 15 to 24 years were registered in Australia in 1995






Suicide accounted for 25 percent (n=350) of all male deaths and 17 percent (n=84) of all female deaths in this age group in 1995






Admission to hospital because of intentional self-injury is about 10 times as common as death due to suicide for young adults in Australia, and is more common for females than males.






The rate of suicide among males aged 15 to 24 in 1990 was about 3 times higher than the rate in 1960. The rate has not risen further since 1990.






Suicide rates for young Aboriginal males are higher than for non-Aboriginal males






Hanging and shooting are the commonest methods of suicide by young males; poisoning by solid or liquid substances and hanging are commonest for females.






The rate of suicide by means of hanging has risen greatly; shooting suicide has declined.







When countries for which suicide data are published by the World Health Organization are ranked according to rates for young males, Australia ranks in the highest third.






http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/its-time-to-confront-the-deadliest-demon-of-them-all-20101102-17c9c.html


About 100 Australian boys and girls complete suicide each year. That's one bright light extinguished every four days. Research indicates that for every suicide there are 10 to 20 attempts. That equates to as many as five children a day across Australia.

and
http://www.aipc.net.au/articles/?p=320



Nearly half (49 per cent) of male suicide deaths in 2004 were by hanging.


Poisoning accounted for 28 per cent of male suicide deaths.
Hanging and poison accounted for the same percentage (40 per cent each) in female suicides.
Death by firearms and explosives has continued to decline from 420 suicides in 1994 (19 per cent of suicide deaths in that year) to 169 deaths by these methods in 2004 (representing 8 per cent of suicide deaths). (Heuvel, 2006)

They couldnt get access to guns, so they hanged themselves instead. All gun control has done is change the method...the kids are still dying. Gun control has nothing to do with youth or other suicide, save in the method of their death.

Net effect of gun control as a tool to slow the suicide rate: NIL. Something the gun grabbers will never admit.

ASquareDealer
04-15-2013, 05:03 PM
Not everyone who is to the left of Barry Goldwater thinks, feels and acts the same way or supports the same thing.
By the metrics of this site, I'd be considered a Liberal. But then, I have nothing against guns or the NRA and support guns only being kept out of the hands of those convicted of violent offenses. Otherwise, I quite like guns. I don't view gun owners as evil in any way, shape or form.

I don't think Mao, Chavez, Fidel or Che were good people or admirable in any way. They were bloody, ruthless revolutionaries and dictators who preferred the way of totalitarianism because they knew the public didn't truly support them. In a Democratic Republic, the people rule through representation, and that is the way it should be.

I believe things like the legalization of marijuana and gay marriage should probably be left to the states to decide.

I don't believe in an all consuming burecracy and government regulating everything to death, but I also don't believe in Laissez-Faire Capitalism. We shouln't be the USSR but neither should we be the Wild West.

I believe in social programs, but only for those who actully need them. The main problem with some of our social programs is that they're stretched beyond what they were envisioned to be and have come to encompass more than they were ever intended to. Does that mean they should be entirely eliminated? I don't believe so, I just believe they need to be reformed.

I am not anti-business nor pro-labor. I believe both big business and powerful labor, when working properly, benefit society, and I believe both need to be kept in check in a way that is beneficial to both the employer and employee. Anti-trust laws protect corporations by creating competition; Corporation helps society, an employee helps the corporation by doing the work, a union protects the rights, benefits and treatment of the employee--Simple, but that's the way it should be.

I view Liberalism as in a general sense, a desire to reform certain things in society seen as unpleasant, using the Federal Government to do so. Sometimes, big government projects do yield worthwhile results, for example the Interstate Highway System and the Moon landing or the Civil Rights Acts of the '60s. Sometimes, the federal government is indeed needed. Not for every answer, but there are some areas I believe the Federal government does it better than state or local governments. Look at Little Rock, Arkansas in the '50s.

I believe in public education and that access to a decent education should be available no matter how much one has, but that the public education system has a lot of flaws that need fixing. But on that I am of the "mend it, don't end it" philosophy. Simply fix the problems--don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Socialism and Communism to me are quite different than Liberalism, as I see it. A Liberal would call for regulations over businesses in a capitalist society, wherein the businessman would still own and operate his business, just with regulations in the areas of environmental, work and product safety. A Socialist would argue for the utter nationalization of businesses, with control of the businesses operated by the state. A Communist would argue for a classless society where everyone in a sense owns the business, with no true boss.

A liberal, I feel, believes in the class system; that we have a upper, middle and lower class, and tend to try to strengthen the middle class and uplift the lower class, but accept that there will always be rich and poor people. A Socialist and a Communist feel that there should be no class--that the rich and poor should not exist, that a surgeon should make the same amount as a janitor--and that is just insanity.

A liberal, at least as I see it, is a reformer. A person trying to improve on capitalism, not end it or eliminate it. Socialism and Communism and other Marxist viewpoints view Capitalism as just a step to Communism, which is utopia to them. I believe regulated Capitalism to be the perfect form of government there is, and I believe within the framework of Capitalism, we can have things like public education or Social Security or Medicare.

LukeEDay
04-15-2013, 09:04 PM
Not everyone who is to the left of Barry Goldwater thinks, feels and acts the same way or supports the same thing.
By the metrics of this site, I'd be considered a Liberal. But then, I have nothing against guns or the NRA and support guns only being kept out of the hands of those convicted of violent offenses. Otherwise, I quite like guns. I don't view gun owners as evil in any way, shape or form.

I don't think Mao, Chavez, Fidel or Che were good people or admirable in any way. They were bloody, ruthless revolutionaries and dictators who preferred the way of totalitarianism because they knew the public didn't truly support them. In a Democratic Republic, the people rule through representation, and that is the way it should be.

I believe things like the legalization of marijuana and gay marriage should probably be left to the states to decide.

I don't believe in an all consuming burecracy and government regulating everything to death, but I also don't believe in Laissez-Faire Capitalism. We shouln't be the USSR but neither should we be the Wild West.

I believe in social programs, but only for those who actully need them. The main problem with some of our social programs is that they're stretched beyond what they were envisioned to be and have come to encompass more than they were ever intended to. Does that mean they should be entirely eliminated? I don't believe so, I just believe they need to be reformed.

I am not anti-business nor pro-labor. I believe both big business and powerful labor, when working properly, benefit society, and I believe both need to be kept in check in a way that is beneficial to both the employer and employee. Anti-trust laws protect corporations by creating competition; Corporation helps society, an employee helps the corporation by doing the work, a union protects the rights, benefits and treatment of the employee--Simple, but that's the way it should be.

I view Liberalism as in a general sense, a desire to reform certain things in society seen as unpleasant, using the Federal Government to do so. Sometimes, big government projects do yield worthwhile results, for example the Interstate Highway System and the Moon landing or the Civil Rights Acts of the '60s. Sometimes, the federal government is indeed needed. Not for every answer, but there are some areas I believe the Federal government does it better than state or local governments. Look at Little Rock, Arkansas in the '50s.

I believe in public education and that access to a decent education should be available no matter how much one has, but that the public education system has a lot of flaws that need fixing. But on that I am of the "mend it, don't end it" philosophy. Simply fix the problems--don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Socialism and Communism to me are quite different than Liberalism, as I see it. A Liberal would call for regulations over businesses in a capitalist society, wherein the businessman would still own and operate his business, just with regulations in the areas of environmental, work and product safety. A Socialist would argue for the utter nationalization of businesses, with control of the businesses operated by the state. A Communist would argue for a classless society where everyone in a sense owns the business, with no true boss.

A liberal, I feel, believes in the class system; that we have a upper, middle and lower class, and tend to try to strengthen the middle class and uplift the lower class, but accept that there will always be rich and poor people. A Socialist and a Communist feel that there should be no class--that the rich and poor should not exist, that a surgeon should make the same amount as a janitor--and that is just insanity.

A liberal, at least as I see it, is a reformer. A person trying to improve on capitalism, not end it or eliminate it. Socialism and Communism and other Marxist viewpoints view Capitalism as just a step to Communism, which is utopia to them. I believe regulated Capitalism to be the perfect form of government there is, and I believe within the framework of Capitalism, we can have things like public education or Social Security or Medicare.


Liberals want the government to control everything. This is why they are called socialists.

Most liberals are socialist and communist.. So they are one in the same. You won't find any Conservative that is a socialist. All Communists and Socialists are LIBERAL ...

Liberals do believe in class. Why do you think they are always pushing class warfare? The thing with it though that they don't care about the little guy. They only care about themselves and what it is in it for them.

Liberalism isn't trying to improve capitalism, they are trying to destroy it. They are trying to shove more socialism until everyone is dependent on the Government, at which point no one will get anything because no one is working to pay taxes. Socialism is all find and dandy until it runs out of other peoples money.

How is the hell is Capitalism a step to communism? They are completely opposite .... Where do you get your information from? Who ever is telling you this stuff doesn't know jack ...

Capitalism is a great thing. I also agree that we need some socialist groups. Like what you mentioned. But making everything government ran? I don't think so, scooter.

You just mentioned a big pile of crap. My head hurts now, I also felt my IQ drop from reading your post..

ASquareDealer
04-22-2013, 01:59 AM
Liberals want the government to control everything. This is why they are called socialists.

Most liberals are socialist and communist.. So they are one in the same. You won't find any Conservative that is a socialist. All Communists and Socialists are LIBERAL ...

Liberals do believe in class. Why do you think they are always pushing class warfare? The thing with it though that they don't care about the little guy. They only care about themselves and what it is in it for them.

Liberalism isn't trying to improve capitalism, they are trying to destroy it. They are trying to shove more socialism until everyone is dependent on the Government, at which point no one will get anything because no one is working to pay taxes. Socialism is all find and dandy until it runs out of other peoples money.

How is the hell is Capitalism a step to communism? They are completely opposite .... Where do you get your information from? Who ever is telling you this stuff doesn't know jack ...

Capitalism is a great thing. I also agree that we need some socialist groups. Like what you mentioned. But making everything government ran? I don't think so, scooter.

You just mentioned a big pile of crap. My head hurts now, I also felt my IQ drop from reading your post..

As to the bolded...I don't believe that myself, but that is what Communists believe. Marx laid that out in the Communist Manifesto. He viewed society as a series of stages, from feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, to communism. To Marx and Marxists, capitalism is just a step in the road to communism. I don't believe in that myself...but that's what Marxists believe in.

I disagree with your assertions that most liberals are socialists or communists. Most people are Liberals. I know very few among the that would also call themselves Socialists or Communists.

Only hard core radicals want to destroy Capitalism. Liberal reformers just try to make Capitalism better. The New Deal for example basically made Capitalism better. Ask any real Socialist or Communist and they'll tell you how FDR was nothing but a sell out to Wall Street and how the New Deal protected Capitalism at a time when Capitalism could've died in the US.

Janice
04-22-2013, 07:48 AM
This thing that SquareDealer describes sounds like classic liberalism, not the liberalism that we see around us today.

LukeEDay
04-22-2013, 12:06 PM
As to the bolded...I don't believe that myself, but that is what Communists believe. Marx laid that out in the Communist Manifesto. He viewed society as a series of stages, from feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, to communism. To Marx and Marxists, capitalism is just a step in the road to communism. I don't believe in that myself...but that's what Marxists believe in.

I disagree with your assertions that most liberals are socialists or communists. Most people are Liberals. I know very few among the that would also call themselves Socialists or Communists.

Only hard core radicals want to destroy Capitalism. Liberal reformers just try to make Capitalism better. The New Deal for example basically made Capitalism better. Ask any real Socialist or Communist and they'll tell you how FDR was nothing but a sell out to Wall Street and how the New Deal protected Capitalism at a time when Capitalism could've died in the US.


That just goes to show that Marxists are stupid. And look at the way it is, ALL COMMUNISTS AND SOCIALISTS ARE LIBERALS. You will never find a Conservative that is a communist or socialist. As for FDR, he was not only the worst President we have ever had, he is also the father of the entitlement generation (And huge tax rates - his tax rates were as high as 94%). He started the socialistic programs we have today and has ruined the countries working class for it. Now all you have are a bunch of lazy people who refuse to get a job, and enjoy living off the people who work for what they have while calling welfare an entitlement. WELFARE IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT!

Another note about FDR: He was a major racist, and a major supporter of Unions. His policies were not helping, they were in fact making things worse. WW II is what got us out of the Great Depression, not FDR's New Deal. Tell that to a socialist agenda shoving history teacher.



This thing that SquareDealer describes sounds like classic liberalism, not the liberalism that we see around us today.


I think he needs to learn a little more about what he is saying. Whoever is feeding him this crap is way off with their theories.

Odysseus
04-22-2013, 12:55 PM
Odysseus: Gun control and suicide: the death rate amongst teens and early 20's adults in this country is three tiems the national average, and the restruictive gun laws have been in place a lot longer, yet the suicide rate continues. A lot of deaths are teens or early 20's and cars at highh speed. Want to bet that not all of them are "accidents"?





434 suicide deaths at ages 15 to 24 years were registered in Australia in 1995






Suicide accounted for 25 percent (n=350) of all male deaths and 17 percent (n=84) of all female deaths in this age group in 1995






Admission to hospital because of intentional self-injury is about 10 times as common as death due to suicide for young adults in Australia, and is more common for females than males.






The rate of suicide among males aged 15 to 24 in 1990 was about 3 times higher than the rate in 1960. The rate has not risen further since 1990.






Suicide rates for young Aboriginal males are higher than for non-Aboriginal males






Hanging and shooting are the commonest methods of suicide by young males; poisoning by solid or liquid substances and hanging are commonest for females.






The rate of suicide by means of hanging has risen greatly; shooting suicide has declined.







When countries for which suicide data are published by the World Health Organization are ranked according to rates for young males, Australia ranks in the highest third.






http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/its-time-to-confront-the-deadliest-demon-of-them-all-20101102-17c9c.html



and
http://www.aipc.net.au/articles/?p=320


They couldnt get access to guns, so they hanged themselves instead. All gun control has done is change the method...the kids are still dying. Gun control has nothing to do with youth or other suicide, save in the method of their death.

Net effect of gun control as a tool to slow the suicide rate: NIL. Something the gun grabbers will never admit.
In Canada, a similar ban led to an increase in the number of suicides by jumping off of bridges and buildings. I do not know of any successful attempts at regulating building heights, or bans on so-called "assault bridges" (yes, there is such a thing, see below), but one can never truly be absurd enough to parody the thought process of Progressives.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/97wolverine.gif


Not everyone who is to the left of Barry Goldwater thinks, feels and acts the same way or supports the same thing.
By the metrics of this site, I'd be considered a Liberal. But then, I have nothing against guns or the NRA and support guns only being kept out of the hands of those convicted of violent offenses. Otherwise, I quite like guns. I don't view gun owners as evil in any way, shape or form.

I don't think Mao, Chavez, Fidel or Che were good people or admirable in any way. They were bloody, ruthless revolutionaries and dictators who preferred the way of totalitarianism because they knew the public didn't truly support them. In a Democratic Republic, the people rule through representation, and that is the way it should be.

I believe things like the legalization of marijuana and gay marriage should probably be left to the states to decide.

The only issue with the state recognition of gay marriage (rather than the legality or illegality of it, which is not the issue, as there is no law forbidding two men or two women to have a ceremony, exchange rings or otherwise pretend to be married), is the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, which would compel all states to extend recognition to marriages performed in one state. This was the same situation that forced the states to accept the "quickie" no-fault divorces available in Nevada, prior to the adoption of more liberalized divorce laws throughout the country. One can argue the merits and consequences of no-fault divorce, but the existence of a single state in which no-fault was permitted with minimal residency requirements ended up imposing it on the rest of the states, regardless of their wishes. Similarly, states which issued marriage licenses to gay couples now had an argument for demanding that states in which gay marriages were not valid be compelled to accept their standard and provide the same benefits and legal recognition as they did, thus circumventing the legislatures and referenda. This is about as undemocratic as it gets, with a minority of states (or worse, a couple of judges in one or two states) imposing their will on the majorities of the states and on the people.


I don't believe in an all consuming burecracy and government regulating everything to death, but I also don't believe in Laissez-Faire Capitalism. We shouln't be the USSR but neither should we be the Wild West.

Again, you're not looking at the big picture. The gradual elevation of mundane government matters to the federal level (in everything from education to law enforcement) has created a massive federal bureaucracy to deal with issues that the state and local governments can handle much more efficiently. The reason for this is what I refer to as the pistol vs. the missile analogy. If I want to get a 100% certainty of striking a target, I have to be within the effective range of the weapon that I am using. To strike a target with a pistol, I have to be within 50 meters. If I want to engage something further out with the same degree of certainty, I have to use a weapon with a greater complexity and greater payload. At 1,000 meters, that weapon is a sniper rifle, with a more complex targeting system and a heavier, more powerful bullet. At ranges of over a mile, it's artillery (which requires a forward observer, and even bigger bullets), and if it's across the continent, it's a ballistic missile or a drone (with a far more complex targeting system and a warhead capable of obliterating a target which I cannot see or otherwise engage directly until I have eyes on it). The farther away the target, the more complex the targeting system. Now, if I want to engage a person who claims to need a new pair of shoes, which is easier, buying the shoes for the guy next door, who I personally know and can confirm that he is working hard but going through a rough patch, or buying them for someone across the country, who I have never met, do not know, and cannot ascertain whether or not he really needs the shoes or is milking the system? The delivery systems for social services become more complex, and the payloads become greater, when you expand their reach across the continent. The simple purchase of a needed item at close range requires a bureaucrat who can oversee the delivery at a greater range, and a whole support mechanism for the bureaucracy at far greater ranges. Transcontinental welfare programs cost far more than local ones for that very simple reason. Transcontinental education puts unresponsive bureaucracies in charge of education decisions, rather than local school boards and parents, who have the greatest interest in the outcomes of those decisions. Transcontinental environmental laws supplant property owners and local governments with bureaucratic controls that are indifferent to the costs imposed locally.


I believe in social programs, but only for those who actully need them. The main problem with some of our social programs is that they're stretched beyond what they were envisioned to be and have come to encompass more than they were ever intended to. Does that mean they should be entirely eliminated? I don't believe so, I just believe they need to be reformed.

But how do you reform a program which, by its very nature, must be more expensive and complex at the federal level, except by devolving it to the states?


I am not anti-business nor pro-labor. I believe both big business and powerful labor, when working properly, benefit society, and I believe both need to be kept in check in a way that is beneficial to both the employer and employee. Anti-trust laws protect corporations by creating competition; Corporation helps society, an employee helps the corporation by doing the work, a union protects the rights, benefits and treatment of the employee--Simple, but that's the way it should be.

There are some fallacies here. First, anti-trust laws don't create competition, they regulate it, mostly for the benefit of politically connected corporations and the detrement of those who aren't connected. The most blatant recent example was the prosecution of Microsoft in the 90s, on behalf of companies that had lobbied the Clinton Administration for relief. In the case of the last major financial crisis, the large banks had been permitted to conduct mergers and acquisitions until they became "too big to fail" and ended up as wards of the state. The auto industry bailout was another example of government spending decades picking winners and losers, and then subsidizing the winners that it picked when they were no longer competitive. Second, unions do not protect the rights, benefits and treatment of the employee. Unions are cartels, just like OPEC, but the commodity that they seek to restrict is labor. If a company needed steel to build cars, would you accept it if a cartel within the steel industry colluded to raise the price, and then engaged in violent reprisals against those steel mills that didn't participate? Of course not. But when a union declares itself the sole representative of labor, and engages strikers, saboteurs and thugs to prevent free laborers from taking the jobs that they refuse to do, you don't see the same immorality at play, thanks in large part to the propaganda of unions and their enablers in the media.


I view Liberalism as in a general sense, a desire to reform certain things in society seen as unpleasant, using the Federal Government to do so. Sometimes, big government projects do yield worthwhile results, for example the Interstate Highway System and the Moon landing or the Civil Rights Acts of the '60s. Sometimes, the federal government is indeed needed. Not for every answer, but there are some areas I believe the Federal government does it better than state or local governments. Look at Little Rock, Arkansas in the '50s.

The Interstate Highway System and the Moon Landings were the result of military competition between the US and other countries (The Highway System started out as a defense appropriation, and was sold as a means of rapidly mobilizing forces in the event of invasion or national emergency, the same justifications which were used to develop Germany's Autobahn prior to WWII). The Civil Rights Acts were the result of prior government failures to protect the rights of Americans. They were necessary, to be sure, but they would not have been so if the federal government had not acquiesced to the terror campaign of the KKK in the immediate post Civil War era, ending Reconstruction in return for an end to a return to relative normalcy. The subsequent segregation of the federal civil service (by that Progressive hero, Woodrow Wilson) and the refusal of Democratic administrations to defend African American rights, created the need for court intervention.

Odysseus
04-22-2013, 12:55 PM
I believe in public education and that access to a decent education should be available no matter how much one has, but that the public education system has a lot of flaws that need fixing. But on that I am of the "mend it, don't end it" philosophy. Simply fix the problems--don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Again. we end up with the missile analogy. Federalization of education began with the creation of the Department of Education in 1977. Since then, American education standards have declined precipitously. Progressives favor continuing this state of affairs, because it gives them more control over education, but the end result screws over children, who find themselves poorly equipped to deal with a competitive world.


Socialism and Communism to me are quite different than Liberalism, as I see it. A Liberal would call for regulations over businesses in a capitalist society, wherein the businessman would still own and operate his business, just with regulations in the areas of environmental, work and product safety. A Socialist would argue for the utter nationalization of businesses, with control of the businesses operated by the state. A Communist would argue for a classless society where everyone in a sense owns the business, with no true boss.

A system in which titular ownership of the means of production is permitted in the context of government regulation and mandates is not liberalism, it is fascism, or corporatism. The Fascist state permits a property owner to keep the title to his factory or farm, but dictates prices paid for commodities (including labor), madates work rules (hours worked, benefits, terms of contracts, etc.) and determines which businesses will be permitted to have access to scarce raw materials or infrastructure. Failing businesses are subsidized, while successful ones are penalyzed if they are not politically connected.


A liberal, I feel, believes in the class system; that we have a upper, middle and lower class, and tend to try to strengthen the middle class and uplift the lower class, but accept that there will always be rich and poor people. A Socialist and a Communist feel that there should be no class--that the rich and poor should not exist, that a surgeon should make the same amount as a janitor--and that is just insanity.

But the liberal who seeks to use government to manipulate classes is doing the same thing as a socialist or a communist, just to a different degree. If a liberal seeks to restrict what a doctor can charge a poor person, then the liberal is imposing an income transfer between the doctor and his patient, which has the same end result as the decree that doctors shall be paid the same as laborers. The insanity is cloaked by moderate rhetoric, but no amount of moderate rhetoric can cloak the end result, which is failure.


A liberal, at least as I see it, is a reformer. A person trying to improve on capitalism, not end it or eliminate it. Socialism and Communism and other Marxist viewpoints view Capitalism as just a step to Communism, which is utopia to them. I believe regulated Capitalism to be the perfect form of government there is, and I believe within the framework of Capitalism, we can have things like public education or Social Security or Medicare.

The Marxist who seeks to impose a utopia seeks to "improve" capitalism, too, since both the liberal and the Marxist see capitalism as flawed and in need of reform. The Marxist's reforms are almost identical to the liberal's reforms, except in terms of degree, which is why both end up failing.


As to the bolded...I don't believe that myself, but that is what Communists believe. Marx laid that out in the Communist Manifesto. He viewed society as a series of stages, from feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, to communism. To Marx and Marxists, capitalism is just a step in the road to communism. I don't believe in that myself...but that's what Marxists believe in.

I disagree with your assertions that most liberals are socialists or communists. Most people are Liberals. I know very few among the that would also call themselves Socialists or Communists.

Only hard core radicals want to destroy Capitalism. Liberal reformers just try to make Capitalism better. The New Deal for example basically made Capitalism better. Ask any real Socialist or Communist and they'll tell you how FDR was nothing but a sell out to Wall Street and how the New Deal protected Capitalism at a time when Capitalism could've died in the US.

The New Deal did not make capitalism better. It made the Great Depression worse, by attempting to regulate the decisions made by capitalists as to where their capital would be most effectively allocated. Those decisions resulted in starvation of capital markets and declining GDP, reduced economic output and fewer jobs. It was not until WWII took 12 million men out of the workforce that the American economy recovered from the Great Depression, over ten years after it began. Compare that to the tax and spending cuts enacted by Harding in 1921 in response to the Depression of 1920, which resulted in massive economic growth, or the similar tax cuts enacted by JFK and Reagan, with similar results.

LukeEDay
04-22-2013, 03:06 PM
Again. we end up with the missile analogy. Federalization of education began with the creation of the Department of Education in 1977. Since then, American education standards have declined precipitously. Progressives favor continuing this state of affairs, because it gives them more control over education, but the end result screws over children, who find themselves poorly equipped to deal with a competitive world.



A system in which titular ownership of the means of production is permitted in the context of government regulation and mandates is not liberalism, it is fascism, or corporatism. The Fascist state permits a property owner to keep the title to his factory or farm, but dictates prices paid for commodities (including labor), madates work rules (hours worked, benefits, terms of contracts, etc.) and determines which businesses will be permitted to have access to scarce raw materials or infrastructure. Failing businesses are subsidized, while successful ones are penalyzed if they are not politically connected.



But the liberal who seeks to use government to manipulate classes is doing the same thing as a socialist or a communist, just to a different degree. If a liberal seeks to restrict what a doctor can charge a poor person, then the liberal is imposing an income transfer between the doctor and his patient, which has the same end result as the decree that doctors shall be paid the same as laborers. The insanity is cloaked by moderate rhetoric, but no amount of moderate rhetoric can cloak the end result, which is failure.



The Marxist who seeks to impose a utopia seeks to "improve" capitalism, too, since both the liberal and the Marxist see capitalism as flawed and in need of reform. The Marxist's reforms are almost identical to the liberal's reforms, except in terms of degree, which is why both end up failing.



The New Deal did not make capitalism better. It made the Great Depression worse, by attempting to regulate the decisions made by capitalists as to where their capital would be most effectively allocated. Those decisions resulted in starvation of capital markets and declining GDP, reduced economic output and fewer jobs. It was not until WWII took 12 million men out of the workforce that the American economy recovered from the Great Depression, over ten years after it began. Compare that to the tax and spending cuts enacted by Harding in 1921 in response to the Depression of 1920, which resulted in massive economic growth, or the similar tax cuts enacted by JFK and Reagan, with similar results.


Don't forget to mention Coolidge and the Roaring 20's. Of course liberals will argue that Coolidge is the one who brought on the great depression, when in fact, it was short sellers that made the market crash. They have since passed laws to combat it. Either way, FDR didn't help the great depression at all; he only made it worse and suffficated people with a 94% income tax rate.

txradioguy
04-22-2013, 03:21 PM
I believe in public education and that access to a decent education should be available no matter how much one has,

And who exactly is supposed to pay for this?

LukeEDay
04-22-2013, 03:30 PM
I believe in public education and that access to a decent education should be available no matter how much one has,


I believe that teachers should be fired when they try to indoctrinate students by shoving their own beliefs down their throats.

I also believe that public schools should be monitored, and any that have teachers that are trying to indoctrinate student should lose funding for one year. If it happens again, lose funding for two years. And if it happens after that, for a third time; lose funding permanently.