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.
Janice, read my post and see what I left out. And what I hope DJones remembers to remove
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' ....
Last edited by LukeEDay; 04-02-2013 at 10:16 AM.
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.
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.
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.
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)
You said to ask you anything. What did the Easter bunny bring you?
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
So, you don't consider this racially motivated?You'll have to do more to convince me that this is racially motivated.
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 guess the you're unfamiliar with a guy named Nidal Hassan.I would attribute violence by Muslims much more to society in the Middle East than to the religion itself
Good. Glad to hear it. Going to answer mine?and I do genuinely appreciate your questions
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|