|
Liberalism=socialism=communism=FAIL
Liberals want the government to give them everything on a golden platter then they turn around and
complain about government interference in their lives. They can not have it both ways |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Fear the slippery slope of redistributionist policies. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I don't have much to add here. Liberalism=socialism=bad. Simple math. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Their projects fail over time because it doesn't create a responsible working class. Instead it
creates a welfare class; constantly waiting for big brother to rescue them from every poor decision.
A child learns to walk only AFTER you let go of their hand. The Liberals have consistently held
the hand of the "poor" and will not let go. The result; a society that is dependent on its
government. That is NOT what the founders had in mind. And if you believe that the Democrats are
the only guilty party then you are sadly mistaken. Both major parties are guilty of turning away
from our founding documents and ideals.
If WE do not force change in our government it will never happen. WE have the right to abolish and
remove a government outside the ideals of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. WE
have the right as Americans to do that. When people wake up and realize that we out number those in
power 9 to 1, then maybe just maybe we will see change and make it happen. We don't work for the
government, they work for us! When will we realize that?! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree, except the top percentage of wage earners pay 50% of the taxes paid in the US.
Liberals want to receive, without ever giving back. They don't believe in making themselves worth
more, so they can have more in life, they just want to take it from others who did put out the
effort to make themselves worth more.
I have a friend of mine who went to college for 12 years after high school, he's earns good money,
but he's earned it. He shouldn't have to give it up just because some lazy as s what's a share of
the money he's worked so hard to earn. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Liberalism seeks to improve society through change. Conservatism seeks to protect the existing value
of society. In my opinion the only effective government would continual dynamic adversarial debate
between these two world views. On their own one is chaos the other is stagnation. Unfortunately the
political arms of these ideals long ago gave up any attempt to actually represent the interest of
their constituency. The reason why politicians on both sides are able to get away with is well
represented here in this debate. Rather than clean up their own parties each side would rather
concentrate on the failures of the other side.
Anyway what you call the problem with liberals should be the point of liberals which should be in
turn counterbalanced by conservatives. This completely fails to happen because conservatives and
liberals have allowed their parties to be taken over by crooks and conmen. I can only laugh when
somebody from either side pretends that their party maintains some sort of moral currency in this
regard. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Liberals will never cease to exploit the generous nature of decent people who never accept from
others what they are more than happy to do for themselves. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Liberalism is self contradicting. It scares me to think that there are people in this country that
embrace socialism. Liberals say they do not want the government to interfere in their lives but at
the same time they want the government to provide everything for them. I just don't understand the
mind of a Liberal. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
The search for fairness in all things should never be satisfied (apologies if that sounds pompous
and dogmatic). |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I disagree in principle because this is a highly manipulative debate that doesn't really seem
interested in an honest exchange of ideas; it's more of a political soapbox designed promote a
specific viewpoint. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The fundamental problem with this argument is within the title of this rant: "The Problem With
Liberals." The fact that you, the author, would so self-righteously lump together an entire view and
an entire group of people and then insult them proves that you aren't looking for a intelligent
argument; you're just looking for others who will jump behind your bandwagon of hate.
Bottom line is, I see nothing wrong, if Liberals are all about not being satisfied. What's wrong
with striving farther and reaching higher? Are you saying that at a certain point, we as a people
should just sit down, shut up, and be complacent? I fail to see any sort of decent argument
continuing here. If you were looking for a pat on the back from your "Non-Liberal" buddies, you have
succeeded. Now go play in your sandbox and leave the real conversations to the adults. Thanks. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If you're wealthy then I say well done. The wealthy have been masters at getting the rest of us to
blame each other and believe in "trickle down" economics. But if you're not wealthy then you've been
had my friend. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
That is completely FALSE. Liberals want change in the world so that all people may have equal
opportunities and have a satisfying life. Conservatives will never do anything about ****! They just
sit on their *** and watch as the U.S. Deteriorates into dust. Liberals want change that would
underline liberty and spread opportunities. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Actually the problem is our oversimplified labeling of conservatives and liberals. Not all who
might be called "liberal" are about endless spending, higher taxes, and new program after new
program. Likewise not all who might be called "conservative" are authoritarian tightwads.
In terms of the increase in government programs over the last century I believe what you truly see
is a lean towards "socialism". Tacking another program on just makes us that much more socialist
like our European neighbors. That doesn't make it right, in fact many of those European countries
are choking under the costs of their own socialism. However there are also successes to varying
degrees.
What's right for the US I don't claim to know but I would suggest the truth is somewhere in the
middle. We need SOME government programs, we don't need ALL of them or the funding at the present
or higher levels. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Nothing worth doing is easy. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
You have no clue Hidell. Tell that to the people of Africa, South America, any Middle Eastern
Country, Eastern Europe. We are talking "people" here, and not governments.
Why no try at denying the debate in it's entirety? Do you deny the trend? Have the things I listed
not occurred? Have the benefits not been bestowed? Have libs stopped asking for more? Which is
wrong?
OOPS! Put the reply in the wrong place! THIS WAS A REPLY TO HIDELL BELOW. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
America does not have the richest poor compared to other nations. Like most right-wingers, your
world-view is constructed on the basis of fantasy. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
07 Sep 2008 14:38
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
