Yes but when you have no argument, it is the perfect response, add it to the "racist", "bigot" and "generalizing" defense planFEOS wrote:
Open-mindedness and close-mindedness is completely unrelated to political affiliation.Cybargs wrote:
Liberals are open minded... So you're a liberal now?lowing wrote:
Nope, not closed minded at all.
Frankly, if you think that a whole train of political ideology can be summed up in two notions (i.e. liberalism is 'government control' and 'spreading the wealth in the name of fairness') then I'm afraid you don't understand it properly. It's simply not that easy I'm afraid. I may as well say that conservatism is control of wealth by faceless unelected corporations and the pursuit of wealth in the name of greed, and I'd be just as wrong to try to summarise an uncountable number of viewpoints in one selective sentence. I just noticed you have a quote from Margaret Thatcher of all people in your sig. Clearly you have no idea of the devastation she wrought upon workers in Britain in the 1980s - the very same workers who you presumably think should be at the beck and call of rich financiers, yet worked their fingers to the bone and were left in a vast number of cases to die in penury in their old age, having been sacked from the jobs they had all their lives, and their money stolen by the same corporate bankers you seem to love. Slogans are great, especially when you don't understand the history behind them.
Definitions of liberal on the Web:FEOS wrote:
Open-mindedness and close-mindedness is completely unrelated to political affiliation.Cybargs wrote:
Liberals are open minded... So you're a liberal now?lowing wrote:
Nope, not closed minded at all.
broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ...
having political or social views favoring reform and progress
tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
Actually open-mindedness is one of the strongest characteristic of a liberal.
Yes thats right, don't worry about making actual points, just continue judging me without knowing a single thing about me and using your utterly boring and unrelated analogies.lowing wrote:
then you are just as comfortable in the dark as he is. Whatever you do, do not turn on the flashlight you should have brought with you. Expect that someone else will provide the light for you. I am sure they will have no problem burning up their batteries for you, instead of lighting a path for their familyLittle BaBy JESUS wrote:
Pretty much effectively summed up my thoughts exactly.ruisleipa wrote:
Sorry, it is the very definition of close-minded. Sad thing is that you're only fooling yourself. Why do you feel the need to stick so strongly to one mode of thinking? There are myriad ways of understanding everything. It's not a dichotomy, not an us vs. them, black or white situation. Generally I lean to the left of the political spectrum, but there are times when I agree with a more right-wing view. I'm only kidding myself if I slavishly follow one party or one line of thought. If I do so I am not rationally and intellectually analysing the situation, I am dumbly following someone else. To be honest, slavishly following politicians or a political ideology isn't thinking for yourself, it's towing the line. If you think that what you call 'liberalism''s main idea is to 'siphon someone else's efforts', then I'm afraid you have an extremely blinkered way of looking at it. Kinda like a supporter of Hitler's saying, 'hang on a minute, I'm not sure about this holocaust thing...[pause]...but I agree with Hitler most of the time so therefore I MUST agree with that as well.' It's unquestioning support for ideologies that causes so much anger and pain in the world, don't you think?
Thatcher did thoroughly stuff the UK economy, closing down coal mines and importing coal, just to suit her rabid ideology.
Or add it to "socialist" "liberal" "slacker" generalising defence plan.lowing wrote:
Yes but when you have no argument, it is the perfect response, add it to the "racist", "bigot" and "generalizing" defense plan
Fuck Israel
You do not seem to understand liberalism in the context of the USA. It is as described. their solution for all of your woes is to tax the shit outta someone else.ruisleipa wrote:
Frankly, if you think that a whole train of political ideology can be summed up in two notions (i.e. liberalism is 'government control' and 'spreading the wealth in the name of fairness') then I'm afraid you don't understand it properly. It's simply not that easy I'm afraid. I may as well say that conservatism is control of wealth by faceless unelected corporations and the pursuit of wealth in the name of greed, and I'd be just as wrong to try to summarise an uncountable number of viewpoints in one selective sentence. I just noticed you have a quote from Margaret Thatcher of all people in your sig. Clearly you have no idea of the devastation she wrought upon workers in Britain in the 1980s - the very same workers who you presumably think should be at the beck and call of rich financiers, yet worked their fingers to the bone and were left in a vast number of cases to die in penury in their old age, having been sacked from the jobs they had all their lives, and their money stolen by the same corporate bankers you seem to love. Slogans are great, especially when you don't understand the history behind them.
Yet she stays in power for what 15 20 years? I know most people that choose to be taken care of hate those that take care of themselves. It is an old song.
Actually I have a point. Get your fuckin hands out of MY pockets!!Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Yes thats right, don't worry about making actual points, just continue judging me without knowing a single thing about me and using your utterly boring and unrelated analogies.lowing wrote:
then you are just as comfortable in the dark as he is. Whatever you do, do not turn on the flashlight you should have brought with you. Expect that someone else will provide the light for you. I am sure they will have no problem burning up their batteries for you, instead of lighting a path for their familyLittle BaBy JESUS wrote:
Pretty much effectively summed up my thoughts exactly.
I guess you and others like you are the only ones reserved the right to judge? I see. What a cleverly convenient approach.
Nope, you want money that does not belong to you. That is a fact not a generalization. If htere is a liberal solution that does not involve taking money from someone lese I sure as fuck love to hear it. I will wait.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thatcher did thoroughly stuff the UK economy, closing down coal mines and importing coal, just to suit her rabid ideology.Or add it to "socialist" "liberal" "slacker" generalising defence plan.lowing wrote:
Yes but when you have no argument, it is the perfect response, add it to the "racist", "bigot" and "generalizing" defense plan
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.lowing wrote:
Nope, you want money that does not belong to you. That is a fact not a generalization. If htere is a liberal solution that does not involve taking money from someone lese I sure as fuck love to hear it. I will wait.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thatcher did thoroughly stuff the UK economy, closing down coal mines and importing coal, just to suit her rabid ideology.Or add it to "socialist" "liberal" "slacker" generalising defence plan.lowing wrote:
Yes but when you have no argument, it is the perfect response, add it to the "racist", "bigot" and "generalizing" defense plan
I thought taking money from someone else was the whole Conservative ideal.
So what, the US under the Republicans didn't have taxes?lowing wrote:
Nope, you want money that does not belong to you. That is a fact not a generalization. If htere is a liberal solution that does not involve taking money from someone lese I sure as fuck love to hear it. I will wait.
You're confusing facts with the ranting of Fox News.
Fuck Israel
France under Louis XV anyone?AussieReaper wrote:
I thought taking money from someone else was the whole Conservative ideal.
I agree, and your attempt at my money, hinders my pursuit of life liberty and happiness.Cybargs wrote:
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.lowing wrote:
Nope, you want money that does not belong to you. That is a fact not a generalization. If htere is a liberal solution that does not involve taking money from someone lese I sure as fuck love to hear it. I will wait.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thatcher did thoroughly stuff the UK economy, closing down coal mines and importing coal, just to suit her rabid ideology.
Or add it to "socialist" "liberal" "slacker" generalising defence plan.
You gotta be kidding....then what is it exactly that you think liberals are trying to do?AussieReaper wrote:
I thought taking money from someone else was the whole Conservative ideal.
Don't pay taxes then. See how far that goes.lowing wrote:
I agree, and your attempt at my money, hinders my pursuit of life liberty and happiness.Cybargs wrote:
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.lowing wrote:
Nope, you want money that does not belong to you. That is a fact not a generalization. If htere is a liberal solution that does not involve taking money from someone lese I sure as fuck love to hear it. I will wait.
11 years actually. Just goes to show your history is as shaky as your politics.lowing wrote:
You do not seem to understand liberalism in the context of the USA. It is as described. their solution for all of your woes is to tax the shit outta someone else.ruisleipa wrote:
Frankly, if you think that a whole train of political ideology can be summed up in two notions (i.e. liberalism is 'government control' and 'spreading the wealth in the name of fairness') then I'm afraid you don't understand it properly. It's simply not that easy I'm afraid. I may as well say that conservatism is control of wealth by faceless unelected corporations and the pursuit of wealth in the name of greed, and I'd be just as wrong to try to summarise an uncountable number of viewpoints in one selective sentence. I just noticed you have a quote from Margaret Thatcher of all people in your sig. Clearly you have no idea of the devastation she wrought upon workers in Britain in the 1980s - the very same workers who you presumably think should be at the beck and call of rich financiers, yet worked their fingers to the bone and were left in a vast number of cases to die in penury in their old age, having been sacked from the jobs they had all their lives, and their money stolen by the same corporate bankers you seem to love. Slogans are great, especially when you don't understand the history behind them.
Yet she stays in power for what 15 20 years? I know most people that choose to be taken care of hate those that take care of themselves. It is an old song.
Never said anything about taxes. Taxes are a necessity for the functions of govt. However, wealth redistribution for the sake of "fairness" is NOT a function of our govt. We are not communists or socialistsDilbert_X wrote:
So what, the US under the Republicans didn't have taxes?lowing wrote:
Nope, you want money that does not belong to you. That is a fact not a generalization. If htere is a liberal solution that does not involve taking money from someone lese I sure as fuck love to hear it. I will wait.
You're confusing facts with the ranting of Fox News.
read upCybargs wrote:
Don't pay taxes then. See how far that goes.lowing wrote:
I agree, and your attempt at my money, hinders my pursuit of life liberty and happiness.Cybargs wrote:
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.lowing wrote:
Never said anything about taxes. Taxes are a necessity for the functions of govt. However, wealth redistribution for the sake of "fairness" is NOT a function of our govt. We are not communists or socialistsDilbert_X wrote:
So what, the US under the Republicans didn't have taxes?lowing wrote:
Nope, you want money that does not belong to you. That is a fact not a generalization. If htere is a liberal solution that does not involve taking money from someone lese I sure as fuck love to hear it. I will wait.
You're confusing facts with the ranting of Fox News.
Oh I am sorry, missed it by 4 years yet she was the leader of your conservative party for longer. too bad you can not address the context of the post and only only are able to attack the datesruisleipa wrote:
11 years actually. Just goes to show your history is as shaky as your politics.lowing wrote:
You do not seem to understand liberalism in the context of the USA. It is as described. their solution for all of your woes is to tax the shit outta someone else.ruisleipa wrote:
Frankly, if you think that a whole train of political ideology can be summed up in two notions (i.e. liberalism is 'government control' and 'spreading the wealth in the name of fairness') then I'm afraid you don't understand it properly. It's simply not that easy I'm afraid. I may as well say that conservatism is control of wealth by faceless unelected corporations and the pursuit of wealth in the name of greed, and I'd be just as wrong to try to summarise an uncountable number of viewpoints in one selective sentence. I just noticed you have a quote from Margaret Thatcher of all people in your sig. Clearly you have no idea of the devastation she wrought upon workers in Britain in the 1980s - the very same workers who you presumably think should be at the beck and call of rich financiers, yet worked their fingers to the bone and were left in a vast number of cases to die in penury in their old age, having been sacked from the jobs they had all their lives, and their money stolen by the same corporate bankers you seem to love. Slogans are great, especially when you don't understand the history behind them.
Yet she stays in power for what 15 20 years? I know most people that choose to be taken care of hate those that take care of themselves. It is an old song.
once again you show your minimal grasp of political ideologies. Communism and socialism are not the same thing, any more than capitalism and fascism are. Of course, if you get all your arguments from Fox News and Margaraet Thatcher then it's not surprising you think they are one and the same. Also perhaps you could explain why, with a 'conservative' government taxes are a necessity, as soon as there is a 'liberal' government taxes suddenly become 'wealth redistribution for the sake of "fairness"'.lowing wrote:
Never said anything about taxes. Taxes are a necessity for the functions of govt. However, wealth redistribution for the sake of "fairness" is NOT a function of our govt. We are not communists or socialistsDilbert_X wrote:
So what, the US under the Republicans didn't have taxes?lowing wrote:
Nope, you want money that does not belong to you. That is a fact not a generalization. If htere is a liberal solution that does not involve taking money from someone lese I sure as fuck love to hear it. I will wait.
You're confusing facts with the ranting of Fox News.
Promote general welfare, it does not state PROVIDE general welfare.Cybargs wrote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.lowing wrote:
Never said anything about taxes. Taxes are a necessity for the functions of govt. However, wealth redistribution for the sake of "fairness" is NOT a function of our govt. We are not communists or socialistsDilbert_X wrote:
So what, the US under the Republicans didn't have taxes?
You're confusing facts with the ranting of Fox News.
Your lack at interpretation shocks me.lowing wrote:
Promote general welfare, it does not state PROVIDE general welfare.Cybargs wrote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.lowing wrote:
Never said anything about taxes. Taxes are a necessity for the functions of govt. However, wealth redistribution for the sake of "fairness" is NOT a function of our govt. We are not communists or socialists
well, you missed it by 4-9 yeasr depending on where you stand with your first wild guess. If you use facts to support your argument, make sure the facts are correct yeah? As for the context of the post, I guess you mean this general and unfounded statement: "I know most people that choose to be taken care of hate those that take care of themselves." You know that do you? Based on what? I'd love to hear your evidence for that particular sweeping generalisation.lowing wrote:
Oh I am sorry, missed it by 4 years yet she was the leader of your conservative party for longer. too bad you can not address the context of the post and only only are able to attack the dates
To redistribute wealth so we are the same and dendent on govt. is the same goals for communism and socialismruisleipa wrote:
once again you show your minimal grasp of political ideologies. Communism and socialism are not the same thing, any more than capitalism and fascism are. Of course, if you get all your arguments from Fox News and Margaraet Thatcher then it's not surprising you think they are one and the same. Also perhaps you could explain why, with a 'conservative' government taxes are a necessity, as soon as there is a 'liberal' government taxes suddenly become 'wealth redistribution for the sake of "fairness"'.lowing wrote:
Never said anything about taxes. Taxes are a necessity for the functions of govt. However, wealth redistribution for the sake of "fairness" is NOT a function of our govt. We are not communists or socialistsDilbert_X wrote:
So what, the US under the Republicans didn't have taxes?
You're confusing facts with the ranting of Fox News.
Kinda why communism uses the base word social in its definition.
Taxes are a necessity regardless as to who is in power. That has never been the argument. The argument is that over taxation for the purpose of wealth redisribution for no other reason that because it is there for the taking is the problem.