BF2S Forums If you are a liberal you don't need to read this, you already know

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Probably the same way leftists sell to people that everyone who isn't a liberal is an oil-guzzling (who doesn't take part in that in an industrialized nation?) neo-con Zionazi. The terms "conservativism" and "liberalism" are popularly misused. Just as the US is not a democratic country; it is actually a constitutional republic.

You see?  This is the meaning of the post.  To explain people like you that being a liberal doesn't imply to be a leftist.  I don't consider conservative people bad, they have different points of view, nothing else.  I fyou find that someone liberal has misusded the term conservative please open a thread like this and mark the differences between a conservative and the insults.

Although America is a federal republic, you may disagree with this definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usa
The United States has maintained a liberal democratic political system since it adopted its Articles of Confederation on 1 March 1781 and the Constitution.

Obviously sergeriver, you have forgotten about your little tantrums all over me in that other thread. You are no angel in your tolerance of other opinions.

And I apologize for doing that, I expect everyone that crossed the line to apologize too.

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

You see?  This is the meaning of the post.  To explain people like you that being a liberal doesn't imply to be a leftist.  I don't consider conservative people bad, they have different points of view, nothing else.  I fyou find that someone liberal has misusded the term conservative please open a thread like this and mark the differences between a conservative and the insults.

Although America is a federal republic, you may disagree with this definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usa
The United States has maintained a liberal democratic political system since it adopted its Articles of Confederation on 1 March 1781 and the Constitution.

Obviously sergeriver, you have forgotten about your little tantrums all over me in that other thread. You are no angel in your tolerance of other opinions.

And I apologize for doing that, I expect everyone that crossed the line to apologize too.

If you show me where I did, I will. I am not saying I didn't, but I sure don't remember doing so.

I am not innocent, I get worked up as well, but I am not trying to convince others in joining me on the moral and tolerant high ground either.

+ 1 for the apology though

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Let's see mmm...

-liberty (i.e. freedom) is the primary polital value
-emphasizing the rights of the individual
-freedom of thought
-free market economy with private enterprise (taxed, of course)
-the power of government should be limited
-the power of religion should be limited
-rule of law
-free public education
-transparent government
-protection of the rights of all citizens
-open and fair elections
-equal rights by law
-all citizens should have the opportunity to succeed

Where in these sentences does it say that liberals seek a small government?  Here it says govermenment power limited.  Two different things.  While Bush administration seeks a small government (only in domestic issues of course), it has unlimited power.  I don't want to do a step by step review with Bush government, but I can tell you it doesn't fill almost none of these requirements.  If I were conservative, and they'd tell me that a conservative is all the opposite to these sentences I'd feel insulted.

Now if the people representing the liberals of TODAY, would follow these guidlines we probably wouldn't have too much problems. The fact that you clain liberals today endorse a small govt. is a joke.

Who does endorse a small government?  To spend in military issues trillions of dollars, and leaving a hole in the budget, means small government?

No liberals want the govt. in control of retirement, health care, personal income, expanded social services etc. Hardly a small govt. stance.

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Who does endorse a small government?  To spend in military issues trillions of dollars, and leaving a hole in the budget, means small government?

No, liberals want the govt. in control of retirement, health care, personal income, expanded social services etc. Hardly a small govt. stance.

Better there than in Iraq.

Iraq has got nothing to do with it, this is a postion liberals have taken long before the war.

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Better there than in Iraq.

Iraq has got nothing to do with it, this is a position liberals have taken long before the war.

Anyway, I think is better to spend tax money in domestic issues than throwing it in a foreign country.

If I had to spend my tax money in ONE area, it would be in national defense. I am not interested in funding peoples lack of personal responsibility.

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

Iraq has got nothing to do with it, this is a position liberals have taken long before the war.

Anyway, I think is better to spend tax money in domestic issues than throwing it in a foreign country.

If I had to spend my tax money in ONE area, it would be in national defense. I am not interested in funding peoples lack of personal responsibility.

So you would spend your money on defending a hole in the ground?

Without domestic spending, theres nothing to defend.

lowing wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Capt. Foley wrote:

I realy shouldnt participate in this cause Ill probably just get flamed. But I do not agree with liberals on most things(if you can use that term as it means almost nothing today). I do not like how the fund social programs with the tax payers money, I do not like how the tollerate everything(you have to stand up for something in your life). I guess the main thing is that I can see some of them protesting the war with Japan after Pearl Harbor, just not something I can stand.

Damn liberals and their tax payer funded military forces/defence forces.

Of which they are bitching about!!

Eh? I don't. I think the amount we spend on our defence forces here in Australia is to low, I want to raise their conditions and wages for all the things they sacrafice to join the ADF and all the crap our government puts them through after they join.

On a similar note, private security forces (mercenaries by any other name) are seeing a resurgence in business. Look at the "Corporate Warriors" system in Iraq, biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard of. Worst idea ever, it seems to lower morale among regular troops while endangering those same soldiers lives and throwing military strategy into chaos (I do believe that it was Fallujah where the military's plan was screwed by mercenaries).

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Who does endorse a small government?  To spend in military issues trillions of dollars, and leaving a hole in the budget, means small government?

No liberals want the govt. in control of retirement, health care, personal income, expanded social services etc. Hardly a small govt. stance.

Small government means minimal government intervention. To remove government from the stated areas would most definetly be small government.

I think you may need to read up on some polsci terminology, lowing.

I'm pretty sure that was his point. If I read this properly (I may not have) Lowing is defending a point I made about Liberals wanting big government. Someone refuted that point saying that "Power of Gov" and "Size of Gov" is different. Lowing then listed what Libs want the goverment to regulate (Practically everything) to try to show that the Liberals do NOT support "minimal government intervention". He was defending my point against liberal government, not trying to prove liberals support small governement. They don't.


I'd defend my point myself, but I think lowing said most of what I would have. The really, REALLY left-wing liberals are essentially Socialists. If you know what Socialism is, you understand that it's BIG government. The amount of our lives that some of these people think should be supported by the government, and everyone else's hard work, forms a massive government. Call me unsympathetic, I can live with that. I've had plenty of bad times, ups and downs in my own life. But I refuse to accept my country in the state it's in, where illegals can suck my paycheck dry because of Welfare that they shouldn't even be able to qualify for. Forgive my cruel-heartedness if I want to cut the lifeline on every person who abuses that system and works just enough hours to still qualify for free money, or simply doesn't report that they have a job to the Welfare office.

Explain how the "Power of Government" in the sense you're interpreting it is any different than the "Size of Government" please. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd simply like to understand where you draw that distinction. To me they fall hand in hand. I simply don't see how a government that regulates practically every facet of my daily life, or taxes me at an enormous rate to support everyone else but myself, isn't big. +1 to the person who can explain that.

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Anyway, I think is better to spend tax money in domestic issues than throwing it in a foreign country.

If I had to spend my tax money in ONE area, it would be in national defense. I am not interested in funding peoples lack of personal responsibility.

So you would spend your money on defending a hole in the ground?

Without domestic spending, theres nothing to defend.

Our country is not a "hole in the ground" but it might become so if we do not defend it.

Not wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

No liberals want the govt. in control of retirement, health care, personal income, expanded social services etc. Hardly a small govt. stance.

Small government means minimal government intervention. To remove government from the stated areas would most definetly be small government.

I think you may need to read up on some polsci terminology, lowing.

I'm pretty sure that was his point. If I read this properly (I may not have) Lowing is defending a point I made about Liberals wanting big government. Someone refuted that point saying that "Power of Gov" and "Size of Gov" is different. Lowing then listed what Libs want the goverment to regulate (Practically everything) to try to show that the Liberals do NOT support "minimal government intervention". He was defending my point against liberal government, not trying to prove liberals support small governement. They don't.


I'd defend my point myself, but I think lowing said most of what I would have. The really, REALLY left-wing liberals are essentially Socialists. If you know what Socialism is, you understand that it's BIG government. The amount of our lives that some of these people think should be supported by the government, and everyone else's hard work, forms a massive government. Call me unsympathetic, I can live with that. I've had plenty of bad times, ups and downs in my own life. But I refuse to accept my country in the state it's in, where illegals can suck my paycheck dry because of Welfare that they shouldn't even be able to qualify for. Forgive my cruel-heartedness if I want to cut the lifeline on every person who abuses that system and works just enough hours to still qualify for free money, or simply doesn't report that they have a job to the Welfare office.

Explain how the "Power of Government" in the sense you're interpreting it is any different than the "Size of Government" please. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd simply like to understand where you draw that distinction. To me they fall hand in hand. I simply don't see how a government that regulates practically every facet of my daily life, or taxes me at an enormous rate to support everyone else but myself, isn't big. +1 to the person who can explain that.

yeah, I think I was mis understood because I failed to put a "comma" after the word "no". After re reading it I can see the mis understanding. You are right though, in how you interpreted my sentence. Thx.

Spearhead wrote:

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Let's see mmm...

-liberty (i.e. freedom) is the primary polital value
-emphasizing the rights of the individual
-freedom of thought
-free market economy with private enterprise (taxed, of course)
-the power of government should be limited
-the power of religion should be limited
-rule of law
-free public education
-transparent government
-protection of the rights of all citizens
-open and fair elections
-equal rights by law
-all citizens should have the opportunity to succeed

Where in these sentences does it say that liberals seek a small government?  Here it says govermenment power limited.  Two different things.  While Bush administration seeks a small government (only in domestic issues of course), it has unlimited power.  I don't want to do a step by step review with Bush government, but I can tell you it doesn't fill almost none of these requirements.  If I were conservative, and they'd tell me that a conservative is all the opposite to these sentences I'd feel insulted.

Now if the people representing the liberals of TODAY, would follow these guidlines we probably wouldn't have too much problems. The fact that you clain liberals today endorse a small govt. is a joke.

lowings idea of small government : provide a military.  Gives no shit about the working class, because to him it's their fault they fail at life and they should burn in hell because they make no money.  He won't say it on public forums, but just use Search and look at what he and his neo con colleagues think of the working class of America. 

[sarcasm]
Oh, did I mention poverty is a choice, too?  We all know those Africans dying over there are just lazy n*ggers who don't know shit and can't make money.  It's in no way shape of form the fault of the white colonists of oppressed and raped their people and land for centuries, and anyone who disagrees with me is obviously a dumbshit communist who can't make a living for himself because he fails at life.  Oh yea and the media, education, and all things which advance cultural society is part of a giant liberal conspiracy.  They also hate Israel so they hate all the Joos, too!!
[/sarcasm]

Sorry Spearhead, I am of the working middle class and I do not consider myself a failure. I also do not NEED the govt. to take care of me  because I am irresponsible or unwilling to take care of myself..

lowing wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

lowing wrote:

Now if the people representing the liberals of TODAY, would follow these guidlines we probably wouldn't have too much problems. The fact that you clain liberals today endorse a small govt. is a joke.

lowings idea of small government : provide a military.  Gives no shit about the working class, because to him it's their fault they fail at life and they should burn in hell because they make no money.  He won't say it on public forums, but just use Search and look at what he and his neo con colleagues think of the working class of America. 

[sarcasm]
Oh, did I mention poverty is a choice, too?  We all know those Africans dying over there are just lazy n*ggers who don't know shit and can't make money.  It's in no way shape of form the fault of the white colonists of oppressed and raped their people and land for centuries, and anyone who disagrees with me is obviously a dumbshit communist who can't make a living for himself because he fails at life.  Oh yea and the media, education, and all things which advance cultural society is part of a giant liberal conspiracy.  They also hate Israel so they hate all the Joos, too!!
[/sarcasm]

Sorry Spearhead, I am of the working middle class and I do not consider myself a failure. I also do not NEED the govt. to take care of me  because I am irresponsible or unwilling to take care of myself..

The fact you are ignorant about less fortunate people in the same society as you says tons about you and your generosity.  I know, why go out of your way to help people in lower brackets of wealth when you can just....... not give a shit?  Neo-Conservatism is beautiful. 

It's because of people like you why the French Revolution took place.  Have you ever read A Tale of Two Cities?  Oh, it's a book, I guess you don't read liberal propaganda.  My bad

Last edited by Spearhead (2006-08-20 11:16:49)