Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/30/2003 3:26:45 PM EDT
It's quite fashionable on this site for it's members to blame every conceivable social problem on democrats/liberals. However behind all of this slander nobody ever brings any info to the table that justifies there position. Putting my political opinions aside, I ask each one of you to give me THREE REASONS- along with facts to prove your point- why you don't like Democrats.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 3:33:24 PM EDT
They suck There a bunch of fags They smell funny. [kill]
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 3:34:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By buffalo-soldier: It's quite fashionable on this site for it's members to blame every conceivable social problem on democrats/liberals. However behind all of this slander nobody ever brings any info to the table that justifies there position. Putting my political opinions aside, I ask each one of you to give me THREE REASONS- along with facts to prove your point- why you don't like Democrats.
View Quote
I [b]LIKE[/b] Democrats. I am one (an armed one!). I also have a CCW so [b]NO ONE[/b] can bash me.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 3:34:48 PM EDT
Why? It's preaching to the choir here.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 3:35:59 PM EDT
Let's see I think I can name three off the top of my head. 1) Gay Marriage 2) Weak Military 3) Affirmative action Geez that was hard. I bet if I think about it a couple of more seconds I could come up with some more, maybe....
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 3:36:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: Why? It's preaching to the choir here.
View Quote
Pretty much so.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 3:39:53 PM EDT
1-Most of them are gun grabbers. 2-Most of them love to raise taxes. 3-Most of them believe in re-distribution of wealth. (see #2 above) That's all the reason I need.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 3:43:30 PM EDT
1. bill klinton 2. tom daschle 3. Kalifornia it should all be self-explanatory.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 3:46:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 3:51:24 PM EDT by raven]
[b]Why raven don't like them liberals[/b] 1. They believe that the government and state are effective agents to right historic wrongs, to bring about general prosperity and welfare for the population, and that government policymakers should be trusted with these responsibilities (such as education, healthcare, employment). I fundamentally disagree with these beliefs. 2. Progressives think that human beings can leave their past behind. That the conventions, mores, and traditions we have have little or no merit. Through enlightened leaders, thinkers, and teachers old beliefs and injustices can be corrected so society becomes a better more egalitarian place. I believe that human nature is immutable and that we have much to learn from history and that traditions and mores were developed for good reasons. 3. Their prissy hypocritical attitude in general. How they demand "equal rights" under the 14th amendment, then push for special treatment for certain groups in violation of the 14th amendment. How they decry the barbarism of capital punishment but hold a woman's right to murder an innocent child in utero as a sacrosanct freedom. Their kneejerk tendency to legislate feel good laws in response to a problem, which create even greater unintended problems (this is a result of #1: their belief government is an effective and beneficial agent to correct problems). One of the things that irritate me the most about liberals is their insistence that they're the party of the common man, while they hold everyday Americans, especially rural Americans, in deep contempt. ONLY THREE REASONS?!?! I could write a freaking book about why I hate liberals. But Ann Coulter could and does it so much better and funnier than I could ever hope.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 3:55:31 PM EDT
1) Entitlements reduce personal responsibility and create a cycle of dependency on the system. I resent anyone who steals the money I earn and gives it to someone who isn't working. 2) Gun control doesn't work. I resent anyone who has the arrogance to presume they have the right to disarm me. This falls under the general category of over-regulation; we have way too many laws on the books. 3) Pushing for mainstream acceptance of "alternative", i.e. abnormal, lifestyles is a misguided attempt to make sure nobody gets their feelings hurt. Two men want to have sex, that's their business. Just don't go telling me that it's normal; it goes against the obvious natural order of things. How screwed up is a kid with two moms or two dads going to be?
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 3:59:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dale007: Let's see I think I can name three off the top of my head. 1) Gay Marriage 2) Weak Military 3) Affirmative action Geez that was hard. I bet if I think about it a couple of more seconds I could come up with some more, maybe....
View Quote
About #3: you don't believe minorities should have an equal shot?
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:01:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cfbigdaddy: 1-Most of them are gun grabbers. 2-Most of them love to raise taxes. 3-Most of them believe in re-distribution of wealth. (see #2 above) That's all the reason I need.
View Quote
No, I'm afraid it's not. You didn't do what I asked: there is no factual info to back any of them up, buddy
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:02:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By redray: 1. bill klinton 2. tom daschle 3. Kalifornia it should all be self-explanatory.
View Quote
It's not!
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:07:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 4:08:59 PM EDT by madmedic]
Originally Posted By buffalo-soldier:
Originally Posted By Dale007: Let's see I think I can name three off the top of my head. 1) Gay Marriage 2) Weak Military 3) Affirmative action Geez that was hard. I bet if I think about it a couple of more seconds I could come up with some more, maybe....
View Quote
About #3: you don't believe minorities should have an equal shot?
View Quote
Umm...I think that was his point. (minorities should have an [b][size=3]EQUAL[/size=3][/b] shot.)
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:07:43 PM EDT
Buf, affirmative action is nothing about giving minorities an equal shot. Its about racism against white males.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:11:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By buffalo-soldier:
Originally Posted By Dale007: 3) Affirmative action
View Quote
About #3: you don't believe minorities should have an equal shot?
View Quote
Allow me Dale.... I am not worse off than anyone else, nor do I need preferential treatment for anything. I have an equal shot with [SOMEONE] in getting the job at [SOMECOMPANY]. Neither of us has that job. Both of us want that job. I dont want a preference, only a fair shot. Set asides are preferential either way. And to say I need help, says I admit [i]he[/i] is superior, you know I aint goin there....
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:15:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raven: [b]Why raven don't like them liberals[/b] 1. They believe that the government and state are effective agents to right historic wrongs, to bring about general prosperity and welfare for the population, and that government policymakers should be trusted with these responsibilities (such as education, healthcare, employment). I fundamentally disagree with these beliefs. 2. Progressives think that human beings can leave their past behind. That the conventions, mores, and traditions we have have little or no merit. Through enlightened leaders, thinkers, and teachers old beliefs and injustices can be corrected so society becomes a better more egalitarian place. I believe that human nature is immutable and that we have much to learn from history and that traditions and mores were developed for good reasons. 3. Their prissy hypocritical attitude in general. How they demand "equal rights" under the 14th amendment, then push for special treatment for certain groups in violation of the 14th amendment. How they decry the barbarism of capital punishment but hold a woman's right to murder an innocent child in utero as a sacrosanct freedom. Their kneejerk tendency to legislate feel good laws in response to a problem, which create even greater unintended problems (this is a result of #1: their belief government is an effective and beneficial agent to correct problems). One of the things that irritate me the most about liberals is their insistence that they're the party of the common man, while they hold everyday Americans, especially rural Americans, in deep contempt. ONLY THREE REASONS?!?! I could write a freaking book about why I hate liberals. But Ann Coulter could and does it so much better and funnier than I could ever hope.
View Quote
First, thanks for the thorough post. This is the type I was asking for. Now let me get on to my refutations the way a true liberal would [:D] Response to #1 (historic wrongs): the government IS responsible for repairing the damage of historic wrongs because they were responsible for them in the first place!!! Response to #2: That's an unfair claim- I dont know of any liberal politician that claims to be working towards a Utopia; all they are looking for is social progress (hence the name Progressives). Do you not think that social progress is a good idea??? Response to #3: The Democratic party IS for the common man! The Republican Party on the other hand is clearly for the Establishment and aristocrats. The ball is in your court now.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:15:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 4:16:17 PM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:20:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raf:
Originally Posted By buffalo-soldier:
Originally Posted By redray: 1. bill klinton 2. tom daschle 3. Kalifornia it should all be self-explanatory.
View Quote
It's not!
View Quote
OK, turn the tables, and give us 3 reasons to like 'em.
View Quote
Not so fast. I said "putting my political opinions aside...".
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:20:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 4:21:58 PM EDT by Silence]
What are you asking? Are you asking about blaming Democrats? or Blaming Liberals? OR as is the case most of the Time of blaming Socialists? Those are three different things (democrats, liberals, socialists) btw. Granted someone may claim to be one or more of them but usually if they are they are lying. For instance, if someone claims to be a 'Liberal Democrat' most of the time they are actually saying that they are a socialist. Socialism is the antithesis of America, and it would take me way too much time for explain to someone ignorant of why that is so, why that is so.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:24:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:25:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fizassist: 1) Entitlements reduce personal responsibility and create a cycle of dependency on the system. I resent anyone who steals the money I earn and gives it to someone who isn't working. 2) Gun control doesn't work. I resent anyone who has the arrogance to presume they have the right to disarm me. This falls under the general category of over-regulation; we have way too many laws on the books. 3) Pushing for mainstream acceptance of "alternative", i.e. abnormal, lifestyles is a misguided attempt to make sure nobody gets their feelings hurt. Two men want to have sex, that's their business. Just don't go telling me that it's normal; it goes against the obvious natural order of things. How screwed up is a kid with two moms or two dads going to be?
View Quote
I agree with everything you said. Good points...
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:27:38 PM EDT
Response to #3: The Democratic party IS for the common man! The Republican Party on the other hand is clearly for the Establishment and aristocrats.
View Quote
That is one of the most inaccurate, misleading, and over used lines of BS that any political party has ever passed on to the American people. About the same as the old faithful: "[b]A gun in the home is X% more likely to kill a family member, blah, blah, blah.[/b]"
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:31:18 PM EDT
Well, I'll just attack your weakest point.
Originally Posted By buffalo-soldier: Response to #3: The Democratic party IS for the common man! The Republican Party on the other hand is clearly for the Establishment and aristocrats. The ball is in your court now.
View Quote
This is what I love the most about the Democrats, is their cherished notion they're for the working class, the everyday Joe, while Republicans are trust fund babies, wear top hats and monocles. First off, I am not rich. A lot of Democrats cannot understand why someone who is not rich would be Republican. Again, they're victim to their notion that Republican=rich exploitive bastards. It's not the case. Many poor republicans vote that way for the simple reason that they can't stand the Democrats, liberals, and their ideas. Democrats are so narcissistic they can't accept this, so instead they call poor or middle class Republicans morons, dupes, or fools. You see, Americans are weird in that they dont resent the rich. They dont want to take them down a notch, or demand that they contribute more to society by government fiat. Rather, they resent measures that would prevent they themselves from possibly becoming rich. They resent the idea that the if they fail in business, the government is not there to lend a hand, but if they succeed after risking their time, labor and capital in a venture, the government is right there to take its cut. Enough of that. But to answer #3, which in my post mainly dealt with hypocrisy of liberals, I posit that the Democrats actively court and promise breaks to special interests and lobbies as much as the Republicans do. The difference is that the Republicans are explicit and unapologetic about this. Everyone knows they are the pro-business, pro-capital party. The Democrats however posture and pander to the downtrodden and poorer parts of society, saying they're really on their side. Like I say in my point #1, the way to truly help the poor is not by government programs or redistributing wealth, creating a dependent class. This seems "compassionate" but in reality it's the worst possible thing you could do to help someone get ahead in life.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:33:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Silence: What are you asking? Are you asking about blaming Democrats? or Blaming Liberals? OR as is the case most of the Time of blaming Socialists? Those are three different things (democrats, liberals, socialists) btw. Granted someone may claim to be one or more of them but usually if they are they are lying. For instance, if someone claims to be a 'Liberal Democrat' most of the time they are actually saying that they are a socialist. Socialism is the antithesis of America, and it would take me way too much time for explain to someone ignorant of why that is so, why that is so.
View Quote
Generally, liberals and Democrats are the same person- of course the degrees vary. "Liberal" is just a political buzzword that arose during Vietnam used to characterize Democrats. As far as Socialism, anything on the left at all seems to be viewed by the right-wing as socialist, which as you say, is something totally different.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:38:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raven: Well, I'll just attack your weakest point.
Originally Posted By buffalo-soldier: Response to #3: The Democratic party IS for the common man! The Republican Party on the other hand is clearly for the Establishment and aristocrats. The ball is in your court now.
View Quote
This is what I love the most about the Democrats, is their cherished notion they're for the working class, the everyday Joe, while Republicans are trust fund babies, wear top hats and monocles. First off, I am not rich. A lot of Democrats cannot understand why someone who is not rich would be Republican. Again, they're victim to their notion that Republican=rich exploitive bastards. It's not the case. Many poor republicans vote that way for the simple reason that they can't stand the Democrats, liberals, and their ideas. Democrats are so narcissistic they can't accept this, so instead they call poor or middle class Republicans morons, dupes, or fools. You see, Americans are weird in that they dont resent the rich. They dont want to take them down a notch, or demand that they contribute more to society by government fiat. Rather, they resent measures that would prevent they themselves from possibly becoming rich. They resent the idea that the if they fail in business, the government is not there to lend a hand, but if they succeed after risking their time, labor and capital in a venture, the government is right there to take its cut. Enough of that. But to answer #3, which in my post mainly dealt with hypocrisy of liberals, I posit that the Democrats actively court and promise breaks to special interests and lobbies as much as the Republicans do. The difference is that the Republicans are explicit and unapologetic about this. Everyone knows they are the pro-business, pro-capital party. The Democrats however posture and pander to the downtrodden and poorer parts of society, saying they're really on their side. Like I say in my point #1, the way to truly help the poor is not by government programs or redistributing wealth, creating a dependent class. This seems "compassionate" but in reality it's the worst possible thing you could do to help someone get ahead in life.
View Quote
Excellent post raven.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:43:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By buffalo-soldier:
Originally Posted By Silence: What are you asking? Are you asking about blaming Democrats? or Blaming Liberals? OR as is the case most of the Time of blaming Socialists? Those are three different things (democrats, liberals, socialists) btw. Granted someone may claim to be one or more of them but usually if they are they are lying. For instance, if someone claims to be a 'Liberal Democrat' most of the time they are actually saying that they are a socialist. Socialism is the antithesis of America, and it would take me way too much time for explain to someone ignorant of why that is so, why that is so.
View Quote
Generally, liberals and Democrats are the same person- of course the degrees vary.
View Quote
Nope. The ones closest to being a 'true liberal' are the Libertarians, which is more of an offshoot of the Republicans than anything else. Hell, even today the Republicans support more of a 'true liberal' idealology than the democrats.
"Liberal" is just a political buzzword that arose during Vietnam used to characterize Democrats.
View Quote
Nope, it was usurped by the socialist Democrats then, and a bit before to misdirect people from thinking they are socialists.
As far as Socialism, anything on the left at all seems to be viewed by the right-wing as socialist, which as you say, is something totally different.
View Quote
Erm, most things 'on the left' are socialist/facist. True liberalism is on the Right.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:47:41 PM EDT
I don't blame everything on liberals...I bash cops, too. And I think you just committed a "hate-crime" by accusing me of picking on liberals. My lawyer and your local authorities will be in contact with you ASAP. [B)]
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:51:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raven: Well, I'll just attack your weakest point.
Originally Posted By buffalo-soldier: Response to #3: The Democratic party IS for the common man! The Republican Party on the other hand is clearly for the Establishment and aristocrats. The ball is in your court now.
View Quote
This is what I love the most about the Democrats, is their cherished notion they're for the working class, the everyday Joe, while Republicans are trust fund babies, wear top hats and monocles. First off, I am not rich. A lot of Democrats cannot understand why someone who is not rich would be Republican. Again, they're victim to their notion that Republican=rich exploitive bastards. It's not the case. Many poor republicans vote that way for the simple reason that they can't stand the Democrats, liberals, and their ideas. Democrats are so narcissistic they can't accept this, so instead they call poor or middle class Republicans morons, dupes, or fools. You see, Americans are weird in that they dont resent the rich. They dont want to take them down a notch, or demand that they contribute more to society by government fiat. Rather, they resent measures that would prevent they themselves from possibly becoming rich. They resent the idea that the if they fail in business, the government is not there to lend a hand, but if they succeed after risking their time, labor and capital in a venture, the government is right there to take its cut. Enough of that. But to answer #3, which in my post mainly dealt with hypocrisy of liberals, I posit that the Democrats actively court and promise breaks to special interests and lobbies as much as the Republicans do. The difference is that the Republicans are explicit and unapologetic about this. Everyone knows they are the pro-business, pro-capital party. The Democrats however posture and pander to the downtrodden and poorer parts of society, saying they're really on their side. Like I say in my point #1, the way to truly help the poor is not by government programs or redistributing wealth, creating a dependent class. This seems "compassionate" but in reality it's the worst possible thing you could do to help someone get ahead in life.
View Quote
Madmedic is right- good post(another). However, I don't buy into your assertion that Democrats are for pandering and spoon-feeding. Some policies, I'm sure, may be a little overboard, but generally speaking i think that they are trying to help the poor and down-trodden help themselves. We all know you don't give a poor man money- you help him find a job, so to speak. Socialism is about making a dependant society. Democratic government is about helping the lower class help themselves.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:52:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:52:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By madmedic:
Originally Posted By raven: Like I say in my point #1, the way to truly help the poor is not by government programs or redistributing wealth, creating a dependent class. [red]This seems "compassionate" but in reality it's the worst possible thing you could do to help someone get ahead in life.[/red]
View Quote
Excellent post raven.
View Quote
Indeed. People choose to be poor.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:56:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Silence:
Originally Posted By buffalo-soldier:
Originally Posted By Silence: What are you asking? Are you asking about blaming Democrats? or Blaming Liberals? OR as is the case most of the Time of blaming Socialists? Those are three different things (democrats, liberals, socialists) btw. Granted someone may claim to be one or more of them but usually if they are they are lying. For instance, if someone claims to be a 'Liberal Democrat' most of the time they are actually saying that they are a socialist. Socialism is the antithesis of America, and it would take me way too much time for explain to someone ignorant of why that is so, why that is so.
View Quote
Generally, liberals and Democrats are the same person- of course the degrees vary.
View Quote
Nope. The ones closest to being a 'true liberal' are the Libertarians, which is more of an offshoot of the Republicans than anything else. Hell, even today the Republicans support more of a 'true liberal' idealology than the democrats.
"Liberal" is just a political buzzword that arose during Vietnam used to characterize Democrats.
View Quote
Nope, it was usurped by the socialist Democrats then, and a bit before to misdirect people from thinking they are socialists.
As far as Socialism, anything on the left at all seems to be viewed by the right-wing as socialist, which as you say, is something totally different.
View Quote
Erm, most things 'on the left' are socialist/facist. True liberalism is on the Right.
View Quote
Whatever you say. Hey Silence, learn a lesson from your screen name- especially when you don't know what you are talking about.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:59:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By buffalo-soldier: Whatever you say. Hey Silence, learn a lesson from your screen name- especially when you don't know what you are talking about.
View Quote
Hey, I cant help it if you are ignorant of, and refuse to accept, the truth. That is YOUR problem not mine.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 5:09:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Silence:
Originally Posted By buffalo-soldier: Whatever you say. Hey Silence, learn a lesson from your screen name- especially when you don't know what you are talking about.
View Quote
Hey, I cant help it if you are ignorant of, and refuse to accept, the truth. That is YOUR problem not mine.
View Quote
So what is THE TRUTH, Silence?
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 5:14:15 PM EDT
why should I repeat myself? I mean it is clear that you cant handle the truth.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 5:23:26 PM EDT
1. Bashing the rich. To Democrats, anybody who makes 1 cent over minimum wage is rich and deserves no tax breaks at all. But the losers in life, who won't work, do. 2. I used to be unconcerned about abortion, until I had kids of my own. How they can be so pro-abortion astounds me, like it's just ok to kill babies and now think anything about it. 3.Guns. Where or why did the Democrats go so far off the deep end on guns? {It's not like the Republicans are any that much better.}
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 5:30:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 6:06:22 PM EDT
Examples of Socialism? Sure. An excerpt from a letter that Lenin wrote in WWI
An oppressed class which does not strive to learn to use arms, to acquire arms, only deserves to be treated like slaves. We cannot, unless we have become bourgeois pacifists or opportunists, forget that we are living in a class society from which there is no way out, nor can there be, save through the class struggle and the overthrow of the power of the ruling class. In every class society, whether based on slavery, serfdom, or, as at present, on wage-labour, the oppressor class is always armed. Not only the modern standing army, but even the modern militia - and even in the most democratic bourgeois republics, Switzerland, for instance - represent the bourgeoisie armed against the proletariat. That is such an elementary truth that it is hardly necessary to dwell upon it. Suffice it to recall that in all capitalist countries without exception troops (including the republican-democratic militia) are used against strikers. A bourgeoisie armed against the proletariat is one of the biggest, fundamental and cardinal facts of modern capitalist society.
View Quote
Hmm, this sounds like the Dems reasonings for wanting "assault weapons" off the street.
"Weapons designed for war have no place on the streets of a civilized society. The time has come for common sense laws to stop the proliferation of military-style assault weapons, while protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens who use guns for hunting, household defense, or legitimate recreational purposes," said Senator Feinstein.
View Quote
more to come
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 6:31:38 PM EDT
Excerpt from The Principles of Communism by Fredrick Engels, 1847. He is explaining how the revolution of the proletarians(working class) will take place and force the rise of communism.
- 18 - What will be the course of this revolution? Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat. Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following: (i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc. (ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds. (iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people. (iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state. (v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers. (vii) Education of the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation -- all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation. (viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother's care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together. (ix) Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each. (x) Destruction of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban districts. (xi) Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock. (xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation. It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country's productive forces. Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.
View Quote
Do any of those look familiar? Kind of like the Democratic platform, labor unions, redistribution of wealth, gov't controlled education, high taxes. I don't think all dems are socialist, but they do support a lot of these issues which are clearly socialist and a precursor to communism.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 7:02:06 PM EDT
I posted this link earlier under a different topic, but this is a good a reason as I can think of to do so again. [url]http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/05/28/life.language.reut/index.html[/url] Just one of a million reasons I don't like the liberals. FWIW, I am a blue collar Republican. I believe that should I or anyone put forth the effort to become wealthy, more power to them. Besides we all know just how poor the Kennedys are, right?
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 8:07:35 PM EDT
anti-gun raise taxes to pay for social programs (I don't mind helping the truly needy but democrat social programs are handouts and go to more than the truly needy) I'm sure I can find a third one, but I'm tired ok, I guess the environmental wing trying to ban my SUV (which isn't that much less fuel efficient than my 1990 buick lesabre was) will be my 3rd reason - personally owned suvs aren't going to cause a venus like greenhouse effect
Originally Posted By buffalo-soldier: It's quite fashionable on this site for it's members to blame every conceivable social problem on democrats/liberals. However behind all of this slander nobody ever brings any info to the table that justifies there position. Putting my political opinions aside, I ask each one of you to give me THREE REASONS- along with facts to prove your point- why you don't like Democrats.
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 8:11:51 PM EDT
1. Democrats favor the redistribution of wealth. 2. Democrats favor SOCIALISM. 3. Democrats rely on feeling, and not fact.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 8:14:22 PM EDT
They rely on feelings, not reason and logic. It screws up most everything they try to do.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 8:44:35 PM EDT
1. They don't respect the right to life of babies. It's not a privacy issue, nor one where a mother can decide what to do with her own body. It's about a mother deciding what to do with her child's body. Fun with no consequences; Another way to take away personal responsability. 2. Redistribution of wealth. What more can be said about this? Probaby %90+ of what democrats do is try to eliminate personal responsability and put the government in control of our lives. Socialism. 3.Guns. They think that no one needs guns, because the government will take care of protection. No personal responsability whatsoever. They fail to realize that criminals will still have guns just like druggies still have pot.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 9:53:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By buffalo-soldier:
Originally Posted By raf: OK, turn the tables, and give us 3 reasons to like 'em.
View Quote
Not so fast. I said "putting my political opinions aside...".
View Quote
I think your question was too hard, Raf. Try: Give us 3 reasons not to despise them.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 9:57:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 10:18:49 PM EDT by stevem1a]
I don't bash liberals. Part of the definition of the word "liberal" is one who is "broadminded, open-minded, tolerant of other people and their beliefs". While some Democrats are liberals, many others are not. They are not tolerant of white people, males, Christians, gun owners, or people that have "too much" money. These Democrats are not liberals, they are Leftists. The Left is the enemy of America. They are against the ownership of private property, stocks and bonds, companies and corporations, in fact almost the entire economic structure of this country would have to be changed to please the Left. And while the Left wants these arrangemants changed, they do NOT want to pay the current owners for the property that they intend to take from them. The Left also intends to destroy the current social order in America and replace it with something out of a bad dream. Forty million dead babies and forty million illegal aliens to replace them. Reparations for "slaves" that were never owned by anyone. Perversion taught as normality in government schools. Females told that every problem in their life is caused by the Pale Penis People. Drugs flooding our nation and murderous violence to go with them. And of course, your gun has to be banned because it causes all of that drug-related violence. All of these problems have been created by Leftism and Leftists. But they will blame you and me for them, and send us the bill (in the form of higher taxes) to pay for cleaning up the mess which they have created. I agree with Raven. Three reasons, no. More like three hundred. Not against REAL liberals. Against the Leftists that have taken over the Democratic Party and done their level best to destroy this country. Edited to Add: Check out the thread entitled "What liberals want to do to the Constitution. SCARY" and substitute "leftists" for "liberals".
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 10:05:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 10:07:33 PM EDT by raven]
Originally Posted By stevem1a: I don't bash liberals. Part of the definition of the word "liberal" is one who is "broadminded, open-minded, tolerant of other people and their beliefs".
View Quote
See that's what burns me. I hate refering to liberals and liberalism as if its the samew as the classic sense; the focus on individual political freedoms. I dont know where or when "liberal" got attributed to to politicos we all know and loathe. I wish we could call them "progressives" as many of them describe themselves. I am a fierce supporter of liberalism, in the classic sense. I would describe my fundamental side as liberal (as opposed to illiberal or authoritarian). I believe the political and economic sensibilities I advocate are "liberal"
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 10:05:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By buffalo-soldier:
Originally Posted By fizassist: 1) Entitlements reduce personal responsibility and create a cycle of dependency on the system. I resent anyone who steals the money I earn and gives it to someone who isn't working. 2) Gun control doesn't work. I resent anyone who has the arrogance to presume they have the right to disarm me. This falls under the general category of over-regulation; we have way too many laws on the books. 3) Pushing for mainstream acceptance of "alternative", i.e. abnormal, lifestyles is a misguided attempt to make sure nobody gets their feelings hurt. Two men want to have sex, that's their business. Just don't go telling me that it's normal; it goes against the obvious natural order of things. How screwed up is a kid with two moms or two dads going to be?
View Quote
I agree with everything you said. Good points...
View Quote
Cool, I'm glad we have some common ground. That leads me to ask why you are a Democrat. (I assume you are; please correct me if I'm wrong.) My beliefs are not on the Republican party line. For example, I am pro-choice with regard to abortion. For some moral background on this, I believe that the biblical punishment for killing an unborn child was much different than that for killing a human being. I don't have the specific reference at hand, but I'll dig it out. In general, I am for minimal interference of the government in the people's lives. For the most part, that puts me on the Republican side. The gun issue is very important for me, so much so that I have become a single issue voter. I think the way a person views the RKBA shows how much faith they have in people doing the right thing without being led along by a nanny government. Anyone who compromises on this issue loses a lot of face in my book. I will absolutely vote for a Democrat if they have a stronger RKBA record than their opponent.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 10:13:13 PM EDT
support America, support freedom, support the Republican Party
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 10:27:38 PM EDT
1) I dislike people who think that the government is there to keep the populous "safe." The idea that the government can protect you from all life's little evils is absurd and I strongly suspect that it is simply an excuse to exert control over the proletariat. 2) Socialism is an economic system that has failed with every real world example. Hybrid socialism is simply an effort to prolong the death throws of that same ideology. Protectionism and punitive taxation have no place in a capitalist society. 3) Luddites nauseate me The idea that our society can somehow revert to some enviro-paradise without pollution, without industry and without technology is patently false. If the human animal is to survive it must progress. To do otherwise is to court eventual extinction.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 10:29:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raven:
Originally Posted By stevem1a: I don't bash liberals. Part of the definition of the word "liberal" is one who is "broadminded, open-minded, tolerant of other people and their beliefs".
View Quote
See that's what burns me. I hate refering to liberals and liberalism as if its the samew as the classic sense; the focus on individual political freedoms. I dont know where or when "liberal" got attributed to to politicos we all know and loathe. I wish we could call them "progressives" as many of them describe themselves. I am a fierce supporter of liberalism, in the classic sense. I would describe my fundamental side as liberal (as opposed to illiberal or authoritarian). I believe the political and economic sensibilities I advocate are "liberal"
View Quote
I always thought the accepted usage of liberal and conservative applied to the use of governmental powers.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top