Not all of us liberals fit some of your conservatives stereotypes

[mcwoodduck]

Guzzi,
I think there are a few degrees of Liberalism
Social
Fiscal
Late night
limo liberal
Legacy
and total.
The social liberals want equality for all and feel sorry for this group or that, they claim to not be predudice but all they see is this group or that and want to make laws to help them thinking they can not make it on their own.  They require quotas, minority ownerships, and equal rights not understanding that a quota ends all equal rights.  These are the people that think the constitution does nto say what it actually says.  They think it is a living and growing document to bend wiht the times.  They are wrong.  If it does not mean what it says then how can you swear allegance to it?  How can you defend it?

The fiscal liberals look at the rich and the poor and think they need to take more from the rich to help the poor.  They do not understand real economics.
Higher taxes increase prices, decrease wages, increase unemployment, and less $ is sent to government to support the massive programs to help the poor requiring higher taxes to support the system.

The late night liberal is the one that thinks it is cool to be one, they do not understand any of the issues, but follow along with the lines that are said on late night TV buy the host or guests.  

The limo liberal is semi wealthy to wealthy and thinks that they need to do something.  many fall into the late night groups or the social.

The legacy liberal is one that votes Democrat because Dad, or Grandad did.  If you read what JFK wrote he was closer to Ronald Reagan than his brother Teddy.  If your dad or grandad were alive today they would never have voted democrat.  And heck Al Gore's father and Bill Clinton's Mentor were both against the civil rights acts.

And the total liberal is the one that acts like a 7 year old, outlawing anything they do not like, asking for more and more to support the things they do like, and wanting, what they like to be cheaper asking for subsidies to pay for what they do not want to pay for.

Everywhere we look at liberal policies, they have not worked.  Europe, The Soviet Union, Cuba, China, and parts of Africa.  Socialism, Liberalism, Communism simply do not work.  the ends justify the means and laws or situations should not deter their cause.  They are very hypicritical and will eject groups or even their cause to promote the liberal cause.

Generally the liberal is willing to ignore history, ignore the constitution, ignore laws(economic, physics, or code) and ignore their job to get what they want and make others do what is not organic for them to do.  Most often the dragons they seek to destroy they make bigger and the power hungry of the lot want more dragons around.   The liberals are the dragon fighters and as long as there are dragons there will be a need for dragon slayers.  The problem is the dragon slayers are the ones raising the dragons and releasing them on society. If you look at the main liberal causes all have failed.  The war on poverty is a failure, Civil rights, the blacks after 50 years of being promised this or that by the democrats have not gotten anything.  Why they keep voting for liers and racists is beyond me.  Liberalism needs to be hidden in flowery words, slogans, or have the ballot box subverted by liberal judges, other than ellected officials to create rules and regulations to implement the liberal policies.

[Dixie Dude]

I do not think we need OSHA.  The reason is industrial accidents were going down before OSHA was implemented in the mid-70's.  This is because of the insurance companies requiring workplace safety, and lawsuits.  I think this is self regulating without a government bureauracy.  I don't mind helping people out that truely need it, but this is better served by the state and local level.  Locals can determine true need.  Big government bureauracies just throw money at the problem and are very wasteful.  Communist Soviet Union was a clear example of overbloated bureauracies controlling everything.  You just can't afford it.  There are limits.  I agree with 90% of what you say however, I am against abortion because it is a human life, ESPECIALLY late term.  Like I said, even Europeans realise this and after 5 months abortions are illegal in Europe.  As a nation, to keep national soverignty you must have one common language.  Even India with 7 major languages realise this.  English is their official language for all legal and other transactions.  It is required to graduate high school.  English was chosen because of being part of the former Brittish empire.  The health care problem was a created problem.  85% of those uninsured had it offered at their workplace and chose not to buy it.  A lot of the problems are from illegals using the emergency rooms at hospitals.  This is especially true in the southwest.  Stop the illegals, and you lower the unemployment and free up some medical care expense.  Require people to purchase insurace like car insurance except in special cases for religious reasons or they sign a waiver to have their wages garnished if they need health care and don't have the money at the time of need.  Also allow competition across state lines.  This would lower costs especially between BC/BS and United Health care competing nationwide instead of state by state.  Banks were strongarmed by Clinton to give loans to people without down payments, using ARM's, and without sufficient means to pay them back in 1998.  Bush let it continue, even though he warned of a banking bubble that would burst, when the ARM's came due.  Noone is argueing about not needing clean air and water.  However, you can't just shut everything down and throw people out of work or saddle industry with regulations that hurt our economy.  It needs to be done realisticly and only as fast as the marktet can bare.  We can solve both the energy problems and the clean air problems with very little change over a 5-10 year period, but the far left don't want to do that.  Like using natural gas and converting more to clean diesel.  In 5-10 years we could eliminate imported oil.  We need to streamline approval process on nuclear power also, to eventually eliminate coal over the next 50 years or so.  Keep the coal miners happy by requiring synthetic diesel from coal as coal powered power plants are phased out.  

[teamnelson]

jimster, I think the issue of state sovereignty that you brought up above is the dividing line for me. How a politician stands (not just speaks) on that issue speaks volumes to me. If you leave many of these decisions to the states themselves, as the consitution intended, then you'll have states going different directions on the same issue. But at least the residents of that state will have had a say in the law of their state.

If I had to spitball a number, I'd guess that 90% of the states would outlaw abortion (with caveats) if the ballot was put to the people. Same with gay marriage, and probably a number of other social issues. Nevada is a good example of state sovereignty in action; gambling and prostitution are legal. Their identity is defined by "What goes in vegas, stays in vegas." So if SC wanted to go the other direction - no gambling, prostitution, drinking, cheating at cards, or carrying about in an other wise unruly manner - they'd have their own crowd wanting to move/visit there. Or if the states decided to own education for themselves, nevermind federally mandated anything. Some states would get serious, see their kids as a state resource, and begin to export the brightest and best minds in a competitive national market. Others probably wouldn't, until the parents of the state rose up and voted. But its not the national responsibility of folks in Iowa to mandate what the folks in Hawaii are studying in school. The only things a state can't do are those things already defined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Why do we resist our own identifying document, when we make our troops swear and oath to defend it with their very lives?

[guzzijohn]

Now we are getting some dialog going here and not just name calling, finger pointing and the nashing of teeth. Please continue.
GuzziJohn

[DDZ]

Might as well just forget the liberal thing...it's either conservative or stupid in most cases.

Not really any need for dialog, this is all you need to know. Or if you don't like the words conservative or stupid they could very easily be replaced with right and wrong.

[powderman]

Not really any need for dialog, this is all you need to know. Or if you don't like the words conservative or stupid they could very easily be replaced with right and wrong.



DDZ. YEP, agreed Sir. POWDERMAN. 

[mcwoodduck]

Now we are getting some dialog going here and not just name calling, finger pointing and the nashing of teeth. Please continue.
GuzziJohn

I think dialog should be replaced with educate.
Once you educate Liberals they sometimes turn around.
The Democrats picked the Jackass as a mascott for a reason. 

[billy_56081]

I'm just glad that when I die I won't have to defend supporting murdering millions of babies, and stealing from others throught the tax laws. I'm sure all parasites feel like they are justified.

[Cabin4]

Why do you feel you have to defend something you don't support or participate in?

[powderman]

Well, for those of us right of center it should be glaringly apparent why we are called, RIGHT. POWDERMAN. 

[ironglow]

  McWooduck;
      Your explanation in your post 3 30 was absolutely excellent...should be in textbooks (at least in honest schools)...and should be made a "sticky" for this heading.

  TeamNelson;
        You have a good point !  More state's rights under the Constitution...that way we would all have more "choices", and most agree that more choices is what freedom is all about.  Obviously it goes without saying that those in government that wish to restrict our choices, also wish to restrict our freedom.

[Dweezil]

McWoodDuck:
Your definitions of Liberal are certainly interesting...for an outsider.  Kind of like asking a man to describe, and fully understand, the pain of childbirth...or getting sex advice from a virgin.   
I'm sure a liberal's definition of conservatives would be equally insightful.

[ironglow]

Dwezil;
   Not by using truth and logic...rather than using pure EMOTION....

[mcwoodduck]

McWoodDuck:
Your definitions of Liberal are certainly interesting...for an outsider.  Kind of like asking a man to describe, and fully understand, the pain of childbirth...or getting sex advice from a virgin.   
I'm sure a liberal's definition of conservatives would be equally insightful.

I think, there fore I am a conservitive.
I really do not care what a liberal thinks.  They are usually wrong.
Look at the news media, the communists, the socialists, all thought it would work and are not willing to admit they are wrong.
The way to end suffering for some, is not to make all suffer.
the way to end the problems we have is in the free market.  Government is a needed evil, taxes are a needed evil, More Governemnt and more taxes are not answers to fixing the problems, they only add to the problems.  These people seeking power gain it from having the problem and they never want to fix the problem for fear of loosing their power.  Once all the dragons are gon you no longer need dragon slayers.
Look at any socialist or communist country- new goods, medicines, and technology are not comming out of them.
all they do is copy items if they need to.  Safety is not a concern for either workers or the enviroment.  Look at the Soviet Union and China- Pollution and no reguard for human life, and you liberals preach safety and respect for life but hold up the different Socialist countries as models.  Capitalism works- Not perfect, but it works.  Socialism and communism only work as long as the capitalist system is around to support it.
Socialsim is more about control.  Capitalism is about freedom.  If you want to control others you take their freedom to own personal property and use that property to produce goods and/ or services that others want.

[powderman]

Kind of like asking a man to describe, and fully understand, the pain of childbirth...or getting sex advice from a virgin.   




HEH.  It always amazed me that catholic priests were marriage counselors. I reckon they read all the right books. POWDERMAN. 

[ironglow]

  One thing is clear; the higher a liberal rises in politics..the more of a "control freak" he becomes.  The multitude of govt programs (read controls) and the appointment of nearly half a hundred "Czars" is one of the best testimonies to that fact.

[Dixie Dude]

I have some questions for the pro-choice crowd.

1) Would you outlaw abortions after 5 months?  At 5 months 85% of babies can live outside the womb.  It is outlawed in the liberal paradise of Europe. 
2)  If you say it is wrong at 5 months, then is it wrong after 3 months?  I have two granddaughters born premature at 3 months.  They weighed less than 2 lbs each and  were only about a foot long.  They are 9 today and survived fine. 
4) If it is wrong to kill a baby at 3-5 months, then it is wrong at conception.  Right? 
5) If the pregnacy endangers the mothers life, almost all pro-lifers will say yes, give the mother the choice to abort or have the baby and die.  No problem there.  Self-preservation is pro-life. 

Like others have said, rape and incest can be handled by adoption.  More parents are looking for kids to adopt than are aborted.  They is why so many eastern European and Asian kids are adopted. 

[powderman]

DIXIE DUDE. Good post, and good questions. I await the answers from the pro death crowd. POWDERMAN. 

[45-70.gov]

As someone has pointed out in the past I may actually be more of a libertarian than anything else. Overall I am a fiscal conservative in my personal life. The ....bla bla bla

you make russ limbaough  look  like a liberal.....

you  are a libertarian

yes the  liberal republicans  want big government  in the form  of ...legislating morality
its just that the democrats are SOOOOOO much more liberal than the  ligeral republicans

i was a member of the LIBERTARIAN party for  20 years
if they are going to do it...they  would have...they  NEVER  will
our only hope is to fix  the republican party

[45-70.gov]

I have some questions for the pro-choice crowd.

1) Would you outlaw abortions after 5 months?  At 5 months 85% of babies can live outside the womb.  It is outlawed in the liberal paradise of Europe. 
2)  If you say it is wrong at 5 months, then is it wrong after 3 months?  I have two granddaughters born premature at 3 months.  They weighed less than 2 lbs each and  were only about a foot long.  They are 9 today and survived fine. 
4) If it is wrong to kill a baby at 3-5 months, then it is wrong at conception.  Right? 
5) If the pregnacy endangers the mothers life, almost all pro-lifers will say yes, give the mother the choice to abort or have the baby and die.  No problem there.  Self-preservation is pro-life. 

Like others have said, rape and incest can be handled by adoption.  More parents are looking for kids to adopt than are aborted.  They is why so many eastern European and Asian kids are adopted.

that  is not  my call to make
''its above  my pay grade''...the only thing he said  i liked

but  i think  ONLY   the mother can make the call in  just  that particular time
not  me....not  you...definatly  not a politician
how about a preacher.....rabbi....e-mom...david karresh...al sharpten???

FREEDOM  ISN'T FREE.......YOU  BELEIVE IN IT   OR YOU  DON'T


i think  if we could abort  then  ANYTIME  before  18
there would be no problems  with  teen crime

[m-g Willy]

Well, for those of us right of center it should be glaringly apparent why we are called, RIGHT. POWDERMAN. 

Not only are they called "right"
They are also called the party of KNOW!