Liberal ideals? Just curious...

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » January 14, 2004, 10:47 pm

I've recently seen people in various places throwing around the term "liberal ideals" - usually in an attempt to discredit somebody else with a blanket generalization. I'm not even necessarily talking about here, either, nor am I referencing anybody specifically. I have noticed this whenever avowed Republicans make an argument.

(Strictly for the record here, I have noticed reciprocal generalizing from the other side, too, and it is my intention to discuss that as well, but I wanted to start with this one first, as it seems to be used more often.)

I suppose I'm just curious what people see as being liberal ideals. What do people who see themselves as conservative think are liberal ideals? What do people who consider themselves moderate see as liberal ideals? Is there even a general consensus as to what a liberal ideal is? I imagine there are a few things that we can all point to and say, "Holy Jesus, that is fucking liberal," but I wanna hear the other stuff, too.

So yeah...what is your idea of liberal ideals? What does your average liberal stand for? What do they believe in?

edit>> spelling

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » January 14, 2004, 11:11 pm

why, ruination of the civilized world of course!!

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 14, 2004, 11:47 pm

Speaking as a liberal:

I don't think that you can make a general, ideological answer like "liberals favor greater government spending" anymore.

Specific issues:
pro choice
pro gay rights
pro gun control
pro social welfare of all sorts
anti war (these days, at least)
anti military
pro taxes
pro government restrictions on the economy

Conservative issues:
pro life
pro "traditional family"
git tuff on crime
pro religion
pro tax cuts
pro free market
non compassionate foreign policy

Obviously, neither of these lists represent what intelligent liberals and conservatives actually want, simply how their agendas are portrayed. I'm sure I'm missing a lot.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » January 15, 2004, 12:37 am

economically speaking i would have a more "republican" view, but when it comes to social issues im on the opposite side of the fence
i would consider myself a fairly steryotipical libertarian

I support anything and everything that promotes freedom... small government, pro choice, pro gay rights, anti gun control, against death penalty , pro legalization of illigal drugs etc etc

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » January 15, 2004, 12:55 am

Ah man,

I should comment on this but I've just spent the last 16 hours working on security installs for the Superbowl.

Tomorrow perhaps.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 15, 2004, 1:37 am

Liberals are pragmatists that see the benefits of helping society as a whole while establishing law that gives people rights to do what they want with their own bodies and minds. Conservatives live in a fantasy land where they try to build up as much wealth and power as they can and then spend the rest of their lives trying to protect it from hordes invisible welfare mothers and mexicans who are surely trying to take it away from them.

If you're not stabbing your best friend in the back to make an extra dollar, studying your personell files daily to make sure you're not overhiring minorities on your affirmative action quotas, figuring out new ways to lay your workers off while making record profits or going to church every sunday in a desperate bid that god will actually let your spoiled, racist, sexist, completely clueless ass into heaven when you die lonely and bitter at the age of 85 then you are probably not a liberal.

CalandraWindrose · Post by **CalandraWindrose** » January 15, 2004, 2:21 am

wow a kyo post I actually kinda LIKE

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » January 15, 2004, 6:33 am

Liberals are pragmatists that see the benefits of helping society as a whole while establishing law that gives people rights to do what they want with their own bodies and minds. Conservatives live in a fantasy land where they try to build up as much wealth and power as they can and then spend the rest of their lives trying to protect it from hordes invisible welfare mothers and mexicans who are surely trying to take it away from them.

If you're not stabbing your best friend in the back to make an extra dollar, studying your personell files daily to make sure you're not overhiring minorities on your affirmative action quotas, figuring out new ways to lay your workers off while making record profits or going to church every sunday in a desperate bid that god will actually let your spoiled, racist, sexist, completely clueless ass into heaven when you die lonely and bitter at the age of 85 then you are probably not a liberal.

Now I'm horny.

As a "liberal" I think we're all in this together. I believe in society rather than viewing humanity as a congregation of competing individuals.
I don't mind being taxed to help the less fortunate even though I'm hardly what you would call wealthy. But at the same time I hate waste and laziness as much as the next person. I tend to believe people should be helped with their problems rather than punished for them but again, there are limits. I believe in very few moral absolutes.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » January 15, 2004, 9:25 am

Liberal ideals = gimme more with zero effort from myself

Liberals are pessimists that see the benefits of taking something for nothing from society as a whole while establishing law that gives people rights to do what they want with their own bodies and minds while throwing accountability out the window. Conservatives live in the real world where they try to better themselves and those around them while enacting social reforms to make welfare mothers independant, and not dependant, while encouraging all immigrants to enter the country through legal channels.

If you're not telling your best friend society owes him something because of the color of his skin so you both can make an extra buck, studying your personal files daily to make sure affirmative action quotas are working as intended by getting unqualified personel hired over qualified ones, figuring out new ways to run a business more efficiently at the expense of personel to stay competitive in your market or going to church every sunday to strengthen your moral fiber and human compassion in your belief that god will let your stealing, lying, cheating, envious, completely unworthy self into heaven when you die then you are probably not a liberal.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 15, 2004, 10:06 am

ahh yes everyone gather round and gaze in awe as krimson again dazzles us with his trademark "I know you are but what am I?" retort. conservatives are so witty. even the dumb ones who vote for a party who's leaders would sooner put them on a rotting ship back to africa than look at them.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 15, 2004, 10:17 am

Sueven wrote:Speaking as a liberal:

I don't think that you can make a general, ideological answer like "liberals favor greater government spending" anymore.

That is the truth. Both completely suck with the amount of money they spend with absolutely zero thought about the future. I am definitely for a large reduction in government spending, and also would love to see our entire political system scrapped and retooled from the ground up with people who actually CARE about being there and are not in office for the cash or perks.

Specific issues:
pro choice
pro gay rights
pro gun control
pro social welfare of all sorts
anti war (these days, at least)
anti military
pro taxes
pro government restrictions on the economy

Not that I think it is a grand idea to have abortions, but the world is becoming overpopulated. I consider myself a realist more than a liberal or conservative. Therefore, I could not argue against the right to abort unless it is late term.

Gay rights? What right do they not have currently except for marraige? It should be each company's right to decide how much and whether they want to cover a "life partner" or gay spouse. My wife's company won't fully carry me, so should I sue for my rights to be covered more?

Gun control? You find a real way to take the guns out of a CRIMINAL's hands and THEN you come tell me I can't have concealed carry. The problem with gun control laws...and it always will be a problem...is that criminals don't give two shits about it. The only people the laws affect are the ones who are not going to break the law. Duh?

Social wlfare is absolutely retarded in its current state. Spending more is not going to help it unless sweeping reforms are done. Why should we pay welfare mothers more to be baby factories when they can't afford to feed themselves, much less 8 kids? You want to start, start by mandating tubal ligations and vasectomies on welfare recipients. If they want benefits, they stop breeding to get paid. You are OK with abortions, but pay people so they can live if they are not aborted. Make up your damn minds.

I am not anti-war....and not really for putting our troops in places that have no bearing on the U.S. One big difference between liberals and conservatives.....is we support our troops even if we don't necessarily think we should be there. You wastes of flesh spit on them when they come back. To that I give a hearty fuck you.

Can't say I disagree with the government stepping in from time to time on the economy and big business.

Conservative issues:
pro life
pro "traditional family"
git tuff on crime
pro religion
pro tax cuts
pro free market
non compassionate foreign policy

I think this is mostly covered above...except for religion. Too much to even get into, but I disagree with the some of the ultra-conservatives forcing religion and types of religion onto people. Even though I believe it is the responsibility of the people in the religions to inform others about its beliefs, it is wrong to force them to adhere to it.

Most are also "compassionate" towards those in foreign countries, but every time I see so many billions heading out of the country for foreign aid, I turn on the TV and see the homeless here. Why do we care more about other country's homeless and starving more than our own?

[/quote]

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » January 15, 2004, 10:22 am

Liberal ideals = gimme more with zero effort from myself

That's fucking horseshit.
I'd bet buttons to bullion the lazy retarded fucks that think like this vote both ways.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » January 15, 2004, 10:29 am

kyoukan wrote:ahh yes everyone gather round and gaze in awe as krimson again dazzles us with his trademark "I know you are but what am I?" retort. conservatives are so witty. even the dumb ones who vote for a party who's leaders would sooner put them on a rotting ship back to africa than look at them.

Just matching your stupidity almost word for word. Sucks huh.

vn_Tanc wrote:
Liberal ideals = gimme more with zero effort from myself
That's fucking horseshit.
I'd bet buttons to bullion the lazy retarded fucks that think like this vote both ways.

Just matching kyoukans stupidity, don't take it personal.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 15, 2004, 10:57 am

As practiced or in theory\campaign promises? As practiced in the US, you really can't paint either with a broad brush.

Krimson Klaw wrote:Liberal ideals = gimme more with zero effort from myself

Unfortunately, people being people that's the net effect in many cases. Regardless of whether that's the intent or not. Someone has to pay for it in the end and people lose sight of that.

I would equate liberal ideals with a pure socialist (communist?) ideals\theory, and everything else falls somewhat to the right of that.

I'm all for as much personal freedom as possible, and as little goverment intervention as possible in everything. You have to couple that with personal responsibilty though, and we're pretty short on that right now.

People should be able to do anything they want in life, assuming they're willing to pay for it (in whatever fashion).

*Edit - Some military leadership courses I took a long time ago went into great detail on responsibility, accountability and authority, and the connections between all three. Remove any one of them from any relationship and your going to have problems. I've seen the same thing in management courses as well, though not as succinctly.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » January 15, 2004, 12:00 pm

I see liberals as being more focused on the whole to the detriment of the individual. Conservatives are focused on the individual or small family unit to the detriment of the whole.

I am a moderate. I believe the government should have no involvement in a person's personal life until it starts to affect other people. This means that it is not government's business to say whether you can have an abortion, have a gay lover, fix your own fucking roof, smoke pot etc. Government should also not being paying a bunch of other shit ass countries when that money could be better used here at home. I am sorry but who really gives a fuck about Africa and AIDS?

Today there is almost no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Bush is probably the most liberal Republican ever elected. He has done some really ass conservative things but he has also promoted some big social welfare programs like the prescription plan. Of course I am sure he is getting a kickback somewhere.

Vote Libertarian!

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » January 15, 2004, 12:17 pm

You made an excellent post, with the exception of the Africa/AIDS comment, the rest is point on.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » January 15, 2004, 12:44 pm

My mom says there's a lot of black people in Africa...

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » January 15, 2004, 12:53 pm

Conservatives are working on that, give us time...

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 15, 2004, 1:45 pm

Hrmm I am thought of as Conservative, but in reality when I look at those lists I am both. So I guess it is a Conservative Realist point of view.

-I am Pro Choice
-I am Pro anyone can marry anyone, including Polygamy because let's face it when we seperate the religious views of marriage from the legal ones, then there is no reason not to have it
- Pro a strong military, because freedom is not free
- Anti money to people not working outside of unemployment limited to 52 weeks maximum LIFETIME allowance
- I believe that some welfare is needed, but once a person already on welfare has a child, or another child, then they should be cut off. If they cannot be self responsible, then society should not be responsible to them
- I think our entire welfare system is flawed, wasteful, corrupt and counterproductive, way too many people remain as single parent just to get welfare checks while living with a fully employeed X chromosome donor.
- R&D money makes sense, Money for bad Artwork does not, good artwork promotes itself and pays for itself
- Tax breaks I hate them, flat tax across the board, percentage based, no cuts nor breaks allowed.
- Anti socialization of medical care Socialized Health Care just means we all get shitty service, I experienced this in Italy on the civilian side, and the Military hospitals which are in essense socialized.

I am anti paying for anyone else to "find themselves" so basically if you are too lazy to get off your ass, then fuck you. I have worked really rotten jobs to cover the bills, I gave up the new car, or even used ones, I have went without TV, and had no food, no water no power days. This morning I walked to work 6.7 miles in neg windchill conditions and 10 inches of fresh snowfall because my car is broken and I do not have the 700 bucks to fix it, I thought it sucked, I thought it seemed unfair and I hated every second of it. But no one else paid for my way, I did it myself. So no matter what I have the pride of knowin I accomplished it myself, and if I cannot bum a ride from someone home tonight, I will walk back. The people that say they cannot do X and Y unless someone gives them something need to suck my nearly frostbitten cock.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » January 15, 2004, 1:53 pm

Kyoukan wrote:If you're not stabbing your best friend in the back to make an extra dollar, studying your personell files daily to make sure you're not overhiring minorities on your affirmative action quotas, figuring out new ways to lay your workers off while making record profits or going to church every sunday in a desperate bid that god will actually let your spoiled, racist, sexist, completely clueless ass into heaven when you die lonely and bitter at the age of 85 then you are probably not a liberal.

So liberals routinely do these things, or did you just mean to peg that on non-liberals and screw it up with a double-negative?

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 15, 2004, 2:03 pm

Ashur wrote:
Kyoukan wrote:If you're not stabbing your best friend in the back to make an extra dollar, studying your personell files daily to make sure you're not overhiring minorities on your affirmative action quotas, figuring out new ways to lay your workers off while making record profits or going to church every sunday in a desperate bid that god will actually let your spoiled, racist, sexist, completely clueless ass into heaven when you die lonely and bitter at the age of 85 then you are probably not a liberal.
So liberals routinely do these things, or did you just mean to peg that on non-liberals and screw it up with a double-negative?

See: Hilary Clinton

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » January 15, 2004, 2:28 pm

- Anti money to people not working outside of unemployment limited to 52 weeks maximum LIFETIME allowance
- I believe that some welfare is needed, but once a person already on welfare has a child, or another child, then they should be cut off. If they cannot be self responsible, then society should not be responsible to them

So what should be done with these people once your limits have expired?
Serious question.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 15, 2004, 2:41 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:
- Anti money to people not working outside of unemployment limited to 52 weeks maximum LIFETIME allowance
- I believe that some welfare is needed, but once a person already on welfare has a child, or another child, then they should be cut off. If they cannot be self responsible, then society should not be responsible to them
So what should be done with these people once your limits have expired?
Serious question.

Serious Answer:
First Welfare: That is where they fall back on friends, family, charitable organizations, churches etc. Yes it will be hard on them, but no harder than days I have had or others have had, and they will know entering the situation that having more kids means no more benefits. If they then choose to do so it is not mine nor societies fault. If I speed and get a ticket I pay a fine. Laws work that way. If they are unable to provide for their children there are solutions outside of government assistance. Be aware that I think if a single mother wants to go to school she should get grants or aid, or if she goes to work her aid should be cut by no more than 80% of her earnings so she feels she is getting ahead until the point at which the income exceeds the aid, but in the meantime she needs to use protection or practice abstinance. Because otherwise society is basically paying so she can fuck, and I am not paying for other people to fuck. It is bloody ridiculous for us as a society to pay for people to fuck, yes there are people who have a religion that ignorantly insists they cannot use protection, if that is the case and they can afford the children they already have, then they need to not have sex.

Second: Unemployment I have never had a period of extended unemployment (thanks to my God, and me) but the times it has threatened I have learned to keep debt/income ratios lower, and to plan a bit for such things happening. If you have X left over for entertainment in your budget, SAVE some of it. If you are unemployed for 26 weeks once, then I promise you, you will learn this, and if you do not, how again is this the fault of society. If after a second bout you hit 52 weeks of unemployeed time, that means you are not trying hard enough. There are ALWAYS jobs open, but people are too lazy or too pathetic to do them, you CAN work a shitty job, I know I have, and barely get by, I know I have, and one day if I do not get by, I am sure I will be able to count on someone I have helped or a family member to help me deal until I can. The founder fathers talked about the pursuit of happiness, not the GUARANTEE of it

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 15, 2004, 3:05 pm

I actually agree with most (not all- but most) of what Kylere says.

There is a stark divide between people when it comes to getting shit done. Kylere has a situation where he has no car and has to go to work. Whereas he might responsibly say "well, then I better wake up early so I can save some extra time to walk," another person might say "fuck it, calling in sick."

This divide is often very evident. I'm sure everyone has plenty of examples. There are some people who get shit done, and there are some who don't.

Now this is not to say that all people on welfare are lazy, or all people with jobs are not. It's just a general criticism of a large group of people.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 15, 2004, 4:39 pm

The fed spent less money last year on social welfare than they spend on corporate welfare to huge industries and farm subsidies, individually. what is this conservative obsession with welfare?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » January 15, 2004, 4:43 pm

Corporate welfare is the biggest crock of shit. WTF are we doing this for in a free market?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 15, 2004, 4:55 pm

kyoukan wrote:The fed spent less money last year on social welfare than they spend on corporate welfare to huge industries and farm subsidies, individually. what is this conservative obsession with welfare?

For one Kyoukan, we do not all agree on what should be classed as "corporate welfare" and most have no problems with farm subsidies (I personally do as we should free market it world wide, and return to one of our geographical strengths in food production) but we Americans ( and this is really moot for you, just like my opinion of your government) can see the abuse of the welfare system on a daily basis. Of course living in Canada you would not see that. We all know we need a military, we all know we need roads, NASA, R&D, Social Security ( though that is debatable) etc it is the amounts we differ on. But no one in their right mind thinks taxpayers should pay for irresponsible people to pop out children.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » January 15, 2004, 5:02 pm

I don't care if it is corporate or social welfare. The government should not be using my tax dollars to pay for other people to work less. This applies to shareholders and welfare mothers.

I do agree with giving grants and scholarships to to people to help them get another job or get off welfare. My mother was on welfare for seven years and she only got off when they started giving her grants to go back to school. I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of tax break for daycare as well. That shit is expensive!!

I agree with Kylere that there are jobs to be had out there. Sometimes you have to just swallow your pride and take that McD's postion for a few months. Yea they suck but it is work.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » January 15, 2004, 5:08 pm

kyoukan wrote:The fed spent less money last year on social welfare than they spend on corporate welfare to huge industries and farm subsidies, individually. what is this conservative obsession with welfare?

What exactly are you counting as social welfare? Depending on what programs you are talking about this may or may not be true.

That being said, I would like to see corporate welfare and agricultural subsidies eliminated.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » January 19, 2004, 6:01 pm

You guys who say welfare is out there so people can work less make me sick. My mother went from living in a fucking car to becoming head-nurse at Group Health here in Seattle, now having a income of $100,000 a year. If it weren't for welfare that helped her get out of the hole she was in she would be living on the streets, my oldest sister would probably be dead, and me and my brother wouldn't have even had the chance to live.

Welfare may not be a perfect system, but it does work for many people. You cannot damn a system that gives millions of people a chance to make it in this world, because some lazy fucks take advantage of it. Learn to think outside the little box that your family and media have made for you and start finding some stories that don't simply re-establish the same views that youve had forever.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 20, 2004, 12:42 pm

whether or not our wellfare system is good, it is basic human nature that even a few accounts of the "bad apples" will gain much more attention than 10 times the number of good recipients.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 20, 2004, 12:47 pm

Keverian FireCry wrote:You guys who say welfare is out there so people can work less make me sick. My mother went from living in a fucking car to becoming head-nurse at Group Health here in Seattle, now having a income of $100,000 a year. If it weren't for welfare that helped her get out of the hole she was in she would be living on the streets, my oldest sister would probably be dead, and me and my brother wouldn't have even had the chance to live.

Welfare may not be a perfect system, but it does work for many people. You cannot damn a system that gives millions of people a chance to make it in this world, because some lazy fucks take advantage of it. Learn to think outside the little box that your family and media have made for you and start finding some stories that don't simply re-establish the same views that youve had forever.

You just do not get it, your mother was the EXCEPTION.

No one here said elimate all help, just make it tied to reasonable time limits and reasonable requirements. No more children while you cannot pay for those you have, no staying ummarried and not naming the father of the child, etc.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » January 20, 2004, 12:58 pm

"The liberal is continually angry, as only a
self-important man/woman can be, with their civilization, culture, country
and their folks back home. They have an infantile world view. At the core of a liberal is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are,
unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism
is a philosophy of sniveling brats."

Sound like Kyoukan??

The following illustrates the real liberal:

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college.
Like so many others her age she considered herself to be very liberal, progressive and "enlightened"
and was for distribution of all wealth.
She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch old-fashioned conservative, which she expressed openly.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and more welfare programs.
In the middle of her heartfelt diatribe based upon the lectures she had from her far left professors at her school, he stopped her and asked her
point-blank,
how she was doing in school.

She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she had to study all the time, never had
time to go
out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending
all her
time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Mary?"

She replied, "Mary is just getting by," she continued, "all she has is barely a 2.0 GPA," adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never
studies."
But to explain further she continued emotionally, "But Mary is so very popular on campus; college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all
the time
and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."

Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to her friend who
only had a 2.0?"
He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair, equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and
Mary has done
little or nothing; she played while I worked real hard!"

Her father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Conservative Club".

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 20, 2004, 1:18 pm

Kylere wrote:You just do not get it, your mother was the EXCEPTION.

Show proof of that. Your observations of what goes on in Flint, MI, are not proof. Show us that the majority of welfare recipients are on welfare because they're too lazy to get a job or want to keep having children.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 20, 2004, 2:17 pm

Atokal wrote: The following illustrates the real liberal:

Yes, because assistance = lazy and shiftless

cute story though, your daddy pencil that on your coloring book on your way to work this morning?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 20, 2004, 2:19 pm

Let's learn about liberalism from a stupid fucking twank who won't even attempt to cover up his closet homosexual urges by constantly ranting about the gay agenda.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 20, 2004, 2:33 pm

Kylere wrote: Serious Answer:

Just curious, what happens to the children who fall under the circumstances of an irresponsible parent? Are you willing to shell out a little cash to make sure foster care programs are kept up to date? That's usually the biggest problem I have with the stance of complete cutoff, it has to come from somewhere to give the child a reasonable shot at making a contribution. If some program can work effectively in conjunction with welfare to assure the money is going to support the children being raised and not a negligent parent, I'm all for it. Not doing so is short-sighted.

Also, it's a much longer process to get an applicable job when it's for a position higher than office grunt. A lot of places won't bother because they know you'll be gone as soon as the opportunity arises and you'll be unpredictable as an employee because they know that job takes a back seat to the real one, finding a relevant position for your skills. It takes a lot of work networking and meeting with people on a regular basis in order to move into a position at the level I was at. I know you don't really give a shit, but other employers of lower level staff do, as do I considering I intend to be better, not worse, off from the experience.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » January 20, 2004, 3:23 pm

Gorjah, the problem that I see with a system like that is often enough, it gets abused. Maybe I'm jaded because I live in Southern California and have to pay taxes for every podunk hillbilly and 8 month pregnant border hopping mexican to receive welfare and medical benefits. Personally, I'm for preservation of wilderness. I'm for socialization of medical care. I'm for a different distribution of the tax burden. I'm against using America's military as a police force for the world. I don't, however, consider myself a liberal. I don't want to have to pay out cash to have some whore drop her kids off to a state run kindercare office. I know a lot of churches in the area that offer free childcare during the day as a function of the church. I don't want to have to pay for every mexican who decides to have a baby on American soil so they can run away from their problems and live the rest of their lives on welfare and doing odd jobs from a streetcorner pickup point. I don't want to have to pay for all the social welfare programs that several college students I know are taking advantage of for extra cash to party with each month. To me, the abuses don't make it worth the cost.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » January 20, 2004, 3:30 pm

Chidoro wrote:
Atokal wrote: The following illustrates the real liberal:

Yes, because assistance = lazy and shiftless

cute story though, your daddy pencil that on your coloring book on your way to work this morning?

Nice story Atokal.

Chidoro, what you call assistance is a good thing but never forget that someone else is paying the bill at the point of a gun! (Try opting out of the tax system and you'll understand the gun part.) You glorify the redistribution of wealth while ignoring the fact it's a form of legalized thievery.

There has to be a balance. I think we are actually close to a reasonable balance right now... but it's like a tug of war, you can't stop pulling your way or you lose.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 20, 2004, 3:46 pm

Why would I forget about footing the bill? I'll pay more in taxes than over 95% of Americans in 2003. Just because I am for responsible spending and am willing to pay taxes to do so doesn't mean I don't feel the sting of paying taxes, couldn't be further from the truth.
There's nothing thieving about trying to give a child, who has done nothing to deserve to not eat or not be educated, a chance to do so. You don't do it now, you'll pay more for it later.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 20, 2004, 4:53 pm

taxation is legalized thievery?

STFU.

for starters you wouldnt have any fucking money without the government. As in they wouldnt print it, and back the currency with gold. Secondly, you'd have a hard time convincing people to respect your property rights (the real thieves) when all you have to bribe them with is a few squirrel pelts.

and i'm sure whatever company employs your ass would exist in the absence of a government to regulate commerce.

i mean in your world where the fuck to roads come from?

who delivers the fucking mail? who guarantees bank accounts?

ever heard of the FDIC? lets say the bank in your local mudhole town decides to say fuck you and they have bigger sticks than you and are keeping your money?

STFU with that nonsense.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 20, 2004, 5:01 pm

wow, that was an owning.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » January 20, 2004, 5:07 pm

A friend of mine was a big fan of replacing income tax with a national sales tax. No loopholes, no exceptions; the more you spend the more tax you pay. The IRS as we know it would disappear, but we'd need a federal tax compliance agency, so only a small reduction in bureaucracy.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 20, 2004, 5:20 pm

i really am not convinced that would even produce enough revenue to fund our Defense Department.

as income scales, i would suspect the correlation with sales taxable goods is actually negative. Sure rich people buy more expensive things.

but let's say i make $1M and you make $500K. If we both buy dope TVs, do i buy one twice as much as yours? probably not. but i'm sure people have run models of systems like that.

I am not at all saying that the current tax code is flawless or whatever. I just am not sure these ultra-simplistic fad programs really would generate the revenue that is necessary to provide the government that we need to ensure our furthering economic and social prosperity.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » January 20, 2004, 6:31 pm

Atokal wrote:"The liberal is continually angry, as only a
self-important man/woman can be, with their civilization, culture, country
and their folks back home. They have an infantile world view. At the core of a liberal is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are,
unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism
is a philosophy of sniveling brats."

Sound like Kyoukan??

The following illustrates the real liberal:

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college.
Like so many others her age she considered herself to be very liberal, progressive and "enlightened"
and was for distribution of all wealth.
She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch old-fashioned conservative, which she expressed openly.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and more welfare programs.
In the middle of her heartfelt diatribe based upon the lectures she had from her far left professors at her school, he stopped her and asked her
point-blank,
how she was doing in school.

She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she had to study all the time, never had
time to go
out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending
all her
time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Mary?"

She replied, "Mary is just getting by," she continued, "all she has is barely a 2.0 GPA," adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never
studies."
But to explain further she continued emotionally, "But Mary is so very popular on campus; college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all
the time
and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."

Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to her friend who
only had a 2.0?"
He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair, equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and
Mary has done
little or nothing; she played while I worked real hard!"

Her father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Conservative Club".

I am sorry but that was the fucking stupidest thing i have ever heard, this comming from soneone who is more or less Economically "conservative" but socially very "liberal"

if you wanna compare democrats to communist, tell me how you cant do the same with republicans and facist nazis?

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » January 20, 2004, 7:06 pm

You just do not get it, your mother was the EXCEPTION.

Uh no, what you base this on is a conservative exaggeration that they use to on close-minded individuals like yourself.

whether or not our wellfare system is good, it is basic human nature that even a few accounts of the "bad apples" will gain much more attention than 10 times the number of good recipients.

Exactly, and conservatives use this to push the bullshit myth that most people on welfare are lazy people who are taking advantage of it.

No one here said elimate all help, just make it tied to reasonable time limits and reasonable requirements. No more children while you cannot pay for those you have, no staying ummarried and not naming the father of the child, etc.

First off, I don't think welfare reform is bad, but every reform bill that has been pushed has rediculous conservative, christian values that come along with the reform package.

I agree 100% they should not be having more children, but why would you have to be married to stay on welfare? Where does that come from? You're saying, they should hook up with some provider alpha male that they don't neccessarily have to love in order to stay on fucking welfare? Yeah, that's just what this country needs is forced marriage. Maybe they should also have to go to chruch every sunday aswell, and become a registered republican?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 20, 2004, 7:34 pm

While I'm sure these go out to a lot of people, I received my Republican Party Census Document today. Snazzy questions indeed

"Do you continue to support increasing the amount of security at airports, train stations and all government buildings including monuments anf museums?"

At what expense of personal liberties prz

"Should small businesses be encouraged to grow and hire more workers?"

Huh, is that what his plan guarantees?

"Do you support the use of air strikes against any country that offers safe harbor or aid to individuals or organizations commited to further attacks on America?"

Like Iraq's scary threat to our personal freedom?

"Do you support President Bush's initiative to allow private religious and charitable groups to do more to help those in need?"

You're joking right?

"Should we build President Reagan's SDI defense shield against nuclear missle attacks?"

This one is still kicking?

Then, you can give them money to mail more census documents out then is followed by this gem of a choice:

"Yes, I support the RNC, but I am unable to participate at this time. However, I have enclosed $11 to cover the cost of tabulating my survey"

or this fucking gem of a choice

"No, I favor electing liberal Democrats over the next ten years"

I know everyone collects cash and everyone weights their crap accordingly, but this is crazy. I don't give them money, I'm a liberal (OOOH, you said a BAD word) Democrat. Fucking schmoes. There's even a "Special Question" for those who donate saying in parenthesis that your gift puts in you good standing w/ the RNC so you may now be asked a special question regarding which channel you, primarily, get your news from. They also pay for postage but you can put a stamp on to help them save funds.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » January 20, 2004, 7:54 pm

My mother lived on welfare for seven years with four kids. I lived in the projects with a lot of lazy assed baby-makers. The problem with welfare is that they give you barely enough to survive, let alone do something better with your life. My Mom got $400/month plus $110 per month food stamps (and all the free cheese we didn't want) in the mid-eighties. It wasn't until they started offering school programs that she was able to get off welfare. Welfare shouldn't be just about giving a check out every month. It should provide training and day care and give people the means to better themselves to get off welfare. Today it is just a dead end road.

I also don't have a problem paying taxes. I do believe that we pay way too fucking much though and I really hate how wasteful the government is with our tax dollars.

Lugon · Post by **Lugon** » January 20, 2004, 8:04 pm

Just a note: The dollar is not officially backed by gold anymore as it once was. I believe Nixon nixed that. I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure no major world currency is. I read something about the Europeans wanting to tie the Euro to gold but as far as I know it hasn't happened.

As an employee of an organization under the Health and Human Services Commission in my state, I can state for a fact there are many bad apples abusing the system. We've got people in programs here whose whole life revolves around alcohol and drugs and yet we put clothes on their backs, provide money to them for food, provide places for them to come for a free meal, receive free mental health and rehabilitation services, and job placement for some, all at the cost of the taxpayers. These people do nothing but hang out each week at the outreach centers, and clinics, waiting for checks for food and supplies and sitting around the shelters watching TV, chatting, and now thanks to a wonderful government grant we've provided top of the line DELL PC's in each of the shelters with 20 inch flat panels, and high speed internet and all the software you can imagine. And soon we'll be giving away brand new Dell laptops to some participants as part of the same program. Yes, once again paid for by the wonderful taxpayers.

Now, on the other hand I see and have met and gotten to know many others who came in and really made use of all these benefits and turned their lives around and I don't begrudge them for it all. Some worked hard to dig themselves out of the hole they started in. One young lady in particular first showed up hooked on god knows what drugs, after getting kicked out of her home by her parents a year or two prior. To the best of my knowledge she had floated between staying with friends until she came to us and was set up with housing and rehabilitation. She now has a bachelors degree.

The problem, at least here, is there is no real accounting for these people. While records are kept to individuals progress, or lack of it, there is nothing to ever give them the boot from these programs. The more we can serve the more money which can be requested to continue those services.

I can't agree with cutting these types of things entirely, but how do you say this person we're going to help and that person we're not and come up with some reasonable system to make it fair. We cannot and should not have to help those who will not help themselves using our tax money in my opinion.

As for hard numbers, I don't have any and won't claim to, but from general observation I'd have to say less than a quarter of those in our shelters and programs have any intention of doing anything to get themselves out of the programs.

In my view, Liberals are the ones pushing these types of programs and as I said, I'm not against them, but I personally don't care to see another dollar spent on them until some system comes along to weed out the bad eggs which if it ever happened would probably bring the cost down to the point where Democrats and Republicans wouldn't care about the money.

Venti · Post by **Venti** » January 20, 2004, 8:23 pm

I really have to wonder why it is that people rush to label themselves within a party.

I'm registered as a republican, but I don't vote along party lines. I vote and act within my community to suit what makes sense and if that doesn't support a republican candidate or view, then so what?

As for taxes and paying them - > If you are paying a lot of taxes, on one hand, be glad for it because it likely means that you are doing well in business. On the other hand, if you don't like the structure of taxation in your local community/state/nation then start out to do something towards fixing it. I'm not being a smartass here, I've known a decent number of people in politics at the local level and a few at state/legislation. Most of them are alcoholic retards who rarely read the shit they vote for either.

As to the original question, I recommend ignoring completely whatever terms people like to toss onto topics/candidates (liberal conservative, democrat, republican) because they only serve to divide those who are:
1. too mother fucking lazy to read what they are voting for
and
2. Can not think for themselves.
It's far easier to just check off the box that their party agrees with.