Can someone show me ONE liberal ideal that has actually worked?

[LuckyDan]

So you believe in "equal pay for equal work"?

Gays should be allowed to marry whoever they fall in love with. They should be allowed to join the military and not have to lie when asked if they are gay, and believe me, they are asked.

What do you consider a "special" law?

If I may.

I think conservatives would prefer a competitive job market to whatever the hell "equal pay for equal work" might mean. What exacly is "equal work?" I'm sure I have female peers who make more than I. And I'm quite certain my female manager out-earns me.

I have been lucky in being in the right place at the right time to snag jobs held by mostly men, and I have never been paid less than the guys for the same amount and quality of work. But I sometimes made less because I chose of my own free will to take on less work than some of them took on. I appreciated having the option to do that.

But for me, 'equal pay for equal work' means the same amount and quality of work. Conservatives understand that some people have better skills sets and work ethic than other people and those with superior skill sets and work ethic should earn higher wages than do those with less effective skill sets or poorer work ethic. Those who produce more or carry more responsibility (risk) are entitled to higher wages than those who do not.

Liberals sometimes appear to think it is more important to improve the wages and benefits of those with inferior skill sets and work ethic than it is to improve the skill sets and work ethic and actually qualify for better wages and benefits.

In my work place, all associates coming in are paid the same entry level salary for their position. After six months, they are given their first performance reviews. Those who excelled get larger raises than those who simply met goals. Those few who failed to meet goals get no raise, but are given additional time in most cases to get it together. Salary is based on merit, nothing else. So after the first six months, there is no equal pay, just equal opportunity.

 

[rdean]

So you believe in "equal pay for equal work"?

Gays should be allowed to marry whoever they fall in love with. They should be allowed to join the military and not have to lie when asked if they are gay, and believe me, they are asked.

What do you consider a "special" law?

If I may.

I think conservatives would prefer a competitive job market to whatever the hell "equal pay for equal work" might mean. What exacly is "equal work?" I'm sure I have female peers who make more than I. And I'm quite certain my female manager out-earns me.

I have been lucky in being in the right place at the right time to snag jobs held by mostly men, and I have never been paid less than the guys for the same amount and quality of work. But I sometimes made less because I chose of my own free will to take on less work than some of them took on. I appreciated having the option to do that.

But for me, 'equal pay for equal work' means the same amount and quality of work. Conservatives understand that some people have better skills sets and work ethic than other people and those with superior skill sets and work ethic should earn higher wages than do those with less effective skill sets or poorer work ethic. Those who produce more or carry more responsibility (risk) are entitled to higher wages than those who do not.

Liberals sometimes appear to think it is more important to improve the wages and benefits of those with inferior skill sets and work ethic than it is to improve the skill sets and work ethic and actually qualify for better wages and benefits.

Now that is funny. PEW research indicates that only 6% of scientists in America are Republican and 9% are conservative. That means the vast majority of conservatives are probably just uneducated, middle class. If that's the case, why shouldn't they get paid the same as Chinese peasants? Same skills.
You know what is really funny? Those conservatives who cry and whine about "government handouts", yet they recieve SS and Medicare. Don't you agree that's funny?
I watched a Tea bagger on the news answer the question, "How do you have time to protest? Don't you have a job?" The guy answered, "No, I'm on disability". And he was listed on his wife's companies insurance. Believe me, if it weren't for those darn "liberals", the guy would have neither disability nor insurance.

 

[rdean]

If I may.

I think conservatives would prefer a competitive job market to whatever the hell "equal pay for equal work" might mean. What exacly is "equal work?" I'm sure I have female peers who make more than I. And I'm quite certain my female manager out-earns me.

I have been lucky in being in the right place at the right time to snag jobs held by mostly men, and I have never been paid less than the guys for the same amount and quality of work. But I sometimes made less because I chose of my own free will to take on less work than some of them took on. I appreciated having the option to do that.

But for me, 'equal pay for equal work' means the same amount and quality of work. Conservatives understand that some people have better skills sets and work ethic than other people and those with superior skill sets and work ethic should earn higher wages than do those with less effective skill sets or poorer work ethic. Those who produce more or carry more responsibility (risk) are entitled to higher wages than those who do not.

Liberals sometimes appear to think it is more important to improve the wages and benefits of those with inferior skill sets and work ethic than it is to improve the skill sets and work ethic and actually qualify for better wages and benefits.

In my work place, all associates coming in are paid the same entry level salary for their position. After six months, they are given their first performance reviews. Those who excelled get larger raises than those who simply met goals. Those few who failed to meet goals get no raise, but are given additional time in most cases to get it together. Salary is based on merit, nothing else. So after the first six months, there is no equal pay, just equal opportunity.

Answer the question on love first. I'm all ears.

 

[LuckyDan]

I have been lucky in being in the right place at the right time to snag jobs held by mostly men, and I have never been paid less than the guys for the same amount and quality of work. But I sometimes made less because I chose of my own free will to take on less work than some of them took on. I appreciated having the option to do that.

But for me, 'equal pay for equal work' means the same amount and quality of work. Conservatives understand that some people have better skills sets and work ethic than other people and those with superior skill sets and work ethic should earn higher wages than do those with less effective skill sets or poorer work ethic. Those who produce more or carry more responsibility (risk) are entitled to higher wages than those who do not.

Liberals sometimes appear to think it is more important to improve the wages and benefits of those with inferior skill sets and work ethic than it is to improve the skill sets and work ethic and actually qualify for better wages and benefits.

In my work place, all associates coming in are paid the same entry level salary for their position. After six months, they are given their first performance reviews. Those who excelled get larger raises than those who simply met goals. Those few who failed to meet goals get no raise, but are given additional time in most cases to get it together. Salary is based on merit, nothing else. So after the first six months, there is no equal pay, just equal opportunity.

Answer the question on love first. I'm all ears.

The hell does love got to do with marriage? Are you single?

 

[momonkey]

I know, I know!!!! NAFTA! Oh..oops jobs taken away from Americans...My bad.

Negotiated by George H.W. Bush, and is the expansion of the US-Canada FTA negotiated and signed by Reagan.

And Clinton couldn't wait to sign it because Mexicans were going to buy our cars.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

HAHA!! A link? Sure: Breaking News, Weather, Business, Health, Entertainment, Sports, Politics, Travel, Science, Technology, Local, US & World News- msnbc.com

Funny, never heard Rachel Maddow ever whine.

Though we all know that Rush, Sean, and Glenn don't have college degrees. So they have nothing to complain about for once on that front.

Now why don't you go be a good citizen and make me a sammich.

Really? Then you've never watched Rachael Maddow I suppose.

And yes, Rush, Sean and Glenn don't have degrees. Funny how RICH AND SUCCESSFUL they became despite that. Makes one wonder what type of ideals and lifestyles they must have believed in and lived to succeed and get rich despite that.............

Perhaps this occurred before I started watching her 5 times a week?

Perhaps you've a video on youtube of her whining?

We can always find examples of Beck crying- and yelling on the phone.

 

[Foxfyre]

You guys come up with the same stupid arguments. Gay men don't fall in love with straight women, so to say a gay man can marry a woman is the same as a straight man marrying a woman is just dumb. Isn't the reason the straight man marries the women because he fell in love with her? In a way, you are actually demeaning straight men, suggesting they might marry for another reason than love. Or are you suggesting that two men in love isn't "real" love? That gays don't "feel" the same as "normal" people?

And when I was in the service, when guys sat around the table in the mess hall, someone might ask, are you married? Do you have kids? It's part of "normal" conversation. It's the kind of conversation that normal people have. Young men, if they aren't married and don't have a girlfriend, it's only natural for someone to say, "Are you gay?" What is wrong with someone answering, "Yea, I'm gay"? Why should they have to lie? Of course, they could say, "None of your business", but that's not very friendly. In fact, it's rude. Fuck it. Just tell the truth and make the "truth" legal. To me, it's a no brainer. I can't help it if conservatives are stupid about normal stuff.

I don't have any problem with people admitting they are gay. But you put a whole bunch of heterosexual guys in a dorm or shower together, and they really are not going to be sexually attracted to each other. Ditto for the heterosexual gals. And there isn't likely to be much bruhaha re any inappropriate comments, touching, etc. etc. of a sexual nature. So how do you get around that with a bunch of gay people in a room with each other or same sex heterosexuals? That is the issue however silly it seems to you, and if there is a good answer for it, then by all means, I'm SURE the military would be thrilled to have a good solution for the problem.

But I thought the rule was 'don't ask don't tell' as the only practical solution at this time. So if somebody asks somebody else if they are gay, wouldn't that be violating the rule? And shouldn't the appropriate response be that the question is out of line?

Gays are not heterosexual and they don't have kids together. So if they wish a permanent contractual arrangement the same as heterosexual people who do intend to have kids together have, then they should be working toward a civil union to accommodate folks who for whatever reason do not wish to marry but who do need many of the benefits that come with marriage. Marriage laws are there to protect the kids, plain and simple, regardless of whether the union results in children. I for one will never agree to change the law and weaken that protection. Gay children need a mom and dad as much as heterosexual children do. And it is for that reason that more than a few gay people do not want the traditional definition of marriage changed.

But conservatives do agree that gay couples do need an easier way to unify property, insurance, inheritance, visitation, etc. just as many heterosexual folks who do not wish to or cannot marry could benefit from that. So lets set up a system to make that happen.
Because it would not need some of the more restrictive provisions in the marriage laws, it could accommodate people in ways better than the marriage laws can do. It could also have the extra layer of a religious ceremony if folks wanted that and could be just as meaningful as any marriage ceremony.

And with that, I will conclude my comments on this and head for bed. There are many other threads to debate same sex marriage and I will just be repeating myself if I continue, and it will hijack the thread. So I doubt I will comment further on that subject.

I prefer to focus on the thread topic which (I think) is what modern liberal ideology does work?

 

[momonkey]

Making China's most favored nation trading status permanent was just brlliant.


President Clinton closed years of political and economic debate Tuesday, and sealed a major achievement of his administration by signing a bill extending permanent, normal trade status to China.


"Today we take a major step toward China's entry into the World Trade Organization and a major step toward answering some of the central challenges of this new century,"




Thanks Bubba!

 

[☭proletarian☭]

It's like a fucking echo chamber in here...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I'm an idiot so please tell me one liberal idea that worked

United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Office of Strategic Services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social Security Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could you clarify how the OSS qualifies as a liberal idea and not simply a military/intelligence strategy?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Seems to me that we're back to assigning blame to somebody rather than discussing the thread topic.

For instance, using modern definitions for 'conservative' and 'liberal' in America, was abolition a 'conservative' or a 'liberal' concept? Modern American Conservatism is very big on personal liberties and unalienable rights.

Is Women's suffrage a 'conservative' or a 'liberal' concept. Modern American Conservatism draws no distinction between people based on any demographic and assigns unalienable rights to all.

So, I'm not sure you can now assign those as 'liberal' successes. I am prepared to have somebody show me how I'm wrong.

If you knew the definition of liberalism and were familiar with the ideology, you wouldn't post such silly things.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Heterosexuals are not allowed to marry whoever they fall in love with, so why should gays be any different? The marriage laws in all 50 states are 100% uniform in that they apply equally to every American equally regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic standing, sexual orientation, etc. etc. etc. In all cases the laws are in place to protect any children who result from the marriage

We heard the exact same thing before from Virginia in the Loving case...

 

[rdean]

You guys come up with the same stupid arguments. Gay men don't fall in love with straight women, so to say a gay man can marry a woman is the same as a straight man marrying a woman is just dumb. Isn't the reason the straight man marries the women because he fell in love with her? In a way, you are actually demeaning straight men, suggesting they might marry for another reason than love. Or are you suggesting that two men in love isn't "real" love? That gays don't "feel" the same as "normal" people?

And when I was in the service, when guys sat around the table in the mess hall, someone might ask, are you married? Do you have kids? It's part of "normal" conversation. It's the kind of conversation that normal people have. Young men, if they aren't married and don't have a girlfriend, it's only natural for someone to say, "Are you gay?" What is wrong with someone answering, "Yea, I'm gay"? Why should they have to lie? Of course, they could say, "None of your business", but that's not very friendly. In fact, it's rude. Fuck it. Just tell the truth and make the "truth" legal. To me, it's a no brainer. I can't help it if conservatives are stupid about normal stuff.

I don't have any problem with people admitting they are gay. But you put a whole bunch of heterosexual guys in a dorm or shower together, and they really are not going to be sexually attracted to each other. Ditto for the heterosexual gals. And there isn't likely to be much bruhaha re any inappropriate comments, touching, etc. etc. of a sexual nature. So how do you get around that with a bunch of gay people in a room with each other or same sex heterosexuals? That is the issue however silly it seems to you, and if there is a good answer for it, then by all means, I'm SURE the military would be thrilled to have a good solution for the problem.

But I thought the rule was 'don't ask don't tell' as the only practical solution at this time. So if somebody asks somebody else if they are gay, wouldn't that be violating the rule? And shouldn't the appropriate response be that the question is out of line?

Gays are not heterosexual and they don't have kids together. So if they wish a permanent contractual arrangement the same as heterosexual people who do intend to have kids together have, then they should be working toward a civil union to accommodate folks who for whatever reason do not wish to marry but who do need many of the benefits that come with marriage. Marriage laws are there to protect the kids, plain and simple, regardless of whether the union results in children. I for one will never agree to change the law and weaken that protection. Gay children need a mom and dad as much as heterosexual children do. And it is for that reason that more than a few gay people do not want the traditional definition of marriage changed.

But conservatives do agree that gay couples do need an easier way to unify property, insurance, inheritance, visitation, etc. just as many heterosexual folks who do not wish to or cannot marry could benefit from that. So lets set up a system to make that happen.
Because it would not need some of the more restrictive provisions in the marriage laws, it could accommodate people in ways better than the marriage laws can do. It could also have the extra layer of a religious ceremony if folks wanted that and could be just as meaningful as any marriage ceremony.

And with that, I will conclude my comments on this and head for bed. There are many other threads to debate same sex marriage and I will just be repeating myself if I continue, and it will hijack the thread. So I doubt I will comment further on that subject.

I prefer to focus on the thread topic which (I think) is what modern liberal ideology does work?

I was in the service in '75 and I knew gay guys in the military. And since then, I have never, ever met someone who was in the service (Navy, Marines, Army, Coast Guard, National Guard) who didn't know at least one person who was gay. The subject will come up with anyone who is sitting and chatting and talking politics. To think that soldiers, in the prime of their lives, who are trained to protect themselves, are threatened by gays is ludicrous. It's one of those absolutely stupid fucking stories that the right wing comes up with to scare other Americans. Sure, there are a few brainwashed Christian or Muslim assholes who will hate someone because they are gay, but for the vast majority, it's a ridiculous non-issue.
So what does a woman do when she is approached by someone she's not interested in? How about "no", duh! And you would have to be a truly stupid fucking moron to think that a guy would push himself on a trained soldier who wasn't interested.

The problem with right wingers is they don't know how to think and they are told what to think. A deadly combination. As soon as their nonsensical side is exposed, they become angry, and I can't blame them. I would be mad too. No one likes to look like a fool. It's just that the right does it so well.

And you're right. This isn't what this thread is about.

 

[momonkey]

The EPA has done some good. Oh, wait... That was proposed by President Richard Nixon.

Still thinking...[/QUOTE]
Nixon also proposed healthcare. Reagan proposed zero nukes.[/QUOTE]



When Nixon was in office we didn't steal as much from the next generation, didn't count savings twice or use Enron-style accounting to reimburse doctors off the books for what we cut on the books.

Want socialized medicine? Find an honest way to pay for it.


Love to see that Reagan quote.

 

[rdean]

The EPA has done some good. Oh, wait... That was proposed by President Richard Nixon.

Still thinking...

Nixon also proposed healthcare. Reagan proposed zero nukes.[/QUOTE]



When Nixon was in office we didn't steal as much from the next generation, didn't count savings twice or use Enron-style accounting to reimburse doctors off the books for what we cut on the books.

Want socialized medicine? Find an honest way to pay for it.


Love to see that Reagan quote.[/QUOTE]

I've always said that Nixon would have been a great president if his paranoia hadn't taken over. It shows the president is not above the law, unless your name is George Bush.

An honest way to pay for medicine is to pay less. Part of the Republican money give away to drug companies was to write into law that HMOs couldn't "bundle" drug orders. For instance, Canada and Mexico can bundle an order and buy bulk insulin or other drugs at a reduced rate. Maybe 10 cents a shot instead of 10 dollars. The Republican bill which passed through reconciliation requires that HMOs can only buy what they actually use. Instead of every HMO in three states buying penicillin in bulk at a cost of pennies, each individual HMO has to buy separate and many times the cost. It's why the bill costs 1.2 trillion and eventually will cost trillions more. Remember, Republicans values companies above the "little" people.

Do you think Democrats will be able to "fix it"? No way. You will have hordes of Republicans screaming hysterically "death panels" and "rationing". Until Republicans stop being so cowed by their parties leadership, we will continue to get screwed as a nation. They are so pathetic.

 

[rdean]

And as far as the EPA, early in the Bush administration's first term, the EPA and OSHA were deregulated and companies could opt for "voluntary compliance". It makes interesting research. Especially in light of the recent mine disaster.

 

[Si modo]

I'm so baffled at all these liberals who are dropping at their knees at the feet of Obama. The last Democratic president we had a problem with ONE person dropping to their knees for Clinton, but now we have 100 million people doing it. So, that begs the question, why? Why are liberals who they are? Sifting through decades of liberal ideals, policies, and dreams, I don't think I can find ONE that actually works in the long run? A quick summary:

Appeasment? Failed vs Hitler. Failed vs Iran. Failed vs North Korea.
Welfare? The poor keep getting poorer, despite welfare. At least thats what liberals are saying. Welfare has caused MORE people to become or remain poor, not less.
Social Security? Bankrupt. Failed.
Medicare/Medicaid? Soon to be bankrupt. Failing.
Obamacare? Soon to be failure, just wait and see.
Higher taxes? Obviously, higher taxes hurt job and economic growth.
Housing? Greenspan finally admits what we've known for 2 years. The liberal practice of threatening racism allegation on banks who wouldn't loan to poor people is the root of this recession as it caused the housing bust.
Public education? Failed.
Public housing? Failed. Have you ever seen a pleasant gov't housing project? Ever?
Global Warming? Hoax.
Anit-civil rights? Yes, thats right, read your history, the Republicans were responsible for passing civil rights in the 60's, Democrats strongly opposed it. So, the DEMOCRAT anti-civil rights stance failed.
Pro-Slavery? Yes, again, it was the Republican Party that freed slaves, Democrats opposed, so they failed there again.


So, let me ask again, what is ONE liberal Democratic policy that had positive results? Just one!!??

If you let us know what your definition of 'liberal' is, I would try to give an answer, 'Liberal' is so subjective in the USA. For example, I call myself a liberal because my views on social issues are very liberal. I also call myself a conservative because my views on fiscal issues are conservative for the most part.

 

[Ravi]

I'm an idiot so please tell me one liberal idea that worked

United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Office of Strategic Services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social Security Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could you clarify how the OSS qualifies as a liberal idea and not simply a military/intelligence strategy?

President Franklin D. Roosevelt was concerned about American intelligence deficiencies. On the suggestion of Canadian/British spymaster William Stephenson, the senior British intelligence officer in the western hemisphere, Roosevelt requested that William J. Donovan draft a plan for an intelligence service.

 

[xotoxi]

 

[editec]

I'm so baffled at all these liberals who are dropping at their knees at the feet of Obama. The last Democratic president we had a problem with ONE person dropping to their knees for Clinton, but now we have 100 million people doing it. So, that begs the question, why? Why are liberals who they are? Sifting through decades of liberal ideals, policies, and dreams, I don't think I can find ONE that actually works in the long run? A quick summary:

Appeasment? Failed vs Hitler. Failed vs Iran. Failed vs North Korea.
Welfare? The poor keep getting poorer, despite welfare. At least thats what liberals are saying. Welfare has caused MORE people to become or remain poor, not less.
Social Security? Bankrupt. Failed.
Medicare/Medicaid? Soon to be bankrupt. Failing.
Obamacare? Soon to be failure, just wait and see.
Higher taxes? Obviously, higher taxes hurt job and economic growth.
Housing? Greenspan finally admits what we've known for 2 years. The liberal practice of threatening racism allegation on banks who wouldn't loan to poor people is the root of this recession as it caused the housing bust.
Public education? Failed.
Public housing? Failed. Have you ever seen a pleasant gov't housing project? Ever?
Global Warming? Hoax.
Anit-civil rights? Yes, thats right, read your history, the Republicans were responsible for passing civil rights in the 60's, Democrats strongly opposed it. So, the DEMOCRAT anti-civil rights stance failed.
Pro-Slavery? Yes, again, it was the Republican Party that freed slaves, Democrats opposed, so they failed there again.


So, let me ask again, what is ONE liberal Democratic policy that had positive results? Just one!!??

Why would anyone bother to attempt to educate you when it is so apparent that you've already made up your mind?

The fact that you believe the myth of liberals v conservatives already informs me that the amount of educating you'd need to really have a serious discussion of these issues is way beyond what can be done for you in this venue.

Tell ya what...you spend the next 16 weeks studying politicial science with me, and if you do with so with an open mind, and I guarantee you that you will never post such a confused thread as you have just done.

When you're done, I also promise you... you won't be a liberal and you won't ever again think of youself as a conservative, either.

What you will be is one thoroughly pissed off AMERICAN PATRIOT, who hates BOTH parties, which is really one party pretending to be two parties at odds with each other.

Then you can join me in being amazed how duped most of you former partisan chums still are.