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

[blu]

Ahh so like the legal system where you get as much justice as you can afford you would get as much police protection as you could afford?

yes, I imagine charity, which there would be more of if less taxes, would also help the really bad areas. I also envision local (community based) groups taking the responsbility of helping to secure their community instead of relying on cops or letting crime run rampant until it personally effects tehm

Vigalantism? I guppose we could just turn the teabaggers loose with guns and badges.

Darned cops mess up enough with all the rules and training.

Check you history about when coprorations hired their own police forces....
It does not work out very well.

I know what it would be like with communitys taking care of their own security along with real oversight on them (not like today where a cop does an "internal audit" of his buddy and nothing comes from it). its not vigilantism, its actual "justice" without the police abuse or as close as you can get to that

 

[uscitizen]

And just who would do the oversight?
The ones with the most money?

Human nature being what it is this will never work on a scale of any size.
Kickbacks, etc would abound.
Cops would be like gangsterts where you pay your protection money or bad things happen to you.

Sorry but I am a realist on this.

 

[RadiomanATL]

And just who would do the oversight?
The ones with the most money?

Me.

You can trust me.

 

[blu]

And just who would do the oversight?
The ones with the most money?

Human nature being what it is this will never work on a scale of any size.
Kickbacks, etc would abound.
Cops would be like gangsterts where you pay your protection money or bad things happen to you.

Sorry but I am a realist on this.

would be hard to explain, but I would have quite a bit of oversight built in at all levels as well as easy ways for people to go above each level to report on illegal activity

 

[uscitizen]

And just who would do the oversight?
The ones with the most money?

Human nature being what it is this will never work on a scale of any size.
Kickbacks, etc would abound.
Cops would be like gangsterts where you pay your protection money or bad things happen to you.

Sorry but I am a realist on this.

would be hard to explain, but I would have quite a bit of oversight built in at all levels as well as easy ways for people to go above each level to report on illegal activity

It would not work for any length of time. The negative aspects of human nature would take over much as they have in our government. It is all a matter of time and scale.

 

[Samson]

It would not work for any length of time. The negative aspects of human nature would take over much as they have in our government. It is all a matter of time and scale.

Not only a matter of time and scale.

Beyond it is another dimension.....

a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind.

You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas.


You've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone.

 

[momonkey]

The Labor Movement which gave rise to the American middle class.

Following WWII, the United States was the only industrial power not in smoking ruins. Our distance from the fight allowed our industries to develop throughout the war years. After the war, our intact and advanced industries exported our goods to the entire world, and since we were in such an advantageous position, we could charge what we liked. Unions made sure the workers got their share of the pie, and all was well until 1975. That was the last year in which we were a net exporter. In response to our economic fall from grace, Carter pursued a weak dollar policy so as to boost exports. In the short-term jobs were saved by this policy, but they came at the price of hyperinflation, sky high interest rates and a stagnant economy. It only put off the inevitable US deindustrialization.

In all unions do, they have their own interests in mind, and since they are in the business of collecting member's dues, they must preserve the system that entitles them to do so. Union membership has declined over the years because unions which were once in the position of making demands of industry now make requests and are often in bed with the company to the detriment of their members. Furthermore, with so little to gain from our ever shrinking industries, unions have turned in desperation to unaccountable federal, state and local governments with hopes they will be their new cash cows. Still they become more and more irrelevant as time goes by, and they also become more desperate as more workers find no use for them. Americans, to include union members, want first to have jobs and understand unions force jobs overseas.

The dinosaur unions in America will not survive in their present form. They are too self-serving and incapable of dealing with the basic economics of free trade with ever developing competitor nations. Your claim that unions created the American middle-class is unhinged from post-war American history. Our victory in WWII created the American middle-class with unions along for the ride. Now the ride is over and so is union membership in America.

 

[jillian]

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

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

Still thinking...

Nixon was the most liberal president we've had during my lifetime.

bummer the repubs would call him a RINO today.

 

[rdean]

You have to give it to the Republicans, they can "spin". They are masters of "spin".

The entire rest of the world may see 8 years of the Bush administration as "failure" and proof of a bankrupt ideology, not the Republicans.

We may be seeing an economy that is slowly beginning to heal from disastrous Republican policies, but according to them, none of that healing is from Democrats. Oh, no. It's just another phase that is part of a "natural" market cycle.

And look at their other accomplishments:

They brought "Democracy" to the Middle East and "freed" Iraq.

They may not have "got" Bin Laden, but they did something "better". They made him "hide".

They rebuilt New Orleans. How do we know? It's not in the news any more.

They "saved" marriage. The 50% divorce rate is "proof" that people are getting married.

They "saved" business tens of billions of dollars by getting rid of those bothersome OSHA and EPA regulations and replacing them with "Voluntary Compliance". When something like a mine disaster happens, it's not the fault of the companies, but the employees for putting themselves in danger.

People threatening Obama and other Democrats are really democratic "plants". Peaceful and loving Republicans would never make such threats.

No one "spit" at any black politicians. It was only someone talking loud" so they could be heard over the Democrats, off camera, who were screaming and they "might" have, accidentally, very slightly "sprayed".

Masters of spin.

 

[blu]

You have to give it to the Republicans, they can "spin". They are masters of "spin".

The entire rest of the world may see 8 years of the Bush administration as "failure" and proof of a bankrupt ideology, not the Republicans.

We may be seeing an economy that is slowly beginning to heal from disastrous Republican policies, but according to them, none of that healing is from Democrats. Oh, no. It's just another phase that is part of a "natural" market cycle.

And look at their other accomplishments:

They brought "Democracy" to the Middle East and "freed" Iraq.

They may not have "got" Bin Laden, but they did something "better". They made him "hide".

They rebuilt New Orleans. How do we know? It's not in the news any more.

They "saved" marriage. The 50% divorce rate is "proof" that people are getting married.

They "saved" business tens of billions of dollars by getting rid of those bothersome OSHA and EPA regulations and replacing them with "Voluntary Compliance". When something like a mine disaster happens, it's not the fault of the companies, but the employees for putting themselves in danger.

People threatening Obama and other Democrats are really democratic "plants". Peaceful and loving Republicans would never make such threats.

No one "spit" at any black politicians. It was only someone talking loud" so they could be heard over the Democrats, off camera, who were screaming and they "might" have, accidentally, very slightly "sprayed".

Masters of spin.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

 

[rdean]

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.

Conservatives attempting to take any credit for the abolition of slavery is a slap in the face to history, reason and common sense.
When conservative religious leaders say "9/11 happened because God lifted his Veil of Protection because of Feminists and Gays", then it's pretty clear conservatives never supported women's rights.

More crazy spin. You don't have to argue with the right. Give them enough rope and.....

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Conservatives attempting to take any credit for the abolition of slavery is a slap in the face to history, reason and common sense.
When conservative religious leaders say "9/11 happened because God lifted his Veil of Protection because of Feminists and Gays", then it's pretty clear conservatives never supported women's rights.

More crazy spin. You don't have to argue with the right. Give them enough rope and.....

Well you see, conservatives are usually capable of evaluating concepts apart from trying to demonize somebody in order to avoid evaluating those concepts.

I think you missed that concept here.

 

[rdean]

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.

Conservatives attempting to take any credit for the abolition of slavery is a slap in the face to history, reason and common sense.
When conservative religious leaders say "9/11 happened because God lifted his Veil of Protection because of Feminists and Gays", then it's pretty clear conservatives never supported women's rights.

More crazy spin. You don't have to argue with the right. Give them enough rope and.....

Well you see, conservatives are usually capable of evaluating concepts apart from trying to demonize somebody in order to avoid evaluating those concepts.

I think you missed that concept here.

Please, school me, I'm all ears. And please explain where gay rights fit into that equation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Conservatives attempting to take any credit for the abolition of slavery is a slap in the face to history, reason and common sense.
When conservative religious leaders say "9/11 happened because God lifted his Veil of Protection because of Feminists and Gays", then it's pretty clear conservatives never supported women's rights.

More crazy spin. You don't have to argue with the right. Give them enough rope and.....

Well you see, conservatives are usually capable of evaluating concepts apart from trying to demonize somebody in order to avoid evaluating those concepts.

I think you missed that concept here.

Please, school me, I'm all ears. And please explain where gay rights fit into that equation.

Gays are people like any other people and are entitled to the same unalienable, legal, civil, and constitutional rights as any other people. They are not entitled to special laws to accommodate their 'gayness' any more than women are entitled to special laws to accommodate they 'femaleness' or blacks are entitle to specail laws to accommodate their skin color. At least that is how conservatives look at it.

So how do gays fit into that equation to you?

 

[rdean]

Well you see, conservatives are usually capable of evaluating concepts apart from trying to demonize somebody in order to avoid evaluating those concepts.

I think you missed that concept here.

Please, school me, I'm all ears. And please explain where gay rights fit into that equation.

Gays are people like any other people and are entitled to the same unalienable, legal, civil, and constitutional rights as any other people. They are not entitled to special laws to accommodate their 'gayness' any more than women are entitled to special laws to accommodate they 'femaleness' or blacks are entitle to specail laws to accommodate their skin color. At least that is how conservatives look at it.

So how do gays fit into that equation to you?

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?

 

[Foxfyre]

Please, school me, I'm all ears. And please explain where gay rights fit into that equation.

Gays are people like any other people and are entitled to the same unalienable, legal, civil, and constitutional rights as any other people. They are not entitled to special laws to accommodate their 'gayness' any more than women are entitled to special laws to accommodate they 'femaleness' or blacks are entitle to specail laws to accommodate their skin color. At least that is how conservatives look at it.

So how do gays fit into that equation to you?

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?

Sure. Equal pay for equal work is clearly a conservative concept.

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, but in no cases does the law mention any religious accommodations nor does it specifiy that the parties love each other or even like each other.

As for the military, I don't get involved there except that I think we would agree that sexual attraction is a natural human condition and it makes very good sense not to have men and women in the military sleeping, showering, etc. together for that reason. Obviously homosexuality creates a special problem because there is no culturally acceptable way to keep people who might be sexually attracted to each other out of extended potentially compromising conditions. Yes, yes, I know many heterosexuals intentionally put themselves into compromising conditions, but that is a separate debate.

A special law is one that accommodates only one demographic and not all.

 

[LuckyDan]

Please, school me, I'm all ears. And please explain where gay rights fit into that equation.

Gays are people like any other people and are entitled to the same unalienable, legal, civil, and constitutional rights as any other people. They are not entitled to special laws to accommodate their 'gayness' any more than women are entitled to special laws to accommodate they 'femaleness' or blacks are entitle to specail laws to accommodate their skin color. At least that is how conservatives look at it.

So how do gays fit into that equation to you?

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.

On SSM, I'm still trying to figure out when marriage became more than a "piece of paper" to liberals. Remember when they laughed at it? Made fun of it? Look at all the strait couples, rich and poor, who have been together for years outside of wedlock. Suddenly gays can't be fulfilled unless they can marry.

Which leads to your last question. Gay men have the same right to marry as strait men. Either can ask a woman to marry him. If the woman agrees, they marry. By special law, I think Fox means a law that changes the centuries old definition of marriage to accomodate one segment of society, based on what may well turn out to be a fad cause.

You are aware there are gays who oppose SSM, right? Are they homophobes, too?

 

[Foxfyre]

Gays are people like any other people and are entitled to the same unalienable, legal, civil, and constitutional rights as any other people. They are not entitled to special laws to accommodate their 'gayness' any more than women are entitled to special laws to accommodate they 'femaleness' or blacks are entitle to specail laws to accommodate their skin color. At least that is how conservatives look at it.

So how do gays fit into that equation to you?

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.

 

[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.