Defining "Liberalism"

[edthecynic]

So....how come you guys will do anything to avoid post #9?


Must be a reason.....

Because none of the supposed reasons touch on the main goal of socialism: giving control of the means of production to the community.

But eh, I'm feeling nice today.

1 was never advocated by anyone, 2 could be said about literally any ideology and is irrelevant, 3-6 are not goals of liberalism. For 7, nothing is actually wrong with homosexuality, and saying that there is is socially backwards. No one claims the other 2 on that point are good or healthy. #8, liberals go for freedom of religion, not make everyone worship socialized religion, in #9 prayers school-led do violate the seperation of church and state. #10, no one is actually claiming that. #11, you don't know how socialism works and what you're saying in this point doesn't really make sense. #12-13 are not being advocated by anyone.

Done.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened.”
Norman Thomas
Socialist Party presidential candidate in 1940, 1944 and 1948.


Socialism, liberalism, communism.....all the same sewage.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
-Sinclair Lewis

Fascism, CON$ervatism, Nazism.....all the same excrement.

 

[NoNukes]

Again, a vapid post....no substance, no rebuttal, no data nor documentation.

Why post if you have nothing to bring to the table?

Be honest....it's that lack of ability thing, isn't it.

We all know that you were near the top of your class at Cuyahoga Community College, but that is nothing to brag about.
When someone posts something that stupid, why bother bringing anything to the table? Your reply would be a failed attempt at humor.

Columbia University....

....Dean's List, baby.....




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVsXseZJPg0]Columbia University Fight Song: Roar, Lion, Roar! - YouTube[/ame]



You have yet to post anything directed at the OP.


Same comment: 'works to ability'

Too stupid to comment on was directed at the OP. Community College students do not grasp the obvious.

 

[Dragonlady]

Wanna take a stab at the challenge in post #9?

Don't be afraid.

I don't read your posts

Your writing style is unreadable

Stick to the truth.

I run circles around the empty Leftist poses you assume.

That's PC. A legend in your own mind and not half as clever as you think you are.

 

[Edgetho]

I'm not going to start a separate thread for this but if somebody else wants to....?

This may surprise our pals on the left, but.....

The conservative shift in public opinion has happened in all 50 states

Importantly, the public has not moved in a conservative direction in all issue areas. For example, support for same-sex marriage has been increasing across all states. It is also worth noting that our findings on the 1960s and 2000s hides important shifts in policy mood between these periods, such as increased policy liberalism during the 1980s. However, when it comes to support of government programs, the net conservative shift is clear. Considering the evidence that inequality is near an all-time high, this may seem like a surprising result. Prominent economic models, for example, expect that as the rich get richer, public support for government policies like spending more on education, infrastructure, and job creation would increase. Instead, across the country, the public’s policy mood has moved in a conservative direction.

Edge:
There are links embedded in the post to prove their points that I'm too lazy to transfer all of them. Go to the link if you're interested.

While I'm at it, let me tell ALL of you something....

I LIVED through the 60's. And not as a child or a cocooned know-nothing. I was in the United States Army. I served in Viet Nam -- Two Years.

I walked the streets of Haight Ashbury, I met..... A lot of people. Saw it all first hand. Lived it, didn't read about it through some stoner's filtered views, didn't listen to somebody else's opinion.... Saw it, heard it, smelled it and touched it.

I came back to outside Boston Massachusetts (Fort Devens) in 1969. Which was and still IS the epicenter of all things liberal, all things dimocrap, all things Anti-American, all things anti-conservative.

Back then, 44 years ago, there were 400,000 Full Time College Students in Boston and some of those Universities make Berkeley look Conservative by comparison.

What we're experiencing today, the liberalism that so many are afraid of, the Anti-American president we have (oh yes, he is) the dimocrap haters, the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM......??

Let me tell you something.... It is NOTHING compared to what it was in the 60's and 70's. NOTHING.

liberalism is in the process of being defeated. It is a wounded and dying animal in its last death throes and for that reason, is dangerous. But it is still mortally wounded and will not recover.

All you Conservatives and other Patriotic Americans that think things are so bad? They're not. We're winning. And we're winning big.

Keep the faith

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't care what a politician said about liberalism<-->socialism.
Unlike you, I've actually acquired the ability to think critically and realize that there are actually very important differences between the two.

No, actually you don't think.

Norman Thomas knows whereof he spoke.

All of the concepts, the name-of-the-day, are simply different levels of control by big government.


Here's the fact to keep in mind:

&#8220;Culture is a stubborn opponent. The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.&#8221;
Bork, &#8220;Slouching Toward Gomorrah,&#8221; p. 198

You keep forgetting the part where the means of production aren't being owned by the community, which is the most important tenet of socialism.
But you're being purposefully obtuse at this point.

Pleeeeezzzzzzzzz.....

Open your eyes.

Government regulation is de facto ownership.


Obvious example:

1. &#8220;&#8230;when land is public, or if it can be made quasi-public with so many regulations attached that most property rights are removed, people can&#8217;t afford to fight, having lost the better part of their wealth. So ideally for the movement, regulations should be almost infinite in reach and so imprecise as to be interpreted in a dozen ways. All that &#8216;s needed to force these regulations is sufficient documentation of collapse, supported by books, movies, documentaries, museum exhibits, cartoons, newspapers and magazine stories, the devotion of fervid columnists, et cetera, ad infinitum, to convince the public that &#8220;something must be done.&#8221; This &#8220;feeling&#8221; is backed by slightly more substantive hundred-page full-color glossy PDFs aimed at policy makers and politicians.&#8221; Nickson, &#8220;Eco-Fascists,&#8221; p. 170.



".... to convince the public...."

That refers to you.

Call it socialism, collectivism, communism, fascism.....you name it....it's all the same: Big Government crushing individual rights.
And you bought it like it was on sale.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't read your posts

Your writing style is unreadable

Stick to the truth.

I run circles around the empty Leftist poses you assume.

That's PC. A legend in your own mind and not half as clever as you think you are.

"... not half as clever as you think you are."

Guilty as charged. Hard to live up to my own opinion of myself.


But let's agree.....I'm somewhere between 'clever' and you.

 

[Edgetho]

No, actually you don't think.

Norman Thomas knows whereof he spoke.

All of the concepts, the name-of-the-day, are simply different levels of control by big government.


Here's the fact to keep in mind:

“Culture is a stubborn opponent. The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.”
Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 198

You keep forgetting the part where the means of production aren't being owned by the community, which is the most important tenet of socialism.
But you're being purposefully obtuse at this point.

Pleeeeezzzzzzzzz.....

Open your eyes.

Government regulation is de facto ownership.


Obvious example:

1. “…when land is public, or if it can be made quasi-public with so many regulations attached that most property rights are removed, people can’t afford to fight, having lost the better part of their wealth. So ideally for the movement, regulations should be almost infinite in reach and so imprecise as to be interpreted in a dozen ways. All that ‘s needed to force these regulations is sufficient documentation of collapse, supported by books, movies, documentaries, museum exhibits, cartoons, newspapers and magazine stories, the devotion of fervid columnists, et cetera, ad infinitum, to convince the public that “something must be done.” This “feeling” is backed by slightly more substantive hundred-page full-color glossy PDFs aimed at policy makers and politicians.” Nickson, “Eco-Fascists,” p. 170.



".... to convince the public...."

That refers to you.

Call it socialism, collectivism, communism, fascism.....you name it....it's all the same: Big Government crushing individual rights.
And you bought it like it was on sale.

Hitler was asked once why he never bothered to Nationalize German Industry.

He scoffed at the questioner and said (I Paraphrase), "I do not socialize things, I socialize people. Of what matter is it who owns the Factories when the owners must obey every wish, every demand of the State?"

He was right.

Still is

 

[Dragonlady]

Considering that modern day American liberals are generally agreed that:
1. The rich should pay more so that the poor will have more
2. It is right and good that government take from some and give to others.
3. It is necessary for government to order society and regulate the work place, wages, products, education, and living conditions
4. Justice demands control over speech, attitudes towards disadvantaged people, and punishment for those who don't toe the political correctness bible
5. Property should be more communal than private

. . . can anybody honestly say that these are not components of Marx's method for wresting power from the haves and transferring to the have nots until his vision of utopian communism is achieved?

They may be Marx' ideas but they are certainly not ideas that western liberals ascribe to.

1. Completely false. The rich should not be paying a lower percentage of income than the middle class, as is currently the case.

2. Again this is false. Programs and wars should be funded. If the US is going to go to war to protect "American interests", which are usually the interests of multi-nationals and the wealthy, then those whose interests are being protected should pay for those wars.

W created "earned income credits" for the working poor as an answer to those who wanted the minimum wage increased. Wouldn't it have been better to raise the minimum wage? Wages for workers would have risen across the board as a result but instead, he catered to corporations instead and with no mechanism to fund it.

Now, the same party who instituted these policies refers to the working poor who receive their credits as "takers" and vilify them.

3. Work place regulation is necessary because of past and present abuses. Since the recession has given employers the upper hand in employee negotiations, those abuses have escalated with many employees working brutal hours with no overtime and no vacations.

At present, all rights accrue to the employer in these matters. PEOPLE, as in "We the people", should be protected from such abuses. Employers who already do right by their employees shouldn't have a problem with such regulations.

4. Complete and utter bullshit from start to finish. Liberals believe in the right to free speech, which includes the right to call others out for racism, misogynism, and bullying. Conservatives call that being "politically correct".

5. Again, complete and utter bullshit. I have never seen a single person on this forum or elsewhere so much as suggesting communal ownership of property, let alone advocating for it.

I'm tired of right wingers telling me what I believe. Every such attempt ends with ideas which are communism, not liberalism. Communism is liberalism taken to extremes, just as anarchy is libertarianism taken to extremes but I don't see posters here routinely calling libertarians "anarchists".

Last but not least, when a poster calls a liberal a "communist" or a "Marxist", I immediately dismiss said poster as an idiot.

 

[NoNukes]

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.





A detailed exposition of that theme can be found in James Piereson of the Manhattan Institute's 2007 book “Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism”

He showed how that moment, the assassination, gave Liberals the opportunity to turn on communism, ...or on America.
Their choice is clear today.


1. "... (concerning Lee Harvey Oswald) “He didn’t even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It’s — it had to be some silly little Communist.”— Jacqueline Kennedy

2. She thought it robbed his (JFK's) death of any meaning. But a meaning would be quickly manufactured to serve a new politics. First, however, an inconvenient fact — Oswald — had to be expunged from the story.

a. .... 24 months after the assassination, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the Kennedys’ kept historian, published a thousand-page history of the thousand-day presidency without mentioning the assassin.






3. ... The transformation of a murder by a marginal man into a killing by a sick culture began instantly — before Kennedy was buried. The afternoon of the assassination, Chief Justice Earl Warren ascribed Kennedy’s “martyrdom” to “the hatred and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by bigots.”

a. The next day, James Reston, the New York Times luminary, wrote in a front-page story that Kennedy was a victim of a “streak of violence in the American character,” noting especially “the violence of the extremists on the right.”

[Of course, Liberals are still running with that obfuscation today, with respect to the Tea Party]

b. Never mind that adjacent to Reston’s article was a Times report on Oswald’s Communist convictions and associations. A Soviet spokesman, too, assigned “moral responsibility” for Kennedy’s death to “Barry Goldwater and other extremists on the right.”

[Liberals and Soviet spokesmen....on the same page]






4. .... a Times editorial, “Spiral of Hate,” identified Kennedy’s killer as a “spirit”: The Times deplored “the shame all America must bear for the spirit of madness and hate that struck down” Kennedy. The editorialists were, presumably, immune to this spirit. The new liberalism-as-paternalism would be about correcting other people’s defects..... Kennedy was killed by America’s social climate, whose sickness required “punitive liberalism.”

[ "... Obama Is Making Shutdown As Painful As Possible" http://news92fm.com/390223/congressman-olson-says-obama-is-making-shutdown-as-painful-as-possible/]






5. The bullets of Nov. 22, 1963, altered the nation’s trajectory less by killing a president than by giving birth to a destructive narrative about America.....

6. Punitive liberalism preached the necessity of national repentance for a history of crimes and misdeeds that had produced a present so poisonous that it murdered a president.... Liberalism would become the doctrine of grievance groups owed redress for cumulative inherited injuries inflicted by the nation’s tawdry history, toxic present and ominous future.

[ Obama: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."]

7. As Piereson writes, the retreat of liberalism from a doctrine of American affirmation left a void that would be filled by Ronald Reagan 17 years after the assassination." George F. Will: When liberals became scolds - The Washington Post





Whitaker Chamber's point proven.

Liberalism continued down the path blazed by Franklin Roosevelt....seeing nothing worthy of confronting nor combating in communism.



Just as Oswald was erased as the central element of the assassination, so, too, was the glorious history of this great nation.
Instead, it turned the battle against a non-existent enemy of freedom and liberty, ...America.


Liberalism: seeking evil in America the way pigs seek truffles.

Typical simple minded, black and white thinking from the right wing. "We are good. They are bad. There is no inbetween."

I'll be honest, it astounds me how devoid so many conservatives are of critical thinking skills.

Seriously, do you all think that us liberals get together and have a fucking monthly meeting to decide what we all believe and agree on? Every liberal in America? You must because that is the only way this childish logic would make any fucking sense.

Liberals are individuals like anyone else. We all have different opinions and levels of intellectual reasoning. WE DON'T ALL THINK THE SAME WAY. We aren't robots for Christs sakes. Why this simple logic escapes you just blows my mind. I guess its just easier to demonize anyone who disagrees with you, huh?

Do yourself a favor and think critically for once about political issues. Otherwise you will always lack a basic understanding of them.

Oh....poor, poor Billy Zero-IQ....

Seems I really hit a nerve.

Your whining 'am not, am not' is hardly a defense of Liberals who despise the America that I love, in the face of their obvious embrace of the "America-evil" theme.


But I can help you....not the psychological support you need.....but here is the political way out you seek:

Simply show that the goals that the communist party supports, Liberals oppose.



You can begin with these......


1. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If the U.N. charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one world government with its own independent armed forces.

2. Capture one or both political parties in the United States. (In David Horowitz's book The Shadow Party, he shows how the Democratic Party is now under the control of what he calls the Shadow Party of Socialist-Communist influences.)

3. Get Control of the Schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the Party line in textbooks.

4. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

5. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.


6. Break down culture standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.

7. Present homo-sexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

8. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

9. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state." (A.C.L.U. lawyers accomplished this goal in a very short 4 years from publication of the book The Naked Communist.)

10. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a world-wide basis. (In 2012, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg and A.C.L.U. member said exactly this while visiting Cairo, Egypt.)


11. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture, education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

12. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

13. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influences of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of the parents.
Communist Goals to Take America



Start whenever you're ready....

You obviously know nothing of liberals. You should quit reading crap and get to know some liberals.

 

[NoNukes]

Stick to the truth.

I run circles around the empty Leftist poses you assume.

That's PC. A legend in your own mind and not half as clever as you think you are.

"... not half as clever as you think you are."

Guilty as charged. Hard to live up to my own opinion of myself.


But let's agree.....I'm somewhere between 'clever' and you.

Lying to yourself is hardly clever.

 

[Dragonlady]

Stick to the truth.

I run circles around the empty Leftist poses you assume.

That's PC. A legend in your own mind and not half as clever as you think you are.

"... not half as clever as you think you are."

Guilty as charged. Hard to live up to my own opinion of myself.


But let's agree.....I'm somewhere between 'clever' and you.

As long as YOU have a high opinion of your intellect, there is one person in the world who does.

The ability is insult those who are capable if rebutting your quoted arguments is hardly a display of intellect. I forget who said it but it certainly applies to your posts: those who lack the ability to attack the ideas, resort to attacking those who espouse them.

 

[NoNukes]

I'm not going to start a separate thread for this but if somebody else wants to....?

This may surprise our pals on the left, but.....

The conservative shift in public opinion has happened in all 50 states

Importantly, the public has not moved in a conservative direction in all issue areas. For example, support for same-sex marriage has been increasing across all states. It is also worth noting that our findings on the 1960s and 2000s hides important shifts in policy mood between these periods, such as increased policy liberalism during the 1980s. However, when it comes to support of government programs, the net conservative shift is clear. Considering the evidence that inequality is near an all-time high, this may seem like a surprising result. Prominent economic models, for example, expect that as the rich get richer, public support for government policies like spending more on education, infrastructure, and job creation would increase. Instead, across the country, the public’s policy mood has moved in a conservative direction.

Edge:
There are links embedded in the post to prove their points that I'm too lazy to transfer all of them. Go to the link if you're interested.

While I'm at it, let me tell ALL of you something....

I LIVED through the 60's. And not as a child or a cocooned know-nothing. I was in the United States Army. I served in Viet Nam -- Two Years.

I walked the streets of Haight Ashbury, I met..... A lot of people. Saw it all first hand. Lived it, didn't read about it through some stoner's filtered views, didn't listen to somebody else's opinion.... Saw it, heard it, smelled it and touched it.

I came back to outside Boston Massachusetts (Fort Devens) in 1969. Which was and still IS the epicenter of all things liberal, all things dimocrap, all things Anti-American, all things anti-conservative.

Back then, 44 years ago, there were 400,000 Full Time College Students in Boston and some of those Universities make Berkeley look Conservative by comparison.

What we're experiencing today, the liberalism that so many are afraid of, the Anti-American president we have (oh yes, he is) the dimocrap haters, the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM......??

Let me tell you something.... It is NOTHING compared to what it was in the 60's and 70's. NOTHING.

liberalism is in the process of being defeated. It is a wounded and dying animal in its last death throes and for that reason, is dangerous. But it is still mortally wounded and will not recover.

All you Conservatives and other Patriotic Americans that think things are so bad? They're not. We're winning. And we're winning big.

Keep the faith

Another person who gets through the day by lying to himself.

 

[NoNukes]

I'm not going to start a separate thread for this but if somebody else wants to....?

This may surprise our pals on the left, but.....

The conservative shift in public opinion has happened in all 50 states

Importantly, the public has not moved in a conservative direction in all issue areas. For example, support for same-sex marriage has been increasing across all states. It is also worth noting that our findings on the 1960s and 2000s hides important shifts in policy mood between these periods, such as increased policy liberalism during the 1980s. However, when it comes to support of government programs, the net conservative shift is clear. Considering the evidence that inequality is near an all-time high, this may seem like a surprising result. Prominent economic models, for example, expect that as the rich get richer, public support for government policies like spending more on education, infrastructure, and job creation would increase. Instead, across the country, the public’s policy mood has moved in a conservative direction.

Edge:
There are links embedded in the post to prove their points that I'm too lazy to transfer all of them. Go to the link if you're interested.

While I'm at it, let me tell ALL of you something....

I LIVED through the 60's. And not as a child or a cocooned know-nothing. I was in the United States Army. I served in Viet Nam -- Two Years.

I walked the streets of Haight Ashbury, I met..... A lot of people. Saw it all first hand. Lived it, didn't read about it through some stoner's filtered views, didn't listen to somebody else's opinion.... Saw it, heard it, smelled it and touched it.

I came back to outside Boston Massachusetts (Fort Devens) in 1969. Which was and still IS the epicenter of all things liberal, all things dimocrap, all things Anti-American, all things anti-conservative.

Back then, 44 years ago, there were 400,000 Full Time College Students in Boston and some of those Universities make Berkeley look Conservative by comparison.

What we're experiencing today, the liberalism that so many are afraid of, the Anti-American president we have (oh yes, he is) the dimocrap haters, the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM......??

Let me tell you something.... It is NOTHING compared to what it was in the 60's and 70's. NOTHING.

liberalism is in the process of being defeated. It is a wounded and dying animal in its last death throes and for that reason, is dangerous. But it is still mortally wounded and will not recover.

All you Conservatives and other Patriotic Americans that think things are so bad? They're not. We're winning. And we're winning big.

Keep the faith

Both America and Americans were better in the 60s and 70s, so I fail to see your point.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So what ended up as the definition of liberalism?

Communism-lite.

 

[Dragonlady]

One concept which conservatives have completely failed to grasp is that the tide of progress that raise SOME boats and swamps others, is a destructive force. Since Reagan introduced right wing economic policies in the 1980's, poverty has increased, necessitating increased social spending to counter its effects.

Reagan's response was to blame the poor for their plight and right wingers have continued to do so to this day. Wages for the working class stagnated, spending on public education hasn't kept pace with inflation which lead to the quality of education at schools in low income districts to deteriorate, all of which is blamed on the poor themselves.

The quality of life in the US for 80% of the population continues to decline and still the right blames social spending for that decline, rather than tax cuts and loopholes which benefit the top income individuals and corporations.

As long as average citizens and small businesses are unfairly bearing higher tax rates than top corporations and high income individuals, wealth will continue to flow upward and the US will lose ground in quality of life, infrastructure and education to those countries which continue to finance the health and education of their populations, and who put people and families ahead of corporations and profits.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One concept which conservatives have completely failed to grasp is that the tide of progress that raise SOME boats and swamps others, is a destructive force. Since Reagan introduced right wing economic policies in the 1980's, poverty has increased, necessitating increased social spending to counter its effects.

Reagan's response was to blame the poor for their plight and right wingers have continued to do so to this day. Wages for the working class stagnated, spending on public education hasn't kept pace with inflation which lead to the quality of education at schools in low income districts to deteriorate, all of which is blamed on the poor themselves.

The quality of life in the US for 80% of the population continues to decline and still the right blames social spending for that decline, rather than tax cuts and loopholes which benefit the top income individuals and corporations.

As long as average citizens and small businesses are unfairly bearing higher tax rates than top corporations and high income individuals, wealth will continue to flow upward and the US will lose ground in quality of life, infrastructure and education to those countries which continue to finance the health and education of their populations, and who put people and families ahead of corporations and profits.

I will be processing your post with my SEM/EDX instrument in hope of finding any hint of truth.

So far, the results are negative.

 

[Foxfyre]

Considering that modern day American liberals are generally agreed that:
1. The rich should pay more so that the poor will have more
2. It is right and good that government take from some and give to others.
3. It is necessary for government to order society and regulate the work place, wages, products, education, and living conditions
4. Justice demands control over speech, attitudes towards disadvantaged people, and punishment for those who don't toe the political correctness bible
5. Property should be more communal than private

. . . can anybody honestly say that these are not components of Marx's method for wresting power from the haves and transferring to the have nots until his vision of utopian communism is achieved?

They may be Marx' ideas but they are certainly not ideas that western liberals ascribe to.

1. Completely false. The rich should not be paying a lower percentage of income than the middle class, as is currently the case.

2. Again this is false. Programs and wars should be funded. If the US is going to go to war to protect "American interests", which are usually the interests of multi-nationals and the wealthy, then those whose interests are being protected should pay for those wars.

W created "earned income credits" for the working poor as an answer to those who wanted the minimum wage increased. Wouldn't it have been better to raise the minimum wage? Wages for workers would have risen across the board as a result but instead, he catered to corporations instead and with no mechanism to fund it.

Now, the same party who instituted these policies refers to the working poor who receive their credits as "takers" and vilify them.

3. Work place regulation is necessary because of past and present abuses. Since the recession has given employers the upper hand in employee negotiations, those abuses have escalated with many employees working brutal hours with no overtime and no vacations.

At present, all rights accrue to the employer in these matters. PEOPLE, as in "We the people", should be protected from such abuses. Employers who already do right by their employees shouldn't have a problem with such regulations.

4. Complete and utter bullshit from start to finish. Liberals believe in the right to free speech, which includes the right to call others out for racism, misogynism, and bullying. Conservatives call that being "politically correct".

5. Again, complete and utter bullshit. I have never seen a single person on this forum or elsewhere so much as suggesting communal ownership of property, let alone advocating for it.

I'm tired of right wingers telling me what I believe. Every such attempt ends with ideas which are communism, not liberalism. Communism is liberalism taken to extremes, just as anarchy is libertarianism taken to extremes but I don't see posters here routinely calling libertarians "anarchists".

Last but not least, when a poster calls a liberal a "communist" or a "Marxist", I immediately dismiss said poster as an idiot.

You say the statements are false but like most modern day liberals/Marxists do, you don't address the statement but rather change the question to something you can answer with liberal talking points.

But as I have said, our modern American liberals seem to be mostly incapable of focusing on and addressing a concept or principle. There must be somethng in the water they drink that completely blocks that capability and forces them to focus only on the sins of others.

Take the communal property concept in #5 for instance. I have seen post after post after post from liberals suggesting that it isn't FAIR that some have so much while others have so little. And it is right and good that government takes from those who have much and gives it to those who have little. And when that is done, my dear, we are speaking of communal property--nobody is allowed the unalienable right to what they have earned, but it is all out there for government to take what it wants from whomever it wants for whatever it wants to do with it.

And I'm guessing you cannot see that this is a concept of government owning everything and distributing it as it chooses. A pure Marxist principle of necessity on that mythical road to communal utopia.

 

[Dragonlady]

IOW, you've got nothing, so you resort to calling me a liar.

You post trolling threads for the sole purpose of insulting those who respond. The ability to post cleverly worded insults is hardly indicative of the level of your intellect nor is the ability to cut and paste arguments or articles written by others.

The ability to take information gleaned from history and your life experiences and to distill it into your own ideas which you express in your own words, without resorting to cheap insults, is the true expression of intellect.

Until you are able to do so, you're just trolling for liberals to insult so you can feel better about yourself. The only person you're fooling into thinking you're Super Girl, is yourself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

IOW, you've got nothing, so you resort to calling me a liar.

You post trolling threads for the sole purpose of insulting those who respond. The ability to post cleverly worded insults is hardly indicative of the level of your intellect nor is the ability to cut and paste arguments or articles written by others.

The ability to take information gleaned from history and your life experiences and to distill it into your own ideas which you express in your own words, without resorting to cheap insults, is the true expression of intellect.

Until you are able to do so, you're just trolling for liberals to insult so you can feel better about yourself. The only person you're fooling into thinking you're Super Girl, is yourself.

No, less a liar than a fool.
Wear the appellation proudly- you've earned it!

As a result of Reagan's economic policies, the nation saw a 25-year economic surge.


1. In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001.

They wrote:
"We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom-the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth-assets minus liabilities-of all U.S. households and business ... was $25 trillion in today's dollars. By 2007, ... net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years."
http://theccpp.org/2011/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures-1.html


2. “Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy.”
How Capitalism Will Save Us - Forbes


3.
1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan - WSJ.com

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Now then....let's see if you are more the liar, or more the fool.


After being instructed as posted above.....if you ever.....ever....post as you did, then, clearly you are more the liar.



So....rather than 'nothing,' you see that I have....forgive the hubris....'everything.'


I do so enjoy putting you in your place: the last seat in the dumb row.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Your new name should be Plagiarist Chic