What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

[Sunshine]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

Answer: The power of gimme~!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

any more Defense cuts could jeopardize national security......

The US currently spends more than anybody else on Defense. China is #2 in Defense Spending. They spend half as much as the US, and they are surrounded on three sides by countries who are hostile to the Chinese and their interests. The US spends more on Defense than the next 13 countries combined, and most of those countries are American allies.

The US could easily cut Defense spending in half without in any way risking National Security. What would be at risk, is the ability of the US government to protect "US interests", read the property and assets of large US multi-national corporations, outside the US. Protecting "US interests" is why Defense spending is so high.

I say, if American companies are doing business in hostile environments, they should hire Blackwater to protect those interests and pay for them out of corporate revenues. If a foreign government opts nationalize an industry, that's a risk of doing business in a foreign country. Suck it up and accept that this is the right of foreign governments.

Studies show that every time the US government has intervened abroad to protect "US interests" over the past 100 years, such intervention is a protection of US corporate interests, and not those of the US people as a whole. I say let US multi-nations pay for protection of their own interests and stop making US taxpayers foot the bill for their economic colonialism.

History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890

History is rife with examples of CIA directed coups against left-leaning governments. The CIA backed Pinochet murdered thousands of Chileans on the grounds that Allende was a communist. He wasn't, but he lead a protectionist government which would was nationalizing the banks, and barring US multi-nationals from taking money out of Chile, and that was "communistic" in the eyes of US officials (Nixon's Republicans).

well let's just cut Defense until we are equal with the Reds.....
Obama's own Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warned about the sequestration cuts...
and now Obama wants to irresponsibly cut Defense even more....?
guess that's why he picked yes man Chuck Hagel as his new Sec...

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6, 2013 – In some of his strongest language to date, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta warned today that looming, massive cuts in the Defense Department budget set to be triggered by sequestration next month would pose the "most serious readiness crisis" to the country in over a decade.

Defense.gov News Article: Panetta Warns Sequestration Threatens National Readiness

 

[Derideo_Te]

then why does Obama need more revenue....?

Congress is spending more than it is getting in revenue. If Congress is willing to reduce defense spending then Obama won't need any more revenue.

any more Defense cuts could jeopardize national security......
seems BO doesn't care about that...yet Defense is the primary job of the Federal Government....not social programs....

why not make the spending cuts in other areas as the repubs suggest....?

The rest of the world combined can't match US military strength. What legitimate threat is there to America? Which nation is threatening to invade and/or conquer America? What realistic threat is there to US national security that would be jeopardized if defense spending were slashed? FYI defense spending not the only primary job.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Congress is spending more than it is getting in revenue. If Congress is willing to reduce defense spending then Obama won't need any more revenue.

any more Defense cuts could jeopardize national security......
seems BO doesn't care about that...yet Defense is the primary job of the Federal Government....not social programs....

why not make the spending cuts in other areas as the repubs suggest....?

The rest of the world combined can't match US military strength. What legitimate threat is there to America? Which nation is threatening to invade and/or conquer America? What realistic threat is there to US national security that would be jeopardized if defense spending were slashed? FYI defense spending not the only primary job.

Iran and North Korea for starters....

 

[Derideo_Te]

yet the realism of socialism seems to have no boundaries....

example....why does BO continue to push for even more taxes....?

First off, social programs do not equal socialism. That again is a lie promulgated by Milton Friedman and adopted by the Republican Party to frighten ordinary citizen off of social programs of any sort. Friedman, who is every bit as radical as Karl Marx, but on the opposite side of the coin. Marx believed that the government should provide everything, Friedman believed that the government should provide nothing. Neither system works. Under Marx, initiative is stifled. Under Friedman, the poor are kept in a continual state of poverty to serve the investor classes.

What does work is mixed economies. Countries which have strong social safety nets, strong government regulation, import taxes as protections for local manufacturing. A good public education system is necessary to produce a work force with the skills and training to support themselves and contribute to the economy.

Friedman opposed public education, health care, and any government social program as "communistic" and a distortion of the free market. Every day, people in this forum still echo Friedman's words, describing liberals a Marxist and commies, but none of you seem to even understand why it is you do that.

Do conservatives consider yourselves facists? Conservatives values are quite similar to those of facism, so facist would be the right-wing equivalent to a commie. If every time a conservative posted on this board, we were to say "You and your facist friends want to destroy America" would that be a valid comment?

Saying liberals are communists and out to destroy America has as much validity and accuracy as saying all conservatives are nazis and facists who want to kill all of the minorities and restore America to an all white country. It's not true and it's not helpful to any discussion.

I must say I agree that liberals are not intending on destroying the country. But with all things liberal the outcome is always the opposite of the stated intent. So even though the "Great Society" was well intended look where it got us. More poverty and more dependency then we had back then. So although it may not be the liberals intent certainly when one looks at the results it sure looks like what they intended or they royally screwed up.

The point is, why continue on the same disastrous path?

Republicans did not intend to destroy the economy and millions of jobs by cutting taxes and deregulating Wall Street and yet that is exactly what happened. So why continue on the same disastrous path?

 

[Derideo_Te]

any more Defense cuts could jeopardize national security......
seems BO doesn't care about that...yet Defense is the primary job of the Federal Government....not social programs....

why not make the spending cuts in other areas as the repubs suggest....?

The rest of the world combined can't match US military strength. What legitimate threat is there to America? Which nation is threatening to invade and/or conquer America? What realistic threat is there to US national security that would be jeopardized if defense spending were slashed? FYI defense spending not the only primary job.

Iran and North Korea for starters....

Are you seriously suggesting that Iran and North Korea could successfully invade and conquer America? If the answer is yes please explain the logistics of moving millions of armed troops to the North American mainland together with sufficient tanks, supplies and air cover to make a successful landing and subsequent defeat of all US military forces.

 

[Dragonlady]

well let's just cut Defense until we are equal with the Reds.....
Obama's own Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warned about the sequestration cuts...
and now Obama wants to irresponsibly cut Defense even more....?
guess that's why he picked yes man Chuck Hagel as his new Sec...

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6, 2013 – In some of his strongest language to date, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta warned today that looming, massive cuts in the Defense Department budget set to be triggered by sequestration next month would pose the "most serious readiness crisis" to the country in over a decade.

Defense.gov News Article: Panetta Warns Sequestration Threatens National Readiness

There is a vast difference betwen cutting with a scalpel or taking a sledgehammer to the spending. Across the board cuts will affect readiness, but closing bases which exist merely to protect US corporate interests should be a no-brainer. I'm sure that Haliburton and Blackwater would be happy to have the money, and at least some of the troops displaced by the closing of the publically funded base, could stay on as employees of the security force. Those guys get paid a lot better than the military.

 

[dblack]

any more Defense cuts could jeopardize national security......
seems BO doesn't care about that...yet Defense is the primary job of the Federal Government....not social programs....

why not make the spending cuts in other areas as the repubs suggest....?

The rest of the world combined can't match US military strength. What legitimate threat is there to America? Which nation is threatening to invade and/or conquer America? What realistic threat is there to US national security that would be jeopardized if defense spending were slashed? FYI defense spending not the only primary job.

Iran and North Korea for starters....

Nonsense. Neither can touch us militarily. Or, I suppose they could try, and we could blow them to dust five times over.

So, I'm calling bullshit on your entire position. It has nothing do with defending the United States and everything to do with dominance overseas. What's so wrong with minding our own business?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The rest of the world combined can't match US military strength. What legitimate threat is there to America? Which nation is threatening to invade and/or conquer America? What realistic threat is there to US national security that would be jeopardized if defense spending were slashed? FYI defense spending not the only primary job.

Iran and North Korea for starters....

Are you seriously suggesting that Iran and North Korea could successfully invade and conquer America? If the answer is yes please explain the logistics of moving millions of armed troops to the North American mainland together with sufficient tanks, supplies and air cover to make a successful landing and subsequent defeat of all US military forces.

who says they have to 'invade' by the millions....?
terrorism has already proven quite effective...
and then there's the threat of nuclear attacks....
our ally Israel is under imminent threat...
these people are not like 'rational' westerners....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

well let's just cut Defense until we are equal with the Reds.....
Obama's own Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warned about the sequestration cuts...
and now Obama wants to irresponsibly cut Defense even more....?
guess that's why he picked yes man Chuck Hagel as his new Sec...

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6, 2013 – In some of his strongest language to date, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta warned today that looming, massive cuts in the Defense Department budget set to be triggered by sequestration next month would pose the "most serious readiness crisis" to the country in over a decade.

Defense.gov News Article: Panetta Warns Sequestration Threatens National Readiness

There is a vast difference betwen cutting with a scalpel or taking a sledgehammer to the spending. Across the board cuts will affect readiness, but closing bases which exist merely to protect US corporate interests should be a no-brainer. I'm sure that Haliburton and Blackwater would be happy to have the money, and at least some of the troops displaced by the closing of the publically funded base, could stay on as employees of the security force. Those guys get paid a lot better than the military.

yet BO allowed the 'sledgehammer' approach to happen....i do NOT trust this muslim marxist...

 

[Dragonlady]

yet BO allowed the 'sledgehammer' approach to happen....i do NOT trust this muslim marxist...

Obama is neither a marxist nor a Muslim, nor did he "allow" this to happen.

The Republicans forced this to happen by refusing to acknowledge or accept that they lost the election. They keep clinging to the idea that they don't have to accept the will of the people. Their economic and fiscal policies resulted in a total freefall of the US economy and still you defend them.

It makes no logical sense.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Iran and North Korea for starters....

Are you seriously suggesting that Iran and North Korea could successfully invade and conquer America? If the answer is yes please explain the logistics of moving millions of armed troops to the North American mainland together with sufficient tanks, supplies and air cover to make a successful landing and subsequent defeat of all US military forces.

who says they have to 'invade' by the millions....?
terrorism has already proven quite effective...
and then there's the threat of nuclear attacks....
our ally Israel is under imminent threat...
these people are not like 'rational' westerners....

The question is about defense spending. If there is no threat of invasion then what purpose is there to spending on manpower and equipment that would only be needed in the event of an invasion? With that concession of yours defense spending can be cut by at least 60%. As far as nuclear threats are concerned no amount of carrier groups are going to stop them. They can't stop terrorism either. So at this point we can cut defense spending by 80%. Thank you for your help in eliminating unnecessary defense spending and helping to balance the budget.

 

[Dragonlady]

Neither North Korea nor Iran has a missile capable of hitting the broad side of a barn within their own geopolitcal neighbourhood, much less shooting a missile across the ocean and hitting a target in the US. I don't think it would be all that easy to smuggle a nuclear weapon onto US soil from outside the country, so I'm not seeing any major risk of nuclear attack.

This is why fear of WMD in Iraq was so ridiculous. Saddam couldn't hit Kuwait or Isreal with missles - the countries next door. Those that didn't blow up on the launch pad, landed uselessly on Iraqi soil. How could he possibly fire on the US and hit anything when he couldn't get his missiles to travel a few hundred miles and hit a target?

This isn't rocket science, people. Well maybe it is, but since none of these governments have what might be called competent rocket sciencists, the US is not in any imminent danger.

 

[Contumacious]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?.

The Gansgsta Principle, The Parasitic Maxim,

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…"

The Communist Manifesto

.

 

[dblack]

any more Defense cuts could jeopardize national security......

The US currently spends more than anybody else on Defense. China is #2 in Defense Spending. They spend half as much as the US, and they are surrounded on three sides by countries who are hostile to the Chinese and their interests. The US spends more on Defense than the next 13 countries combined, and most of those countries are American allies.

The US could easily cut Defense spending in half without in any way risking National Security. What would be at risk, is the ability of the US government to protect "US interests", read the property and assets of large US multi-national corporations, outside the US. Protecting "US interests" is why Defense spending is so high.

I say, if American companies are doing business in hostile environments, they should hire Blackwater to protect those interests and pay for them out of corporate revenues. If a foreign government opts nationalize an industry, that's a risk of doing business in a foreign country. Suck it up and accept that this is the right of foreign governments.

Studies show that every time the US government has intervened abroad to protect "US interests" over the past 100 years, such intervention is a protection of US corporate interests, and not those of the US people as a whole. I say let US multi-nations pay for protection of their own interests and stop making US taxpayers foot the bill for their economic colonialism.

History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890

History is rife with examples of CIA directed coups against left-leaning governments. The CIA backed Pinochet murdered thousands of Chileans on the grounds that Allende was a communist. He wasn't, but he lead a protectionist government which would was nationalizing the banks, and barring US multi-nationals from taking money out of Chile, and that was "communistic" in the eyes of US officials (Nixon's Republicans).

Coudn't agree more. This is right out of Ron Paul's speeches and writings. Now if we could just get Democrats on board, we might be able to do something about it.

Are there any Democrats here? Any chance we can get your support?

 

[Darkwind]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

For conservatives, it’s easy. They either place their ideology on the principle of self-ownership as written by John Locke or the no harm principle as advocated by J.S. Mill. But what does the modern day liberal trace his/her ideological principles back to? What is the foundation of their thought? It can’t be the classical liberalism of the above stated philosophers (Which calles into qustion the reason they identify as "liberals"). So who/what? Is it “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”? Certainly a modern day liberal/progressive/democrat should be able to shine some light on this question.

We're getting ours. Screw you.

Seems to about cover every aspect of the progressives.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

yet BO allowed the 'sledgehammer' approach to happen....i do NOT trust this muslim marxist...

Obama is neither a marxist nor a Muslim, nor did he "allow" this to happen.

The Republicans forced this to happen by refusing to acknowledge or accept that they lost the election. They keep clinging to the idea that they don't have to accept the will of the people. Their economic and fiscal policies resulted in a total freefall of the US economy and still you defend them.

It makes no logical sense.

i beg to differ but that is a different thread...

the repubs did not "force" the sequester....the budget 'super committee' could not come to any resolution so the sequester trigger happened.....both sides had agreed on it..in fact i believe this trigger idea first came from the White House...

now both sides are regretting it in various ways...

however BO is doing his best to make sure that maximum pain is being felt....nice guy huh?

and to top it off.... instead of making a reasonable deal to just reorganize priorities and soften the blow of the sequestration cuts.....BO is throwing more taxes on the deal.....nice guy once again huh?

now what have the repubs done.....? refused to tax the American people even more than BO has already done this January....? gosh....real bastards aren't they....? (sarcasm)

 

[dblack]

FWIW - re military spending (mostly in the latter half):

Ron Paul's Podcast Nation

 

[LoneLaugher]

Just to make a few points. I am a conservative and I am sure what you would call a right winger.

In my post on this subject I said that only liberals can answer the question.

But I must say why are right wingers greedy when the left wing in Congress, at least, have the most rich? When Obama and company brag about how much more money they can raise. Why when the left will rail against rich Republicans then in the next breath laugh because Republicans win all the poor states and have the most on welfare? Why is it greedy for me to want to keep what I, ME, MYSELF, earned and not greedy for someone to take what I earned and give it to someone else? Do liberals even listen to themselves?

Every survey I have ever read lists the conservatives as more generous in charitable giving then liberals. Yet you stereotype. As if our welfare state government is somehow those who do actually work fault. Can't be that we created the out of control welfare system through good intentions. Can't be that now that we have put millions into poverty and thus a welfare state the liberals know of no what to end what they have started, and maybe there is no way.

Can't be that the "free" trade and illegal immigrants are taking the jobs of those with low skill and education. No it has to be because a guy like me who puts in 50-60 hours a week wants to hang onto what I earned. If that is greed then I just might as well become charitable and stop working. Why in the hell would I work if getting ahead is now the liberal vice, except when applied to them.

than

How many such surveys have you read? I am guessing none. You saw it posted here a time or two and never even bothered to fact check it.

I am sure that when contributions to churches are figured in......the claim can be substantiated. But please don't act as though you have researched the matter.

The rest of your comment is whining drivel.

Whow, what I posted is so well known to be true it is hard to believe you would double down on stupid. But then again that is what low information liberals do, stay uninformed. That makes it easier to make up the facts as you go.

Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News

Also read here:

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was far more generous to charities than President Barack Obama or Vice President Joe Biden last year, both in dollar terms and as a percentage of income, tax return data Romney’s campaign released Friday indicate.

Romney and his wife, Ann, gave 29.4 percent of their income to charity in 2011, donating $4,020,772 out of the $13,696,951 they took in.

Read more: Mitt Romney gives more to charity than President Obama, Joe Biden - POLITICO.com

Being as you seemingly have something against reading you can hear it here:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB0W6WL5H9E]Cheap in America Who Gives More ABC News - YouTube[/ame]

Wow has no "h".

Well known to be true is not he same as " every survey I have read". You have not read any surveys. You just typed it. You lied.

I agreed with the premise, genius. I do not agree with how you claim to have come to it. Idiot.

 

[Dragonlady]

the repubs did not "force" the sequester....the budget 'super committee' could not come to any resolution so the sequester trigger happened.....both sides had agreed on it..in fact i believe this trigger idea first came from the White House...

now both sides are regretting it in various ways...

however BO is doing his best to make sure that maximum pain is being felt....nice guy huh?

and to top it off.... instead of making a reasonable deal to just reorganize priorities and soften the blow of the sequestration cuts.....BO is throwing more taxes on the deal.....nice guy once again huh?

now what have the repubs done.....? refused to tax the American people even more than BO has already done this January....? gosh....real bastards aren't they....? (sarcasm)

It would all be so heartrending the way you present it if the fact is that the Republicans are trying to use the Sequestration to prevent the implementation of the ACA, which, if you will recall, was one of the things that the American public voted in favour of in the last election. They also voted in favour of higher taxes for the wealthy.

Do you not understand that using the Budget negotiations to force measure on the American public that they clearly rejected in the Presidential elections is both stupid and wrong? I know that Republicans must do this, otherwise their Tea Party constituents will nail their asses to the wall for caving, but that doesn't mean that they should be doing it or that it is of any help to the situation.

Republicans are negotiating in bad faith. It's the only tool they have left, and it won't work.