What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

[CrusaderFrank]

Gentlemen, I will answer you both of you in one sentence. Nowhere in the definition of "liberal" appears either the words, "communist", or "welfare state".

I will not defend your definition of "liberal" , since that is nothng but a seed that was planted and nurtured by your minds by talk AM radio.

It's YOUR definition of LOLiberalism that means state redistribution is the most Christian

Do you see where you went wrong?

 

[BreezeWood]

EarthLink - Business News

Bills seek end to farm animal abuse videos

Now in a pushback led by the meat and poultry industries, state legislators across the country are introducing laws making it harder for animal welfare advocates to investigate cruelty and food safety cases.

They say these attempts by the agriculture industry to stop investigations are a part of a nationwide agenda set by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative think tank backed by business interests.

laws making it harder for animal welfare advocates to investigate cruelty and food safety cases.

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.

the problem with conservatives today is they leave out the John Locke or J.S. Mill and just go with "self-ownership can do no harm"

"I wish the cattlemen actually wanted to stop cruelty, not the documenting of cruelty," said HSUS California director Jennifer Fearing. "One could think of a thousand ways for them to actually stop cruelty rather than waiting for people to make videos and turn them over."

if it is only the Liberals that seek Justice, then let them bear proudly the burden of their worthy causes.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

excuse me but you do not seem to understand the American system....

just because you dimwits voted a subversive marxist into the executive office again does not mean we have to agree with his proposals....his slim win was hardly a mandate....

Congress is the legislative part of the process....you might take notice that the voters elected a majority of Republicans in the House....and the Tea Party conservatives DO have America's back...

 

[Vandalshandle]

"just because you dimwits voted a subversive marxist into the executive office again does not mean we have to agree with his proposals"

Well, I guess if we are Marxists, we might as well be submersive commie Marxists. There is no point in being half-assed about it...

 

[Dragonlady]

excuse me but you do not seem to understand the American system....

just because you dimwits voted a subversive marxist into the executive office again does not mean we have to agree with his proposals....his slim win was hardly a mandate....

Congress is the legislative part of the process....you might take notice that the voters elected a majority of Republicans in the House....and the Tea Party conservatives DO have America's back...

Yes, I do. Obama won an landslide election over 300 votes, to the 200 electoral college voted Mittens picked up. Obama won every single election demographic - Asians, Latinos, Blacks, women. The ONLY demographic Mittens won was white males.

Calling those who disagree with Republican greed, racism, and disregard for the 47% just proves what selfish facists you all are. Sig Heil!!!

 

[NoNukes]

Experience and common sense dictate that this is a non-answer and it is very revealing that no one can answer the question in the op!

That is what I base my beliefs on, and I am a liberal. You saying it is a non-answer does not make it so, it simply shows that you have no reply, and you did not even take the time to consider my answer.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the fall of Western civilization. (See above). I suppose the biggest problem is that you truly do believe you gave an adequate response. I speak of Locke and Mill and you simply say "experience and common sense," without defining either, of which, both are not so common as you have demonstrated. Feel free to leave if this subject is over your head (staying will only make you look like a fool). Considering your company, however, that might not be necessarily true.

It is amazing to see someone too thick to grasp a simple concept acting so superior.

 

[Borillar]

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.

Project much? The rich elite has been getting rich at the expense of the poor and middle class for decades. They are the ones that have everything and now want to shut off the social safety net so not even the meager crumbs are left for anyone else.

 

[logical4u]

None of those on the right who are posting in this thread are the slightest bit interested in what liberals believe. We're all lazy, shiftless commies who want others to give us free stuff. That's what you believe and nothing we say is going to change your opinion. Every time someone in this thread posts what they believe, the right wingers tell us that's false. The right wingers know what we believe, we don't. You keep losing elections because you refuse to listen to ANYTHING that liberals are saying and then you call US stupid.

The economic policies and models you idiots believe will save America, have failed miserably. Unregulated free markets always result in extreme poverty, supressed wages, and destruction of the middle class. Well regulated, mixed economies are far more successful and sustainable, and reduce poverty, improve education and support a thriving middle class, which is necessary to the success of a consumer based economy.

Liberals don't want a welfare state, they want a social safety net. The don't want dependency, they want jobs which pay a living wage. They want good schools and teachers for their children, safe neighbourhoods, and equal opportunities for all. They want good roads, public buildings which are maintained and show pride in community.

The rewording or the Constitution is just a laugh. Conservatives keep trying desperately to justify their greed, their disregard of the poor, and their contempt for government, but they come off as sad and desperate. They cling to their failed ideas about an unfettered free market and refuse to acknowledge that conservative Republican ideology is as much a failure as communism.

Do liberals really have this much of a communication problem? You were not asked to explain your "opinion" of what conservatives think, you think. You were asked to state what you believe.

We are still waiting to see that communicated.

For the record: those "failed" policies that conservatives want (the Constitution) built the best country in the history of the world, while the policies that liberals tout have resulted in the worst atrocities in the history of the world, if you are really interested in "facts".

 

[Intense]

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.

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

Pavlovian Response. It's all about control.

 

[logical4u]

I'm not sure how you presume that modern liberalism is the opposite of what liberalism has meant classically:

"there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defence against the danger."
-- James Madison; Note to Speech on the Right of Suffrage (1821)

Are you the owner of yourself or are you owned by the state? Or which proportion are you of each? The closer you move to state ownership the closer you are to modern liberalism. Oh, and James Madison wanted land owning as a condition of voting at the Constitutional Convention. In anycase, liberalism is only a relative term. Democrats gave it to themselves as a PR campaign when they were running away from the name "progressive."

Does a woman own her own body? Anti-choice conservatives don't think so. Am I free to smoke marijuana? Conservative anti-drug types would throw me in prison. Is a gay person free to marry the partner of choice? Not if conservatives have their way about it. Conservatives pay lip service to freedom, but in practice not so much. Freedom to conservatives is essentially no oversight over business. Unfettered capitalism. Individual liberty, equal opportunity, and social justice mean nothing to them.

Is it legal for a person to commit suicide (after all, it is their own body)? Apparently, a baby's body is not its own, and another person can say, "kill them", and you are okay with that.
Does your marijuana smoking endanger others (second hand smoke, releasing pollutants, impaired judgment, operating machinery, moving near machinery, etc)?
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Re-defining the word to implement a legal status for another type of partnership is fraud.

Freedom does not mean that you get to do what ever you want to do. It is a very mature concept where people respect each other, and are responsible for their own actions. It is not where people get to do what ever they want to do, until they fail, and then hold everyone else responsible for their failed life, when they expect "support".
Individual liberty is extremely important to conservatives. That liberty has a heavy burden; the liberated person is responsible for their own well being, and supports themselves and adds to the community. If they make it to old age, the community repays their contribution by kindness and generosity.
Equal opportunity, also extremely important to conservatives, if you want to tax one person, everyone else should be taxed accordingly (I guess that wasn't your definition of "equal opportunity"). Jobs: each child born in this country can start applying for "dead-end" (usually low paying) jobs when they reach the immature age of 16. They can continue to apply for jobs (and do volunteer work), until they get a job. They can then stay in that "dead-end" job until they are bored, or have gained enough experience to apply for a better "dead-end" job. Once they figure out that they are not satisfied with the job or the pay, they can "improve" themselves (saving money for school, scholarships, grants, military, volunteer work). They can then apply for better jobs. They may have to move to get a better job. The opportunity is there for every child in America. If the child at the immature age of 16 decides that it is important to them to dye their hair funny colors/get piercings in unorthodox places/get noticeable tattoos, those opportunities may be limited (individuality comes at a price). But there are still opportunities.
Social justice: an extremely dangerous tool for tyrants and dictators that has been used to overthrow governments, murder select groups, and control masses (mobs or people with mob mentality). It has nothing in common with "individual liberty". It is not something that conservatives want, after all if you believe in "individual" liberty, each person will want something different out of life (social justice implies equal outcomes, but usually ends with equal misery). What better way to get it, than to encourage people to take responsibility for their own lives?
Do an experiment for me. Ask people that seem happy, how they got to that point in their lives. I am willing to bet that they (the individual) worked to achieve personal goals, failed, picked themselves back up and went after that goal, again. They do not go out of their way to bad mouth others. Ask them if they are special. Chances are, they will tell you, no, just lucky or blessed.

I would tell you to ask an angry person the same question, but usually, they are not truthful. If you spend much time around angry people, you will see a pattern: some one helped them, but they did not help them "enough". They should be "given" more because they are "better" than those around them. They will run down others, while bragging on themselves. What is really, really sad, is that many of these people are extremely good at their jobs, have been blessed, but cannot see what they have because they want what someone else has, so badly. Instead of focusing on how to achieve those goals, they become focused on destroying what others have.

 

[logical4u]

Conservative values, as they exist today, are a recent invention. Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, the heros of the conservative movement, did their work in the 1950's, and Republicans formed this whole cult of "personal responsibility" and "unfettered market capitalism" around their writings, in an effort to sanctify greed and selfishness. Conservatives here keep trying to tie these values to the Founding Fathers, and other leaders they admire, or to Christianity. Conservative values are not Christian, and they bear no relation to the nation your Founding Fathers envisioned.

Fortunately, enough people have stopped being fooled by the Republicans, that they're no longer buying the idea that cutting taxes will lead to prosperity. Well it does, but not for the working man or woman, middle class or lower.

Republicans don't want to pay people a decent wage, and they don't want to give them government benefits. They want everyone to smarten up and get better jobs. Yeah, like that's worked well so far.

Every gov't (like every person) works off of selfishness and greed. Name one that doesn't. Because one gov't implies it has the interest of the masses at heart, does not make it so. What gov't is reducing taxes (isn't that greed if they are increasing taxes?)? Capitalism, in this nation, based off Christian/Judeo values has produced the most productive country in the history of the world. That capitalism has made this country the target of "greed", world wide, many other gov'ts want a cut. They are unwilling to give their people "individual liberty", but want the results of this country's freedom, none the less.

Unfortunately, too many people in this country are willing to be manipulated because the gov't tells them life isn't fair (not that gov't will ever be able to "make" it fair), and slam the very values that have given us a great nation where we are blessed, and have opportunity. Nothing is for free, and if someone is telling you that they will "take care of you" without stating what you must do to earn that is planning on making you a "slave" (opposite of individual liberty).

 

[logical4u]

half of those are just bigoted opinions

Which ones?
Please be specific.

"abortion is the murder of an unborn child" that is a religious opinion that is not universally accepted by all religions or by even by all Christians

"homosexual or promiscuous behavior is harmful to individual's health and society" The health component is always going to depend on individual behaviors and precautions. As for harmful to society, that is pure opinion.

"the biological, married parents are the most likely to raise productive children" the biological part is unsubstantiated. Regarding intact families, I'll give partial credit, because "most likely" and "on average" are similar but not the same. Scholarly research always qualifies that there are other factors, such as socio-economic status and mental health that can affect both success of children, and success of marriage. Obviously there are many successful people who come from single parent homes, like the guys on the $10 and $20 bills.

"there is no evidence the world is warmer than in any point in living history" I don't know what you mean by "living history" but ice-cores and other data reveal that the earth is warmer now than at any time during the last 4000 years. Report: Global temps are the highest they've been in 4,000 years

regarding food stamps, yeah there are always a few who game the system “Over 98 percent of those receiving SNAP benefits are eligible, and the FY 2010 payment accuracy rate was over 96 percent--a historic high,”
IG: Welfare Recipients Traded Food Stamps for Cash to Buy Drugs and Guns | CNS News

"Democratic policy doesn't 'appear' to be concerned with 'facts'" Actually, Democratic policies are demonstrably more likely to be based on proven economic theory, sound science, and sound arithmetic.

Ending a life for convenience is murder. Because it is legal murder does not change the fact that a life is being forcefully ended, against the will of the victim.

"homosexual or promiscuous behavior is harmful to individual's health and society". Check the ages for homosexual men. Homosexual women are more likely to be overweight according to a new study that the gov't is paying tax dollars to study. How do you think AIDS spread? Are you suggesting AIDS is good for societies?

I did not say that other types of parents could not raise great children. I said that the children were "more likely" to be productive, mentally and emotionally stable than without the biological, married parents. Adoptive parents are right up there with them. Single parents, not so much. Again, it is "more likely" that children will be better off with the biological, married parents, than in a single parent household ("more likely" to not finish high school, do drugs, make bad choices, etc).

Greenland had farming communities in the Viking history. Those farms are still under tens of feet of ice. The artic has fossilized tropical plants. I would say the earth has been quite a bit warmer, regardless of what "some" scientists say (based on common sense).

I didn't give a percentage on food stamps. I find it amazing that you can say that 98% are eligible without considering if it is necessary for them to use food stamps or if the bar is set too high for eligibility. I said that drug dealers are teaching drug users to scam the system. Instead of condemning these criminal actions, you change the subject, hmmmm.

You accused me of "bigoted" opinions. I see factual statements. You have said nothing to "prove" my statements "wrong". Please do so, if you still feel that way.

 

[logical4u]

Oversimplified hogwash.

Please give me a single quote of Jesus from the gospels that support today's conservative principles. On the other hand, you could start with the sermon on the mount, and find it full of today liberal concepts....and that is just a small example of his sayings that liberals embrace.

Clearly, whatever they're political bend, Liberals are pathological lairs.

Render unto Obama what is Obamas, render unto God what is Gods.

And you dare to say Jesus was a Loliberal

I'll tell you what, Frank. We'll have a pop test. Who said these words:

"Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."


1. Sarah Palin
2. Rush Limbaugh
3. Glenn Beck
4. Jesus Christ

No Googling is allowed.

I didn't notice where it said that "you voted to have your gov't tax the working people (middle class), and to have the corrupt tax collectors feed me, give me clothing, take care of me, or visit me in prison"......

 

[Dragonlady]

Ending a life for convenience is murder.

In YOUR opinion. In the opinion of more than 80% of Americans, abortion should be legal in some, if not all cases. Only 14% of Americans think as you do, yet you would impose your values of everyone else.

"homosexual or promiscuous behavior is harmful to individual's health and society". Check the ages for homosexual men. Homosexual women are more likely to be overweight according to a new study that the gov't is paying tax dollars to study. How do you think AIDS spread? Are you suggesting AIDS is good for societies?

Do I understand you correctly. You oppose homosexuality and promiscuous behaviour on the grounds that it's not good for society and spreads AIDS. So homosexual = AIDS to you. False but I understand your complete lack of knowledge about the gay community. Those we fear we demonize . You probably think you don't know any gay people.

Are you aware that nuns have a high incidence of breast cancer because they don't have sex? Having sex reduces the incidence of women's breast cancer.

"I said that drug dealers are teaching drug users to scam the system. Instead of condemning these criminal actions, you change the subject, hmmmm.

You accused me of "bigoted" opinions. I see factual statements. You have said nothing to "prove" my statements "wrong". Please do so, if you still feel that way.

These aren't facts. They're urban legends. You've linked to nothing to support these ideas which are rife with prejudice, homophobia and just plain disordered thinking. Turn off the conservative radio/TV and get out side.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Gentlemen, I will answer you both of you in one sentence. Nowhere in the definition of "liberal" appears either the words, "communist", or "welfare state".

I will not defend your definition of "liberal" , since that is nothng but a seed that was planted and nurtured by your minds by talk AM radio.

Ahhh, spanked by your own logic so you run away

 

[Faun]

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.

excuse me but you do not seem to understand the American system....

just because you dimwits voted a subversive marxist into the executive office again does not mean we have to agree with his proposals....his slim win was hardly a mandate....

Congress is the legislative part of the process....you might take notice that the voters elected a majority of Republicans in the House....and the Tea Party conservatives DO have America's back...

Awww, I feel your pain. No worries, just another 3 years and 10 months to go. Just think, then you get to bitch and moan about Hillary for the next 8 years after that.

 

[Faun]

Are you the owner of yourself or are you owned by the state? Or which proportion are you of each? The closer you move to state ownership the closer you are to modern liberalism. Oh, and James Madison wanted land owning as a condition of voting at the Constitutional Convention. In anycase, liberalism is only a relative term. Democrats gave it to themselves as a PR campaign when they were running away from the name "progressive."

Does a woman own her own body? Anti-choice conservatives don't think so. Am I free to smoke marijuana? Conservative anti-drug types would throw me in prison. Is a gay person free to marry the partner of choice? Not if conservatives have their way about it. Conservatives pay lip service to freedom, but in practice not so much. Freedom to conservatives is essentially no oversight over business. Unfettered capitalism. Individual liberty, equal opportunity, and social justice mean nothing to them.

Is it legal for a person to commit suicide (after all, it is their own body)? Apparently, a baby's body is not its own, and another person can say, "kill them", and you are okay with that.
Does your marijuana smoking endanger others (second hand smoke, releasing pollutants, impaired judgment, operating machinery, moving near machinery, etc)?
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Re-defining the word to implement a legal status for another type of partnership is fraud.

Freedom does not mean that you get to do what ever you want to do. It is a very mature concept where people respect each other, and are responsible for their own actions. It is not where people get to do what ever they want to do, until they fail, and then hold everyone else responsible for their failed life, when they expect "support".
Individual liberty is extremely important to conservatives. That liberty has a heavy burden; the liberated person is responsible for their own well being, and supports themselves and adds to the community. If they make it to old age, the community repays their contribution by kindness and generosity.
Equal opportunity, also extremely important to conservatives, if you want to tax one person, everyone else should be taxed accordingly (I guess that wasn't your definition of "equal opportunity"). Jobs: each child born in this country can start applying for "dead-end" (usually low paying) jobs when they reach the immature age of 16. They can continue to apply for jobs (and do volunteer work), until they get a job. They can then stay in that "dead-end" job until they are bored, or have gained enough experience to apply for a better "dead-end" job. Once they figure out that they are not satisfied with the job or the pay, they can "improve" themselves (saving money for school, scholarships, grants, military, volunteer work). They can then apply for better jobs. They may have to move to get a better job. The opportunity is there for every child in America. If the child at the immature age of 16 decides that it is important to them to dye their hair funny colors/get piercings in unorthodox places/get noticeable tattoos, those opportunities may be limited (individuality comes at a price). But there are still opportunities.
Social justice: an extremely dangerous tool for tyrants and dictators that has been used to overthrow governments, murder select groups, and control masses (mobs or people with mob mentality). It has nothing in common with "individual liberty". It is not something that conservatives want, after all if you believe in "individual" liberty, each person will want something different out of life (social justice implies equal outcomes, but usually ends with equal misery). What better way to get it, than to encourage people to take responsibility for their own lives?
Do an experiment for me. Ask people that seem happy, how they got to that point in their lives. I am willing to bet that they (the individual) worked to achieve personal goals, failed, picked themselves back up and went after that goal, again. They do not go out of their way to bad mouth others. Ask them if they are special. Chances are, they will tell you, no, just lucky or blessed.

I would tell you to ask an angry person the same question, but usually, they are not truthful. If you spend much time around angry people, you will see a pattern: some one helped them, but they did not help them "enough". They should be "given" more because they are "better" than those around them. They will run down others, while bragging on themselves. What is really, really sad, is that many of these people are extremely good at their jobs, have been blessed, but cannot see what they have because they want what someone else has, so badly. Instead of focusing on how to achieve those goals, they become focused on destroying what others have.

How on Earth to you espouse Conservatives are champions of "equal opportunity" in the same post you say that gays people don't have an "equal opportunity" to marry the person whom they love like a straight person does. Not allowing gay marriage is a direct violation of the 15th Amendment's equal protection clause.

Conservatives are only for "equal opportunity" when it suits them.

 

[logical4u]

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.

It's wonderful the conservatives give to charity, but charity is not the answer to low wages, and poverty. I give to charities too, but this is a very paternalistic way of helping the poor. No one wants to be a "charity case" and it stigmatizes children. And it doesn't help the vast majority of working poor.

Conservatives keep looking at those below them on the socio economic scale, as the problem, and they're not the problem, they're the symptom. Republicans don't want to raise the minimum wage which would help get people off government assistance. Food stamps and "earned income credits" were the sop given to the poor so that W could cut taxes to the rich, and help keep wages low for his corporate buddies. Now Republicans revile those who are receiving benefits under these programs as "takers", without noting who is receiving the most benefit from these programs.

Food stamps programs benefit the wealthy far more than the poor. The EBT cards must be used only in corporate owned stored. Mom and Pop grocery stores don't benefit, only placed like Walmart, Costco, big grocery stores, and large chain convenience stores. Only pre-packaged food can be bought with it - no fresh vegetables or fruit. Farmers can't benefit. You have to buy food which has been processed so only food processing corporations profit. Not farmers, not small businesses. Your food stamp money goes straight to the corporations.

It would be so much cheaper and easier to give people the $131 a month (the average food stamp benefit paid) in wages and let them get their groceries where they want - that's personal responsoibility. Instead you have this huge, expensive government apparatus set up which makes sure the benefits paid go straight to corporate vendors and not to farms or small business.

"Getting ahead" is difficult because nearly 95% of the wealth of the country is now in the hands of the top 20% of individuals and corporations in the US. You keep blaming the poor for taking your hard earned money, it's not the poor who are taking it, it's the rich. Conservatives keep you distracted by the crumbs being thrown the working poor, to keep you from noticing the corporate bagmen robbing you blind.

The US spends nearly a 1/3 of the budget on the military. The US currently spends more than the 15 next highest spending countries combined and the primary purpose of the military is to protect "US interests" around the world. By "US interests" read "the property of large multi-national US corporations". So 1/3 of your tax dollars go to prevent foreign governments from nationalizing assets owned by Americans and protecting American owned property abroad.

The US currently spends the highest amount of any country in the world on health care - brought to you by big US insurance, and it's ridiculous, overly complex and expensive method of dealing with claims. Every other major first world country does health care just as well, for half the cost, yet corporate America has convinced you that you're better off this way.

Why do you vote Republican? They don't care about you. It's their policies over the past 30 years that have brought the US to this point. Wages need to be brought into line with profits. If the middle class continues to lose ground to the wealthy, there will be no middle class at all.

You don't want to hear about the "solution". You want to scream that it is "bigoted, racist, sexist, etc. You want to accuse us of shoving "religion" down other peoples' throats. You want to call us homophobes.

The solution to eliminating poverty is Judeo/Christian values. Get your maturity (education, job, then relationship), before you get married. Get married before you have children. Work towards improving your community for your children. Set a good example for your children (not the trashy images from advertising, and Hollywood). Provide for yourself, and your family. Encourage your family to contribute to your community. Punish destruction and rudeness. Discourage sloth and deceit. Reward achievement and hard work. Teach children in school that behavior has consequences, and teach them the consequences for poor choices and for good choices. Teach them that bigotry is superstition: like you must stay in the status you were born into. Most people in this country have been poor at some point in their life. It was their "choice" not to stay there.

Why do you keep voting democrat? They said they were going to help the blacks. Are the blacks doing better? Are black families staying together? Is black unemployment being reduced? They said they would have a war on poverty. Poverty is higher now than it has been in decades (mostly democrat controlled congress for that time period). They said they were going to improve education. Do you think education is better? I believe that there are a whole bunch of people on this board that have not even read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, let alone, comprehend them. The democrats have told you they are for a strong middle class. How is the middle class doing? Haven't their wages come down under democrat "leadership"? Why DO you keep voting democrat?

 

[logical4u]

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.

So Conservatives claim to base their philosophical values on 17th century liberals? I was thinking their values are more closely aligned with the person who said these things:


“If you win, you need not have to explain...If you lose, you should not be there to explain!”

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”

“What luck for rulers that men do not think.”

“Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.”

“When diplomacy ends, War begins.”

“It is not truth that matters, but victory.”

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”

“Think Thousand times before taking a decision But - After taking decison never turn back even if you get Thousand difficulties!!”

“What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.”

“By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.”

And these:

"Greed is eternal."

"Nothing is more important than your health ... except for your money."

"War is good for business."

"Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies."

"Every man has his price."

"A man is only worth the sum of his possessions."

"Employees are the rungs on the ladder of success. Don't hesitate to step on them."

"Never be afraid to mislabel a product."

"Treat people in your debt like family ... exploit them."

"Why ask, when you can take?"

"A good lie is easier to believe than the truth."

Apparently, liberals really do have a problem with comprehension. You were supposed to post philosophies that you believe, not what you believe, someone else believes.

 

[Faun]

Which ones?
Please be specific.

"abortion is the murder of an unborn child" that is a religious opinion that is not universally accepted by all religions or by even by all Christians

"homosexual or promiscuous behavior is harmful to individual's health and society" The health component is always going to depend on individual behaviors and precautions. As for harmful to society, that is pure opinion.

"the biological, married parents are the most likely to raise productive children" the biological part is unsubstantiated. Regarding intact families, I'll give partial credit, because "most likely" and "on average" are similar but not the same. Scholarly research always qualifies that there are other factors, such as socio-economic status and mental health that can affect both success of children, and success of marriage. Obviously there are many successful people who come from single parent homes, like the guys on the $10 and $20 bills.

"there is no evidence the world is warmer than in any point in living history" I don't know what you mean by "living history" but ice-cores and other data reveal that the earth is warmer now than at any time during the last 4000 years. Report: Global temps are the highest they've been in 4,000 years

regarding food stamps, yeah there are always a few who game the system “Over 98 percent of those receiving SNAP benefits are eligible, and the FY 2010 payment accuracy rate was over 96 percent--a historic high,”
IG: Welfare Recipients Traded Food Stamps for Cash to Buy Drugs and Guns | CNS News

"Democratic policy doesn't 'appear' to be concerned with 'facts'" Actually, Democratic policies are demonstrably more likely to be based on proven economic theory, sound science, and sound arithmetic.

Ending a life for convenience is murder. Because it is legal murder does not change the fact that a life is being forcefully ended, against the will of the victim.

"homosexual or promiscuous behavior is harmful to individual's health and society". Check the ages for homosexual men. Homosexual women are more likely to be overweight according to a new study that the gov't is paying tax dollars to study. How do you think AIDS spread? Are you suggesting AIDS is good for societies?

I did not say that other types of parents could not raise great children. I said that the children were "more likely" to be productive, mentally and emotionally stable than without the biological, married parents. Adoptive parents are right up there with them. Single parents, not so much. Again, it is "more likely" that children will be better off with the biological, married parents, than in a single parent household ("more likely" to not finish high school, do drugs, make bad choices, etc).

Greenland had farming communities in the Viking history. Those farms are still under tens of feet of ice. The artic has fossilized tropical plants. I would say the earth has been quite a bit warmer, regardless of what "some" scientists say (based on common sense).

I didn't give a percentage on food stamps. I find it amazing that you can say that 98% are eligible without considering if it is necessary for them to use food stamps or if the bar is set too high for eligibility. I said that drug dealers are teaching drug users to scam the system. Instead of condemning these criminal actions, you change the subject, hmmmm.

You accused me of "bigoted" opinions. I see factual statements. You have said nothing to "prove" my statements "wrong". Please do so, if you still feel that way.

It couldn't be easier to prove you wrong.

Abortion is not murder. Murder is a legal term to describe the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. That being the definition of "murder," I don't see how there is any such thing as "legal murder."

You can make up all the terms you want, that still won't make them so.