Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
1. Liberalism is NOT neutral, by any defination.Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.
Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.
These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?
2. LIberalism as practiced by progressives is the most extreme form of ideology there is.
3. The nation has been getting more and more extreme (moving leftward) every decade. What you would call rightwing today, was moderately leftwing 30 years ago.
Last. You're an idiot.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
St Reagan would never make it through today's extreme rightwing primaries because he would be way too "liberal" for the Tea Party voters.
The facts are that the extreme right has moved so far to the right that they are no longer capable of thinking, instead they just emote.
30 years of ever greater extremism by the far right has resulted in wars, economic collapse and the financial gutting of the middle class while enriching only the 1%.
Those are indisputable facts.
They are not facts.
Those are lefty opinions
It fits the intent of the thread. You bitch about how righteous liberals are and ditch anyone who opposes your views. The picture is spot on with the typical rants as you ignore any data that ditches your ideology. I've stated both sides have raised the debt and to our countries detriment. Obama and the left in office have hit the gas pedal on spending. Doubled down on debt and bitch and moan anytime someone wants to reign in spending.
I don't believe in subsidizing ANY PRIVATE COMPANY. They should stand or fall on their own and not get assistance from the taxpayer.
But subsidizing companies isn't really the major problem. As any cost increases are added to the price of the product anyway. Extra taxation on these types of issues is always paid for by the consumer. Yet your side goes with the RANT tax the shit out of them because you are too danged stupid to understand that you will be paying for it anyway. Strong economic nations throughout history have always been about having a strong Middle Class paying for the Gov't. Not the finite few that you continually bitch about.
That is reality. Something your side doesn't care about. Your side is always looking for a new cause to get the Feds to spend money on.............When you get your way, you think of more. A never ending cycle of stuck on spending your asses off, Bush was liberal on spending I complained about that all the time. He went with the Dems on issues spending money,,,,,,,,,,,,but the Dems kept saying to SPEND MORE............NOT ENOUGH..........and then bitch about his spending when their alternate bills were projected at douible the cost.
No bias or hatred in liberalism, unless you disagree with them. Just ask a conservative black man.
Liberals are supposed to agree with a conservative just because he's black? lol
How many liberal black men do you agree with?
Liberals usually cannot tell the difference between disagreement and bias or hatred. If they could understand the difference ... They would have to address the fact they are not perfect and don't have the correct answer to every equation.
.
But the extreme right are perfect and do have the correct answers?
Nobody in this world is perfect but wanting to get government under control is a better way than to keep spending.
There is a liberal bias. In such a hard world full of hate, exploitation, mistrust and almost casual brutality, anyone trying to make it a gentler, more equitable place is expressing a view that the reactionary self-absorbed right just cannot grasp. Liberalism is a view that rejects the premise of "that's just how it is, accept it" popular among the right for one that knows we humans are capable making this world a good place for everyone to live. The liberal bias is hope in the face of intractable despair.
Giving up on people who have problems you are unwilling to deal with has nothing to do with hope, it's more of a cowardly retreat.There is a liberal bias. In such a hard world full of hate, exploitation, mistrust and almost casual brutality, anyone trying to make it a gentler, more equitable place is expressing a view that the reactionary self-absorbed right just cannot grasp. Liberalism is a view that rejects the premise of "that's just how it is, accept it" popular among the right for one that knows we humans are capable making this world a good place for everyone to live. The liberal bias is hope in the face of intractable despair.
It's the right who are getting the kids out of the really bad ghetto schools and are giving them hope.
Who controlled both houses while Reagan was president?1. Liberalism is NOT neutral, by any defination.Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.
Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.
These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?
2. LIberalism as practiced by progressives is the most extreme form of ideology there is.
3. The nation has been getting more and more extreme (moving leftward) every decade. What you would call rightwing today, was moderately leftwing 30 years ago.
Last. You're an idiot.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
St Reagan would never make it through today's extreme rightwing primaries because he would be way too "liberal" for the Tea Party voters.
The facts are that the extreme right has moved so far to the right that they are no longer capable of thinking, instead they just emote.
30 years of ever greater extremism by the far right has resulted in wars, economic collapse and the financial gutting of the middle class while enriching only the 1%.
Those are indisputable facts.
They are not facts.
Those are lefty opinions
Really?
Reagan didn't raise taxes?
Reagan didn't increase the size of "big government"?
Reagan didn't run up the National Debt into the Trillions?
None of those are facts according to the extreme right?
No bias or hatred in liberalism, unless you disagree with them. Just ask a conservative black man.
Liberals are supposed to agree with a conservative just because he's black? lol
How many liberal black men do you agree with?
Liberals usually cannot tell the difference between disagreement and bias or hatred. If they could understand the difference ... They would have to address the fact they are not perfect and don't have the correct answer to every equation.
.
But the extreme right are perfect and do have the correct answers?
Nobody in this world is perfect but wanting to get government under control is a better way than to keep spending.
You are focused on the symptom and not the cause because it is easier to blame "big government spending" rather than to deal with the reason why we are spending trillions on enriching the Koch bros and the corporate special interests.
Just like the way Obama closed charter schools in Washington? Then had to reopen them after minority parents raised hell. Liberals don't want minorities to have a chance in life.Giving up on people who have problems you are unwilling to deal with has nothing to do with hope, it's more of a cowardly retreat.There is a liberal bias. In such a hard world full of hate, exploitation, mistrust and almost casual brutality, anyone trying to make it a gentler, more equitable place is expressing a view that the reactionary self-absorbed right just cannot grasp. Liberalism is a view that rejects the premise of "that's just how it is, accept it" popular among the right for one that knows we humans are capable making this world a good place for everyone to live. The liberal bias is hope in the face of intractable despair.
It's the right who are getting the kids out of the really bad ghetto schools and are giving them hope.
Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this...
really?Liberals are supposed to agree with a conservative just because he's black? lol
How many liberal black men do you agree with?
Liberals usually cannot tell the difference between disagreement and bias or hatred. If they could understand the difference ... They would have to address the fact they are not perfect and don't have the correct answer to every equation.
.
But the extreme right are perfect and do have the correct answers?
Nobody in this world is perfect but wanting to get government under control is a better way than to keep spending.
You are focused on the symptom and not the cause because it is easier to blame "big government spending" rather than to deal with the reason why we are spending trillions on enriching the Koch bros and the corporate special interests.
Which side is trying to get the tax code changed that would stop most of the big corporations in their lobbing for lower taxes?
It isn't the left.
And both you and he are not?He may be an idiot, but you just made the his point. You're biased! Way to go, shortbus.There's no defense against ignorant bullshit. I agree with Bripat: You're an idiot.
Giving up on people who have problems you are unwilling to deal with has nothing to do with hope, it's more of a cowardly retreat.There is a liberal bias. In such a hard world full of hate, exploitation, mistrust and almost casual brutality, anyone trying to make it a gentler, more equitable place is expressing a view that the reactionary self-absorbed right just cannot grasp. Liberalism is a view that rejects the premise of "that's just how it is, accept it" popular among the right for one that knows we humans are capable making this world a good place for everyone to live. The liberal bias is hope in the face of intractable despair.
It's the right who are getting the kids out of the really bad ghetto schools and are giving them hope.
Wow, I'm not buying the OP, but he/she actually did give examples.And both you and he are not?He may be an idiot, but you just made the his point. You're biased! Way to go, shortbus.There's no defense against ignorant bullshit. I agree with Bripat: You're an idiot.
Please demonstrate how liberalism is not biased but conservativism is biased.
Who controlled both houses while Reagan was president?
Giving up on people who have problems you are unwilling to deal with has nothing to do with hope, it's more of a cowardly retreat.There is a liberal bias. In such a hard world full of hate, exploitation, mistrust and almost casual brutality, anyone trying to make it a gentler, more equitable place is expressing a view that the reactionary self-absorbed right just cannot grasp. Liberalism is a view that rejects the premise of "that's just how it is, accept it" popular among the right for one that knows we humans are capable making this world a good place for everyone to live. The liberal bias is hope in the face of intractable despair.
It's the right who are getting the kids out of the really bad ghetto schools and are giving them hope.
They are not giving up on problems. They are solving them.
They are giving hope to these kids. More are staying in school and graduating.
It is the left who keep wanting to put more money into the public schools that is not working, rather that solving the problems.
Who controlled both houses while Reagan was president?1. Liberalism is NOT neutral, by any defination.Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.
Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.
These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?
2. LIberalism as practiced by progressives is the most extreme form of ideology there is.
3. The nation has been getting more and more extreme (moving leftward) every decade. What you would call rightwing today, was moderately leftwing 30 years ago.
Last. You're an idiot.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
St Reagan would never make it through today's extreme rightwing primaries because he would be way too "liberal" for the Tea Party voters.
The facts are that the extreme right has moved so far to the right that they are no longer capable of thinking, instead they just emote.
30 years of ever greater extremism by the far right has resulted in wars, economic collapse and the financial gutting of the middle class while enriching only the 1%.
Those are indisputable facts.
They are not facts.
Those are lefty opinions
Really?
Reagan didn't raise taxes?
Reagan didn't increase the size of "big government"?
Reagan didn't run up the National Debt into the Trillions?
None of those are facts according to the extreme right?
Who controlled both houses while Reagan was president?
Unfair Question ... President Reagan pretty much controlled Congress (at least in his second term).
He didn't wait around for people to define him or his politics. He took the strong mandate he had (after carrying every state except Minnesota in his re-election) ... And did what he thought was best for the country (was actually a leader).
More importantly ... He never allowed the GOP to define who he was or what Conservatism was ... He told them what both were and didn't ask anyone's opinion.
.
really?Liberals usually cannot tell the difference between disagreement and bias or hatred. If they could understand the difference ... They would have to address the fact they are not perfect and don't have the correct answer to every equation.
.
But the extreme right are perfect and do have the correct answers?
Nobody in this world is perfect but wanting to get government under control is a better way than to keep spending.
You are focused on the symptom and not the cause because it is easier to blame "big government spending" rather than to deal with the reason why we are spending trillions on enriching the Koch bros and the corporate special interests.
Which side is trying to get the tax code changed that would stop most of the big corporations in their lobbing for lower taxes?
It isn't the left.
which side in the US House wrote a bill trying to kill the reform hated by lobbyists -- Dodd/Frank?
It is an honest opinion that I have to politely disagree with. I would say some members of the Democrats pushed a bandaid solution. The leadership was trying to get tough. and I would say the Leadership of the GOP has been against any credible reform of the financial industry.really?But the extreme right are perfect and do have the correct answers?
Nobody in this world is perfect but wanting to get government under control is a better way than to keep spending.
You are focused on the symptom and not the cause because it is easier to blame "big government spending" rather than to deal with the reason why we are spending trillions on enriching the Koch bros and the corporate special interests.
Which side is trying to get the tax code changed that would stop most of the big corporations in their lobbing for lower taxes?
It isn't the left.
which side in the US House wrote a bill trying to kill the reform hated by lobbyists -- Dodd/Frank?
A band aid rather than actual tax reform.
Don't get me wrong on this, both sides do the band aid crap, especially the established ones in both parties.
I've heard the rationalizations for killing the public schools with a thousand cuts but it still leaves a lot of kids out in the cold with a crappy education and the knowledge that they are less important than those other kids..Giving up on people who have problems you are unwilling to deal with has nothing to do with hope, it's more of a cowardly retreat.There is a liberal bias. In such a hard world full of hate, exploitation, mistrust and almost casual brutality, anyone trying to make it a gentler, more equitable place is expressing a view that the reactionary self-absorbed right just cannot grasp. Liberalism is a view that rejects the premise of "that's just how it is, accept it" popular among the right for one that knows we humans are capable making this world a good place for everyone to live. The liberal bias is hope in the face of intractable despair.
It's the right who are getting the kids out of the really bad ghetto schools and are giving them hope.
They are not giving up on problems. They are solving them.
They are giving hope to these kids. More are staying in school and graduating.
It is the left who keep wanting to put more money into the public schools that is not working, rather that solving the problems.
