Why liberals hate values

[Sandy73]

PLEASE CLEAN YOU PM BOX !

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by softwaremama
If the gov't were a real part of the economy, BTW, the folks who work for it would pay into SS, which they don't!

While I appreciate your zeal for conservatism, we government workers DO pay into Social Security. It is Congress who has a separate pension system.

 

[softwaremama]

SOrry--I thought they were all exempt and had their own pension system. Thanks for the info. Back to geeking now!:

 

[MrMarbles]

Many of us consider ensuring the survival of our nation and civilization in general a valid expenditure, but thanks for your input.

Still why not make America the best it can be, then lead by example, instead of force.

Because socialized medicine results in shitty care for most people, and a flourishing black market health care system that the priveleged of society (politburo members) use

Shitty? Our system has problems, yes. But our care is up to par, I have never waited long or had any problems with it. Our system tends to be admired and copyes around the world, except for the States.

No thanks. We should go back to system where one person takes care of kids. Trusting the rearing of children between 0-5 to disinterested third parties, borders on neglect.

Everyone who chooses to work with youth do it because they enjoy it, it takes a certain quality to do it. If you don't have then don't work with youth. Babies should be cared for by there own parents until they are mature enough, but it is rarely the case. I was talking more about youth though. Youth who if kept in a good surrounding will have the chance to succed.

It will not always be cheaper. Eventually global wages will stabilize, but it may take a while. Cutting the third world out of modernity, for our own comfort, is evil incarnate

If they are paid good wages, go ahead give them the work. But sweat shops are a different story. And i was refering to corporations will to use them instead of quality NA workers.

you have a negative view of life. I thought libs were supposed to be positive. You need people to be afraid to control them with your promises of income redistribution. It's sick.

I'm a realist. These arguements tend to make me alot more polarized then my usual self. You guys have that effect on people.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by MrMarbles
Still why not make America the best it can be, then lead by example, instead of force.

We do lead by example and we only use force when either 1) we are forced to or 2) The Eurowimps call us needing our help.

Originally posted by MrMarbles
Shitty? Our system has problems, yes. But our care is up to par, I have never waited long or had any problems with it. Our system tends to be admired and copyes around the world, except for the States.

Your system is shitty and that is why everybody comes to the USA when they need serious care. Sure, I might be able to get my hang nail fixed easily in Canada, but Gawd forbid I need some serious care.

Originally posted by MrMarbles
Everyone who chooses to work with youth do it because they enjoy it, it takes a certain quality to do it.

Yep and Priests joined the Clergy because they believed in God. But I still wouldn't want to leave the care of my children in their hands. So your point? There are sincere caretakers of the young I admit. But do you want to make a crap shot out of the care of your child?

Originally posted by MrMarbles
Babies should be cared for by there own parents until they are mature enough, but it is rarely the case. I was talking more about youth though. Youth who if kept in a good surrounding will have the chance to succeed.

Sure, but who is providing that surrounding? Again, putting your child's care in somebody else's hands is a gamble.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yeah. What ff1 Said!:clap1:

 

[Bonnie]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Many of us consider ensuring the survival of our nation and civilization in general a valid expenditure, but thanks for your input.

Because socialized medicine results in shitty care for most people, and a flourishing black market health care system that the priveleged of society (politburo members) use

No thanks. We should go back to system where one person takes care of kids. Trusting the rearing of children between 0-5 to disinterested third parties, borders on neglect.

It will not always be cheaper. Eventually global wages will stabilize, but it may take a while. Cutting the third world out of modernity, for our own comfort, is evil incarnate


you have a negative view of life. I thought libs were supposed to be positive. You need people to be afraid to control them with your promises of income redistribution. It's sick.

Liberals all seem to think there is a finite amount of money and that all the rich possess this treasure not needing to share with anyone else. It is the truth that small and larger businesses employ and create most of the jobs and economic growth, there isn't a governement on the planet that can compete with that, this is why Communism has failed miserably everytime it is tried. There is no substitute for self reliance, and motivation of survival!

 

[MrMarbles]

When it comes to the youth, i'm taking about pre-teens and teens, not babies. Porgrams for youth include, sports, hockey, baseball etc, art, music, painting, etc. Not the intial upbringing, but things that will help in there development. Are you against funding sports? Or arts for kids?

As for our health system, people do got to the states sometimes for treatment, but it's usually in order to get treatment they can't because they live in a rural area, and it is closer to the States then a canadain site, but it is paid for by our gov't.

It is the truth that small and larger businesses employ and create most of the jobs and economic growth, there isn't a governement on the planet that can compete with that, this is why Communism has failed miserably everytime it is tried. There is no substitute for self reliance, and motivation of survival!

Your right, but what does this have to do with Liberals? A liberal gov't is still a capitalist gov't. It just provides for people better by striving for equality.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by MrMarbles
When it comes to the youth, i'm taking about pre-teens and teens, not babies. Porgrams for youth include, sports, hockey, baseball etc, art, music, painting, etc. Not the intial upbringing, but things that will help in there development. Are you against funding sports? Or arts for kids?

If parents want their kids in after-school programs, great, they can shell out the $50 for a soccer season or $20 for an art program. Why should the government pay?

Your right, but what does this have to do with Liberals? A liberal gov't is still a capitalist gov't. It just provides for people better by striving for equality.

Many American liberals want to move away from a capitalist society into a more socialist society; see Hillary's attempted grab at health care in 1993.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by MrMarbles




A liberal gov't is still a capitalist gov't. It just provides for people better by striving for equality. [/B]

The other side of the coin which you ignore is that socialist economies grind to a halt as innovations in servicing market needs (human needs) are disincentivized through conficatory tax rates. The economy slowly comes to a halt as new investment, innovation, construction, and hiring simply cease to occur. While morally corrupted environmentalists, bent on genocide against humanity, don't see this as a negative, normal people do.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
The other side of the coin which you ignore is that socialist economies grind to a halt as innovations in servicing market needs (human needs) are disincentivized through conficatory tax rates. The economy slowly comes to a halt as new investment, innovation, construction, and hiring simply cease to occur. While morally corrupted environmentalists, bent on genocide against humanity, don't see this as a negative, normal people do.

The former Soviet Union is a prime example. It is what cost them the Cold War.

 

[Bonnie]

Originally posted by MrMarbles
When it comes to the youth, i'm taking about pre-teens and teens, not babies. Porgrams for youth include, sports, hockey, baseball etc, art, music, painting, etc. Not the intial upbringing, but things that will help in there development. Are you against funding sports? Or arts for kids?

As for our health system, people do got to the states sometimes for treatment, but it's usually in order to get treatment they can't because they live in a rural area, and it is closer to the States then a canadain site, but it is paid for by our gov't.



Your right, but what does this have to do with Liberals? A liberal gov't is still a capitalist gov't. It just provides for people better by striving for equality.

Well I don't much about the structure or underpinnings of Canada's Governement, but in the USA the founders never intended the government to be everyone's safety net. It was set up to provide a military against enemies foreign and domestic, to provide infrastructure for commerce to develop and to provide a very limited amount of law and order mostly to be determined by the states, and finally freedom OF religion. Waht it has become is a giant give away program funded by those who work, for anyone who is too lazy to actually work . While I agree there is a very small group of people that need that safety net, most that take from it do not. So you have too many people in the wagon and not enough people to drive the wagon. This creates an undeniable atmosphere of disincentive for a those who take, and more importantly to those who are tired of towing not only their load but everyone else's burdens, hence the collapse of capitolism. In this country there are two types of liberals.The first genuinely cares about the needy but just has the misguided notion about what to do about it.....The second which encompasses a large part of the New Democrats running the show right now knows full well the problems of socialism, but are driven by the need for power, they get this power by increasing their consitituancy of dependant people. Additonally the Liberals have this very dangerous habit of pitting the have nots against the haves which could eventually lead to civil war, while the poor forget too easily that it is the rich and middleclass that start companies, hire people, buy goods, and invest in other companies.
I am a business owner and currently have anumber of people working for me, if it wasn't for the tax situation in my state by a liberal governor, I would be able to hire more, but right now there is no incentive for me to do so. Does that make any sense at all??????????

And most importantly this faction of the left uses the ol tug at the heart strings of the first group to keep everyone in step with the program. So really Socialism, is just Communism light, and the Liberals are the ones driving the whole thing.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bonnie
Well I don't much about the structure or underpinnings of Canada's Governement, but in the USA the founders never intended the government to be everyone's safety net. It was set up to provide a military against enemies foreign and domestic, to provide infrastructure for commerce to develop and to provide a very limited amount of law and order mostly to be determined by the states, and finally freedom OF religion. Waht it has become is a giant give away program funded by those who work, for anyone who is too lazy to actually work . While I agree there is a very small group of people that need that safety net, most that take from it do not. So you have too many people in the wagon and not enough people to drive the wagon. This creates an undeniable atmosphere of disincentive for a those who take, and more importantly to those who are tired of towing not only their load but everyone else's burdens, hence the collapse of capitolism. In this country there are two types of liberals.The first genuinely cares about the needy but just has the misguided notion about what to do about it.....The second which encompasses a large part of the New Democrats running the show right now knows full well the problems of socialism, but are driven by the need for power, they get this power by increasing their consitituancy of dependant people.

And most importantly this faction of the left uses the ol tug at the heart strings of the first group to keep everyone in step with the program. So really Socialism, is just Communism light, and the Liberals are the ones driving the whole thing.

Biff!

Bam!

SOCKO!

That's it. I'm issuing you tights, you can be a superhoic sidekick of mine! Or perhaps an equal partner in saving the world!

 

[Bonnie]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Biff!

Bam!

SOCKO!

That's it. I'm issuing you tights, you can be a superhoic sidekick of mine! Or perhaps an equal partner in saving the world!

Thats cool, but does that make me ... Left wing Avenger


LOL

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bonnie
Thats cool, but does that make me ... Left wing Avenger


LOL

No way. ewww. Anything but that! How about The Laissez-Faire Destroyer, or ConservoBroad! GOPGal!

 

[Bullypulpit]

The former Soviet Union is a prime example. It is what cost them the Cold War.

Indeed, but unregulated free markets require a rational society, which is something we are not even close to.

 

[Said1]

If parents want their kids in after-school programs, great, they can shell out the $50 for a soccer season or $20 for an art program. Why should the government pay?

That's a nice thought, and I do agree with you, but there are a lot of dead beat parents out there. Now I know this isn't your fault, but there are other avenues to take with funding for these kids.

There is a lot of community support in the area I live in. Many local business donate money to help a lot of these kids take part in activities (hocky, gymnatics ect) becasue their parents are drug addicts, alcoholics or won't work. I think this is better than the government paying, and the kids are able to take part in something they other wise wouldn't.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Indeed, but unregulated free markets require a rational society, which is something we are not even close to.

This is a textbook strawman argument. No one here is arguing for completely unregulated markets. do you consider yourself logical? Why then do you ignore the reality that socialism destroys lives?

 

[NewGuy]

There is a lot of community support in the area I live in. Many local business donate money to help a lot of these kids take part in activities (hocky, gymnatics ect) becasue their parents are drug addicts, alcoholics or won't work. I think this is better than the government paying, and the kids are able to take part in something they other wise wouldn't.

Agreed.

A parent going to a park and organizing a football game with local kids isn't a government project. It would help out quite a bit and cost only time.

 

[Bonnie]

This is a textbook strawman argument. No one here is arguing for completely unregulated markets. do you consider yourself logical? Why then do you ignore the reality that socialism destroys lives?

Howdy Pardner.........Good point, and may I add that conservativism is about limited government, not no government. But there is a vast difference between the two, and right now the US is really going too far in the direction of over regulation. Once you put laws into place it's very hard to go back the other way. For many years now the Leftists have inched their way to more and more laws in such a subtle way that most people who are working don't have the time to know every single law that is passed, and so most go unnoticed, until one day you wake up to a socialistic type government, at that point it's very hard to swing the pendulum the other way. Reagan was one who did manage to get to move the country back in the right direction (pun intended) and the economy exploded with commerce. :tng: