The Goals Of Liberalism

1. 61

   lady_love158posted 12 years ago

   http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … rupts.html
   
   This is an excellent that articulates precisely why liberals behave as they do, what they want, and why they want it. Read this and you will understand why I say liberalism or progressivism or socialism is EVIL!

   replyreport
   1. 65

      pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      evil?...well libs are the only people who take human race forward..yes being human they are prone to commit mistakes but frozen in status quo or conserving things is against very nature...nothing is permanent but change and it take lib attitude to change...thanks to lib we moved from jungle to present state...

      replyreport
      1. 61

         lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks to libs you sacrifice freedom for oppression... change you can believe in??? No thanks!!

         replyreport
      2. 61

         Jim Hunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         "conserving things is against very nature...nothing is permanent but change"
         
         Very true, however you "libs" are forever telling us what we must conserve.
         
         Would you mind explaining this disconnect?

         replyreport
   2. 60

      John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well it would be frightening if there were a word of truth in it, as it is it's laughable that the right are so scared and bereft of ideas that all they can do is make up fairy tales, and not even very good ones at that!

      replyreport
2. 80

   skyfireposted 12 years ago

   How dare you disagree with her ? Now to punish you for this, she will create two anti-obama and three anti-lib threads. Deal with it.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      i was just trying to use my democratic rights and i forgot those rights itself are creation of libs!!!!!!!!!!...now i would be grilled...

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Let me guess, Skyfire. You are a reformed Catholic.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Daniel Carterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         BWAH HA HA HA!
         
         ...informed atheist, more like it...

         replyreport
3. 60

   Doug Hughesposted 12 years ago

   While I am liberal, I don't speak for all liberals. Oddly, the conservative author thinks he CAN speak for liberals. He suggests, without a shred of evidence or a single quote, that liberals want control of energy so they have the power to turn it off.
   
   WTF? Allow me to explain my liberal energy policy, which is pretty consistent with other liberals. We want energy to be plentiful, clean & safe. Based on the actions of conservatives, I would suggest their policy is not so complex. They want energy to be profitable. I don't think that the GOP wants energy to be dirty or expensive or capable of turning a whole state into a wasteland. Business bosses can decide what's too dirty or too dangerous. Conservatives feel that the pursuit of profit outweighs any benefit for the people that derives from policy that pursues safe, clean, cheap and plentiful.
   
   Watch what they do with energy policy, [b] not what they say, [\b] and decide for yourself.

   replyreport
4. 59

   dingdondingdonposted 12 years ago

   If I wanted to know what the general liberal goals were I'd ask liberals instead of one conservative writer.
   
   Let me give you what I want, as a liberal and a Democrat voter: I want equality, basic human rights and freedom for all people, regardless of race, gender identity, sexuality, religion (or lack of), (dis)ability or class. To me these things encompass a healthcare system like Britain's NHS, where people do not have to say they can't "afford" to go to the doctor and suffer instead. It means that no woman will ever tell her boyfriend to hit her in the stomach with a baseball bat or risk her life in a seedy back alley because aborting the fetus she cannot afford to carry to term is illegal. It means two consenting adults will be able to get married and take advantage of the benefits of marriage no matter what gender they identify as. It means people in wheelchairs will be given proper access to buildings rather than having go through the humiliation and discomfort of being lifted up stone steps by two strangers just to get into their bank or their hospital.
   
   This is what matters to me, and these are the key issues I disagree with right-wingers and conservatives on.

   replyreport
5. 61

   lady_love158posted 12 years ago

   Actually I believe the right wants the same things as the left but the difference is how it should be achieved. The right believes achievement is up to each individual acting in their own best interest, making decisions on their own how to reach their goals, and never giving up. As opposed to the left whose beliefs for achieving their goals is expressed eloquently in this paragraph:
   
   "I would argue ultimately that theirs is a fear born of a rejection of the permanent things. They seek novelty in their lives, and reject the God of the Bible in favor of a world governed by the wisdom of Man alone. Even the religious left ultimately pursue a social gospel rather than the Gospel of Salvation. A social gospel elevates Man to the center of things, and Man makes a poor god. As long as the purpose of life revolves around human attempts to perfect a fallen world, there will remain fear, disillusionment, and anger --hallmarks of the modern Left. It is a sad world that liberals inhabit. Their only hope is to remake Man in their own image. So power is their god, their only hope; they lust after it much as holy monks after salvation. The idea that there is no justice in this world is insufferable to them, because they ultimately believe there is no other. They HAVE to remake the world!"

   replyreport
   1. 59

      dingdondingdonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      As I am a strict atheist, I'm afraid that I find it very hard to take that paragraph seriously. My atheism is not about "seeking novelty" (indeed, isn't the idea of an omniscient, omnipresent being who will forgive me all my sins and reward me with a wonderful afterlife so long as I truly love him and repent a far more novel idea than "there's no higher power and when you die you just die"?), it is a decision I have come to after a considered analysis of my feelings and opinions on the matter of existence.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'm always impressed by the ability of the right to sum up the opposition without knowledge or experience but only blind prejudice!
      
      I'm also impressed by the way that, though they accept that the right contains all sorts of people from the very soft right to the very hard right, everybody on the left is exactly the same!

      replyreport
   3. 65

      pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      @lady for a change i agree with your views on achievement is up to each individual acting in their own best interest, making decisions on their own how to reach their goals, and never giving up....wow i agree with you on this..
      
      other than that god part is crap....humans direct how humans live life and not god...it is human who form rules , it is human who decide...time and again natural forces do operate in their own way which might hinder human but again that has nothing to do with god...other than that what you said is perfectly in synergy of what i believe ...

      replyreport
      1. 59

         dingdondingdonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I believe that yes, an individual should focus primarily on their own goals and life, and strive towards whatever will make them happy, but - and this is a very important but - we should always do our best not to infringe on the goals and happiness of others. This is a key part I think many conservatives often miss. What if what makes me happy is punching defenseless small children in the face? Obviously in that case my goal - i.e punching - has a clear advantage over the child's goal - i.e not being punched. We need to take care to make sure everyone starts on a reasonably equal footing, and that means that sometimes social adjustments have to be made (because of prejudice, or unfortunate circumstances holding others back) to allow for that equality to be reached.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            So you're saying conservatives are in favor of protecting the rights of others to punch children in the face??? Lol!!! That's insane!
            
            No its not the role of government to decide what is fair and to level the playing field. All of us face different challenges and possess diferent talents and strenghts and weaknesses... those traits should influence the decisions we make to achieve our goals not the decisions of some faceless bureaucrat deciding what is or isn't fair! Life isn't fair... if it was we'd all be born as women! Lol!

            replyreport
            1. 59

               dingdondingdonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               No, I'm saying conservatives wouldn't place the value of making the playing field more equal as high as a liberal does. And unfortunately an adult man versus a child is inherently unequal, so without someone trying to make it more equal, the child will get punched.
               
               I'm using a ridiculous example, obviously, but it fits the scenarios I'm thinking of: a person from a very poor background trying to attend a prestigious university, a woman in a male-dominated workplace trying to achieve a promotion, and so on.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Do I have to list all the poor people that are rich today to convince you this isn't because if government? Or how about the fact that 44% of women now make as much or more than their husbands?
                  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/71301 … t-all.html

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     dingdondingdonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     For every rich person who began life as a poor person, I can name you ten who started out poor, are still poor, and will die poor.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes and why is that?

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           dingdondingdonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Because of the reasons I already stated. We do not exist in an equal playing field, and it is actually very hard for a poor person to transcend their social class thanks to the way our society is currently set up. I do not think this is a good thing, which is why I place value on politics that can help to change it.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              So how is our society set up that it prevents poor people from being at least successful enough to earn a living?

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Because it requires an under class of unemployed to keep wages down.
                                 Once somebody is down the whole system is geared to keeping them down.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    Really? How so? Here in America if you worked 26 weeks out of 52 you're entitled to 99 weeks of unemployment. You can get food vouchers welfare housing etc. Unless you're arguing those are precisely the programs that keep people down.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       And how much do you get for those 99 weeks, and what happens on the 100th week?
                                       Food vouchers are demeaning and restrictive!

                                       report
                              2. 59

                                 dingdondingdonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 This is kind of a Class 101 topic, not to be rude. I expect other people have explained it far more coherently and comprehensively than I could. I think the Class Privilege checklist is the most illuminating place to start: http://www.tiarashafiq.com/2009/07/11/t … -checklist

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    Well that's a nice list but it doesn't answer the question, how is society set up to insure the poor stay poor? For example your list included reading to your child but even the poor could do that at no cost! Some of the other stuff was just silly... whether or not you have a cell phone has nothing to do with being poor although owing one could be a drain on your resources but that's a choice you make.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 59

                                       dingdondingdonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       To read to your children you need books and time. Books cost money. Library memberships cost money. Plus many poor parents are very busy working themselves half to death just to be able to afford to feed their familiy.
                                       
                                       Cell phones similarly cost money, as do service contracts.

                                       report
                                       1. 61

                                          lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          Libraries are free in America paid for by property tax and many gave children reading programs. If you're working you're probably not poor at least not completely and you should always have time for your kids.
                                          Sure cell phones cost money but you don't need them to survive and their is cheap phones without contracts.
                                          Try again.

                                          report
                                          1. 60

                                             John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                             I beleave the minimum wage in the US is around $8 an hour, in some cases down to $2 an hour.
                                             I take it you don't have kids.

                                             report
                                             1. 61

                                                lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                                Federal minimum wage is 7.25 and no state has a minimum below 6.15. I can't imagine working 40 hours a week and living on that so I imagine you'd gave to either work overtime or work a second job. In any case even with those wages you could get food vouchers go to school for free and get free breakfast and lunch from school...

                                                report
                                                1. 60

                                                   John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                                   But aren't food vouchers and free meals a hand out by the tax payer that you are so opposed to, and a bonus paid out to the employers as well?

                                                   report
                                    2. 60

                                       John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       Here's two reasons
                                       an unrealistically low minimum wage.
                                       100% taxation of welfare benefits.

                                       report
                                       1. 61

                                          lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          I could argue that minimum wages are responsible for higher unemployment. What's better welfare or a job where your earning something have a chance to work overtime gain experience to apply for a better job a have a feeling of worth and purpose?
                                          I don't know about the welfare tax... how does someone pay that if they have no money? Seems a bit absurd. Could you be wrong about that? If not that certainly seems lime incentive to work doesn't it?

                                          report
                                          1. 60

                                             John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                             As usual you aren't following through with your thinking. Work for less is a grand idea! Do unpaid overtime because it's better to have a job than not, gain experience so that you can be sacked and replaced with somebody with less experience and therefore less pay!
                                             
                                             No minimum wage might result in lower unemployment but it just hides the fact that many people can not earn enough to keep body and soul together.
                                             
                                             I confess I don't know too much about welfare in the US but here in the UK if you are in receipt of benefits and earn £10 then your benefit is reduced by £10. Any attempt to better yourself by taking part time employment is thwarted by the system.

                                             report
6. 61

   TheSeniorposted 12 years ago

   The goal of the liberals is to control the mass as they see the masses as stupid.  On Glen Beck's show he gave a very straight forward example of how liberals are trying to take control of America way back at the start of the roaring 20's.
   
   The person in charge was Edward Perney's a relative of Frued who got all the beautiful women of the day to 'on command' start smoking cigerattes but called it 'torches of freedom' and said that all society are equal.
   
   Educated people, beyond their capacity to think commonsenscially really feel that the averge person doesn't not have the capacity to manage their lives for after all - educated people are the 'chosen' ones - the elletists and there know better.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      dingdondingdonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Liberals have been around since far far longer than the 20s. Do you think it was just people with right-wing views before the 20s?

      replyreport
   2. 60

      John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Really! From were I stand it looks as if the right could be accused of seeing the masses as stupid!
      They've done a pretty good job of convincing the masses that the rich need their money more than they do.

      replyreport
7. 61

   lady_love158posted 12 years ago

   "I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
   Ben Franklin
   
   I agree the current system will punish you for trying to make extra. I know of more than one person that took part time work temporarily and ended up losing their unemployment benefit... basically the state is saying don't work and most people know this and don't bother looking for work until their benefits are due to expire unless something comes along that pays more than their benefit.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      dingdondingdonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'm glad we agree on this at least. I have a friend in the UK who was looking for work, and she took a college course in Childcare in the hope that it would increase her employability. It was only 4 hours a week, so of course she continued looking for a job at the same time. The rule in the UK is that a student may receive unemployment welfare so long as your course is part-time. As hers was just 4 hours a week she assumed that of course it was part-time.
      
      Then the welfare office told her that actually, the course was called full-time, despite how few hours it was. Why? Because colleges get more funding for full-time courses, so they'll call anything and everything full-time. As a result, my friend was ineligible for unemployment welfare unless she agreed to drop out of the course.
      
      It's a riduculous situation, and especially galling that she was punished for trying to improve her chances of finding a job.

      replyreport