http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawk … page/full/
Wow what a great article! Now I understand why liberals exist and I can almost, almost feel sorry for them but it all makes sense now.
Interesting article. Volumes can be written concerning the negative effects that moral relativism has caused throughout America. Tolerance is acceptable as long as it is not directed towards the preservation of American society, religion, human life, or wealthy people.
I read the article. Sorry but the lib/con thing is just another way to split the voters and win elections. Isn't anyone American anymore? I am and I don't buy the BULL.
I don't think any of those excuses in the article are legit.
They only lack understanding because they cover their ears and refuse to hear the truth.
I would argue that it is natural for some people to be "liberals" and others to be "conservatives." If one looks at history, one will find this conflict through out. This is nothing new and the United States will do as every other society that embraces those flawed liberal notions, wane to weakness eventually to collapse. We are done as a free people. It is only a matter of time.
Liberals aren't just liberal in the traditional sense. They have swung so far to the left they have become marxist. As you said, liberalism is a violation of natural law!
...and you say that like it's a bad thing? I'm a Marxist and proud of it!
I don't think it's a good thing but I respect you for owing up to it at least. Now if only Obama and the dems would do the same we can at least have an honest debate. I won't argue with your dictionary definitions, progressives used the liberal label to make themselves sound like they weren't the marxists they are. When you start with that kind of dishonesty its hard to debate the issues and find compromise especially when your real agenda is the destruction of the American system.
Let 'em own up to it, yes.
But then the debate's over, or should be, the way I see it.
Their loyalties would be exposed as non-American and they'd hopefully get the boot. So do you really think they're gonna own up to it? They won't. At least, not until the majority of Americans have become de-sensitized.
1) Fox news claims that it's neo-con/fascist viewpoint is the only credible source of information. Conservatives: Just as guilty as the liberals (ever watch Glenn Beck?)
2)Geographically speaking, I live in Canada's equivalent of the "bible belt." All major press sources, political functions, and education programs here stem from conservative information sources, and there is a severe lack of liberal information out here. Conservative information is ever present. Cons: Just as guilty as the Liberals
3) What do you call it when Ronald Reagan legalized abortion as Governor of California? Or when George W. Bush cut taxes to the rich (which did not save the economy)? I call it a "Feel Good, no results" thing myself. Sounds like the cons are once again just as bad as the liberals.
4) I know very few liberals who believe in moral relativism. They still have an absolute sense of right and wrong, it just might not be the same as your sense of right and wrong. That's why we have government, judges, and lawyers - to ensure there is a universal standard. Is it morally alright for conservatives to lie about libs, but not alright for libs to lie about conservatives? Again, conservatives are just as guilty.
5) Umm... If a corporation is legally defined as "a person" than isn't it the same thing as focusing on a group? Namely, a group of shareholders and investors? and often at the expense of the individuals working for this corporation? (I'm looking at you, Wal-Mart. I love your cheap prices but I as an individual feel dirty!) Conservatives, again just as guilty as a person
6) Personal responsability? Okay, What did Paris Hilton do to earn her enormous wealth, besides being born? I'm all for personal responsibility, but it is hard not to figure out that if someone works three minimum wage full time jobs, while other people don't have to work at all and live in a mansion something is wrong. Conservatives? If not guilty of this crime, at least oblivious to some common sense.
7) Umm, do a google on Ezra Levant, or Glenn Beck. They seem very comfortable on there conservative High Horses. What about Donald Trump taking all the credit for Obama's long form birth certificate?
Clearly the article could be written word for word replacing "Liberal" with Conservative. Yes, liberals are guilty of these things, but so are the conservatives. There is more to any individual than just political affiliations.
To reply to you point #4; They aren't moral relativists? But they define morality different? That makes them relativists. Your other points only reinforces the article, you only believe what you hear from liberals about conservatives. It's clear you don't understand conservative views. #6 is just ridiculous. "It's not fair!" Whiner. And your math doesn't add up, how does someone work three full time minimum wage jobs? That's more hours than are in a week. Do you know anyone that stays at a minimum wage job their whole life?
Pintoman - the math DOES add up. 3 full time jobs is 120 hours. There are 168 hours in a week. Secondly, I'm surrounded by conservatives, I'm surrounded by conservative media, so I had to use my own critical thinking, and I do understand conservatives. I was born into a mormon family, and you don't get more conservative than that. Thirdly, you appear not to know what the term "moral relativism" means, it means they think the morality of a situation changes by situation. By your definition of Moral Relativism, everyone is a moral relativist, conservatives included, because EVERYONE has a different way of examining the same situation. Check and Mate.
We are talking apples and oranges where semantics are concerned. The opposite of a Conservative is a Progressive, not a liberal. The opposite of Liberal is an Authoritarian. Therefore a member of the Libertarian Party, for example, would be a conservative liberal. A Fascist is an example of an authoritarian conservative. A Russian Communist would be an authoritarian progressive. And a Noam Chomsky would be a liberal progressive.
"Liberals tend to view people as parts of groups, not individuals." The left are self = community.
The right are self = money.
Also..."The Borg"..."tend to view people as parts of groups, not individuals."
Ah, yes, a predictable response directly from the luberal echo chamber.
Funny the left always wants to tax the rich more, well wouldn't it help your "cause" to have MORE rich people?
Not really. At a corporate level, savings are passed on to the shareholders (unless you're Conrad Black), and there is no evidence that more rich people helps anything. There is no evidence it hurts anything either, so if they've worked hard for what they have, then they have every right to be rich, and I'm not going to rain on their parade, but how does it help ANY cause?
Perhaps you should just consider the math, unless canadian liberal math is different than in the USA. The rich here pay the bulk of the taxes, having more rich people would raise revenues, exactly what Obama claims is required to solve our debt problem. So it seems to me promoting a business climate that makes it easier for people to become rich is a solution that would have bipartisan support.
Yes, but let's face it, democrats and republicans are both "pro-rich" parties. Obama had an opportunity to repeal Bush's Tax cuts to the rich, and he choose not to. In Canada, the rich pay, not necessarily the "bulk" of the taxes - that's the middle class - but the rich do belong to a higher tax bracket. Obama, McCain, Palin, Gore, it doesn't matter, in the end , they will raise the taxes for the rich in one place, and put in more tax breaks that only the wealthy qualify for. Oh, by the way, canada has conservative country, so either way, the math is not liberal.
You do know that in America the top 5% of earners pay 60% of the tax burder?
And that 48% of Americans pay no taxes at all?
You know that right? It isn't as if the rich pay no taxes here.
The problem is not tax money coming into the Govt.... it is the Govt spending to much on BS.
In America, the top 10% control over 90% of all the wealth... It would make sense that they pay more taxes...though at lower rates.. 15% capital gains, for example... Most Americans don't have/have very little other than their actual income...which is shrinking..
Your logic, as usual, is severely flawed...
http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percen … ga-wealth/
You earn your wealth, you get to keep it.
It is the American way.
Nothing flawed about that at all.
Why should that apply to those at the top but not those at the bottom?
Does the MacDonalds worker get to keep the wealth he generates?
If he generate enough to save and wants to then yes.
Keeping what you earn, and earning are two different things E.
If you're not qualified to make a lot of money go back to school, or learn your way up the ladder.
You all think you start a job as the boss and own the place after your first week on the job... that isn't the way it goes.
TMMason - That's exactly why the economy is in decline. I'm not saying "tax us back into the stone age" (I think that was part of Dukkakis platform. There is a reason he lost to Bush in '88)
But if they have more money than they can spend, then that is money that is not being injected into the economy. The best way to improve an economy is to increase the consumption of goods - i.e. get people to buy things.
Still waiting for him to explain why it is right that the rich keep every penny they earn whilst the poor give most of what they earn to the rich!
Why is it right to keep what is yours? You really need that explained to you? Here is an idea how the poor can get a little richer. QUIT SPENDING.
What do they stop spending on - food - rent - travel expenses - what?
You don't get it do you? Why isn't it right to keep what's yours, why do you think it right to live off the backs of those with less than you?
They don't live off the backs of those with less, they have their own money remember?Why do they need to travel? Are you talking about traveling to work? They could not spend money on frivolous things, stay out of the fast food restaurants. Don't buy a flat screen tv when you have one that works perfectly well. DONT SPEND! It ain't that hard to figure out.
It is a game with those two. they will never accept any answer as good enough.
I mean think about it.... you really think you should have to explain why it is your right to keep what you earn?
if they are that lost then it is useless to even try.
But TM, I am arguing for the right to keep what you earn and not to have it taken off you by those with far more money than they can spend.
Look at say Bill Gates, how much does he "earn", does he earn every penny of that himself or are there thousands of people actually doing the work that he benefits from?
I agree. The Govt has plenty of money and should not take anymore from anyone. They should learn to live off what they have.
And he pays them very well for that work. If Mr gates wants to give more, then he can. But niether you, I, nor the Govt. has the right to take his and give it to another.
No, the workers pay Bill Gates very well for that work.
Ah, now I get it. Bill Gates slaves away every day earning the money to pay all those people who never do a days work!
It is your flawed premise that you as an employee own the material resources, means of production, and the product because you have assembled it, etc...
You do not.
Mr Gates owns the Co. You work for him. He pays you a wage which you agreed to when hired.
The only one in the deal who is taking your money without doing anything to earn it is the govt.
So your beef is with them, john.
I know legally the worker owns nothing but then who writes the law?
And how does the company get the money to buy the material resources and means of production?
I'll tell you, the workers pay for it all. Do you really believe that Gates could service all the loans that he probably has off his labour alone?
Aren't owners also workers? Though not exercising hands and backs, owners do risk property and exercise intellect, connections, creativity, experience and tenacity. I will grant ruthlessness also.
I find it interesting that so few businesses actually pay attention to all the recommendations of economists and others recommending increased employee ownership stakes, a more personal connection to work, a personal space, more individualized scheduling and other humanizing improvements.
There are times when it seems that the only people who read that stuff are workers and that managers and owners are stuck in mid-19th century textile mills.
I recall something about tea breaks, probably during the second world war, they were made compulsory by the government much to the anger of employers who predicted a great loss of production and the like. Production actually increased.
I see a lot of modern businesses have abolished them!
I've noticed that when businesses do go bust the owners generally don't see much of a change in life style.
They (the rich I assume) have their own money, earned for them by the not rich. Not every rich person lives on inherited wealth, their wealth is provided by the not rich.
Yes I am talking about travel to work, but why shouldn't they travel for pleasure as well? Why shouldn't they eat in fast food restaurants if that is what they want? And why should they make do with a clapped out TV?
Oh of course, I remember, to enable them to give even more of the money that they earn to the wealthy.
They can do all that... with their own monies. They have the right to spend it, or save it, as they want to.
How simple is that?
What! An instant conversion to socialism. Every man keeps what he earns and has nobody living off his back!
Suddenly I think I love you. See, socialism wasn't so painful was it.
I have no idea how you would get that out of my remark.
But nice spin, John.
Well I thought you were arguing for the right of everybody to keep the money that they earned and not have it taken away from them by those who did no work but just sponged off the workers.
Bubblegum, put your money where your mouth is, pay as much percentage wise of your income as the rich do and see how fair you think it is.
Okay, but first - define "rich" - how much does one need to earn to become rich? Then, including all possible tax breaks, give me a mean percentage that the average rich individual pays. And don't twist numbers around, I can see through that stuff.
Oh, and for the recor, I make 1100 a month and pay close to $500 in taxes/m right now, not including income taxes, plus student loan payments, plus taxes at the consumer level (GST) AND I still manage to donate to charities, so If that's not already enough, you tell me.
I agree with the "Lubral" as you called her. You do nothing but make outrageous statements. I just find you dumb.
Yes, she's paid to post and make the Republicans look dumb and totally unelectable.
Totally unelectable??? Your guy has all but insured a republican congress and white house!! Lol
He's about as much a socialist as Hitler was and that is none at all.
How do I get that gig? Could use the extra bread.
LOL!I wish I could get that gig! Even if you could how much would you have to write to make money and how much can you make? The truth is the crazy liberals here have invented the whole thing in their wild imaginations. They can't understand how anyone with a brain could disagree with their stupid ideas! They actually believe what the espouse is whats best for the world. Isn't it good to know you have these brilliant liberals looking out for your intetests? Yeah, I'm sleeping sooo much better at night!
Well at least you found me! That'll be 5 cents please. Lol!!
Another attack thread? Why don't you post some real news for a change?
Attack? What happened to reasoned debate and tolerance for opposing views? The author makes some great points which do you take issue with?
Apparently "Now I understand why liberals exist and I can almost, almost feel sorry for them" is an example of reasoned debate. Anyway, I shall now stop feeding the troll(s).
The author does make some good points, but I fail to see how the article is tolerant for views that oppose it.
Attack thread? You have just proven the author correct.
The problem is that people are so STUCK in the venue's of Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. Why won't everyone put down their banners and think like Americans! Politics and ideology are destroying this country! Politics = Lack of governing! Get off your soap boxes and think about your countrymen!!!!!!!!!!!
The title of this thread is an attack. Where is the tolerance of opposing views in that? Enjoy your giggle feast and let us know when you want to have a grown up conversation.
Oh you are way too thin skinned and sensitive. I seek understanding!
No you don't...
Your arrogance blinded you a long time ago...
If you truly sought understanding you wouldn't have bile spouting threads like this..
All you care about is the paycheck you are getting for posting here (not from hubpages, of course).
You can continue to speak against "taxing the rich"...it worked really well (or not) for O'Reilly last night (watch the show)... You will see what happens when a dim talk show host has to hold a conversation with actual economists and investors/ceo's....
Poor Bill, and poor folks who believe the nonsense he says...
I saw the show and as usual you mischaracterised the positions of everyone in the debate. The question was "Do you think Obama is/was a positive force in the economy"? Stein said yes Rogers said neutral Oreilley said no. In my view Stein's position was weakest and unprovable basically stating Obama's argument that if we didnt do what we did it would be worse. The fact us, it is worse.
Regarding taxing the rich more both guests claimed.there was little correlation between raising taxes on the rich having a negative effect on the economy. I'll buy that to a point, but all of the rich will take whatever steps they can to minimize their tax liability, even Buffet will do so! And if the burden is great enough the rich have the means to leave. One other point, all agreed raising taxes on the rich would do little to reduce our deficit or our debt. Even if you tax all the rich (everyone making more than 200k) 100% you would only generate less than 1.5 trillion dollars not even equal to one year of deficit!
In the interest of fairness (I admit, I've been kind of mean in this thread) I agree with O'reilly. I don't think Obama has been very good for the economy, and I'm not sure he's trying. But I don't think Bushes tax cuts for the wealthy helped either... Not that the tax should be repealed, but I think we need to give buying power to the people who don't have it. That way there is a significant increase in spending at the ground level. Giving tax cuts to people who have more money than they can spend just means there is more money not being spent.
I don't have all the answers, but even as a "liberal" I'm willing to admit that Obama doesn't have any either.
How do you get a check from posting here? I want one.
now I have the giggles.
How do you seek understanding with your inflammatory subject headings?
To say, 'why liberals lack understanding' and insert a link is nothing but a flame thread. I doubt if anyone here takes you seriously.
Uninvited writer writes such witty, and most importantly; grown up stuff. No one is stopping liberals from refuting the article. No where. They just can't.
I don't see any valid reason to read your link. Your OP says it all, from your perspective. Are you a liberal, posing as a radical conservative, to irritate the middle into leaning left in the next election? That's the way it appears, looking at the threads you've recently started.
No. You don't see any valid reason to read it because you are undoubtedly liberal and as such do not want to have to confront the arguments outlined in the article that would challenge your ideology. No, I get it! It's not easy for humans to admit when they're wrong.
Actually, I'm middle. Used to always vote republican, until the party was over run by tea party butt heads and the religious right. I'm fiscally conservative, but can't stomach the radical rabble.
Doubt I'd vote for any candidate that appreciated the type of bashing of other Americans as displayed in this thread.
I sense the tactic is to accuse the originator of this thread and any who agree of attacking or bashing those who disagree. Some of you should really read the supplied article.
Tactic? Perhaps you two would kindly pass out the scripts? You only want to hear certain things obviously. Anything other than that, is an attack?
No not an attack, I never felt under attack. Do you?
Very cute. I just looked. Every one of your posts prior to this one are commenting that the OP is being attacked. You guys have fun, you aren't accomplishing anything other than making the right look moore foolish than they already do by posting these types of threads.
Gee, that pretty much rules out...
Emile, so the middle is against following the Constitution? That's all the tea party stands for, really. That's why the tea party was a big wake up call for the Republicans. They are made up of both parties fed up with government doing whatever it wants. I guess in the middle you don't have to stand for anything, and anything goes. What a man, or whatever.
But it offers no arguments at all. It's just the usual rant.
liberal and conservative are just tags that lazy people (no offense) use to insult each other in a political forum.. they choose to define these tags in their own way, and then broadly condemn their opponents based on their definition
Throughout the centuries what a 'liberal' or 'conservative' stood for has changed, as by definition, a conservative is one who avoids change and a liberal is open to it.
The nature of the 'change' could be good or bad.. the Soviet Revolution was a change, but then again so was the American Revolution. Some of the 'rights' greatest figures were 18th century 'liberals', for example.
The point being that tossing around tags and labels may win political points when done properly, but is just another political tactic that is used by the lazy.
(Again, none of this takes away from the fact that the picture you displayed of yourself and your daughter? was very lovely indeed!)
Some of what you say is true... to a point. Yes John Locke, the father of liberalist thinking and whose ideas were adopted by Jefferson and expressed in the declaration of independence would be considered a "conservative" today. On the other hand, liberals today or progressives as they sometimes refer to themselves are more like marxists. These labels are not meant to insult by to put into context the political philosophy one espouses. There should be no shame in being marxist, or socialist, or fascists if that is what you believe, own up to it with pride! Of course I will continue to argue why your beliefs are wrong, especially when they're imposed upon me.
But you are quite willing to impose your ideals on me!
Never! You're free to believe what you like! If you believe marxism.is wonderful you can go to a country with that system or even start a commune here.
But why shouldn't I live in the mainstream of whichever country I call home?
You can! You just cant make us all marxist just because YOU like it. So I guess you'd be stuck having to live in freedom.... what a shame!
But you feel free to impose your conditions on us!
And I wouldn't call what you want "freedom" in fact I'd call it just about the opposite, got money, live well, got none, go to hell!
There are underlining philosophical differences, though philosophical may be the wrong word as well. Perhaps weltanschauung, would be a better word. The differences between "liberal" and "conservative" are irreconcilable though many would choose to blend and bastardize the concepts.
The Krauthammer quote isn't quite as clear as I would prefer it. Liberals do think of conservatives as demented and evil. I think that conservatives see liberals as delusional, not stupid. I think there is no shared understanding of reality and so actual communication is impossible.
Estragon, Vladimir and I were speaking of this just yesterday, but what is to be done. If one's shoe will not come off, it simply will not come off. What would Godot do? Perhaps we can ask when he arrives.
I do not see ALL conservatives as evil. There are too many generalizations thrown around. I have admired some conservative leaders in the past and if I talk to someone in person who has different beliefs we don't end up yelling at each other.
Most reasonable people find they can find common ground. Of course, the Internet is a completely different beast where many people can't seem to control themselves.
So what is the common ground? I have been asking that for some time now. What common ground can exist between two polar opposites?
There is plenty of common ground among liberals and conservatives who are not politicians or tools for politicians. I am a liberal living in very conservative territory, but I have the following agreement with my friends and neighbors here:
End corporate welfare
Work toward energy independence - independence from foreign oil
Close loopholes and eliminate tax breaks for the wealthy
Cut bloated defense spending
Balance the budget
Most of my conservative friends also don't want cuts in social security, medicare, or even unemployment. What you hear from politicians and on television, which seems to be what is parroted here on the forums, is quite different from what you hear from regular people.
Stop listening to politicians and pundits. They have an interest in defending the rich and powerful and will gladly throw the average citizen under the bus to retain their positions.
Edited to add: Regarding balancing the budget, if you ask pretty much anyone, liberal or conservative, they will say that balancing the budget should be a given, in an ideal world. When you start talking about HOW to balance the budget, that's where disagreements arise. However, my conservative friends and neighbors agree that it cannot be done without revenue increases, which should come in the form of closing loopholes, ending corporate welfare, and increasing taxes on the wealthy. These are working class people who are relieved that social security and medicare are there for them.
This is not common ground but rather common smoke. When terms are defined the commonality is instantly eliminated. I have yet to meet a conservative who says "tax the rich." Broad meaningless terms like "dependency on foreign oil" fail to give clear meaning. Oil being fungible, foreign oil is Canadian, Icelandic, British, Indonesian, Vietnamese, Mexican, Brazilian, Norwegian, Indian, Australian, Russian, etc.... It is not just OPEC oil.
What do these things actually mean? What is corporate welfare? What constitutes bloated defense spending? A 500 ship Navy? The F-22 Raptor? Preparing for the next war? How is balancing the budget common ground when liberals oppose a Balanced Budget Amendment? How are cuts in Social Security common ground when liberals want no discussion of its reform dooming Social Security to insolvency?
You see, as soon as the discussion moves beyond the shallow or cursory, common ground disappears. Ultimately there is no shared ideas about nature. It is the difference in understanding how the natural world works that is insurmountable.
I have heard plenty of people call themselves conservative, like GWB or John McCain, who have given the word no more thought than that needed to claim. "I'm a Packers fan." It is more than a word. It is a philosophy.
You are right that as soon as one gets down to defining what it means to "end corporate welfare," for example, then differences become greater. To say that common ground disappears, though, is to buy into the notion that there can be no way to move forward that incorporates both liberal and conservative ideas. If you continue to hold that extreme view, then you help perpetuate the petty partisanship that is preventing us, the people of the United States, from coming together to do great things as a nation.
There is no way to compromise with liberals, nor should we. Liberals are the enemy of mankind, they are not to be coddled or given in to, they are to be defeated!
Well than tell me how one reconciles personal property with collectivism? How does one reconcile preparing for war with China, as an example, with unilateral disarmament? How does one reconcile a merit society with a welfare state? The division between conservative and liberal are insurmountable.
If you don't think so tell me how it works.
One fundamental question for which there is no common ground --
How does one support the idea of taking property from one person, slice vast portions from it in a vast and inefficient bureaucracy and than give it to another person whose sole claim to that property is being a member of a politically favored classification find common ground with someone who believes no one else has a right to claim that for which another has worked regardless of what the majority favors or what words, like "justice" or "fairness," are used to describe the taking.
For the liberal the answer is government power for the conservative it is personal moral action. What common ground is there between one weltanschauung that says "the government should make it happen" and one that says it is a matter of personal conduct and conscience?
What common ground is there between a fantasy of "green" energy and the REALITY of the REAL world oil economy?
I believe you are right to the extent that there is not a lot of common ground between the two parties. One believes in basic human rights and lifting up the weak and disadvantaged in order to make a stronger country. One simply believes, " I have mine, screw you". These aren't just political ideologies, these are morals and values. Not views that are easily changed or swayed. That is why we are tired of the President's attempt to "compromise". What we need is a strong leader like FDR who stood up and did what was right for the country without regard for those who hated him and wanted him to fail.
Liberals dont believe in human rights at all! If they did they wouldn't use the government to confiscate the pricate property of people to create a dependent class in exchange for votes! No instead they would work to make government less of a burden and create an environment conducive to obtaining proserity and oportunity for all so that the truly less fortunate could be helped!
That is way to deep for the Leftists and Progressives on here, lady.
"Liberals dont believe in human rights at all!"
"If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party nomination (14 September 1960)
Here's another one of his I like:
"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names."
Since you all love JFK so much and admire the "truth" of his words....
JFK's warmth for McCarthy was not as great as Bobby's, (McCarthy was the god-father of his daughter, and a very close friend, bobby served as an aide for Joe.), but he still felt enough of McCarthy to have defended him against Liberals of his day, at the 100th Anniversary of the Harvard Spree Club dinner. Robert Armory, who had been at the dinner and who later worked in the Kennedy Administration recalled in an oral history at the JFK Library that when a speaker had likened McCarthy to the convicted Soviet spy Alger Hiss, JFK rose to his feet and declared "How dare you couple the name of a great American patriot with that of a traitor!" and walked out.
The incident has never been denied by anyone who was there, and is accepted by JFK biographers Herbert Parmet, Thomas Reeves and Chris Matthews, among others.
Yes... an American patriot.
Thank you for narrowing it down to Republicans are evil and proving, again, both propositions in the Krauthammer quote.
As for FDR doing what was right for the country - the Great Depression was made great by his efforts. Unemployment remained high his whole Presidency, only being relieved by placing surplus labor into the military and the economy did not fully recover until after he was dead. We are facing the imminent collapse of the Social Security system that he initiated. The vicious expansion of the Commerce clause to govern the private actions of individual farmers was championed by FDR. I can see why liberals love him. He attacked the idea of personal property every chance he got.
As for it being a moral issue, I must agree but from where does one get the idea that there is a collective morality. Isn't moral action personal? Is "der Staat" so morally superior to the individual that it can compel moral action from the individual? Are liberals angels and morally superior ( don't answer this one - you already wrote your answer)?
You really should take lessons from Lady Love. She managed to convey the same message you did in one sentence:
"There is no way to compromise with liberals, nor should we. Liberals are the enemy of mankind, they are not to be coddled or given in to, they are to be defeated!"
Yours was the same basic idea couched in pseudo-intellectual falsehoods. It might sound prettier, but it's the same garbage.
Thanks for thinking it through and giving some reasoned argument for the great middle ground. So when the disagreement becomes more involved and the challenge to the ideas becomes more difficult to overcome you retreat into invective. Awesome, I am so glad we were able to make so much progress together. It is good to see I am not the only one who sees no middle ground. I appreciate your honesty in finally admitting that there is no middle ground since contradiction is the tool where by one can dismiss a disagreement without ever addressing it.
No, I have seen how you operate and you have clearly stated you believe there is no middle ground and that you care not a whit what liberals have to say. So, why should I waste my time. Your response was the equivalent of Lady Love's ridiculous generalizations and shallow arguments, just prettied up with flowery language.
As I have said before, I spend quite a bit of time in real life working with conservatives here in a very red part of a red state. Common ground can be found in practical matters. It's a giant waste of time to argue with you on the internet about your ideological purity and steely resolve to your lofty principles when so much real work needs to be done in the real world.
My main reason for engaging you was for the benefit of others who might be reading here. They can make up their own minds.
So not addressing one's self to particular points of divergence between conservatives and liberals is defending the notion that a middle ground exists?
I was actually hoping for better. You firmly believe there is a middle ground available but when presented with points that reject that you let the argument go. What middle ground does exist is we love our families and friends - I can't see much more than that.
I ascribe no hatred of America to the ordinary American who subscribes to liberal notions. I do, however, think that liberal ideology rejects reality. I also think that this is a normal part of the human condition. The tribe would never have survived if it was made only of those who would cling to the fire light and its security and never had those who would brave the dark and vice versa.
Defend your faith. I sincerely want to know where the convergence is. Most people I know who call them selves conservative are populists who haven't really thought about what conservative means.
Hi ucd, I inadvertently replied to myself instead of you. It is here:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/81410?p … ost1758045
Okay, let's start with your very first question: "Well than [sic] tell me how one reconciles personal property with collectivism?"
First, since you did not explain it, I do not see how that relates to the question of whether common ground can be found between liberals and conservatives. I could assume that your question means you believe "collectivism" is a cultural value of either liberals or conservatives and that the concept of personal property conflicts with it. But, I prefer not to assume, so now, in order to be certain of your meaning, I would have to wait for you to explain how the question applies to the original subject.
However, based upon what I have seen of your beliefs, your question implies that you assume liberals embrace "collectivism." You can correct me if I am wrong. When I use the term "liberal" with regard to the ability of liberals and conservatives to find common ground, I am using it in a political sense, i.e., those who identify themselves as having liberal values. I personally do not know a single liberal who embraces collectivism, so your question, in my world, is not worth discussing in depth, especially with regard to the question of possible common ground between liberals and conservatives.
You see, unless I have completely misinterpreted the meaning and reason behind your question, then the question itself reveals that your perception of what most self-identified liberals in the U.S. believe is faulty. And this is a huge part of the problem with certain rigid ideologues on both sides.
Now, that is just your first question. Do you see why I don't want to get into it? While I enjoy discussing questions of philosophy and culture, I really don't have time to do it on the internet, and besides, in this particular case, I don't think it applies to the point that I was originally trying to make.
greek, you sound like the lazy one, taking no stand. We all know what liberal and conservative is.
In the realm of "Attack Thread" ...this is far more tolerant then the previous Forum entitled, "Why liberals Hate the American People." It seems to be that you enter a forum for reasoned debate...let's be honest...from the title...we know that it is unlikely, here. And that appears to be the intent of the posting in the first place.
@ Lady...sadly that appears to be the case. It does appear, however, that it is your intention to hold your pitchfork a little higher...let your torch burn a little hotter than most of the ignorant peasants chasing after monsters in their imagination. Now...as we are here to write...I'm going to go write. Good luck with the nonsense of communicating without communicating.
It is funny; for a lot of the article I could substitute the word conservative for liberal, and it would be exactly how liberals view conservatives.
Yes you could except you would render parts untrue. For example, it is well documented that a liberal bias exists in the media. That point is indisputable! It's also a fact that the majority of college professors and teachers lean left. When you couple this with the fact that its human nature to seek out others with similar beliefs you end up with a group of people with a lack of exposure to opposing views and who are resistant to consider those views as viable alternatives. You can actually view that phenomenon right in this thread. All the liberals here likely didn't read the article and all took the same position, to attack me rather than debate the points in the article!
I meant that liberals see conservatives as closed minded and existing in their own bubble. They get up in the morning and watch the "news" on Fox, drive to work listening to Mike Rosen , drop their kids off in a school district that is trying to strip public funding and give it to religious schools, go to work and lament with their co-workers about how Obama is ruining the country, listen to Limbaugh on the way home, watch a little more Fox after dinner and then finally go online to forums like this to get more validation from their fellow right-wingers before they go to bed and do it all again the next day. I think that the fact that I am a proud liberal and I read the article in order to see what the other side is saying, disproves your point.
I don't do any of that, except drive to work. Who is Mike Rosen?
If you came in late, you need to catch up. This discussion originated around an article saying that liberals are closed minded because they live in their own media world. I was making the point that obviously the same can be said for conservatives, esp. the people with the tea bags hanging off of their heads. And oh good, I mistakenly thought Rosen was syndicated, guess not.
Lady_Love: You're welcome to come to alberta where there is a VERY strong conservative bias in the media.
Sorry.. Canada is full.. no more illegal immigrants
Who wants to live with a bunch of freedom hating stoners anyway?
Stoners? .. I said Canada, not California
Freedom hating?... How exactly do we hate freedom?
One of Ann Coulter's speeches was cancelled...because of security concerns at a university after she made some anti-Muslim comments about Canadian citizens... so that means we hate freedom...
LL has brought it up before but of course leaves out the rest...
She continued her tour throughout the rest of the country and no one paid her any more attention.
Basically a socialist country with laws that prevent free expression... that's not to say all Canadians are bad or even liberals... of course my heart goes out to the Canadian conservatives through no fault of their own have to live under an oppressive liberal regime.
The Conservatives are now in power in Canada... and they just got a majority government. But I guess you will say they aren't "real" conservatives...
I am so oppressed...dear me...
Expression is just as free here as it is in the US...if not freerer in some cases.
But I realize that you are just trying to goad people into keeping your forums going and to pay attention to you. So I won't be responding any more, I'm sure you will enjoy that.
Oh my do I have to list all the people arrested for expressing their views, including a preist, because Canada's anti free speech hate speech laws?
Maybe you dont care about free speech, and that doesn't surprise me as that seems to be a Hubpages policy, but free speech is one of the most important freedoms and God given rights of all people!
Dont tell me you havent heard! Is it that you liberals dont care about free speech? Or are you incapable of trusting yourself with that kind of power and need government to give you guidance on how to use it?
you offered, so I just thought I would keep you busy for a while...
while you are at it, when you come back, let's engage in further hyperbole, rhetoric and exaggeration and condemn the US as being against free speech too...
Dearborn, Michigan. On June 18th, two Christians decided that they would peacefully pass out copies of the gospel of John on a public sidewalk outside a public Arab festival in Dearborn, and within 3 minutes 8 policemen surrounded them and placed them under arrest. Remember, these Christians were on a public sidewalk and were only very quietly handing out literature. Even their cameraman was arrested for simply filming what was taking place. The cameraman was not even involved in handing out the literature. Yet the police arrested him. At least two people claim that some bystanders cried out "Allahu Akbar!" as the Christians were being led away in handcuffs. Later, the group was told that they would have to go at least five blocks away to hand out their copies of the gospel of John. Freedom of speech has always been a big part of the American Dream, but as this incident and many others like it demonstrate, freedom of speech is rapidly being destroyed in the United States.
Dale McAlpine was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships.
The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Workington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God.
Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act
You got that right greek. Free speech in America, among other rights, is quickly being stripped.
Especially when it comes to the Right-wing in this country speaking out against obama abnd the Left, or Islam. The Left can make all the threats and spout all the anti-American treasonous BS they want... but don't speak out against Obama, Pelosi and the leftists American haters, or the Muslim invasion, or you get crushed by the mass media, or the authorities.
Sad state of affairs in this nation these days.
I've looked all my life for a beautiful woman who is not interested in learning or logic...
Marry me, Lady!! Marry me today!
The decision to no let Ann coulter speak at some universities was made by the Private university, not by the government, so there are no laws restricting freedom of speech in that sense. Secondly, my hometown of Calgary, Alberta has both a gay pride parade AND a Neo-Nazi "White Pride" Parade. Both groups are free to express their opinions, so long as they do so in a nonviolent manner. Thirdly, Ezra Levant, a Hardcore Conservative (And although I don't always agree with him, he is a fun guy to sit and have a beer with) is one of the biggest media names in Calgary. Fourthly, The University of Calgary did indeed let Ann Coulture speak. Alberta is almost a seperate entity from the rest of Canada, and it is - for the most part - a very, very, conservative place to live. Even though I'm liberal, it also happens to be my home, so I would appreciate if you didn't make stereotyping generalizations.
"Lady", a couple of days ago you started out this conversation sounding closed minded, but relatively sane. As this conversation has progressed you have slipped into hate-speech and name-calling. This is exactly what has contributed to the extreme polarization of the political parties in our country. Maybe you should direct all of that energy toward convincing Texas to secede from the Union, with Rick Perry as its president. If Canada won't have you, I'm sure the Republic of Texas would welcome you with open arms.
Canada's eminent position today is a tribute to the patience, tolerance, and strength of character of her people, - Truman
"Your country, my country -- each is a better and stronger and more influential nation because each can rely upon every resource of the other in days of crisis. Eisenhower
"Our alliance is born, not of fear, but of hope. It is an alliance that advances what we are for, as well as opposes what we are against." Kennedy
We of the United States consider ourselves blessed. We have much to give thanks for. But the gift of providence we cherish most is that we were given as our neighbors on this wonderful continent the people and the nation of Canada." Johnson
…two nations whose frontiers are the frontiers of friendship, whose ways are the ways of freedom, whose works are the works of peace'." Nixon
We're more than friends and neighbors and allies; we are kin, who together have built the most productive relationship between any two countries in the world today." Reagan
…an alliance the likes of which the world has really never seen before…. Clinton
there's a lot of people in my country who respect Canada and have great relations with Canadians, and we intend to keep it that way. Bush
e share core democratic values and a commitment to work on behalf of peace, prosperity, and human rights around the world. Obama
Furthermore.. although Canada is roughly 1/10th the size of the US in population...
--67000 Canadian died during WW1 (1 in 10)
--45000 Canadian died during WW2
-- 156 Canadian have died in Afghanistan fighting along side the US. third highest total after the US and the UK
Don't listen to anti-Canadian garbage. I have never met a Canadian that I didn't like. Every country has its share of silliness and silly people - if you want some of ours you can have them. I count the US lucky to share such a long border with such a good friend. The American-Canadian border is the longest unguarded border in the world. Canada is our most reliable trade partner. Like Britain, Australia, Japan and South Korea, Canada is a reliable partner in war, as well.
Back off of Canada, their only problem is the French(joke).
Besides, the Canadian national anthem makes me a little misty, just like ours.
Shhhhhhh i am TRYING to impress Lady with out militarism....'
I think she likes a man in uniform
Well brandish your weapon, mister, that always impresses the ladies.
Wow! I didnt know this but were really one country now!
http://www.eutimes.net/2011/02/obama-cr … da-merger/
I see this author doesn't think too much of us Americans!
Silly childishness. There is no proof that supposedly conservative approaches have done any good to any institution or cultural sector in the last 50 years. Under the misguided presumption that less is a better value and more efficient, just about everything our nation could hold high has sunk, sometimes to the point where they may never recover. We can't do business well, don't know how to use money, can't care for those in need, don't educate ourselves or others correctly, freely pass or ignore illnesses that can be treated, get fat, make fun at people who are different and pretend that the rest of the planet and its people don't exist. Even capitalism has collapsed under the idiocy of regressivity. So sad for us all and I wish uninformed people would stop acting like they knew how to think. It's time to stop pretending that "fair and balanced" is anything of the sort.
@ Lady..you don't wish to communicate...you snort, dismiss, and deride. You established this forum...well you know why it was established (be honest at least with yourself) so you could feel good about bashing 50% of the American public. OK...go for it. It easier to be part of the problem the solution. I leave you to it. Have fun. Enjoy.
But please don't believe that you are in anyway serving the "larger" political dialogue. You are not...you are simply indulging yourself. OK...go for it (like I said). And seriously...I DO have some scribbling to do. ...don't worry...you still have your audience. I will see you at the polls in November. Good luck to you and yours.
I love how Bill O's site only has his talking points showing... The guests who spoke on his show were cut out.. While there are transcripts available for other of his shows available, yesterday's don't exist...at least not in O'Reilly's page...
Censorship at its finest.... The blind leading the blinded...
That's about as far as one can get on Fox Schmooz...
I am not twisting anything....I would love to post a link here so that everyone here at hubpages could see it for themselves.... You may not like what happened, but that is because it undermined your common talking points...
Both said that there was no (zero) correlation between taxing the rich and economic downturn...
Downplaying I see?
Who in their right mind (especially those "debt-minded" conservatives) turn down 1.5 trillion dollars in revenue? That is a huge chunk of change that would enormously help our ability to pay down debt...
Stein made his points clearly....leaving Bill'O shaking his head with nothing to say in response....
Bill tried to get the other guest to back him up, but the "investor/ceo/entrepreneur" then agreed with Stein....and directly opposed O'Reilly....
Both men said that Obama has no effect on the economy (debunking O'Reilly's entire claim) and they both put this problem at the feet of Congress...
Instead of making Obama the bad guy...Stein said Obama is a positive force, and, at worst, Rogers said Obama was a neutral force....nowhere near the "catastrophic force" that O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and the GOP claim....
Again....it makes sense that Bill'O wouldn't post that show in its entirety on his webpage.... He obviously came out as the misguided one... It was he in the end who said that he didn't believe either of his guests.... Yeah...he's not paid to believe them... He is a hack, at best..
What a loon....well paid....but still a loon...
I feel very sorry for those who follow O'Reilly's very, very flawed logic and mentality...
The evidence speaks for itself. Under Bush we had 8 trillion in debt, a 500 billion deficit, 5.5% unemployment, and a AAA credit rating. Under Obama we have 17 trillion in debt, a 1.6 trillion deficit, 9.4% unemployment and an AA+ credit rating. If Stein wants to claim Obama is a positive force then where is the evidence? If Stein is going to claim it would have been worse if Obama didn't take action, then I guess I can claim Obama extending the Bush tax cuts is why the economy isn't worse. Wouldn't you agree?
In case you have forgotten, Obama inherited the debt accumulate by Bush. The Republicans believed in deceiving the public that reducing taxes will help the economy. How does it help when the government has no money to work with? The fillthy rich are NOT paying the taxes they should. With their tax loopholes and tax havens, instead of paying a minusite 35% tax they pay nothing. The rich are getting richer and the middle class is joining the ranks of the poverty-stricken. Can't justify to me that the freedom-minded Republicans can run this democracy properly. We need regulations to prevent the economic crisis that has occurred, Doing as you please, stepping on others to get ahead, and not to help people less fortunate than yourself certainly is detrimental to everyone and is a sympotom of a sick, sick society.
How much debt has been added by Obama? The idea that after three years a President is incapable of making the office and its policies his own speaks to a lack of ability and ambition. Either Obama is completely incompetent, incapable of using his considerable authority and power to affect a change or he is an excuse maker and cry baby or, most likely of all, he is using the blame game to manipulate the gullible.
So do you really think that 1.5 Trillion generated would go to paying debt? Talk about flawed logic.
I hate liberals. They're so sub-par they're not even human. They're bog men from space. SPACE I tell you!
What it definitely showed was that Bill (his staff/who knows who) does a horrible job of vetting guests... When Bill segwayed over to his second guest (the ceo/etc) it was very apparent that he (Bill) was expecting someone who agreed with his viewpoint...
When Rogers agreed with Stein, or more closely with Stein, Bill's mouth dropped...and then his sputtering began...
Then again....the GOP "vetted" Palin....or so they claimed...
One gets a check by posting here through political organizations that specifically pay people to write in social media forums... I have seen ads in craigslist myself..
I post here for free.... I am wary of those (like Lady) who don't...
She is not paid to think....and her history of forum threads shows her motivation.. (and it doesn't come from a mind that is not "seeking understanding"...as the Lady puts it...
Let me see if I have this straight, a talk show host had two guests, the two guests disagreed with the talk show host? Were there any punches thrown? Were the guests censored in any way? Sounds like debate to me. You may not be used to that sort of thing if you are watching MSNBC.
You evidently didn't read what I wrote....
I spoke very plainly of what is (or isn't) posted on O'Reilly's page...
Though he tried to cut off and talk over his guests when they didn't follow his (any of his) viewpoints, he could not control what they were saying.. He began his show saying that anyone who questioned him was misguided....and then it was clearly proven that the only one meandering through the wilderness was him...
Of course, I already knew that... I am not a frequenter of the news channels, or of Fox Schmooz in particular (because it is hardly news)...
My random sampling of Fox "talk shows", (breaking stories are breaking stories...earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamies, so on and so forth...) Charlatan Beck and his brother in arms O'Reilley (specifically but not exclusively), however have shown to be 100% accurate in terms of promoting nonsense, senseless fearmongering, and reckless scapegoating of those they oppose...
I write today as a person who used to agree with the likes of these men and even of the Lady...
Strange that so many anti-progressive people would flap their wings around this site. All that the Hub stands for is antithetical to all they dribble. People should simply stop deceiving themselves that regressive policies have done any good at all. Even the most "successful" of regressive dunces actually used more progressive ideas to bring about change and then undercut their own efforts by kissing up to the people who are now just yelling Tea in the very theaters they set on fire. So sad.
By regressive do you mean the failed policies of entitlements? The war on poverty? The war on drugs? War period? I agree, I don't see any reason to continue to fund these obvious failures.
I mean any policy that presumes that going backwards is the way to the future. Pick your flavor of Tea Party, now or in the past or, I fear, in the future. Conservative approaches are by definition regressive ... they seek to maintain or retain something less good than what is needed now. By reversing progress we undercut all that advancement offers, which is exactly what is happening on just about every imaginable social or cultural front.
Progress? Progress toward what? Do you define the moving forward toward socialism "progress"? I view that as regressive... its what our founders ran away from! If thats progress, than I prefer going in reverse!
Actually, in 1776 standards, some of the founding fathers would have been considered socialists just for wanting to build national roads and railways...
Railways! 1776!! I think not.
And don't forget, you didn't have any national roads until the 20th century.
Didn't you Brits lay the first tracks for the first successful rail system. Get your bat ready John, I am hurling this one very slowly.
Isn't the word "turnpike" another term for tollway? Weren't most early, well maintained means of transit privately owned and operated, like ferry boats, turnpikes and "highways?"
Okay, after the Romans left - don't wave your countries age and decrepitude at me, damn it.
Yes we did, and it was many years after 1776. Well, all right, about 50 years after but you know what I mean.
Turn Pikes or Toll Roads were a fairly modern invention, about the late 1700s and not quite all they were cracked up to be, profit came ahead of maintainance.
I wasn't going to mention the Romans.
All of those policies are going backwards, the war on poverty is a complete failure but I bet you are all for welfare. You don't really want to see what has cost us the most gone, you want them expanded and individuals second to the state. If I am wrong then join the only people actually trying to do away with these boondoggles.
Though we need to root out fraud in the system, how can you possibly say that Social Security and Medicare have been a failure? Tell the millions of unemployed Americans that unemployment benefits and food stamps are wasteful spending. So the GI Bill was a failure? Should we get rid of services for veterans who fought for our country? Wow. See, this is the reason we can't come together on anything. If you are starting from the premise that these are failed entitlements, we can't even agree that water is wet. We must quit trying to reason and compromise with people such as yourself. We need to rise up and save the country from what you would have it become.
You think a broke system like Social Security is a success? Who said anything about the VA? Medicare is full of waste and fraud and rooting that out we could agree on, but the real solution is to completely reform it. I guess if you have to save the U.S. from the likes of me you're gonna be busy.
How exactly is Social Security broke? It has a $2 TRILLION surplus, which will double in the next ten years. It is completely solvent for the next 30 yrs. If the rich paid into it as they should, it would be solvent forever. It is a success because for 75 years it has kept the elderly and the disabled from starving to death on the street when they are unable to work anymore. Hopefully we can at least agree about not wanting people to starve and die on the street. Maybe not.
Veteran benefits are an (ooh that nasty word again) ENTITLEMENT. Medicare and Social Security really are not, not in the way you seem to want to define it. You are not doing anyone some great favor by giving them these benefits as a safety net at the end of their lives. They have paid into SS and Medicare their entire working lives!
Veteran benefits were earned. Not all of SS is given to people who have worked their entire lives. As a matter of fact a very large portion go to those who have never worked even though they are able. We will not agree so their really isn't any sense in continuing.
Actually, a major portion of social security funds never reach those who paid in, for they have died before becoming eligible...
"The African American death rates are directly related to the state of Black America. America is experiencing a crisis in health care, obesity, cancer, and other chronic and seriously fatal illnesses. This Crisis like most others has a greater affect in the Black community. They have less access to appropriate health care and that includes preventative care for children and adults. So African Americans are not only more susceptible to disease and illness, they are also more likely to die from it. Even when the incident rate is lower for a particular disease such as Leukemia, the Black death rates are higher due to lack of access to appropriate health care.
The most disturbing number is the life expectancy for Black men. Black men are least likely to live past 70 and on average die just before that age. They are least likely to collect retirement social security benefits even though they contribute during their working years."
Then there are the undocumented, who typically have wages held back for SSI, but who will never be able to draw on the accounts...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/busin … ation.html
We could reform social security, but we should NOT get rid of it altogether.
What you should know is that when you hear conservatives use the word "reform"it is code for "get rid of".
Yeah, I know. I grew up under Ralph Klein who "Reformed" the Education system and "Reformed" Health care.
Get this: I graduated High School in 2002. My Social Studies Textbook still had USSR as a country.
I do think it would... Of course...we'd have to also make sure we aren't in Iraq/Afghanistan...
Past and present defense spending makes up the majority of our expenditures... As of 2009 they comprised 54% of money spent...
I spoke to a gentleman two days ago who currently works for the DoD... He was recounting the countless contracts for huge amounts of money....tens and hundreds of millions of dollars each...used to buy ammunition that is then loaded onto rusted out freighters bearing no national flags that then make stops all along the North African coast and into the Middle East... "Do you know how many of these contracts are being signed without anyone reading them?", he asked me...
Having served in the military I have seen enough waste to realize what this man was saying was the truth...
8 years of Bush and the unending war machine has placed an enormous burden on our shoulders...10 years of war...without any sign of an end...
The cost in terms of GI Bill payments, VA expenses, homeless relief (for veterans make up a substantial population of those on the street).... There are debt flows that can be stopped...but we first have to undo what neo-conservatives (the PNAC and their supporters) created for us..
We can pay down our debts....but slashing revenue while expanding the offshoring of our wealth has to stop...
There is no flaw in that logic...
Thats not accurate. Thats only the amount of discretionary spending spent on defense. 2/3 of the budget is entitlement spending and that grows constantly at an even pace and without regard to any other factors like lifespan, percentage of people paying in to receiving benefits, inflation, or need. Its mandatory and grows without any action by congress. The wars amount to very little, maybe 120 billion a year or 10% of the deficit or 3% of total spending.
That isn't the case at all...
http://reportergary.com/2011/04/the-whi … g-website/
It ain't easy being the lone superpower in the world, there must be some reason Germany isn't scrambling for a Russian military base in their country. I would love to see most of our overseas bases closed and let our fair weather friends fend for themselves. Man that's a lot of F's sorry.
More nonsense, more spin. You take out social security and medicare and then include our debt.as military spending! The fact is have of our debt is money we owe to ourself that was taken from social security and medicare and now has to be paid back! Of course you know that because you argued we had to raise the debt ceilibg so we can pay these benefits, right? You can't have it both ways my liberal friend!
Lol! No!!! I was responding to Mr. Long's "pie chart" ! I don't know how I managed to quote your message... hey I'm blond cut me some slack! Heehee
"You take out social security and medicare and then include our debt.as military spending!"
Your statement makes no sense....
Instead of placing the VA and military related expenses elsewhere in the budget, I include these in military spending....that is what they are...
In terms of the debt ceiling, can you cite the comment I made to which you are referring?
Spin? You make things up altogether...
I did support (though I didn't write about it) the raising of the debt ceiling...but I also supported revenue increases....not the GOP tax cuts..
The theater around the debt ceiling debate (with the GOP comparing the raising to hostage taking) was something else altogether...
The GOP has shown itself over many generations to only be concerned with holding power...their rhetoric has ne'er if ever shown itself to be real...
If Warren Buffet is ready and willing to pay more taxes, I support it... Capital gains at 15% is ludicrous..and it is good to see that many who hold wealth (like the CEO/investor/entrepreneur on Bill-0's show last night) see the same thing...
Raise revenue...cut wasteful spending, beginning with the bloated DoD and Homeland Security departments, and instead of more free trade agreements, we need to require foreign manufacturers to increase the quality of their production...this can be done through a variety of vehicles, and not all are government-related (at least not directly)...
Until I see conservatives start discussing the real issues behind our economic condition (much having to do with the drop in shipping rates..which I have written articles about) I cannot take them seriously... They quibble over pebbles while refusing to acknowledge the boulder bearing down on us...all for the sake of short-term political-economic ends...
Only one candidate is talking about cutting military expenditures.
If Ron Paul gets elected, heating cost will skyrocket THROUGH THE ROOF, Evan
Like I said. That is so wrong! It used to be that we could at least all agree that there was a problem, based on a certain set of facts, but not always agree on how to fix it. Now we are working on two completely different sets of facts. Where are you getting your figures?
Those are our tax dollars being loaded aboard those ships...ammunition "of all imaginable types" according to the gentleman I mentioned earlier...
Think of Shell Oil in Nigeria and the Ogoni... Ponder on the recent coup in Honduras... Picture the pickup trucks with huge machine guns mounted on the backs that the Taliban used.... Read "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll and "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins...
And then let us see how you respond when the GOP discusses "reforming" Social Security and Medicare...
You can look for the facts. You can have a point of view and only look for and accept sources that agree.
1.5 trillion dollars would pay off the Iraq War debt (that never should have been accumulated)...
At least "liberals" like Obama had the understanding to know that we should have never ventured there (he voted against giving the authority to invade)..
Oh yes mr flip flop also voted against raising the debt ceiling as senator too. Obama is a man without principles. A man that cares only about his political career and ambition. He's stabbed his friends in the back, or thrown them under the bus whenever that friendship conflicted with his ambition. He lacks character and shouldn't be trusted and the way he votes means nothing except how it advances his carrer at the time.
No he didn't, the resolution was voted on in October of 2002 he wasn't in the senate until January 2005.
You are correct. I withdraw my error. He vocalized his opposition back in 2002 publicly, but he was not yet in the Federal Congress...
He would not have voted "yes", however.. While some criticize him for not bringing home the military already, he has realized that getting out of a war/armed conflict can be more difficult than entering...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIUej6VJ … re=related
Can you say Libya, Yemen, or Pakistan? This president has been expanding wars!
Do you mean the nation that financed and harbored American killing terrorists?
We should have handled them a long time ago... Note how we didn't put U.S. boots on the ground...
Therefore, it isn't the same as Afghanistan or Iraq...
In terms of Pakistan, do we have troops there? Have we declared war? No...
However, if you knew the history of Pakistani-U.S. relations you would realize that U.S. involvement there goes back 30 plus years.... Following the Bush Doctrine towards states harboring terrorists...knowing that bin Laden was being sheltered for the past 7 years (aside from Pakistan being a launching ground-funding operation for the Taliban), Pakistan deserves all the scrutiny they are receiving.... Didn't Bush say that we would attack states harboring terrorists?
He did.... I'm sure you agreed with him...
In terms of Yemen.... I was enlisted in the Corps when the U.S.S. Cole was bombed.... We have not invaded, nor have we shown any inclination to do so...
However, it is our responsibility (aside from the responsibility of the Commander in Chief) to make sure we are safe... Yemen is a proving ground for threats to our nation....
Obama has not expanded anything....the states you mention are the same states that have been causing us problems for decades...
More proof that Lady Love has little understanding of the world around her.... Based on the title of this thread, she must be a liberal...
http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml … deofeed=36
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_at … n_Pakistan
http://www.infowars.com/cia-increases-d … -pakistan/
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic … 10,00.html
Seems to me the one who doesn't know whats going on is you Mike.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/0 … und-libya/
I don't feel sorry for liberals in the least anymore.
I have grown tired of their incessant whining and masterbaturial circle jerks they try to trap you in and act like they are all so intellectually superior to any who dis-agree with them.
They are a tired and lame joke that has about killed this nation.
I can no longer accept that they are simply mis-guided... it is all intentional. They hate this country's past, they hate this country's present, and they seek to destroy this country's future.
It is simple.
And they have used America's own institutions and Govt. against her. Our own Rights and laws have been twisted and used to destroy us. They are sneaky... insidious... evil... traitorous... malignant... and they need to be rooted out of our Govt. and country. The next President needs to be ready to go to war with all those within our Govt. who hold dear ideologies in conflict with America and her Constitution. They do not belong there... and need to be removed... we cannot as a nation survive the poison they are.
I feel the exact same way about most conservatives and especially the tea baggers. What now?
The difference is you're wrong! Evil will be defeated in 2012!
This is a good example of how liberal media twists reality and turns conservatives into objects of derision without addressing ideas - that word "tea******" is a disgusting term whose meaning was well established before Anderson Copper decided to plaster T.E.A party protestors with it.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p … tea+bagger
I would refrain from using it.
That is a misconception...they called themselves that before they knew what it meant and now are back peddling... Just the facts...
Look it up. Early Tea Party literature used these phrases:
"Tea Bag the White House"
"Tea bag the liberal Dems before they tea bag you"
They started using the terminology then became offended when it was turned around on them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/1 … 62504.html
See, it's funny because they proudly used the term not knowing it had another meaning. Like when they refer to having gayness shoved down their throats. In a couple months they'll deny ever having said such things. Teabaggers are big on denial, even when the truth's been shoved down their throats. I can't wait 'til they run a candidate named "Dirty Sanchez" or "Cleveland Steamer".
Why should I refrain from using that term? Even if you don't consider the nasty definition of it, they were running around with tea bags hanging off their hats! Seems like what they have named themselves.
You need to seek professional help...really...
What the Hell is a masterbaturial circle jerk?
TMMason... Isn't that viewpoint of yours counter-constitutional? Specifically, the rights to "Liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness?"
I guess you'll be one of the first expunged from the nation. You can join us here in Canada where we appreciate everyone - even people who disagree with us.
No. It is not counter-Constitutional.
You have the right to be any ideology you want... you do not have a right to the keys to the kingdom and the arsenol.
Socialists, Communists, Marxists, all thier ilk, do not belong in our govt.
Socialism and Marxism are ideologies. The only exception you mentioned was Communism, which is NOT an ideology. So Obviously, we do not have the right to any ideology we want. Unless this "simple" statement is more complex than you're letting it on. How's this idea? We just abolish government altogether! No liberals, no conservatives, no socialists or fascists - Everybody wins (or loses)
It is a very simple comment...
If your ideology is in conflict to our constitution, then you do not get to serve in our Govt.
You can be ascribe to any ideology you want... but you cannot be a part of our govt when that ideology directly calls for the over-throw of our system of govt.
And where would you get Communism is not an ideology?
An ideology is a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization). The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer either change in society, or adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process. Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political or economic tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought. It is how society sees things.
Definition of IDEOLOGY
1: visionary theorizing
2 a: a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b: a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c: the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
I don't know what would make you think Communism is exempted from this deifinition.
That is as good as NAZIs were not Socialists... lol... ah you Liberals are a funny bunch.
And you did see my comment as to the taxes the rich pay in the US being 60% of all taxes? And that 48% of Americans pay no taxes at all? Tax money is not the problem... reckless irresponsible spending on nanny state social welfare programs and BS liberal agendas, are the problem.
Only by your warped and perverted reckoning, not by anybody else's.
Hitler was no socialist but he did use socialist ideas to get the German economy rolling along. Franklin D. Roosevelt had the same ideas, Germany's unemployment went down as a result of these policies. The only problem was it was all make believe.
That's far too subtle a distinction for some to grasp.
FDR considered himself, and was, a Socialist. Thus his attempts to impliment American National Socialism.
Hitler wasnt a socialist? NAZI stood for National Socialist Workers Party! The result of socialist polucies is facsism... the system only survives by force!
What Nazis liked to call themselves is immaterial, just as Democrats really aren't all that democratic. The important part is how they govern. The Nazis have far more in common with the Communists than with Republicans or Democrats. They do, however, share one thing that unifies all liberal political systems, the centralized control of the economy. It is common to Communists, Social Democrats, Democrats, Nazis and Fascists.
That sounds a lot like democrats if you ask me! Lol!
Just to try to keep the language accurate, democrat has come to mean one who believes in the principles of free and open elections. The Democrats are members of the American political party. Just as republican means one who believes in representative government and the rule of law and Republican describes the party.
Though it may be emotionally satisfying to to label American liberals Marxist, Communist, Nazi or Fascist it is not quite accurate. Unlike Marxists, Communists, Nazis and Fascists, Democrats hate guns and lack sufficient courage in their convictions to actually risk their property, jobs, health or lives to impose their will by violence. Democrats, like their European equivalent Social Democrats, prefer the Fabian Route.
Hitler wasn't a socialist, he used the ideas of socialism to his advantage. He got the German people working so he could be seen as their savior. A bunch of make work projects paid for with currency printed and virtually worthless.
Read "Mien kampf", "My Struggle", and you can see plainly that Hitler was a Socialist.
That is a fact, drawn from hilter's own words.
Too bad, it is a simple thing to see if you take the time to read.
But most decidedly not from his actions which were about as far from socialism as it is possible to get.
Hell TM, using your logic we could call you a socialist.
Facism is the end result of all Marxist/Socialist ideologies.
What Hitler ended up becoming, doesn't change what he was to begin with.
So by that reckoning a peace loving man who becomes a mass murderer remains a peace loving man!
Fascism is actually the end result of extreme right politics, not socialism.
No it isn't.
Facism is the end result of the centralized authority and collectivism of the demented Marxist ideologies. Thus the reason the two suppossed right wing facists of the 20th Century, grew from two of the most ardent Socialists in the history of man, Hitler and Musollinni.
Both were ardent followers of Marx and Engals and both fought for control of thier collectivist heavens against their fellow Socialists of the era.
It is history and fact.
Musollinni loved and studied Marx throughout his childhood and youth, and once grown, he implimented and distorted those policies to his own ends... as most of your ilk always do.
The only reason Hitler and Musollini are looked at as Rightwing is because of the work of the Frankfurt School, who dispised Hitler for running them out of Germany.
http://www.catholicinsight.com/online/f … _882.shtml
It is a simple enough history to folow, if your willing to open your eyes and learn.
And no by my reckoning he would still be a mass murderer, who was once a peace loving man. Just as hitler was a mass murderer who was a Socialist.
Lady Love, love is a virtue representing all of human kindness, compassion, and affection none of which is apparent in your ranting hatred of everything.
Can you not see that just as love is a misnomer when applied to you, socialism was a misnomer when applied to the Nazis.
Actualy my view is well backed by some of the great minds of yester-year. Hayek, Mises, as well as others. I am not alone, and more everyday learn the truth about the twisted BS the Left has propagated for history.
The frankfurt school had their own reasons for pegging Hitler and his as NAZIs, as we all know. Of course we all know hitler and all his men considered themselves pure Socialists.
Because they were.
The leftists Progressive lies of history are being destroyed as we speak.
Statism = Collectivism... no diiference in the end.
Just a matter of degrees.
Private ownership was an illusion... the State owned you and by extension all you are and own.
Statism = collectivism.
What has that got to do with Hitler being or not being a socialist?
You only need a very basic understanding to know that whatever Hitler may have called himself he was not a socialist.
Socialism is not about state ownership, it is about worker ownership.
It is about collectivism, John.
Please... gimmie a break.
It is all a matter of degrees.
In the end... colectivism is collectivism, central authority is centrasl authority.
You all can try to distance yourselves from your demented ilk all you want.. it simply won't work anymore.
We see you all for what you are.
Henry George argued against state ownership as well, for the purpose then that the state owns you. (But he's a "liberal") However, what difference is it being owned by the state or by private entity? Either way, you don't own yourself.
Communism is an economic system that does not work in practice on large scales. That is all communism. Marxism would be the ideology that led to the creation of communism.
It's time you read up on Pakistan, Lady.... I've already shared this source with you...though I know you haven't followed up by exploring it... Don't be fooled by the title:
I was quite clear about Libya....
There is no comparing Iraq to Libya.... One has cost us 1.5 trillion dollars (at least) and the other...1 billion? Drone attacks cannot be compared to the landing of armies... The guys flying those drones are typically seated right here in the United States...never setting foot on foreign soil...
One was a shadow threat (Iraq) and the other was a tangible threat (Libya)...
Libya needed remodeling... I support regime change there...and it has cost us zero American lives...and again, negligible resources....
You can try to twist, spin, and exaggerate....but it all comes back to your lack of understanding....
How many battalions do we have in Libya?
How many companies?
How many platoons?
A few guys do not correspond to the Iraq relationship you attempted to create...
1.5 trillion (for Iraq alone) does not relate to the 1 billion used in Libya...
I support the destruction of the former regime...they posed an ongoing threat to the United States and to the region as a whole... During the Reagan Administration we should have landed the Marines and utterly destroyed the deranged Colonel...
Better late than never, I suppose...and we had others do the fighting for us...
To call this current operation an expansion, however, is word play...
You don't have the authority to dismiss me...
How much time in military uniform did you serve?
How many boots do we have to have on the ground before you admit that we do? It seems Obama has already taken some credit for victory. How could he do so if we weren't involved at all? By the way where was Obama's authority do go in? He never cleared this action with congress! If Kadafi was our enemy why did he agree not to pursue nukes and normalize relations with us? And wasn't he appointed to the UN human rights commission? You want to talk hypocrisy? Its you liberals that are the biggest hypocrites!
Start naming something.....
Libya did pursue a nuclear program...and they have chemical agents....
As opposed to Iraq, Libya directly sponsored terrorist acts against the United States and her citizens, and harbored the men who did the deeds....
You ballyhoo about "patriotism" but then show that you are only an opportunist... How pathetic...
You have still avoided to equate 1 billion to 1.5 trillion and "go it alone" with divisions on the ground with a foreign fought struggle including the Libyan people...a genuine revolution...which never happened in Iraq...
Thanks for avoiding direct questioning, Lady...
You again show your true colors....as usual, your hypocrisy knows no bounds..
I am a "mature" American woman. I've been watching the deterioration of our government through both Republican and Democratic Presidents and Congress run by both parties.
The liberals & conservatives have always believed differently on many issues. The difference today is that each person in Congress will vote ONLY for their own parties' bills. Until several years ago, members of Congress definitely leaned toward their own party most of the time, but they managed to behave like grown-ups. They compromised on many issues. So great, they put a bill through to raise the country's credit limit - for now. All they did was put off a real decision. The matter is far from closed.
We have a bunch of children running our government now. The name calling is shameful(including in various forums threads here). If it was up to me, I'd replace every single member of Congress and start fresh.
The President - Obama & all future Presidents - and members of Congress must learn to work together again to enable our government to move forward. The way so many other democratic countries look down upon us for our mismanagement of our government is humiliating.
I'm voting to remove my Representative & Senators from office when their time comes. How about you?
I heard a political commentator say today "Obama is the only adult voice in the room"
Ranting destructive lies have become pretty obvious to partisan observers and the ranting right on Fox are the stuff of comedies.
Lady, Stein said quite clearly that the President does not control the economy...he does not make policy.. That is in the hands of the Congress...
Misguided/deranged O'Reilly was the only one saying Obama was 1) in control of the economy, and 2) a negative force on the economy...
Two experts (one a ceo/entrepreneur/investor and the other an economist) both disagreed with him...
The man is a loon.....a hypocrite....an egotist.....and a man who abuses his own power over women who work for him... He has no sense of integrity or decency...
The fact that he is able to continue onward on Fox Schmooz shows (as court filings also indicate) that the culture over on the Murdoch side of the house is rotten to the core...
Right, yet you and all your liberals friends keep saying Bush destroyed the economy, so which way is it? Does the president influence policy or not?
Only when the Republicans are in charge, lady.
the Leftist argument is simple... the right did it.
And most times the republicans they talk about are Progressives, who screw the pooch on pupose to send the country to the arms of the left over and over.
In short... you will not convince an apologist Leftist of anything that contradicts the afore-mentioned reason they believe what they do.
Just as you will not convince a rightist apologist. Even when using facts.
Your right Bubbble, those damn Progressives just do not get it... same as their cohorts, the Socialist liberal Democrats.
The funny thing is, and I'm just saying this partially because of how Canadian Politics work, But from our perspective, The U.S. has two "right wing" parties. Sure, the Republicans are much more to the right, especially with the success of the Tea Party movement, but the democrats are still nowhere near as left as our Liberal Party, and we have other parties even further left than that.
Myself, I'm actually "slightly" right of center. I think every side has something good to bring to the table. It's just that the nature of compromise means neither side has the opportunity to bring something good to the table, and nobody is happy
So Congress controls the economy? Who ran Congress from January 2007 until December 2010? Was it GWB? Or was it the Democrats? Democrats, who appear to understand very little about how their own government actually works, act as if GWB was the only person in Washington D.C.
They really have a hard time accepting the fact that it was Bill Clinton that caused the mess in the first place. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall act was the spark that started the fire. Its funny how a President is the only one who can sign bills into law but is never blamed for the outcome that follows, unless you are George W. Bush then you are blamed for everything.
The real mess predates every thing. The differences are endemic to the human condition. Uncertainty and insecurity versus confidence, action and freedom. There has always been and will always be those who wish to be cared for and those who wish to blaze their own path. In the whole history of the world there are those who gladly hand themselves to an elite and those who would battle or flee such a circumstance.
It is our nature to be infants until we decide to be adults. Some never arrive at the decision.
"Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist."
Is that all you can do is cut and paste?
I told you private ownership was an illusion under the NAZIs. The state owned you, and by extension all you own belongs to the state. Collectivism is collectivism, you can try to split hairs between the govt or "people" owning everything, but in the end it is the state that owns and controls it under wither system. that is just a fact and your cut and paste job doesn't change that.
The illusion of the workers owning anything under Socialism is another BS lie to gain control of the means resources and production by the state. in the end someone has to control all that centralized authority and ownership.... and who do you think controls it? The state.... usually the Communists who have by this point slaughtered the Socialists.
It is an old and repeatative cycle you Leftists have.
First come the Marxists screaming and inciting, then the useful idiots and Socialists betray thier country and impliment their agenda, at which point the Communists among them crush the Socialist, (cause we all knw you cannot trust people who would betray their own to begin with.), then when the Commies have control, the facists among them repeat the slaughter and cleanse themselves of the commies, so as to rid the field of competition... and there you have your eutopia.
You all just do not understand, that workers ownership is a joke... someone has to control the machine, it cannot be done by 305 million people, but a small cadre of people always end with control, and then it is to late to take it back.
Marxist.... Socialist, useful idiots.... Communists.... Facists... eutopia.
What can I say to somebody who constantly denies the truth and replaces it with their own biased view?
You told me a lot of things, most of them are delusional and wrong.
Actually the denial is from your ilk, John. You all deny your own and then scream when someone points out the facts.
Sorry to smash your lil world apart.
Speaking in general now...
You know I would have thought after WWII, England would know better than to adopt the (S)neville Chamberlain approach the world. But from what I can see there is a majority of (S)nevilles running the show and populating the island.
But that is the same problem here. When you have a war the patriotic who love their nation go to fight while the snivillers stay home and protest. So naturally after a few wars or a real large one, there is a shortage of patriots and a shitload of sneville chamberlains.
Funny, Neville Chamberlain, to those who know of him is an object of derision, but still, we couldn't expect you to know that could we? It might damage your fantasy.
One day the real world will intrude on your fantasy world, then were will you be?
Where are these "facts" that you point out? Your erroneous belief might be a fact in itself but it does not mean that your ideas are facts.
I am well aware of Neville, john.
Thus the whole point of my remark.
Pathetic that England has become one big Sneville.
Well that's news to me and just about every other Brit, but still, you're American and must know more about my country than the actual people who live here.
But I am expressing the view of how many Americans see England today. And that is somehting I do know about. Besides denial is a powerful delusion, most do not see through it and to the truth.
So I just figured I would help.
Besides... history has shown that England has lost its mojo.
You have willingly cowed down and givin your country away to foriegners. You have thrown away generations of young brits to be loved by those who hate you and only want to take what you have as a people.
But don't worry about it.
I hear there is a movement in England to stop the English Left from throwing away the rest of your future and wealth and might. germany also, and many other European countries who have finally realized bribing those who hate you doesn't work. And that Multi-Culturalism is a failure.
I believe your own politicians have stated as much.
Not as much as you know about ours, you seem to post often about our politics and political parties as an expert.
No, I never get into specifics. I may state my view on something but I don't ascribe my thoughts to every American.
Oh, and I didn't realise that Hitler was an American, explains a lot
I enjoy your perspective and wit. You and I might never agree on specific things but it is good to share a laugh with you. Perhaps that is the common ground some yearn for, mocking the puffed up never gets old and knows no ideology, unless you are Charlie Chaplin mocking Hitler - then you might have a little trouble in 1936 Munich.
Interesting, but I would say a fascist is an example of an authoritarian progressive, and all progressives are in the end authoritarian.
Authoritarians can be found on both ends of the political spectrum...
by Susan Reid 4 years ago
excerpted from Liberals pride themselves on being tolerant. Are they really just suckers?"Does fear and intolerance actually work better? I find it interesting (not surprising) that research actually shows differences in the brains of liberals vs. conservatives!What do YOU think about Ms....
by Julian Magdaleno 5 years ago
Does anyone find it strange how all the liberals support Trayvon/ conservatives for Zimmerman?I see both sides claiming bias in the media on the other side, or some kind of systematic, race based flaw. However, how come we're split along political lines? Doesn't this show that America...
by Nathan Orf 2 years ago
What's so terrible about being a Liberal?Why do many people, even Democrats, seem ashamed of the term "liberal," especially if it is applied to them? Are there any people out there who are liberals, and are proud to admit it? And do conservatives sometimes demonize liberals?
by Scott S Bateman 2 years ago
I'm always amazed at how many people don't understand Fox News. It has a successful business strategy of appealing to people's conservative biases, which is why a majority of viewers are conservative Republicans.Fox is not a news channel that seeks the truth. It provides reporting and commentary...
by JON EWALL 7 years ago
In the political world, can anyone tell me the difference between a liberal and a conservative ?For example : both the liberal and the conservative want to help the poor.The difference is that The liberal wants to help the poor with someone elses money and the conservative is willing to help...
by lady_love158 7 years ago
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- … ht-to-hellIt's pretty clear Waters hates Americans that don't share her radical views, telling them they can go straight to h***! Really Maxine? The poster girl for unethical behaviour wants more of the tax payers money! Given how she's abused it in...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|