What Liberals Believe (Alabama, March, support, income)

[Bagz]

Would you still be in favor of wealth distribution IF the effects were the opposite of all of the other things you are for?

[LibertyandJusticeforAll]

What is a liberal...

Depends on the individual... and collectism view of a liberal.

I think it would be best for liberals to define themselves and those views will move towards a collective view within society. Via the media, political and economic liberals define themselves in many different ways on different topics.

I find the liberals who want more government control on personal income to the be the worst kind. They would have me turn over my healthcare, my livelyhood and my freedoms to the hands of government.
Liberals can be republicans and democrats by the way and those are the worst kind.

Liberals who view personal choices as long as they don't hurt anyone is ok with me.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Bagz

This is exactly what I am talking about. When a liberal finally admits that he is for redistributing wealth, when a natural follow on question (essentially asking how) is asked, that question is not answered, but followed by an outrageous question on child abuse. It is difficult to get liberals to get to the heart of the issue.

The original question was completely out of left field. Everyone supports redistribution of income. It's one of the principal reasons why societies were formed in the first place. There is nothing in the prior posts that suggests the topic of whether there should be caps or limits on other people's incomes. It's sudden appearance was merely a clumsy attempt at deflection. The counter-question was posed in juxtaposition as a means of illustrating the naked absurdity of the original.

[Bagz]

Originally Posted by saganista

The original question was completely out of left field. Everyone supports redistribution of income. It's one of the principal reasons why societies were formed in the first place. There is nothing in the prior posts that suggests the topic of whether there should be caps or limits on other people's incomes. It's sudden appearance was merely a clumsy attempt at deflection. The counter-question was posed in juxtaposition as a means of illustrating the naked absurdity of the original.

Your post is very telling and illustrates exactly how closed minded you can be.

Not all societies were formed to redistribute wealth. In fact the American society was formed in an effort to stop wealth redistribution to the King of England.

Not everyone supports redistribution of income. It is a socialist ideal only supported by socialists. If everyone supported it, socialism wouldn't have the stigma that it has.

It was not a sudden appearance. It was a logical question in the dialog. Either you missed the dialog, or you were trying to deflect the question just when they were getting to the meat of it. You have succeeded because the dialog has stopped. That is OK because we all know the answer to the question anyway.

[Manigault]

Sorry for the delay. This is more from the same law professor today on McCain and "activist judges". I think the commentator has a point:

"McCain, seeking the Republican nomination for president, is apparently blissfully unaware that the vast majority of current federal judges were appointed by Republican presidents and that seven of the nine sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices and 12 of the last 14 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. As Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Professor Stone mentions that the judges McCain calls "judicial passivists" really have been very busy invalidating laws they disagree with. You know, McCain is not a lawyer and sometimes legal training comes in very handy.

McCain's justice -- chicagotribune.com

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Bagz

Your post is very telling and illustrates exactly how closed minded you can be.

There is nothing close-minded about insisting upon some minimal rules of debate. Attempting to attach extrapolated ideas to the positions of another violates those.

Originally Posted by Bagz

Not all societies were formed to redistribute wealth. In fact the American society was formed in an effort to stop wealth redistribution to the King of England.

Yes, they were. The particular objection of the American colonists was not to wealth redistribution at all, but to the version of it being practiced by the King of England.

Originally Posted by Bagz

Not everyone supports redistribution of income. It is a socialist ideal only supported by socialists. If everyone supported it, socialism wouldn't have the stigma that it has.

Some among the politically dishonest use the term "socialist" as a smear-word. Something like "tax and spend liberal". Such hucksterism does not alter any actual meanings. In fact, everyone does support socialism, and the vast majority of them are NOT socialists.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by Bagz

In order to fill that job, one must be smart and ambitious.

So you are claiming that people are poor because they are neither smart nor ambitious?
Maybe even both?

There are millions of people who have succeeded and people will choose a president with a history of success over one with a history of failure.

I would never call your current president a success.
Then again, he had been privileged all his life so he didn’t needed to be smart, only rich & ambitious.
I even would have called it a success if he had failed in becoming the president.
I guess Bush is living proof that the mayority can be wrong.

[ELOrocks17]

Its simple;

Conservatives use facts in thier debates

Liberals use feelings

[saganista]

I suppose you considered that post to be an example???

[ELOrocks17]

Originally Posted by saganista

I suppose you considered that post to be an example???

as a matter of FACT....yes