Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have known some liberals who openly admit they think it proper to remove children from poor families because they are poor, which is one reason I shy way from calling myself a liberal.
Wrong- most people who do not lean in any direction are reasonable people who see neither Republicans nor Democrats have benefitted this nation in anyway.
I disagree. The internet shields people from the consequences of their words. They feel much braver to hit below the belt when they know nothing will happen to them. In real life they know that the wrong person just might knock them out for it, so they select their words more carefully. It also forces them to be more reasonable.
Libertarianism is the ideology of government inaction. There's really nothing for me to do other than let others pursue their dreams, ideas and goals with minimal interference provided they don't infringe on the rights of others.
Libertarianism is to let government be someone else's problem? Well that makes sense why we won't see any Libertarian in national politics.
All if this talk about the Redskins made me think about the topic of armchair liberals. Does anyone here deal with armchair liberals on a daily basis? I live in a city full of them. Urban dictionary gives a pretty good definition for being urban dictionary "a person of liberal ideals who takes no action to realize them." I think the biggest "theme" for armchair liberals is how they think they are helping the poor simply because they vote Democrat, then they dust off their hands and congratulate themselves on being such great activists. I find them annoying, but harmless.
I deal with arm-chair conservatives all the time. People who feign outrage over "Obama," but who like to pretend that their party is better, that Bush never existed, and that no matter what Obama does it's "wrong" even if that means flipping their positions by 180 in less than a week. Plenty of them suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome, assorted forms of ignorance, and disturbing levels of anger and lack of empathy. I think the biggest "theme" for armchair conservatives is how they like to think they are being patriotic by voting Republican, no matter the damage done to the nation by their idols, and then they dust off their hands and congratulate themselves on being "real 'mericans." I find them annoying, but sadly not harmless.
I deal with arm-chair conservatives all the time. People who feign outrage over "Obama," but who like to pretend that their party is better, that Bush never existed, and that no matter what Obama does it's "wrong" even if that means flipping their positions by 180 in less than a week. Plenty of them suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome, assorted forms of ignorance, and disturbing levels of anger and lack of empathy. I think the biggest "theme" for armchair conservatives is how they like to think they are being patriotic by voting Republican, no matter the damage done to the nation by their idols, and then they dust off their hands and congratulate themselves on being "real 'mericans." I find them annoying, but sadly not harmless.
Go back to 2005 and You can flip this right around to the Bush haters.
So many of them were going to leave the nation if Bush was relected in 2004.
All if this talk about the Redskins made me think about the topic of armchair liberals. Does anyone here deal with armchair liberals on a daily basis? I live in a city full of them. Urban dictionary gives a pretty good definition for being urban dictionary "a person of liberal ideals who takes no action to realize them." I think the biggest "theme" for armchair liberals is how they think they are helping the poor simply because they vote Democrat, then they dust off their hands and congratulate themselves on being such great activists. I find them annoying, but harmless.
Do you have to act on an opinion for it to be valid? I mean, are you upset that every person in the country isn't phoning the PTO to voice their opinion on the Redskins(TM)? And then going on a march for/against the NAACP, on their way to the Fed to protest monetary policy, et cetera? Or does physically supporting one aspect of one's political view give you blanket permission to have views?
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,561 posts, read 16,552,753 times
Reputation: 6043
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomBen
Go back to 2005 and You can flip this right around to the Bush haters.
So many of them were going to leave the nation if Bush was relected in 2004.
There is no "flip", President Bush wasnt demonized, or government wasnt shut down. The business of out nation didnt stop because Democrats didnt like him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"a person of liberal ideals who takes no action to realize them." I think the biggest "theme" for armchair liberals is how they think they are helping the poor simply because they vote Democrat, then they dust off their hands and congratulate themselves on being such great activists. I find them annoying, but harmless.
