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.
Why do so called "tolerant" liberals hate so many different people?
They hate people who work
They hate people who are religious
They hate minorites (except criminal minorities)
They hate people from the South and Midwest
They hate traditional families
They hate white people
They hate everyone with an inkling of a differing opinion on any issue
They hate babies (pro abortion)
So what are the reasons for such hatred by this group that identifies itself as caring about others and love and peace?
STOP, right this second, reading at rightwing web sites, the only place you could possible have gotten such twisted thinking. Clue; not ONE of the things you listed is truth. No matter what they have told you, and you have definately absorbed it, any rational thinking human being would know that something is wrong with the statements you posted above. If it feels wrong in the core of your being, it IS. My my my, you really need to take some time off the propaganda feed you are getting, it is not good for the mind or soul.
Casper
It's refreshing to debate with someone of a more moderate/conservative persuasion who is open minded and can understand the merits of more liberal views even if they don't agree! You make valid points and I think you did a good job of pointing out where at least one of the major cleavages between our viewpoints is.
Thanks, it seems that many who post here must be around 13 yo. A discussion shouldn't have to devolve into insults even when no accommodation/compromise is possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ever Adrift
The thing is, both sides have compelling and valid arguments to make. I understand how the system works and that is exactly my point; the system as it stands isn't exactly fair and if we can find ways to change it, even incrementally, then we should do so. I, for example, would love to see a cap on income; I simply don't believe anyone, no matter how hard working and brilliant, deserves to make more than, say, two million dollars a year; CEOs are grossly overpaid and often for doing things that harm society.
I do understand your point- and vehemently disagree. This is one of the things that tend to make conservatives yell 'Socialism'. No one should have the power to set compensation levels for CEOs except the Directors and shareholders. An increase in shareholder rights is would be an appropriate move; Though if they decided to pay the CEO millions that's what should happen. For a corporation privately held it's an even worse idea- no public stockholders at all. IMO Mandating compensation levels leads to mediocrity.
If someone is actually doing things that harm society their actions should be illegal and punished under the appropriate law. The problem come in when you attempt to define 'harm'; One persons harm can be another's boon. An example would be abortion- a great evil for me and simply free choice for others. Or perhaps offshore drilling for oil and gas- a good thing in my opinion and despicable in others. Both are legal and neither can be punished in a court of law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ever Adrift
I will say that I do know the value of hard work; I often get the feeling that people of a more conservative persuasion think that liberals such as myself are generally lazy. That's certainly not the case for me; I came from a poor background and have worked extremely hard to get where I am (I'm a doctoral student and serve as a TA). Unfortunately, to get where I am today I had to fight and claw and take on an enormous amount of debt that will take me decades to pay off; it does bother me that I had to take out so much debt to get my education while there are other students who get to go to school without taking on debt because they come from more privileged backgrounds. I don't believe that's right.
I don't think liberals are especially lazy- I do believe that they find it easy to accept laziness in others though. Public welfare is an example of where the left and right diverge. C-No work, no food. L- It's not their fault and no one should be hungry. We could come together on this one if we required recipients to work for their benefits. I also understand the level of effort you have put into achieving what you have- it's admirable. I don't know what your Phd is for- but you might look at government service or even the military- they offer debt repayment for a number of specialties. As far as what others have or don't have; It's truly not about what's fair- it's about what is. You did what you needed to do to get to where you are, so did I (my background is similar). Others will do so if they choose to do so- I will help them and I suspect you will as well. What I don't want is government taking the control over who I help away from me; Some are worthwhile and others are a waste of time and money-the government can't seem to tell the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ever Adrift
The one thing I will outright disagree with you on is your final statement: we most certainly do not live in an equal opportunity society. There are plenty of reasons for this; one obvious one is the unequal distribution of and access to quality education. Children fortunate enough to live in a 'good' school district or to have parents wealthy and considerate enough to send them to a good private school have more and better opportunities than those who don't. Related, and perhaps even more importantly, vast inequality in the distribution of 'starting conditions' heavily stack the deck in favor of some and against others. As I've said before, a kid born to a single impoverished mother of several children, living in the projects, surrounded by drugs and crime is going to have to work 50 times harder to get anywhere (let alone to college and beyond) than a child with exactly the same intellectual capacity born to an upper-middle income nuclear family in the suburbs. Now, that doesn't mean that the child born into dire poverty can't make it, but he most certainly doesn't have an equal opportunity to make it. He (or she) would have to work far, far harder. This is precisely why so many born into poverty stay in poverty; the lack of access to the same opportunities had by the more fortunate acts as a very tough barrier to success.
I believe we're using different definitions for 'equal opportunity'. I wasn't addressing how easy or hard it might be, only the opportunity to do so if one chooses. No doubt it's easier with all of the advantages going in, but the opportunity is there regardless.
I was one of the underprivileged as well; poverty, single mother, no advantages. I didn't finish high school- started working at 16 and married at 18. Poor choices (at least when it comes to easy). I enlisted in the Army at 23, stayed ~8 years then got out, went to University and became a white collar professional. It weren't easy but I done it. Just like you have. The audacity of wanting to be something more- Right?
Look I respect every single person who serves this country. My father did 2 tours in viet-nam and will neve be the same as result. That does not in anyway mean people who do not "serve" this country in a militaristic aspect are any less american than those who do. The reality is that the current military only exists because it preys on young, uninformed, low income members of our country for the most part. They are promised money, college, and benefits for the rest of their lives. Why is it then that a greatly disproportionate number of homeless people are veterans of this countries armed services? Because they are so well taken care of????
I know countless people who have and are serving and let me tell you most of them don't agree one bit with what we are doing in Iraq. Again I have nothing but respect but I get so tired of people trying to say they are somehow more american because they picked up a gun. The reality is if the draft was reinstituted we would have never been involved in that war because people would have been rioting in the streets. The "volunteer" military is made up of a large number of people who feel they have no other option. Not very volunteer like is it.
I'm very pleased that you respect those who served with the military. I also believe you missed my point; If you had served you would understand that the things you believe about the military are untrue. The rest of what you read into my post was just that- what you read into it. The "countless people who have and are serving" that you know must be a select group; with Army folks I find the ratio is around 25 to 1 in favor of being in the Army. Can't think of even one who came into the Army because he had no other options.
It pretty much satrted in the 60s' when they satrted spitting on american soildiers returning from vietnam. That was the start of the decline in american society and the entitlement class. The only successful president they have had if you look is clinton who governed from the middle.Rethoric means nothing when you actaully don't know how to goiverna and like Carter ;Obama will end in a mess;that wil take some really drastic cuts to remedy in the future.
Don't see what the personal attacks are all about. You are proving my point. This thread has more merit than that one about Christians hating everyone that is for sure
Anyone who calls himself "machiavelli" is basically asking for it anyway..
Why dont you get a clue and realize being american is not only about picking up a gun. The military is not the only way to serve our country and who the hell are you to call me a free rider?? You and all the other people who think that being american is all about being in the military need to wake up. The military industrial complex in this country is out of hand and what does it do? It sends our citizens off to die in unjust wars so elite people who would never send their kid to war can bank on the financial gains of war.
You are indeed a free rider. A free rider that not only whimsically chastizes the brave young men and women that volunteer to do your part but appears to negate the valuue of that service. That value that alllows you to serve your country by accepting student loans and grants, medical and social services and other entitlements, I strongly suspect, you willingly accept as do other like thinking people of the entitlement crowd.
You don't have to pick up a gun there are indeed many ways to serve your country in the military. The fact is it would be a tremendous benifit, more of a benifit to you than to your country if all young men and women in the country were conscripted to serve. They would then learn that life is more than just about them and their narcissistice needs, wants, and desires.
I think that today many young people do not get beyond the concept of those shallow marshmallow narcissitic credes, doctrines and mores learned from bad parenting, superficial schools and secular indoctrinated lives. These people need to be reprogrammed. the best way to do that and preserve this nation is that they be conscripted and reprogrammed. It would be good for them and good for the country. They are otherwise destined and doomed to be lost soules and a bal and chain on this country.
Who are these elite people you speak of that are not sending their kids off to war and belong to this nebulous military industrial complex you speak about? This is simply one large and oderous brain fart perpetrated by the superficial pseudointellectual crowd used to advocate the free ride concept and dismiss responsibility. Another myth regarding a centralized think tank that steers the directin of the greatest country in the world. The military industrial complex is just that, a complex freely evolving mandate of the surviva of a free economy and a free people.
We have one the USSR has one, England, France, just about everyone has one, except those that die in masses at the hands of barbarians that were not afforded protection to the "free riders" by the bravest and best within their societies. They only thought the ride was free and now they are either dead or slaves.
Thank you for the opportunity to debunk more left wing mythology.
First of all,peace?Every war in U.S. history after the civil war up to the gulf wars are 100% democrat owned.
Prosperity?How?By using that gun or sword on net tax producers to buy votes from net tax consumers?
You want to talk about acceptance?It took a Republican president to desegregate the military and Republican judges forced integration in the south while card carrying Democrats spat on 6 year old little girls who were just trying to go to school.Or how racist is it that liberals don't think black folks can make it on their own without the white liberals telling them what to do.
And if the media is so "right wing" then why did the left dominate Washington from the time radio was invented right up untill the year before windows 95 was released...hmmmm.The idle rich and giant corporations have always supported the Democrat party as a means to avoid the risk of competition from small business who historically have been represented by the Republican party.
So there you have it.Any questions?This is too easy!
Thank you for the opportunity to debunk more left wing mythology.
First of all,peace?Every war in U.S. history after the civil war up to the gulf wars are 100% democrat owned. You leave out the fact that Republican Presidents continued those wars and in many cases upped the pace. Which of those many wars would you say should not have fought, WWI. WWII, Korea, Vietnam. I notice you stop at the Gulf war, is that because it was under a Republican President? What about Panama, what about Granada, what about Afganistan and Iraq, looks like the Republicans are no more peace loving than the Democrats.
Prosperity?How?By using that gun or sword on net tax producers to buy votes from net tax consumers? So tell us which social programs you would like to cut, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare, school lunches, public schools, our highway system,.....
You want to talk about acceptance?It took a Republican president to desegregate the military and Republican judges forced integration in the south while card carrying Democrats spat on 6 year old little girls who were just trying to go to school.Or how racist is it that liberals don't think black folks can make it on their own without the white liberals telling them what to do. So why is that it was Kennedy that was at odds with the racists, believe he was a Demo not a Repub. Why is it the Repubs cannot attract more than a handful of black voters, is it because all people of color are on welfare since we know this is untrue by a long shot? I hear that statement made by righties from time to time, funny thing is I have never heard any Demos make any such statements,
And if the media is so "right wing" then why did the left dominate Washington from the time radio was invented right up untill the year before windows 95 was released...hmmmm. Simple answer, it is because more Liberals tend to major in the field, hence they will naturally dominate the field. Yes, there is a slant to much of the reporting out there, but it is usually not so much that the facts are not presented. There are some that go too far in their slanting of the news, FOX is an example of the extreme slanted in the other direction. A thinking person willl get their information from a wide range of sources, since they understand that by sticking with just one or two sources they are shortchanging themselves of the entire picture. The idle rich and giant corporations have always supported the Democrat party as a means to avoid the risk of competition from small business who historically have been represented by the Republican party. Once again, you are partially right, there are big businesses that support the Demos, but labor also tends to support them, so they must be doing something right. You fail to mention that the a large number of big businesses out there support the Repubs and not the Demos. Heck Big Businesses love the Repubs, since they get tax breaks and federal money projects even though they have plenty of money themselves. Why is we pay oil companies to look for oil, why is we cut roads into national forests so that logging companies can go in and harvest the trees for their own profit, why is we pat large companies to help in our efforts in places such as Iraq and fail to get an accounting of how the money is used?
So there you have it.Any questions?This is too easy!
As you can see I have several questions, we will see how easy it is for you to answer them.
Casper
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.
. Just like you have. The audacity of wanting to be something more- Right?
