Tolerant and broad minded I think not. Maybe the ideal liberal would be but in real life I never see it.Marconius wrote:
lib•er•al
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
there are alternatives.......independant and libratarian to name 2........atlvolunteer wrote:
How about: They both suck! Too bad there is no viable third alternative...
the thing is by Marconius' own admission he is a liberal.....which is simular to socialist/communist..( which he also admits he doesn't have a problem with ).......and those ideals are against what America stands for.......period.
But he is welcome to try and change his country like Rosa Parks did, She had a tuffer row to hoe I suspect.lowing wrote:
there are alternatives.......independant and libratarian to name 2........atlvolunteer wrote:
How about: They both suck! Too bad there is no viable third alternative...
the thing is by Marconius' own admission he is a liberal.....which is simular to socialist/communist..( which he also admits he doesn't have a problem with ).......and those ideals are against what America stands for.......period.
We are all cool with that. Are we not?
Of course me and you will try and stop him from tinkering with a " Tried and True " system.
This may be a little less contentious than the dictionary.Wikipedia wrote:
Liberalism is an ideology, philosophy, and political tradition which holds liberty as the primary political value.[1] Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government, wealth, and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed. In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy in the form of either a republic or a constitutional monarchy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed[2]. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. In many countries, modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over freedom from taxation. Liberalism has it roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought, with adherents spanning a large part of the political spectrum, from left to right. In the context of economics, the term "liberalism" refers to economic liberalism.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
well Marconius and others like him have already bared their asses as to what modern liberalism is all about. It is about big govt. and taking from the wealthy (who worked for it)and distributing it equally amoungst the classes ( who didn't work for it) so nobody has more than anyone else........And not recognize that all these wealthy folks are the ones that invest in America and provide jobs for others.........I myself am a middle class worker with a middle class life
I said no viable alternative. I would love to see the libertarian party gain some power in Washington, but, as it stands, they do not.lowing wrote:
there are alternatives.......independant and libratarian to name 2........atlvolunteer wrote:
How about: They both suck! Too bad there is no viable third alternative...
the thing is by Marconius' own admission he is a liberal.....which is simular to socialist/communist..( which he also admits he doesn't have a problem with ).......and those ideals are against what America stands for.......period.
Last edited by atlvolunteer (2006-04-01 06:08:55)
yes me to. do you listen to neal boortz?.........he is my heroatlvolunteer wrote:
I said no viable alternative. I would love to see the libertarian party gain some power in Washington, but, as it stands, they do not.lowing wrote:
there are alternatives.......independant and libratarian to name 2........atlvolunteer wrote:
How about: They both suck! Too bad there is no viable third alternative...
the thing is by Marconius' own admission he is a liberal.....which is simular to socialist/communist..( which he also admits he doesn't have a problem with ).......and those ideals are against what America stands for.......period.
Last edited by lowing (2006-04-01 06:32:38)
It's really interesting to read through all this.
My stance on the subject: Liberals and conservatives are both essencial characteristics for a successful community, and there is no point in arguing which party is "right" or not. The computer upgrade analogy was great. You always need to try new ways to improve the machine but you can't do that at the expense of risking certain elements (your BIOS for example). The real danger isn't about which side is right or wrong, but rather when one side becomes too dominant. One of the important functions of government (our admins) is to moderate that balance, and make sure high rankers aren't stacking up on the noobs, who are all trapped on the Essex. So in a nutshell, I guess I'm Moderate/Centrist.
What he's talking about is leveling out the playing field so the less fortunate have a fair shot at life. EXAMPLE. You join a game of BF2 and one team is already base raping the other. This sucks does it not? Are you willing to say, it's okay for them to kill me over and over, they worked for it! It may be permissible in a game, but real life is a bit different. This is where government needs to kick in and moderate the situation. It's about creating opportunities. This is a completely different concept from taking cash from the rich and distributing it to everyone while hoping they spend it wisely.
My stance on the subject: Liberals and conservatives are both essencial characteristics for a successful community, and there is no point in arguing which party is "right" or not. The computer upgrade analogy was great. You always need to try new ways to improve the machine but you can't do that at the expense of risking certain elements (your BIOS for example). The real danger isn't about which side is right or wrong, but rather when one side becomes too dominant. One of the important functions of government (our admins) is to moderate that balance, and make sure high rankers aren't stacking up on the noobs, who are all trapped on the Essex. So in a nutshell, I guess I'm Moderate/Centrist.
Way to twist his words lowing. Nothing Marconius has said suggests "taking from the wealthy (who worked for it)and distributing it equally amongst the classes ( who didn't work for it)". First of all, you're making an ugly generalization of the classes. Nothing constructive comes out of that attitude. Of course what you said wouldn't work.lowing wrote:
well Marconius and others like him have already bared their asses as to what modern liberalism is all about. It is about big govt. and taking from the wealthy (who worked for it)and distributing it equally amoungst the classes ( who didn't work for it) so nobody has more than anyone else........And not recognize that all these wealthy folks are the ones that invest in America and provide jobs for others.........I myself am a middle class worker with a middle class life
What he's talking about is leveling out the playing field so the less fortunate have a fair shot at life. EXAMPLE. You join a game of BF2 and one team is already base raping the other. This sucks does it not? Are you willing to say, it's okay for them to kill me over and over, they worked for it! It may be permissible in a game, but real life is a bit different. This is where government needs to kick in and moderate the situation. It's about creating opportunities. This is a completely different concept from taking cash from the rich and distributing it to everyone while hoping they spend it wisely.
Read the name of this sub-forum again. Thanks.atlvolunteer wrote:
How about: They both suck! Too bad there is no viable third alternative...
It is sad that you can not come up with a realistic analogy to defend Marconius and his views. Although using a fantasy game like BF2 to try and compare with real life issues seems to fit the liberal theme.tF-afrojap wrote:
It's really interesting to read through all this.
My stance on the subject: Liberals and conservatives are both essencial characteristics for a successful community, and there is no point in arguing which party is "right" or not. The computer upgrade analogy was great. You always need to try new ways to improve the machine but you can't do that at the expense of risking certain elements (your BIOS for example). The real danger isn't about which side is right or wrong, but rather when one side becomes too dominant. One of the important functions of government (our admins) is to moderate that balance, and make sure high rankers aren't stacking up on the noobs, who are all trapped on the Essex. So in a nutshell, I guess I'm Moderate/Centrist.Way to twist his words lowing. Nothing Marconius has said suggests "taking from the wealthy (who worked for it)and distributing it equally amongst the classes ( who didn't work for it)". First of all, you're making an ugly generalization of the classes. Nothing constructive comes out of that attitude. Of course what you said wouldn't work.lowing wrote:
well Marconius and others like him have already bared their asses as to what modern liberalism is all about. It is about big govt. and taking from the wealthy (who worked for it)and distributing it equally amoungst the classes ( who didn't work for it) so nobody has more than anyone else........And not recognize that all these wealthy folks are the ones that invest in America and provide jobs for others.........I myself am a middle class worker with a middle class life
What he's talking about is leveling out the playing field so the less fortunate have a fair shot at life. EXAMPLE. You join a game of BF2 and one team is already base raping the other. This sucks does it not? Are you willing to say, it's okay for them to kill me over and over, they worked for it! It may be permissible in a game, but real life is a bit different. This is where government needs to kick in and moderate the situation. It's about creating opportunities. This is a completely different concept from taking cash from the rich and distributing it to everyone while hoping they spend it wisely.Read the name of this sub-forum again. Thanks.atlvolunteer wrote:
How about: They both suck! Too bad there is no viable third alternative...
As far as twisting his words to prove my point how about I go ahead and quote the boy for you...then you can draw your own conclusions as to what he said.
Marconius wrote:
so•cial•ism
noun
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
An economic system based on State ownership of capital.
I find no problems at all with Socialism.
com•mu•nism
noun
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
A form of socialism that abolishes private ownership. A political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society.
Now please tell me how I twisted anything.........what I said above that you accuse me of "twisting" is exactly what he supports. and apparently you to.
the very fact that you are an American in America gives you the EQUAL opportunity to be a success........it is your privalige to suceed or fail at your leisure.
I will also add ..........I don't give 2 flyin' fucks what Marconius believes in, that is his right, As long as it is understood that what he believes is anti-American.
Last edited by lowing (2006-04-01 08:25:02)
Yeah, I listen to him almost every morning on the way to work. He's great.lowing wrote:
yes me to. do you listen to neal boortz?.........he is my hero
I find no problems at all with Buddhism. Does that make me a Buddhist? Or just open minded? Besides which, unless I am very much mistaken, I do not think Marconius was advocating that every one of us go and give all our money away to the poor. Rather, I think he was saying that the government is going to take 1/3 of our money anyway, and they might think about using some of that on social welfare programs, instead of subsidizing large corporations that probably dont need it. Frankly, I dont see the problem with that.lowing wrote:
you are absolutely correct, liberals want what is best for our citizens, they just think the achievers should pave the way to prosperity for the non-achievers. That big govt. in control over our lives is the answer. the problem with this is..............that simply isn't what America or being and American is about.Skruples wrote:
I refuse to get sucked into this thread the same way I've been sucked into the religious debate one, but I'd like to say I agree with Marconius' assessment of the parties in general terms. However, one cannot apply that label across the board, because there will be exceptions, and I do not agree with Marconius about everything he said.
I also find it amusing that a few (not all) of the people he's been arguing with have trouble with basic punctuation and spelling words correctly. For what it's worth Marconius, based on your posts, you're one of the most intelligent people I've seen in this section of the forums, and thats coming from a Mensan.
And finally, I cannot understand why there is so much hostility towards the left. I've seen accusations of trying to sell out our troops, of being communist, and it's ridiculous. Liberals want the best for America the same way Conservatives do, we just disagree on what the best is. 'Selling out our troops' is not the same thing as not wanting our troops in a warzone. Social welfare programs are not the same thing as 'communism'. These absurd generalizations are doing nothing but creating an atmosphere of enmity that is not needed in this country.
" com•mu•nism
noun
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members."
A form of socialism that abolishes private ownership. A political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society."
"I find no problems at all with Socialism. "
The above are a couple of Marconius' orginal quotes taken from an earlier post................If you all agree with this bullshit then you are about as anti-American as it gets just as he is.
And you can call me unamerican all you like, it won't actually make me any less American.
I was hoping you would be clever enough to see through my gamer-friendly analogies.. apparently I failed.
taking from the wealthy (who worked for it)and distributing it equally amoungst the classes ( who didn't work for it)
By twisting his words I’m obviously I’m referring to what you say within the apprentices. If that’s your own addition to what Marconius said it needs to be stated clearly. Come back to this thread after taking basic debate 101. I’m going to go ahead and stop right there as I don’t see this argument with you getting any productive.
You’re joking right? Yes, let’s completely ignore the inequities between classes, race, sex which exist in America today. I’m not saying that those injustices will ever go away, but to ignore them is just ignorant dude.lowing wrote:
the very fact that you are an American in America gives you the EQUAL opportunity to be a success........it is your privalige to suceed or fail at your leisure.
taking from the wealthy (who worked for it)and distributing it equally amoungst the classes ( who didn't work for it)
By twisting his words I’m obviously I’m referring to what you say within the apprentices. If that’s your own addition to what Marconius said it needs to be stated clearly. Come back to this thread after taking basic debate 101. I’m going to go ahead and stop right there as I don’t see this argument with you getting any productive.
No on the contrary, your buddist comment was a pretty good response, however, the only problem with that defense is ..........the following exchange.....Skruples wrote:
I find no problems at all with Buddhism. Does that make me a Buddhist? Or just open minded? Besides which, unless I am very much mistaken, I do not think Marconius was advocating that every one of us go and give all our money away to the poor. Rather, I think he was saying that the government is going to take 1/3 of our money anyway, and they might think about using some of that on social welfare programs, instead of subsidizing large corporations that probably dont need it. Frankly, I dont see the problem with that.lowing wrote:
you are absolutely correct, liberals want what is best for our citizens, they just think the achievers should pave the way to prosperity for the non-achievers. That big govt. in control over our lives is the answer. the problem with this is..............that simply isn't what America or being and American is about.Skruples wrote:
I refuse to get sucked into this thread the same way I've been sucked into the religious debate one, but I'd like to say I agree with Marconius' assessment of the parties in general terms. However, one cannot apply that label across the board, because there will be exceptions, and I do not agree with Marconius about everything he said.
I also find it amusing that a few (not all) of the people he's been arguing with have trouble with basic punctuation and spelling words correctly. For what it's worth Marconius, based on your posts, you're one of the most intelligent people I've seen in this section of the forums, and thats coming from a Mensan.
And finally, I cannot understand why there is so much hostility towards the left. I've seen accusations of trying to sell out our troops, of being communist, and it's ridiculous. Liberals want the best for America the same way Conservatives do, we just disagree on what the best is. 'Selling out our troops' is not the same thing as not wanting our troops in a warzone. Social welfare programs are not the same thing as 'communism'. These absurd generalizations are doing nothing but creating an atmosphere of enmity that is not needed in this country.
" com•mu•nism
noun
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members."
A form of socialism that abolishes private ownership. A political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society."
"I find no problems at all with Socialism. "
The above are a couple of Marconius' orginal quotes taken from an earlier post................If you all agree with this bullshit then you are about as anti-American as it gets just as he is.
And you can call me unamerican all you like, it won't actually make me any less American.
Well said. So are you a liberal by self definition Marconius?
Yeah, I am. Here's where I'd be on my little illustration:
<Radical-----Liberal-V----Moderate/Centrist-----Conservative-----Reactionary>
Marconius admits to being a "buddist".
And by the definitions given, what I claim, IS EXACTLY what he thinks should happen. Unless of course he starts to back pedal ..........again
Last edited by lowing (2006-04-01 19:01:52)
One of the many things Liberals strongly desire is an "Equality of Outcome "lowing wrote:
well Marconius and others like him have already bared their asses as to what modern liberalism is all about. It is about big govt. and taking from the wealthy (who worked for it)and distributing it equally amoungst the classes ( who didn't work for it) so nobody has more than anyone else........And not recognize that all these wealthy folks are the ones that invest in America and provide jobs for others.........I myself am a middle class worker with a middle class life
A leveling of all. Everyone has exactly the same.
One of the many things Conservatives want is an "Equality of Opportunity "
Everyone is given the Exact same Opportunity.
This is the biggest chasm between the two schools of thought.
Draw your own conclusions.
ps
You may notice The Liberal "Tells you what to think "
The conservative says "Draw your own conclusions "
Which would you want as a Parent, Teacher, neighbor, friend, politician etc.
I have to say I'm of the opinion that what you have written is Total Bollocks. Do I now have to get a pointy hat an bow and arrow, and go round robbing the rich and giving to the poor to support freedom and basic satisfaction of human rights?Horseman 77 wrote:
One of the many things Liberals strongly desire is an "Equality of Outcome "lowing wrote:
well Marconius and others like him have already bared their asses as to what modern liberalism is all about. It is about big govt. and taking from the wealthy (who worked for it)and distributing it equally amoungst the classes ( who didn't work for it) so nobody has more than anyone else........And not recognize that all these wealthy folks are the ones that invest in America and provide jobs for others.........I myself am a middle class worker with a middle class life
A leveling of all. Everyone has exactly the same.
One of the many things Conservatives want is an "Equality of Opportunity "
Everyone is given the Exact same Opportunity.
This is the biggest chasm between the two schools of thought.
Draw your own conclusions.
ps
You may notice The Liberal "Tells you what to think "
The conservative says "Draw your own conclusions "
Which would you want as a Parent, Teacher, neighbor, friend, politician etc.
please don't tell me that you think being conservative in America means you are robbing Americans of their freedom and basic human rights. Quite the contrary.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
I have to say I'm of the opinion that what you have written is Total Bollocks. Do I now have to get a pointy hat an bow and arrow, and go round robbing the rich and giving to the poor to support freedom and basic satisfaction of human rights?Horseman 77 wrote:
One of the many things Liberals strongly desire is an "Equality of Outcome "lowing wrote:
well Marconius and others like him have already bared their asses as to what modern liberalism is all about. It is about big govt. and taking from the wealthy (who worked for it)and distributing it equally amoungst the classes ( who didn't work for it) so nobody has more than anyone else........And not recognize that all these wealthy folks are the ones that invest in America and provide jobs for others.........I myself am a middle class worker with a middle class life
A leveling of all. Everyone has exactly the same.
One of the many things Conservatives want is an "Equality of Opportunity "
Everyone is given the Exact same Opportunity.
This is the biggest chasm between the two schools of thought.
Draw your own conclusions.
ps
You may notice The Liberal "Tells you what to think "
The conservative says "Draw your own conclusions "
Which would you want as a Parent, Teacher, neighbor, friend, politician etc.
Liberals believe in big government, they want the people relying on them for all needs and services.
Conservatives believe in limited govt. control, they only want the govt. to provide the freedom to succeed or fail on our own.
"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country." JFK.....and HE was a Democrat....I doubt he would be a democrat in todays political arena.
What is on the liberal agenda that actually has the PEOPLE looking out for their own personal interests instead of the govt.? Todays liberal, like it or not, is a socialist/communist.
Last edited by lowing (2006-04-02 16:12:00)
Please, tell me where this equality of opportunity is. My father is middle class. I went to private schools, I had access to all the educational resources I could hope for. I am now a member of Mensa. How was my opportunity equal to that of someone who, say, was born into an *legal* immigrant family that can barely make ends meet. Who is forced to go to public schools that are desperately underfunded and understaffed. Who needs to get a job at the age of 15 to help put food on the table. Where is the equality?Horseman 77 wrote:
One of the many things Liberals strongly desire is an "Equality of Outcome "
A leveling of all. Everyone has exactly the same.
One of the many things Conservatives want is an "Equality of Opportunity "
Everyone is given the Exact same Opportunity.
I've seen alot of talk about how Conservatives are all about helping the individual succeed, and the Liberals are about making it so people dont have to succeed on their own. Give me a break. Spend a few days in the slums and then tell me why we dont need social reform in this country.
Well , I guess you need to ask yourself, why is that family barely making ends meat?. ever hear of student loans. or night school. It isn't the govt. fault that the head of that household hasn't done anything to make himself marketable in the work force. There are plenty of success stories out there about people who came from poor families and became successful .Skruples wrote:
Please, tell me where the equality of opportunity is? My father is middle class. I went to private schools, I had access to all the educational resources I could hope for. I am now a member of Mensa. How was my opportunity equal to that of someone who, say, was born into an *legal* immigrant family that can barely make ends meet. Who is forced to go to public schools that are desperately underfunded and understaffed. Who needs to get a job at the age of 15 to help put food on the table. Where is the equality?Horseman 77 wrote:
One of the many things Liberals strongly desire is an "Equality of Outcome "
A leveling of all. Everyone has exactly the same.
One of the many things Conservatives want is an "Equality of Opportunity "
Everyone is given the Exact same Opportunity.
I've seen alot of talk about how Conservatives are all about helping the individual succeed, and the Liberals are about making it so people dont have to succeed on their own. Give me a break. Spend a few days in the slums and then tell me why we dont need social reform in this country.
I am middle class, I am this because I didn't want to be in the lower class, I am also this because I didn't push myself hard enough to enter the upper class. I am responsible, nobody else.
Also let me ask ya.........why is there a couple having a family anyway if they can't support them? back to responsiblity for yourself and your own actions.......I don't want to pay for anyones lack of interest in doing something with their lives.
It's very easy to sit in judgement of others' perceived failures from afar. The simple fact is that life is not always so cut and dried. Going to night school does not always equal a nice job and stable life. Student loans can turn out to be nothing more than more debt. I have no doubt that there are many people out there who have come from nothing and made a life for themselves, but I also have no doubt that there are many more who could not. Contrary to popular belief, effort does not always bring success.
As for having children you cannot support, I really, really don't want to bring religion into this, but there are many that believe contraception is a sin, and still like to have sex with their spouse once in a while. Having a child is not always a choice.
As for having children you cannot support, I really, really don't want to bring religion into this, but there are many that believe contraception is a sin, and still like to have sex with their spouse once in a while. Having a child is not always a choice.
It's not like the government is going to institute a 'poor tax', and take half your paycheck to support those shiftless losers that cant be bothered to get a job. The government already takes 1/3 of your money, its what they do with it that matters.lowing wrote:
I don't want to pay for anyones lack of interest in doing something with their lives.
My father was a scum. I have spent my time in poor areas. Dont even ask about it. I didn't get free housing and then destroy it however. I wont call where I lived a slum because I didn't defacate in the Halls or deface and vandalize it. My lucky breaks and advantages were working long hard hours. When I had no money I read books for entertaiment. I avoided drugs. I wore a Ruber becuase I knew I couldn't affored to start a family. They can too. I did it all by myself. We all have the same oppertunities.Skruples wrote:
Please, tell me where this equality of opportunity is. My father is middle class. I went to private schools, I had access to all the educational resources I could hope for. I am now a member of Mensa. How was my opportunity equal to that of someone who, say, was born into an *legal* immigrant family that can barely make ends meet. Who is forced to go to public schools that are desperately underfunded and understaffed. Who needs to get a job at the age of 15 to help put food on the table. Where is the equality?Horseman 77 wrote:
One of the many things Liberals strongly desire is an "Equality of Outcome "
A leveling of all. Everyone has exactly the same.
One of the many things Conservatives want is an "Equality of Opportunity "
Everyone is given the Exact same Opportunity.
I've seen alot of talk about how Conservatives are all about helping the individual succeed, and the Liberals are about making it so people dont have to succeed on their own. Give me a break. Spend a few days in the slums and then tell me why we dont need social reform in this country.
Should your father have be penalized becuase mine couldnt meet his responsibilities?
Dont try and bullshit me, I have been there.
" I am now a member of Mensa " What is this? I showed my GF who seems to know everything, and she just started laughing.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-04-02 17:24:17)
I'm not trying to say there arent losers out there who have squandered every opportunity, who have taken the proverbial lemons and left them to rot. I'm saying there are those that have tried to use those opportunities and still not succeeded. I am happy that you have bettered your life, and I'm not trying to say that people who have done so aren't deserving of respect. All I am saying is that life is not fair for all people, and the government should take some responsibility for helping those that get the short straw.
As for one man being penalized for anothers failures, I have already said that noone would be penalized any more than they already are. Everyone has to pay taxes, this is a fact of American life. Its what the government chooses to spend that tax money on that is at stake here, not whether we should all be forced to split our money with the poor. Frankly, I'd rather my tax money was spent on making public schools better than helping to pay for another piece of military equipment that probably won't ever be used. If you think that I'm advocating that the rich should pay the way for the poor, you are again mistaken. I don't want to give my money away any more than you do.
As for 'what is Mensa', if you are asking what it is, a simple web search will tell you. If you were asking why I mentioned it, it was to illustrate that I, and other people, have been given advantages that not everyone has. I'm merely trying to point out that the playing field is not equal as many would like to believe. Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant. And I'm happy that I could bring your girlfriend some amusement, humor is a wonderful thing.
As for one man being penalized for anothers failures, I have already said that noone would be penalized any more than they already are. Everyone has to pay taxes, this is a fact of American life. Its what the government chooses to spend that tax money on that is at stake here, not whether we should all be forced to split our money with the poor. Frankly, I'd rather my tax money was spent on making public schools better than helping to pay for another piece of military equipment that probably won't ever be used. If you think that I'm advocating that the rich should pay the way for the poor, you are again mistaken. I don't want to give my money away any more than you do.
As for 'what is Mensa', if you are asking what it is, a simple web search will tell you. If you were asking why I mentioned it, it was to illustrate that I, and other people, have been given advantages that not everyone has. I'm merely trying to point out that the playing field is not equal as many would like to believe. Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant. And I'm happy that I could bring your girlfriend some amusement, humor is a wonderful thing.
how about the govt give me my social security back so I can invest it where I see fit instead of the govt. keeping it to distribute?Skruples wrote:
It's very easy to sit in judgement of others' perceived failures from afar. The simple fact is that life is not always so cut and dried. Going to night school does not always equal a nice job and stable life. Student loans can turn out to be nothing more than more debt. I have no doubt that there are many people out there who have come from nothing and made a life for themselves, but I also have no doubt that there are many more who could not. Contrary to popular belief, effort does not always bring success.
As for having children you cannot support, I really, really don't want to bring religion into this, but there are many that believe contraception is a sin, and still like to have sex with their spouse once in a while. Having a child is not always a choice.It's not like the government is going to institute a 'poor tax', and take half your paycheck to support those shiftless losers that cant be bothered to get a job. The government already takes 1/3 of your money, its what they do with it that matters.lowing wrote:
I don't want to pay for anyones lack of interest in doing something with their lives.
You may notice I didn't say "Republican's Providing Social Equality for over two hundred years ! "
" or Liberals Hit my dolly Waaaaa! "
I said " desire " ... " Want "
One of the many things Liberals strongly desire is an "Equality of Outcome "
A leveling of all. Everyone has exactly the same.
One of the many things Conservatives want is an "Equality of Opportunity "
Everyone is given the Exact same Opportunity.
This is the biggest chasm between the two schools of thought.
Draw your own conclusions.
" or Liberals Hit my dolly Waaaaa! "
I said " desire " ... " Want "
One of the many things Liberals strongly desire is an "Equality of Outcome "
A leveling of all. Everyone has exactly the same.
One of the many things Conservatives want is an "Equality of Opportunity "
Everyone is given the Exact same Opportunity.
This is the biggest chasm between the two schools of thought.
Draw your own conclusions.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-04-02 19:53:22)
Today's conservative is, like it or not, a totalitarianist/facist.lowing wrote:
What is on the liberal agenda that actually has the PEOPLE looking out for their own personal interests instead of the govt.? Todays liberal, like it or not, is a socialist/communist.
uh huh......I noticed you didn't answer my question......and....you didn't deny my claim.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Today's conservative is, like it or not, a totalitarianist/facist.lowing wrote:
What is on the liberal agenda that actually has the PEOPLE looking out for their own personal interests instead of the govt.? Todays liberal, like it or not, is a socialist/communist.
you are wrong about being a totalitarian state ( might wanna try looking it up )
and as a fascist state, maybe 40 years ago before civil rights, but no longer.
liberism of today, unfortunatlely, fits the exact definition of socialism or communism. If it doesn't, please show me on what is on the liberal agenda that doesn't apply to this form of govt. I dare ya.