Liberalism and why I despise it

I don't support disarmament. And I'm farther left than liberal.

 

I know a lot of hard core Liberals.....none of which support dissarment. It's right wing propoganda being repeated by passionate people with good intensions.

But with STP, it's particularly annoying considering how much he talks about "truth" and the 2 party divide and conquer stuff.

Hypocracy. It comes from both sides, illustrated so in every thread in which Bal and STP "debate"

 

I know Liberals too, that DO support disarmament, and even if they don't support totally taking guns, most Liberals believe in Gun Control. And not like it matters, but I was talking to Balbus who DOES support disarmament and only government having weapons, so idk where you come off coming in here and being an asshole to me, when I've blamed republicans just as much as democrats/Liberals!

And you're saying that I'm lying and part of the 2 party system. You couldn't be more wrong. It's the continuation of government which is morally unjustified, and allows the constant corporate bribes and, only continues the system we're in. My system changes it- but we can't use government for everything from cradle to grave.

That is a negotiation for people like Balbus, and, possibly you. But, it will collectively make the country (and the world better,) because, the government has far overstepped it's bounds.



It's very rude for you to come here insulting me like you even know who I am, when my views are based off of the real problems we face, and work to fix it. I'm working against the corruption of government- which, is much better than causing more taxes and force.

i don't lie, and it pisses me off when I'm accused of lying when all the information I give is readily available. The government does some horrible things- if you don't believe me, that doesn't mean I'm lying.

And scratcho said "/I dont support disarmament" but, stricter guns laws are just as bad.

Liberals do support government force, because they don't care when Obama Violates the Constitution and, in other ways they accept government force in exchange for safety and welfare spending.

I'm not the hypocrite, and it was very short-sighted for you to insinuate so, when we've hardly even ever conversed.

 

Sorry but no, you havent. You make statements like that, and then go on a page long tirade against Liberals. But when you speak out against all liberals, you're only really talking about the Obama administration and it's stereotypical supporters.

I didn't say that. I said you're falling in line with their 'divide and conquer' methodology. You blast liberals left and right with some truth yes, but also with exaggerations, myths, unsubstantiated claims, propoganda, and lies. As I said, it's counterproductive. There are plenty of things to get upset over without using made up bullshit right wing propoganda.

I'm not exactly sure of what you mean by "continuation of government" but I don't disagree with your system. We agree on most things when it comes to policy.

I don't know what the first part means but I agree with the second.

It's very rude of you to blast all liberals, label them as evil, etc. When you really don't know shit about them.

Then you start again with your strawman, creating disagreement where non exists.

Yes, the government does some horrible things. But that doesn't mean everything you see on Fox News is true. I caught you in two lies yesterday in this thread alone, about the same damn topic. One of which you admitted to.

The problem with that, is that they are two separate things. When you equate the two it takes away your credibility and makes you look like a paranoid right wing nut case. "Dey derk ER gunz!"

Is this a required train of thought to enter the "Liberal Club of Losers"? Do they give you a test before you can join?

I disagree. We've engaged in many of the same discussions on these boards and I follow most, if not all, of the threads that you're active in. To be clear, I don't follow them because you post them but because we have similar political interests.

 

From Page 21;
I don't mean to only call out Liberals- Republicans are just as bad. But to me, both parties move in the way of more government control, more spending and, more force. This isn't just opinion, this is what the American government is. This is why I'm very weary of people telling me the government taking another billion dollars is going to help the everyday American, because we all know the system isn't set up that way.


Secondly, it's not just about obama- it's about the Liberal ideas of expanding government. There's plenty of Liberals who believe in these things, even if they claim they don't support force- when you look into their policies and what they want to change- they encourage greater government force and control.

Many of them also support Obama, or defend him taking away Human Rights.

I'm not blasting Liberals- I'm merely pointing out hypocrisies and things that dont add up, that I realized when I converted from liberalism.

They want more government, to take care of everyone, which will just keep the current system going. Of course they will say I'm lying about them- (I doubt if republicans would even admit they support force) But, both sides do, because they support government, and the government imposes force.

I'm just saying that Liberals and Republicans both want to continue this system of an all-knowing government that is above the law and human rights. Many wont say they support that, but that's the government we have that Liberals/republicans want to expand on.

Im not trying to insult anyone, but evidently people get insulted by the word "Liberal." I am telling the truth other than that, there is no propaganda- Liberals support a huge government which can "help" everyone.

Even though they only want humanitarian spending, they're also expanding the same government that commits all this treason.

And there's some Liberals who still support Obama and his polcies (which has been a nightmare)

I was saying for some people my views are a negotiation; We're finally free from government force, but, we would no longer have all these wasteful government programs.

Balbus and other Liberals typically act like the sky would fall.

I've never called a liberal "Evil;" idk where you even got that from. I'm ot talking about Liberals as people- I couldn't possibly know all of them.

I'm talking about hypocrisies in their views and, their allowance of government force. To say I'm making it up is insane. There are people I've met right here on this site, who hate Bush and the Patriot Act yet, wont even talk about Obama or the NDAA.

There are Liberals who support Population control, communism, gun control and, total government power. I've not heard a peep about any of Obama's constitutional violations from any Liberals, except Eggsprog who (for a very limited time) cared about the 16 year old Obama killed.

That wasn't a lie, it was a typo. First of all- Secondly, Social Security is still stockpiling weapons, the fact that it was a little less ammo does not change the subject or the purpose of me talking about it.

And what was the other "lie"? You're so full of crap, cause I don't lie. It was a typo, but still pertaining to the fact that Liberals say nothing about government killing people with plastic death machines- it's only bad when a Republican does it.

The second Amendment clearly states "Shall not be infringed." This means AT ALL. Liberals want to make sure (god forbid) troops with PTSD, people with depression/manic depression don't get guns, and this another way of infringing the Constitution.

There is no room to negotiate on freedom. We either have freedom, or, we don't.

You have to think taxing the rich more and expanding wasteful government programs substantially, is going to fix all of our problems- and never second guess it...

Well, I think you're being rude for someone who has read this topic and others I post at. I would think someone on neither side could see that I always try to keep these conversations civil, until someone pops in and starts insulting me because they don't like my opinion.

Sadly, what I say about Liberals is true, and I know this because Ive been here interacting with them for 2 years, reading their stories of how society would crumble without government, and "debating" with people who gang up on people and insult them and their views, in place of having a civil conversation.


There are times when I don't mention Liberals at all, and, I get the same reaction you just gave, where people would flip out and say Im always insulting liberals, when I didnt even mention them.

I'd rather converse in a civilized manor, but that's never the reaction I get, even if I am polite.

All I'm doing is talking about Government force, which Liberals and Republicans both inadvertently support.

So idk where you come off thinking that I'm using (of course) RIGHT wing propaganda. (because you guys automatically throw me to the right side)


I believe in Human Rights (which used to be a liberal belief.) You act like not a lot of Liberals support Obama- but, hardly any of them fight his Constitutional violations so...

I know Fox is biased- but so is ABC,CNN and, MSNBC; All Liberal biases.

I get my news from different sources and believe what I do due to the utter failure of our Government. So, there's nothing else I can say.

There's a lot of hypocrisy in supporting the government. I'm not hypocritical and I don't lie. The lies are on the TV and pushed through government. Liberalism is wrapped in these lies- the biggest being that their ideals "help" people.

No one will have been "helped" when the government spies on every other word we utter, can restrict free speech or, even kill people. All these are things government has done, and will easily do again.

This is a government gone overboard, and whether you believe it or not, it's time to take their power away as opposed to perpetuating their power by putting trust in them, giving them a false sense of legitimacy.

 

Usually I find you a bit harsh, but I wholeheartedly agree with you here.

 

Pen

So you are thinking in terms of de facto 50 countries rather than one?

*

Let me see - are you saying that in your opinion segregation and corrupt voting practises were lesser evils than having Federal interference to try and stop it? That you would have preferred segregation go on indefinitely rather than have that?

You seem to be saying that to you segregation and all it entailed was legitimate and that if black people didn’t like it then they should move (and presumable if they don’t move then they must accept it).
How about out and out slavery would you still feel the same that the federal authorities should stay out of it and let it continue if that was the law of the State?

As to a boycott of goods that’s been in operation against Cuba for over 50 years and I know people that still don’t buy Israeli goods as a protest against the occupation of Palestinian land some 50 years ago. And South Africa thrived through most of the era of sanctions and beyond the propaganda value there are questions over whether the consumer boycott had any effect at all.

 

25

Again you don’t address the criticisms of your views – all you do is make the same old assertions and claim.

Still misdirection because you are still not addressing the things I have criticized.

An assertion that doesn’t address the outstanding criticisms of it

And even further off topic and the Magna Carta was an elites charter serving the interest of only a few I suppose in that you could say it was like the political system of the early US.

You have said “I agree with Liberals on social aspects like ending the drug war and, allowing gays to get married.” But that doesn’t address the criticisms that were presented.

You claimed that – “You, on the other hand, believe in total government control”

And I asked - But prove me wrong and point to where I say this.

I see you don’t, so you were lying (again).

Again you methodology seems to be assert rather than research

"Jefferson's dedication to "consent of the governed" was so thorough that he believed that individuals could not be morally bound by the actions of preceding generations. This included debts as well as law. He said that "no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation." He even calculated what he believed to be the proper cycle of legal revolution: "Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it is to be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

In fact many people have believed that the US constitution should have been re-written or dramatically altered.

Here is some historical background

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_newc.html

More assertions I told you before just telling me I’m wrong and you are right isn’t rational argument.

Again I already know your views can you please address the outstanding criticisms of them?

I (and others) have presented criticisms and you continually refuse to address those criticisms in any rational or reasonable way – to repeat assertion is not rational argument.

The founding - when only around 10% had the vote and slavery still flourished?

Do I?

Yes but you are not producing any counter arguments to what I’ve said beyond telling me you don’t like it and I’m wrong.

To repeat it is not about more or less

This is silly why do you keep putting up such obvious silliness?

But as I’ve explained at length and in detail I don’t support political systems that favours wealth or anyone to the detriment of society, but as I’ve also explained the ideas you present would seem to do so, criticisms you still refuse to address beyond telling me I’m wrong which to repeat is not a rational or reasonable argument.

 

thank you for pointing out the reasons i hate having these conversations...there is no slavery in the US anymore so try an example that actually matters to people now.

 

Pen

Can you answer the questions?

*

There was slavery in the US and there was segregation in the US and corrupt elections excluding black people.

With Federal intervention been involved in bring them to an end. Without that intervention they may have carried on a lot longer.

You seem to be implying that in your view Federal intervention was the greater ‘evil’, so could you please answer the question.

 

I did address your "criticisms" many time. I've said, you think my views help the rich. However, although we believe in capitalism, we punish those who are croney capitalists.

Liberals/Leftist tend to blame the Rich as one big anti-American group. It's not all of them dragging us into wars or dumping toxic waste. That's why we should punish companies who are hurting people, and violating laws through government support. I feel as though you don't believe such a web exists between corporations and governments worldwide- but that's a fallacy. Their power makes them targets of the most corrupt industries including Drug Cartels.


It's interesting to me that you Liberals are terrified of corporations, but not a government system that can execute or detain people indefinitely, who are guilty of nothing.

Even if you don't support these things, you're not going to change anything (for the better) by expanding government and taxing more. It makes much more sense to punish corporations who have made their living off the taxpayers back, and allow people to get rich if they have a great idea.


The America we live in now, one can't even sell lemonade without a business license and a lawyer to read 100,000 pages of regulations- and, this is due to the Liberals agenda. While Liberals believe all these insane regulations are for the "greater good" we have a government that controls what we eat, drink and, smoke. Liberals think that is (mostly) for the greater good.

I'm not saying Liberals are bad people, but when you support most of the system, you're essentially supporting all of it. Alot of people in America say "Congress should work together," without acknowledging that when they work together we get more war spending,more government, more programs and, more regulations. It's bureaucracy come to life.

I choose not to support the folly of infinite wealth, government 'security' and, unfettered governmental powers.

These things can easily lead to tyranny, and many Liberals/Obama supporters, brush it off, because it's for the "greater good"

it's funny, you love to talk about how the founders were uncaring elitist. Yet, it's those men that promised us our Human Rights and Freedom. The government now is trying to take those Rights away.

You seriously don't see anything wrong with bad talking our founders, while supporting the war mongers who spy on 75% of their own people?

The "criticism" you presented was that I don't want to spend tax money for these things, even if I support them. So? We're broke, I think it's important to save money. I also don't think it's the governments responsibility to pay for either of these things.

I was stating it as an opinion. To me, when you say no one should have guns but police, and we should rewrite the Constitution, give into UN world governance and, allow government to take over more social aspects of our lives- that sounds like total government control to me.

Especially since they're already spying on us, killing citizens, making restrictions on free speech, and making "Constitution Free" zones.
Looking at what they're already doing should be enough to turn any moral person away.

I've done a lot of research on what the government actually does. And how much do you do? Did you ever read the NDAA? Did you ever look into how it not only allowed for illegal detention of citizens, but also legalized war propaganda.

If you look at what the government is doing, it is setting the stage in which, the people are their enemy. They are spying on us, giving themselves authority to kill us/detain us, and has already made laws which can be construed to arrest people on a felony charge, for protesting.

This is America- The government is not truly higher than the combined power of the people.

My point is, that if our current government re-wrote the Constitution, they'd probably totally take away the Bill of Rights.

What are you even talking about? Your only argument is based on the fact that you believe government is good, and all corporations are evil. If you guys can't see through that narrow mind set, I can't help you.

Some corporations do bribe government, and those guys would be punished. Liberals wants to tax every rich person (and sometimes) every business person more, and that money only goes to government, who then spends trillions overseas and wastes most of it..


Idk What criticisms you're talking about, no Liberal here has said something I couldn't defend about my views.

The problem is that Liberals get angry and withdrawn because their whole belief structure is based off of government redistributing wealth. I'm just saying that if you support this, you're supporting the rest of it too because no doubt your 'liberal' politician or, your black democratic president is still signing a big-ass military check each year, expanding government, and working toward the agenda of the elite, where only they have money, due to government help. Taxing them more wont stop that- many time they're tax exempt anyway.

What a sad Liberal cop-out. Obviously, I don't support slavery; I meant the Rights that are above government control. Free speech, the Right to bear arms, the Right to a fair trial, etc etc.

You Leftists always gotta try to make us look like racists or "crazy guns nuts" just because you're too closed-minded to grasp the concept of people living freely together without force. The idea is that Businesses can't abuse government power, because the Government would be constitutionally adherent, and the company would be subject to bribery laws. It's a hell of a lot better than continuing what we have now.

Yes! you've stated you do, and have defended the UK's gun bans.

I have a counter argument that we don't need anymore centralized power, it only leads to corruption, abuse and, violence on a massive scale. 65 wars have broken out under the UN, and I believe they started the UN as a way of bullying little countries into our agenda.

The UN also does not allow for true freedom

Yes it is. It is when the government we have is: broke, corrupt, spying on us and, 17 trillion dollars in debt. PLus, every government program wastes money, and Liberals want government daycare. I mean, seriously. Even if it was about good or bad government, we still have a bad government, and throwing more tax money at them will solve virtually nothing. We need to drastically cut spending, and stupid regulations so small businesses can open and create jobs. This is basic economics.

You act like I'm lying about everything and don't look anything up, but it's a sad attempt to discredit me. A 10 year old girl could see how corrupt the government is with a visit to a New Site or two.

No, it's a perfectly valid argument in context. You want a system like London where no one can get guns merely for self defense. It is a but hypocritical that you don't think law-abiding citizens should own guns, but, you support agencies that don't even see action, walking around with guns loaded with hollow tip bullets.

I've explained many, many times; There are corporations who essentially control the government and our federal policies. Those are the guys causing trouble. And corporations who are harming people, or peoples property. I want these guys to be liable for their actions. That's a hell of a lot more than the current system does, and it is focused against the people who are using government to boost profits.

I don't blame all the rich for the actions of a few however, and I do believe capitalism is fairer than communism (or any other type of total government control.)

But, in the 60's when the government was tiny, even the working class lived like middle class. Today, working class individual usually end up impoverished, and I think the tax burdens have a lot to do with it.

So, We're not just bringing the poor up, we're bringing everyone else down substantially.Why should the working class who typically spend 12 hours a day or more in a factory, pay for a whole families food for the month, when they could've used that money, and rightfully earned it.

My problem with Liberalism is it pushes this false notion that everything is free and easy through government, and government is going to take care of everyone without abusing that power.

Plus, I just don't see taxing the rich more and placing more regulations to be the answer. When there's regulations on what trees you can, can't or must grow- the government is too big. People should be free to make any choice (that doesn't hurt anyone else) for themselves.

You don't understand my views because you don't see where Im coming from. This government is too corrupt, and both sides go in the same direction of more control while they spy on us, trample the constitution and, indoctrinate people through mainstream media.

Anyone who just scratches the surface of the lies, will find lie after lie after lie. And not only lies, but Violations of the Constitution, massive restrictions on freedom and, interventions abroad that were unconstitutional and motivated by businesses.


You want me to prove that my system works, but the only time we tried it, was in America. And the citizenry and ideals were still a little backward. Today, the people would know things like who's selling bad chicken etc. through the internet, and that's incentive enough for farmers to check their own food (most do anyway.) Corporations are not out to hurt you- they just want to sell their items, and give you a good service, so you come back. The only way corporations can hurt you, or interfere in your life, is through government. Otherwise, you can decide whether to support them or not.


But, when America was under a similar system-
Firstly, more people had jobs- and, those people were getting paid more than today. There was free trade, and people got very wealthy. Even the working class lived like middle class.

Weed was legal for a long time. As was morphine, and other drugs. (Lsd and others.) There was not a lot of serious problems from these occurences. Of course, some people do it over the top, but we cannot control an individuals choice.

Your argument is that my views helps the wealthy, I disagree strongly. I think it will help small business grow due to less taxes, wean people off of their dependency on the Federal Government and, stop the most corrupt business from continuing their illegal practices. I'm nipping it in the butt, instead of punishing people for doing well for themselves, I'd punish them for doing harm to the taxpayer, and that would be illegal. As I said; It's much better than what we have now, and a better explaination than taxing the rich more...

Plus, the government is becoming a Big problem for free individuals and our Human Rights, and you and other Liberals don't seem the least bit concerned about that stuff.

 

25

And every time you’ve claimed this I’ve asked you to present the evidence that you have done so in any rational or reasonable way and you have NEVER produced it.

And the reason why you haven’t is because it doesn’t seem to exist, but please prove me wrong and present it.

The rest of your post is the same old BS, you lie that I’ve said stuff that I haven’t, you make the same old assertions and repeat the same of tired accusations and you rant and you rant and you rant.

It’s so very boring.

Can you stop and debate honestly? Think before you type, address the criticisms already presented in a coherent and rational way and we might just be able to move this discussion forward, do you think you could do that?

 

your claims are unfounded, and have no logical basis.

I'm smart enough to realize you're never going to accept the truth. Even if it were right in front of your face.

Everything I mention like corporations running our government, and government wasting money and buying bullets is all readily available.

You refuse to hear anything outside of Liberalism. You're suffering from a classic case of "perception is reality."

And anyway, it's not like you care about Human Rights or any of the stuff I do, so I can't expect you to see what I see in it.

All the evidence is out there. I don't want to look it up, because you will either tell me you don't trust my source, or, you'll act like you heard nothing and still tell me to answer your criticisms.

I've debated you a few times, and that's all I've gotten.

But the fact that government works for corporations is common knowledge. Liberals don't address the problem by taxing the rich more. In fact, if you held Liberalism up to the standards that you have for my views- they'd never pass your criticisms.In fact, you Liberals haven't attempted to address or acknowledge my criticisms at all.

The only criticism that you have for me is that my views help the rich. I think the only reason they have that idea is due to "Reganomics" and Bush tax cuts, which are called "free market ideas," but, misses the point entirely.

These programs are based on giving the rich extensive tax cuts, so they can have money to hire employees etc. The problem with this, is that it only benefits the rich, and causes greater disparity on the middle class. My views help everyone, and cuts taxes for everyone, and it teaches us to live within our means.

It doesn't help the rich, because the filthy rich use government policy to boost their profits, and that would be illegal.

I'm getting sick of talking in circles with you. The worse corporations that cause harm, are one's who either work through government, or cause property damages, and sometimes bribe the government to ignore it, and grant them immunity (in some cases.)

This, is a disaster. So, by comparison, my views do take major steps in the Right direction, but you'll probably never see it, because you don't place due blame on the politicians who have ran this country into the ground to make profits.


The thing is, that we have ideological differences that wont be resolved, with or without my evidence and sources.

The only criticisms I know of yours is that you think my views would help the rich- and, Ive responded logically everytime, that it wouldn't and why that's a misconception.

You also criticized that I don't want it to cost taxpayer money for legal drugs or gay marriage. So what? The government is far too big, and anyone who see's that as a problem, should realize that expanding government for anything, is 2 steps back.

Therefore, come up with something new. This topic is about Liberalism, not Libertarianism. And I think I,Pressed Rat and, others have displayed many cases of hypocrisies in the Liberal ideology.

Instead of everyone just attacking me and making claims against my views, Why don't you defend your own against it's criticisms?

I raised many. Especially how Liberalism continues the Status Quo.

 

25

Another rant more assertions and evasions, oh and surprise no evidence produced that criticisms have been addressed.

BUT I notice you can’t produce anything to back that statement up.

As I guessed you can’t produce anything to back you up.

Again an assertion you don’t seem able to defend from the criticisms already raised against it.

So am I so can you please address the criticisms levelled at your ideas and stop all this evasion.

AGAIN I ASK – produce the evidence that you have address the criticisms in anything like a rational and reasonable way , because I’ve read the post and I can’t find it, you do assert over and over that you are right and anyone else is wrong but that is not rational argument.

 

25

I would call myself more of a leftie than a liberal but ...

Thing is that people have been addressing the criticisms levelled in the OP (posts 3 onward) and for example you list of assertions in post 82, (read post 84 onward).

But please if you think something has not been specifically addressed I’d be happy to take a look. Link to it or repost.

 

My view is that liberals are likeable. They need to despair in order to accept politics and even can without becoming politically correct. But it is liberalism which limits one to political correctness and remands the bad faith of faking or hiding despair from colleagues and clients alike.

Liberalism is all about having the dealt with distinguished from the dealers. Thus the message is mired in the medium for no one's deeper conscience.

 

Just so you know, the parts of this that actually approached coherence were flat-out wrong.

 

that would normally bother me being that it implies i missed something.
however i have said it before so its hard to argue with it.
anyway the new name is minimum wage.