Liberalism and why I despise it

Pensfan summed it up perfectly, so there is no need to repeat what he said. But since you cannot address his question, you're choosing to instead focus on me; a typical diversion tactic from you.

 

I gather you have both sides of the debate: global and counter global. I think the actual situation deserves a respect of Balbus's concepts for justified concrete worldly changes.

 

France does have a large immigrant population, I don't know how many are undocumented.

Personally I think America should collapse like any good dying empire and split into a few different smaller countries. I am in agreement that America is too large to have a successful government ran healthcare system, or successful anything for that matter at this point, but I also don't agree with the sentiment that socialist programs like universal healthcare can't work because they are working in other countries.

 

But the question is begged. Why is liberalism despisable? Too large is challenging and as much for Al Gore as for Lieberman is the reason of only realizing the formidable and scary task of resolving the nation's standards of judgment for humanity and being civil. The U.S. cannot just depend on it's constitution for plausible instruction to the science and humanity developed people.

Thus the problem is realized in risking people's interests of maybe a bad system of government. But I guess as Systems go for "energy" and "matter" the American runs with the best of them to solve the concepts of people both accepting and laying back from progress as it is.:2thumbsup:

 

Cool story bro

 

Rat

To repeat - I asked YOU -

What entitlement system are we talking about here?

What has size to do with it?

Pen does not answer either of those questions - he postulate that there are 13 million undocumented workers (how does he know the number if they are undocumented e.g. unrecorded) and that they may or may not be given medical coverage.

He asks if France has illegal immigrants (presumably his implication with undocumented) and the simple answer is yes it does.

So are you going to answer yourself?

 

The question is bagged.

 

Idk that, but, from your link...

These are probably just options they gave the people. But the man who became president, shouldve been a suspect. And, any of the bolded options could mean LBJ. Especially since George HW Bush was a CIA agent, and "couldn't remember" where he was during the murder, until someone told him he was at an airport, 30 mins away. There is also people who were really close to LBJ- who say, "LBJ couldn't stand being second"

And no, didn't watch "JFK" I watch Jesse Venturas episode about it and, other such documentaries.

It doesn't matter- getting together and disallowing media to discuss world policy, is against the Constitution and, the Logan Act.

I believe what ex-waitresses and hotel staff members, say go on in there. But, even if I didn't- it's not right for World Leaders and Elitest to discuss world policy, without any kind of aknowledgment of the people and the voters. It's not right any way you look at it, and should be stopped or televised. They're not gonna do that though, so they're obviously hiding something.

I'm talking about Foreign Aid- we give trillions of dollars, to places we're bombing, like Afganistan and Syrian Rebels, when, we need our money here at home.

Those rebels are decapitating innocent children- but, of course, the US government doesn't care, as long as we have a common enemy with them.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" bullshit.

 

First of all, I gave actual percentages, you're talking about conspiracies that don't have a whole lot of support, and is typically associated with "crazies"

Secondly, there are witnesses to the JFK murder that say there was a second shooter, behind the fence.They saw gunpowder floating up- and even chased the guy. Their testimony was not included in the official investigation (much like stories which contradicted the governments story on 9/11.)

There are also expert marksmen who have attempted the 3 shots the government claims Oswald made, and determined it was virtually impossible. (Much like the 'turn' the 9/11 commission claimed the pentagon plane made.)

There is no reason to trust the US federal government, and that's the most insane thing about Liberalism; They trust the government to be fair, and, try to help the people. But anyone who pays any attention to the US government, should know that they don't benefit us more than they cause us trouble.

You keep saying I can't defend my views in a rational way, when not only have I done just that, I've done it like 50 times, and raised questions about Liberalism, which, no one could answer.

I know what's Right, and implementing force and violence in order to exploit your fellow man, (no matter what excuse you use for it,) is not right, and does not make sense, if the end goal is a peaceful world.

Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/martinluth133296.html#TxoxGATRcDG1ik4B.99​

"Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."~Martin Luther King Jr.~

The governments main job is to initiate force, and if we weren't so seperated from each other, perhaps we'd realize that the majority of people just want to live day-by-day, and not cause harm on one another.

Liberalism (much like Republicanism) relies on fear to control the opinions of it's members. With republicans, they are made to believe if we stop the dumb wars, we will be attacked. But, with Liberals, you are made to believe that without government or with smaller government, the corporations will gain power and wealth, and used that power to hurt everyone.

It's simply misguilded considering that corporations never commit force or violence, unless it is through the government. I've repeated this a dozen times, and, you leftist pretend you don't hear any of it.

You want everything to be taken over by government- but, really think about it; Think about the last time you went to a nice restorant. Then, like about the last time you went to the DMV. Where did you get better service?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a2EhgADVFY"]John Stossel - The Case for Private Roads - YouTube

Monopolies (especially when ran by government,) always make prices go up, and government can intiate force to push their will on others. This is just some things corporations couldn't do without government.

For example, no one would buy oil from a company, which was purposely waging war on the middle east to raise prices, but, if they bribe the government to do it, the reap the rewards and don't have to get their hands dirty, or lose customers.

Idk why Liberals hate corporations and love government, when corporations are doing mutual consentual business with people, and government just steals our money, and dictates our lives- and those are the scumbags liberals rely on to fix all this.

Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/martinluth133296.html#TxoxGATRcDG1ik4B.99​

Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/martinluth133296.html#TxoxGATRcDG1ik4B.99​

Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/martinluth133296.html#TxoxGATRcDG1ik4B.99​

I've defended my beliefs to you, and other liberals so much, it's sick.

What my views display, is true freedom, and power for the people. You're the type the believes the USDA checking 1 in 200 cows, is actually protecting us from mad cow decease or other foodborne illnesses.

The primary things in a free society that protects us from corporate abuse, is lawsuits and, consumer awareness. If a company screws up these days, the message goes viral, and people stop supporting those businesses. Under the system we have now, certain companies are exempt from punishment and, lawsuits. No one can boycott monsanto, cause we don't even know if we're eating it.

Mankind and technology has changed alot since the 60's and information is more openly available. A corporation can't take advantage of the people, because it's people that keep them in business, and keep their money coming in. idk why it's so hard for Liberals to understand this- It's much more likely for government to impose force or kill people, than a corporation. Corporations care about their consumer, and their comfort and safety. I would bet that if government weren't around, the airlines would take care of their own security, and it would be less invasive than the machines they have now, that takes naked pics of people!

I said, I don't believe that, I want proof. I looked it up, and found nothing.

Secondly, the reason I said it doesn't matter is, because you're mentioning 1 thing that you claim the government subsidized, when there's tons of companies and people the government subsidizes, that end up failing.

Private is better than public- anyone will realize that by comparison of government programs and companies, compared to actual companies that go out of their way for the consumer, and, do not have to force anyone to buy their product.

You're method to debating is talk down the other person and their views, and try damn hard not to mention your own. I've pointed out how my views will work, and allow for freedom for everyone. Even ending the drug war, which, would greatly help the poor and African American people, who are punished much more for drug crimes- and yet, you still accuse me of helping the rich.

The problem is, Liberals don't care enough to understand. They hate rich people, and, they hate capitalism, and totally refuse to trust people behind it, even though they have all this love and support for the government, who is the main guilty party in this mess, and FORCES complience rather than making a mutually beneficial trade (like corporations do.)

To those people, there's nothing more I can say. Obviously, they'd rather accept the force and lies of the federal government rather than trusting our fellow man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7GH6Oa5wQQg#t=11

 

No stp, that's an ideological belief and it is not correct as a rule.

Also whether a corporation supporting violence or not, depends on their business model and what their relationship to certain pieces of law and policy that favors them.


Also liberals tend to trust government as their advocate because of history of the labor movements of the 1920's and 1930's and beyond, and then again in the civil rights movement in the 1960's and then again for the Americans with Disabilities Act in the 1990's


So there are some historical references where government worked FOR the people, and you can see what many private businesses corporate AND mom and papa shops were saying about the cost on their business of adding a ramp, of letting people with cerebral palsy eat at their restaurant scaring the customers costing them business.


Also my experiences at the DMV have not held me up for longer than an hour.

People who slow down government services are often the consumers who don't know how to be personally organized with all the ready information and paperwork to hand to the clerk or government official to check.

In my opinion, that is a huge reason other than technical reasons why government services are stereotypically known to be slow and miserable.

Also plan your day out a bit if you anticipate waiting in line.

I went and read my assigned reading for class when I waited at the DMV last time and stayed productive.

 

Also corporations have a bad rap from the era of American history during the establishment of the robber barons and how the railway system was established and leveraged in this country.


Also the Lowell textile factory mill is another example.

These are textbook examples that negate your reasoning for asking the initial question I'm answering here. Didn't you read about these things in school?

 

I agree, I understand completely why sptlsd is so disillusioned by government but the private sector isn't any better. You don't have to look further than privatized prison to see this. The private sector's only motivation is profit so obviously corporations are not going to ever act in the best interest of humanity.

 

Liberals advocate good intentions. But their beloved government never intervenes with "humanitarian intentions" you speak of. Unless of course there was some profits, power, competition crushing, and a re-election to be gained from it.

 

True and it will always be that way and has always been that way. Because the profession of a politician is a balancing act AND the fact that when you run for election nowadays you need massive amounts of cash, and a consensus to get any legislation through that's filibuster proof.

The public's lack of interest in voting and discussing policy matters, leaves only special interests left to sway elections both in donations and in actual votes.

 

Oh yeah totally can sympathize with stp on that as well.
I'm just saying to him that he overextends his argument when he is pro-private sector.

And he's contradicting himself, when in past posts he is complaining about corporate abuses involving government.

---

Here's a modern example too of a monopoly.

I just heard that comcast cable, wants to but Time Warner cable, and the only reason why they haven't merged yet is because anti-trust FEDERAL officials are slowing down that process to look into it to see how that'll affect the free markets given that one LESS competitor is out there with potentially near double market share of the merger were to be approved.

If you take the right wing libertarian or republican rhetoric about shrinking government the merger would've happened already probably without the public (who are the consumers) getting wind of this business news.

 

Ba'al, you should post under two different aliases, one, "Ba'al the moderator" and another "Ba'al the denigrator".

Little is gained from what could be contained as civil discussion between those who attempt to post in these forums if the topics were adhered to in the discussions rather than constant attempt to denigrate those who have differing views, which more often than not, leads to posts totally unrelated to the topic of the thread.

YES, Liberalism does have different meanings to different people, as does Conservatism, Libertarianism, and many if not most every word used in discussion here.

Politically, we seem intent to pick labels, and try to redefine them in ways which those we apply to ourself contains everything good and those applied to others contain everything bad.

If you cannot moderate properly, give the responsibility to someone who can and will, and post like everyone else so that you can be placed on an 'ignore' list, eliminating the need to scroll down ignoring your more malicious and arrogant posts which makes it necessary to look at the thread title frequently to try and determine what the real topic was.

Note: I am quite a Liberal when applying sour cream to my baked potato, but a Conservative when applying salt.

I think what 'Pressed Rat' attempted to say in the OP relates to the application of Liberalism as the means by which a Centralized government operates, which tends to lead to the production of a government in which politicians are elected based on what many voters feel government will give them, reducing their personal responsibility as a result, while many others acquire satisfaction seeing government appear to take from those they have been led to dislike.

Pressed Rat can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

So basically your using a term.. liberalism.. and saying you despise it, meaning the ideals contained within it... But that, no you are not the opposite side of the coin.. To say you dont think in a black and white mindset but then say you despise white... what are you left with? Black?? Whats in between black and white? Grey? How are you grey? You cant be grey unless you mix black and white a little bit, so help us understand. What ideas can you agree with that happen to fall within the description of the term "liberalism" which you've said that you despise, but are not the opposite side of the coin on? The term liberal is pretty much useless in an unbiased intellectual discussion. Its about as relevant as your favorite football team is to an unbiased intellectual discussion. Kinda like saying that you despise THIS particular football team and all they stand for but that your not a complete opposite. If you say you despise a particular ideological group it sort of gives us all an idea of what you think. You think that a good chunk of what this group thinks is wrong, and if we know you think something is wrong, we can then assume that you think the opposite of what they think, unless you provide some kind of alternative idea that is superior to what this group and its rival idealistic group hold.
So saying you despise liberalism, kinda puts you in the same position labeling yourself as an ideological anarchist, it makes someone engaging in an intellectual discussion with you think.. "well I guess that means he is against socialism, government, abortion, public school"... and so on... Is that what you want to do?
Yea we all use labels sometimes, they can backfire sometimes though. I use the word nihilist to describe myself sometimes even after I myself have many times said that labels are wrong and put you in a bad position. So instead I try to say, "well, my personal thoughts relating to this are quite nihilistic" or something to that effect.
Might be better to avoid a broad label like liberalism and take one thing at a time and discuss it, which is what looks like is going on in the thread so far.. But why start it off saying you despise such a broad label covering quite a few ideals?
You could have started a thread with something like, "We dont need government at all, this is how a society would work without government. We don't need to have public schools, or socialized things such as policemen, firemen because with free enterprise we can have private police, firefighters, and school" A more focused intellectual discussion.
Hmmm now that IS an interesting idea... Now I know there are private prisons out there(I live in the USA by the way). Are there private police forces in our country who take absolutely NONE of our tax dollars? What about firefighters? I know there are private ambulance services and hospitals are all pretty much private. And yea theres plenty of private schools. So what good is government anyway if we as citizens can run private businesses?

 

Indie

You do a good line in righteous indignation but we all know its just more evasion. Anyway -

Ok so I went back and had a look at it –

I despise liberalism...The reason I have a problem with liberalism and its various forms, more than any other political belief system, is because liberals believe the solution to social, economic and cultural problems is more government to deal with those problems.

As has often been repeated it’s not about more or less it’s about good governance.

What liberals do not understand is that governments create problems to justify increasing in size and scope while holding on to their perceived legitimacy in the eyes of the public, taking people's freedom and wealth in the process, until you are basically left with a totalitarian nanny state, which is close to what we have today though it masquerades under the hollow veneer of so-called democracy, which is a ruse.

Conspiracy theory - this isn’t about ‘liberalism’ it’s about his view that there is a conspiracy running things behind the scenes

I never hear liberals address real issues like the monetary system and how it creates money out of nothing, while charging interest on fiat as a way of keeping people and entire nations in debt (enslaving them) to a private international cabal which control the militaries and governments of the world.

More conspiracy theory about a secret international cabal, this isn’t about liberalism at – it’s about his own paranoia.

Instead, liberals play into exactly what the power structure wants and needs to feed itself and grow, but not for the betterment of anyone or anything but itself as a vehicle of controlling the masses.

Yet more conspiracy theory – this isn’t about liberal political views it attacking them as supposed tools of a supposed conspiracy.

Because liberals do not understand how the system works, they always buy into false solutions which often sound good and wholesome at face value, but are often anything but that. Hence the reason we have arrived at where we are today, and there is no other solution than for the system to topple on itself.

Topple itself and presumably set up that mad ‘utopia’ Rat wants where the cities are abandoned and people scrap for a living anyway they can using barter to trade.

 

25

The last time we had contact with the UK equivalent the DVLA we did it online and it took no time, and in a good restaurant you don’t want to be served quickly in fact if you are served quickly you’re probably in a bad restaurant that is not making things fresh but just heating stuff up, in a good restaurant you take your time.

And anyway I’ve been in restaurants that have given me good, medium and bad service. I’ve had dealings with private companies were the service I’ve received has been good, medium and bad. AND I’ve had interaction with government services that have given me good, medium and bad service.

But again this gives an insight into you mentality it seems very either/or – private is always good – public is always bad

You looked it up and found nothing - again it says a lot about the depth of your research -

Internet – “A great deal of support for the Internet community has come from the U.S. Federal Government, since the Internet was originally part of a federally-funded research program and, subsequently, has become a major part of the U.S. research infrastructure” And the world wide web came out of CERN Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire a multi-government funded research organisation.

I actually mentioned several things (Post 102). Nearly everything has had some form of ‘government’ input or assistance, from education, research funding, infrastructure, laws etc.