Liberalism and why I despise it

I quoted your entire post, and didn't have time to go in and narrow down what I was responding too.

But technically while corporations usually don't initiate violence, isn't supporting it just as bad? Also there are "private" corporations, that specialize in mercenary services, so I could technically counter your exact premise that something from the private sector can initiate a violent action, domestically or abroad.

----

Also your McDonald's MANAGER is to blame for not having the balls to fire that kid. Corporate has Human Resources departments and a legal department for cases like that.

I suspect your manager just didn't want to deal with the paperwork required for all that process, and YOU suffered for it. In other words, his free pass originated from the manager's laziness and misunderstanding of the law. (which to be honest I sympathize with, as I've seen bad managers)

----

No I don't live in a small town.

Also I was not saying YOU specifically slow it down, but people in line in-front of you, behind you not having their stuff together for easy processing by the DMV or whatever.


----

@the Disabled getting jobs thing: Because it allows them to be useful to society rather than simply exist purely on taxpayer dime, AND having a job gives them self-esteem. Because what's the alternative? To execute them because they aren't fully-able bodied people?

The able-bodied people, can be hired anyway to do the jobs the disabled can't do. Take people as they are, and use whatever assets they can that work for one's businesses.


Also keep in mind, that just because someone is disabled, doesn't mean they have protection from getting fired as well. I've worked at jobs here and there where they totally had to let go an employee who was probably working under ADA because it just wasn't working out (personality conflicts or social-kill deficits or whatever).

Also some jobs would have able-bodied people, (non-disabled) doing simple repetitive tasks that most people find tedious, and they get complacent and they become really bad employees which then become a liability to the business because they're doing sloppy work.

An example would be the job in hospitals that requires one to keep track of incoming/outgoing, medical supplies. It's tedious, you have to check everything in a systematic order, make sure everything is organized correctly or purged if the medical supplies passed their expiration dates (it becomes a legal worry if you use expired medical equipment and drugs).

Someone who is disabled but functional enough to be good at that specific task, can be hired to do that job (and was) and that aspect of that work environment is no longer a worry for all the other employees who work their, and their jobs aren't impacted at all, because the job the disabled person does is specialized to suit them AND the employer.

You don't need that versatility in every employee.

---

Granted if I saw a law dogmatically saying you MUST hire someone over someone else over (gender, race, disability be it mental or physical) I would be upset. But that's not our current law is asking be done.

 

Maybe you should have looked up the word Pressed Rat used, 'nihilist' instead, and probably the wiki definition, "Nihilist may refer to: one who believes existence has no objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value." would be sufficient.

It should be obvious that there is no one answer or a correct answer to the question of "what is the purpose of life?" But Liberalism is the thread topic Pressed Rat, a nihilist, created for discussion, NOT himself, or others who agree or disagree with his views.

Sorry if I seem to be trying to moderate the discussion.

 

Do you guys even read what I say?

You must not, cause I support state governments- I just don't like the Federal government, and think they do a shotty job.

My goal is to eventually live without government totally, but firstly Id put humanitarian spending in the hands of the state.

As I said "classic Liberalism" is Libertarianism today. It is us that defend human rights, not Liberals. Many Liberals here and in person defend Obama, and say that people hate him for "no reason" and most don't say anything about him executing kids, getting involved in civil wars abroad or, violating the constitution.

We have a Constitution that many Liberals of today, don't care about or defend. I don't know where you got this definition, from WIKI or what, but to me, it's more important what Liberals do and who they support than what some definition calls them.

Ted Turner is a Liberal, and he supports government limiting children. Many Liberals support Obama, and wont even respond to the proof that he's constantly violating basic human rights.

Our founders believed in Limited Government, that couldn't violate the Constitution. Many Liberals of today want to: rewrite the Constitution, take away guns and implement more wasteful spending like 'free' pre K.

Plus, if Liberals believe in "dignity" they would be appalled at the violations of the 4th Amendment imposed by Obama. Instead, Bush and Republicans are always the bad guy, and Democrats like Obama, Gore and, Hillary can do no wrong. It supports the same things the republicans support, and it's obvious.

Obamacare isn't a democrats idea.

It doesn't deny people of those rights- It was a different time, and they looked at those individuals differently. Slaves were bought in Africa, from other Africans. They also came from Brittian. It was a pretty standard practice, which happened to nearly every race in the world, and had little to do with race as opposed to cheap labor.

The poor were not denied Rights. The Constitution as Ive said, doesn't say "Rights don't apply to these individuals." It was just a different time.

That was not the cause of the Great Depression.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObiIp8TKaLs"]Milton Friedman Explains the Cause of the Great Depression - YouTube

It's not the job of our government to police the world, and tell other countries what they can and can't do. (that's how wars like Vietnam were started)

There's no true democracy in this country. The majority of Americans think weed should be legalized- It wont happen because the federal government is profitting from keeping it illegal.

The federal government is under the thumb of the biggest corporations and bankers. They don't enforce human rights, or keep capitalism under control- it's actually quite the contrary in nearly every aspect.

"freedom through government regulation" is counter intuitive.

We can't go in our front yard and sell lemonade, because of government regulations- is that freedom?

We can't buy large soft drinks in NY cause of government- is that freedom?

The corporations receive power through government, like Ive said again and again. It's government who give them rights of individuals, even before it was officially made a law, our government was still accepting bribes.

You Liberals think you're so much different than republicans, but its obvious to any outsiders, that you're merely 2 sides of the same coin.

Regulating what individuals can and can't ingest, doesn't represent freedom.

Most Liberals around today don't defend human rights, but rather defend the actions of Obama and the loss of our basic human rights.

over 50% of citizens think their should be another political party on the ballot. So, there's the social destruction right there.

Economically, our debt should speak for itself. Liberals don't want to cut spending or fix what's wrong, they merely want to raise taxes, and continue the wealth disparity. The corporations own and control our government, and liberalism relies soley on government to fix that. Put simply, it'll never happen.

"increased Private wealth" for the top 1%, who gets government subsidize.

"Safer working conditions" could be done with or without government. It comes down to the consumer and the employee. A few lawsuits would've fixed that faster than government. PLus, anyone who fails for weed or any illegal substances is not entitled to money, and I believe that's just a way of them sliding out of trouble.

Human Slavery was inhumane, and here in America, it was ended by a Republican- so, you might want to rethink that..

"Regulated capitalism" is just a way for government to steal our money, and get corporate bribes.

Liberals claim my views help the elite, when my views actually help small business while "regulated capitalism" hurts them

This is not true. Implementing force on non-violent people, is dogmatic in essence.

Actually, as Ive been saying- government does not benefit people more than it hurts us. Taking money from everyone, just to give it to poor and rich people, doesn't increase freedom or wealth. It just makes the middle class poorer, and as displayed by the transfer of wealth to the top 1%- it just continues that status quo, while putting a bigger burden on the middle class.

Liberals don't even defend freedom anymore- they are against the second Amendment, and they don't oppose Obama when he continuously violates our human rights.

Liberals endorse government being more powerful than citizens, and being the be all end all of society. This contributes to everything that follows, including the drug war which has been racist and usually targets the "poor" you pretend to help.

The other thing is foodstamps and government benefits creates dependency, the amount of people on foodstamps have gone up, as has the amount of time people stay on foodstamps. This means they're not using it as a crutch till they get back on their feet, but rather, as sole means of income. This comes at the expense of everyone, even those Mc Donalds employees, who Liberals say should be paid more.


Those Fast Food employees who have been applying for foodstamps, wouldn't need foodstamps if they weren't paying taxes. They'd be making about an extra 400$ per month, which is plenty more than the government would give them. Less taxes offer a better life to the middle class, working classes and, anyone who actually contributes to society. On the other hand, foodstamps don't encourage work ethic, but rather tells people that if they decide to sit on their ass, somebody else will take care of you.

I grew up in a working class home, and I saw my mom and dad struggle so hard to get ahead, but, consistently declining in their standard of living. The average American spends more on government, than they do on their home, and what do those people who actually contribute get back?

Schooling, and that's about it. Which, for $272,900- it seems like the average American should receive quite a bit more.

Government Schools are crappy and don't encourage growth. Children do not receive individualized attention, nor are they helped when struggling.
I even remember them recruiting for the Army everyday in my public school, and dreading everyday I had to go there.

Private schools typically try to make learning fun. They do not tell kids they can't pray, and usually they receive much more help than public schools.
The public schools are failing today, and I think government involvement is a prime reason.

And providing safety nets don't encourage growth, when you take from the middle class to give to the poor, you're really just devaluing everyones standard of living. If it weren't for the government printing fake money, prices wouldn't be near as high as they are today. Minimum wage in the 60's was worth $30 per hour in todays money.

No, we view wealth as a necessity of life, that people work hard for.
And we view Liberal "wealth distribution" as what it is- theft of money from hard working people.

Liberals claim to oppose monopolies, but it's contradictory because they encourage and support government monopolies that no one (except the rich in some cases) can opt out of. What if I don't want Obamacare? It doesn't matter, because it's mandatory; On top of that, government stores our information- naked pictures taken by those new 'metal detectors,' personal information like our Emails- they're even watching peoples porn habits.

Liberals, democrats and, republicans have this idea that government is going to protect us and help us through life. But, when one looks at their track record, it becomes more and more obvious that that isn't the case.

There are even declassified documents that show the CIA wanted to commit terrorist attacks in the US, as an excuse to go to war with Cuba. (Operation Northwoods.)

They kill citizens and kids constantly. If it were some 'regime' in the middle east doing that, Obama and our government would have to get involved- But, when it happens here, we don't call him a dictator (even though he's given himself the power of a dictator.)

I disagree. I think we're focusing power and wealth more so with the current system, than we would in a free society. Freedom allows more businesses to come up, and challenge others. If we left these things up to private businesses, (or at least let people opt out of government monopolies.) We would be more prosperous, and make enough money to survive. Taking money from hard working people, to give it to lazy people that refuse to work, really doesn't help anyone.

People need to realize that in order to survive, you need to put some effort into it. Self preservation is the first law of Human Nature. I've bought bums food on numerous occasions. People have a moral obligation to help each other. But, when government forces compliance, it costs much, much more and, the help isn't getting to the bums on the street- but rather people who somehow can pay rent, but wont work for an honest living.

Meanwhile, it's not the rich paying their check- It's people like me, who pay a good 30% of my paycheck toward a government that doesn't help me, spies on people like me, kills US citizens like me and, takes away the so-called 'freedom' this country was founded on.

And the Liberal excuse is based off of things that happened decades ago, which couldve been tak4en care of by the people.

We don't live in the 30's anymore. People have a lot more knowledge and tolerance for one another. We don't need government to keep corporations in check (since they're not doing it anyway)

Liberals can claim theyre against big business all you want, but the government is a criminal monopoly which do as they please and believe they're above the law. They work with the most evil and corrupt businesses in the world. As long as they support them, and think force and violence is the way to achieve peace, they're still going in the direction of the Republicans, the UN, ted turner and (sadly) the military industrial complex.

They're not going to change anything- they're making money from the drug laws, wars and, corporate bribes. Regulations and higher taxes just helps them eliminate competitors and honest businessmen.

These are companies that are constantly spilling oil, putting cancer causing components in our food and, allowing cancer causing petcoke to fly through the air. As long as they bribe the government, they can get away with anything, never see a lawsuit and, they have no liability for their damaging practices.

Unfortunately, Liberals just support that system and don't put their nose to the grindstone when it comes to fixing these issues. They'd rather just indiscriminately tax more, and, continue the status quo of total government control.

 

The USA had a government shutdown not very long ago.

If one looks at the consequences on how that impacted tourism, and thus any mama and papa show that is tied to tourism, like food venues, and gas stations located in areas mainly economically dependent on tourism...you see the impacts.

You also would see a slow down in paperwork processing, and while some government agencies aren't completely shutdown, their workforces are significantly reduced, and so they get less done and their economies of scale are thrown off in an even worse say.

Like the VA's backlog, got worsened during the government shutdown.


So sorry STP, just from flat out observation, government is necessary in a significant portion of what our society needs, even if those services aren't explicitly stated in the US Constitution.

 

There's a misalignment here.

If competitors and honest businessmen are eliminated by an impossible playing field, how is it fair to call people "lazy" and say they're refusing to work? Aren't very many people defeated before they even begin?

 

Ending prohibition is what ended the great depression

 

25

The desire and call for health and safety legislation did come from such people as unions and these were opposed by industrialist and companies.

Did you try and find out? I told you just the tiniest bit of work would show you that governance was involved in health and safety legislation, regulation and assessment.

Since you don’t seem to have found it I’m guessing you didn’t even look – when people say things here I don’t just presume them wrong because I believe I’m right I go and find out if there claims stand up.

I think this is a problem with your thinking and methodology.

It indicates that what Stossel and guests was saying was not correct or at the very least didn’t show the whole picture. They were distorting the ‘evidence’ to fit an agenda. It wasn’t objective and you seemed to be presenting it as such. Again it says something about your own objectivity and methodology.

If you think differently please explain why rather than just telling me I’m wrong which is not a rational counter-argument.

It only that you believe that you are right and other wrong that you think it as ‘common knowledge’ it is only the ‘knowledge’ you have in common with those that agree with you.

It is not as simple and as black and white as you seem to think it is try reading –
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353922

Where I couldn’t find it, can you publish a link.

Just saying something doesn’t make it so can you actually back up this argument? And just saying its common knowledge or common sense will not cut it.

Yet you seem to approve of attacks on ‘liberals’ and ‘lefties’?
Anyway is pointing out a few facts about John Stossel isn’t an attack it’s just germane information that puts his show in context – are you saying he isn’t right wing? Are you saying Fox News is not owned by Rupert Murdock who favouring right wing views? Did Stossel not appear on the O’reilly show? And he has been criticized by the Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) and Media Matters for America (MMfA) for what they perceived as a lack of balance of in his coverage and the distortion of facts

But if you read my post I said “who worked for Fox News” and he has worked for Fox News

And anyway Fox Business is basically a part of Fox News with day-to-day operations run by Kevin Magee, executive vice president of Fox News.

But go look at Stossels shows they is no balance no opposing view, it’s simply propaganda. Did you do any research on its claims, because you clearly can’t defend it from criticism.

Yes but that why if you are honest and want an honest debate you allow people with differing opinions to debate – the Stossel piece was propaganda with no opposing viewpoint. I have tried to show that Stossel and guests were being disingenuous by cherry picking data or giving misleading information – you seem very angry that I’m not just accepting what they say without question.

Cato was set up by Charles Koch "Early on Cato's bills were largely paid by the Koch family of Wichita, Kansas. Today, most of its financial support from entrepreneurs, securities and commodities traders, and corporations such as oil and gas companies, Federal Express, and Philip Morris that abhor government regulation." Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado of the University of Colorado Law School.

Do you just accept what is said without question, do you not question the agenda?

But you only present one viewpoint and seem to have not even looked at alternatives.

Then please address the criticisms that seem to indicate they would.

Tax cuts as has been argued that would greatly favour wealthy and not change or increase its power and influence, if you cannot address those criticisms then that stands.

*

Again I think your problem is that you think in balck and white people either are with you or they are war mongering, Obama loving, ‘liberals. You don’t seem to question it you way and that’s it it must be right because you believe it.

You are just repeating assertion after assertion without ever addressing our criticisms shouldn’t you be asking yourself why that is so.

 

funniest thing i have read out of all the posts on this thread....granted i read hardly any but....it has got to be balbus mention somebody else repeating....

 

I’ve explained before so once again I have to repeat myself…ho hum

I only repeat because people like 25, indie etc make the same assertions and statements over and over - the same assertions and statements they often could not defend from criticism the many times they have said them before – they keep repeating forcing me to keep repeating.

Thing is that I’d love to move on, if people were honest and actually addressed the criticisms levelled at them in a reasonable and rational way rather than claiming they have when they haven’t or using evasion trickery to put off replying (while repeating the thing again) then we could move on as it is….

 

meagain...less government dosnt mean no government.
i would also like judges to have less power that dosnt mean i want them not to be able to make a ruling on if a company is at fault.

 

What are you talking about? Where was the Federal government on 9/11? Considering you believe the official story, if the government worked as it should have, it would have stopped the attacks. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to know there were prior warnings leading up to the attacks, and that the air defense on that morning was virtually non-existent. You act like the government is so wonderful, but where are they when they're supposed to be doing their job?

Then the government uses its own incompetence to justify even more taxpayer money and more bureaucracy "to fix things." Nothing ever changes for the better, you just wind up living in a totalitarian nanny state such as we have today, where the existence and furtherance of state power serves only itself.

 

What I find deficient in loathing is it's appreciation for real things in general, more interested in it's complaint than any common cause or genuine care for outcomes.

 

i almost think i would be guilty of that but first i would like to try a libertarian/ green party to replace the democrat/republican one we have. if that didnt work i would go back to just fantasizing about anarchy.

 

Proprietarianism is all the same. We cannot escape the effects of our own thinking thus anarchy is anachronism.

 

so this line of thinking is that states are too small...a country would be better because its bigger...that gives me an idea, lets take over the continent. bigger is better and all. after we get all the kinks straight with the canadians and mexicans we move into central america for a weekend and take back the canal. after a week vacation we go into south america. with the entire western world controlled by the usa we wouldnt have to worry about any of them damn foreigners getting in. sure they could get on a boat and all but with that big government controlling everything whats the chances