libertarians posing as fredom fighters, progressives,leftists...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Red Fox VII, Sep 25, 2013.

  1. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    I am not saying all Liberals are corrupt. But, yeah, I believe you guys support wasteful spending inadvertently. The EPA is wasteful. Why are we paying for people who are meant to "protect the enviorment" to have enough guns and ammo to kill us all? Same with the DHS and Social Security. I don't think Liberals do it purposely, but you're too concerned with taxing more, and not questioning what our tax money is wasted on to begin with.
    That phrase is Joe Bidens Propaganda. It's not true; spending more just forces more printing, which devalues the dollar further. I believe spending should decrease sufficently if we don't want to collapse like Ancient Rome did.

    I never said all corporations are good; They just have no power over us. Government is what gives them power and special benefits, but Liberals don't even have a fix to that. Since 2001, we've seen the biggest transfer of wealth from the middle 99% to the top 1%. I believe it's cause corporations worked with government to increase their profit.

    If we had a government that didn't take bribes, or do special benefits for corporations, we'd be fine. But I don't think that's possible, because the greed and power is still there. I believe local township governments or state governments should take care of problems locally. And the only role of government is to protect life, liberty and, property and that's all. It's not the government's place to take my money, tell me what to eat/drink or, wage unconstitutional wars in our name.

    Not all government is bad, not all corporations are good. But I can tell you one thing. Halliburten wouldn't have waged war in Iraq alone. The pharmaceutical industry would have nothing to do with regulating "drugs" etc. The problem with this corruption is more government than corporations. Taxing more hurts everyone, and barely touches those at the top, since they can just use government to bail them out, and regulate their competitors out of business.
     
  2. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    I got class right now, I'll answer whoever else when I get home.
     
  3. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    There are no unconstitutional taxes that I am aware of. We left England for a number of reasons, one being taxation without representation, not taxation. The money you pay in taxes is coming back to you in the form of infrastructure, national and local security, old age benefits, education of the public, and so on. You can argue about how well the money in spent, but not the act of taxation.


    No one forces you to take out a Federal student loan. You are free to borrow money in the private sector for schooling if you wish. If you can get a better deal there, take it.


    How would this work exactly? Where would the gold come from, how would my money be converted into gold? Could everyone in the nation show up tomorrow and demand gold for their paper money? How much gold would I get for my dollar and how would it relate to other countries monetary systems? What would my dollar be worth in relation to another country not on a gold standard?
     
  4. LetLovinTakeHold

    LetLovinTakeHold Cuz it will if you let it

    Messages:
    7,992
    Likes Received:
    58
    LOL



    :2thumbsup:
     
  5. eggsprog

    eggsprog anti gang marriage HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    11,367
    Likes Received:
    2,861
    Listen man, I was not asking for clarification because of who you are, I'm asking because I was hoping to get a definition free of personal opinion and political rhetoric, so we can actually have a real conversation. It's very hard to have a discussion if we can't first establish in which way we are using a word that has had it's meaning change drastically over time. To me, Liberal and liberal mean different things.

    liberal = A political ideology that lies somewhere between libertarianism and socialism. I would say that it compromises some individual freedoms (for example - enforcing a minimum wage, collecting taxes, etc.) in order to provide a social safety net/welfare state that attempts to meet everyone's basic needs.

    Liberal = A member of the Liberal Party of Canada (which does not necessarily follow the same ideology that I would associate with liberalism. They tend to move around the spectrum depending on what is happening in the country politically).

    So what do mean when you say liberal (in general, not in relation to Obama or Bush or their supporters)? It is hard to share ideas unless we know we're speaking the same language.
     
  6. eggsprog

    eggsprog anti gang marriage HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    11,367
    Likes Received:
    2,861
    What are you studying? I feel like I've asked you this before, but I can't remember anymore.
     
  7. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    letlovin
    LOL back at you my old friend - you and sig are a great double act

    Both seem totally unable to actually debate the seemingly deeply flawed ideas you post but you’re always ready with some silly snide aside.

    I’ll ask both of you once again – why do you post things that you seem unable to defend from criticism in any rational or reasonable way?

    Please come back to any of the many threads you’ve run away from.
     
  8. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Eggsprog

    Here is an edited post from another thread that I hope might help for some Americans definition of ‘liberal’ it’s rather simplistic and generalised but it gives the gist as I see it -

    Political liberals once supported economic liberalism because they believed it undermined the political authority of the few (mainly land based aristocracies). Then many political liberals realised that economic liberalism had led to an economic authority that curtailed ‘liberty’ as much as political authority did and began to turn against economic liberalism just at the point when wealth began to realise that economic liberalism granted them more power in the shape of economic authority.

    So many types of political liberals became seen by wealth (those on the ‘right’ ) as ‘left-wing’ opponents because they wished to undermine their power and wealth.

    But political liberals were/are often in opposition to left wing political groups/party’s and many on the left see ‘liberals’ as being ‘right wing’.

    In the UK at the moment we have a right wing government made up of Liberals and Conservatives.

    BUT

    In an American context ‘liberals’ are seen as the left wing because much of left wing thought has been systematically purged from US society over the last 50+ years. So without a real left wing even centre right liberals are seen as the left wingers.

    This is why many outside the US believe that Americans has basically two right wing parties with a centre right Democratic Party and a more right wing Republican Party.

    It is also why many Americans see left of centre parties in other countries and think they’re socialists and why some even think some European right wing parties are left wing, for being supportive of social health and welfare programmes.

    So some American people (like 25 it seems) place any political viewpoint from centre right to hard-line Stalinism under the heading of ‘liberal’.

    That is why I’ve seen people that have put forward not particularly left wing views being called hard-line communists.
     
  9. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    25
    Left wingers and right wing libertarians have different views about tackling the drug issue

    Try reading
    Rightwing libertarians and drugs
    http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=368871

    Right wing libertarian have probably the worst type of economic ideas giving greater power and influence to wealth

    Try reading
    Utopia, no just Keynes
    http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353
    We have been through all that in such threads as I have a question regarding the environment and libertarians?
    http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=465568&f=346

    Your argument didn’t seem to go beyond you don’t like them because you don’t like them.
    Yet you are the one that repeatedly refuses to address the many outstanding criticisms of your views.
    But you don’t seem to have a counter argument beyond saying you don’t liking it - so it must be wrong.
    And the problem to me and others is that your solutions to that problem is to give more power and influence to wealth a charge you have repeatedly been unable to address let alone refute.
     
  10. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Sig
    Actually there have been quite a few right wing libertarians that have claimed in one way or another to be ‘left’ on social matters but ‘conservative’ on financial ones.

    Here is an example –
    Here was my reply - They are right wing on economic policy and most other things they don’t care about as long as it doesn’t cost them anything - that is not being ‘left’ on anything.

    http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=6806120&postcount=18
     
  11. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    No doubt. There is always room for improvement. But the environment would be much worse off without the EPA. Read about the Donora Smog of 1948, which was one of the prime reasons the EPA was established. A perfect example of how some unregulated industry functions.
    I am not familiar enough with the DHS to comment. Social Security is another matter. This is an exceptional program which keeps 40 percent of all older Americans from succumbing to poverty, it also helps with disabilities, unemployment, etc. It is solvent until 2033 and can be funded indefinitely by merely asking the top tier, who don't need it anyway, to contribute more through a modest increase in their taxes.
    I disagree completely. Why do you think I would support government waste and the tax increases for the lower and middle class?

    The correct quote is:
    It was made in relation to the health care bill. Biden was pointing out that sometimes you must spend money to fix a problem before it gets so bad that it causes a catastrophic failure later on. Periodically I change the oil and oil filter on my car, I must spend money to do this, but it saves a catastrophic failure of the engine later on. This was the approach FDR took during the Great Depression and it worked. This is also when the world left the gold standard.
    Look into the working conditions of the poor before government intervention.
    It also regulates their pollution, working conditions, safety standards, etc.
    And you blame this on Liberals????

    To a degree, how do you propose to fix it?
    That works for local issues, but pollution is not local, for one example.
    Yes it is....to a degree....they can prohibit the inclusion of antifreeze in wine even if your company wishes to use it as an ingredient.....We haven't had a declared war since WWII. Everything else has been "military engagements" which the Senate and Congress are perfectly free to defund any time they wish.

    Thank the Bushes for that one, not the Liberals.
    Seems to me corruption can occur in both.
    No it doesn't. The rich are disproportionally represented in the government at present, but not because of Liberals.
     
  12. eggsprog

    eggsprog anti gang marriage HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    11,367
    Likes Received:
    2,861
    How exactly should the government go about protecting life, liberty, and property if you don't want them to take any of your money in taxes? Firefighters, police, judges... none of them work for free. I would also go as far to argue that funding a universal health care system could very well be considered as a way to protect life.
     
  13. rjhangover

    rjhangover Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,871
    Likes Received:
    532
    Libertarians are like the teabaggers. They're mostly right wingers that realize they've been exposed as the REAL big spenders, i.e. the GOP. So they're doing the ol' bait and switch. They're pretending to be something other than republican, because they know the GOP is losing and losing badly, because it is becoming clear that Raygun tripled the national debt, Shrub daddy doubled it again in only four years, and Shrub Jr. added more to the national debt in his eight years than all presidents before him added together. Of the $17 trillion debt, the last three republican presidents are responsible for $10 trillion of it. Actually more, because Shrub Jr. destroyed the economy and is the reason Obama has had such high deficits, trying to recover and keep the U.S. afloat. Shrub Jr. left Obama with a trillion dollar 2008 annual budget deficit. And cons do anything to keep from excepting responsibility for what they've done. So they declare themselves libertarians or Teabaggers.

    But to be fair, a lot of liberals, such as myself, have become INDEPENDENTS, because we don't like the reputation of the DNC as being spineless, and always giving into the stupid right.

    But nothing changes, because the libertarians and teabaggers keep voting for right wing candidates, and liberals keep voting for progressives like Obama, to keep the right from taking over this country. The result is gridlock....until....the upcoming crash. Then we'll probably have anarchy. Here come the devil, here come the devil.....
     
  14. eggsprog

    eggsprog anti gang marriage HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    11,367
    Likes Received:
    2,861
    RJ - do you really consider Obama to be progressive? He definitely campaigned as a progressive, but I don't think that much of his policy has really played out that way.
     
  15. Sig

    Sig Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    Likes Received:
    110
    It is the fault of the damn dirty right wing cons, Egg. That is why Obama can't be as progressive as RJ knows his messiah to be. Hell, the fact that you think he isn't a progressive means you're a damn dirty right wing con too.
     
  16. AmericanTerrorist

    AmericanTerrorist Bliss

    Messages:
    6,090
    Likes Received:
    138
    Well, Balbus..and RJ--- what I wanna know is why certain people seem obsessed with going into libertarian threads just to try to prove people wrong and state how much you don't agree with this thing and that thing? I mean..what's the obsession? Wouldn't your time be better spent trying to change things from your own podium?
     
  17. rjhangover

    rjhangover Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,871
    Likes Received:
    532
    Having to deal with a republican House of Representatives is a factor. And like I said, many liberals voted for him, not because he's progressive, but because the alternative of Romney as president was like putting Shrub Jr. back in the White House.
     
  18. rjhangover

    rjhangover Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,871
    Likes Received:
    532
    I am trying to change things from my own podium. This forum is supposed to be(from what I understand), a LIBERAL forum. Yet the cons continually invade this HIP place to spread their garbage. And from the title of this thread, it's not a thread for libertarians, but a thread calling them fakes....posers.
     
  19. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    But remember we all need to consider opposing views in order to define and clarify our own. There is nothing wrong with disagreement if it is kept civil and we all keep open minds.
    Hopefully opposing views can lead to productive compromise and help avoid excesses by all sides.
     
  20. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    But, there's tons of enviormental damages today, the EPA does virtually nothing about. We still have companies dumping waste, putting chemicals in the air and Major companies run the government, do you really think the EPA would hold their feet to the fire? No.

    I disagree. I think with all the money paid to Social Security, people could've secured their own retirement much cheaper. Instead, Social Security bought enough ammo to shoot every American 5X. Liberals support these programs, yet a company would do it cheaper and better. Same with Obamacare and the TSA. We're creating expensive government monopolies that lose money at everything (Including delivering mail.)

    Because that's what's happening. Taxes have sky-rocketed under Obama, even coffee has a hidden 15% government tax on it. Middle class people are struggling due to taxes. I bust my ass for 8 hours per day, but I only get to keep 4/5ths of what I actually earned. It's not just rich people suffering, it's everyone. And tax more, for what? Will I have more money? Will you? No, only the government cronies will have more money, and the middle class will sink deeper in debt.

    I think the statement about FDR is an assumption you're making. WWII also contributed to these ends. Furthermore, any economist you ask will tell you, spending wont get us out of an 18 trillion dollar debt. We're living above our means, and it isn't sustainable.


    I blame Liberals for having a philosophy nearly identical to mainstream Republicans and Bush. You guys loved blaming Bush, but when Obama did the same things, suddenly the war on terror, torcher and, constitutional violations was just fine with 99.9% of you. Infact, it was the evil Romney who wrote Obamacare. Still, Liberals think it's to help us, (not to jack up healthcare prices more. )

    Liberals are part of the NWO. Anyway you want to sugarcoat it. Clinton, Bush, Romney and, Obama were all sponsored by the same elitiest. There's no difference between them. Liberals want to spend money we don't have, they support Obama taking freedoms away (esp the Second Amendment.) and their views on how to fix this country, we've been doing over 100 years (40 years with medicade) and we're alot worse off now, than we were under free market capitalism.

    Btw, government just plugs the hole. People had strikes, protests and, even died for these Rights and working conditions. We're not forced to work for specific companies. That's why I don't work at Mc Donalds. The pay is wayyyy to low. No one could survive off minimum wage today.

    It's just difference of opinion. I'll always think the Liberal solution is wrong, cause wasteful spending is counter-productive.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice