welcome to ask a liberal!?

Question

i notice that there are questions that really fixate on ignorance in either party. usually the one the asker isn't in. well, if you think liberals seem ignorant or uninformed, answer this with your complaint and i'll try to explain it.

oh aren't all of you who noticed it wasn't a question intelligent! very good, i suppose you're not completely retarded. it's an experiment to see if anyone can actually have a political argument on this site. any takers?

thank you mike and crazyhorse!

crazyhorse you say:
"A man does out and gets a job digging ditches for $10 a hour, he works his butt off but taxes take a huge portion of his paycheck. How and why does someone else have the right to get a portion of his hard earned money?"

because he doesn't dig ditches in a vacuum. presumably, he has to drive himself to the construction site. that means you need a road. who makes the road? that's a simplistic answer, but the taxes are for the future. that's the best way to explain it, by taking taxes from everyone we accumulate a pool of resources that allows our cities to function. there are also cops to come protect the ditch and firefighters who would put it out if it's on fire. those are all things i'm willing to concede as necessities, and by paying a small portion of my earnings over time i get more services than i could provide for myself with my $10 an hour.

"So here's my complaint - What benefit do people get from calling names and acting superior? And why ask a question when you truly do not want to hear an answer?"

i'm not acting superior. i'm really asking. i didn't call anyone a name except the ones who came to inform me i had no question asked. it might not be a question, but it is an invitation. please take it.

BP, yahoo adds the question mark. if you'll note, i typed an exclaimation point.

"Why do Liberals support the GBLT agenda? We're not even talking about square pegs and round holes here. We're talking about pegs and pegs. Open you eyes and you can see we weren't created that way. "

quiz, because i don't care. it doesn't bother me even a little bit. the way i see it, they want the same right i do, which is to pick my own team. that's all a marriage is, is the person you choose to go through life with. i don't see why it matters who anyone else chooses as their partner. i married who i wanted to. i don't see anything wrong with others doing the same. i mean except for kids and animals you know, but consenting adults? just don't do it in the streets and scare the soccer moms.

"Although many ideas/programs liberals support are noble in their compassion, they want to implement them ALL and pay for it by taking money from people who can most afford it. The end result is a more balanced, compassionate society, but isn't this a case of "the ends justify the means"? Couldn't the funding of these programs be gained from a more just means? Possibly a consumption tax or seeking voluntary contributions? And, if not, maybe make some tough choices and cancel some of what we can't afford to pay for?"

that's a good question sam... that's actually why i'm glad the country is set up with checks and balances. even though i'm a really fierce liberal, i do not want my guys to get all the reins. we just saw what happened when conservatives had the white house and the legislature, and there was no check on their power. so, you are correct that tough choices need to be made. and that's why i want some conservatives in there for balance. the hippies can get silly.

"Overall, I disagree with the mission of the Democratic party and do not believe that simply bashing the current President and his policies (many of which I disagree) displays good political sense. Insults are the tool of the uninformed and healthy debate does not include them."

pat, i don't understand why you say that bashing policies you disagree with is bad. i see that you're criticizing blind bashing that isn't constructive, but that isn't what i've seen at the congressional level. i do think charges of wearing blinders are valid, and i don't know that politics should be kind. the office shouldn't offer protection. respect is not a way to keep from making mistakes. i think it is counter to debate.

and on that note, can i ask why you think the war on terror is something you think we need to fight? they seem to average a hit or two on us every decade whether we are at war or not? does war meaningfully address terrorism abroad?

"Now lets say that the Gov. told him we need to increase those taxes to .50$ and you will still get the same goods. Can you see him getting upset? When he ask why don't I get more for my money since I put in more to the pool and they say well you see that guy on the park bench."

what if it's because of inflation? or because we made the roads with something that had arsenic in it and it's leaching into the reservoir and it needs to be replaced? or what if it's because we go to war?

i see that you imagine that welfare takes a large portion of your taxes...
http://warresisters.org/piechart.htm

"Not just welfare but the money spent on illegals as far as health care cost, food, school, school lunches, legal cost (over 30% of our prison population is made up of illegal immigrants) lose of tax revinue and the living wage due to illegal hiring practices. "

joevette, that isn't true. please show me something that demonstrates that. i just showed you our budget which shows how the war dwarfs all our domestic spending. illegal aliens aren't getting social security... why do you believe this? are you basing it on anything?

thanks everyone!! i thought there were people here who were interested in more than just insulting each other. it helps me see how people on the other side think about the world... thanks again!

pat o:
"The war on terror is one which must be fought worldwide."

i don't believe it. sorry... i really don't. why do you think these people exist? i've had this argument before and it's always funny because i'm at a loss. i'm not afraid and no one has shown me anything to make me afraid. conversely, i meet a lot of frightened people who i can't unfrighten, but can't show me what they're afraid of. do you believe that radical islam represents a threat on the order of the nazis? i don't see how other than the fact that they are degrading our ability to have a volunteer army. this is a nasty war and it looks like a long one still... how can i convince you it doesn't need to be fought? what are your fears?

"What's your point? These long-winded "I am a skillful wordsmith" pontifications accomplish nothing other than to polarize any discussion."

no, the discussion has been polarized for years. my pontificating doesn't do that but thanks i feel special!

you're just dismissive when you say "Guess what? There’s yet another group. They’re called “normal people” and their main approach to life is “leave me alone…I’ll be glad to take responsibility for myself and my family (and I wish you’d do the same for yours)”.

if you wish to be left alone, you wouldn't respond to political discussions. in jumping in to preach the virtues of doing nothing and leaving people alone, you demonstrated that it's actually impossible. we live in a society with other people... you can believe you function in a vacuum, but there isn't one for you to live in. as a nonparticipant, you're just guaranteeing that we will make your choices for you. politics is sometimes just a hobby, but sometimes it's history.

pat o, thank you for believing i am intelligent. i think you are too. i have read that speech before. here are my problems with it:

"Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. "

this is not domestic terrorism and it isn't new. does it represent an escalation of the hostage taking in tehran as the speech suggests? or, is this generally the case with destabilized nations? that people travelling there aren't safe? the speech continues with attacks on embassies which are still in those countries. i ask you, what does this have to do with terrorism? what does it have to do with attacking iraq?

check it out... this article asserts that our embassies in kenya and tanzania had failed to implement security suggestions.
http://www12.georgetown.edu/sfs/isd/embassy_bombings_WG_Report.pdf

was it ability or luck? this is only one example...

which brings us to "You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since
1979."

i do not see a pattern there that includes iraq. i really really don't. i think invading afghanistan was necessary, but if there is a pattern there i don't think our actions in recent years have made it begin to desintegrate. it looks like there are more attacks in more countries after 2001. if they were escalating because we weren't reacting, why have the terror attacks worldwide become more frequent?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html

is it possible that this is a poor way to address global terrorism? in spreading more chaos throughout those regions have we stifled interest in following the rules and trying to be civilized?

"Let me get this right. If I speak out for a government that's less intrusive in my life (the meaning of "leave me alone") then I'm a hypocrite because by speaking out I'm "involved" and therefore CAUSING myself to not be left alone???"

no, i'm sorry. you've misunderstood and so did i. what does "leaving alone" look like to you? that is my point. if you have a government, you already aren't being left alone. i was taking your words at face value and thinking you literally meant that but i see now it was an attempt at libertarian philosophy. so, i am not a libertarian because i don't think i would do very well building my own roads before i drove myself to work among all the crazies who don't have to obey traffic laws because there are no police. and since i would have never had an opportunity to go to school i wouldn't be reading this to annoy you.

but i cannot adhere to "every man for himself". it doesn't work well. we done that already and called it feudalism.

"Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Since when does prefering a government that's "less intrusive in my life" translate into "I'm a libertarian and want to build my own roads and schools"?"

i found your position confusing. i did not get that from "leave me alone".

"I simply want my elected officials to recognize that WHERE IT'S AN OPTION, I prefer less government. Further, where government is necessary, I'd rather start at the local level and work my way up."

ok i give, how was i supposed to get that from what you initially wrote?

let's begin again. i can acknowledge that there has been an abuse of the commerce clause in some cases. (just an example... are you thinking of something specific?) however, i also think there are valid reasons for creating a substrate of quality services nationwide... a set of standards and practices that make it a functional country. do you disagree with that?

"Conservative philosophy (at least mine) defaults to a "government as last resort" preference."

is that reflective of the conservative party currently at large?

"This country was not founded by people saying "who will help me?". Our proud tradition is one of self-sufficiency."

our country at it's founding was 13 states.

"Finally, as to these discussions. My experience is that when you have the courage to meet the "opposition" at the threshold and see what you may agree on, you always learn something."

perhaps that's true when it is the first time you have had the conversation. but i completely disagree with what you've said. when you say a family should be responsible for their own... let's take katrina for example. i have cousins there, and one just picked his family up and moved to another town. great. but what about all the people that can't? if you're willing to write them off, perhaps the threshhold we must part at is the one where i simply say i cannot do that.

Answer 1

I only think liberals are ignorant and uninformed because they are ignorant and uninformed. I live in the most despicably blue state in the union. I should know.

Answer 2

Hey good one bravo! Yes you got it the parties are all bad and some people on either side are okay and are earnest in their endeavors but for the most part both parties lie and steal. They lie when our lives are at stake and they steal our money. So now that we know that there is good and bad in the world what is next is being an individual with conviction, and is able to determine the truth by objectivity. That is truly hard for people that are followers of a party system and are content to be sheep led to slaughter without a mind of their own. I just think they are lazy. Oh well I hope they wake up quickly because otherwise there will be all hell to pay. I am not either Dem of Rep i vote on who is the one who is going to do the job in my opinion. i don't send chain letters either? These parties are set up with a connection all over the world with their own personal individual agendas as well. I think America is like diarhea, we are spread all over the place. And we need to clean it up a lot. Say let us agree to clean up our own mess before we attack someone else. Or how about a little researching, or investigation and not dependent on the media either. CNN Boooooooo, Fox news Booooooo Lets get outside news like newspapers and read a little reporters articles eh? The one that is telling the truth. Small town reporters. Like let us find the ones that were persecuted for writing against some of these politicians in their own home towns? We can do this on line you know? But that would be too much like right? right ? Before we vote we better get a microscope and not vote because of what they say or what they believe in but what is their true history?

Answer 3

Where I'm coming from: registered independent, currently unemployed taking no assistance, hate our current administration in the white house.
My question: Although many ideas/programs liberals support are noble in their compassion, they want to implement them ALL and pay for it by taking money from people who can most afford it. The end result is a more balanced, compassionate society, but isn't this a case of "the ends justify the means"? Couldn't the funding of these programs be gained from a more just means? Possibly a consumption tax or seeking voluntary contributions? And, if not, maybe make some tough choices and cancel some of what we can't afford to pay for?

Answer 4

I'm so tired of all the questions that state a stereotype followed by a rhetorical question (rhetorical because the asker has already stated their opinion and doesn't rally care to hear one that opposed his). This shows a total fixation on ignorance.

Where are all of the people who understand that there is a huge gray area that represents the majority? Only extremists are really so black and white. Not all Democrats are hippies, and not all Republican are ignorant red necks. Some Liberals are against gay marriage, some Conservatives are Pro-Choice...

So here's my complaint - What benefit do people get from calling names and acting superior? And why ask a question when you truly do not want to hear an answer?

Answer 5

My biggest problem with the liberal philosophy is this.

A man does out and gets a job digging ditches for $10 a hour, he works his butt off but taxes take a huge portion of his paycheck. How and why does someone else have the right to get a portion of his hard earned money?

Answer 6

Welcome to ask a liberal is not a question can you explain?

Now I see the bait you are using and I will bite. The reference made to the ditch digger was good and I see the response you gave was also legitimate so i get a feel for how you are thinking. I agree that the ditch digger does need roads etc. to maintain his job and there must be funds such as tax dollars to pay for it and to that extent wholly agree with you. So lets say that for ex. he had to pay .25$ from his check to cover roads, labor laws, school for his kids etc. that is all fair and OK. Now lets say that the Gov. told him we need to increase those taxes to .50$ and you will still get the same goods. Can you see him getting upset? When he ask why don't I get more for my money since I put in more to the pool and they say well you see that guy on the park bench. He says yes you mean the one with the beer in one hand and a joint in the other and to that the tax guy says yes that is the one. Well what about him? Well he did not feel like working or for that matter he did not finish school and is here illegally so we felt that since you were doing so well we would just pay his way with your money. Oh and BTW your daughter is going to have to go to split classes in school now because we don't have enough tax dollars to fund the teachers. You see this is how it really is in CA.

I am not greedy and I do some work for the less fortunate at times. I want everyone to be happy and well but I cannot sit by and allow my kids to be robbed by people who fail to apply themselves nor by the people in our goverment would would enable their anti social behavior.

Not just welfare but the money spent on illegals as far as health care cost, food, school, school lunches, legal cost (over 30% of our prison population is made up of illegal immigrants) lose of tax revinue and the living wage due to illegal hiring practices. Then there are the pork barrel items (and they are products of both parties). When we say welfare people automatically think food stamps but it is much larger than that. ER s close down daily because people with no means to pay go there to get treeted and the doctors by law must treet them and the cost of health care goes up to cover these expences. I would love to have a sitdown discussion with you because you seem intellagent and also concerned. We don't have to share the same ideas just the same goals to fix the problems. I have compassion but am real enough to know that the average person cannot continue to pay higher taxes and still provide for their own

Answer 7

it is an elementary question to respond to. the first component you should comprehend is they're open to anybody's ideas even if or not they're diverse then theirs, they only received't settle for then you as they sense they're continually precise and also you're continually incorrect. the component you should comprehend with liberals is they continually sense you'll do the incorrect component so as that they're going to do it for you, and in case you disagree then beware they record you. And yahoo will trust them because yahoo is a left leaning website. it is like their utopia they wnat to construct in u.s., they have achieved it everywhere else and it has FAILED and yet they imagine they could be able to get it precise this time. What they fail to comprehend is IT does no longer artwork. Like this time table 21 crap, they go with people living in communes the position all and sundry works and all even though it does no longer artwork because the lazy people (liberals) refuse to carry a finger.

Answer 8

The problem is not that we liberals are not right, the problem is that either they do NOT WANT TO KNOW or it goes against their programming. An if something does not mesh with their previous programming the whole computer has to crash and reboot.... A painful experience, for a human.... especially if they have to be at work the next day,,,,, that is why we make anti-deppressants...lol..
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/strategic/nationasfamily/nationasfamily

crazy horse====

It is not the ten dollar an hour guy liberals are attacking it is the 150 or more dollars an hour guy,,,we attack........
and those guys want you to think social programs will come out of your pocket....... it is a lie to protect their cash..... made off the backs of the ten dollars and hour guy....... get it?....

Answer 9

Here's a Q...

What's your point? These long-winded "I am a skillful wordsmith" pontifications accomplish nothing other than to polarize any discussion.

Not many conservatives insist that liberals are "stupid". Overbearing, strident, annoying, overly obtuse, abstract thinkers and self-righteous pontificators, maybe. But stupid?...No.

The "left" wants to divide the world into neatly defined groups.

On the right, they see the leadership as evil, backroom deal-making, greedy white males trying to take advantage of everyone else. The non-leadership on the right is characterized as either mindless red-state rubes that didn't get a good education or brainwashed Christian evangelicals without the mental acuity to understand that there is no God sitting up there on a cloud waiting for them.

On the left, they divide the party faithful into two main groups: The first group is the poor, defenseless, oppressed masses (all of them victims of the evil forces on the right). The second group (reserved for the intellectual elite) is the "saviors" of the aforementioned "victims of the right".

If you're feeling bad about your lot in life, you can sign up for victimhood. But if you are one of the few, chosen, elite cognoscenti with the vision and zeal to employ the power of our government to beat down the great forces marshaled against the "little people"...well YOU can be their savior!

Guess what? There’s yet another group. They’re called “normal people” and their main approach to life is “leave me alone…I’ll be glad to take responsibility for myself and my family (and I wish you’d do the same for yours)”.

OK Uncle Osbert groupies…load up your thumbs-down cannons and fire away!

Edit:

Let me get this right. If I speak out for a government that's less intrusive in my life (the meaning of "leave me alone") then I'm a hypocrite because by speaking out I'm "involved" and therefore CAUSING myself to not be left alone???

You can't be serious, can you?

Edit #2

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Since when does prefering a government that's "less intrusive in my life" translate into "I'm a libertarian and want to build my own roads and schools"?

I simply want my elected officials to recognize that WHERE IT'S AN OPTION, I prefer less government. Further, where government is necessary, I'd rather start at the local level and work my way up. (I want our roads plowed and my schools administered and my rowdy neighbors to be told to be quiet, but NOT by some arm of the federal government, thank you.)

Obviously, there are important roles for the federal government...national defense, fair taxation, international trade and relationships, border control, interstate highways and commerce, and appellate courts, to name just a few.

So there are roles for ALL of us to play in managing our lives, our families, our communities and our country. But responsibility for solving any problem or pursuing any initiative should always start at the lowest rung on the authority ladder and only pass to a higher rung when it's appropriate.

That doesn't mean "going it alone". It means taking personal responsibility whenever it's an option and the proper remedy for the situation at hand.

It's a old and transparent debate tactic to arbitrarily assign some undeclared P.O.V. to the other person's logic and then ridicule it (and the other person, by implication).

Please don't do that with me.

Edit #3

What I initially wrote was “leave me alone…I’ll be glad to take responsibility for myself and my family". What's confusing about that? If you read what I'm saying, I'm suggesting that at the base level (self, family) individuals are best equipped to solve their problems....not some government entity. Libertarian philosphy defaults to a "no government" preference. Conservative philosophy (at least mine) defaults to a "government as last resort" preference.

As to the "commerce clause", the founding fathers had a far more narrow definition of "commerce" in mind than what has evolved. What you refer to as "a substrate of quality services nationwide... a set of standards and practices that make it a functional country" is far too broad a statement if you are defining the role of the federal government.

Just a few examples. Over 200 years ago, nobody considered the government (federal, state or local) to be the buck stops here responsible entity for health care, environmental protection, or funding for "the arts". We've had an evolution of thinking. But that evolution has been a one-way movement toward ever-more responsibility at the governmental level and less responsibility at the individual level.

I want everything that you want...I just want it to be provided at the level closest to the individual as possible.

Otherwise, we create an insidious process of abdication of personal responsibility, supplanted by a sense of entitlemet (or victimiization seeking redress).

This country was not founded by people saying "who will help me?". Our proud tradition is one of self-sufficiency.

So no, I don't disagree... we all want the same things: "a substrate of quality services nationwide... a set of standards and practices that make it a functional country". It's just a question of how we get there and who takes responsibility.

Finally, as to these discussions. My experience is that when you have the courage to meet the "opposition" at the threshold and see what you may agree on, you always learn something. And when you attempt to leave the threshold and return to your earlier position, you'll find that position has changed.

Usually for the better.

Last Edit

OK Uncle Osbert, I'm having a hard time getting you to accept what I've said without your adding your own interpretation and outrageous examples.

IS THERE ANYTHING I'VE WRITTEN IN THIS REPLY (DIALOG) THAT WOULD MAKE YOU BELIEVE THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T HELP WITH AID TO KATRINA VICTIMS???

Time and again, I've modified my comments about self-sufficiency as "whenever possible". Time and again, you've responded with extreme examples (build your own roads, don't enforce speeding laws, now hurricane Katrina) and tried to attribute those outrageous (and stupid) beliefs to my way of thinking.

When you try to define me that way, I can only respectfully move on. I'm exasperated. I feel like I wrote all of this for no good reason.

Stand back from the threshold then and lob hand grenades. But not at me, OK?

Answer 10

Why do Liberals support the GBLT agenda? We're not even talking about square pegs and round holes here. We're talking about pegs and pegs. Open you eyes and you can see we weren't created that way.