as equal dependence of more and more people for more and more things from a government they lead
2007-06-18 10:57:53 · 17 answers · asked by rmagedon 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
By a subtle and sneaky process of disinformation, leftists have been attempting for some time to conflate "equality" and "equity," and thereby to conflate "inequality" and "inequity."
Since inequity connotes unfairness or injustice, they hope to arrive at position where all they need to do is to identify a situation of inequality, which is a neutral term connoting nothing more than lack of parity, and they think they can get away with arguing that the existence of inequality, without more, proves the existence of injustice.
2007-06-18 13:30:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
According the the Liberal Dictionary the definition of equality is
Everyone is "EVOLVED" equally...
Climbing the corporate ladder through affirmative action
IF you are a minority you qualify for spacial right...
Those spacial rights are equal to the spacial right the other "Minorities" are receiving
Equality means oppressing those not a minority
and punishing those educated enough for the job by handing it to a "minority"
2007-06-18 18:51:10 · answer #2 · answered by KittyCatFishApe 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The constitution defines equality as something you get directly from your creator. And it only relates to your rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, with absolutely no regard to gender, race, social status, sexual orientation, or religion.
2007-06-18 18:10:08 · answer #3 · answered by jfeucht82 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I sure hope not, but from the hintings of our liberal friends running for President, it appears to be the case.
Maybe I am overthinking this one, but it seems that forcing the hard-working and successful in America to subsidize the lazy people will not make the best economic policy...
2007-06-18 18:40:26 · answer #4 · answered by Sleeck 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
"We the people" define our governance either through our vote or apathy to vote and equality is legislated there after by our choices or non choices of electorates.
2007-06-18 20:18:00 · answer #5 · answered by xsesivelyso2 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. But they should (meaning they're too blind to see what they're asking for).
I am hearing things like this from self-employed individuals: "If Hillary Clinton is elected, I am quitting my job and going on welfare. So far in my life, I've worked and struggled to make my own way. But they want more and more, and I'm done."
ADDED: Thanks, Suthrnly, I was thinking of you. And me. And a whole bunch of people. Maybe the welfare is an exaggeration, but maybe not.
McKenzie, I know you don't want them to represent you, but those people have taken over your party. Except in the South.
2007-06-18 18:04:41 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
If the answer is, "NO" then great! Let's NOT have that be the case, let's oppose it! It's a goal of socialism, not American values. Fight it! Refuse it! Speak up against it!
I'm a democrat, NOT a socialist. They don't represent me.
2007-06-18 18:02:58 · answer #7 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Yes.
Ruth, I happen to be one of those people, except I won't go on welfare or live off of that tasteless government trough. What I refuse to do, is work to support those who won't. It's not worth it to me.
McKenzie, as usual, knows exactly what's going on and always gets my respect. The rest are simply blind.
2007-06-18 18:09:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Their goal is equality of outcomes, while conservative want equality of opportunities.
2007-06-18 18:09:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
No, They have independence and a mental attitude to create their own future unlike Republican illiterates who can't think for themselves but require guidance from the sky, or Washington, or anywhere but using logic and reasoning.
2007-06-18 18:02:22 · answer #10 · answered by Don W 6 · 1⤊ 5⤋