<p>“What did liberals do that was so offensive to the liberal party? I’ll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things—every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, ‘Liberal,’ as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won’t work, Senator. Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.”</p>
<h2>The funny thing is, I would like to have your point of view. I do believe that if you don’t pay taxes, you don’t deserve a slice of the pie. But I also have another, far stronger belief: Our government is inherently corrupt. Politicians will always be liars, cheaters, and slanderers. I never trust the state because the state will never be truly just. If you give that kind of power to the government, they can do whatever the **** they want. And what’s to say once they have taken your right to vote, they won’t take the other checks against government power away? The government is full of greedy, corrupt, unethical ******** who care only for themselves. ~ FatAnorexic</h2>
<p>Your arguments aren’t connecting.</p>
<p>The government already has the power to do whatever they want, regardless of your vote or the “voice of the people” as you cited in your previous post.</p>
<p>There are dozens of examples from passing legislation, enacting policy and waging war were the government went against the “voice of the people”, so if that’s what you are worried about - sucks to be you, cuz that crap is already happening.</p>
<p>Calibabe, I’m not going to indulge your obsessive psychosis any longer – you are simply unable to read what I post, or choose to ignore it.</p>
<p>I’m not interesting in making points. I leave that to others. I’m done discussing what I did not post.</p>
<p>Well, I’m glad you finally get it. Thank you for finally shutting the **** up.</p>
<p>Cali - how good of you to return, like a dog to its own vomit. I stated in passing:
“There is a reason I consider California a no-go zone.”
You replied:
“California is a no- go zone? Because of what one person has said? Wow… Grow up (additional nonsense)”</p>
<p>If your state was not an unsafe, illegal-filled, overtaxed hellhole, it would not rightfully be a ‘no go zone’. </p>
<p>Also, it seems that this response indicates your primary problem: you create strawmen to attack and discredit the opponent. In this specific case, I said there was a reason, you specified the reason being what you said, and then attacked that.</p>
<p>A third time: thinking people indeed! HAH!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And your failure of reading comprehension continues. I’m definitely interested in posting, just not about that which is immaterial.</p>
<p>For example, I would be very interested in posting that again, you seem to be angry about something else, like the realization that you lack the ability to think critically, or at all.</p>
<p>Young people are less educated. They have lived far less than someone who is middle aged. Many live off their parents and have an idealistic version of the world which is crushed when they finally grow up and realize that not everybody tries, works hard or wants to succeed. Colleges are liberal institutions. They favor liberal “intellectuals.” They assign more liberal texts than conservative ones. They don’t teach both sides of the issue. They don’t give equal time to sides when debating. Professor’s in the liberal arts are overwhelmingly self identified liberals, and they allow their views to project on their students, and fail to actually teach critical thinking. And this is coming from an engineering school. </p>
<p>I think in general people my age are extremely ignorant. Even at the off chance they read a paper, they usually only get their news from one source. They typically only read things they agree with. As in, a liberal college student praises the New York Times and CNN as “unbiased” sources, while scorning Fox (in many cases rightfully so) and the Wall Street Journal. All hail the New Yorker, but god forbid you mention the National Review. </p>
<p>I would also say that many kids think it’s cool to have different opinions than their parents, and chances are that at least one of their parents is conservative. It’s cool to be anti authority, and liberalism is the champion of the idea that there is this secret conservative conspiracy going on and only the liberals can save the country. </p>
<p>Pop music, rock music, alternative etc; is overwhelmingly filled with liberal commentary. The media is filled with the liberal elite. Celebrities are typically liberal and “green.” Institutions of higher learning are extremely liberal. Basically, the elite in this country- media, entertainment, education- are mostly liberal. They project their views on the rest of society, and the young are more receptive to such indoctrination than adults. The other thing is that the young don’t do much. They typically have limited life experience. Plus, the liberals in power or the talking heads on channels such as CNN and MSNBC portray liberalism as the political ideolodgy of good people- as in, voting for Obama made you a good person. </p>
<p>Like anything else, society manipulates the young, and life experience and such force people to change their views and perspective. Like the OP said, when you are working and living for yourself, you realize how much the gov robs you and how the people in power are constantly asking you to surrender more power because they somehow know what’s best for you more than you do. </p>
<p>It’s sick.</p>
<p>Baelor and Vana need to seriously back off on calibabe, saying things like 'like a dog coming back to its own vomit." That just makes you look incredibly immature and mean. Psychos.</p>
<p>To the OP:</p>
<p>First off, there are some glaring generalizations here that make a sensible response almost impossible. That said, I don’t think college campuses, from my very limited experience are thoughtlessly liberal. That is to say, leaning to the left isn’t necessarily as fashionable as some people make it out to be.</p>
<p>My first day at school, my Dean said to us, “If you don’t take courses that drastically conflict with your own social and political leanings, you haven’t exercised your intellectual courage enough to consider yourself one of our own.”</p>
<p>Tom - It was calibabe who did the initial attacking and has been sullying the thread ever since. I am indeed <em>ahem</em> incredibly mean, so I cede that point.</p>
<p>I laugh at the liberal-conservative dichotomy. Both ideologies are flawed. Conservatives have no right to dictate the people’s morals, and liberals slept through Economics 101.</p>
<p>Vote libertarian.</p>
<p>Yes, moral decay due to excessive permissiveness coupled with destructive economic idealism is better than realism.</p>
<p>You assume that liberal ideals are always “moral decay”? Or am I misunderstanding?</p>
<p>^He means liberals permit too much behavior in the population. He’s probably anti gay marriage, anti abortion, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think what you meant to say was Democratic-Republican dichotomy. You are comparing social conservatism with liberal economics and then championing for a system of social liberalism and conservative economics.</p>
<p>^^ Indeed he is. </p>
<p>But liberal ideas also brought us voting rights, desegregation, etc. That is what’s always forgotten.</p>
<p>Which is what I’ve never understood about Republicans. They want the government out of our lives, but then vote for more government intrusion by limiting women’s rights, limiting what consenting adults can and cannot marry, what we ingest into our bodies, etc. It makes no sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The first sentence is probably generally accurate in terms of reflecting my views.</p>
<p>Since this thread seems to be flooded with conservatives, and liberalism hasn’t been given its due justice, I will try to defend it against some tea-bagging level of ignorance displayed in some posts here.</p>
<p>The main reason people are liberal (at least economically) is because they see merit and reason for the government to provide an economic safety net to its citizens due to the fickle nature of the universe and the systemic risk inherent in, well, just simply living.</p>
<p>You see, liberals feel that most poor people are not poor by choice, and that circumstances beyond control often force people into poverty and homelessness. Liberals do not feel that poor people deserve to be living in the squalor that they are. Or that the elderly should be thrown away like used-up peels, because they are “worthless” now that they can no longer “produce.”</p>
<p>Now, we’re not talking about simply giving away money. We’re talking about giving a tiny fraction of the giant sum your tax dollars just paid to Haliburton in over-inflated prices to provide for titan-scale military to give the tiniest SCRAPS of meager sustenance required to provide for a single mom and her kids so that THEY can have the right to life.</p>
<p>You realize that the vast majority of welfare is given to single mothers in food and monetary aid? The stereotype of the lazy unemployed minority “gaming” the system (a pervasive one) is virtually a myth, especially after Clinton’s reforms. And if you really saw their lifestyle, you would not be envious.</p>
<p>And we’re not just talking about the poor; we are talking about all kinds of social services everyone enjoys. Take schools, for instance – taxes provide for that. Because in this country, we believe everyone has a right to education – not just people who can “pay for it.”</p>
<p>In fact, this whole “tea-bagger” party thing has given way to a disconcerting trend. Referring to taxes – ANY taxes – as socialism. Let’s ignore for the moment that you have no idea what socialism means.</p>
<p>With this line of thinking, your argument could extend to any use of tax dollars for any cause in which not every single taxpayer benefits, which, sorry to say, is the way virtually EVERY government expenditure works. Why not condemn the entire system of taxation while you’re at it? The logical conclusion to that argument is to eliminate government programs in their entirety, eliminate taxation in its entirety, and revert to a stone-age tribal form of a series of micro-governments where each person spends money ONLY on what they need or want to without any sense of community spending towards greater goals.</p>
<p>You realize that fireman, policeman, and even the military are all paid for by taxes, but I don’t hear anybody calling those institutions “socialist.” Each of those can be privatized and used on a pay-per-use basis. But wait – we realized that, gasp, taxes are valuable and are the price you pay for living in this country and using its services.</p>
<p>Also, the premise that only rich people or tax-payers should vote is laughable and disgusting. 80 years ago that would probably have included many women who were mostly homemakers. I guess you wouldn’t be on board with them voting. You’d prefer the destruction of democracy to the rule of the rich.</p>
<p>The fundamental difference between you and me, is that YOU feel that the universe is a COMPLETE AND UTTER MERITOCRACY, AND PERFECTLY FAIR. Every dollar someone has earned has been deserved and earned fairly, and every dollar lost or withheld or stolen has been done so fairly. That’s why the rich shouldn’t be taxed and the poor shouldn’t be helped – because each person has earned their lot, one way or another, fairly, and deserve the reap the full rewards of that situation. Every poor person had their chance, and failed deservingly, and so they deserve their conditions. Take, for instance, the children of a destitute family who can’t afford food or healthcare — it is their fault/ responsibility for being born into that family, so to hell with them. Let them die.</p>
<p>On the social issue side of the coin, that is even easier. You have no right to tell me what the hell I can do with my body if it doesn’t affect others, or who I can marry, or what religious services or rituals or morals I should observe. This is so mind-numbingly obvious, but then again, the Republican Party still exists.</p>
<p>And for all you fiscal conservatives, I offer you this:
[National</a> debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms]National”>History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Democratic Presidents have generally lowered the debt while Republican Presidents have generally raised it. The Republican platform of lowered spending is an absolute farce – they spend, spend, spend, spend, SPEND!! Look at Bush – he spent more than any President in history – the TRILLIONS on the War built on a lie and then paying for it with – REDUCED TAXES TO THE WEALTHY (income >$250k). You realize that BUSH SIGNED THE TRILLION DOLLAR BAILOUTS.</p>
<p>But I understand the crooks in both parties have little to do with actual ideology.</p>
<p>Liberals want (personal life: stay out!) and (help the poor).</p>
<p>Conservatives want (enforce Jesus) but (sure as hell don’t follow his teachings).</p>
<p>Carlin said it best when he said conservatives care about you before you’re born, but then once you come out you’re on your own! Until you’re 18 and can die for your country of course - then they love you again.</p>
<h2>Which is what I’ve never understood about Republicans. They want the government out of our lives, but then vote for more government intrusion by limiting women’s rights, limiting what consenting adults can and cannot marry, what we ingest into our bodies, etc. It makes no sense. ~Romanigypsyeyes</h2>
<p>Each side has moral stances on issues, that will never change - you just don’t like the conservative ones.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When I talk about conservatism loosely I’m talking about the ideals held by modern conservatives: social conservatism and little economic regulation. But technically, you’re right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No they don’t. That would be libertarians.</p>