Liberal and Conservative Core Values

[Wind Song]

When liberals and conservatives debate the burning issues of the day -- whether it's immigration or marriage equality, global warming or health care reform -- we often wind up talking at cross-purposes, and the conversations go around in increasingly belligerent circles ... because we're not starting with the same ethical foundations. We assume that we have the same core values, and are simply debating the best way to apply those values in the world. We're not. We're debating -- not very effectively or coherently most of the time -- the core values themselves.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/146930/get_a_brain,_morons%3A_why_being_liberal_really_is _better_than_being_conservative/?page=entire




The author makes the case that liberal values are superior because they can be universalized and lists authority, loyalty and purity as core conservative values and fairness and the avoidance of harm as core liberals.

I thought it might be worthwhile to discuss what we consider core values in the polar positions of liberal and conservative.

[darin]

Today's Liberal Core Values:

Forced "charity"
Generational Welfare as a means to control the population.
Stealing from the hard-working to give to the lazy.
National Religion (Call it Climate change...call it social behavior modification...call it Darwinism...call it '99%'.)


Conservative Core Values:

Freedom above all else
Devastating and swift defeat of one person's freedom negatively impacting ANOTHER's freedom
Tough Love - requiring each person to care for their lives; success or failure.
Believe what you want, how you want, and with whom you want. (Whomever wants to do with, sleep with, live with, pray with, say something - Go for it; just do not let your preferences hurt those around you).


(shrug).

I'm much better than whomever wrote the piece at that link.

[Wind Song]

The early liberal thinker John Locke (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/John_Locke), who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Natural_rights) and the social contract (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Social_contract) to argue that the rule of law (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Rule_of_law) should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed), and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Private_property).
The revolutionaries in the American Revolution (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/American_Revolution) and the French Revolution (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/French_Revolution) used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

[Dilloduck]

are you being oppressed by a tyrant?

[Kathianne]

The core of most vocal liberals one finds on mbs are that they want the government to control all, though they disclaim the means of production, while they keep repeating the mantra that all the money 'loaned' to GM/Chrysler/Big Banks has been 'nearly repaid.' All lies. But great cover and propaganda. They want cradle to grave big government, you disagree? See Julia commercials.

Some conservatives are as nutty in reverse, but that's not even close to most. One could say, they are the 1% of the conservatives. They want some idealized past to come to fruition, sound like anyone in history during the 1920's?

Core conservatives do believe in community, they vehemently disagree that community starts and ends in D.C. It's the schools, civic centers, churches, synagogues, mosques, associations, etc. Those that know their people and what they need. Those that set up the food pantries and the homeless shelters. Those that run the YMCA's and YWCA's.

Core conservatives not only believe that Washington wastes a vast percentage of money taken in, outspends it in addition, but often what they spend it on causes more harm than good. http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/west-virginia-blows-24-million-worth-of-obamas-stimulus-cash-on-ridiculously-oversized-internet-routers/


West Virginia Blows $24 Million Worth Of Obama’s “Stimulus” Cash On Ridiculously Oversized Internet Routers State Paid $22K Each For Internet Routers – Charleston Gazette (http://wvgazette.com/News/201205050057)
Nobody told Hurricane librarian Rebecca Elliot that the $22,600 Internet router in the branch library’s storage closet was powerful enough to serve an entire college campus.


Nobody told Elliot how much the router cost or who paid for it. Workers just showed up and installed the device. They left behind no instructions, no user manual.
The high-end router serves four public computer terminals at the small library in Putnam County.



“I don’t know much about those kinds of things,” Elliot said last week, before politely leaving to help an elderly patron select books. “I just work here.”

[DragonStryk72]

When liberals and conservatives debate the burning issues of the day -- whether it's immigration or marriage equality, global warming or health care reform -- we often wind up talking at cross-purposes, and the conversations go around in increasingly belligerent circles ... because we're not starting with the same ethical foundations. We assume that we have the same core values, and are simply debating the best way to apply those values in the world. We're not. We're debating -- not very effectively or coherently most of the time -- the core values themselves.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/146930/get_a_brain,_morons%3A_why_being_liberal_really_is _better_than_being_conservative/?page=entire




The author makes the case that liberal values are superior because they can be universalized and lists authority, loyalty and purity as core conservative values and fairness and the avoidance of harm as core liberals.

I thought it might be worthwhile to discuss what we consider core values in the polar positions of liberal and conservative.

The problem with this entire point is part of the central issue: Both parties changed over time. I mean, if we were to go back to the 60s, you would see the democratic party blocking integration of public schools, only to keep throwing the racism tag at the republicans nowadays, all while blithely sidestepping their own history on the subject.

[Wind Song]

The problem with this entire point is part of the central issue: Both parties changed over time. I mean, if we were to go back to the 60s, you would see the democratic party blocking integration of public schools, only to keep throwing the racism tag at the republicans nowadays, all while blithely sidestepping their own history on the subject.


I agree that both parties have changed. I found the article. I'd never considered the possibility that what liberals and conservatives are actually fighting about are core values rather than specific issues.

I thought we could discuss it. I'm not even sure I agree with the OP premise.

[DragonStryk72]

I agree that both parties have changed. I found the article. I'd never considered the possibility that what liberals and conservatives are actually fighting about are core values rather than specific issues.

I thought we could discuss it. I'm not even sure I agree with the OP premise.

But that's the things, there's no real way to discuss it, since the core values of the parties change over time as their membership changes.

[DragonStryk72]

If we look at the current Republicans, the emphasis is on Smaller Government, Fiscal Responsibility, and Individual Liberty.

[Wind Song]

But that's the things, there's no real way to discuss it, since the core values of the parties change over time as their membership changes.

It's possible for us to discuss our own values. I'm fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. I think we're more likely to find values we have in common than those which we disagree with.

One place values show up is in what we think our tax dollars should pay for.

[Kathianne]

It's possible for us to discuss our own values. I'm fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. I think we're more likely to find values we have in common than those which we disagree with.

One place values show up is in what we think our tax dollars should pay for.

How do you claim to be fiscally conservative? Cuts in military? You certainly aren't for a reduction in any social programs, education, environment, etc.

[jimnyc]

How do you claim to be fiscally conservative? Cuts in military? You certainly aren't for a reduction in any social programs, education, environment, etc.

She is FAR from fiscally conservative and her own posts here show that. It's just a good talking point for her, but fails miserably.

[Kathianne]

She is FAR from fiscally conservative and her own posts here show that. It's just a good talking point for her, but fails miserably.

Yeah, that was my point, but you went and spoiled it for her to answer.

[jimnyc]

Yeah, that was my point, but you went and spoiled it for her to answer.

She would have just told you that you were off topic and refused to answer. :lol:

[DragonStryk72]

It's possible for us to discuss our own values. I'm fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. I think we're more likely to find values we have in common than those which we disagree with.

One place values show up is in what we think our tax dollars should pay for.

Uh, you are not fiscally conservative. That's an objective term, and you do not fit the criteria.

I spent two hours posting to your postives yesterday in the Obama thread, where you listed large scale wastes of money, along with Acts that only make things illegal that are already illegal, costing us yet more money for extra enforcement. He threw money away to other countries that we need here, seeing as we keep repeatedly hitting our debt ceiling now. That's not fiscally conservative. Taking that extra funding and paying down the hideous debt? that's fiscally conservative.

In fact, the only budget I've heard of you wanting lowered is the military, cutting their budget clean in half. While I freely admit that there is waste occurring, a blanket cut like that will screw over not only us, but many third world countries, and our allies, since we are most often the first responders for incidents in other countries, natural disasters, and the like. It would also strand a number of our military men and women with no jobs, and crush the economies of the cities that have built up around the military bases that will have to be closed. With the economy like it is, this means that the unemployment will skyrocket pretty quickly.

[fj1200]

http://www.alternet.org/belief/146930/get_a_brain,_morons%3A_why_being_liberal_really_is _better_than_being_conservative/?page=entire

The author makes the case that liberal values are superior because they can be universalized and lists authority, loyalty and purity as core conservative values and fairness and the avoidance of harm as core liberals.

I thought it might be worthwhile to discuss what we consider core values in the polar positions of liberal and conservative.

And she can hold her nose just that much higher; good for her.


I've been a proud liberal since I was old enough to make a choice. And now I'm prouder than ever. Because humanity's moral evolution has, in every instance I can think of, been in the direction of humanity becoming more liberal.

She is wrong though, fairness and harm are not universalized. One persons view of fairness to one group is not fair to another group. One persons idea to enforce fairness and lack of harm actually increases the unfairness and can cause unseen harm to the very same group that they seek to help.

This is just another story where someone will take a grain of information in attempt to increase their superiority in other people's eyes. I disagree with her list of conservative values anyway.

But I think you are to something in one respect is that when people are debating their view and a particular solution to a problem, no one addresses the underlying issue that may have caused the current problem in the first place. If more government intervention into the HC problem is the solution then it must be that a lack of government intervention is what got us here but it's clear upon investigation that there is a surfeit of intervention in the current markets to begin with.*

*That was only an illustration and no intent to make this a HC thread.

[fj1200]

The early liberal thinker John Locke (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/John_Locke), who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Natural_rights) and the social contract (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Social_contract) to argue that the rule of law (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Rule_of_law) should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed), and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Private_property).
The revolutionaries in the American Revolution (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/American_Revolution) and the French Revolution (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/French_Revolution) used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

The Liberalism of yesterday is far different than that of today.

[ConHog]

How do you claim to be fiscally conservative? Cuts in military? You certainly aren't for a reduction in any social programs, education, environment, etc.

LOL I was about to post the very same thing when I noticed you already had. I don't necessarily disagree that a person can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but I don't think that means what WS thinks it does.

[Little-Acorn]

The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the "consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


The Liberalism of yesterday is far different than that of today.
Unfortunately, today's liberals have done a complete 180 from those ideas, and now embrace the ideas of expanding the power of government into most formerly-private affairs, taxing the productive among us, abolition of private property rights, censorship and even punishment for thoughts, ideas, and speech terms, etc. While those now called conservatives embrace the ideas formerly held by the old "classical liberals" such as Locke.

Basically today's liberals have the idea that government (a) can, and (b) should do extensive lists of things to help people with ordinary, everyday problems; while conservatives believe that government should do only the things people (or groups) CANNOT do, which is a much more restricted list. In this way, the basic philosophies of today's liberals and conservatives (note I did not say Democrats and Republicans, which are not the same thing at all) have indeed diverged widely, and in ways that cannot be compromised.

What compromise is possible between someone who believes govt should be able to take far more from the wealty while taking hardly anything from the non-wealty (tax on incomes, either "progressive" or "flat"), and a person who believes that everyone has a right to keep what he earned and each person should pay to government in proportion to what he receives from government?

What compromise is possible between someone who believes a person should be punished more for what he was thinking while committing a crime ("hate crime"), vs. a person who believes punishment should be meted out only for what the lawbreakers DID, and what rights that lawbreaker intended to violate (say, murder vs. manslaughter)?

[revelarts]

The early liberal thinker John Locke (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/John_Locke), who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Natural_rights) and the social contract (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Social_contract) to argue that the rule of law (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Rule_of_law) should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed), and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Private_property).
The revolutionaries in the American Revolution (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/American_Revolution) and the French Revolution (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/French_Revolution) used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

John Locke, He was pretty much a Christian fella.
Talked about God being the foundation of Natural Law .
funny Ted Kennedy grilled several potential Supreme court justices to find out if they agreed with the idea that natural Law was a base for our laws and IN HIS OPINION it disqualified them if they did. Not sure how Locke got to be liberal on wiki?

[revelarts]

That articles is a horrible piece of propaganda and really meant for the true believers.


...I've been a proud liberal since I was old enough to make a choice. And now I'm prouder than ever. Because humanity's moral evolution has, in every instance I can think of, been in the direction of humanity becoming more liberal.

a few words:
LEGALIZED Abortion
LEGALIZED Euthanasia
Because humanity's morally evolved to dehumanize and kill our own children and elders for convenience and the betterment of "society".

What horrific blindness.

[Little-Acorn]

Not sure how Locke got to be liberal on wiki?

Wiki was likely referring to a "classical liberal" of a century or so ago.

As several people have pointed out in this thread, what was called a "classical liberal" then is very close to a "conservative" today (and back then), while what is called a "liberal" today is almost the complete opposite of what one was back then.

What is called a liberal today, was called a "parlor pink" back then.

Except that the liberals in high government office today, are considerably farther to the left of the pinks back then.

[4horsemenrule]

When liberals and conservatives debate the burning issues of the day -- whether it's immigration or marriage equality, global warming or health care reform -- we often wind up talking at cross-purposes, and the conversations go around in increasingly belligerent circles ... because we're not starting with the same ethical foundations. We assume that we have the same core values, and are simply debating the best way to apply those values in the world. We're not. We're debating -- not very effectively or coherently most of the time -- the core values themselves.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/146930/get_a_brain,_morons%3A_why_being_liberal_really_is _better_than_being_conservative/?page=entire




The author makes the case that liberal values are superior because they can be universalized and lists authority, loyalty and purity as core conservative values and fairness and the avoidance of harm as core liberals.

I thought it might be worthwhile to discuss what we consider core values in the polar positions of liberal and conservative.

Wind SOng it is clear to me liberal "debate" on pure emotion - and that is it. When they cannot defend their core principals they fall back on the usual emotional talking points.

It is "unfair"; people are "greedy"; people are "racists"; the liberals then play the vicitim card and go on how they are being mistreated

All of this is nothing but pure emotion

Meanwhile, most conservatives use logic, reason, and facts to back up their facts

Take the budget for example. Democrats want higher taxes despite how Pres Obama has pissed thru it and wasted TRILLIONS

Liberals say the government is "starved" and people will "die" if budget cuts take place

Again, Wind Song - nothing but pure emotion devoid of facts

That is how liberals debate IMO

[Abbey Marie]

LOL I was about to post the very same thing when I noticed you already had. I don't necessarily disagree that a person can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but I don't think that means what WS thinks it does.

Yeah, how does one fund all those "socially liberal" programs while being fiscally conservative? It doesn't wash.

[4horsemenrule]

Yeah, how does one fund all those "socially liberal" programs while being fiscally conservative? It doesn't wash.

I would like the answer to that question as well. LBJ started the "War on Poverty" in the late 1960's and what do we have to show for this "war" 50 years and about $9 trillion later?

Besides a mountain of debt, a credit downgrade, and interest payments that are grwoing by the second

[Wind Song]

I would like the answer to that question as well. LBJ started the "War on Poverty" in the late 1960's and what do we have to show for this "war" 50 years and about $9 trillion later?

Besides a mountain of debt, a credit downgrade, and interest payments that are grwoing by the second

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=4110


In September 2011, the United States Census Bureau reported that over forty-six million Americans—nearly one in six—were living below the officially established poverty line in 2010, as defined by an annual income of $22,314 for a family of four. In absolute numbers it was the greatest number of Americans living below the poverty line since the Bureau began keeping such records in 1959, three years before the appearance of The Other America. The report revealed that some groups of Americans were particularly hard-hit: For blacks, the poverty rate was 27 percent, for Hispanics, 26 percent. Residents of Rust Belt cities in the old industrial heartland of the Northeast and Midwest also suffered disproportionately: Reading, Pennsylvania, had the nation’s highest poverty rate of 41.3 percent followed by Flint, Michigan, at 41.2 percent. Age was also a factor, with young families over-represented: according to census data, 35 percent of American children were being raised in poverty. The recession that began in 2007-2008 exacerbated poverty, but so did the “welfare reform” measures, enacted in the prosperous 1990s, restricting federal and state cash aid to poor families.

[Shadow]

We have less hungry people.

And they still ask for private donations of food stuffs several times a year to be picked up by the postal service or dropped off at the food bank.

[Wind Song]

And they still ask for private donations of food stuffs several times a year to be picked up by the postal service or dropped off at the food bank.

What would you prefer? They starve? Truth is, it's all needed, private and public poverty help.

[4horsemenrule]

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=4110


In September 2011, the United States Census Bureau reported that over forty-six million Americans—nearly one in six—were living below the officially established poverty line in 2010, as defined by an annual income of $22,314 for a family of four. In absolute numbers it was the greatest number of Americans living below the poverty line since the Bureau began keeping such records in 1959, three years before the appearance of The Other America. The report revealed that some groups of Americans were particularly hard-hit: For blacks, the poverty rate was 27 percent, for Hispanics, 26 percent. Residents of Rust Belt cities in the old industrial heartland of the Northeast and Midwest also suffered disproportionately: Reading, Pennsylvania, had the nation’s highest poverty rate of 41.3 percent followed by Flint, Michigan, at 41.2 percent. Age was also a factor, with young families over-represented: according to census data, 35 percent of American children were being raised in poverty. The recession that began in 2007-2008 exacerbated poverty, but so did the “welfare reform” measures, enacted in the prosperous 1990s, restricting federal and state cash aid to poor families.




Wind Song, please address the fact that since liberal started their War on Poverty we have seen over $9 trillion in wealth tranfers taken from those who earned the money and given to those deemed by the government as "needy" and all in an attempt to get them out of poverty

How much more money will it take for you liberals to admit you will never make the poor richer by making the rich poorer?

[Wind Song]

Wind Song, please address the fact that since liberal started their War on Poverty we have seen over $9 trillion in wealth tranfers taken from those who earned the money and given to those deemed by the government as "needy" and all in an attempt to get them out of poverty

How much more money will it take for you liberals to admit you will never make the poor richer by making the rich poorer?



The core surviving War on Poverty programs – Head Start, which covers only half of eligible children; community health centers, which only cover a small percentage of the poor; and food stamps – lift tens of millions out of poverty. A major legacy of the War on Poverty has been the decline of rural poverty. While one-third of the poor still live in rural areas, official rural poverty rates today are just officially 17 percent, versus 14 percent in urban areas. In 1962 – before Medicaid and food stamps – close to one-third of rural Americans lived in poverty, versus 20 percent in cities.
Since the War on Poverty, the Right has engaged in a systematic disinformation campaign aimed at making the public see the poor as "immoral" rather than as workers without work or a living wage or as single mothers who engage in productive work caring for infants or who, if they are to participate in the formal labor market, need living wages and publicly-financed, high-quality child care.

http://www.dsausa.org/dl/Spring_2012_content/Commitment.pdf

[Shadow]

What would you prefer? They starve? Truth is, it's all needed, private and public poverty help.

Guess the war on poverty is a failure then...huh.

[Dilloduck]

Wind Song, please address the fact that since liberal started their War on Poverty we have seen over $9 trillion in wealth tranfers taken from those who earned the money and given to those deemed by the government as "needy" and all in an attempt to get them out of poverty

How much more money will it take for you liberals to admit you will never make the poor richer by making the rich poorer?

Liberals get a huge cut of that 9 trillion in wages---they will never admit it.

[Wind Song]

I'm not taking on your hatred of liberals. I will minimally answer your posts just to keep the discussion going, but in no uncertain terms, the consensus around here is that I post too much.

[Wind Song]

Liberals get a huge cut of that 9 trillion in wages---they will never admit it.

Are you claiming that only liberals work for the government? Prove it.

[4horsemenrule]

I'm not taking on your hatred of liberals. I will minimally answer your posts just to keep the discussion going, but in no uncertain terms, the consensus around here is that I post too much.

So now I "hate" liberals? Is "hate" now poiting out the end results of liberalism?

The same thing goes when people point out the failures of Pres Obama. You "hate" him and you are also usually tagged as a "racist"

[Wind Song]

Guess the war on poverty is a failure then...huh.

We had one third of all Americans living in poverty before the war on poverty. Since that time, the numbers have been cut in half.

[Wind Song]

So now I "hate" liberals? Is "hate" now poiting out the end results of liberalism?

The same thing goes when people point out the failures of Pres Obama. You "hate" him and you are also usually tagged as a "racist"

I'm not taking on the contempt this board feels for all liberals. I took the KICK WIND SONG tag off my back.

Consider what this board wants. A scapegoat to dump all anti-liberal hate on one poster. I'm not going to be that for you.

[4horsemenrule]

Guess the war on poverty is a failure then...huh.

How could it ever succeed?

BTW I saw a report where people on Food Stamps are selling them on E Bay. Also people can report their Food Stamp card as missing and they get a replacement

Another example of well intention liberal programs end of failing and costing the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars

[Dilloduck]

Are you claiming that only liberals work for the government? Prove it.


no--I didn't make that claim----I thought you promised to stay out of political threads.

[Wind Song]

I think you folks won't be happy until the poor in the US are as miserable as they are in Africa.

[4horsemenrule]

I'm not taking on the contempt this board feels for all liberals. I took the KICK WIND SONG tag off my back.

Consider what this board wants. A scapegoat to dump all anti-liberal hate on one poster. I'm not going to be that for you.

How is it contempt to point out the failures of liberalism? Is that your way of ducking out and not being able to defend such things as welfare programs that have gone on for a generation and have failed?

[Wind Song]

no--I didn't make that claim----I thought you promised to stay out of political threads.


I stated that if invited to comment I would comment, the new poster invited me to comment, but since you are holding me to some understanding you have that I NEVER post on politics, I will return to the Poem thread.

Bye dillo.

[4horsemenrule]

I think you folks won't be happy until the poor in the US are as miserable as they are in Africa.

As I said, liberals run on pure emotion and devoid of facts

[Wind Song]

As I said, liberals run on pure emotion and devoid of facts


I'm not going to be the sole liberal and take crap from all of you all day long. Ta ta.

You don't want to have a respectful discussion with different points of view, you all just want to dump, dump, dump your rant.

[4horsemenrule]

I'm not going to be the sole liberal and take crap from all of you all day long. Ta ta.

So much for the strength of your convictions and depth of your knowledge

You should have your own show on MSNBC where you can carry of discussions with like minded liberals and play the race and emotion cards unchallenged

[Shadow]

How could it ever succeed?

BTW I saw a report where people on Food Stamps are selling them on E Bay. Also people can report their Food Stamp card as missing and they get a replacement

Another example of well intention liberal programs end of failing and costing the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars

People on food stamps also loan them to their friends/family...or just hoarde food themselves when they don't even need more rations for the month...see...if you use your allowance up every month. They will give you even more the following month.

Not to mention the case workers tell you how to cheat the system to stay on the program even when you don't qualify anymore.

Yep...that money is definately going to good use...not.:thumb:

[Dilloduck]

People on food stamps also loan them to their friends/family...or just hoarde food them selves when they don't even need more rations for the month...see...if you use your allowance up every month. They will give you even more the following month.

Not to mention the case workers tell you how to cheat the system to stay on the program even when you don't qualify anymore.

Yep...that money is definately going to good use...not.:thumb:

Plus the liberal case workers get a nice paycheck for doing it.

[Shadow]

I'm not going to be the sole liberal and take crap from all of you all day long. Ta ta.

You don't want to have a respectful discussion with different points of view, you all just want to dump, dump, dump your rant.

You ain't the 'sole' liberal on the board miss martyr. Just because Noir and Gabby don't whine all day long...doesn't mean they aren't 'liberal'. Get off the cross already. :rolleyes:

[4horsemenrule]

People on food stamps also loan them to their friends/family...or just hoarde food them selves when they don't even need more rations for the month...see...if you use your allowance up every month. They will give you even more the following month.

Not to mention the case workers tell you how to cheat the system to stay on the program even when you don't qualify anymore.

Yep...that money is definately going to good use...not.:thumb:

and that is only what we know of

Not to mention the fraud that goes on with Medicare, Medicade, Social Secuirty, and all the other handouts you can get at your local Social Sevicies office

Yet die hard liberals like Wind Song are not interested in these stories. Wind Song and her fellow liberals could not happier to see more and more people become dependent on the government thus they become hooked on their handouts

Like the drug dealer that gets your kid hooked on herion, liberals want as many people as possible hooked on handouts

Once they ahve them hooked - they own them

[Wind Song]

So much for the strength of your convictions and depth of your knowledge

You should have your own show on MSNBC where you can carry of discussions with like minded liberals and play the race and emotion cards unchallenged

You require me to be an expert? I'm not. I just happen to be someone who is a liberal and has worked as a social worker in the past.

I'm not here to be anyone's scapegoat about what angers you that's happening with the economy.

It's NOT my fault and I'm not taking it on.

I'm sick of being dumped on just because I'm lesbian, liberal, feminist, Buddhist. If you wanted to have a respectful dialogue it would go something like this:

Have you views of the war on poverty changed in light of the current conditions in our country?

Instead you just want to whine and complain and blame the "lazy" undeserving poor.

Most of the poor in the US is working poor, not welfare bums.

Instead of having a conversation, you demand continuously that I prove my point of view. I've got things to do beyond posting on a messageboard.

[Shadow]

and that is only what we know of

Not to mention the fraud that goes on with Medicare, Medicade, Social Secuirty, and all the other handouts you can get at your local Social Sevicies office

Yet die hard liberals like Wind Song are not interested in these stories. Wind Song and her fellow liberals could not happier to see more and more people become dependent on the government thus they become hooked on their handouts

Like the drug dealer that gets your kid hooked on herion, liberals want as many people as possible hooked on handouts

Once they ahve them hooked - they own them

Don't have to tell me...once... on that other board (that shall not be named) I got the libs patties in a wad by starting a thread that listed all the cases of social program fraud that I could find on the internet. They even dedicated a thread to me in the flame zone cuz of it (woot). They take their shady social program dealings very seriously...those libs...as in... they like them just the way they are.

[4horsemenrule]

You require me to be an expert? I'm not. I just happen to be someone who is a liberal and has worked as a social worker in the past.

I'm not here to be anyone's scapegoat about what angers you that's happening with the economy.

It's NOT my fault and I'm not taking it on.

I'm sick of being dumped on just because I'm lesbian, liberal, feminist, Buddhist. If you wanted to have a respectful dialogue it would go something like this:

Have you views of the war on poverty changed in light of the current conditions in our country?

Instead you just want to whine and complain and blame the "lazy" undeserving poor.

Most of the poor in the US is working poor, not welfare bums.

Instead of having a conversation, you demand continuously that I prove my point of view. I've got things to do beyond posting on a messageboard.

You really are a crybaby. I thought if someone would take the time to ask direct questions and post solid facts you would at least attempt to cary on a civil conversation

You are so typical of the liberal I know personally. Nothing but pure emoton and zero facts is your entire playbook

Anyone who disagrees with you is tagged as "dumping" on you. You are a sad case and I damn near pity you since you live such a miserable life and have such a sour outlook on the rest of the world that exists outside your little bubble

[Wind Song]

You ain't the 'sole' liberal on the board miss martyr. Just because Noir and Gabby don't whine all day long...doesn't mean they aren't 'liberal'. Get off the cross already. :rolleyes:


Hostile post.

[4horsemenrule]

Hostile post.

It is clear to me you consider the truth to be hostile Wind Song

[Wind Song]

You really are a crybaby. I thought if someone would take the time to ask direct questions and post solid facts you would at least attempt to cary on a civil conversation

You are so typical of the liberal I know personally. Nothing but pure emoton and zero facts is your entire playbook

Anyone who disagrees with you is tagged as "dumping" on you. You are a sad case and I damn near pity you since you live such a miserable life and have such a sour outlook on the rest of the world that exists outside your little bubble


You're not interested in a mutually satisfying respectful conversation about poverty. You just want to liberal dump and rant. I'm done. I'll be posting poetry and music and enjoying my life, not arguing with people who hate my guts.

[Wind Song]

It is clear to me you consider the truth to be hostile Wind Song


I consider the things you've said about me to be hostile.

[4horsemenrule]

You're not interested in a mutually satisfying respectful conversation about poverty. You just want to liberal dump and rant. I'm done. I'll be posting poetry and music and enjoying my life, not arguing with people who hate my guts.

Honey I was respectful until you coped your victim attitude in post #50 when you were unable to counter my facts

I do hope you grow up and understand just because more and more pople have a different opinion on the role and size of government then you do - is not hate

[4horsemenrule]

I consider the things you've said about me to be hostile.

Yes, those damn pesky facts are hostile to a liberal determined to make every post about her

[Wind Song]

Honey I was respectful until you coped your victim attitude in post #50 when you were unable to counter my facts

I do hope you grow up and understand just because more and more pople have a different opinion on the role and size of government then you do - is not hate

I'm sorry about that. I'm not a popular poster on this forum. In fact, I'm universally hated here.

I'm not interested in discussing poverty with people who knee jerk blame liberals for everything wrong with the entire country,.

Take it easy.

[4horsemenrule]

I'm sorry about that. I'm not a popular poster on this forum. In fact, I'm universally hated here.

I'm not interested in discussing poverty with people who knee jerk blame liberals for everything wrong with the entire country,.

Take it easy.

Prhaps if your stopped taking a disagreement over politcal policies as a personal attack you would find you are not hated

Why do liberals (who say they are the tolerant ones) always the most intolerant towards those who openly disagree wth them?

[MtnBiker]

Some talk of "fairness" in this thread.

Is this "fair"?


Two guys walking down the street notice a homeless person in need of assistance. This homeless person could use some clean clothes, some personal hygiene and some medical attention. So the two men take it upon themselves to help this man and these are the action they take; they go further down the street and forceablely take hundreds of dollars from a woman with a purse, return to the homeless man, give him the money with instructions on how to spend the money to help his condition.

Now, would that be fair?

[Wind Song]

Prhaps if your stopped taking a disagreement over politcal policies as a personal attack you would find you are not hated

Why do liberals (who say they are the tolerant ones) always the most intolerant towards those who openly disagree wth them?

I like to discuss ideas with people who have different views from me, but I don't want to take on the role of "board scapegoat" and listen to insults all day long.

Life is too short.

I don't stick around where I'm not welcome.

[4horsemenrule]

I like to discuss ideas with people who have different views from me, but I don't want to take on the role of "board scapegoat" and listen to insults all day long.

Life is too short.

Then why did you cop an attitude with me? I never once insulted you - all I did was offer up facts and asked you to defend the failed liberla policies we have endured for the last 50 some odd years

[jimnyc]

I'm sorry about that. I'm not a popular poster on this forum. In fact, I'm universally hated here.

I'm not interested in discussing poverty with people who knee jerk blame liberals for everything wrong with the entire country,.

Take it easy.

Saying it doesn't make it true. And repeating it in every other post will only serve to push people in that direction. I think you annoy people here with your posting attitude, and accusations & being a victim so often - but being I'm a betting man, I would wager that NO ONE here "hates" you. How about stopping with the constant drama about being hated and not wanted, and concentrate more on the posts you're replying to and the content within?

[jimnyc]

Some talk of "fairness" in this thread.

Is this "fair"?

Two guys walking down the street notice a homeless person in need of assistance. This homeless person could use some clean clothes, some personal hygiene and some medical attention. So the two men take it upon themselves to help this man and these are the action they take; they go further down the street and forceablely take hundreds of dollars from a woman with a purse, return to the homeless man, give him the money with instructions on how to spend the money to help his condition.

Now, would that be fair?




Of course it would be fair. How dare that old bitch save the money she earned and hoard it while there are people who refuse to work who are suffering! :lol:

[Dilloduck]

no---now you have to rob someone else to take care of the lady.

[Wind Song]

Then why did you cop an attitude with me? I never once insulted you - all I did was offer up facts and asked you to defend the failed liberla policies we have endured for the last 50 some odd years


Why should I "defend failed liberal polices"? I didn't create the War on Poverty, and truth is that very few programs have survived. Headstart, WIC, food stamps and cash aid exist but many of the employment type programs have been eliminated. We legislate in a knee jerk fashion and then everyone forgets how it happened that we got where we are.

You'd like to blame the poor, as if they're all sitting around , fat and happy collecting welfare and living a much higher standard of living than you.

It's simply not true. I get sick of listening to cons blame the poor for the state of the economy. Why aren't you blaming all the corporations that took their jobs overseas? Why aren't you attacking the banker families and the greedy crooks on Wall St.

This forum is over represented by conservatives and most "debates" are little more than rants with a lot of high fiving going on.

One poster here actually thinks I have a "kick me" sign on my back.

Well, I've taken it off.

I'm staying with poems and music.

[jimnyc]

Why should I "defend failed liberal polices"? I didn't create the War on Poverty, and truth is that very few programs have survived. Headstart, WIC, food stamps and cash aid exist but many of the employment type programs have been eliminated. We legislate in a knee jerk fashion and then everyone forgets how it happened that we got where we are.

You'd like to blame the poor, as if they're all sitting around , fat and happy collecting welfare and living a much higher standard of living than you.

It's simply not true. I get sick of listening to cons blame the poor for the state of the economy. Why aren't you blaming all the corporations that took their jobs overseas? Why aren't you attacking the banker families and the greedy crooks on Wall St.

This forum is over represented by conservatives and most "debates" are little more than rants with a lot of high fiving going on.

One poster here actually thinks I have a "kick me" sign on my back.

Well, I've taken it off.

I'm staying with poems and music.

Here is part of your problem. You want to be able to speak down to "cons" and criticize them, all in a NY minute - but get taken back and don't feel a need to get the same in return, or to defend your stances.

[Wind Song]

Here is part of your problem. You want to be able to speak down to "cons" and criticize them, all in a NY minute - but get taken back and don't feel a need to get the same in return, or to defend your stances.


Nope. I'm retiring from politics. I'm taking the "kick WS" sign off my back, (thanks tailfins for pointing out it was there).

I surrender.

[Wind Song]

Saying it doesn't make it true. And repeating it in every other post will only serve to push people in that direction. I think you annoy people here with your posting attitude, and accusations & being a victim so often - but being I'm a betting man, I would wager that NO ONE here "hates" you. How about stopping with the constant drama about being hated and not wanted, and concentrate more on the posts you're replying to and the content within?


"Hated" is how I feel here. More accurate would be despised or extremely disliked.

It isn't about political views, I'm dislike for my "posting style" and for who I am, the person I am.

[jimnyc]

Nope. I'm retiring from politics. I'm taking the "kick WS" sign off my back, (thanks tailfins for pointing out it was there).

I surrender.

Weird how others get drilled for their beliefs and political POV's every day here, and none of the others feel that way. They simply feel others strongly disagree with them, and then they all continue on posting back and forth defending their points. But if you want to consider yourself a victim of sorts and retire to just a thread or 2, that's certainly a right you have here. But don't think for a second that someone reads that tripe and also thinks you're a victim of any kind, or that others are "kicking" you.

[jimnyc]

"Hated" is how I feel here. More accurate would be despised or extremely disliked.

It isn't about political views, I'm dislike for my "posting style" and for who I am, the person I am.

Your views are disliked. The way you talk down to others and go into victim mode so easily is disliked.

The rest is you sulking and whining and wanting to be a victim, and wanting someone to make you a martyr. Not gonna happen.

[Wind Song]

Forgive me but this poem expresses my views on this topic in many ways:

Momma Welfare RollHer arms semaphore fat triangles,
Pudgy hands bunched on layered hips
Where bones idle under years of fatback
And lima beans.
Her jowls shiver in accusation
Of crimes clichéd by
Repetition. Her children, strangers
To childhood's toys, play
Best the games of darkened doorways,
Rooftop tag, and know the slick feel of
Other people's property.

Too fat to whore,
Too mad to work,
Searches her dreams for the
Lucky sign and walks bare-handed
Into a den of bereaucrats for
Her portion.
'They don't give me welfare.
I take it.'


<!-- .KonaBody -->Maya Angelou

[jimnyc]

WS, I'm bad enough for assisting in the derailing here while I try to talk some sense into you, but please don't start posting poems in this thread when you have another thread started to do so.

[Wind Song]

Your views are disliked. The way you talk down to others and go into victim mode so easily is disliked.

The rest is you sulking and whining and wanting to be a victim, and wanting someone to make you a martyr. Not gonna happen.


I'm taking care of it by not posting on any political topic without an engraved invitation.

I don't care if people dislike my politics, I care that they dislike me as a person. They hate my guts.

[Wind Song]

Prhaps if your stopped taking a disagreement over politcal policies as a personal attack you would find you are not hated

Why do liberals (who say they are the tolerant ones) always the most intolerant towards those who openly disagree wth them?

Liberal attack post.

[jimnyc]

I'm taking care of it by not posting on any political topic without an engraved invitation.

I don't care if people dislike my politics, I care that they dislike me as a person. They hate my guts.

Ok, fine, that's how you feel, I won't try and change your mind. But instead of this whining - you have an engraved invitation to go to your poem or music thread then, instead of whining post after post in the threads you have vowed to stay out of.

[Wind Song]

WS, I'm bad enough for assisting in the derailing here while I try to talk some sense into you, but please don't start posting poems in this thread when you have another thread started to do so.

Oh fuck, I give up. I didn't know poems were illegal on every thread but a poem thread.

Just fucking ban me and get it over with. I'm tired of constantly trying to please this forum. I'm done.

[jimnyc]

Liberal attack post.

And if it was? Either reply or ignore it. But pointing out what type of post you perceive it to be is a waste of time.

[jimnyc]

Oh fuck, I give up. I didn't know poems were illegal on every thread but a poem thread.

Just fucking ban me and get it over with. I'm tired of constantly trying to please this forum. I'm done.

How many times have you asked to be banned? About 50? How many times have you swore off the political threads, only to post in them 8 seconds later?

The victim is here early today. :coffee:

[Wind Song]

Ok, fine, that's how you feel, I won't try and change your mind. But instead of this whining - you have an engraved invitation to go to your poem or music thread then, instead of whining post after post in the threads you have vowed to stay out of.


Listen, the only reason I posted on this thread today was because a new member asked me to. I have no intention of discussing politics anymore with people on this forum unless and until the overwhelming hostile collective attitude toward me changes.

I will stick to the poem and music thread.

Problem was, I did say that if someone specifically invited me to comment on a thread I would so.

I will withdraw that offer.

I'm done with politics.

[Wind Song]

How many times have you asked to be banned? About 50? How many times have you swore off the political threads, only to post in them 8 seconds later?

:coffee:


Jim,

I just explained why I posted in this thread today. Because a new member asked me to. I will NOT post in anymore political threads.

[Wind Song]

And if it was? Either reply or ignore it. But pointing out what type of post you perceive it to be is a waste of time.


I'll be in the poem or music threads if you need me.

[jimnyc]

I'll be in the poem or music threads if you need me.

Ok, I'll put that in my GPS in case I forget how to find you! :coffee:

[Wind Song]

Ok, I'll put that in my GPS in case I forget how to find you! :coffee:


You do that. In every other thread, I post by invitation only.
:bow3:

[Shadow]

I'll be in the poem or music threads if you need me.

And what if no one needs you?:rolleyes:

[Wind Song]

And what if no one needs you?:rolleyes:

Then you get what you wanted. I'm completely gone. My hated presence is confined to the poem and music threads.

[jimnyc]

Then you get what you wanted. I'm completely gone.

Dorothy, this shit is getting boring and tiresome. Can you show me where Shadow stated she wanted you gone? If not, then shut the fuck up with making things up and trying to pin it on others while making yourself out to be a victim. It's so transparent that it's comical.

[jimnyc]

Then you get what you wanted. I'm completely gone. My hated presence is confined to the poem and music threads.

Then of course you edit... But same thing. You are now going to claim people hate you again, with no proof, only your feelings and victim mentality.

[Wind Song]

Then of course you edit... But same thing. You are now going to claim people hate you again, with no proof, only your feelings and victim mentality.


Let's just stop talking about this. I'm sticking to the two poem and music threads i started and I'm staying off EVERY OTHER THREAD, from now on. If you post a response to this post I won't answer it.

I won't be creating any new threads on ANY topic.

Peace in the valley.

[4horsemenrule]

Why should I "defend failed liberal polices"? I didn't create the War on Poverty, and truth is that very few programs have survived. Headstart, WIC, food stamps and cash aid exist but many of the employment type programs have been eliminated. We legislate in a knee jerk fashion and then everyone forgets how it happened that we got where we are.

You'd like to blame the poor, as if they're all sitting around , fat and happy collecting welfare and living a much higher standard of living than you.

It's simply not true. I get sick of listening to cons blame the poor for the state of the economy. Why aren't you blaming all the corporations that took their jobs overseas? Why aren't you attacking the banker families and the greedy crooks on Wall St.

This forum is over represented by conservatives and most "debates" are little more than rants with a lot of high fiving going on.

One poster here actually thinks I have a "kick me" sign on my back.

Well, I've taken it off.

I'm staying with poems and music.

You support Obama and his polices for higher taxes and more government spending -yet you can't offer reasons why

You dismiss the examples of Obama's failed polcies as hate and refuse to address the flawed policies

Please show me where I "blamed the poor for bieng porr" excpet where the "poor" are ripping off the taxpayers by selling their food stamps on E-Bay

But again Wind Song - you are liberal and all you run on is pure emotion and you have yet to offer anything else in any of your posts

[DragonStryk72]

We had one third of all Americans living in poverty before the war on poverty. Since that time, the numbers have been cut in half.

Yeah, and here's a news flash: The War on Poverty will never end, just like the War on Terror will never end, and just like the War on Drugs will never end. Just tacking on another huge financial suck doesn't help. You know what would help? Getting out of debt so that we can cash China out of their partial ownership of the US, and setting the rules so that it isn't cheaper to produce goods around the curvature of the Earth than it is two blocks from the store they're sold in.

[4horsemenrule]

Yeah, and here's a news flash: The War on Poverty will never end, just like the War on Terror will never end, and just like the War on Drugs will never end. Just tacking on another huge financial suck doesn't help. You know what would help? Getting out of debt so that we can cash China out of their partial ownership of the US, and setting the rules so that it isn't cheaper to produce goods around the curvature of the Earth than it is two blocks from the store they're sold in.

The only way this nation will "get out of debt" is Obama pulling an October Surprise and filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy

He can go on TV and tell the nation he - and he alone - has wiped the $15 trillion dollar plus debt off the books

Other then that, our debt - and interst payments - wil continue to increase until like Greece we implode unde the weight of the debt

[DragonStryk72]

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=4110


In September 2011, the United States Census Bureau reported that over forty-six million Americans—nearly one in six—were living below the officially established poverty line in 2010, as defined by an annual income of $22,314 for a family of four. In absolute numbers it was the greatest number of Americans living below the poverty line since the Bureau began keeping such records in 1959, three years before the appearance of The Other America. The report revealed that some groups of Americans were particularly hard-hit: For blacks, the poverty rate was 27 percent, for Hispanics, 26 percent. Residents of Rust Belt cities in the old industrial heartland of the Northeast and Midwest also suffered disproportionately: Reading, Pennsylvania, had the nation’s highest poverty rate of 41.3 percent followed by Flint, Michigan, at 41.2 percent. Age was also a factor, with young families over-represented: according to census data, 35 percent of American children were being raised in poverty. The recession that began in 2007-2008 exacerbated poverty, but so did the “welfare reform” measures, enacted in the prosperous 1990s, restricting federal and state cash aid to poor families.




And in 2006, Dems took control of both House and Senate. Huh, funny how that doesn't get mentioned, given the time spans.

[DragonStryk72]

The core surviving War on Poverty programs – Head Start, which covers only half of eligible children; community health centers, which only cover a small percentage of the poor; and food stamps – lift tens of millions out of poverty. A major legacy of the War on Poverty has been the decline of rural poverty. While one-third of the poor still live in rural areas, official rural poverty rates today are just officially 17 percent, versus 14 percent in urban areas. In 1962 – before Medicaid and food stamps – close to one-third of rural Americans lived in poverty, versus 20 percent in cities.
Since the War on Poverty, the Right has engaged in a systematic disinformation campaign aimed at making the public see the poor as "immoral" rather than as workers without work or a living wage or as single mothers who engage in productive work caring for infants or who, if they are to participate in the formal labor market, need living wages and publicly-financed, high-quality child care.

http://www.dsausa.org/dl/Spring_2012_content/Commitment.pdf



No, they don't. I've been to social security, and it's always the same people there, so how are they "lifted" out of poverty if the same people are always filing the extensions? Thanks to the bullshit loopholes and such, social security at this reinforces poverty.

[4horsemenrule]

And in 2006, Dems took control of both House and Senate. Huh, funny how that doesn't get mentioned, given the time spans.

and at that point is when the spending picked up, and when Democrats had total control of the Hosue, Senate, and the WH - spending went up about 27%

According the Treasury Dept Obama is spending over NINE BILLION DOLLARS PER DAY

[Toro]

Liberals want you to be free in your social life but interfere in your economic life. Conservatives want you to be free in your economic life but interfere in your social life.

[DragonStryk72]

I'm not taking on your hatred of liberals. I will minimally answer your posts just to keep the discussion going, but in no uncertain terms, the consensus around here is that I post too much.

No one on here hates liberals. We believe they're horribly misinformed, but that's not hate. Disagreeing with you is not hate.


Are you claiming that only liberals work for the government? Prove it.

Nope, never not once. In fact the post had nothing to do with that at all. So this was an unprovoked attack from left field.


We had one third of all Americans living in poverty before the war on poverty. Since that time, the numbers have been cut in half.

Even if true, WS, that doesn't make up for the insane spending that's rammed us repeatedly into our debt ceiling now. The same effect could be achieved, which far greater long term benefit, if we simply made goverment programs more efficient, reduced waste, and used the money from that to pay down our enormous defecit. Also, stop pretending like this is a batlle over poverty, a ton of our money is going overseas at this point, as we help other struggling countries while our own suffers and can barely stand.


I'm not taking on the contempt this board feels for all liberals. I took the KICK WIND SONG tag off my back.

Consider what this board wants. A scapegoat to dump all anti-liberal hate on one poster. I'm not going to be that for you.

Ah, speaking for everyone again. Note that Noir, an inveterate liberal, does not get this animosity. Neither, by that measure, does Gabs, but you continue acting like they don't exist, and that this is because "you're a liberal". It isn't, it's because you keep acting like a jerk. You also keep alienating the other liberals, and even moderates on the board to throw these little tantrums.


I think you folks won't be happy until the poor in the US are as miserable as they are in Africa.

Wow, way to go with the hostility. We must all be rat-bastards because we're not in favor of rampant spending?


I stated that if invited to comment I would comment, the new poster invited me to comment, but since you are holding me to some understanding you have that I NEVER post on politics, I will return to the Poem thread.

Bye dillo.

STOP DISMISSING PEOPLE. IT IS FUCKING RUDE, AND IT IS A PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE WAY OF BEING HOSTILE.


I'm not going to be the sole liberal and take crap from all of you all day long. Ta ta.

You don't want to have a respectful discussion with different points of view, you all just want to dump, dump, dump your rant.

Thankfully, you never have been the only liberal on the board. the difference is that the others have earned our respect, while you just attack us every time we disagree with you.



You require me to be an expert? I'm not. I just happen to be someone who is a liberal and has worked as a social worker in the past.

I'm not here to be anyone's scapegoat about what angers you that's happening with the economy.

It's NOT my fault and I'm not taking it on.

I'm sick of being dumped on just because I'm lesbian, liberal, feminist, Buddhist. If you wanted to have a respectful dialogue it would go something like this:

Have you views of the war on poverty changed in light of the current conditions in our country?

Instead you just want to whine and complain and blame the "lazy" undeserving poor.

Most of the poor in the US is working poor, not welfare bums.

Instead of having a conversation, you demand continuously that I prove my point of view. I've got things to do beyond posting on a messageboard.

You're not being dumped on because of any of thing you've mentioned. You are being dumped on because you dump on others, accuse us of vile things, and threaten to storm off in a huff any time the discussion gets in any way difficult for you. Stop claiming Buddhist if you're going to continue with the degree of hostility you post with.



Hostile post.

After all the hostile posts you've made, you have no right to call anyone out on that note.


You're not interested in a mutually satisfying respectful conversation about poverty. You just want to liberal dump and rant. I'm done. I'll be posting poetry and music and enjoying my life, not arguing with people who hate my guts.

We'd love to have a proper debate about poverty, but since you can't have one, we're a little stuck there. You throw hostility at us left and right, then cry foul when we get sick of it, and fire back.


I consider the things you've said about me to be hostile.

While you've only what? Let's see, just in this thread, you've judged us as bullies, as well as being bullies, wanting the poor to die in the streets, hatred of you for being a lesbian (Yet somehow, my dad always feels loved by me), hating Buddhists (How we can hate buddhists based on your performance here I can't fathom, given that you haven't shown one real precept of it), Hating feminists (oddly, I think Sassy is one of the most awesome women on here, and she's a feminist), and hating liberals (Noir is another of my favorite people, and we generally get along with Gabs).

Any other ways you wanna tell us how we feel?


I'm sorry about that. I'm not a popular poster on this forum. In fact, I'm universally hated here.

I'm not interested in discussing poverty with people who knee jerk blame liberals for everything wrong with the entire country,.

Take it easy.

No you aren't, but you certainly are working hard to make that hate a reality. Deciding continually that you speak for absolutely everybody is a sure fire way to piss people right off. Turning around and then playing the victim as soon as they respond sort of pours the cement on that foundation.


I like to discuss ideas with people who have different views from me, but I don't want to take on the role of "board scapegoat" and listen to insults all day long.

Life is too short.

I don't stick around where I'm not welcome.

No you don't like to discussion with people of differing views. You scapegoat the entire board constantly, I just addressed you doing that above. Yes, conservative tend to blame liberals, and liberals blame conservative. Difference? You are being a jerk about it, and thus take crap for that fact


Why should I "defend failed liberal polices"? I didn't create the War on Poverty, and truth is that very few programs have survived. Headstart, WIC, food stamps and cash aid exist but many of the employment type programs have been eliminated. We legislate in a knee jerk fashion and then everyone forgets how it happened that we got where we are.

You'd like to blame the poor, as if they're all sitting around , fat and happy collecting welfare and living a much higher standard of living than you.

It's simply not true. I get sick of listening to cons blame the poor for the state of the economy. Why aren't you blaming all the corporations that took their jobs overseas? Why aren't you attacking the banker families and the greedy crooks on Wall St.

This forum is over represented by conservatives and most "debates" are little more than rants with a lot of high fiving going on.

One poster here actually thinks I have a "kick me" sign on my back.

Well, I've taken it off.

I'm staying with poems and music.

Stop writing that you've left, because it invariably makes you look like an asshat when you post again almost right afterward.

Now, no one is blaming the poor for the state of the economy, period. They aren't, and if you would stop taking every comment to the idea that blindly increasing benefits with little to no oversight is a bad thing as us wanting to kill poor people, you'd see that.


Nope. I'm retiring from politics. I'm taking the "kick WS" sign off my back, (thanks tailfins for pointing out it was there).

I surrender.

You said you left before. this proves you haven't.


"Hated" is how I feel here. More accurate would be despised or extremely disliked.

It isn't about political views, I'm dislike for my "posting style" and for who I am, the person I am.

You are correct, people dislike it when you accuse them of hate of every shape and color, of wanting "women to die in the street", of wanting the poor to be as miserable as possible, and generally treating us all like total shit, then blaming us when we get rightfully upset by your accusations.


I'm taking care of it by not posting on any political topic without an engraved invitation.

I don't care if people dislike my politics, I care that they dislike me as a person. They hate my guts.

You said you left before. This proves you haven't.



Liberal attack post.

You've attacked everyone on this board. you have no right to complain about this.



Oh fuck, I give up. I didn't know poems were illegal on every thread but a poem thread.

Just fucking ban me and get it over with. I'm tired of constantly trying to please this forum. I'm done.

You said you left before. This proves you haven't.

And you are a damned coward for throwing out that "ban me" crap again.


Listen, the only reason I posted on this thread today was because a new member asked me to. I have no intention of discussing politics anymore with people on this forum unless and until the overwhelming hostile collective attitude toward me changes.

I will stick to the poem and music thread.

Problem was, I did say that if someone specifically invited me to comment on a thread I would so.

I will withdraw that offer.

I'm done with politics.

You said you left before. This proves you haven't


Jim,

I just explained why I posted in this thread today. Because a new member asked me to. I will NOT post in anymore political threads.

You said you left before. This proves you haven't.


I'll be in the poem or music threads if you need me.

You said you left before. This proves you haven't.


You do that. In every other thread, I post by invitation only.
:bow3:

You said you left before. This proves you haven't.


Then you get what you wanted. I'm completely gone. My hated presence is confined to the poem and music threads.

You said you left before. This proves you haven't.


Let's just stop talking about this. I'm sticking to the two poem and music threads i started and I'm staying off EVERY OTHER THREAD, from now on. If you post a response to this post I won't answer it.

I won't be creating any new threads on ANY topic.

Peace in the valley.

You said you left before. This proves you haven't.

Finally, we would be totally willing to have discussion on poverty and many other topics with you, if you would just stop using all the hate speech against us. Believe it or not, we dislike being directly insult on a repeated, and increasing basis.

[tailfins]

No one on here hates liberals. We believe they're horribly misinformed, but that's not hate. Disagreeing with you is not hate.

I'm less ideological than I used to be. I'm starting to think the best we can do is reward/punish elected officials for preventing/letting the wheels fall off. I'm am CONSIDERING the idea that those in power on the state level in Massachusetts should be rewarded for the recession mostly bypassing the area. At the Federal level they should be punished for serving a crap sandwich of an economy.

[gabosaurus]

Conservative Core Values:

Freedom above all else
Devastating and swift defeat of one person's freedom negatively impacting ANOTHER's freedom
Tough Love - requiring each person to care for their lives; success or failure.
Believe what you want, how you want, and with whom you want. (Whomever wants to do with, sleep with, live with, pray with, say something - Go for it; just do not let your preferences hurt those around you).


You forgot "Self-righteous asshole who thinks everyone should conform to his/her individual morals and values."

[tailfins]

You forgot "Self-righteous asshole who thinks everyone should conform to his/her individual morals and values."

Has anyone else noticed that when you see a business in the South that prominently displays Bible verses, it is often a place that rips people off?

It kind of reminds me of the George Jones video of "Cold Hard Truth". Specifically, look at 0:27 in the video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbbA6x1JIGA

[Little-Acorn]

Unfortunately, today's liberals have done a complete 180 from the philosophy and values of the classical "liberal" of the early 1900s and before, and now embrace the ideas of expanding the power of government into most formerly-private affairs, taxing the productive among us, abolition of private property rights, censorship and even punishment for thoughts, ideas, and speech terms, etc. While those now called conservatives embrace the ideas formerly held by the old "classical liberals" such as Locke.

Basically today's liberals have the idea that government (a) can, and (b) should do extensive lists of things to help people with ordinary, everyday problems; while conservatives believe that government should do only the things people (or groups) CANNOT do, which is a much more restricted list. In this way, the basic philosophies of today's liberals and conservatives (note I did not say Democrats and Republicans, which are not the same thing at all) have indeed diverged widely, and in ways that cannot be compromised.

What compromise is possible between someone who believes govt should be able to take far more from the wealty while taking hardly anything from the non-wealty (tax on incomes, either "progressive" or "flat"), and a person who believes that everyone has a right to keep what he earned and each person should pay to government in proportion to what he receives from government?

What compromise is possible between someone who believes a person should be punished more for what he was thinking while committing a crime ("hate crime"), vs. a person who believes punishment should be meted out only for what the lawbreakers DID, and what rights that lawbreaker intended to violate (say, murder vs. manslaughter)?

[tailfins]

Unfortunately, today's liberals have done a complete 180 from the philosophy and values of the classical "liberal" of the early 1900s and before, and now embrace the ideas of expanding the power of government into most formerly-private affairs, taxing the productive among us, abolition of private property rights, censorship and even punishment for thoughts, ideas, and speech terms, etc. While those now called conservatives embrace the ideas formerly held by the old "classical liberals" such as Locke.

Basically today's liberals have the idea that government (a) can, and (b) should do extensive lists of things to help people with ordinary, everyday problems; while conservatives believe that government should do only the things people (or groups) CANNOT do, which is a much more restricted list. In this way, the basic philosophies of today's liberals and conservatives (note I did not say Democrats and Republicans, which are not the same thing at all) have indeed diverged widely, and in ways that cannot be compromised.

What compromise is possible between someone who believes govt should be able to take far more from the wealty while taking hardly anything from the non-wealty (tax on incomes, either "progressive" or "flat"), and a person who believes that everyone has a right to keep what he earned and each person should pay to government in proportion to what he receives from government?

What compromise is possible between someone who believes a person should be punished more for what he was thinking while committing a crime ("hate crime"), vs. a person who believes punishment should be meted out only for what the lawbreakers DID, and what rights that lawbreaker intended to violate (say, murder vs. manslaughter)?

The word liberal has been highjacked by Marxists. They did it around the 1940s because no one would knowingly support Marxism.

[fj1200]

I'm not interested in discussing poverty with people who knee jerk blame liberals for everything wrong with the entire country,.

Then destroy them with fact. You posted one fact? that I don't see has been commented on yet.


You require me to be an expert? I'm not. I just happen to be someone who is a liberal and has worked as a social worker in the past.

...

Instead of having a conversation, you demand continuously that I prove my point of view. I've got things to do beyond posting on a messageboard.

Nobody requires you to be an expert but if you have experience then you can contribute it. Oh, and you might want to double check the name of this particular message board. :poke:

[fj1200]

Some talk of "fairness" in this thread.

Is this "fair"?

Two guys walking down the street notice a homeless person in need of assistance. This homeless person could use some clean clothes, some personal hygiene and some medical attention. So the two men take it upon themselves to help this man and these are the action they take; they go further down the street and forceablely take hundreds of dollars from a woman with a purse, return to the homeless man, give him the money with instructions on how to spend the money to help his condition.

Now, would that be fair?




It's "fair" because that citizen lives in a country with duly elected representatives who have enacted legislation to address a societal problem. Your example is not "fair" because that's not how it works in our country, all citizens are treated in the same manner and subject to the same laws and not the random theft as in your scenario. Now, our system may be an example of counter-intuitive incentives with aspects of enabling those who will choose not to help themselves but that is beside the point of your example.

See how that works Wind?

[revelarts]

Ds and Rs fighting over scraps while all of our supposed values are flushed down the toilet by a fast growing totalitarianism state.

spinning wheels here folks, cars about to crash and few, if any, of the "values" are in the driver seat.

[revelarts]

How many of the respective core values will either of the candidates try to get made into law or repeal a law or consistently enforce?

Romney?
Obama?

[Gator Monroe]

Ditto ,Spoils like Gay Marrage & Gender Selective/Late Term Abortion, & Amnesty & Voting Rights for Recently Arrived "Future Citizenry" (Illegals)...

[Wind Song]

What values do liberals hold? Do liberals hold certain values in common that conservatives or moderates do not? I don't know. Says who. Do all liberals, moderates or conservative agree on the same values? Are there any values that are shared no matter whether one hold to center or leans right or left.

Freedom of choice, work ethic, self-determination, fairness, justice, kindness, non-violence, clarity and compassion are values of mine. Are they "liberal"? I'm less sure.

If we were to look at what I'd like to see government fund, these personal values would come into play.

[Wind Song]

As I’ve pointed out many times before, including here (http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2010/11/16/who-is-responsible-for-the-deficit-hint-conservative-republican-presidents/), here (http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2011/07/11/during-budget-battle-remember-the-republicans-are-primarily-at-fault-for-spending-increases/), and here (http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2010/01/29/tea-party-members-upset-about-deficit-and-unemployment-are-blaming-the-wrong-party/), conservative Republican presidents, especially George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, have been responsible for the major increases in government spending in recent years and the deficit. The frequent right wing claims that Barack Obama is a big spender are no more true than the right wing claims that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. Rex Nutting at Market Watch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22) has posted essentially the same findings which I had in the previous posts on this subject, updating them through the 2013 budget
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Obama-Spending-1.jpg (http://liberalvaluesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Obama-Spending-1.jpg)

[Wind Song]

I just looked up conservapedia's outline of "liberal" values. I think it's best if conservatives define their own values and let liberals do the same. The entire list is flame bait.

See for yourself:

http://conservapedia.com/Liberal_values

[Kathianne]

As I’ve pointed out many times before, including here (http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2010/11/16/who-is-responsible-for-the-deficit-hint-conservative-republican-presidents/), here (http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2011/07/11/during-budget-battle-remember-the-republicans-are-primarily-at-fault-for-spending-increases/), and here (http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2010/01/29/tea-party-members-upset-about-deficit-and-unemployment-are-blaming-the-wrong-party/), conservative Republican presidents, especially George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, have been responsible for the major increases in government spending in recent years and the deficit. The frequent right wing claims that Barack Obama is a big spender are no more true than the right wing claims that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. Rex Nutting at Market Watch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22) has posted essentially the same findings which I had in the previous posts on this subject, updating them through the 2013 budget
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Obama-Spending-1.jpg (http://liberalvaluesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Obama-Spending-1.jpg)

and why when you find something you think 'proves' your point, you delve more deeply:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/fortbuckley/2012/05/29/msm-yes-obama-really-is-a-big-spender/


MSM: Yes, Obama REALLY IS A Big Spender <small>by Don (http://tucsoncitizen.com/fortbuckley/author/fortbuckley/) on May. 29, 2012, under Uncategorized (http://tucsoncitizen.com/fortbuckley/category/uncategorized/)</small>

When MainStream Media (MSM) stalwarts call Democrats out, publicly and prominently, it’s another reason for conservatives to pass the popcorn and bask in sweet, sweet schadenfreude.
You see, the MSM are Democrats. Their “coverage” of the 2008 election dispelled any doubts.
How bad, how openly biased was it? I recall that noted Republican activist, Bill Maher, saying that the MSM wasn’t covering Obama because it was too busy having sex with him. (Maher meant that figuratively, I’m sure). TIME magazine’s Mark Halperin described MSM coverage of the 2008 campaign as “extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.” (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15885.html) Even Saturday Night Live (http://m.nbc.com/show/snl/61/episode/38012/p/2#ckchk=1) noticed.
Apparently there IS a limit to what the MSM can stomach, though. Last week, they seem to have reached it.
What straw broke the camel’s back? Last Wednesday, White House press spokesman Jay Carney claimed that President Obama “has demonstrated significant fiscal restraint and acted with great fiscal responsibility.”
That same week, Rex Nutting, a columnist at Market Watch, wrote an article that got LOTS of attention. (http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor) Nutter wrote:

Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.
As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
Manna from heaven! A person whose work appears in The Wall Street Journal debunks claims that Obama is a reckless spender!
Jay Carney seized on it. As did the Old Pueblo Democratic Party blogosphere. (http://tucsoncitizen.com/baja-democrats/2012/05/23/president-obama-out-of-control-spending-not-hardly/)
Unfortunately for Jay and the Democratic Party faithful, sunlight started to shine on Mr. Nutter’s analyses. Sunlight…the great disinfectant.
That sunshine came, surprisingly, from Jay Carney’s former fellow travelers in the MSM. They starting picking apart Rex Nutting’s analyses…and all sorts of holes started to appear. Pretty soon, Mr. Nutting’s defense of the Obama spending record started looking like a piece of Swiss cheese.
I’m sure it pained the MSM, but they couldn’t risk looking the other way this time.
Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post assessed the veracity of the White House’s claims that its spending record was unremarkable, when compared to other post-WWII presidents. The Washington Post uses “Pinnochios” to rate how credible (or incredible) a political argument is. Kessler assessed THREE Pinnochios.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html?wprss=rss_fact-checker)

In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II — completely the opposite of the point asserted by Carney. Part of this, of course, is a consequence of the recession, but it is also the result of a sustained higher level of spending.
(All emphasis in this article is added by Fort Buckley. With unabashed joy.)
Kessler does a super job of deconstructing the “methodological problems with Nutting’s analysis.”
For starters, Nutting downplays the Obama White House’s (and Democrats’) culpability for increased spending in 2009. Nutting blames that mostly on George W. Bush, whose administration was responsible for the federal budget that Obama inherited when he took office. Not so fast, says Kessler:

In theory, one could claim that the budget was already locked in when Obama took office, but that’s not really the case. Most of the appropriations bills had not been passed, and certainly the stimulus bill was only signed into law after Obama took office.
Ah…the stimulus bill. Otherwise known—infamously but sadly accurately—as “Porkulus.” A 787 BILLION dollar boondoggle of spending, directed largely at Democratic Party-friendly interests (cough cough Solyndra cough cough), paid for with deficit spending that further bankrupts our grandchildren.
Kessler then took a closer look at what the Obama White House said that it WANTED to spend. Well well well…

Nutting says that Obama plans to spend $3.58 trillion in 2013, citing the Congressional Budget Office budget outlook. But this figure is CBO’s baseline budget, which assumes no laws are changed, so this figure gives Obama credit for automatic spending cuts that he wants to halt.
The correct figure to use is the CBO’s analysis of the president’s 2013 budget, which clocks in at $3.72 trillion.
So this is what we end up with:
2008: $2.98 trillion
2009: $3.27 trillion
2010: $3.46 trillion
2011: $3.60 trillion
2012: $3.65 trillion
2013: $3.72 trillion
Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 — Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is 3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)
Of course, it takes two to tangle — a president and a Congress. Obama’s numbers get even higher if you look at what he proposed to spend, using CBO’s estimates of his budgets:
2012: $3.71 trillion (versus $3.65 trillion enacted)
2011: $3.80 trillion (versus $3.60 trillion enacted)
2010: $3.67 trillion (versus $3.46 trillion enacted)
So in every case, the president wanted to spend more money than he ended up getting. Nutting suggests that federal spending flattened under Obama, but another way to look at it is that it flattened at a much higher, post-emergency level — thanks in part to the efforts of lawmakers, not Obama.
The Associated Press, almost as much of a fan of Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Party as the Washington Post is, felt compelled to weigh in, too. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/fact-check-obama-off-thrifty-spending-claim-16434214#.T8OCZcUmySo):

The White House is aggressively pushing the idea that, contrary to widespread belief, President Barack Obama is tightfisted with taxpayer dollars. To back it up, the administration cites a media report that claims federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since the Eisenhower years.
“Federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years,” Obama said at a campaign rally Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa.
The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama’s 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama’s watch, the analysis counted them as government spending cuts.
It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.
Obama rests his claim on an analysis by MarketWatch, a financial information and news service owned by Dow Jones & Co. The analysis simply looks at the year-to-year topline spending number for the government but doesn’t account for distortions baked into the figures by the Wall Street bailout and government takeover of the mortgage lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Is it possible that the MSM is getting over its crush on Obama? That would be bad news for Democrats.
This has really been fun for me, but all good things must come to an end. I’ll close out with a true tour de force—a graphic smackdown of Nutternomics, courtesy of the Political Math (http://www.politicalmathblog.com/) blog:
http://tucsoncitizen.com/fortbuckley/files/2012/05/OpeningGraphic-300x157.png (http://tucsoncitizen.com/fortbuckley/files/2012/05/OpeningGraphic.png)
http://tucsoncitizen.com/fortbuckley/files/2012/05/Rule1-300x256.png (http://tucsoncitizen.com/fortbuckley/files/2012/05/Rule1.png)http://tucsoncitizen.com/fortbuckley/files/2012/05/Rule1But1-300x263.png (http://tucsoncitizen.com/fortbuckley/files/2012/05/Rule1But1.png)
http://tucsoncitizen.com/fortbuckley/files/2012/05/Rule21-300x240.png (http://tucsoncitizen.com/fortbuckley/files/2012/05/Rule21.png)
Those are just two of the Nutternomics Rules; there are five in all. Go give Political Math (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/24/how-to-make-obamas-spending-look-small-marketwatch-rebuttal-infographic/) some page view love by following that link I just gave you, to see the rest of the rules.

[Wind Song]

It's too bad the conservative side has to put out "facts" with their snide remarks to democrats. MSM is NOT liberal, (except for Rachel Maddown). Fox News is NOT liberal. Only five or six mega corporations own the news and they aren't liberals.

Clinton was fiscally conservative and conservatives hated him.

[Kathianne]

It's too bad the conservative side has to put out "facts" with their snide remarks to democrats. MSM is NOT liberal, (except for Rachel Maddown). Fox News is NOT liberal.

Have you caught any of the liberals posts? Talk about snide...

BTW, Rachel Maddow is NOT MSM>

[Wind Song]

When it comes to business and number crunching I like Forbes as a resource.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2012/05/29/which-president-is-the-biggest-spender-part-ii/

[Wind Song]

Have you caught any of the liberals posts? Talk about snide...

BTW, Rachel Maddow is NOT MSM>

Of course not, Rachel Maddow is liberal, but as usual, she is NOT what YOU'd call MSM, but she is what I'd call the only liberal MSM source, IMO.

Yes, of course, snide is a bi-partisan phenomena. Let's all agree to not do it here.

[DragonStryk72]

It's too bad the conservative side has to put out "facts" with their snide remarks to democrats. MSM is NOT liberal, (except for Rachel Maddown). Fox News is NOT liberal. Only five or six mega corporations own the news and they aren't liberals.

Clinton was fiscally conservative and conservatives hated him.

Really? Like say the top democrat in the country spending the first couple of years in office doing nothing but blaming the previous admin for any problems the country had? Notice that was not done by Bush, who could have tried to pin 9/11 on Clinton, and didn't. I also love how liberals sort of skipped over Freddie and Fannie's involvement in the meltdown. You think that might be because they're the liberals' babies?

Bill Maher-Liberal
The View- All but one is liberal
Pretty much everyone on MSNBC is liberal

[Wind Song]

Really? Like say the top democrat in the country spending the first couple of years in office doing nothing but blaming the previous admin for any problems the country had? Notice that was not done by Bush, who could have tried to pin 9/11 on Clinton, and didn't. I also love how liberals sort of skipped over Freddie and Fannie's involvement in the meltdown. You think that might be because they're the liberals' babies?

Bill Maher-Liberal
The View- All but one is liberal
Pretty much everyone on MSNBC is liberal

Everyone on FOX is conservative. I agree MSNBC is liberal. The view and bill maher arel editorial or opinion programs. You can't call the MSM news.

I don't like your tone about liberals. Can you present your information without the snide remark?

Bush was so disrepectful of the Clinton administration that he ignored all information the Clinton admin had on potential terrorist attack.

[jimnyc]

Everyone on FOX is conservative. I agree MSNBC is liberal. The view and bill maher arel editorial or opinion programs. You can't call the MSM news.

I don't like your tone about liberals. Can you present your information without the snide remark?

Bush was so disrepectful of the Clinton administration that he ignored all information the Clinton admin had on potential terrorist attack.

Rachel Maddow is also nothing more than an op-ed piece, she is not an "anchorwoman" delivering what others refer to as MSM. She's a political pundit.

As for your Bush/Clinton and ignoring a terrorist attack - you are repeating crap that was debunked 10 years ago. If it had any teeth it certainly would have been exposed for more than it has by now. Non specific terror info about airplanes was in fact passed along, and it was in fact looked into and kept on alert, but no one had any specific information about any specific attack. But hey, if you think there is a legit case there, how about offering specific facts to your post instead of a long repeated liberal lie?

[Wind Song]

Everything you say about Rachel Maddow is opinion, Jim. The rest is snarky. I'm not in the mood to fight with you.

[jimnyc]

Everything you say about Rachel Maddow is opinion, Jim. The rest is snarky. I'm not in the mood to fight with you.

No, her being a political pundit is a FACT, not my opinion. And there's nothing snarky about me blowing your claims out of the water, you just say that so that you don't have to actually post facts and backup your stupid statements. And if you don't want to discuss stuff, then get the fuck out of the threads and stop talking to people.

[Wind Song]

No, her being a political pundit is a FACT, not my opinion. And there's nothing snarky about me blowing your claims out of the water, you just say that so that you don't have to actually post facts and backup your stupid statements. And if you don't want to discuss stuff, then get the fuck out of the threads and stop talking to people.



You've got to either allow me to not respond to your posts or ban me from every thread you happen to participate in. I would guess you would do the second. And you wonder why I'm afraid of you. Challenging you gets me thread banned or worse. You're acting like a bully.

[jimnyc]

No, her being a political pundit is a FACT, not my opinion. And there's nothing snarky about me blowing your claims out of the water, you just say that so that you don't have to actually post facts and backup your stupid statements. And if you don't want to discuss stuff, then get the fuck out of the threads and stop talking to people.

Btw - Maddow even presents herself as a "Political Commentator" - which is another term for "Political Pundit". Even she knows she is not a news anchor delivering MSM news. Methinks someone thinks she is the greatest woman and part of the mainstream media, simply because she is a queer.

[jimnyc]

You've got to either allow me to not respond to your posts or ban me from every thread you happen to participate in. I would guess you would do the second. And you wonder why I'm afraid of you. Challenging you gets me thread banned or worse.

No, participating in a thread with garbage, and then telling others you won't respond to their points, shows you are trolling, and I point as much out. If you won't reply to facts, then there is little point in you coming into debate threads. You COULD have ignored me, but you CHOSE to reply and then CHOSE to tell me you were going to ignore the rest of my post.

You don't like being challenged, and see it as an insult when someone does. Tough shit.

[Wind Song]

I like Rachel Maddow for several reasons. She's smart, she's funny, and her views are liberal. She's like a breath of fresh air. Also, I only get to see her when I travel, so I have relaxation associated with watching her program.

[jimnyc]

I like Rachel Maddow for several reasons. She's smart, she's funny, and her views are liberal. She's like a breath of fresh air. Also, I only get to see her when I travel, so I have relaxation associated with watching her program.

No one disputed any of that. One person pointed out that Maddow wasn't MSM. You didn't like that. I followed up with the fact that she IS only a political pundit and not a newscaster, she's a commentator. You didn't like that either and claimed it was only my opinion, when these are facts.

Then I further stated a claim you made about GWB was unfounded, and was a long used liberal talking point, and was proven wrong in the way you stated it a long, long time ago. I asked you to post facts, you said you were going to ignore the rest of that post. Its obvious you can't backup your claims. It's also obvious you don't like being asked to backup your claims. But that's not going to stop others from calling bullshit when they see it.

[4horsemenrule]

It's too bad the conservative side has to put out "facts" with their snide remarks to democrats. MSM is NOT liberal, (except for Rachel Maddown). Fox News is NOT liberal. Only five or six mega corporations own the news and they aren't liberals.

Clinton was fiscally conservative and conservatives hated him.

Even the Washington Post debunked the myth Pres Obama is not a big spender

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html#pagebreak

You seem to be a liberal who will grab onto anything - no matter how untrue - to advance your ideology

[4horsemenrule]

Everyone on FOX is conservative. I agree MSNBC is liberal. The view and bill maher arel editorial or opinion programs. You can't call the MSM news.

I don't like your tone about liberals. Can you present your information without the snide remark?

Bush was so disrepectful of the Clinton administration that he ignored all information the Clinton admin had on potential terrorist attack.

Everyone?

That would come as a shock to Fox News Contributers Bob Beckel, Bob Schrum, Juan Wiliams, Mary Ann Marsh, Jehmu Greene, Kristen Powers, and the other liberals who are on Fox News on a daily basis expressing their opinions

Wind Song, I think the "tone" you do not like is when people call you on your non factual posts and your constant role playing as the "victim"

[tailfins]

Everyone?

That would come as a shock to Fox News Contributers Bob Beckel, Bob Schrum, Juan Wiliams, Mary Ann Marsh, Jehmu Greene, Kristen Powers, and the other liberals who are on Fox News on a daily basis expressing their opinions

Wind Song, I think the "tone" you do not like is when people call you on your non factual posts and your constant role playing as the "victim"

When someone doesn't like your tone, you're being too subtle. Brush up on delivering unvarnished ridicule.

[cadet]

When liberals and conservatives debate the burning issues of the day -- whether it's immigration or marriage equality, global warming or health care reform -- we often wind up talking at cross-purposes, and the conversations go around in increasingly belligerent circles ... because we're not starting with the same ethical foundations. We assume that we have the same core values, and are simply debating the best way to apply those values in the world. We're not. We're debating -- not very effectively or coherently most of the time -- the core values themselves.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/146930/get_a_brain,_morons%3A_why_being_liberal_really_is _better_than_being_conservative/?page=entire




The author makes the case that liberal values are superior because they can be universalized and lists authority, loyalty and purity as core conservative values and fairness and the avoidance of harm as core liberals.

I thought it might be worthwhile to discuss what we consider core values in the polar positions of liberal and conservative.


3470

[4horsemenrule]

http://static.thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Pledge_Positive_Ads.jpg

[Abbey Marie]

Cadet's great find; bigger size without clicking:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lOKopHEzJt4/TzwXxdirncI/AAAAAAAAAMg/9sR1Pun-5JY/s1600/TypicalLiberal.jpg

[Peach]

Today's Liberal Core Values:

Forced "charity"
Generational Welfare as a means to control the population.
Stealing from the hard-working to give to the lazy.
National Religion (Call it Climate change...call it social behavior modification...call it Darwinism...call it '99%'.)


Conservative Core Values:

Freedom above all else
Devastating and swift defeat of one person's freedom negatively impacting ANOTHER's freedom
Tough Love - requiring each person to care for their lives; success or failure.
Believe what you want, how you want, and with whom you want. (Whomever wants to do with, sleep with, live with, pray with, say something - Go for it; just do not let your preferences hurt those around you).


(shrug).

I'm much better than whomever wrote the piece at that link.

"Forced charity"; you would faint if asked to actually serve this nation.

[ConHog]

People on food stamps also loan them to their friends/family...or just hoarde food themselves when they don't even need more rations for the month...see...if you use your allowance up every month. They will give you even more the following month.

Not to mention the case workers tell you how to cheat the system to stay on the program even when you don't qualify anymore.

Yep...that money is definately going to good use...not.:thumb:

That is a flat falsehood Shadow. SNAP is a simple formula of income:number of people in the house = $X. No variations, and certainly not dependent on how much you spent the previous month.

[ConHog]

I like to discuss ideas with people who have different views from me, but I don't want to take on the role of "board scapegoat" and listen to insults all day long.
a flat lie




I don't stick around where I'm not welcome.

Obvious lie is obvious.

[ConHog]

Everyone?

That would come as a shock to Fox News Contributers Bob Beckel, Bob Schrum, Juan Wiliams, Mary Ann Marsh, Jehmu Greene, Kristen Powers, and the other liberals who are on Fox News on a daily basis expressing their opinions

Wind Song, I think the "tone" you do not like is when people call you on your non factual posts and your constant role playing as the "victim"

On that point. I think Juan Williams is awesome. Why? Oh because he's liberal, but fair in his views.

[ConHog]

"Forced charity"; you would faint if asked to actually serve this nation.

DMP DID serve this nation.

With honor as far as I know.