Liberal and Conservative Core Values

[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...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.

[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.

[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?