NationStates Jolt Archive

A group of middle-class Conservatives were rallying outside of the DNC building one day. Their leader angrily asked, “What have the Liberals ever done for us?!” and the crowd cheered.

After a moment, a person in the back said, "Well, there's the libraries." Another person mentioned, "And socialized education." The leader replied, "Okay, aside from the libraries and socialized education, what have the Liberals ever done for us?!"

"Subsidized medicine", a third person yelled. A person in the crowd mentioned to another, "Oh yeah, can't forget subsidized medicine. If it wasn't for that, I wouldn't have been able to afford this prosthetic head."

Another person said, "Public television", followed by, "Social equality", another individual exclaimed, "Women's suffrage!", and another person shouted, "PEACE!"

The leader responded, "Okay, aside from the libraries, socialized education, subsidized healthcare, public television, social equality, women's suffrage, and peace, what have the Liberals ever done for US? Eh?! Nothing!"

:D Do you have to pay Monty Python for that parody?

But of course. It's so true anyway, the situation is parralel.

Don't forget credit unions. And desegregation. And collective bargaining.

And subsidizing community colleges, subsidized housing (for immigrants and the poor, who have to qualify) as well as subsidizing mental hospitals, so that they can treat the poor.

and minimum wage
and health and safety laws
and the 40 hr work week

Oh, I nearly forgot - abolishing human slavery.

With all of the passion that they have, hard-core conservatives often forget that not long ago many of their views would have been considered extremely liberal. :eek:

Oh, and also--don't forget. Democratic President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the G.I. Bill, giving soldiers substantial benefits, including college educations.

Oh, I nearly forgot - abolishing human slavery.

Nope, you're thinking of republicans again. Maybe your school failed to mention it, but Lincoln was a Republican.

Technically any socially progressive law was passed by a so called libreal at the time.

Nope, you're thinking of republicans again. Maybe your school failed to mention it, but Lincoln was a Republican.

Even Reoublican's can have Liberal beliefs.

Nope, you're thinking of republicans again. Maybe your school failed to mention it, but Lincoln was a Republican.
what SD said. we are talking liberal/conservative not democrat/republican. after all, without the liberal republicans of the 60s the civil rights acts would never have been passed

All these things the liberals have done...

And I say we could do without all of them.

And subsidizing community colleges, subsidized housing (for immigrants and the poor, who have to qualify) as well as subsidizing mental hospitals, so that they can treat the poor.

Yes, this is all great. Because, as we know, the government can fix all of our problems. :rolleyes:

what SD said. we are talking liberal/conservative not democrat/republican. after all, without the liberal republicans of the 60s the civil rights acts would never have been passed

True. The interesting thing about conservatism and liberalism is that it is all relative to the time period. Modern conservatism is WAY different than the isolationist conservatism several decades previous. It amazes me that Bush is actually able to call himself a conservative.

another person shouted, "PEACE!"

Careful, there. Most of the wars the U.S. has fought in have been started by a liberal president. Check your facts.

With all of the passion that they have, hard-core conservatives often forget that not long ago many of their views would have been considered extremely liberal.
In addition, it is a triumph of liberalism that racism and anti-Semitism are no longer acceptable in mainstream conservatism, as they were ~60 years ago.

Nope, you're thinking of republicans again. Maybe your school failed to mention it, but Lincoln was a Republican.
Back then, Republicans were the more liberal of the two parties. Remember also president Theodore Roosevelt. He was one of the most left-wing US presidents ever, but was a Republican.

It doesn't mean a lot whether someone has an (R) or (D) next to their name. Reps are not automatically conservative, nor are Dems automoatically liberal.

All these things the liberals have done...

And I say we could do without all of them.


Really?

So you are against fire?

Against Christianty?

Against the second admedment?

Against any movment forword? Socialy and economicly?

of course liberals have done much for the progression of this wonderful nation. However, there is a time and place for everything. THere is a time for social, technological and other similar forms progression, as well as a lot of centralized governmental powers to do all of it. There is also a time where conservative ideas must be used (for america, right now is the time). conervatives do have the upper hand on defense, military, and those sorts of things.

I guess it all just depends on whats goin on in the world @ the time.

Oh, and also--don't forget. Democratic President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the G.I. Bill, giving soldiers substantial benefits, including college educations.

FDR was one of the last truely liberal presidents we had, it's a shame. I mean, yeah, I'd prefer people were smart enough to handle a free-market economy, but I'm also a realist along with being fairly libertarian, so I just have to go with the Good Guys (TM) on this and say a lot of the government intervention he precipitated was for the better.

Nope, you're thinking of republicans again. Maybe your school failed to mention it, but Lincoln was a Republican.

Abe Lincoln may indeed have been a Republican, but he was by no means conservative. Maybe your school failed to mention that.

All these things the liberals have done...

And I say we could do without all of them.
and i say you are retarded.




and for the record, thats not a flame... i mean come on :rolleyes:

All these things the liberals have done...

And I say we could do without all of them.

well then

good thing its not your say

of course liberals have done much for the progression of this wonderful nation. However, there is a time and place for everything. THere is a time for social, technological and other similar forms progression, as well as a lot of centralized governmental powers to do all of it. There is also a time where conservative ideas must be used (for america, right now is the time). conervatives do have the upper hand on defense, military, and those sorts of things.

I guess it all just depends on whats goin on in the world @ the time.

Then you must be pretty depressed that the conservatives aren't in charge right now. I agree that conservatives usually have the right view on foriegn policy in the diplomatic arena, it just sucks it's a bunch of greedy war-hawk corporatist neo-conservatives in charge, not any proper conservatives.

Nope, you're thinking of republicans again. Maybe your school failed to mention it, but Lincoln was a Republican.

Yeah but then, republicans were the liberals.

There is also a time where conservative ideas must be used (for america, right now is the time). conervatives do have the upper hand on defense, military, and those sorts of things.
I assume you're talking about the bold, aggressive stance currently taken by the USA. And I agree, but your argument has a wonderful flaw. The current interventionism is a liberal idea inherited straight from FDR! Back then his conservative opponents were isolationist and non-interventionist.

it just sucks it's a bunch of greedy war-hawk corporatist neo-conservatives in charge
Has anyone other than these types been in charge since 1932? They are liberals, even if most modern liberals disagree with them.

I guess Capitalisim is the new Liberalism...Again.

Has anyone other than these types been in charge since 1932? They are liberals, even if most modern liberals disagree with them.

Well, splitting it all apart, they're authoritarian, psuedo left-wing (corporate welfare instead of social welfare), fiscal liberals with a massive interventionist bent.

Well, splitting it all apart, they're authoritarian, psuedo left-wing (corporate welfare instead of social welfare), fiscal liberals with a massive interventionist bent.


Isn't that Fascist?

Well, splitting it all apart, they're authoritarian, psuedo left-wing (corporate welfare instead of social welfare), fiscal liberals with a massive interventionist bent.
Alright, let's compare that to the likes of FDR and LBJ, who were:
authoritarian, left-wing (corporate welfare and social welfare), fiscal liberals with a massive interventionist bent.

One word to describe the liberals, TAX!!!!! thats what they've done for us, i don't even have kids, so why the hell i should have to pay for them to go to publics schools i don't know, and i use private mediacal care, so why should i pay for the NHS? its just plain daft.

Well, you could always move to another country where they don't have those, I can guarantee they won't tax you.

touche'

One word to describe the liberals, TAX!!!!! thats what they've done for us, i don't even have kids, so why the hell i should have to pay for them to go to publics schools i don't know, and i use private mediacal care, so why should i pay for the NHS? its just plain daft.
God forbid that you must care for another human being--human beings that support the economy that even allow you to prosper.

Well, you could always move to another country where they don't have those, I can guarantee they won't tax you.
But then they'll lock you up if you get too rich. Like in Togo, Africa, where the President will jail you for having a nicer car than him... Or in pre-war Iraq, where, if you got extremely rich, Hussein would "make you an offer you can't refuse."

Alright, let's compare that to the likes of FDR and LBJ, who were:
authoritarian, left-wing (corporate welfare and social welfare), fiscal liberals with a massive interventionist bent.
THANK YOU! I'm glad SOMEONE brought this up before I had to. FDR stomped out capitalism and instituted corporatist policies which ended up protecting corporations from competition from smaller businesses under the guise of the New Deal.

That rat-bastard is praised for the New Deal, yet the same ones who praise him rail against the corporatist hell-hole the U.S. has become WHEN IT'S THE NEW DEAL (mainly) THAT MADE THE U.S. INTO THE CORPORATIST STATE THAT IT IS. :headbang:

THANK YOU! I'm glad SOMEONE brought this up before I had to. FDR stomped out capitalism and instituted corporatist policies which ended up protecting corporations from competition from smaller businesses under the guise of the New Deal.

That rat-bastard is praised for the New Deal, yet the same ones who praise him rail against the corporatist hell-hole the U.S. has become WHEN IT'S THE NEW DEAL (mainly) THAT MADE THE U.S. INTO THE CORPORATIST STATE THAT IT IS.
You make pretty good points about his corporate welfare, but I didn't know he was the first to institute it. I think he was one of the greatest US Presidents ever, even based on his foreign policies alone.

One word to describe the liberals, TAX!!!!! thats what they've done for us, i don't even have kids, so why the hell i should have to pay for them to go to publics schools i don't know, and i use private mediacal care, so why should i pay for the NHS? its just plain daft.
Keep in mind people that this guy is a kid! You don't pay taxes!

All the countries that have no public education systems are in the third world, and so are all those without public healthcare (except for the USA).

One word to describe the liberals, TAX!!!!! thats what they've done for us, i don't even have kids, so why the hell i should have to pay for them to go to publics schools i don't know, and i use private mediacal care, so why should i pay for the NHS? its just plain daft.

TOO RIGHT! The idea of helping anyone other than myself, especially the sub human ones who dared to be born to a poor family, fills my heart with rage.

One word to describe the liberals, TAX!!!!! thats what they've done for us, i don't even have kids, so why the hell i should have to pay for them to go to publics schools i don't know, and i use private mediacal care, so why should i pay for the NHS? its just plain daft.
So you don't have kids. so what? I assume you at one point went to school (or should have)...no? home schooled? private school? okay. How about this?

That doctor you'll have to see one day? Chances are (S)HE went to a public school. And those scientists/engineers who create medicine and defence weapons and...well...most things? I am willing to bet that most of THEM had public educations.

Still no? How about all those college professors who educated those people, regardless of what school type they came from? Most of THEM probably had public educations.

One word to describe the liberals, TAX!!!!! thats what they've done for us, i don't even have kids, so why the hell i should have to pay for them to go to publics schools i don't know, and i use private mediacal care, so why should i pay for the NHS? its just plain daft.

Because clearly there should be no efforts to help the good of your fellow man, and the only person who matters in the world is you.

But of course. It's so true anyway, the situation is parralel.
No it's not, if I remember correctly some of the first public libraries were donated to the public by rich capitalists. Peace really doesn't work, cause FDR oversaw WWII. Public television is not needed nearly as much as it once was. They've introduced levels of social inequality originally supposedly to balance the system but at this point in order to bolster their constituencies. There are pros and cons, mainly cons, when all is said and done, to subsidized medicine. That leaves women's sufferage, and that was before the major flip-flop of republican and democrat positions.

And as a side point, I assume Shrubbie implys those with the ideals of the current Democrat party when he spouts liberal. Not liberals in the classical or libertarian sense.

They gave rise to Communism which manifested itself perfectly in every attempt leaving all unharmed and completely happy.

Because clearly there should be no efforts to help the good of your fellow man, and the only person who matters in the world is you.

which is why you can't be trusted to help your fellow man on your own time since you're feeble human scum who must be forced to help at gunpoint.

Liberal vs Conservatives?

Meh. Can people move past this crap?

It is both mind sets that built the US.

I tend to ignore the liberals that say conservatives are racist christians who.....

I tend to ignore any conservative that uses liberal like a dirty word.

A strange thought: Instead of trying to one up or blame the other group; why don't we put such effort into solving problems?

Ah well at least I can be pollyana about such things. :)

Liberal vs Conservatives?

Meh. Can people move past this crap?

It is both mind sets that built the US.

I tend to ignore the liberals that say conservatives are racist christians who.....

I tend to ignore any conservative that uses liberal like a dirty word.

A strange thought: Instead of trying to one up or blame the other group; why don't we put such effort into solving problems?

Ah well at least I can be pollyana about such things. :)

I ignore everyone even myself.

One word to describe the liberals, TAX!!!!! thats what they've done for us, i don't even have kids, so why the hell i should have to pay for them to go to publics schools i don't know, and i use private mediacal care, so why should i pay for the NHS? its just plain daft.Let's put it this way--the fact that the government provides those services very likely keeps you from being knifed in the street by someone who didn't get an education and therefore couldn't get a job. Try looking past your own ass to your responsibilities as a citizen, as part of a social group for once.

Liberal vs Conservatives?

Meh. Can people move past this crap?

It is both mind sets that built the US.

I tend to ignore the liberals that say conservatives are racist christians who.....

I tend to ignore any conservative that uses liberal like a dirty word.

A strange thought: Instead of trying to one up or blame the other group; why don't we put such effort into solving problems?

Ah well at least I can be pollyana about such things. :)

People not arguing? Get down from your cloud.

Let's put it this way--the fact that the government provides those services very likely keeps you from being knifed in the street by someone who didn't get an education and therefore couldn't get a job. Try looking past your own ass to your responsibilities as a citizen, as part of a social group for once.

What makes the social group so high and mighty compared to the individual?

The will of the person is more important than the will of the people, because the latter leads down dangerous roads.

I ignore everyone even myself.

I am sorry. Did you say something?

:p

People not arguing? Get down from your cloud.

Wha and wreck the high? Never! ;)

One word to describe the liberals, TAX!!!!! thats what they've done for us, i don't even have kids, so why the hell i should have to pay for them to go to publics schools i don't know, and i use private mediacal care, so why should i pay for the NHS? its just plain daft.

All the things taxes pay for are paid for by tax because it'd be nearly impossible to make people pay voluntarily for them, and because private firms don't stand to gain much by providing them. Tax is what lets you call an ambulance, instead of fumbling with a credit card while trying to stop bleeding from a gunshot wound. Of course, you can always pretend that your tax goes where you want it to, such as public infrastructure like roads and parks, or for emergency services funding, or a system of trade barriers that serves to protect inefficient resource-wasting environmentally-devastating corporations, or to flinging bombs at things on the other side of the world, or any other government expenditure.

If we have a peek at the UK budget (since that's where Blu-tac's posting about), then personal income tax is less than a third of total tax revenue. You can personally pretend you're paying for part of the UK government's £26bn of debt servicing fees, or for some of the £28bn projected for defense, or a slice of the £20bn for transportation, or even for some of the £31bn that goes to public order and safety. I'm sure someone else will happily pick up the £90bn for health or the £68bn for education or the £146bn on social protection or the £16bn for housing, because they don't want a disease-ridden police state with more bombs than it has destitute, starving citizens.

*steps down from economics soapbox*

What makes the social group so high and mighty compared to the individual?

The will of the person is more important than the will of the people, because the latter leads down dangerous roads.
One person cannot singlehandedly change the world. I disagree with you there, the will of one person (Hitler) changed the will of the the people thus it transformed the world for the worst. It took the will of the people to defeat the British army in colonial America. One person is nothing compared to the collective strength of people. Just look at all the labor union strikes in the early 1900s, many people took on the elite, and won! Individuals were sacrificed, but it served the greater good.

It took the will of the people to defeat the British army in colonial America.

It took the will of the French people in Canada to do it, no less. And the reason for the argument? The colonies didn't want to pay taxes to Britain - taxes that would've helped pay off the debts incurred to defend them from the French colonies.

It took the will of the French people in Canada to do it, no less. And the reason for the argument? The colonies didn't want to pay taxes to Britain - taxes that would've helped pay off the debts incurred to defend them from the French colonies.
is that it?

What makes the social group so high and mighty compared to the individual?

The will of the person is more important than the will of the people, because the latter leads down dangerous roads.
Individual genius provides us with technological breakthroughs, but social stability gives the individual the opportunity to exploit that genius. Read Nonzero: the Logic of Human Destiny by Robert Wright and Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond for more depth on the subject. In short, every technological and social achievement made by humankind was made because the social group which made that leap was relatively stable, and stability comes from the recognition of the need to sacrifice personal freedom for the stability of the group. It doesn't matter if you're talking about multi-national co-operative ventures or hunter-gatherer groups--progress comes from stable societies. Anarchy or social breakdown always results in technological breakdown.

One word to describe the liberals, TAX!!!!! thats what they've done for us, i don't even have kids, so why the hell i should have to pay for them to go to publics schools i don't know, and i use private mediacal care, so why should i pay for the NHS? its just plain daft.

Let me put it in ways you'll understand: You have no grasp of taxes and what they are spent on.

All these things the liberals have done...

And I say we could do without all of them.
Perhaps that is why your Soul is Broken? :rolleyes:

Alright, let's compare that to the likes of FDR and LBJ, who were:
authoritarian, left-wing (corporate welfare and social welfare), fiscal liberals with a massive interventionist bent.

To be fair, it's definitely not this simple. Especially in the case of FDR. FDR was responding a national depression the likes of which we had never seen before. Also, his intentions weren't solely to make the richer richer, like some people I could mention. Also, that AND social welfare makes a big difference. Dumping money into corporations during the great depression to jumpstart the economy was a good thing, as was putting money in the hands of the consumer so they actually had purchasing power once again. It was part of a plan. The one thing I don't love about FDR is that he was so fiscally liberal. I'm a firm believer in a balanced budget and an opponent of budget spending.

For neo-conservatives like Bush (and to a much lesser extent, Kerry, who was merely a corporatist, not a neocon), the sole intent is to further enrich the corporations for the sake of such. Notice how he's never vetoed a spending bill? Notice how he so easily contracts out the rebuilding of Iraq to various companies he has close ties to (this is my own personal theory on why we invaded Iraq: so we could rebuild it. The boost in military spending would help the military industrial complex, the reconstruction and subsequent globalization of Iraq's economy, etc. Economic imperialism at its best)?

The man is kind of like Harding but a lot more subtle about it.

I'm a firm believer in a balanced budget

I agree in principle, but I believe in running a balanced budget over the course of the economic cycle and in the use of fiscal policy to promote sustainable growth - that is, running surpluses when all is good, as the leakage helps keep the economy from growing too fast, and then using that to finance deficits when the wheels fall off, as the injection of money helps to keep things running more smoothly.

I agree in principle, but I believe in running a balanced budget over the course of the economic cycle and in the use of fiscal policy to promote sustainable growth - that is, running surpluses when all is good, as the leakage helps keep the economy from growing too fast, and then using that to finance deficits when the wheels fall off, as the injection of money helps to keep things running more smoothly.

Of course. How else would you run a balanced budget (since budgets are approved at the beginning of each fiscal year)?

Nope, you're thinking of republicans again. Maybe your school failed to mention it, but Lincoln was a Republican.

The thread wasn't what have democrats done, it was "what have liberals done."

You would do well to acknowledge the two are not one and the same, nor are conservative and republican intertwined.

Abolition was not only liberal, but radical. Just because the president was a Republican, does not make abolition automatically conservative.

Coulter loves this particular point of obfuscation by saying that conservatives have the moral high-ground on civil rights because it was democrats who opposed the civil rights bill in highest numbers. Thing is, those were conservative Dixiecrats, not liberals. Since then, Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond abandoned the Democratic party in droves for the more racist friendly and more conservative Republican party.

Of course. How else would you run a balanced budget (since budgets are approved at the beginning of each fiscal year)?

Short answer?
I wouldn't. In theory, you could counteract automatic stabilisers and run a balanced (or nearly balanced) budget for each financial year, but that's fundamentally irresponsible fiscal policy.

And that's roughly what the Australian Liberal Party (which is, in fact, aggressively conservative) has decided it wants to do. *sigh*

Oh, I nearly forgot - abolishing human slavery.
That was the
republican party under Lincoln. AND, most of the KKK was democratic

One person cannot singlehandedly change the world. I disagree with you there, the will of one person (Hitler) changed the will of the the people thus it transformed the world for the worst. It took the will of the people to defeat the British army in colonial America. One person is nothing compared to the collective strength of people. Just look at all the labor union strikes in the early 1900s, many people took on the elite, and won! Individuals were sacrificed, but it served the greater good.

Hitler did not single handedly rouse Germany from being a nation of warm cuddly beer-loving, lederhosen-wearing, auto-motive manufacturers into a genocidal war machine. The entire German nation was angry, humiliated, and broken. Racism of some form or another is almost impossible to stop under such circumstances, whether the government wants it or not.

Post WWI England had huge problems with racism too, because it imported a labor force from its colonies rather than pay premium wages in the high-demand labor pool of white Englishmen. But at least England had an economy to rebuild, so things settled down somewhat. Germany had its colonies taken away by France and England. Germany would have handed over its power to anyone who knew how to get an economy working if he promised to do one thing for them. Avenge them. That's what they wanted, that's what they made for themselves. If Hitler had been killed in his youth, as every long running Sci-Fi franchise speculates on, it wouldn't have changed a thing that really mattered.

That was the
republican party under Lincoln. AND, most of the KKK was democratic

Wake up and smell the coffee - that post of mine is from this morning, it's been batted around back and forth all day, and the bottom line is this:

This ain't about Republicans and Democrats. It's about conservatives and liberals. And while ol' Abe may indeed have been a Republican, he sure as Hell wasn't a conservative - or what passes for conservatives these days.

Egg is clearly not on my face. Try again.

That was the
republican party under Lincoln. AND, most of the KKK was democratic
GOD, did you fail to read the posts above yours? At that time, the Republicans were mainly liberal and democrats were conservative. It was around 1912 when a lot of liberals started voting democrat and conservatives voted Republican.

Wilson-Won world war 1
F.D.R. and Truman-Won world war 2
J.F.K.-stopped the cuban missle crisis and hurt the mob
Carter-created 8 million jobs (while eating peanuts) lol
Clinton-Economy Surplus (Smoked dope but did not inhale) lol
Liberals have done alot of stuff so have conservatives we should have all people in the U.S. government working to better it.

By the way I drank beer, but I didn't swallow.

Hitler did not single handedly rouse Germany from being a nation of warm cuddly beer-loving, lederhosen-wearing, auto-motive manufacturers into a genocidal war machine. The entire German nation was angry, humiliated, and broken. Racism of some form or another is almost impossible to stop under such circumstances, whether the government wants it or not.

Post WWI England had huge problems with racism too, because it imported a labor force from its colonies rather than pay premium wages in the high-demand labor pool of white Englishmen. But at least England had an economy to rebuild, so things settled down somewhat. Germany had its colonies taken away by France and England. Germany would have handed over its power to anyone who knew how to get an economy working if he promised to do one thing for them. Avenge them. That's what they wanted, that's what they made for themselves. If Hitler had been killed in his youth, as every long running Sci-Fi franchise speculates on, it wouldn't have changed a thing that really mattered.
REALLY? WOW!!! OMG!!! :rolleyes:
They would've gone communist if the Nazi party hadn't risen to power. And Hitler was the Nazi party, I'm not going to go along with your hijack but it was his speeches that rallied the people into a hateful frenzy.

Nope, you're thinking of republicans again. Maybe your school failed to mention it, but Lincoln was a Republican.

In the 1800s the Republicans were the liberal party. Since then they went way off to the right, and the Democrats, who were at one time rather conservative (correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think so) eventually swung around to the left. Look it up: Lincoln was a liberal, as were all Republicans back then.

of course liberals have done much for the progression of this wonderful nation. However, there is a time and place for everything. THere is a time for social, technological and other similar forms progression, as well as a lot of centralized governmental powers to do all of it. There is also a time where conservative ideas must be used (for america, right now is the time). conervatives do have the upper hand on defense, military, and those sorts of things.

I guess it all just depends on whats goin on in the world @ the time.
Yes, of course... well, by your logic, we lost WWII because FDR was president. Nice try. Look at Bush? He can't win the war. You're mixing up getting in to wars and winning wars here.

Also, when Bush came into office (I'm not just talking post-9/11) the government expanded substantially. Bush Sr. had a big government, Clinton cut it down, and then Bush Jr. put it right back where it was... so... how can the Republicans claim "small government is good government"?

One word to describe the liberals, TAX!!!!! thats what they've done for us, i don't even have kids, so why the hell i should have to pay for them to go to publics schools i don't know, and i use private mediacal care, so why should i pay for the NHS? its just plain daft.

Really, now?

Well guess what? Your property values go up and down partially based on the quality of your public schools.

And guess what else? If only those who couldn't afford private schools paid for public schools, public schools would be broke, and most of America would be completely uneducated. This causes the economy to plummet, because we have a labor force about as qualified as that of the Indians who call us trying to sell us crap (no offense to Indians, I'm talking about those who are dirt poor and willing to work for a dollar a day) and guess what, they couldn't compete and still put food on the table. It would make the Great Depression look like the Clinton administration (zing!).

And guess what else? If poor people can't get medical care, people die. A lot of people die. Including rich people, because the cities will turn into gigantic incubators for deadly diseases. Think Black Death.

And guess what else? If there are no taxes, there are no roads except for toll roads (and HEAVY tolls, btw). There is no military. Hell, there is no government.

I know that you're not proposing abolishing taxes completely, so I apologize if my point seems to be simple hyperbole... but lesser versions of those things happen if you don't have tax money to work with. There is a reason why we are joined together as a nation and not individual people wandering around. Things work better if you work together. Am I a socialist or a communist? Heck no. That IMHO makes people not care how hard they work, because they see no benefit. All I'm saying is that if you don't have some basic institutions so that a man can live, you're no society at all.

It took the will of the French people in Canada to do it, no less. And the reason for the argument? The colonies didn't want to pay taxes to Britain - taxes that would've helped pay off the debts incurred to defend them from the French colonies.

The Americans rebelled because of taxation without representation. They were being robbed by the British tax collectors, and weren't allowed a say in how it was used. However, in America today, the number of people who have to pay taxes and still can't vote are very slim indeed, and it's either because they're too young (in which case they will very soon be able to vote) or because they are a convicted felon, in which case it was probably their own fault.
It wasn't the taxes... it was the taxes without equal footing as human beings.

Of course. How else would you run a balanced budget (since budgets are approved at the beginning of each fiscal year)?
Well you could be like Bush, and have the following play book:

Recession: "Economy's in trouble, we have to cut taxes so that it will fix itself."

Surplus: "The American People have been over-taxed, and they should get it back."

Average: "Our economy is (on the rise)/(on the fall) so we need to (reinforce the momentum)/(stem the fall) by cutting taxes."

Always: "There's no money in the budget for this kind of spending on (anything besides taxes)."

Meanwhile, most people get $50 and the people who have too much money already (I'm talking over $100M... there are very few people who could honestly say they need that much money. Put it in a trust, and their decendants could live off of it and the estate for generations, even without working) get richer and richer.

That was the
republican party under Lincoln. AND, most of the KKK was democratic
As I mentioned.... their roles were the opposite of now 150 years ago.

All these things the liberals have done...

And I say we could do without all of them.
Oh ok ... we will start with your right to free speach then :rolleyes:

Abe Lincoln may indeed have been a Republican, but he was by no means conservative. Maybe your school failed to mention that.

The Republican party of the 1800s may have been liberal, but Lincoln himself was no liberal. He didn't care about slavery. At. All.

AHEM, WITH REGARD TO 'WHAT HAVE THE LIBERALS DONE FOR US?'

I'm sorry the answer must truly be, 'very little.'

I proceed from the mindset that children thank their parents, who actually bought their christmas gifts, rather than the existence of toy manufacturers...

socialized education
health care
g.i. bill
libraries.
blah, blah blah....

Why would I thank liberals for that???

Where is the 'expletive deleted' thanks to the upper class of America for making EVERYTHING listed by you hippies, financially possible.

I thank capitalism, individual success, the resulting surplus of prosperity due to market forces and American economic superiority for the existence of the above.

You people don't think deeper than your talking points....