NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a question for anyone interested. I always hear such amazing vitriol associated with that particular word. So, I want to find out from people what they think.

This ought to be fun.

*eats a cookie*

Thomas Jefferson, some bitchy pothead, the Liberal Democrats, the Whigs, a block of sand paper

Just a question for anyone interested. I always hear such amazing vitriol associated with that particular word. So, I want to find out from people what they think.

Open-minded. Fair and Balanced. Humane. Policy oriented.

Depends on who's saying it.

I think of unadulterated hate and venom towards anything American. I think of the absense of ideas, and misdirection from that absense by nonsensical idealogical garbage.

Open-minded and easy-going.

Depends on who's saying it.
Corneliu

I think of unadulterated hate and venom towards anything American. I think of the absense of ideas, and misdirection from that absense by nonsensical idealogical garbage.
That describes almost any ideology.

I think of unadulterated hate and venom towards anything American. I think of the absense of ideas, and misdirection from that absense by nonsensical idealogical garbage.I don't like you very much right now, but I can think of many things that I love about the States.
And I'm a commie, and as liberal as they get.
Fit that into your world-view.

Cornileu

In that case, the word "Liberal" would mean "uneducated dumbass"... Which couldn't be further from the truth, really.

a terminology that is abused by American usages.

So we're talking about neoliberal here?
Bah...I thought you meant liberal not socialist/progressive.

I think of unadulterated hate and venom towards anything American. I think of the absense of ideas, and misdirection from that absense by nonsensical idealogical garbage.

Wow. I can't say I like you very much either. Non-constructive, counter-productive, and just a plain jerk.

You got it right when you picked your name.

Bad.

Tax and spend.

I don't like you very much right now
I wipe my ass with what you think of me.

I also think of Jesus. His teachings were very liberal.

Corneliu
first thing that comes to mind? Broncos Fan :D

Wow. I can't say I like you very much either. Non-constructive, counter-productive, and just a plain jerk.

You got it right when you picked your name.
:rolleyes:

Don't let you mind wander - it's far too small to be let out on its own.

Where's the "naive hypocritical wanker" option?

edit: just kidding, im sure liberals dont actually masterbate

I wipe my ass with what you think of me.
You can just see the love radiate from you. :)

I also think of Jesus. His teachings were very liberal.

True. I find it funny that all these hardcore christians are almost fascist in their opinions on society.

Just a question for anyone interested. I always hear such amazing vitriol associated with that particular word. So, I want to find out from people what they think.
I primarily think that you need to get your definitions straight.
Liberals are people who are close to Libertarians. They are anti-state and want to see people make choices.
That doesn't mean they're kind-hearted, so I don't have an option.

Anyways, here is what "Liberal" means in Australia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia

Where's the "naive hypocritical wanker" option?
That would be under the Kind hearted people that want to give everyone a fair shake in life option.

I also think of Jesus. His teachings were very liberal.


In the traditional sense. Today, he would be considered a conservative for his stand on moral issues.

:rolleyes:

Don't let you mind wander - it's far too small to be let out on its own.

You really need to stop getting your quips from your parents, their out of date.

Here's another oldie for ya.

"Nice cum back, now wipe it off your chin."

I wipe my ass with what you think of me.What I think of you is not at all soft. I don't think it'd be very pleasant to wipe one's ass with.
So, please, by all means, do.

By the way, here's what I think of when I hear the word liberal--from the Latin liberalis, literally meaning "pertaining to a free man." The root is the Latin liber, or "free." My translation into modern terms means that a liberal is one who is concerned with the rights pertaining to free humans, who seeks liberation from ideology, from superstition, and from whatever enslaves us.

You really need to stop getting your quips from your parents, their out of date.

Here's another oldie for ya.

"Nice cum back, now wipe it off your chin."


Oh great.... :headbang:

Please, kids, keep it civil :(

In the traditional sense. Today, he would be considered a conservative for his stand on moral issues.

Like judge not, lest ye be judged? No wait...

I can't think of one, give me an example.

Oh great.... :headbang:

Please, kids, keep it civil :(
Let the children play. That's how they learn

I'd have to go with other: "Elitist right wingers with no regard for the working class, or social equity"...

...but that is because, for some bizarre reason, in Australia the Liberal party is the conservative/right-wing party (equivalent to the Torys, or Republicans). Our left-wing mainstream party is Labour...

True. I find it funny that all these hardcore christians are almost fascist in their opinions on society.
As are the leftist fundamentalists that make up the majority of the Democrat party in the U.S. The ignore the will of the people and just rely on extremist judges to make law.

I don't like you very much right now, but I can think of many things that I love about the States.
And I'm a commie, and as liberal as they get.
Fit that into your world-view.

Seriously man. Commies and liberals are pretty fucking far apart. One group wants to introduce a couple of economic reforms (so long as it doesn't hurt the rich people too much) and say they dont like racism/homophobia (but won't ever try and stop fascists from marching) while the other group want to smash the bourgeoise state machine and create a dictatorship of the proleteriate to achieve communism

In the traditional sense. Today, he would be considered a conservative for his stand on moral issues.
See--I think you're wrong on that, and here's why. Jesus was all about forgiveness and not about condemnation. Paul, on the other hand, he was all over the condemnation, but Jesus basically focused on three things--the Golden Rule (treat others as you would be treated) and the two great commandments (love God with everything you have and love your neighbor as yourself). Not much about what are today considered "moral issues."

Like judge not, lest ye be judged? No wait...

I can't think of one, give me an example.



Taken in context, that's a condemnation of hypocrisy and not judging in general.

As are the leftist fundamentalists that make up the majority of the Democrat party in the U.S. The ignore the will of the people and just rely on extremist judges to make law.
As opposed to those saintly politicians in power now who bow down to the people and worship the very ground they piss on.

I think Hillary barf Clinton, Howard screaming Dean, John traitor Kerry, and Teddy murderer Kennedy. I would rather hear Joe the voice of reason Lieberman, but he cannot be heard above the yelling radical left. :(

As are the leftist fundamentalists that make up the majority of the Democrat party in the U.S. The ignore the will of the people and just rely on extremist judges to make law.

Funny, because the Democratic party of America is generally pretty Centrist. These "leftist fundamentalists" make up very little of the party as a whole.

John traitor Kerry

Excuse me, but...

...That's just ridiculous. He may be an idiot, but a traitor he isn't.

Taken in context, that's a condemnation of hypocrisy and not judging in general.

Still waiting for an example.... Oh wait... I have a copy here of Neo Rogolia's Conservative Gospel of Jesus. Let's find a few excerpts, shall we?

And Jesus said,

Giveth not to the poor, for they hath made their own bed to layeth down in.

Tis better for one thousand hungry to starve, than to giveth a single lazy shirker a free lunch.

Blessed are the rich, for they investeth into the church.

The Lord God helps those who help themselves, the rest shall be forsook.

If a child goes hungry, let their parents be held accountable. Bring them to the square and stone them as a lesson to all. But feed not or clothe that orphan child, as they are seed of the unworthy.

Judge others harshly, lest they judge you first.

God hath bestowed those rights unto man that only he can keep with raised sword. The meek are completely forsooked.

And so endeth the reading ;)

I think Hillary barf Clinton, Howard screaming Dean, John traitor Kerry, and Teddy murderer Kennedy. I would rather hear Joe the voice of reason Lieberman, but he cannot be heard above the yelling radical left. J

Yup they are so damn left-wing. what with their wanting to end capitali... oh wait. That must mean they are, in fact, right-wing.

the democrats are pretty right of center, actually. They are further right than the liberal part of Canada, which is the centrist party.

It is beyond me how anyone can claim a democrat in America is a leftist. :p

Excuse me, but...

...That's just ridiculous. He may be an idiot, but a traitor he isn't.
But he's a Commie baby eater from Taxachusetts! He must be evil!

I think Hillary barf Clinton, Howard screaming Dean, John traitor Kerry, and Teddy murderer Kennedy. I would rather hear Joe the voice of reason Lieberman, but he cannot be heard above the yelling radical left. J


I know what you mean! How dare they stand up for national health care, governmental accountability, checks and balances, and.... not lying to the people who voted for them! I'm just surprised you didn't throw Kucinich on the fire too!

But he's a Commie baby eater from Taxachusetts! He must be evil!

He's quite the Capitalist, though not so much as Clinton.

Seriously man. Commies and liberals are pretty fucking far apart. One group wants to introduce a couple of economic reforms (so long as it doesn't hurt the rich people too much) and say they dont like racism/homophobia (but won't ever try and stop fascists from marching) while the other group want to smash the bourgeoise state machine and create a dictatorship of the proleteriate to achieve communismUm, no.
Communists are not necessarily fascists. I want everyone to be equal. "From each man according to his ability, to each according to his needs" sort of thing. Civil liberties are very important to me.

the democrats are pretty right of center, actually. They are further right than the liberal part of Canada, which is the centrist party.

It is beyond me how anyone can claim a democrat in America is a leftist. :p
It would seem that quite a bit is beyond you.

I think Hillary barf Clinton, Howard screaming Dean, John traitor Kerry, and Teddy murderer Kennedy. I would rather hear Joe the voice of reason Lieberman, but he cannot be heard above the yelling radical left. :(
:rolleyes:

Still waiting for an example.... Oh wait... I have a copy here of Neo Rogolia's Conservative Gospel of Jesus. Let's find a few excerpts, shall we?

And Jesus said,

Giveth not to the poor, for they hath made their own bed to layeth down in.

Tis better for one thousand hungry to starve, than to giveth a single lazy shirker a free lunch.

Blessed are the rich, for they investeth into the church.

The Lord God helps those who help themselves, the rest shall be forsook.

If a child goes hungry, let their parents be held accountable. Bring them to the square and stone them as a lesson to all. But feed not or clothe that orphan child, as they are seed of the unworthy.

Judge others harshly, lest they judge you first.

God hath bestowed those rights unto man that only he can keep with raised sword. The meek are completely forsooked.

And so endeth the reading ;)

My friend, you deserve this.

*sends a cache of cookies in your direction*

Funny, because the Democratic party of America is generally pretty Centrist. These "leftist fundamentalists" make up very little of the party as a whole.

Unfortunately, the radical left not the centrists are in control. If you think Dean and Clinton are centrists, I feel sorry for you. Where are the true centrists like Lieberman?

Unfortunately, the radical left not the centrists are in control. If you think Dean and Clinton are centrists, I feel sorry for you. Where are the true centrists like Lieberman?
In hell, I don't know?

Um, no.
Communists are not necessarily fascists. I want everyone to be equal. "From each man according to his ability, to each according to his needs" sort of thing. Civil liberties are very important to me.
Are you calling me a fascist? No. A communist follows the works of Karl Marx which call for a revolution. If you're a socialist then you may seek to use democracy to attain a classless society. However, note that you are still different from a liberal who only wants to tinker here and there with the capitalist state instead of getting rid of it

Unfortunately, the radical left not the centrists are in control. If you think Dean and Clinton are centrists, I feel sorry for you. Where are the true centrists like Lieberman?

Dean's somewhat far-left on social policies, while Clinton is pretty close to center. They're both ardent Capitalists, though. And what's this bullshit about the "radical" left being in control? Last time I checked, next to nobody voted for Ralph Nader, and most of the Democratic senators and congressmen are hardly social libertarians.

And Lieberman, a centrist? Pfff. He's a right-wing nutjob who wants to take away the people's right to choose (seriously, his policies on entertainment are god-awful).

See--I think you're wrong on that, and here's why. Jesus was all about forgiveness and not about condemnation. Paul, on the other hand, he was all over the condemnation, but Jesus basically focused on three things--the Golden Rule (treat others as you would be treated) and the two great commandments (love God with everything you have and love your neighbor as yourself). Not much about what are today considered "moral issues."


Actually, he was pretty strict on many moral issues, such as divorce, sexual thoughts, etc.:


Matthew 5:27-30 27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.


Matthew 5:31-32 31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[f] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 7:13-14 13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.


Matthew 7:15-23 15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Matthew 10:11-16 11"Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. 12As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. 16I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.



Matthew 10:32-33 32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

Matthew 11:20-24 20Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths.[d] If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."


I'll stop with the examples now, but, clearly, Jesus was not just about love and peace: He also preached Justice for sinners.

Excuse me, but...

...That's just ridiculous. He may be an idiot, but a traitor he isn't.

An officer in the US NAval Reserves goes to another country (France) and meets with the enemy (North Vietnam) during a war. Not a traitor?

An officer in the US NAval Reserves goes to another country (France) and meets with the enemy (North Vietnam) during a war. Not a traitor?

Swift Boat bullshit, eh? Still trying to hold on, I see.

Funny, because the Democratic party of America is generally pretty Centrist. These "leftist fundamentalists" make up very little of the party as a whole.


No, the primary reason the democrats lost in '04 was because their bountiful, rabid base isolated the moderate Americans.

D1ckhead.


^ what comes to mind when the word "liberal" is said. it may be true that they are good, but living in canada with our oh so eloquent prime minister Paul Martin.....yes.....you can imagine the rest

Stinky Head Cheese is an idiot. If you're trying to make a point it's best you spell the key words of your statement correctly especially when you use it more than once!!! It's "absence" you moron!! :eek: :sniper:

He's quite the Capitalist, though not so much as Clinton.

No, his wife is the Capitalist, he is the lapdog. :eek:

Are you calling me a fascist? No. A communist follows the works of Karl Marx which call for a revolution. If you're a socialist then you may seek to use democracy to attain a classless society. However, note that you are still different from a liberal who only wants to tinker here and there with the capitalist state instead of getting rid of itYour definition of "liberal" is obviously different from mine (posted on the first page of this thread). I am liberal. I am not "a Liberal" as you think of it.
I am a socialist, but I also believe that industry should be owned by the people, and we should all be paid equally for our work, no matter what our occupation may be.
Communist, socialist, and very, very liberal.

I know what you mean! How dare they stand up for national health care, governmental accountability, checks and balances, and.... not lying to the people who voted for them! I'm just surprised you didn't throw Kucinich on the fire too!



Not lying to the people who voted for them? LOL.

I'll stop with the examples now, but, clearly, Jesus was not just about love and peace: He also preached Justice for sinners.

I've looked and looked, but I can't find anything in Matthew about the Holiness of huge tax cuts for rich people and cuts in social programs for the poor. I must have a really old Bible.

Not lying to the people who voted for them? LOL.

So, Bush never lied about the WMD's in Iraq, then?

Pfff.

I've looked and looked, but I can't find anything in Matthew about the Holiness of huge tax cuts for rich people and cuts in social programs for the poor. I must have a really old Bible.

No, no. You're just missing it. It's on page 18.

Well, shit, I know where this is going. *jumps off train*

Um, no.
Communists are not necessarily fascists. I want everyone to be equal. "From each man according to his ability, to each according to his needs" sort of thing. Civil liberties are very important to me.


Remember: Whoever grows the biggest cabbage for Comrade Stalin gets extra rations!

Well, shit, I know where this is going. *jumps off train*

*follows like a Lemming*

Remember: Whoever grows the biggest cabage for Comrade Stalin gets extra rations!

Of course, but then, Soviet Russia was never Communist. The word "totalitarian" comes to mind...

And Lieberman, a centrist? Pfff. He's a right-wing nutjob who wants to take away the people's right to choose (seriously, his policies on entertainment are god-awful).

Then why did the radical leftist Al hollering Gore pick such a right-winger as his running mate? I thought Al would pick someone closer to the center.

An officer in the US NAval Reserves goes to another country (France) and meets with the enemy (North Vietnam) during a war. Not a traitor?
Big Traitor.

Your definition of "liberal" is obviously different from mine (posted on the first page of this thread). I am liberal. I am not "a Liberal" as you think of it.
It's hardly a thorough definition, lets be honest

I am a socialist, but I also believe that industry should be owned by the people, and we should all be paid equally for our work, no matter what our occupation may be.
Nawt wrong with that

Communist, socialist, and very, very liberal.
Heres the problem- a communist is basically a socialist revolutionary and a liberal is not a socialist at all.

Well, shit, I know where this is going. *jumps off train*
Like I said at the beginning, this ought to be fun to watch--warm at least. Want a cookie? If you get some marshmallows and chocolate we could make smores from the flaming that's going on in here.

Then why did the radical leftist Al hollering Gore pick such a right-winger as his running mate? I thought Al would pick someone closer to the center.
Rolling on the fucking floor! Al, a left-winger?!

I've looked and looked, but I can't find anything in Matthew about the Holiness of huge tax cuts for rich people and cuts in social programs for the poor. I must have a really old Bible.



Well, I have a big suprise in store for you, that Swimmingpool is well aware of :D

Stinky Head Cheese is an idiot. If you're trying to make a point it's best you spell the key words of your statement correctly especially when you use it more than once!!! It's "absence" you moron!! :eek: :sniper:
:)

Liberal argument at it's finest.

Swift Boat bullshit, eh? Still trying to hold on, I see.

Fact, not liberal revisionist history.

WOOT! WOOT! FLAME BAIT ALERT!

ATTENTION POSTERS, ATTENTION POSTERS!

DO NOT BE ALARMED. RETURN TO YOUR HOMES OR PLACES OF BUSINESS.
THIS THREAD HAS BEEN DEEMED FLAME BAIT. DO NOT BE ALARMED. YOUR GOVERNMENT IS IN CONTROL.

PLEASE DESIST FROM POSTING ANY FURTHER. PLEASE CALMLY MAKE YOUR WAY TO ANOTHER THREAD, POSSIBLY ON THE SUBJECT OF HOT GIRL PICS. DO NOT BE ALARMED. THIS THREAD WILL CLOSED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Ahem...seriously, stop. This thread was probably only started to get people riled up. remember kids: just say NO to flame bait!

I think of kind hearted individuals looking to make the nation and world a better place for everyone. I think of people who promote equality, kindness, social justice, social responsibility and social freedom. I think of secularists, humanists, pacifists and atheists, of socialists, communists, reformers and utopians, of intellectuals and the enlightened, of some of the best humanity has to offer. That is what I think when I think Liberal.

I think of kind hearted individuals looking to make the nation and world a better place for everyone. I think of people who promote equality, kindness, social justice, social responsibility and social freedom. I think of secularists, humanists, pacifists and atheists, of socialists, communists, reformers and utopians, of intellectuals and the enlightened, of some of the best humanity has to offer. That is what I think when I think Liberal.
You better lower-case that "L" if you're not talking about neoliberalism.

I think of kind hearted individuals looking to make the nation and world a better place for everyone. I think of people who promote equality, kindness, social justice, social responsibility and social freedom. I think of secularists, humanists, pacifists and atheists, of socialists, communists, reformers and utopians, of intellectuals and the enlightened, of some of the best humanity has to offer. That is what I think when I think Liberal.



You formed an oxymoron when you associated secularists, humanists, and atheists with intellectuals, the enlightened, and some of the best humanity has to offer.

Well, I have a big suprise in store for you, that Swimmingpool is well aware of :D

Wait... you have evidence that Jesus wanted to screw the poor? If so I'd like to see it plz. It may be the straw that breaks the camel's back and force me to find another religion. I'd like to see the suprise if I may.

Heres the problem- a communist is basically a socialist revolutionary and a liberal is not a socialist at all.Please stop calling me a liberal. I am liberal. I am also brown haired. I am not brown hair. Follow?
Liberal the adjective is what I'm talking about. You are talking about the noun liberal, and the definition of that is not very clearly defined in the first place, but I don't think that I am one.
As someone else said, Paul Martin is a dickhead who evaded taxes while he was the finance ministre of Canada. I'm not a big fan of the label "Liberal" and he has a lot to do with that.

You formed an oxymoron when you associated secularists, humanists, and atheists with intellectuals, the enlightened, and some of the best humanity has to offer.
Are you implying that Christians aren't intellectual or enlightened? :)

You formed an oxymoron when you associated secularists, humanists, and atheists with intellectuals, the enlightened, and some of the best humanity has to offer.

And you just tossed out yet another vile insult in your typical unchristian manner.

Y'all have fun. It's 9 PM and I need to go to bed so I can get up at 4 AM and be in the swimming pool by 5 or 5:10 AM. I'll check back tomorrow. I figure by that time you will have figured out how to blame Bush for all the troubles in the Democratic Party. :D

The next election is going to be fun, especially with the lack of funds for the Democrats from the unions now that so many have split from the AFL/CIO. J

Just a question for anyone interested. I always hear such amazing vitriol associated with that particular word. So, I want to find out from people what they think.

Someone who's going to take my money and find a "good" cause for it, because I'm evil if I want to keep what's mine :rolleyes:

You formed an oxymoron when you associated secularists, humanists, and atheists with intellectuals, the enlightened, and some of the best humanity has to offer.

Not worth a response, really.

I just spoke with Jesus on the matter:
Me: Jesus?
Jesus? Yes, who is it?
Me: It's me, Jesus.
Jesus: What, you again? Fuck off!
The End

Wait... you have evidence that Jesus wanted to screw the poor? If so I'd like to see it plz. It may be the straw that breaks the camel's back and force me to find another religion. I'd like to see the suprise if I may.



*sigh* I was hoping you would guess correctly....I'm a leftist on economic issues :D

And you just tossed out yet another vile insult in your typical unchristian manner.



Nah, both New and Old Testaments speak...well...unfavorably of heathen unbelievers ;)

Are you implying that Christians aren't intellectual or enlightened? :)

*grits teeth*

Doesn't any1 listen to me when I post big parody of a government alert to tell posters that they're being lead into a flame war? :mad:

Remember: Whoever grows the biggest cabage for Comrade Stalin gets extra rations!If one person gets extra rations, the country ceases to be communist, to my eyes.
And you misspelled cabbage.

*sigh* I was hoping you would guess correctly....I'm a leftist on economic issues :D
Uh..I don't mean to be rude but.. :)
That doesn't make any goddamn sense?!@

If one person gets extra rations, the country ceases to be communist, to my eyes.
And you misspelled cabbage.


D'oh! I didn't notice that. Hold on, I'll fix it.

*sigh* I was hoping you would guess correctly....I'm a leftist on economic issues :D

*Kroisistan's head explodes in a fireball, sending his brain matter miles in all directions, flattening trees and buildings and incinerating those nearby*

Frankly when I hear the term "liberal" I just think of the left end of the political spectrum, with neither positive or negative connotations. But that's just me.

This ought to be fun.

*eats a cookie*
aren't you supposed to bring enough for everyone??

Someone who's going to take my money and find a "good" cause for it, because I'm evil if I want to keep what's mine :rolleyes:


You've hit the root of the problem IMO. This "What's mine is mine" attitude. Why do we have to go around trying to OWN everything we see? You know you can even own stars now, it's getting so ridiculous.

Possesions are transitory at best. Money is a figment of humanity's collective imagination. And, ownership of property is basically "selling the ground out from unborn feet".

Debate...

*Kroisistan's head explodes in a fireball, sending his brain matter miles in all directions, flattening trees and buildings and incinerating those nearby*
You're cleaining that mess.

Liberal: The political views of a sick and dying political party in the United States call the Democrats.

Please stop calling me a liberal. I am liberal. I am also brown haired. I am not brown hair. Follow?
Liberal the adjective is what I'm talking about. You are talking about the noun liberal, and the definition of that is not very clearly defined in the first place, but I don't think that I am one.
As someone else said, Paul Martin is a dickhead who evaded taxes while he was the finance ministre of Canada. I'm not a big fan of the label "Liberal" and he has a lot to do with that.

Welcome to NS President Clinton. I see you are having as much trouble with the word Liveral as you had with the word is. :eek:

*grits teeth*

Doesn't any1 listen to me when I post big parody of a government alert to tell posters that they're being lead into a flame war? :mad:
Hey, as long as there's so much flaming, we ought to put it to good use. Have a smore--they're yummy! :D

*gives Zexaland a smore*

Anyone else want one? I got plenty.

*Kroisistan's head explodes in a fireball, sending his brain matter miles in all directions, flattening trees and buildings and incinerating those nearby*



It's not so strange, I just think standards set by the early church should be applied to modern society. Such as communal distribution of wealth and hard work from everyone.

aren't you supposed to bring enough for everyone??
I'm giving out smores now--have one. :D

*Gives Danmarc a smore*

*Kroisistan's head explodes in a fireball, sending his brain matter miles in all directions, flattening trees and buildings and incinerating those nearby*

Told ya this thread was flame bait. ;)

D'oh! I didn't notice that. Hold on, I'll fix it.I'm not usually one to nitpick about spelling, but cabbage holds a very special place in my vegan commie heart.

I tend to think well-meaning but misguided and naive. When I think conservative I think close-minded and dogmatic. Of course, I've known and known of plenty of good conservatives and liberals. You find more of them off of the internet.

Hey, as long as there's so much flaming, we ought to put it to good use. Have a smore--they're yummy! :D

*gives Zexaland a smore*

Anyone else want one? I got plenty.

Oh, boy! Smores! :p :p

*eats smore*

Now stop flaming.

*IMPLODES*

I used to be like you, Neo Rogolia.

I tend to think well-meaning but misguided and naive. When I think conservative I think close-minded and dogmatic. Of course, I've known and known of plenty of good conservatives and liberals. You find more of them off of the internet.

Amen, brother!

Now stop flaming, every1.

Liberal = worthless, useless, unproductive, lazy, commie, intellectual snob

While I'm not entirely incompetent and realise that not all liberals are like that, it just comes to mind first. Sorry.

Oh, boy! Smores! :p :p

*eats smore*

Now stop flaming.
Oh I never started in this thread--too much of a chance for mass deletions. A pissed off mod could come in here and start bitch-slapping people left and right. I try to save my flaming for lower-profile threads where its more likely that I'll get away with it.

Have another smore.

*gives Zexaland another smore*

Welcome to NS President Clinton. I see you are having as much trouble with the word Liveral as you had with the word is. :eek:"Is" has one meaning. "Liberal" has hundreds. All the members of all the political parties named "Liberal" are Liberals. I am liberal. I am a New Democrat, to whomever cares to know.

Liberal = worthless, useless, unproductive, lazy, commie, intellectual snob

While I'm not entirely incompetent and realise that not all liberals are like that, it just comes to mind first. Sorry.

I SAID STOP FLAMING. :mad: :mad:

NEXT TIME= :eek: :sniper:

Oh I never started in this thread--too much of a chance for mass deletions. A pissed off mod could come in here and start bitch-slapping people left and right. I try to save my flaming for lower-profile threads where its more likely that I'll get away with it.

Have another smore.

*gives Zexaland another smore*

*eats smore*

I was refering that comment to every1, should've been more spefic. Sorry.

"Is" has one meaning.


Not to Bill :p

I'm not usually one to nitpick about spelling, but cabbage holds a very special place in my vegan commie heart.

Hippie.

It's not so strange, I just think standards set by the early church should be applied to modern society. Such as communal distribution of wealth and hard work from everyone.

:D *HUG HUG HUG HUG HUG* :D

It's not that it's strange, I mean Jesus's original followers operated communally, he preached the value of poverty and charity, how it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a pin than a rich man enter heaven... What is strange is that there is a Christian out there who actually thinks that way! When I think Christian today my mind inevitably comes to the Republican party who oppose equal distribution of wealth and workers rights, and the evangelical fat-cats who live off of millions in donations - rarely does one even hear of a left-wing Christian. I am overjoyed that they/you exist. You have just filled me with hope about Christians. You have in fact made my day. I was just so shocked that you were economically left wing, considering your overall acriditiy towards "liberals." :)

I SAID STOP FLAMING. :mad: :mad:

NEXT TIME= :eek: :sniper:
I wonder if that could be considered a flame.

Not to Bill :p

And does Bill tell you what to say? No? Then shut it and stop flaming.

I wonder if that could be considered a flame.

He was threatening that guy via smilies, so I think that is mild flaming. Ooohh you can taste the Irony.

I wonder if that could be considered a flame.

Uhhhhhhhhhhh...*runs away*

Not to Bill :p
I think this could be the beginning a beautiful friendship.

I SAID STOP FLAMING.

NEXT TIME= :sniper: :eek:



For Christ's sakes, I even added this to tone things down a bit:



While I'm not entirely incompetent and realise that not all liberals are like that, it just comes to mind first. Sorry.



... Why's it always me that gets into trouble for inflammatory rhetoric, anyway?! I mean, some have said I could probably be arrested under those anti-terror laws if I was taken literally!

Seriously. I am not that incendiary with my commentaries and stuff. There's no reason for people other than me to pretend to be angry.

Hippie.*hands Zexaland a lentil burger*

I think this could be the beginning a beautiful friendship.

*Neo pulls gun on Kervoskia*
Look out Neo! He's packing heat!
*Whacks him with a piano*

*hands Zexaland a lentil burger*



Ewwww *barfs*

*Neo pulls gun on Kervoskia*
Look out Neo! He's packing heat!
*Whacks him with a piano*



Which one of us got piano'd? :D

Ewwww *barfs*I actually puke when I eat lentils too!
We have something in common. Awwww.
You can have a soy burger...
Made from scratch...
Never mind. I know the answer to that one, don't I?

It's not so strange, I just think standards set by the early church should be applied to modern society. Such as communal distribution of wealth and hard work from everyone.

The difficulty being, of course, that in the Early church, this was voluntary. Imposing such values on people involuntarily results in something quite close to the Soviet system, Pol Pot's regime, and other examples of generosity-at-gunpoint. Once you create such a situation, it must be enforced, those who do the enforcing will, (and this is proven by what happened in every "communist" revolution to date) wind up being "More Equal" than their fellows.

One word definition being "Tyranny", or "Oppression".

Insanity is when you try something over and over again, the same way, expecting results to differ-like other failed initiatives (Perpetual Motion, Alchemy(lead into gold), Astrology-as-a-Predictive, Entreaties to the Gods, and character assignment based on head-bumps), the socialist ideas of the early church did not survive reaction with the Real, Physical, World. Their resurrection in the 19th century and codification based on ideas derived from late age of Reason thinkers (inspired in part by Darwin's little jaunt and book, "The origin of Species") has resulted, so far, in 40+Million dead Ukranians, an Unknown number of Dead Chinamen, Over a million dead Cambodians, not including those slain to bring this paradise-in-theory into being.

None of the historical evidence, however, has served to impress the modern American Leftist. Somehow, it fails to impress them that when Generosity is imposed by force, those doing the imposing are tyrants, and those doing the enforcing are thugs, and when you have both Tyrants, and Thugs running your domestic affairs, your freedom of choice has been suspended in All things.

Odd that I don't see the answer in the poll I would give. "Liberal" is a term stolen for use as a cover for "Tyrannical Statism imposed by the Left." it's a word that, in the American Lexicon, has been raped.

I actually puke when I eat lentils too!
We have something in common. Awwww.
You can have a soy burger...
Made from scratch...
Never mind. I know the answer to that one, don't I?



Umm, sure I'll take it! *gives it to the dog while she isn't looking and pulls out a real burger that looks like the soy burger* :D

The difficulty being, of course, that in the Early church, this was voluntary. Imposing such values on people involuntarily results in something quite close to the Soviet system, Pol Pot's regime, and other examples of generosity-at-gunpoint. Once you create such a situation, it must be enforced, those who do the enforcing will, (and this is proven by what happened in every "communist" revolution to date) wind up being "More Equal" than their fellows.

One word definition being "Tyranny", or "Oppression".

Insanity is when you try something over and over again, the same way, expecting results to differ-like other failed initiatives (Perpetual Motion, Alchemy(lead into gold), Astrology-as-a-Predictive, Entreaties to the Gods, and character assignment based on head-bumps), the socialist ideas of the early church did not survive reaction with the Real, Physical, World. Their resurrection in the 19th century and codification based on ideas derived from late age of Reason thinkers (inspired in part by Darwin's little jaunt and book, "The origin of Species") has resulted, so far, in 40+Million dead Ukranians, an Unknown number of Dead Chinamen, Over a million dead Cambodians, not including those slain to bring this paradise-in-theory into being.

None of the historical evidence, however, has served to impress the modern American Leftist. Somehow, it fails to impress them that when Generosity is imposed by force, those doing the imposing are tyrants, and those doing the enforcing are thugs, and when you have both Tyrants, and Thugs running your domestic affairs, your freedom of choice has been suspended in All things.

Odd that I don't see the answer in the poll I would give. "Liberal" is a term stolen for use as a cover for "Tyrannical Statism imposed by the Left." it's a word that, in the American Lexicon, has been raped.



Dont' mince words now. Tell us what you REALLY think. :rolleyes:

Liberal, eh? If I just sit here for a bit, looking dazed, will that tell you how I feel?

I mean, anything from Libertarians to communists are liberal. The word itself is derived from 'freedom', and I think the only common thread amongst liberals is a high regard for personal freedom.

I my mind, however, I only see libertarians & anarchists as true liberals. Other people just have a liberal inclination. I'm somewhat a crossbreed of a libertarian & an anarchist, however, so I'm quite biased I think.
Socialism has nothing to do with being a liberal in my opinion. Personal freedom includes the right not to give a damn.

I'm stunned every time I read anything about Neo's economic policies. I nearly had a heart attack when I read her contribution to a personal policies thread a month ago :p
But I guess that's just what I don't get about christians, commies and a host of others. I mean, how can people with highly socialistic ideals try to promote an all-powerfull state? In my mind, it's an oxymoron. I mean, when's the last time anyone saw a micromanaging government try to make people's lives bearable? Oh well... Didn't get it 10 years ago, don't get it today, and really, I doubt I ever will.

"Is" has one meaning. "Liberal" has hundreds. All the members of all the political parties named "Liberal" are Liberals. I am liberal. I am a New Democrat, to whomever cares to know.
Here is something more fitting to your intellect.

http://www.sfpg.com/animation/liteBrite.html#

Go play a while.

Here is something more fitting to your intellect.

http://www.sfpg.com/animation/liteBrite.html#

Go play a while.
*Sigh* :(

I'm an anarchist :D

Dont' mince words now. Tell us what you REALLY think. :rolleyes:

I did. :headbang:

*Sigh* :(


When he misdirected it to me, I did have a fun time making a purple/blue/red rainbow man :D

Umm, sure I'll take it! *gives it to the dog while she isn't looking and pulls out a real burger that looks like the soy burger* :DMy cats love soy. They're commies, just like me. One looks kinda Russian, and one has red hair.

When he misdirected it to me, I did have a fun time making a purple/blue/red rainbow man :D
I made a dragon! :p

My cats look kinda Russian too. They also have a habit of mysteriously disappearing into the night, never to be seen again.

Here is something more fitting to your intellect.

http://www.sfpg.com/animation/liteBrite.html#

Go play a while.
Careful, boy. I don't take too kindly to people mistreating my friends, and I consider her to be one of them.

My cats look kinda Russian too. They also have a habit of mysteriously disappearing into the night, never to be seen again.



*gasp* James? I didn't know you posted here too!

I'm not James, he's just an acquaintence of mine. ;)

Careful, boy. I don't take too kindly to people mistreating my friends, and I consider her to be one of them.
Who are you calling boy, old man?

SFC, USA, Active.

Liberal, eh? If I just sit here for a bit, looking dazed, will that tell you how I feel?

I mean, anything from Libertarians to communists are liberal. The word itself is derived from 'freedom', and I think the only common thread amongst liberals is a high regard for personal freedom.

I my mind, however, I only see libertarians & anarchists as true liberals. Other people just have a liberal inclination. I'm somewhat a crossbreed of a libertarian & an anarchist, however, so I'm quite biased I think.
Socialism has nothing to do with being a liberal in my opinion. Personal freedom includes the right not to give a damn.

I'm stunned every time I read anything about Neo's economic policies. I nearly had a heart attack when I read her contribution to a personal policies thread a month ago :p
But I guess that's just what I don't get about christians, commies and a host of others. I mean, how can people with highly socialistic ideals try to promote an all-powerfull state? In my mind, it's an oxymoron. I mean, when's the last time anyone saw a micromanaging government try to make people's lives bearable? Oh well... Didn't get it 10 years ago, don't get it today, and really, I doubt I ever will.

Given: that the means of production, like any endeavour involving more than a tiny handlfull of people, has to be administered by someone, and given that under a Socialist system, the means of production and distribution are handled by the Government.

you simply end up with an all-pervasive, non-responsive, government.


In pre-1900's Europe, this government form was known as "Monarchy". Prior to that, it was "Feudalism". In economic terms, we see what happens when you have a monopoly concentrated anywhere in the system-that Monopoly warps the rest of the system to fit. (History- Carnegie Steel, Standard Oil, Soviet Russia, pre-reform China...)
We also see what happens with the means of production being both a monopoly (Simplest to manage of the various systems) and owned by the "People" (read:"State"), we saw it in Feudal Europe, pre-Renaissance and pre-Age of Reason.
You wind up with "Classes" even if nominally "Classless" (Soviet Russia, PRC, DPRK, Kampuchea, Zimbabwe, Cuba...) and with the means of both production and distribution in the hands of "The People" (through, naturally, their "Representatives" in the government) upward mobility for the Ambitious and talented is solely through limited Government or Party channels. Said channels being the only and sole source of reward for innovation. Since the talents to rise in such an environment are not the talents of Entreprenuerial, technical, or other skills, you have no reward base for the clever garage-mechanic (like Steve Jobs was in 1977), instead, your rewards go to he (or she) who does the best job sucking up to his (or her) superiors.

Andre Sakharov spent thirty some odd years as a State prisoner for having different ideas, and he was possibly one of the, if not the, finest minds in the 20th century. Federov, whos automatic rifle could have given the Soviet Union an advantage against Germany in 1942, died in a Gulag in 1934. Ghod only knows how many good and near-great minds were wiped from the Earth in the Cultural Revolution and Pol Pot's "Year Zero" campaigns.

It would seem that quite a bit is beyond you.
Don't let you mind wander - it's far too small to be let out on its own.
I wipe my ass with what you think of me.
The personal attacks will cease NOW, or you will be looking for a new home on the internet. Clear?

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

The difficulty being, of course, that in the Early church, this was voluntary. Imposing such values on people involuntarily results in something quite close to the Soviet system, Pol Pot's regime, and other examples of generosity-at-gunpoint. Once you create such a situation, it must be enforced, those who do the enforcing will, (and this is proven by what happened in every "communist" revolution to date) wind up being "More Equal" than their fellows.

One word definition being "Tyranny", or "Oppression".

Insanity is when you try something over and over again, the same way, expecting results to differ-like other failed initiatives (Perpetual Motion, Alchemy(lead into gold), Astrology-as-a-Predictive, Entreaties to the Gods, and character assignment based on head-bumps), the socialist ideas of the early church did not survive reaction with the Real, Physical, World. Their resurrection in the 19th century and codification based on ideas derived from late age of Reason thinkers (inspired in part by Darwin's little jaunt and book, "The origin of Species") has resulted, so far, in 40+Million dead Ukranians, an Unknown number of Dead Chinamen, Over a million dead Cambodians, not including those slain to bring this paradise-in-theory into being.

None of the historical evidence, however, has served to impress the modern American Leftist. Somehow, it fails to impress them that when Generosity is imposed by force, those doing the imposing are tyrants, and those doing the enforcing are thugs, and when you have both Tyrants, and Thugs running your domestic affairs, your freedom of choice has been suspended in All things.

Odd that I don't see the answer in the poll I would give. "Liberal" is a term stolen for use as a cover for "Tyrannical Statism imposed by the Left." it's a word that, in the American Lexicon, has been raped.

But you lump all of us together under the description of ONE group of Leftists - the Stalinists. Let's see an example -
I myself am a Democratic Socialist. This differs from Tyrannical Statism(known as the stalinist form of communism) in many significant ways. The typical Stalinist will impose a leftist economic policy on a population by force - through revolution, coersion and violence(see all communist states to date, they have all been Stalinist in nature. See Stalin's Forced Collectivisation. See Pol Pot's "initiatives."). It will be run by a dictatorship to allow for ease of coersion and order. It will think nothing of sacrificing lives to serve it's goals. Stalinism has decided that the People are for the greater glory of the state and of Communism, and will sacrifice them to serve that goal. Stalinist states also end up developing political aristocrisies, due to the dictatorship.
Now democratic socialism, and all modern day socialist parties outside of China, Angola and the PRK are actually quite differently. They are democratic. Rather than "force" generosity on people, they are elected by an already generous populace to facilitate that ideology. As they are both democratically elected and checked by the democratic prosess, no coersion, intimidation or violence will occur. Always accountable because of the democratic system, the needs and wishes of the people will be listened to.

In the case of Stalinist Communism, insanity could be a proper definition, as no Stalinist state has accomplished its goal or served its people. However in the case of other forms of leftism, such as Socialism, insantiy is an improperly applied term, as socialist parties rule in many nations especially in Europe, and serve thier people quite well. The perennial example would be Scandinavia - notably Norway and Sweden. They hold spots 1 and 2 on the human development scale, spots 1 and 2 on the poverty index(top spots mean world's lowest poverty rates), Norway has a greater GDP per capita than the US, they both had GDP growth that was equal to or better than the US, and they maintain large social services programs, including welfare and free healthcare. They are run by popular, left-wing governments, who operate in a democratic environment. That surely defies your grouping of all leftists into the Tyrannical Statist catagory, or that of those doomed to failure.

Oh, and the generosity and communal nature of the early church was not destroyed by the real world. The tradition of those early Christians lives on in the monastic orders. Society at large simply decided to abandon the real teachings of charity and giving and equality, in favor of personal greed. I wouldn't be suprised of most modern day Christians end up in purgatory or below for that fact.(Assuming of course that Christianity turns out to be the right religion).

Who are you calling boy, old man?

SFC, USA, Active.



He could refer to any of us as boy/girl. He's olllllld :D


/comfort <Eutresca>

SFC
You are a football player (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sfc&redirect=no)?

The personal attacks will cease NOW, or you will be looking for a new home on the internet. Clear?

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop
Hey, one-sided moderation. Good Job!

Who are you calling boy, old man?

SFC, USA, Active.

Careful, Sergeant, that 'old man' walked the walk in a worse place probably before you were even an inclination in your father's trousers.

Hey, one-sided moderation. Good Job!
Buh-bye now. Buh-bye.

You are a football player (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sfc&redirect=no)?



SFC in the US means Sergeant First Class I think.

SFC in the US means Sergeant First Class I think.
And occasionally I like to ridicule people that think a military rank makes them any less of a pain in the butt... :D
Guess what...most of the male side of my family served at some point.

Even more shadowy business dealings with corporate America but fortunately less business dealings or at least less money than say what'cha macall'ems. The amalgamation that is the Democratic party. Caring more about whether someone can get married or someone can get out of having some brat than about whether the human race and the homeworld survive well. Not fighting hard enough for Political freedom from Corporate America. Caring more about the symptom than the actual cause of the problem. Being slightly less greedy than the rest of the fatcats. Radical types who actually still try and get things done despite the rampant apathy in the society. Weak Borders. About as many crazy people as the other end, but they're less likely to be dangerous. At least slightly less likely anyway. Drug Legalization and Taxation. Puerto Rico. The Whiskey/Bourbon(???) Rebellion.

Careful, Sergeant, that 'old man' walked the walk in a worse place probably before you were even an inclination in your father's trousers.
That old man and I have been batting it around here for a few years. That old man comment was nothing but respect.

And occasionally I like to ridicule people that think a military rank makes them any less of a pain in the butt... :D
Guess what...most of the male side of my family served at some point.


Mine too. My great grandfather (on my dad's Polish/Austrian side) was a colonel for the German Army in WWI :D He has a pretty amazing escape story after getting wounded far from home and crawling back to Germany, I'm sure he'd love to tell it if he wasn't dead for the past 15 years :D

It's not so strange, I just think standards set by the early church should be applied to modern society. Such as communal distribution of wealth and hard work from everyone.

The difference is that the early Christians weren't forcing outsiders to participate in their community. They were a private organization of sorts, not a government.

Even more shadowy business dealings with corporate America but fortunately less business dealings or at least less money than say what'cha macall'ems.

Wha???

EDIT: Sorry, didn't read that right the first time...

The amalgamation that is the Democratic party.

I'll agree with this. But, also point out that the reason for this is the constant broken record the other side turns into when they can't find anything better to say. Like I've heard before, "if you repeat yourself enough times, people will start to believe you, even if you're full of shit."

Caring more about whether someone can get married or someone can get out of having some brat than about whether the human race and the homeworld survive well.

I could not disagree more strongly here. Are you saying that control over your life and person aren't that important to you? And why is it then, that all the groups that support environmental responsibility are all called "Leftist" or "Liberal"?

Not fighting hard enough for Political freedom from Corporate America.

I'll agree that DEMOCRATS have that problem, for the most part. But Liberals are the onse at the front of that fight, so you have that wrong.

(Skipping to the end)

Drug Legalization and Taxation.

Why not? The people who really want drugs get them anyway. Ya know, now that one looks at it, that's the very same argument that gun people use to rail against banning guns...

Puerto Rico. The Whiskey/Bourbon(???) Rebellion.

No idea what you mean here...

The difference is that the early Christians weren't forcing outsiders to participate in their community.

You mean like they are now?

They were a private organization of sorts, not a government.

Not anymore...

The difference is that the early Christians weren't forcing outsiders to participate in their community. They were a private organization of sorts, not a government.

"bingo" Voluntary, as opposed to Involuntary participation. Early Christians didn't try to use a Legionarie's Spear to force non-christians to share their lifestyle. (Pre-Constantine and the HRE, naturally) government is the power of the Spear, or the Sword, or the Gun. Using the power of Government to force the "Unbelievers" to participate is the thuggery I mentioned in earlier posts... because the force of law, is the power to kill without consequences, to destroy with 'legitimacy'.

You mean like they are now?



Not anymore...
Har, you made a funny, because Christians standing up for their beliefs is forcing you to be one of them, right?

The only country where the Church is the government is Vatican City.

Given: that the means of production, like any endeavour involving more than a tiny handlfull of people, has to be administered by someone, and given that under a Socialist system, the means of production and distribution are handled by the Government.

you simply end up with an all-pervasive, non-responsive, government.


In pre-1900's Europe, this government form was known as "Monarchy". Prior to that, it was "Feudalism". In economic terms, we see what happens when you have a monopoly concentrated anywhere in the system-that Monopoly warps the rest of the system to fit. (History- Carnegie Steel, Standard Oil, Soviet Russia, pre-reform China...)
We also see what happens with the means of production being both a monopoly (Simplest to manage of the various systems) and owned by the "People" (read:"State"), we saw it in Feudal Europe, pre-Renaissance and pre-Age of Reason.
You wind up with "Classes" even if nominally "Classless" (Soviet Russia, PRC, DPRK, Kampuchea, Zimbabwe, Cuba...) and with the means of both production and distribution in the hands of "The People" (through, naturally, their "Representatives" in the government) upward mobility for the Ambitious and talented is solely through limited Government or Party channels. Said channels being the only and sole source of reward for innovation. Since the talents to rise in such an environment are not the talents of Entreprenuerial, technical, or other skills, you have no reward base for the clever garage-mechanic (like Steve Jobs was in 1977), instead, your rewards go to he (or she) who does the best job sucking up to his (or her) superiors.

Andre Sakharov spent thirty some odd years as a State prisoner for having different ideas, and he was possibly one of the, if not the, finest minds in the 20th century. Federov, whos automatic rifle could have given the Soviet Union an advantage against Germany in 1942, died in a Gulag in 1934. Ghod only knows how many good and near-great minds were wiped from the Earth in the Cultural Revolution and Pol Pot's "Year Zero" campaigns.
This, and the majority of your prior post, is exactly what I was getting at. And it's exactly why people like commies & christian fundies (well, all theocracy subscribers really) baffles me.

I disagree entirely with the conclusion in your former post however. I can't see what leftwingers has to do with totalitarians. Most anarchists would be considered leftwingers, and these things are diametrically opposed to what they're trying to achive, for example.
I do agree, though, that the majority of lefties (in my corner of the world anyway), are totalitarians. And I completely agree it's, at best, misdirected.

Oh well... Perhaps I really am a libertarian at heart.

Freedom and liberty, uncorrupted American ideals, fewer laws, people being nice and kind and generous to each other, respecting the environment, playing guitars on the streets and trading zines and growing fruit in their yards.

Freedom and liberty, uncorrupted American ideals, fewer laws, people being nice and kind and generous to each other, respecting the environment, playing guitars on the streets and trading zines and growing fruit in their yards.

Cool! I got all that covered... Well except fot the guitars and zines thing, too busy with my blog ;)

Freedom and liberty, uncorrupted American ideals, fewer laws, people being nice and kind and generous to each other, respecting the environment, playing guitars on the streets and trading zines and growing fruit in their yards.



Fewer laws would actually be counter-productive to your ideal of people being nice and kind and generous to each other ;)

Well intentioned, short sighted, self destructive, and easily duped.

Mysticism. Liberals don't know they're right because they know it, they know they're right because they feel it; it's sort of a microcosm of Utilitarianism; i.e. 'happiness is the measure of virtue,' i.e. 'actions should be morally gauged by the happiness they generate for others,' which to me is completely abhorrent to reason and morality.

The main difference between Liberals and Conservatives in this country is that Conservatives want to control your mind and Liberals want to control your body. The latter is not meant in the direct sense; it is not to suggest that they advocate slavery [at least not to the letter], but rather that they would prefer to decide where the product of this body [i.e. it's wealth] ends up. Preferably in the hands of others, who may or may not be deserving. In most observable cases, they prefer to send said funds to the latter.

Btw, did I mention that I have to get a root canal done in the morning? That's why I'm not going to bed, despite the lack of sleep I've had over the past few days :(

Mysticism. Liberals don't know they're right because they know it, they know they're right because they feel it; it's sort of a microcosm of Utilitarianism; i.e. 'happiness is the measure of virtue,' i.e. 'actions should be morally gauged by the happiness they generate for others,' which to me is completely abhorrent to reason and morality.

The main difference between Liberals and Conservatives in this country is that Conservatives want to control your mind and Liberals want to control your body. The latter is not meant in the direct sense; it is not to suggest that they advocate slavery [at least not to the letter], but rather that they would prefer to decide where the product of this body [i.e. it's wealth] ends up. Preferably in the hands of others, who may or may not be deserving. In most observable cases, they prefer to send said funds to the latter.

This seems to be a common misconception. Though I do support the idea of the government being a tool that all the people can use to better their lives, I don't think liberalism is about taking ALL of whatever it is you have. What has convinced you that that is the case? And, why is it that the stereotype of the welfare queen refuses to die? It's just not true, it's a myth, a spook story conservatives tell their kids before bed. "Vote Democrat, and the socialist boogeyman will take ALL your hard earned money." (okay that last part was taken from The Usual Suspects... But at least I'm citing my sources...)

Btw, did I mention that I have to get a root canal done in the morning? That's why I'm not going to bed, despite the lack of sleep I've had over the past few days :(
They're nowhere near as bad as you might think; I had one late last year and it was nothing. Then again, I had an infected nerve ending, so I was actually rather looking forward to the procedure.

That said, I promise you that the most painful thing about it will be the novocaine injection at the beginning. When I had mine, I couldn't even tell when they took the nerve out.

Owww... root canal...

This seems to be a common misconception.
It's not a misconception, it's an observation based on the conversations I've had with liberals both in real life and on this forum. Many of the things I say above came directly from their mouths, in fact. Well, at least the parts about Utilitarianism, which is more or less the cornerstone of modern liberalism, whether they know it or not.

Though I do support the idea of the government being a tool that all the people can use to better their lives, I don't think liberalism is about taking ALL of whatever it is you have. What has convinced you that that is the case?
Well no, it's really not [as long as we're talking about American Liberalism here and not some disgusting outgrowth of it or some other international liberal movement], but rather it's about taking a portion of it. I didn't mean to imply that they wanted to redistribute the entirety of my wealth; that would make them Communists, my reaction to whom would be much more virulent.

And, why is it that the stereotype of the welfare queen refuses to die?
Because it's not dead yet and some of us have been trying to kill it for years. Seriously, if you guys are so tired of debating Welfare, just nip that shit in the bud and drop it for the evil, wasteful program it is.

EDIT: just understood what you were trying to get at. I don't know why the stereotype exists, but as with most stereotypes I'm sure it has a reason for existing. I'm not going to say they're always true of course, but stereotypes would never catch on without some degree of accuracy. Most people denounce them mindlessly simply for being 'stereotypes' without examining the content of said stereotypes. Frequently, they're quite accurate. In this context, it certainly is.

It's just not true, it's a myth, a spook story conservatives tell their kids before bed. "Vote Democrat, and the socialist boogeyman will take ALL your hard earned money." (okay that last part was taken from The Usual Suspects... But at least I'm citing my sources...)
No argument here, but there's no getting around the fact that they generally support programs like SS and Welfare and Farm Subsidies and shit. These programs cause a demonstrable rise in our national budget, which in turn means I have less jingly in my pocket on April 16th. They might not take it all but God knows they take enough of it to piss me off.

Mysticism. Liberals don't know they're right because they know it, they know they're right because they feel it; it's sort of a microcosm of Utilitarianism; i.e. 'happiness is the measure of virtue,' i.e. 'actions should be morally gauged by the happiness they generate for others,' which to me is completely abhorrent to reason and morality.

The main difference between Liberals and Conservatives in this country is that Conservatives want to control your mind and Liberals want to control your body. The latter is not meant in the direct sense; it is not to suggest that they advocate slavery [at least not to the letter], but rather that they would prefer to decide where the product of this body [i.e. it's wealth] ends up. Preferably in the hands of others, who may or may not be deserving. In most observable cases, they prefer to send said funds to the latter.

Liberals want to control your body? Isn't that a little absurd considering that it's the conservatives who are the most ardent persecuters in the "war on drugs" and they include the political ideologues who are trying to take away abortion rights, and in some cases even birth control rights?

And I'd give up a little of my money if it meant that my mind gets to remain intact. From what I'm hearing from you I guess I'd have to admit that you make out like a bandit when offering up control of your mind in exchange for money.

No argument here, but there's no getting around the fact that they generally support programs like SS and Welfare and Farm Subsidies and shit. These programs cause a demonstrable rise in our national budget, which in turn means I have less jingly in my pocket on April 16th. They might not take it all but God knows they take enough of it to piss me off.

No, farm subsidies are favored by the conservatives. As are corporate subsidies like the new "energy bill." "Liberals" like Clinton only increased taxes on the top 1% of earners. If that's what you're complaining about (because I seriously doubt you're old enough to have paid high taxes under Carter) then I'd have to say you've forsaken all claim to credibility.

Liberals want to control your body? Isn't that a little absurd considering that it's the conservatives who are the most ardent persecuters in the "war on drugs" and they include the political ideologues who are trying to take away abortion rights, and in some cases even birth control rights?
Read my post again; you clearly did not understand it. The Conservative is trying to control your mind by regulating these habits; they're trying to control the contents of it by specifying which sunstances are appropriate for its use and which are not. Liberals want to control the product of a body; i.e. whatever it happens to produce in the course of work. An example of this would be a program--any program that redistributes wealth. That is what I'm talking about when I say they want to 'control the body.' It's an oversimplification, albeit a necessary one in today's ideological chaos.

And I'd give up a little of my money if it meant that my mind gets to remain intact.
And what you do with your money is your own business, as what I do with my own money should also remain my business. If I happen to think that if a certain program or group of programs isnt doing a very good job of keeping said mind free, then it is no longer a valid recipient of my life's work.

From what I'm hearing from you I guess I'd have to admit that you make out like a bandit when offering up control of your mind in exchange for money.
I'm not cerain I understand this allegory. Care to explain more thoroughly?

No, farm subsidies are favored by the conservatives. As are corporate subsidies like the new "energy bill." "Liberals" like Clinton only increased taxes on the top 1% of earners. If that's what you're complaining about (because I seriously doubt you're old enough to have paid high taxes under Carter) then I'd have to say you've forsaken all claim to credibility.



My main question: WHY ON EARTH ARE WE SUBSIDIZING ETHANOL!?!? IT'S NOT PRODUCTIVE!!!! MORE ENERGY IS EXPENDED IN CREATING IT THAN IS PROVIDED IN ITS USAGE!!!!!!!!.....sorry, just a pet peeve of mine :D

I see liberals as having good intentions, but I see that in the evangelical right as well.

They are very much the same, each has an idea about what is the correct way to run society, and they are very active in using the government to institute their vision of the utopian society.

Of course, both sides also generally tend to self-righteously dismiss those who have a differing opinion on how society should be run.

No, farm subsidies are favored by the conservatives. As are corporate subsidies like the new "energy bill." "Liberals" like Clinton only increased taxes on the top 1% of earners. If that's what you're complaining about (because I seriously doubt you're old enough to have paid high taxes under Carter) then I'd have to say you've forsaken all claim to credibility.
Farm subsidies are favored by nearly all American politicians, Liberal and Conservative alike. And yes, I will complain about any and all tax increases, whether they're aimed at me or not. Theft is theft.

Just a question for anyone interested. I always hear such amazing vitriol associated with that particular word. So, I want to find out from people what they think.


What do I think when I hear "liberal"?

Me.

Farm subsidies are favored by nearly all American politicians, Liberal and Conservative alike. And yes, I will complain about any and all tax increases, whether they're aimed at me or not. Theft is theft.
If you think all tax is theft let me explain to you something about how the government works. The people have a need. Let's say they want better roads. They pay the government in taxes to make better roads. The government makes the roads, the people are happy.

To force people to pay for every service traditionally provided by the government is oppression by the wealthy on the masses.

Farm subsidies are favored by nearly all American politicians, Liberal and Conservative alike. And yes, I will complain about any and all tax increases, whether they're aimed at me or not. Theft is theft.


Really.


Yeah, it's theft. All you get for it are roads, police, fire departments, armies to protect you, hospitals, street signs, traffic lights, national parks, safe milk and meat, clean resteraunts... (I could go on all day, but I'm getting tired)...

Yeah, the goverment's really robbing you isn't it?

Really.


Yeah, it's theft. All you get for it are roads, police, fire departments, armies to protect you, hospitals, street signs, traffic lights, national parks, safe milk and meat, clean resteraunts... (I could go on all day, but I'm getting tired)...

Yeah, the goverment's really robbing you isn't it?Was it voluntary? It is theft when you could obtain many of those services from the market.

Was it voluntary? It is theft when you could obtain many of those services from the market.


Really, now?

So you're wealthy enough to afford contractors to build your own roads, put up your own personal stop signs, buy your own cops, make your own army...

As for the voluntary part, fine. Go up and live in a cave if you don't like paying for it. Or go to a country with no income tax, like Monte Carlo. Or just go to a piece of land somewhere where no one will ever tax you. I'm sure there has to be one somewhere.


(pauses)

You're still here, aren't you?

(If I get too obnoxious, tell me to stop)

I'm not here to discuss the implications of the fact that taxation is theft. I don't remember being asked if I wanted to use these programs, so as far as I'm concerned money's being taken away from me without my permission, which I call 'theft.' Since I'd be arrested if I were to steal from you to pave a road or feed a bum, I don't think the government should be able to get away with it either. I don't happen to think that governments and private citizens should be held to differing moral standards. No one's really going to change my mind on this either, so let's say we return the conversation to the topic at hand rather than derailing it, hm?

Was it voluntary? It is theft when you could obtain many of those services from the market.
Exactly, why should the poor people be able to get all of those services when the rich can get it? If a poor person's house is burning down and they can't afford for the fire department to put it out, fuck them. They should've gotten a better job while they had the chance. :rolleyes:

I'm not here to discuss the implications of the fact that taxation is theft. I don't remember being asked if I wanted to use these programs, so as far as I'm concerned money's being taken away from me without my permission, which I call 'theft.' Since I'd be arrested if I were to steal from you to pave a road or feed a bum, I don't think the government should be able to get away with it either. I don't happen to think that governments and private citizens should be held to differing moral standards. No one's really going to change my mind on this either, so let's say we return the conversation to the topic at hand rather than derailing it, hm?
Melkor Unchained is the U.S. government :rolleyes: Do you know why the Articles of Confederation failed miserably? Because they didn't have the power to tax. America wouldn't be here if it weren't for taxes.

I'm not here to discuss the implications of the fact that taxation is theft. I don't remember being asked if I wanted to use these programs, so as far as I'm concerned money's being taken away from me without my permission, which I call 'theft.' Since I'd be arrested if I were to steal from you to pave a road or feed a bum, I don't think the government should be able to get away with it either. I don't happen to think that governments and private citizens should be held to differing moral standards. No one's really going to change my mind on this either, so let's say we return the conversation to the topic at hand rather than derailing it, hm?


I probobly can't change your mind, but I'll try anyway.

Goverments can be held to different moral strandards because A: they are groups of people, not just one-any theft or misuse would be stopped easily and B: we elect them. We can always stop if they misuse our money. And if you really think that what they do with it is misuse, than go live somewhere else.

Melkor Unchained is the U.S. government :rolleyes: Do you know why the Articles of Confederation failed miserably? Because they didn't have the power to tax. America wouldn't be here if it weren't for taxes.
America also didn't happen to levy an income tax [which is what I'm complaining about, at least in this context] until 1861, so.... uh... yeah. Bye bye with that argument.

Exactly, why should the poor people be able to get all of those services when the rich can get it? If a poor person's house is burning down and they can't afford for the fire department to put it out, fuck them. They should've gotten a better job while they had the chance. :rolleyes:


I try to make it a point never to agree with a guy named Achtung 45, but you are right.

America also didn't happen to levy an income tax [which is what I'm complaining about, at least in this context] until 1861, so.... uh... yeah. Bye bye with that argument.


It is slightly disturbing how much both of you know about this argument.

Exactly, why should the poor people be able to get all of those services when the rich can get it? If a poor person's house is burning down and they can't afford for the fire department to put it out, fuck them. They should've gotten a better job while they had the chance. :rolleyes:
Now you're just playing the guilt card. :rolleyes:
I am a Classical Liberal, not an anarcho-capitalist. I believe such things as a national defense, police, and roads can't be sufficiently provided by the market. If you give government less income, they will know where to use it because they don't have enough to throw at this project or that.

As for the voluntary part, fine. Go up and live in a cave if you don't like paying for it. Or go to a country with no income tax, like Monte Carlo. Or just go to a piece of land somewhere where no one will ever tax you. I'm sure there has to be one somewhere.


(If I get too obnoxious, tell me to stop)
Tax is theft, but I believe minimum taxes are necessary for areas that the market can't provide for.

Taxation used as wealth redistribution is theft, and that was the original complaint about modern liberals.

I probobly can't change your mind, but I'll try anyway.

Goverments can be held to different moral strandards because A: they are groups of people, not just one-any theft or misuse would be stopped easily
Stopped easily? Since when is revolution easy? Furthermore, no man should gain any additional rights by belonging to a certain group: this idea has given rise to too many disgusting and horribly irrational ideologies to list in one lifetime. Groups of people are just that: they are a collection of individuals, that have the same rights as their individuals. The concept of something being 'greater than the sum of its parts' is a blatant [and hopefully readily apparent] contradiction when applied to anything within our reality.

and B: we elect them. We can always stop if they misuse our money. And if you really think that what they do with it is misuse, than go live somewhere else.
Oh? We can stop them? Well, I happen to be one of "We" and I would like to stop them. Now would be good. My previous point applies here as well.

I happen to vote for people who won't steal from me, at least as best as I can judge with my admittedly fabulous cognitive abilities. It's not my fault that everyone else votes for people who will. And I shouldn't have to go live somewhere else because I don't happen to agree with these policies. That's a cop out of staggering proportions, and it fails to make any moral pronouncement whatsoever in defense of your policies.

Although to be fair it was only slightly worse than the first two reasons.

Taxation used as wealth redistribution is theft, and that was the original complaint about modern liberals.
So, go do things the Democratic way. Go protest outside Washington and yell, "Fuck income tax!"

God forbid we help those poor people.

And if you really think that what they do with it is misuse, than go live somewhere else.

I believe I have seen that statement directed at many liberals when discussing patriotism or the War in Iraq.

Do you only recognize the ignorance of that statement when it is directed at you?

So, go do things the Democratic way. Go protest outside Washington and yell, "Fuck income tax!"

God forbid we help those poor people.
Please, cease with the guilt-trips. I admire you, but don't try to pull emotional strings. I believe in voluntary charity, but not forced charity. :(

Please, cease with the guilt-trips. I admire you, but don't try to pull emotional strings. I believe in voluntary charity, but not forced charity. :(
Too bad people aren't all about giving to charity. You get the occasional money worshippers, like the Bush family, which Nazism didn't even stop Prescott Bush from making money, that create the need for a "forced charity." Not everyone who has enough money is going to give to charity. Certainly not enough to run a country as large as America.

God forbid we help those poor people.

*wipes tear*

Give me a second to recover from that emotional outburst.

...

No distinguishing characteristic amongst the citizens of a country should be used as an indicator to priveleged status by the government.

Economic status should in no way grant an individual precedent over the rights of others.

Was it voluntary? It is theft when you could obtain many of those services from the market.

At profiteering rates.

What is the problem with paying for your lifestyle? Taxation is basically your dues to America for the stuff you get to take for granted here that most other people in the world consider a luxury. Because that's what they are, luxuries.

I mention the "What's mine is mine" attitude earlier in the thread, and no one has picked up the baton yet. Can one of you please do that?

Too bad people aren't all about giving to charity. You get the occasional money worshippers, like the Bush family, which Nazism didn't even stop Prescott Bush from making money, that create the need for a "forced charity." Not everyone who has enough money is going to give to charity. Certainly not enough to run a country as large as America.
Be that as it may, I don't think coercion is proper tool to obtain charity.

Too bad people aren't all about giving to charity. You get the occasional money worshippers, like the Bush family, which Nazism didn't even stop Prescott Bush from making money, that create the need for a "forced charity." Not everyone who has enough money is going to give to charity. Certainly not enough to run a country as large as America.



And George Bush can be associated with Prescott Bush's actions?


Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

At profiteering rates.

What is the problem with paying for your lifestyle? Taxation is basically your dues to America for the stuff you get to take for granted here that most other people in the world consider a luxury. Because that's what they are, luxuries.

I mention the "What's mine is mine" attitude earlier in the thread, and no one has picked up the baton yet. Can one of you please do that?
Yes, but what if I could obtain that same service from a cheaper provider and of higher quality? Should I be forced to pay for that and taxes on a service that I am not going to use?

And George Bush can be associated with Prescott Bush's actions?


Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
Oh boy! Arguments complete with Bible verses! whoopee! That was merely an example of the Bush family's worshipping of money. And I did not say anything about George Bush in particular. I'm sure you got your Christianity from your parents, if you didn't, I know many, many people who did. It's the same thing with the Bush family and their money worshipping.

*wipes tear*

Give me a second to recover from that emotional outburst.

...

No distinguishing characteristic amongst the citizens of a country should be used as an indicator to priveleged status by the government.

Economic status should in no way grant an individual precedent over the rights of others.
Booyah. It's funny though, you'd expect to hear this from the Left.
:D

Taxes are the price of civilization.

Booyah. It's funny though, you'd expect to hear this from the Left.
:D
You can taste the soggy irony.

Oh boy! Arguments complete with Bible verses! whoopee! That was merely an example of the Bush family's worshipping of money. And I did not say anything about George Bush in particular. I'm sure you got your Christianity from your parents, if you didn't, I know many, many people who did. It's the same thing with the Bush family and their money worshipping.
If you're so anti religious, then do what I do: ignore the religion. Address the point. G.W. Bush isn't accountable for Prescott Bush's actions merely on virtue of the fact that he shared in the success by being born. If your argument mutates into something along the lines of breaking form the family in disgust, you're more or less making a moral pronouncement for another person without the use of their mind; i.e. to make a decision for someone else without the context of their conciousness. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I bitch about how the left thinks.

Taxes are the price of civilization.
Oh come on, is that all you've got? :p

I believe I have seen that statement directed at many liberals when discussing patriotism or the War in Iraq.

Do you only recognize the ignorance of that statement when it is directed at you?


With all due respect, it's apples to oranges.

The war is a form of policy, which I, as a tax paying citizen, have full rights to protest and change.

Taxes are part of an inherent system. The majority does not wish to change the system, so therefore the system cannot be changed merely for you.

Therefore, if you feel that strongly about the inherent system, go live somewhere else.

(and I am a liberal democrat, so yes, I have heard people tell me to get out of the country)

Booyah. It's funny though, you'd expect to hear this from the Left.
:D

Lets just see if any of them recognizes their inconsistencies.

If you're so anti religious, then do what I do: ignore the religion. Address the point. G.W. Bush isn't accountable for Prescott Bush's actions merely on virtue of the fact that he shared in the success by being born. If your argument mutates into something along the lines of breaking form the family in disgust, you're more or less making a moral pronouncement for another person without the use of their mind; i.e. to make a decision for someone else without the context of their conciousness. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I bitch about how the left thinks.
May I repeat I said nothing about George W. Bush. The entire Bush reference was merely an example, but apparently, they taught you well to hate the reisistence. That is only one reason why I bitch about the "right."

With all due respect, it's apples to oranges.

The war is a form of policy, which I, as a tax paying citizen, have full rights to protest and change.

Taxes are part of an inherent system. The majority does not wish to change the system, so therefore the system cannot be changed merely for you.

Therefore, if you feel that strongly about the inherent system, go live somewhere else.

(and I am a liberal democrat, so yes, I have heard people tell me to get out of the country)
So, freedom should be restricted because the majority willed it?
I could apply that same argument to social issues. The majority could be against women voting, well then the system won't be modified just for them. They can get out.

Be that as it may, I don't think coercion is proper tool to obtain charity.

Yes, but self-interest is a good reason. I personally wouldn't want to live in a country that had millions of homeless people dying in the street. It would be unpleasant and unsafe. Without social security and medicare, you'd have to clear your driveway of elderly dead people every morning before you drove to work. That would reduce my productivity.

So, freedom should be restricted because the majority willed it?
I could apply that same argument to social issues. The majority could be against women voting, well then the system won't be modified just for them. They can get out.


No, you have a right to protest taxes, but when the IRS comes to your door, it's time to think about how much you want to live here.

But back to the central issues.

You cannot use something without paying for it. If I stole a motercycle, I would be arrested.

You cannot drink from a public foutain, drve on a paved road, or vote without paying for it. It is that simple.

With all due respect, it's apples to oranges.
Oh yeah?

The war is a form of policy, which I, as a tax paying citizen, have full rights to protest and change.
The Tax Code is a form of policy, which I, as a tax paying citizen, havefull rights to protest and change.

Go on. I know what you're going to say.

Taxes are part of an inherent system. The majority does not wish to change the system, so therefore the system cannot be changed merely for you.
This is utterly false. This amounts to the viewpoint that reality is dictated to us by some higher consciousness; i.e. society or God [it's the same mistake]. You're really throwing all credibility out the window by saying "the majority wants it, it can't be changed" when you're protesting the dominant political majority in our country with your next breath.

Therefore, if you feel that strongly about the inherent system, go live somewhere else.

(and I am a liberal democrat, so yes, I have heard people tell me to get out of the country)
If you think a certain way, go live somewhere else. If you want certain things out of life, go live somewhere else. If your skin is a certain color, go live somewhere else. It's a 'slippery slope' argument, which is invalid. This rationale, when practiced in any variation, leads to bad things.

Oh come on, is that all you've got? :p


More or less.

But it's a good point.

With all due respect, it's apples to oranges.

The war is a form of policy, which I, as a tax paying citizen, have full rights to protest and change.

Taxes are part of an inherent system. The majority does not wish to change the system, so therefore the system cannot be changed merely for you.

Therefore, if you feel that strongly about the inherent system, go live somewhere else.

(and I am a liberal democrat, so yes, I have heard people tell me to get out of the country).

Problems I have with this statement:

1. You are relying on tradition. The income tax is a changeable policy just like any other. That it has been used for nearly a century and a half doesn't matter.

2. The payment of taxes does not entitle you to your rights. Your acceptance and abiding of society's laws and society's acceptance of you entitles you to your rights.

So I will change it around to this:

The income tax is a form of policy, which I, as a law abiding citizen, have full rights to protest and change.

No, you have a right to protest taxes, but when the IRS comes to your door, it's time to think about how much you want to live here.

But back to the central issues.

You cannot use something without paying for it. If I stole a motercycle, I would be arrested.

You cannot drink from a public foutain, drve on a paved road, or vote without paying for it. It is that simple.
The point of the argument was that you take away another's freedom to spend their money as they please. What if you never vote or do any of that, why should you pay for another to do so?

Here is something more fitting to your intellect.

http://www.sfpg.com/animation/liteBrite.html#

Go play a while.I made a hammer and sickle. It was fun. Thanks.

Taxes are the price of civilization.

No, taxes are the price of government.

How much government is needed to maintain civilization is the argument here.

Oh yeah?


The Tax Code is a form of policy, which I, as a tax paying citizen, havefull rights to protest and change.

Go on. I know what you're going to say.


Nothing is inherent; this is utterly false. This amounts to the viewpoint that reality is dictated to us by some higher consciousness; i.e. society or God [it's the same mistake]. You're really throwing all credibility out the window by saying "the majority wants it, it can't be changed" when you're protesting the dominant political majority in our country with your next breath.


If you think a certain way, go live somewhere else. If you want certain things out of life, go live somewhere else. If your skin is a certain color, go live somewhere else. It's a 'slippery slope' argument, which is invalid. This rationale, when practiced in any variation, leads to bad things.

Okay, okay.

Maybe (just maybe) I'm being a little harsh.

Buttttttttttt...

Democracy is the will of the majority of the people, even if flawed. If it is flawed, than someone needs to change it.

Take racism for example. Lincoln was elected and ended slavery. If a canidate ran for president on a "no taxes" platform and got elected, I would have to accept it. I would and could still whine, but I would have to accept it.

If the world was perfect, everyone could live perfectly according to their belifes and principles. That's what we have Nationstates for. But, ultamitly, we have to comprimise. If something is wrong about the system, try to change it. But, the will of a few cannot override the will of the many.

The point of the argument was that you take away another's freedom to spend their money as they please. What if you never vote or do any of that, why should you pay for another to do so?
You have the choice not to vote. You could just as easily go and vote so you have no right to protest.

The point of the argument was that you take away another's freedom to spend their money as they please. What if you never vote or do any of that, why should you pay for another to do so?


Than, (once again) become a hermit or leave.

You have the choice not to vote. You could just as easily go and vote so you have no right to protest.


Yeah, but if that happened, I'd start a rebellion.

If some of us feel strongly enough about taxes and free speech to start a rebellion, great. I'm fine with that. But, at some point, one must decide- is this worth leaving or fighting for?

Ok, it seems like everyone's debating me at once here, so I'll only respond to as many as I can.

Scratch that. I can't belive I just stayed up till one in the morn debating taxes. Got to go. Thanks for the debate.

If the world was perfect, everyone could live perfectly according to their belifes and principles. That's what we have Nationstates for. But, ultamitly, we have to comprimise. If something is wrong about the system, try to change it. But, the will of a few cannot override the will of the many.
I skimmed through this thread, so please inform me if this has alreadt been said.
I would like to simply say that democracy and despotism are both systems in which one group subjects the others to their will. Either way their is a degree of oppression and both bread tyranny. [/rant]
It seems to me that taxes are a way to keep the population "in order". By making it a law that a citizen must pay taxes, the state is keeping them in that system. This keeps the state alive because the people have little alternative short of becoming a hermit or something undesirable. Taxes keep the people under the wing of the state. Those who do not wish to pay taxes are often making trying to escape the statist system and use the market and other voluntary means to provide for themselves. This, of course, undermines the state so it is obviously frowned upon.

I have a few minutes if anyone has any arguments against this.

The point of the argument was that you take away another's freedom to spend their money as they please. What if you never vote or do any of that, why should you pay for another to do so?


Because we don't live in a solipsistic universe. You are not an island.

People like you claim to have the corner on patriotism, but when it comes to literally putting your money where your mouth is, suddenly you say "I'm not hungry". Get over it!

Democracy is the will of the majority of the people, even if flawed. If it is flawed, than someone needs to change it.
That's why I prefer a Republic. Lay down the rules, be sure you get it right, and then work within them after a fashion.

Take racism for example. Lincoln was elected and ended slavery. If a canidate ran for president on a "no taxes" platform and got elected, I would have to accept it. I would and could still whine, but I would have to accept it.
That's the beauty part of it: you wouldn't have to accept shit. You're still free to air your opinions. It might not do much good, but with that freedom comes the freedom to further that cause and try to make a meaningful change. Obviously, any contrary opinion for a policy involves a lack of acceptance for the concept in the first place, so no acceptance is 'forced' upon you.

If the world was perfect, everyone could live perfectly according to their belifes and principles. That's what we have Nationstates for. But, ultamitly, we have to comprimise. If something is wrong about the system, try to change it. But, the will of a few cannot override the will of the many.
I don't understand this mentality that urges compromise at every turn: you tell me to compromise and then to tell me to 'try to change [the system]' in the same breath. How am I compromising on a moral pronouncement while trying to make a change based off that moral pronouncement? In most cases, compromise is either self-contradictory or self-destructive.

And the will of the few can override the will of the many, any history textbook will be filled with examples.

Because we don't live in a solipsistic universe. You are not an island.

People like you claim to have the corner on patriotism, but when it comes to literally putting your money where your mouth is, suddenly you say "I'm not hungry". Get over it!
I'm not patriotic any most senses of the word. I assume you think I am an American Conservative.

That's why I prefer a Republic. Lay down the rules, be sure you get it right, and then work within them after a fashion.

I would like to thank you for that statement. I have been trying to think of a system similar to what you have mentioned, but have been tongue-tied.

I'm not patriotic any most senses of the word. I assume you think I am an American Conservative.

No. All I'm trying to say is "We're chained to the world, and we all gotta pull."
--Tom Waits

And ranting about somethign as trivial as taxation is useless. Are you starving? Are you at or below the poverty level? My guess would be no. Or you wouldn't be here, on the internet, using a computer, complaining about how taxation is "theivery"

I don't really think 20-30% of my income being taken away before it hits my hands is exactly trivial.

No. All I'm trying to say is "We're chained to the world, and we all gotta pull."
--Tom Waits

And ranting about somethign as trivial as taxation is useless. Are you starving? Are you at or below the poverty level? My guess would be no. Or you wouldn't be here, on the internet, using a computer, complaining about how taxation is "theivery"
Goody-goody, keep the guilt acomin'....

Goody-goody, keep the guilt acomin'....


My next guess would be that you wouldn't be calling it a "guilt trip" if you didn't feel even the slightest pang somewhere deep down. Don't worry, there's counseling, but can you afford it?

I think the point here is not whether or not s/he has guilt, but rather whether or not that guilt is a valid moral justification for dictating other people's actions.

In case you're wondering, it's not.

My next guess would be that you wouldn't be calling it a "guilt trip" if you didn't feel even the slightest pang somewhere deep down. Don't worry, there's counseling, but can you afford it?
I don't see how emotional arguments are highly relavent to economics. Freedom is to be left to your own devices, that's all I am saying. Be free to do as you wish so long as you don't prevent another from doing likewise.

Thank you, Melkor.

I think the point here is not whether or not s/he has guilt, but rather whether or not that guilt is a valid moral justification for dictating other people's actions.

In case you're wondering, it's not.

Who's dictating? Decry, yes. Dictate, no. He has the right to be selfish, and I have the equal right to call him a dick for it. Fair enough?

Who's dictating? Decry, yes. Dictate, no. He has the right to be selfish, and I have the equal right to call him a dick for it. Fair enough?
I'm a dick and you're a son of a bitch. :)
What's more selfish: Trying to spend my wages as I please or someone taking my wages and giving them to another to fulfill their own cause?

I'm a dick and you're a son of a bitch. :)
What's more selfish: Trying to spend my wages as I please or someone taking my wages and giving them to another to fulfill their own cause?

Let me pose these questions then, What would you spend you hard earned money on? What do you see as "unworthy" of you money? What is your current economic state? What do you think of people less fortunate than yourself? What do you think of people more fortunate than yourself? If you absolutely had to, without question, give a portion of your income (stipulating that taxation "theivery" didn't exist) to someone or something, what would it be?

I don't really think 20-30% of my income being taken away before it hits my hands is exactly trivial.
Sure it is--losing 20-30% of your income to taxation is quite trivial compared to what most of the world pays, and depending on where you are, you may have greater earning potential both now and over the course of your lifetime than the vast majority of humans, so that 20-30% becomes even more trivial.

I believe it's Swimmingpool's signature that says "the only small governments are in third world countries." Be careful what you wish for, Melkor.

Sure it is--losing 20-30% of your income to taxation is quite trivial compared to what most of the world pays, and depending on where you are, you may have greater earning potential both now and over the course of your lifetime than the vast majority of humans, so that 20-30% becomes even more trivial.

I believe it's Swimmingpool's signature that says "the only small governments are in third world countries." Be careful what you wish for, Melkor.


Y'know, the entire basis for the nation I created was to lampoon POVs like that. It seems to be working.

Let me pose these questions then, What would you spend you hard earned money on? What do you see as "unworthy" of you money? What is your current economic state? What do you think of people less fortunate than yourself? What do you think of people more fortunate than yourself? If you absolutely had to, without question, give a portion of your income (stipulating that taxation "theivery" didn't exist) to someone or something, what would it be?
I would first of all, pruchase the services I believe the market can provide more efficient than the government. I would more or less spend it on what I would now. I just don't agree with the coercion involved in classes. I am middle class. I think people who are more fortunate than myself may do as they wish with their money. I think that people who are less fortunate than me should be helped by voluntary charity, but I don't want to mix politics with that by involving the government. I want to help those who can't help themselves, not those who won't. I would continue to give money to Doctors Without Borders as I do now.

It's 1:35 here, so I am off to bed.

I'm a dick and you're a son of a bitch. :)
What's more selfish: Trying to spend my wages as I please or someone taking my wages and giving them to another to fulfill their own cause?
Selfish isn't the word I'd use--short-sighted is the word that's most applicable, I think. Taxes help support a government that provides the primary necessity for a productive society--stability. You're able to earn the money you do because you live in a stable and productive society, and government is what provides that stability, like it or not. One of the choices that the US government has made in order to help keep our society stable includes welfare programs, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and other public aid programs. Now, you can argue that without those programs, our society would still be stable--I think you'd be wrong, but you can argue it. But stability is what the government is mostly after, and that's what your tax dollars are used for, speaking very generally of course.

Now let me ask you--even assuming you'd be able to earn the same amount of money and that it would be worth as much in an unstable society, would it be worth it to you to give up some of that in order to create even a semblance of stability? I imagine it would, if you were in that situation.

Sometimes I think that Libertarianism would die a quick death in the US if we had another Great Depression. It's been a long time since this country really had to stare down a fiscal crisis.