Opinions

[jeffchr]

Does everyone have to take sides?

nobody is taking sides - these people actually believe what they are posting

the motivation for communicating in the Politics section of RIU is a more interesting question

I am actually trying to understand conservatism better. i even watch fox to the same end.

but really, all I see is greed, at almost every level of conservatism. greed, and any means to increase wealth. and unfortunately, at the federal level, the greed is bipartisan.

i also see a lot of hate. hate for a black president which the "media" interprets as racial prejudice. i am not sure about that.

i also see stupidity.

i see greed in glen beck, who is off the wall crazy, like a rabid coon. he is making a sick fortune and spewing forth with blatant lies. same thing with Limbaugh.

i see greed in business. for instance, the chamber of commerce position on health care and their extensive lobbying campaign. not a lot of greed, but just enough to completely negate any leaking compassion for society.

no need to talk about government. i think, THERE, we all agree. it is fucked to the gills.

i see a lot of stupidity on the right. how did michelle bachman ever get elected? sarah palin? george bush is a fool.

cheney only recently exhibited signs of stupidity. he thinks he can change history's perspective on his reign with his magical ministry tour.

when cheney was in office he was the greediest prick of them all. all that war, death, and expense was for the benefit of the industrail war machine. if there is a hell, cheney will arrive smiling and run the place.

anyway, to answer your question, nobody is taking sides. i really believe what I post.

 

[Osoheil]

I find it curious that you did not respond to my other post.

I have taken several college courses that required us to agree with Liberal positions in order to pass the course. This is well documented across America. look up the "Academic bill of rights."

If you had 10% of the education you pretend to have you would know this is true. Honestly, your little "scholar" act is getting a bit old and it is clear that it is an act.

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/documents/1925/abor.html

What liberal positions did you have to agree with?

 

[undertheice]

but really, all I see is greed, at almost every level of conservatism.

no need to talk about government. i think, THERE, we all agree. it is fucked to the gills.

what is greed but self-interest run amuck and isn't that matter of degree open to interpretation? there is little doubt that there are greedy rich folks out there, but the poor are just as capable of greed as the wealthy. that the greed of a single wealthy man is capable of influencing many while the greed of a poor man may harm only a few is irrelevant. the intent is the same. in a successful attempt to play on the greed of the poorer masses, the media arm of the liberal establishment has indoctrinated us all into believing that those few greedy rich men are representative of the entire class and that they are all deserving of our scorn. knowing that our government is corrupt, the masses choose to ignore that simple fact and believe that that bureaucracy is capable of or even cares about redressing their real and imagined grievances.

when liberals look at conservatives they see greed and when conservatives look at liberals they see jealousy. both are correct and both are wrong. what conservatives have over their liberal counterparts is the underlying theme that liberty is the natural state of mankind, that our rights exist apart from the interference of the state, and that governmental meddling acts only to limit what is rightfully ours in the first place. we all acknowledge that government's role is to protect our rights, but the liberal view seems to be that the rights of some are expendable if it protects and expands the rights of others and that greed may be counteracted or even abolished through legislation.

the flaw of that logic is obvious, greed and jealousy will always exist. those negative aspects of humanity cannot be thrown away nor should they, they are an integral part of what we are. we can only attempt to lessen their effects on our lives. this is where the liberal agenda begins to lose credibility. instead of downplaying the importance of both greed and jealousy, the liberal establishment inflames the latter while expanding on and demonizing the former. instead of applying law evenly, it attempts to re-engineer civilization through the use of radical change and plays one end of the economic spectrum against the other. this combative attitude pervades every level of the liberal agenda and allows those in control to hide their greed behind a mask of charity.

 

[jeff f]

Does everyone have to take sides?

not if your the referee but if you want to get in the political game....yes.

 

[RickWhite]

nobody is taking sides - these people actually believe what they are posting

the motivation for communicating in the Politics section of RIU is a more interesting question

I am actually trying to understand conservatism better. i even watch fox to the same end.

but really, all I see is greed, at almost every level of conservatism. greed, and any means to increase wealth. and unfortunately, at the federal level, the greed is bipartisan.

i also see a lot of hate. hate for a black president which the "media" interprets as racial prejudice. i am not sure about that.

i also see stupidity.

i see greed in glen beck, who is off the wall crazy, like a rabid coon. he is making a sick fortune and spewing forth with blatant lies. same thing with Limbaugh.

i see greed in business. for instance, the chamber of commerce position on health care and their extensive lobbying campaign. not a lot of greed, but just enough to completely negate any leaking compassion for society.

no need to talk about government. i think, THERE, we all agree. it is fucked to the gills.

i see a lot of stupidity on the right. how did michelle bachman ever get elected? sarah palin? george bush is a fool.

cheney only recently exhibited signs of stupidity. he thinks he can change history's perspective on his reign with his magical ministry tour.

when cheney was in office he was the greediest prick of them all. all that war, death, and expense was for the benefit of the industrail war machine. if there is a hell, cheney will arrive smiling and run the place.

anyway, to answer your question, nobody is taking sides. i really believe what I post.

What you are saying above is that you have failed to understand Conservative views. One thing about Conservative views is that contrary to the belief of Liberals, they are more complex than Liberal views. I can give numerous examples to prove this. Above, I gave such examples. For instance, subsidizing people's existence. There is no better spirit, self respect and ambition crusher than endless welfare. Contrary to this, there is no better builder of these things than self reliance. The former a Liberal position, the latter a Conservative one.

But it is easier to see the superficial aspects of these matters and come up with a solution to them. Liberals see the problem of poverty and they figure the compassionate thing to do is give the poor money. It is a superficial answer to an over simplified problem.

Conservatives on the other hand try to go deeper. They consider the actual outcome of just giving the poor money. They consider the economic ramifications and what subsidizing generation after generation does to people. They consider how much of this money goes to crack addictions and how much is diverted to inner city convenient store owners who pay $0.30 on the dollar for food stamps and then build a ten million dollar castle on a lake.

Conservatives contemplate the true root causes of poverty. Poverty is caused in part by the breakdown of the traditional family and the absence of fathers in the home. Kids with fathers see a roll model that gets up and goes to work every day and they aspire to be like dad. Single mothers on welfare provide no such roll model.

Crime also causes poverty. When crime goes up, business' flee, and when that happens the jobs go with them. Less jobs means more poverty. Liberals take the opposing, more simplistic view that poverty causes crime - this view is the opposite of reality. But again, here is a case where reality is more complex, nuanced and elusive than the simplified view.

Chaos is another major cause of crime and poverty. Chaotic environments promote chaotic conduct and this in turn causes both crime and poverty. Orderly societies promote wealth and wealth building conduct. Self discipline is a perfect example of a wealth building conduct based on order or structure.

Liberals, out of compassion, desire to be soft on crime reasoning that the poor person is a victim of poverty. They can not see that the criminal's conduct causes their environment to be chaotic and provides the social proof that perpetuates the cycle of poverty. The only way to end the cycle of poverty is to be tough on crime and to restore order to neighborhoods that have lost it. An argument could be made, that not doing so violates the Constitutional rights of the poor. The Constitution ensures "equal protection under the law." When we allow a city to become like Detroit in the name of compassion we deny the residents equal protection. There is a saying in the Talmud that reads something like - those who show compassion to evil people have none for the good. Conservatives understand this notion while it is lost on Liberals.

To a Liberal, these views seem cruel and motivated by greed. They figure, if the Conservatives don't want to go along with their idea to throw money at every problem it must be because they are cruel and greedy - an over simplification in and of itself.

And there are other examples. Could the war in Iraq have a complex explanation? No, it must be something really simple - how about greed and stealing their oil.

And big business - could it be that the free market is a monumentally complex machine that although has a few flaws is basically the most effective builder on national Wealth we have ever seen? No, Liberals don't understand how it works so they simply label it as evil and those who support it greedy.

Conservatives also value the intentions of our Founding Fathers; the guys who wrote our Constitution. Conservatives see this stuff as being kind of important. So when Liberals want to violate what the Framers intended by redistributing income Conservatives naturally take issue. Ah, but Liberals see no need in looking that deep into things. After all, knowledge of our Constitution and of history; specifically, when these measures have failed miserably in the past, requires effort and being able to see past the surface. It is so much easier simply to think that income redistribution is compassionate and figure that those who oppose it are not.

Being Liberal is easier than being Conservative in every way. Clearly, it is easier socially because Liberalism is PC. Being Liberal doesn't require knowledge of history, of our Constitution, of social issues, of economics, of business or of human nature. Being Liberal is easier financially because everything they propose involves spending other people's money and not theirs. And being Liberal is easier because their simple explanations for everything are within the grasp of the majority of people where as Conservative opinions are out of reach.

Being Liberal is as easy as picking out the most compassionate sounding answer to every problem and espousing it. The position requires no moral courage and no real thought. It is the perfect opiate for those who want to be liked.

I hope this aides your understanding.

 

[abe23]

What you are saying above is that you have failed to understand Conservative views. One thing about Conservative views is that contrary to the belief of Liberals, they are more complex than Liberal views. I can give numerous examples to prove this. Above, I gave such examples. For instance, subsidizing people's existence. There is no better spirit, self respect and ambition crusher than endless welfare. Contrary to this, there is no better builder of these things than self reliance. The former a Liberal position, the latter a Conservative one.

But it is easier to see the superficial aspects of these matters and come up with a solution to them. Liberals see the problem of poverty and they figure the compassionate thing to do is give the poor money. It is a superficial answer to an over simplified problem.

Conservatives on the other hand try to go deeper. They consider the actual outcome of just giving the poor money. They consider the economic ramifications and what subsidizing generation after generation does to people. They consider how much of this money goes to crack addictions and how much is diverted to inner city convenient store owners who pay $0.30 on the dollar for food stamps and then build a ten million dollar castle on a lake.

Conservatives contemplate the true root causes of poverty. Poverty is caused in part by the breakdown of the traditional family and the absence of fathers in the home. Kids with fathers see a roll model that gets up and goes to work every day and they aspire to be like dad. Single mothers on welfare provide no such roll model.

Crime also causes poverty. When crime goes up, business' flee, and when that happens the jobs go with them. Less jobs means more poverty. Liberals take the opposing, more simplistic view that poverty causes crime - this view is the opposite of reality. But again, here is a case where reality is more complex, nuanced and elusive than the simplified view.

Chaos is another major cause of crime and poverty. Chaotic environments promote chaotic conduct and this in turn causes both crime and poverty. Orderly societies promote wealth and wealth building conduct. Self discipline is a perfect example of a wealth building conduct based on order or structure.

Liberals, out of compassion, desire to be soft on crime reasoning that the poor person is a victim of poverty. They can not see that the criminal's conduct causes their environment to be chaotic and provides the social proof that perpetuates the cycle of poverty. The only way to end the cycle of poverty is to be tough on crime and to restore order to neighborhoods that have lost it. An argument could be made, that not doing so violates the Constitutional rights of the poor. The Constitution ensures "equal protection under the law." When we allow a city to become like Detroit in the name of compassion we deny the residents equal protection. There is a saying in the Talmud that reads something like - those who show compassion to evil people have none for the good. Conservatives understand this notion while it is lost on Liberals.

To a Liberal, these views seem cruel and motivated by greed. They figure, if the Conservatives don't want to go along with their idea to throw money at every problem it must be because they are cruel and greedy - an over simplification in and of itself.

And there are other examples. Could the war in Iraq have a complex explanation? No, it must be something really simple - how about greed and stealing their oil.

And big business - could it be that the free market is a monumentally complex machine that although has a few flaws is basically the most effective builder on national Wealth we have ever seen? No, Liberals don't understand how it works so they simply label it as evil and those who support it greedy.

Conservatives also value the intentions of our Founding Fathers; the guys who wrote our Constitution. Conservatives see this stuff as being kind of important. So when Liberals want to violate what the Framers intended by redistributing income Conservatives naturally take issue. Ah, but Liberals see no need in looking that deep into things. After all, knowledge of our Constitution and of history; specifically, when these measures have failed miserably in the past, requires effort and being able to see past the surface. It is so much easier simply to think that income redistribution is compassionate and figure that those who oppose it are not.

Being Liberal is easier than being Conservative in every way. Clearly, it is easier socially because Liberalism is PC. Being Liberal doesn't require knowledge of history, of our Constitution, of social issues, of economics, of business or of human nature. Being Liberal is easier financially because everything they propose involves spending other people's money and not theirs. And being Liberal is easier because their simple explanations for everything are within the grasp of the majority of people where as Conservative opinions are out of reach.

Being Liberal is as easy as picking out the most compassionate sounding answer to every problem and espousing it. The position requires no moral courage and no real thought. It is the perfect opiate for those who want to be liked.

I hope this aides your understanding.

You win, ricky...

Conservatives > Liberals

Can you stop with these stupid threads now?

 

[RickWhite]

You win, ricky...

Conservatives > Liberals

Can you stop with these stupid threads now?

Hahaha, I guess I rest my case.

 

[RickWhite]

I find it curious that you did not respond to my other post.



What liberal positions did you have to agree with?

I took an anthropology course in which the entire point of the course as explained by the "professor" was for students to reach the following conclusion.

That the concept of "advancement" is a fallacy as it relates to cultures. That no culture can be more or less advanced than another because there is no starting point or end point.

In other words, in order to pass the course we had to arrive at the conclusion that America is no more advanced than dick gourd cultures. To say we are "advanced" implies that we are better than them and no one way of life is better than another. We were instructed to conclude that all cultures simply go in different but equal directions.

We were instructed to think this way so people couldn't make arguments such as - the Palestinians of Israel lived in mud huts and there are now skyscrapers built there so it is ridiculous to tear down a skyscraper even if a guy lost his mud hut in the shuffle.

by their logic his mud hut is equal in value to the skyscraper.

We were directly told that we must demonstrate that we have arrived at this conclusion by the end of the class in order to pass. It was the assigned topic of our final term paper.

This is one example.

 

[Osoheil]

I took an anthropology course in which the entire point of the course as explained by the "professor" was for students to reach the following conclusion.

That the concept of "advancement" is a fallacy as it relates to cultures. That no culture can be more or less advanced than another because there is no starting point or end point.

In other words, in order to pass the course we had to arrive at the conclusion that America is no more advanced than dick gourd cultures. To say we are "advanced" implies that we are better than them and no one way of life is better than another. We were instructed to conclude that all cultures simply go in different but equal directions.

We were instructed to think this way so people couldn't make arguments such as - the Palestinians of Israel lived in mud huts and there are now skyscrapers built there so it is ridiculous to tear down a skyscraper even if a guy lost his mud hut in the shuffle.

by their logic his mud hut is equal in value to the skyscraper.

We were directly told that we must demonstrate that we have arrived at this conclusion by the end of the class in order to pass. It was the assigned topic of our final term paper.

This is one example.

I don't understand how this is a liberal stance. Value judgments have no place in science, or scientific studies, such as the study of cultures and peoples.

I asked you about the liberal positions you had to agree with because I see this happen frequently, people confusing liberal ideologies with science.

Science has no bias, save the human bias that what we experience as reality is real, and factually observable and testable by humans.

 

[jeffchr]

those are both interesting points of view (Rick and undertheice).

I don't think a socially neutral government whose sole purpose is to protect rights, is achievable. It's inevitable that the cost of some protection will be a sacrifice of rights. It's just a matter of degree and an electorate making the wise choices.

this country has too many industries comprised of a very few large firms. the industry organizes to protect the firms and have the resources to control government. "it takes money to make money" has never in history had more relevance.

you want to talk about our founding fathers? they never intended government to represent business. this was not their intention, but this is exactly what we have in this country today.

if I were in federal government this would be my agenda, much like Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Rockefeller, Grayson and many more. it is a focused agenda and not some whispy thought pattern that is somehow inferior to the the solid logic of the conservative movement.

in reality, the conservative theory here is too idealistic to be implemented. we already have a big federal government. it's just a matter of control. the electorate needs to regain control of government.

 

[undertheice]

I don't think a socially neutral government whose sole purpose is to protect rights, is achievable. It's inevitable that the cost of some protection will be a sacrifice of rights. It's just a matter of degree and an electorate making the wise choices.

our natural rights are unlimited. by living in a society we choose to limit those rights for the sake of the benefits of living within a community. government's role must be neutral, the equitable enforcement of law to protect the rights of all people within that community, for that society to progress. whether that neutrality is possible or not is irrelevant, it is the goal toward which we must strive. merely saying that it is too difficult a path is unacceptable, it is akin to admitting defeat before the contest has even begun, it is settling for survival.

this is what the liberal movement has become. liberal leaders have convinced their followers that they are incapable of rising above their own animal instincts and that the best we can hope for is a bit of comfort before we die. they have denied any possibility of excellence in favor of enforced mediocrity. this is the same message used by religion to cow the faithful, that the unfairness of life can only be eased by the implementation of force whether it is divine or of the sort wielded by the state.

placing our faith in the wisdom of the masses is no better than relying on our officials. group-think and mob mentality are only a reflection of the wishes of our leaders. in the end it is the choice of the individual that defines the ethos of the society and denying liberty to the individual forces stagnation and the sure death of the community.

in reality, the conservative theory here is too idealistic to be implemented.

without idealism we are nothing but animals - no possibility of greatness, no spark of what might be primitively referred to as the divine. settling for what we have now is denying the fruits of genius and effort, it is admitting defeat and slipping silently into our chains. even those of us who are merely ordinary and will never achieve anything more worthwhile than simple survival must be allowed the dream of possible greatness.

each act of personal generosity is a step forward for that idealism, just as each instance of state enforced charity is a denial of it. even our failures along the path are victories, in that we have at least tried to be more that creatures of the herd. where liberalism exalts the efficiency of the hive, conservatism places its faith in the inspiration of the individual and his capacity to become more than the liberal establishment has taught us he can be.






after rereading this post if have decided i'm much too high to be writing anything, but i'm also too lazy to start all over again at a later date. so i'll post this and hope that it makes some sense to someone.

 

[Osoheil]

this is what the liberal movement has become. liberal leaders have convinced their followers that they are incapable of rising above their own animal instincts and that the best we can hope for is a bit of comfort before we die. they have denied any possibility of excellence in favor of enforced mediocrity. this is the same message used by religion to cow the faithful, that the unfairness of life can only be eased by the implementation of force whether it is divine or of the sort wielded by the state.

What liberal leader says all of this? I have never heard something like this until now.

each act of personal generosity is a step forward for that idealism, just as each instance of state enforced charity is a denial of it. even our failures along the path are victories, in that we have at least tried to be more that creatures of the herd. where liberalism exalts the efficiency of the hive, conservatism places its faith in the inspiration of the individual and his capacity to become more than the liberal establishment has taught us he can be.

What is state enforced charity? Who in the liberal establishment is teaching these things?


I agree with most of what you say, if you removed the stuff you said about liberals/conservatives it is a really nice piece in my opinion.

 

[jeff f]

if I were in federal government this would be my agenda, much like Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Rockefeller, Grayson and many more. it is a focused agenda and not some whispy thought pattern that is somehow inferior to the the solid logic of the conservative movement.

.

can you explain this paragraph in a little more depth. i am missing somehing plus i am really high but i would like to understand what you are trying to say. thanks

 

[jeffchr]

The "agenda", as I phrased it, is a decline of corporate influence on legislation. The politicians named support that policy to one degree or another. There really isn't a lot of depth to it. That's all I was trying to say.

 

[RickWhite]

those are both interesting points of view (Rick and undertheice).

I don't think a socially neutral government whose sole purpose is to protect rights, is achievable. It's inevitable that the cost of some protection will be a sacrifice of rights. It's just a matter of degree and an electorate making the wise choices.

this country has too many industries comprised of a very few large firms. the industry organizes to protect the firms and have the resources to control government. "it takes money to make money" has never in history had more relevance.

It sounds like you are talking about oligarchies and monopolistic competition. There is already a massive body of law dealing with such issues. Have you heard f the "Sherman Anti Trust Act"?

I do however agree that more should be done to encourage true competition as opposed to monopolistic competition - but these things are complex and the questions of what to do and what the result will be are uncertain.

As far as big business having influence over Government, that is an issue as well. When we start getting involved with such things we run into free speech issues and other problems. The McCain Finegold bill was meant to limit campaign contributions and the effect it had wasn't good.

As far as taking money to make money - this is less true today than ever before according to statistics. In the UK it was once the case that only Nobles were even allowed to practice certain professions. In India they still have a cast system that similarly reserves certain jobs for some based on class. In America, more people from lower socioeconomic strata are migrating into the upper quintiles. The saying is less true today than ever before.

you want to talk about our founding fathers? they never intended government to represent business. this was not their intention, but this is exactly what we have in this country today.

It Absolutely was. I don't know where you get such ideas but you are not even close to being correct. Private business was one of the major concerns of the Framers.

if I were in federal government this would be my agenda, much like Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Rockefeller, Grayson and many more. it is a focused agenda and not some whispy thought pattern that is somehow inferior to the the solid logic of the conservative movement.

in reality, the conservative theory here is too idealistic to be implemented. we already have a big federal government. it's just a matter of control. the electorate needs to regain control of government.

WTF? The opposite is true. Conservatives are pragmatists. It is Liberals who want to run the Country according to pie in the sky wishes. Do you really think there is one economist (excluding Krugman) who believes that Obama care can be implemented without spending additional money?

Conservatives by definition push for practicality and reality in Government. Liberals by definition push a theoretical Utopian agenda. If anything, liberals criticize Conservatives for being too pessimistic - not the other way around.

I am curious though - can you explain in detail how these ideas of yours would be practical and would work.

 

[Rob Roy]

what is greed but self-interest run amuck and isn't that matter of degree open to interpretation? there is little doubt that there are greedy rich folks out there, but the poor are just as capable of greed as the wealthy. that the greed of a single wealthy man is capable of influencing many while the greed of a poor man may harm only a few is irrelevant. the intent is the same. in a successful attempt to play on the greed of the poorer masses, the media arm of the liberal establishment has indoctrinated us all into believing that those few greedy rich men are representative of the entire class and that they are all deserving of our scorn. knowing that our government is corrupt, the masses choose to ignore that simple fact and believe that that bureaucracy is capable of or even cares about redressing their real and imagined grievances.

when liberals look at conservatives they see greed and when conservatives look at liberals they see jealousy. both are correct and both are wrong. what conservatives have over their liberal counterparts is the underlying theme that liberty is the natural state of mankind, that our rights exist apart from the interference of the state, and that governmental meddling acts only to limit what is rightfully ours in the first place. we all acknowledge that government's role is to protect our rights, but the liberal view seems to be that the rights of some are expendable if it protects and expands the rights of others and that greed may be counteracted or even abolished through legislation.

the flaw of that logic is obvious, greed and jealousy will always exist. those negative aspects of humanity cannot be thrown away nor should they, they are an integral part of what we are. we can only attempt to lessen their effects on our lives. this is where the liberal agenda begins to lose credibility. instead of downplaying the importance of both greed and jealousy, the liberal establishment inflames the latter while expanding on and demonizing the former. instead of applying law evenly, it attempts to re-engineer civilization through the use of radical change and plays one end of the economic spectrum against the other. this combative attitude pervades every level of the liberal agenda and allows those in control to hide their greed behind a mask of charity.

Excellent post. Can't rep you, rules say I gotta spread it around, but excellent post!

 

[^Psychonaut^]

I would just like to say I am enjoying all this and attempting to digest it, I am still in my mid 20's and driven by my heart but at least already realise its pointless especially in choosing sides or taking on any issues.

This is about as serious as Ill take it for now,

'LIBERAL' Party of Australia are all considered major 'conservative' parties with varying positions.

Until my mind settles, early 30's maybe

Dont mind me

 

[tebor]

Conservatives also value the intentions of our Founding Fathers; the guys who wrote our Constitution.

hahahaha
conservatives and liberals both shit all over the constitution and the founding fathers wishes.

there are more than 2 parties people.

 

[undertheice]

What liberal leader says all of this?

look all around. the message is in everything from the legislation handed down by the bureaucrats who have given up on humanity to our popular culture. nanny state regulations deny man's ability to decide for himself how best to live his life. our higher courts redefine the perfectly workable tenets this country was founded on, micromanaging the affairs of the individual and reworking society into an orwellian image of itself. news outlets have become nothing more than the propaganda arm of the forces of big government, even the opposition press pushing forward the concepts of ever more stringent regulations on the individual. even our movies and television seem designed with the message that we are helpless before the might of our own evil, that we are weak and ineffectual, and that only a greater force, the force of some higher power, can save us.

if you bother to look you can see the message everywhere - the individual is craven and weak, only the mass of society holds promise. as religion loses its hold over western civilization, government steps in to fill the void. behind the lie of the ballot box, votes cast then ignored, lies an agenda to create the great hive. comfort and simplicity are valued above all else, innovation is demonized unless it caters to the comfort of the workers or the strengthening of their masters control. the individual is fast becoming the enemy and ease the only goal.

What is state enforced charity?

the welfare state is built upon the concept of enforced charity. government denies the ability of the individual to do what is right and steps in to use its force to engineer society. taxation, once merely a means of funding the necessities of operating a government, has become the means of redistributing wealth according to the ideals of the liberal establishment. never is the power evenly distributed, only the base monetary shadow of that power. hidden behind the mask of the lie of the ballot box and through the use of the mob and engineered public opinion, government grows fat with power while passing on the paltry coin. it uses those coins to buy even more public acceptance and to create the dependent underclass that is its strong right arm.

charity is seldom a matter of altruism. for the individual, charity is a means to improve self-worth or rise in public standing. government's charity is merely the transference of wealth from one group to another in order to gain power for itself.

Who in the liberal establishment is teaching these things?

i suppose my use of the term "liberal establishment" merely attests to my own feelings of betrayal by the cause that is dearest to my heart - the rights of the individual. in truth, the only thing that is liberal about that establishment is the way they are willing to spend the wealth and liberty of others for their own gain. it is nothing more than the force of government and its allies in the private sector. yes, it is made up of individuals, but individuals who seek control over others and are willing to do most anything to gain that control. it is no shadowy conspiracy, it is the natural progression of government from a body that serves the people to a force that is served by the people. that establishment hides behind terms like democracy and socialism, when its true aim is totalitarianism. while its followers dream of the dictatorship of the proletariat, merely another form of totalitarian rule, those dreams are turned against them by their leaders and used to create their own brave new world.

 

[CrackerJax]

It's pretty simple Rick actually.

Liberals try to govern by emotion, not economics. They believe their intentions are the paramount issue, when it is the results which should be.

Liberal policies weaken the society and community, but since it's such a "feel good" policy, anyone who disagrees must be an ogre.

I am very liberal with social issues, but I completely disagree on the methodology to attain those issues.

Lib's have no problem having OTHER ppl pay for their projects, I DO have a problem with that.

Lib's in the end have no real faith in their fellow citizens and would rather put the power in the hands of a stranger than their neighbor.

Liberals are ruled by their emotions, not their head.