Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Questions for my Far Left Friends

BigSky
Posts: 141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 1:38:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A few questions for liberals, understand that I am addressing the majority of liberals, I understand that there are exceptions.

Why do those of the far left think that Conservatives want people to suffer?

Why do liberals justify abortion, but no the death penalty?

Why do liberals want more government?

Why have Democrats changed so much in the last 50 years?

Why do liberals like Obama?

Why do liberals dislike Romney?

Thanks for your responses!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 2:13:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 1:38:44 PM, BigSky wrote:
A few questions for liberals, understand that I am addressing the majority of liberals, I understand that there are exceptions.

Why do those of the far left think that Conservatives want people to suffer?
Not people. Just non-white, non-rich people.

Why do liberals justify abortion, but no the death penalty?

Because liberals don't presuppose that a single-celled organism should be treated the way a conscious adult is.

Why do liberals want more government?

They don't want more government. They want more government that will help people.

Why have Democrats changed so much in the last 50 years?

Same reason all political parties have: demographics and wrangling votes.

LBJ gave the south to the Republicans (ironically betraying his conservative mentors) by endorsing a Civil Rights bill.

The question is identical to asking: Why did Republicans suddenly become much more racist in the 50s?


Why do liberals like Obama?

He's not McCain, Palin, Romney, or Ryan.

Why do liberals dislike Romney?

Go read up on his social stances.


Thanks for your responses!

Welcome.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 2:16:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Btw, if you had an actual grasp of US political history, you'd know that there were a vast number of liberal Republicans before the 50s, which makes me wonder why you only focused on liberals and Democrats.

The liberal-Democrat and conservative-Republican ideological sorting is a recent phenomena of the past few decades.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 2:25:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 2:16:07 PM, Wnope wrote:
Btw, if you had an actual grasp of US political history, you'd know that there were a vast number of liberal Republicans before the 50s, which makes me wonder why you only focused on liberals and Democrats.

The liberal-Democrat and conservative-Republican ideological sorting is a recent phenomena of the past few decades.

then what was the difference between a democrat and republican back then? Like what differentiated the two and what were there platforms?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 2:55:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm not an American, and given these questions are either straw-men or pandering to a generic archetype liberal (not to deviate, but who on earth on the far left likes Obama?), only one really applies.

Why do I want bigger government?

Simple. It can provide huge benefit in limited areas. Anyone who wants to see what an economy without a welfare state looks like need only read Oliver Twist or google Rowntree's study way back when.

On healthcare, pretty much the rule is that the best healthcare systems in the world are govt-run. Countries like govt-run France and Japan leading the way, with the US languishing just ahead of Cuba.

Also, when a country can take advantage of natural resources, I don't see the sense in leaving it to private companies. Why not have the state invest and help out its citizens with tax relief or government provisions or whatever?

There's other areas as well, but the central point is the same. Funnily enough, there's plenty of areas I'd happily see government services cut - things like outrageous instances of corporate welfare and the bottomless pit of foreign policy would be the first to go.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 3:00:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

Why do those of the far left think that Conservatives want people to suffer?

Because conservative policies aid the rich elite and hurt the poor. Cutting healthcare, food-stamps cause people to suffer. Also, many republicans are pro war and torture.

Why do liberals justify abortion, but no the death penalty?

Woman's right to her own body vs killing someone is expensive, shows no effect in decreasing crime, is irreversible and there is a chance the government made a mistake.

Why do liberals want more government?

Liberals want efficient government. It seems conservatives blindly label all government as bad without thinking each thing through.

Why have Democrats changed so much in the last 50 years?

idk, was not alive that long.

Why do liberals like Obama?

Speaks well, not racist, like his progressive policies.

Why do liberals dislike Romney?

Wants to increase government military budget, does not understand what it is like for the average american, harmful policies.

Thanks for your responses!
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 4:16:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 1:38:44 PM, BigSky wrote:
A few questions for liberals, understand that I am addressing the majority of liberals, I understand that there are exceptions.

I can only attest to my own feelings, and most liberals disagree with my perspective (they think I'm too moderate on fiscal issues) -but i'll give this a shot.

Why do those of the far left think that Conservatives want people to suffer?

I take issue with the premise of the question. It's not that Liberals think that conservatives want people to suffer, only that Liberals are frustrated with the unwillingness of conservative republicans to address social disparity -while favoring socioeconomic policies that undermine the economic wellbeing of the impoverished. To put that in non-poli sci terminology: Liberals are frustrated that conservatives still think that tax money shouldn't be used to raise the lowest echelon of society's standard of living. It comes down to a philosophical disagreement about the purpose of government. Conservatives think that, at the core, people should be left alone by government and that only by leaving people alone will people make the choices to lift themselves out of poverty, into prosperity. Liberals agree that individuals must make the choice to better themselves, in order to better themselves, but poverty is not something which one can easily escape.

The conditions which correlate to poverty promote (and to a degree cause) a cyclical perpetuation of disenfranchisement, which keeps the poor poor and enables those who are not poor to advance. Liberals seek to use government programs to break that cycle (by improving educational opportunities, providing for basic human needs like shelter, food, medical care, etc.) with the logic that when individual's basic needs are met, they will be able to make the necessary changes to improve their lives and thereby contribute more to society. (This is because the poor remain poor because they cannot meet their basic needs on a limited income.) For example, when the rent is subsidized for an apartment and health care needs are met, rather than working three minimum wage jobs -a single mother could go to night school (which, in an ideal world, would also be subsidized by government) to learn a trade.

Conservatives (1) don't accept this, or (2) even those who do understand the positive impact that government can have on people's lives, reject on moral grounds to the government doing so. The objection is something to the effect of, in the first case (1) because tax dollars are being taken from individuals, that money cannot be used efficiently to create economic growth because it is removed from the economy and dumped into social welfare initiatives. While yes, taxing higher earners does limit their spending capacity, the argument is fallacious in that it both does not apply to lower income earners -unless they smoke, i.e. buy products subject to sin taxes, etc.- and ignores the reality that wealth does not trickle down to the degree that conservatives believe it does. What consumers (of the middle and upper classes) do spend their money on are services and luxury goods, and less on contracting the work of blue collar tradesmen.

So, even while it may be the case that a middle class family from Connecticut might stimulate the economy of Florida by choosing to go to Disney World on vacation, the kind of jobs available to lower-class floridians that Disney World offers are unskilled (often part time) jobs that come with benefits that are either insufficient (like bad health insurance, no dental insurance, etc.) or nonexistent. (Though to be fair, Disney is actually a great company to work for, even if you are an unskilled laborer. I use this only as a fictitious example to illustrate the point.) The second objection is to the morality of governmental "Robbin Hood-ery." I can understand that most people don't have the basic education to understand the impact of consumer spending on populations on either a macro or a micro level, but what I can't understand is the moralizing of economic policy on philosophical grounds which yields consistently awful results. So, this is the objection that "really grinds my gears" to put it metaphorically.

Conservatives (like Paul Ryan) argue that because people earn money themselves, they are entitled to the sum of the product of their own hands. I -and most liberals- agree, but take issue with the idea that individuals "earned everything they bring home" by themselves. As perhaps most famously, and poorly, articulated by President Obama... "You didn't build that by yourself!" And it's the case. But here, it's a big picture v. small picture problem. Conservative business owners have a right to take pride in their work, and in what they have accomplished -but often forget the role government played in facilitating their success. If not for roads, electrical grids, chambers of commerce, water supplies, bridges, postal services, etc. (basic government-funded infrastructure) commerce itself would be impossible. The work of many hands is required for the success of ANY entrepreneur, and many of those hands are governmental workers/regulators whose influence often remains unnoticed. In consequence, it's not that people forget the impact that government has -it's that they never knew to begin with. This is why conservatives can (and do) argue with genuine conviction that all of their success is attributable to themselves and their business partners. Granted, some states are more conducive to economic growth than others -but to deny the impact of government (and of society in general) in facilitating individual success is to ignore the situational reality of economic development.

A sub-component of the anti robin hood objection is the limitation (or perceived limitation) of individual choice by government oversight. This has been an especially heated topic regarding the "penalty/tax" imposed by Obamacare on individuals who do not choose to buy health insurance. The argument reduces to the idea that government does not have a right to tell people how to spend their money. For Liberals, it's about both rights, interests and outcomes. While individuals do have a right to spend their money as they please, they do not have the right to harm others or to harm society by their economic choices. The argument that people are "better off" not buying health insurance may be the case, until a child is sick or a parent is diagnosed with cancer. Essentially, while all people are better off without health insurance until they need it -health emergencies cannot always be predicted (though they can be averted, if caught in time). And when health emergencies do occur, often without warning, individuals' inability to pay has the negative impact of harming those who can, because hospitals must meet their bottom line. If a health emergency does occur, then the individual choice NOT to buy health insurance turns out to be a pretty bad one -but that's the purpose of insurance (to hedge against the unforeseen). The logic of common sense is simple: "better safe than sorry" and no one has a right to choose not to be safe, because the impact of that choice is not only harmful to themselves, but to everyone else.

I'm out of character space... more later.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 4:31:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 1:38:44 PM, BigSky wrote:
A few questions for liberals, understand that I am addressing the majority of liberals, I understand that there are exceptions.

Why do liberals justify abortion, but no the death penalty?

I hate abortion. The idea of it disgusts me and the practice of it is abhorrent, but necessary. I could offer a nearly inhuman justification for abortion (like in the 7th or so chapter of Freakonomics), but I'll leave that to the Ph. D.'s. Abortion/death needs to be examined from two perspectives: the individual and state level.

On an individual level, abortion is an individual choice by a pregnant woman to not carry a pregnancy to term (for whatever reason). The choice is hers and hers alone. The death penalty is the choice of a court to kill a living human being as a practice of criminal justice. While both abortion and the death penalty entail killing (if we assume a fetus is a living person), that's about all that the practices have in common.

Abortion is a medical procedure. It does and is not forced upon anyone. It does not make a murderer of the state because there is no coercion or influence exerted upon the pregnant woman from a state actor. Execution is the state sanctioned, ceremonialized practice of taking an individual's life by the criminal justice system. Execution DOES make a murderer of the state.

So, the question for me is simple: "May a state permissibly kill its subjects?" I would say no. It's not about the convicted person's rights, or their rights being lost, etc. The argument from that angle is weak anyway. Even if an individual has lost their rights because they have violated some theoretical social contract, that does not mean that the state has a right to take that individual's life.

But, in the case of abortion, the question is more complicated: "May a pregnant woman choose not to carry a pregnancy to the point of viability?" I would say yes, because the argument cannot be made that the fetus/child (even if life begins at conception) has rights/interests/etc. which outweigh those of the mother, if that child cannot sustain life on its own. After the point of viability (about 22 weeks), I have no problem banning all abortions. Before viability, the mother has absolute control -because only at the point of viability can the child be considered a person, whether the child/fetus is alive or not.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 4:33:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 1:38:44 PM, BigSky wrote:
A few questions for liberals, understand that I am addressing the majority of liberals, I understand that there are exceptions.

Why have Democrats changed so much in the last 50 years?

LBJ changed the game when he tried to reach out to minority voters rather than only white union members and northern progressives. It was the shift from the DNC's focus on "The forgotten man" to every man. In the 80s, it changed again from "every man" to "every man, woman and child of all colors and creeds."

It was all about maximizing voter bases.
THEVIRUS
Posts: 1,321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 4:46:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 2:25:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/23/2013 2:16:07 PM, Wnope wrote:
Btw, if you had an actual grasp of US political history, you'd know that there were a vast number of liberal Republicans before the 50s, which makes me wonder why you only focused on liberals and Democrats.

The liberal-Democrat and conservative-Republican ideological sorting is a recent phenomena of the past few decades.

then what was the difference between a democrat and republican back then? Like what differentiated the two and what were there platforms?

The funny thing was that there were originally two parties, one was defeated after a few years, the other was the sole party(now known as the republican party).

Later there was a feud over who would be president and what the platform was, so a sub party was created(now the democratic party). So the democratic and republican candidates are often very similar in views, and in only some areas are they different. And yet they treat the other party like alienated beings with insanely dysfunctional ideas.
"So you want me to go to the judge with 'unit, corps, God, country'?" - A Few Good Men

"And the hits just keep on comin'." -A Few Good Men
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 6:46:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 2:25:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/23/2013 2:16:07 PM, Wnope wrote:
Btw, if you had an actual grasp of US political history, you'd know that there were a vast number of liberal Republicans before the 50s, which makes me wonder why you only focused on liberals and Democrats.

The liberal-Democrat and conservative-Republican ideological sorting is a recent phenomena of the past few decades.

then what was the difference between a democrat and republican back then? Like what differentiated the two and what were there platforms?

It was more about factions within parties working together than coherent platforms. Political machines. Money talks, so shockingly Democrats and Republicans tended to unite around certain business interests. But social issues was a different story.

For instance, the southern Democrats were all extremely pro-segregation, but a sizable bunch of northern liberal Democrats called the "red hots" were radically anti-segregation.

The Senate was a complete anarchic mess before LBJ strongarmed everyone into creating the implicit political power that creates people like John Boehner. Political parties largely existed in order to facilitate horse-trading. Congressional committees were done by strict seniority.

What's changed since then is two things:

A. centralization of congressional power
B. ideological sorting

"A" involves things like the creation of a "scheduler" who gets to decide when bill 1 gets to go for a vote and when bill 2 does. Another change was the initiation of kicking people out of a committees regardless of seniority if they didn't follow their parties platform.

"B" was largely catalyzed by the civil rights bill. No segregationist would take the side of the Democratic party after that. Republicans actually did try to branch out to minorities at first (pre-president Nixon was involved in trying to rally the black vote for Republicans), but the "states rights" faction of the Republican party was too strong.

"States rights" has, since the first arguments over slavery, been code words used for segregation just like "welfare queen" invokes black women.

For instance, Reagan gave a talk about "states rights" on the same location where anti-segregationists where lynched. (Now try to imagine how black people felt when Glenn Beck talked about states rights on MLK day).

Since then Democrats have taken advantage of minority distrust of Republicans. Many hispanics are conservative, but Republican anti-immigration sentiments keep them Democrat. That's what Democrats count on.

Meanwhile, Republicans can't leave their states rights rhetoric without losing their core voters. Remember, the last time a party went against the people, the Democrats lost the South.
StevenDixon
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 7:24:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 1:38:44 PM, BigSky wrote:
A few questions for liberals, understand that I am addressing the majority of liberals, I understand that there are exceptions.

Why do those of the far left think that Conservatives want people to suffer?

Why do liberals justify abortion, but no the death penalty?

Why do liberals want more government?

Why have Democrats changed so much in the last 50 years?

Why do liberals like Obama?

Why do liberals dislike Romney?


Thanks for your responses!
I can't speak for other liberals but I'll speak for myself who I consider liberal

1. I don't think republicans have detrimental views on purpose. They're just not that bright.

2. Because an unborn fetus isn't a person, etc. The death penalty results in the state executing innocent people and is more expensive than just putting someone in prison for the rest of their lives( which is a worst punishment than death)

3. Why do republicans want bigger government? Telling a woman she doesn't have sovereignty over her body, Telling people they can't use marijuana, and Federal legislation discriminating based on sex/sexual orientation is big government is it not? I generally just believe it's fiscally responsible that if you're in two wars that you raise taxes and not lower them like idiots. Personally I'm a social libertarian and a fiscal moderate, which is pretty liberal.

4. Because as time goes on free societies tend to become more liberal.

5. Most liberals that I know...don't like Obama because he's weak. I personally don't like him. He signed in NDA, only increased taxes on those making 400,000+, Gave us this disgusting harlequin of a healthcare system when we wanted the public option, etc.

6. He supports Doma, His views on medical marijuana could cause death(as illustrated with the wheelchair kid he treated like garbage), and he's an all around piece of garbage.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 10:07:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 1:38:44 PM, BigSky wrote:
A few questions for liberals, understand that I am addressing the majority of liberals, I understand that there are exceptions.

Why do those of the far left think that Conservatives want people to suffer?

When your party platform constantly tries to cut holes in the social safety net which provides food, heating, and opportunity to low-income families (most of which happen to be minorities), it becomes more difficult to think you don't want people to suffer! Especially when one considers that many of these programs are mere drops in the bucket, budget wise when spending as a percentage of GDP is compared to other countries


Why do liberals justify abortion, but no the death penalty?

Funny. I've always wondered why conservatives justify the death penalty, but not abortion.


Why do liberals want more government?

If you repeat a lie enough, it doesn't become true. Government typically shrinks under liberal presidencies, and grows under Republicans. Obama's reduced government. Clinton reduced government. Reagan and Bush expanded government.

Why have Democrats changed so much in the last 50 years?

It kind of solidified its place when the Civil Rights Act was signed into law, but the ideology changed during the Progressive Era. Yesterday's Republicans are today's Democrats.


Why do liberals like Obama?

Because he killed bin Laden, ended a pointless war, saved us from an economic depression, and practically doubled the DOW.


Why do liberals dislike Romney?

Probably because he thinks half the country feels like entitled moochers.


Thanks for your responses!

o7
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 5:20:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Because liberals don't presuppose that a single-celled organism should be treated the way a conscious adult is.
That's the morning after pill, not abortion.


Why do liberals want more government?

They don't want more government. They want more government that will help people.
"I don't want a car. I want a car that goes fast."

I'm sorry that fails elementary logic.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 5:53:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 5:20:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Because liberals don't presuppose that a single-celled organism should be treated the way a conscious adult is.
That's the morning after pill, not abortion.


Why do liberals want more government?

They don't want more government. They want more government that will help people.
"I don't want a car. I want a car that goes fast."

I'm sorry that fails elementary logic.

Dude...morning after pill stops pregnancy before it happens. It doesn't stop a once-fertilized embryo from growing. It's no more like abortion than having a regular period.

"More government" can include more government regulation of reproductive rights and other non-liberal issues.

For instance, people who want to federally regulate the sale of morning after pills because they think it's somewhat like abortion.

Liberals would not be for that.

So they are not for all forms of increased governance, just specific types.

Since you're into logic, try "false dichotomy."
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 6:59:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I love how the lefties on here say that they really don't want to expand the state. That is one of the most hilarious things I have ever heard.

Lefties are all about expanding the state and this does the exact opposite of "help people".
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 7:11:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why do liberals justify abortion, but no the death penalty?

Why do conservatives justify death penalty, but no abortion?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
BigSky
Posts: 141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 7:34:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 7:11:53 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Why do liberals justify abortion, but no the death penalty?

Why do conservatives justify death penalty, but no abortion?

Those who are executed had murdered someone, raped someone, etc.
Babies are innocent, they did nothing wrong.
BigSky
Posts: 141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 7:39:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My answers to these questions.

Why do those of the far left think that Conservatives want people to suffer?
Because the media depict conservatives as evil.
Why do liberals justify abortion, but no the death penalty?
Because liberals don't want to say that they are killing a child.
Why do liberals want more government?
Because they are dependent on the government, or for the most part, that is.
Why have Democrats changed so much in the last 50 years?
Barrack Hussein Obama
Why do liberals like Obama?
They have been deceived.
Why do liberals dislike Romney?
The media.
Thanks for your responses!
StevenDixon
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 8:04:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 7:39:31 PM, BigSky wrote:
My answers to these questions.

Why do those of the far left think that Conservatives want people to suffer?
Because the media depict conservatives as evil.
Why do liberals justify abortion, but no the death penalty?
Because liberals don't want to say that they are killing a child.
Why do liberals want more government?
Because they are dependent on the government, or for the most part, that is.
Why have Democrats changed so much in the last 50 years?
Barrack Hussein Obama
Why do liberals like Obama?
They have been deceived.
Why do liberals dislike Romney?
The media.
Thanks for your responses!

This is probably why he asked liberals, so a conservative wouldn't come in and get everything wrong.

Yeah...all liberals are deceived by the media...who are liberal and know about the deceiving yet...are still liberal? Uh...what? Ever think that people don't like republicans/conservatives because of things like this ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.nydailynews.com...

http://www.nbcnews.com...

http://www.aolnews.com...
StevenDixon
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 8:08:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 7:39:31 PM, BigSky wrote:
My answers to these questions.

Why do those of the far left think that Conservatives want people to suffer?
Because the media depict conservatives as evil.
Why do liberals justify abortion, but no the death penalty?
Because liberals don't want to say that they are killing a child.
Why do liberals want more government?
Because they are dependent on the government, or for the most part, that is.
Why have Democrats changed so much in the last 50 years?
Barrack Hussein Obama
Why do liberals like Obama?
They have been deceived.
Why do liberals dislike Romney?
The media.
Thanks for your responses!

Yeah...all liberals are deceived by the media...who are liberal and know about the deceiving yet...are still liberal? Uh...what? Ever think that people don't like republicans/conservatives because of things like this ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.nydailynews.com...

http://www.nbcnews.com...

http://www.aolnews.com...
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 8:12:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 7:39:31 PM, BigSky wrote:

Why have Democrats changed so much in the last 50 years?

Barrack Hussein Obama

http://i0.kym-cdn.com...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 8:16:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 6:46:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/23/2013 2:25:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/23/2013 2:16:07 PM, Wnope wrote:
Btw, if you had an actual grasp of US political history, you'd know that there were a vast number of liberal Republicans before the 50s, which makes me wonder why you only focused on liberals and Democrats.

The liberal-Democrat and conservative-Republican ideological sorting is a recent phenomena of the past few decades.

then what was the difference between a democrat and republican back then? Like what differentiated the two and what were there platforms?

It was more about factions within parties working together than coherent platforms. Political machines. Money talks, so shockingly Democrats and Republicans tended to unite around certain business interests. But social issues was a different story.

For instance, the southern Democrats were all extremely pro-segregation, but a sizable bunch of northern liberal Democrats called the "red hots" were radically anti-segregation.

The Senate was a complete anarchic mess before LBJ strongarmed everyone into creating the implicit political power that creates people like John Boehner. Political parties largely existed in order to facilitate horse-trading. Congressional committees were done by strict seniority.

What's changed since then is two things:

A. centralization of congressional power
B. ideological sorting

"A" involves things like the creation of a "scheduler" who gets to decide when bill 1 gets to go for a vote and when bill 2 does. Another change was the initiation of kicking people out of a committees regardless of seniority if they didn't follow their parties platform.

"B" was largely catalyzed by the civil rights bill. No segregationist would take the side of the Democratic party after that. Republicans actually did try to branch out to minorities at first (pre-president Nixon was involved in trying to rally the black vote for Republicans), but the "states rights" faction of the Republican party was too strong.

"States rights" has, since the first arguments over slavery, been code words used for segregation just like "welfare queen" invokes black women.

For instance, Reagan gave a talk about "states rights" on the same location where anti-segregationists where lynched. (Now try to imagine how black people felt when Glenn Beck talked about states rights on MLK day).

Since then Democrats have taken advantage of minority distrust of Republicans. Many hispanics are conservative, but Republican anti-immigration sentiments keep them Democrat. That's what Democrats count on.

Meanwhile, Republicans can't leave their states rights rhetoric without losing their core voters. Remember, the last time a party went against the people, the Democrats lost the South.

100% correct. Very good post!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 11:00:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 5:53:19 PM, Wnope wrote:
Dude...morning after pill stops pregnancy before it happens. It doesn't stop a once-fertilized embryo from growing. It's no more like abortion than having a regular period.
Perhaps (damn sex ed was based on outdated claims). The fact remains abortion is not usually (read--almost never) about single-celled organisms. You'd have to abort pretty damn fast.


"More government" can include more government regulation of reproductive rights and other non-liberal issues.
True.

So they are not for all forms of increased governance, just specific types.
Irrelevant. The statement "I want a car" also does not imply desire to purchase every car in existence. It is unequivocally true that liberals want more government, and you have confessed as much-- that they do not want complete totalitarianism does not negate this, as that answers a different question entirely.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 11:13:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 11:00:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/24/2013 5:53:19 PM, Wnope wrote:
Dude...morning after pill stops pregnancy before it happens. It doesn't stop a once-fertilized embryo from growing. It's no more like abortion than having a regular period.
Perhaps (damn sex ed was based on outdated claims). The fact remains abortion is not usually (read--almost never) about single-celled organisms. You'd have to abort pretty damn fast.


"More government" can include more government regulation of reproductive rights and other non-liberal issues.
True.

So they are not for all forms of increased governance, just specific types.
Irrelevant. The statement "I want a car" also does not imply desire to purchase every car in existence. It is unequivocally true that liberals want more government, and you have confessed as much-- that they do not want complete totalitarianism does not negate this, as that answers a different question entirely.

Are you trying to imply that "true liberals" would want no form of government?

Aside from asking him to clarify what he has already clarified I see no point to your post. Unless it is to imply that a liberal who wishes for any form of government is not a "true liberal".
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 4:06:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 11:13:56 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/24/2013 11:00:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/24/2013 5:53:19 PM, Wnope wrote:
Dude...morning after pill stops pregnancy before it happens. It doesn't stop a once-fertilized embryo from growing. It's no more like abortion than having a regular period.
Perhaps (damn sex ed was based on outdated claims). The fact remains abortion is not usually (read--almost never) about single-celled organisms. You'd have to abort pretty damn fast.


"More government" can include more government regulation of reproductive rights and other non-liberal issues.
True.

So they are not for all forms of increased governance, just specific types.
Irrelevant. The statement "I want a car" also does not imply desire to purchase every car in existence. It is unequivocally true that liberals want more government, and you have confessed as much-- that they do not want complete totalitarianism does not negate this, as that answers a different question entirely.

Are you trying to imply that "true liberals" would want no form of government?
I don't see where you're getting that at all.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 5:59:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 11:00:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/24/2013 5:53:19 PM, Wnope wrote:
Dude...morning after pill stops pregnancy before it happens. It doesn't stop a once-fertilized embryo from growing. It's no more like abortion than having a regular period.
Perhaps (damn sex ed was based on outdated claims). The fact remains abortion is not usually (read--almost never) about single-celled organisms. You'd have to abort pretty damn fast.


"More government" can include more government regulation of reproductive rights and other non-liberal issues.
True.

So they are not for all forms of increased governance, just specific types.
Irrelevant. The statement "I want a car" also does not imply desire to purchase every car in existence. It is unequivocally true that liberals want more government, and you have confessed as much-- that they do not want complete totalitarianism does not negate this, as that answers a different question entirely.

You are a funny little man...

It is unequivocally true liberals want more government?

So if someone said "alright, I want to increase the size of the government without adding any benefits to anyone" they would all say yes?

I'm not sure whether you're enforcing this deranged absolute onto liberals as a special case or if you also apply this kind of reducto reasoning to conservatives. Is it unequivocally true conservatives want less government even if that involves less regulation of all social issues, a much smaller military, no more police departments or public schools or libraries...

Do you see why it's hard to take your response seriously?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 2:42:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 6:59:08 PM, BigRat wrote:
I love how the lefties on here say that they really don't want to expand the state. That is one of the most hilarious things I have ever heard.

It's almost as funny as when conservatives act outraged about liberals and their "big government" policies, while advocating for a government that tells doctors what to do while they are in a woman's vagina.