Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

What is the liberal endgame/destination?

Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 8:18:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Alright liberals, I know me, but I want to know you. Conservatives, the non-libertarian ones specifically, vary on many issues, but mostly have a goal of preserving the country in line with the founding documents. (Sovereign State powers balancing out the Federal powers, freedom to own property, freedom of association, right to self-defense, etc.) You may disagree with our vision in part or whole, but that's not the point here.

There's an obvious end game, most of the time. We know what we want and have a good idea of what it will be like when we get there.

But what about liberals? Do you have an endgame? What is the goal of your policies? Is there a destination, or is it more of a path of ever-increasing/decreasing fill-in-the-blank? How will you know you have arrived at the ideal form of government, or is the ideal government always moving in a particular direction, always advancing?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Wtnjetro
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 9:22:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, I'm not a liberal, so I'll take a stab at this. I don't think they have any end game. Rather, they have a constantly moving line that once you get to that line, they move it again. Approve of contraception in one era and the next era you will be asked to approve of abortion, and then infanticide in the next. Tolerate homosexuals and then approve of them, and then later whatever you say against them will be hate speech. Fund welfare, then fund solar panels, then fund health care, then take care of your kids from cradle to grave. Liberalism is the gift that keeps on giving.
Author of the book The Vast Wastelands of Unbelief published by Tate Publishing, frequent author of articles at www.lutheranscience.org
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 10:19:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 8:18:23 PM, Skynet wrote:
Alright liberals, I know me, but I want to know you. Conservatives, the non-libertarian ones specifically, vary on many issues, but mostly have a goal of preserving the country in line with the founding documents. (Sovereign State powers balancing out the Federal powers, freedom to own property, freedom of association, right to self-defense, etc.) You may disagree with our vision in part or whole, but that's not the point here.

There's an obvious end game, most of the time. We know what we want and have a good idea of what it will be like when we get there.

But what about liberals? Do you have an endgame? What is the goal of your policies? Is there a destination, or is it more of a path of ever-increasing/decreasing fill-in-the-blank? How will you know you have arrived at the ideal form of government, or is the ideal government always moving in a particular direction, always advancing?

1. keep the working class divided.
a. Artificial Social concept of Race. ((skin color is no different then eye color or hair color)) Race as a modern concept was invented in the late 1800's. It came about from evolutionist in biology attempting to classify people. Gorillas and Chimps have black skin and so hence black people are closer to ancestral primates. In ancient manuscripts color of skin was a descriptor of people.[1] Such as saying people in Sweden usually have milk colored skin and blonde hair. But now the Liberal or progressive agenda want to inspire racial tension and to see everything as black and white.[2]

[1] http://library.howard.edu...
[2] http://socialistworker.org...

2. The core of any society is the family unit. The liberal agenda is to destroy the family and replace the care giver, the educator, and the moral compass of the family with a federal government.
a. State dictate child rearing and education.

3. The liberal agenda is about keeping people with money in power, and money buying power. For this to happen changes in economy must be stabilized.
a. Money must be based in how many people owe you something, or how many people you can claim for yourself.
b. Money can not be based in a material resource.
c. Poor are collateral for national loans.
d. Poor must get poorer with smaller population having wealth.

4. Middle class cause revolts. they have enough money to care for needs, time and energy to devote to revolution. Liberals do not want revolution to happen.
a. Keep people thinking they are middle class. But in fact make sure that both parents have to work full time jobs.
b. Encourage the consumption of unhealthy food. To help in keeping the middle class lethargic.

5. Disarm the middle class. Without weapons the federal government will have a strategic advantage.
a. Same as above revolutions and overthrowing of tyrannical regimes are by force from a middle class with time, money, arms, influence, and energy to do so.

The liberal Agenda is to make sheeple. Organs for rich powerful people to harvest ((99 on 6th heart transplant)). Stems cells for rich powerful people to heal (more likely stay young with) with. A system where the working class is a migrate work force. Children raised for such a system. And no possible way to think about a difference, no possible way to inact a difference.

Works well with a subjective moral compass. An illogic of atheism. shorter attention spans of millennials. Combine that short attention span with more complex basic math functions and divorce understanding from hitting a button- logically leads to a populace bored before a real thought could form.

Forget the Constitution. The liberal progressive Agenda in the United States of America. Is to make this country look and act like Denmark.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 10:31:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 10:19:36 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:18:23 PM, Skynet wrote:
Alright liberals, I know me, but I want to know you. Conservatives, the non-libertarian ones specifically, vary on many issues, but mostly have a goal of preserving the country in line with the founding documents. (Sovereign State powers balancing out the Federal powers, freedom to own property, freedom of association, right to self-defense, etc.) You may disagree with our vision in part or whole, but that's not the point here.

There's an obvious end game, most of the time. We know what we want and have a good idea of what it will be like when we get there.

But what about liberals? Do you have an endgame? What is the goal of your policies? Is there a destination, or is it more of a path of ever-increasing/decreasing fill-in-the-blank? How will you know you have arrived at the ideal form of government, or is the ideal government always moving in a particular direction, always advancing?

1. keep the working class divided.
a. Artificial Social concept of Race. ((skin color is no different then eye color or hair color)) Race as a modern concept was invented in the late 1800's. It came about from evolutionist in biology attempting to classify people. Gorillas and Chimps have black skin and so hence black people are closer to ancestral primates. In ancient manuscripts color of skin was a descriptor of people.[1] Such as saying people in Sweden usually have milk colored skin and blonde hair. But now the Liberal or progressive agenda want to inspire racial tension and to see everything as black and white.[2]

[1] http://library.howard.edu...
[2] http://socialistworker.org...

2. The core of any society is the family unit. The liberal agenda is to destroy the family and replace the care giver, the educator, and the moral compass of the family with a federal government.
a. State dictate child rearing and education.

3. The liberal agenda is about keeping people with money in power, and money buying power. For this to happen changes in economy must be stabilized.
a. Money must be based in how many people owe you something, or how many people you can claim for yourself.
b. Money can not be based in a material resource.
c. Poor are collateral for national loans.
d. Poor must get poorer with smaller population having wealth.

4. Middle class cause revolts. they have enough money to care for needs, time and energy to devote to revolution. Liberals do not want revolution to happen.
a. Keep people thinking they are middle class. But in fact make sure that both parents have to work full time jobs.
b. Encourage the consumption of unhealthy food. To help in keeping the middle class lethargic.

5. Disarm the middle class. Without weapons the federal government will have a strategic advantage.
a. Same as above revolutions and overthrowing of tyrannical regimes are by force from a middle class with time, money, arms, influence, and energy to do so.

The liberal Agenda is to make sheeple. Organs for rich powerful people to harvest ((99 on 6th heart transplant)). Stems cells for rich powerful people to heal (more likely stay young with) with. A system where the working class is a migrate work force. Children raised for such a system. And no possible way to think about a difference, no possible way to inact a difference.

Works well with a subjective moral compass. An illogic of atheism. shorter attention spans of millennials. Combine that short attention span with more complex basic math functions and divorce understanding from hitting a button- logically leads to a populace bored before a real thought could form.

Forget the Constitution. The liberal progressive Agenda in the United States of America. Is to make this country look and act like Denmark.

I've always noticed that chimps have dark hair, but fairly light skin.
FYI, Denmark is pretty rowdy, and everyone smokes. Not that it has anything to do with anything.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 10:38:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 10:31:24 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 6/22/2015 10:19:36 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:18:23 PM, Skynet wrote:
Alright liberals, I know me, but I want to know you. Conservatives, the non-libertarian ones specifically, vary on many issues, but mostly have a goal of preserving the country in line with the founding documents. (Sovereign State powers balancing out the Federal powers, freedom to own property, freedom of association, right to self-defense, etc.) You may disagree with our vision in part or whole, but that's not the point here.

There's an obvious end game, most of the time. We know what we want and have a good idea of what it will be like when we get there.

But what about liberals? Do you have an endgame? What is the goal of your policies? Is there a destination, or is it more of a path of ever-increasing/decreasing fill-in-the-blank? How will you know you have arrived at the ideal form of government, or is the ideal government always moving in a particular direction, always advancing?

1. keep the working class divided.
a. Artificial Social concept of Race. ((skin color is no different then eye color or hair color)) Race as a modern concept was invented in the late 1800's. It came about from evolutionist in biology attempting to classify people. Gorillas and Chimps have black skin and so hence black people are closer to ancestral primates. In ancient manuscripts color of skin was a descriptor of people.[1] Such as saying people in Sweden usually have milk colored skin and blonde hair. But now the Liberal or progressive agenda want to inspire racial tension and to see everything as black and white.[2]

[1] http://library.howard.edu...
[2] http://socialistworker.org...

2. The core of any society is the family unit. The liberal agenda is to destroy the family and replace the care giver, the educator, and the moral compass of the family with a federal government.
a. State dictate child rearing and education.

3. The liberal agenda is about keeping people with money in power, and money buying power. For this to happen changes in economy must be stabilized.
a. Money must be based in how many people owe you something, or how many people you can claim for yourself.
b. Money can not be based in a material resource.
c. Poor are collateral for national loans.
d. Poor must get poorer with smaller population having wealth.

4. Middle class cause revolts. they have enough money to care for needs, time and energy to devote to revolution. Liberals do not want revolution to happen.
a. Keep people thinking they are middle class. But in fact make sure that both parents have to work full time jobs.
b. Encourage the consumption of unhealthy food. To help in keeping the middle class lethargic.

5. Disarm the middle class. Without weapons the federal government will have a strategic advantage.
a. Same as above revolutions and overthrowing of tyrannical regimes are by force from a middle class with time, money, arms, influence, and energy to do so.

The liberal Agenda is to make sheeple. Organs for rich powerful people to harvest ((99 on 6th heart transplant)). Stems cells for rich powerful people to heal (more likely stay young with) with. A system where the working class is a migrate work force. Children raised for such a system. And no possible way to think about a difference, no possible way to inact a difference.

Works well with a subjective moral compass. An illogic of atheism. shorter attention spans of millennials. Combine that short attention span with more complex basic math functions and divorce understanding from hitting a button- logically leads to a populace bored before a real thought could form.

Forget the Constitution. The liberal progressive Agenda in the United States of America. Is to make this country look and act like Denmark.

I've always noticed that chimps have dark hair, but fairly light skin.

Some do, but the narrative is that primates are black skinned, black skinned people came out of Africa. this lead to a way Europeans and Asians could deem themselves worthier, more evolved, superior and deserving of power and wealth. This was directly seen to happen around the late 1800's. The rise of Marxism and Scientific Revolution.

Despite in the past Peoples actions and amount of property were the measure of their privilege and station in life. Not skin color. Their were nations full of black skinned people, black skinned kings and so forth.

FYI, Denmark is pretty rowdy, and everyone smokes. Not that it has anything to do with anything.

Royalty, parliament, socialism, ect.. high tax. That kind of thing.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 7:57:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 8:18:23 PM, Skynet wrote:
Alright liberals, I know me, but I want to know you. Conservatives, the non-libertarian ones specifically, vary on many issues, but mostly have a goal of preserving the country in line with the founding documents. (Sovereign State powers balancing out the Federal powers, freedom to own property, freedom of association, right to self-defense, etc.) You may disagree with our vision in part or whole, but that's not the point here.

There's an obvious end game, most of the time. We know what we want and have a good idea of what it will be like when we get there.

But what about liberals? Do you have an endgame? What is the goal of your policies? Is there a destination, or is it more of a path of ever-increasing/decreasing fill-in-the-blank? How will you know you have arrived at the ideal form of government, or is the ideal government always moving in a particular direction, always advancing?

I would say liberals want pretty much the same thing you want. To ensure that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that they will not suffer any impediments due to their skin-color, their sexual orientation, their gender, their religious views, etc. I would add promoting public safety and social stability. Not very different goals, I would say. As for the question of ideal government, yes it is always advancing because there are always problems and those problems need to be solved.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
no1special
Posts: 56
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 8:03:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Having an endgame is not as important as you think it is. I am not really a liberal, but I would assume their endgame of sorts is a prosperous society where people have the ability to decide both their path and the path of their country.

In fact to some degree I think having too strict of an endgame can make one lose sight of the present.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 8:16:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 7:57:55 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:18:23 PM, Skynet wrote:
Alright liberals, I know me, but I want to know you. Conservatives, the non-libertarian ones specifically, vary on many issues, but mostly have a goal of preserving the country in line with the founding documents. (Sovereign State powers balancing out the Federal powers, freedom to own property, freedom of association, right to self-defense, etc.) You may disagree with our vision in part or whole, but that's not the point here.

There's an obvious end game, most of the time. We know what we want and have a good idea of what it will be like when we get there.

But what about liberals? Do you have an endgame? What is the goal of your policies? Is there a destination, or is it more of a path of ever-increasing/decreasing fill-in-the-blank? How will you know you have arrived at the ideal form of government, or is the ideal government always moving in a particular direction, always advancing?

I would say liberals want pretty much the same thing you want. To ensure that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that they will not suffer any impediments due to their skin-color, their sexual orientation, their gender, their religious views, etc. I would add promoting public safety and social stability. Not very different goals, I would say. As for the question of ideal government, yes it is always advancing because there are always problems and those problems need to be solved.

If liberal and conservative goals are the same, why do they disagree so much?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 8:19:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 8:03:31 PM, no1special wrote:
Having an endgame is not as important as you think it is. I am not really a liberal, but I would assume their endgame of sorts is a prosperous society where people have the ability to decide both their path and the path of their country.

In fact to some degree I think having too strict of an endgame can make one lose sight of the present.

I agree you can't set your goals too rigid so as to be unable to adapt. But rather than prosperity, I see the practical application of many of their policies as class-based vengeance, and liberty is a word they use far less.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
no1special
Posts: 56
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 8:24:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 8:19:41 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 6/23/2015 8:03:31 PM, no1special wrote:
Having an endgame is not as important as you think it is. I am not really a liberal, but I would assume their endgame of sorts is a prosperous society where people have the ability to decide both their path and the path of their country.

In fact to some degree I think having too strict of an endgame can make one lose sight of the present.

I agree you can't set your goals too rigid so as to be unable to adapt. But rather than prosperity, I see the practical application of many of their policies as class-based vengeance, and liberty is a word they use far less.
I don't think most liberals are that vindictive, but I can see why it would seem that they are. What is clear is that trying to redistribute wealth is a misguided way of going about solving the problems we face.
LastRanger
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 10:52:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oh, there is an end game. It is however a very dishonest one, and will never be stated by those in the 'game'. It will not be stated here on this forum inasmuch as no one here is a part of the goal; those here are merely pawns and are not privileged to that information.
The end game is to remain vague so that the goal post can constantly be moved in accordance with the next issue de jure.
The end game in general terms 'to gain complete control of the people'.
The plan: there is no exact plan.
Would you ever start to build a house without an exact idea of the end product? No.
Would you start a trip from point A to point B without knowing point B? No.
Would you ever start a project without knowing the success criteria? No.
A progressive the answer to all of these is yes.
The only need to know the most current issue to take advantage.
The goal can be moved because the goal is always more, more, more, for those in power.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 11:25:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 8:18:23 PM, Skynet wrote:
Alright liberals, I know me, but I want to know you. Conservatives, the non-libertarian ones specifically, vary on many issues, but mostly have a goal of preserving the country in line with the founding documents. (Sovereign State powers balancing out the Federal powers, freedom to own property, freedom of association, right to self-defense, etc.) You may disagree with our vision in part or whole, but that's not the point here.

There's an obvious end game, most of the time. We know what we want and have a good idea of what it will be like when we get there.

But what about liberals? Do you have an endgame? What is the goal of your policies? Is there a destination, or is it more of a path of ever-increasing/decreasing fill-in-the-blank? How will you know you have arrived at the ideal form of government, or is the ideal government always moving in a particular direction, always advancing?

It is generally to ensure equality (progressive income tax, affirmative action, redistribution of wealth) and the personal liberties of the individual (LGBT rights, abortion rights).

Differences in perspectives on equality stem, if I recall correctly, from a discrepancy between parties as to whom the fault of socioeconomic status lies on (conservatives place it on the individual, and liberals place it on society).

Individual liberties are held in different ways due to the boundary which separates "good liberties" from "bad liberties." Liberals hold that this line is between that which harms the ability for the whole of a society to choose must be upheld, and conservatives generally take their's from tradition (Constitution, Christian influence)

This is merely my personal understanding of this issue, however, and I encourage all who think I am misinterpreting these stances to correct me.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 12:27:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 8:18:23 PM, Skynet wrote:
Alright liberals, I know me, but I want to know you. Conservatives, the non-libertarian ones specifically, vary on many issues, but mostly have a goal of preserving the country in line with the founding documents. (Sovereign State powers balancing out the Federal powers, freedom to own property, freedom of association, right to self-defense, etc.) You may disagree with our vision in part or whole, but that's not the point here.

There's an obvious end game, most of the time. We know what we want and have a good idea of what it will be like when we get there.

But what about liberals? Do you have an endgame? What is the goal of your policies? Is there a destination, or is it more of a path of ever-increasing/decreasing fill-in-the-blank? How will you know you have arrived at the ideal form of government, or is the ideal government always moving in a particular direction, always advancing?

Some goals are similar, but the methodologies and principles are almost opposite. The goals that are perhaps more particular to liberals are equal opportunity regardless of individual birthright and secularity.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 2:29:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 12:27:45 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:18:23 PM, Skynet wrote:
Alright liberals, I know me, but I want to know you. Conservatives, the non-libertarian ones specifically, vary on many issues, but mostly have a goal of preserving the country in line with the founding documents. (Sovereign State powers balancing out the Federal powers, freedom to own property, freedom of association, right to self-defense, etc.) You may disagree with our vision in part or whole, but that's not the point here.

There's an obvious end game, most of the time. We know what we want and have a good idea of what it will be like when we get there.

But what about liberals? Do you have an endgame? What is the goal of your policies? Is there a destination, or is it more of a path of ever-increasing/decreasing fill-in-the-blank? How will you know you have arrived at the ideal form of government, or is the ideal government always moving in a particular direction, always advancing?

Some goals are similar, but the methodologies and principles are almost opposite. The goals that are perhaps more particular to liberals are equal opportunity regardless of individual birthright and secularity.

I think there is a bit more than that. The attack on extremes in society, whether you are extremely poor or extremely rich cannot be discarded. If you are extremely poor, the liberals see you as a problem. Same view if you are extremely rich. What liberals want is a more normalized society with less outliers. A more regimented society. Normalization is more important than overall prosperity. That is the main goal. I'm just waiting for the media industry to insinuate the inevitable eugenics discussion as we move to a society with less outliers and less mutated births with extreme intelligence and ambition on one hand, and on the other hand, a laundry list of handicaps from birth. I predict that will be in another 20 years.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 2:42:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 2:29:37 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2015 12:27:45 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:18:23 PM, Skynet wrote:
Alright liberals, I know me, but I want to know you. Conservatives, the non-libertarian ones specifically, vary on many issues, but mostly have a goal of preserving the country in line with the founding documents. (Sovereign State powers balancing out the Federal powers, freedom to own property, freedom of association, right to self-defense, etc.) You may disagree with our vision in part or whole, but that's not the point here.

There's an obvious end game, most of the time. We know what we want and have a good idea of what it will be like when we get there.

But what about liberals? Do you have an endgame? What is the goal of your policies? Is there a destination, or is it more of a path of ever-increasing/decreasing fill-in-the-blank? How will you know you have arrived at the ideal form of government, or is the ideal government always moving in a particular direction, always advancing?

Some goals are similar, but the methodologies and principles are almost opposite. The goals that are perhaps more particular to liberals are equal opportunity regardless of individual birthright and secularity.

I think there is a bit more than that. The attack on extremes in society, whether you are extremely poor or extremely rich cannot be discarded. If you are extremely poor, the liberals see you as a problem. Same view if you are extremely rich. What liberals want is a more normalized society with less outliers. A more regimented society. Normalization is more important than overall prosperity. That is the main goal. I'm just waiting for the media industry to insinuate the inevitable eugenics discussion as we move to a society with less outliers and less mutated births with extreme intelligence and ambition on one hand, and on the other hand, a laundry list of handicaps from birth. I predict that will be in another 20 years.

I disagree. It is important to note that this is a thread soliciting honest assessment of the goals of one's own worldview, not a thread to assign suspect motives to the point of conspiracy theory onto the other POV. That would be too easy.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 2:45:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 2:42:52 PM, Fly wrote:

I disagree. It is important to note that this is a thread soliciting honest assessment of the goals of one's own worldview, not a thread to assign suspect motives to the point of conspiracy theory onto the other POV. That would be too easy.

What part do you disagree? That Liberals see the poor and the rich as problems to be solved?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 2:49:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Actually this is useless intellectual masturbation if you are going to seriously discuss the endgames of any political party. No political party will knowingly destroy itself by reaching an "endgame." If a problem does not exist, it will be manufactured, and the people will believe it at gunpoint.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 2:52:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 2:45:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2015 2:42:52 PM, Fly wrote:

I disagree. It is important to note that this is a thread soliciting honest assessment of the goals of one's own worldview, not a thread to assign suspect motives to the point of conspiracy theory onto the other POV. That would be too easy.

What part do you disagree? That Liberals see the poor and the rich as problems to be solved?

If I wasn't clear-- all of it-- starting with "I think..."
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 2:54:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 2:52:29 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/24/2015 2:45:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2015 2:42:52 PM, Fly wrote:

I disagree. It is important to note that this is a thread soliciting honest assessment of the goals of one's own worldview, not a thread to assign suspect motives to the point of conspiracy theory onto the other POV. That would be too easy.

What part do you disagree? That Liberals see the poor and the rich as problems to be solved?

If I wasn't clear-- all of it-- starting with "I think..."

Well, I guess like, that's your opinion man.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 2:56:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 2:54:03 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2015 2:52:29 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/24/2015 2:45:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2015 2:42:52 PM, Fly wrote:

I disagree. It is important to note that this is a thread soliciting honest assessment of the goals of one's own worldview, not a thread to assign suspect motives to the point of conspiracy theory onto the other POV. That would be too easy.

What part do you disagree? That Liberals see the poor and the rich as problems to be solved?

If I wasn't clear-- all of it-- starting with "I think..."

Well, I guess like, that's your opinion man.

Imagine my relief...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 5:38:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 2:42:52 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/24/2015 2:29:37 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2015 12:27:45 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:18:23 PM, Skynet wrote:
Alright liberals, I know me, but I want to know you. Conservatives, the non-libertarian ones specifically, vary on many issues, but mostly have a goal of preserving the country in line with the founding documents. (Sovereign State powers balancing out the Federal powers, freedom to own property, freedom of association, right to self-defense, etc.) You may disagree with our vision in part or whole, but that's not the point here.

There's an obvious end game, most of the time. We know what we want and have a good idea of what it will be like when we get there.

But what about liberals? Do you have an endgame? What is the goal of your policies? Is there a destination, or is it more of a path of ever-increasing/decreasing fill-in-the-blank? How will you know you have arrived at the ideal form of government, or is the ideal government always moving in a particular direction, always advancing?

Some goals are similar, but the methodologies and principles are almost opposite. The goals that are perhaps more particular to liberals are equal opportunity regardless of individual birthright and secularity.

I think there is a bit more than that. The attack on extremes in society, whether you are extremely poor or extremely rich cannot be discarded. If you are extremely poor, the liberals see you as a problem. Same view if you are extremely rich. What liberals want is a more normalized society with less outliers. A more regimented society. Normalization is more important than overall prosperity. That is the main goal. I'm just waiting for the media industry to insinuate the inevitable eugenics discussion as we move to a society with less outliers and less mutated births with extreme intelligence and ambition on one hand, and on the other hand, a laundry list of handicaps from birth. I predict that will be in another 20 years.

I disagree. It is important to note that this is a thread soliciting honest assessment of the goals of one's own worldview, not a thread to assign suspect motives to the point of conspiracy theory onto the other POV. That would be too easy.

You are correct. But the lack of response so far only makes the conspiracy theories seem more legit.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 6:19:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 8:16:32 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 6/23/2015 7:57:55 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:18:23 PM, Skynet wrote:
Alright liberals, I know me, but I want to know you. Conservatives, the non-libertarian ones specifically, vary on many issues, but mostly have a goal of preserving the country in line with the founding documents. (Sovereign State powers balancing out the Federal powers, freedom to own property, freedom of association, right to self-defense, etc.) You may disagree with our vision in part or whole, but that's not the point here.

There's an obvious end game, most of the time. We know what we want and have a good idea of what it will be like when we get there.

But what about liberals? Do you have an endgame? What is the goal of your policies? Is there a destination, or is it more of a path of ever-increasing/decreasing fill-in-the-blank? How will you know you have arrived at the ideal form of government, or is the ideal government always moving in a particular direction, always advancing?

I would say liberals want pretty much the same thing you want. To ensure that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that they will not suffer any impediments due to their skin-color, their sexual orientation, their gender, their religious views, etc. I would add promoting public safety and social stability. Not very different goals, I would say. As for the question of ideal government, yes it is always advancing because there are always problems and those problems need to be solved.

If liberal and conservative goals are the same, why do they disagree so much?

The disagreement is over the means, and over what is it that characterizes a peaceful and prosperous society, this is where ideology steps in.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 6:24:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 2:52:29 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/24/2015 2:45:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2015 2:42:52 PM, Fly wrote:

I disagree. It is important to note that this is a thread soliciting honest assessment of the goals of one's own worldview, not a thread to assign suspect motives to the point of conspiracy theory onto the other POV. That would be too easy.

What part do you disagree? That Liberals see the poor and the rich as problems to be solved?

If I wasn't clear-- all of it-- starting with "I think..."

I'm sorry, if I wasn't clear,
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 6:49:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 5:38:10 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 6/24/2015 2:42:52 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/24/2015 2:29:37 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2015 12:27:45 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:18:23 PM, Skynet wrote:
Alright liberals, I know me, but I want to know you. Conservatives, the non-libertarian ones specifically, vary on many issues, but mostly have a goal of preserving the country in line with the founding documents. (Sovereign State powers balancing out the Federal powers, freedom to own property, freedom of association, right to self-defense, etc.) You may disagree with our vision in part or whole, but that's not the point here.

There's an obvious end game, most of the time. We know what we want and have a good idea of what it will be like when we get there.

But what about liberals? Do you have an endgame? What is the goal of your policies? Is there a destination, or is it more of a path of ever-increasing/decreasing fill-in-the-blank? How will you know you have arrived at the ideal form of government, or is the ideal government always moving in a particular direction, always advancing?

Some goals are similar, but the methodologies and principles are almost opposite. The goals that are perhaps more particular to liberals are equal opportunity regardless of individual birthright and secularity.

I think there is a bit more than that. The attack on extremes in society, whether you are extremely poor or extremely rich cannot be discarded. If you are extremely poor, the liberals see you as a problem. Same view if you are extremely rich. What liberals want is a more normalized society with less outliers. A more regimented society. Normalization is more important than overall prosperity. That is the main goal. I'm just waiting for the media industry to insinuate the inevitable eugenics discussion as we move to a society with less outliers and less mutated births with extreme intelligence and ambition on one hand, and on the other hand, a laundry list of handicaps from birth. I predict that will be in another 20 years.

I disagree. It is important to note that this is a thread soliciting honest assessment of the goals of one's own worldview, not a thread to assign suspect motives to the point of conspiracy theory onto the other POV. That would be too easy.

You are correct. But the lack of response so far only makes the conspiracy theories seem more legit.

I think someone wants a hug!
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 7:28:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 6:49:15 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/24/2015 5:38:10 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 6/24/2015 2:42:52 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/24/2015 2:29:37 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2015 12:27:45 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:18:23 PM, Skynet wrote:
Alright liberals, I know me, but I want to know you. Conservatives, the non-libertarian ones specifically, vary on many issues, but mostly have a goal of preserving the country in line with the founding documents. (Sovereign State powers balancing out the Federal powers, freedom to own property, freedom of association, right to self-defense, etc.) You may disagree with our vision in part or whole, but that's not the point here.

There's an obvious end game, most of the time. We know what we want and have a good idea of what it will be like when we get there.

But what about liberals? Do you have an endgame? What is the goal of your policies? Is there a destination, or is it more of a path of ever-increasing/decreasing fill-in-the-blank? How will you know you have arrived at the ideal form of government, or is the ideal government always moving in a particular direction, always advancing?

Some goals are similar, but the methodologies and principles are almost opposite. The goals that are perhaps more particular to liberals are equal opportunity regardless of individual birthright and secularity.

I think there is a bit more than that. The attack on extremes in society, whether you are extremely poor or extremely rich cannot be discarded. If you are extremely poor, the liberals see you as a problem. Same view if you are extremely rich. What liberals want is a more normalized society with less outliers. A more regimented society. Normalization is more important than overall prosperity. That is the main goal. I'm just waiting for the media industry to insinuate the inevitable eugenics discussion as we move to a society with less outliers and less mutated births with extreme intelligence and ambition on one hand, and on the other hand, a laundry list of handicaps from birth. I predict that will be in another 20 years.

I disagree. It is important to note that this is a thread soliciting honest assessment of the goals of one's own worldview, not a thread to assign suspect motives to the point of conspiracy theory onto the other POV. That would be too easy.

You are correct. But the lack of response so far only makes the conspiracy theories seem more legit.

I think someone wants a hug!

I do!
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
ironslippers
Posts: 513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 8:20:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 8:18:23 PM, Skynet wrote:
Alright liberals, I know me, but I want to know you. Conservatives, the non-libertarian ones specifically, vary on many issues, but mostly have a goal of preserving the country in line with the founding documents. (Sovereign State powers balancing out the Federal powers, freedom to own property, freedom of association, right to self-defense, etc.) You may disagree with our vision in part or whole, but that's not the point here.

There's an obvious end game, most of the time. We know what we want and have a good idea of what it will be like when we get there.

But what about liberals? Do you have an endgame? What is the goal of your policies? Is there a destination, or is it more of a path of ever-increasing/decreasing fill-in-the-blank? How will you know you have arrived at the ideal form of government, or is the ideal government always moving in a particular direction, always advancing?

Liberals want Caitlyn Jenners autograph and a backyard of sand to keep their heads buried in.

Liberals destination is Celebration Florida
Everyone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan Krusemark
Its easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 9:53:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say socialism, communism or possibly an Islamic theocracy. A giant nanny state where everyone is just above poverty, except the ruling elite who will live in opulence and say do as I say not as I do.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 5:14:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 6:49:15 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/24/2015 5:38:10 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 6/24/2015 2:42:52 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/24/2015 2:29:37 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2015 12:27:45 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:18:23 PM, Skynet wrote:
Alright liberals, I know me, but I want to know you. Conservatives, the non-libertarian ones specifically, vary on many issues, but mostly have a goal of preserving the country in line with the founding documents. (Sovereign State powers balancing out the Federal powers, freedom to own property, freedom of association, right to self-defense, etc.) You may disagree with our vision in part or whole, but that's not the point here.

There's an obvious end game, most of the time. We know what we want and have a good idea of what it will be like when we get there.

But what about liberals? Do you have an endgame? What is the goal of your policies? Is there a destination, or is it more of a path of ever-increasing/decreasing fill-in-the-blank? How will you know you have arrived at the ideal form of government, or is the ideal government always moving in a particular direction, always advancing?

Some goals are similar, but the methodologies and principles are almost opposite. The goals that are perhaps more particular to liberals are equal opportunity regardless of individual birthright and secularity.

I think there is a bit more than that. The attack on extremes in society, whether you are extremely poor or extremely rich cannot be discarded. If you are extremely poor, the liberals see you as a problem. Same view if you are extremely rich. What liberals want is a more normalized society with less outliers. A more regimented society. Normalization is more important than overall prosperity. That is the main goal. I'm just waiting for the media industry to insinuate the inevitable eugenics discussion as we move to a society with less outliers and less mutated births with extreme intelligence and ambition on one hand, and on the other hand, a laundry list of handicaps from birth. I predict that will be in another 20 years.

I disagree. It is important to note that this is a thread soliciting honest assessment of the goals of one's own worldview, not a thread to assign suspect motives to the point of conspiracy theory onto the other POV. That would be too easy.

You are correct. But the lack of response so far only makes the conspiracy theories seem more legit.

I think someone wants a hug!

I'm pretty disappointed you're the only liberal who responded. Maybe they assumed I was attacking them when they saw the thread title?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.