Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

unicar15

Ask yourself if Liberals really wanted Bush to succeed?

33 posts in this topic

What does that say about you as a conservative vehemently defending someone more liberal than Clinton? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gay people have the same rights as you and me. ABORTION IS MURDER!" Faith based" organizations do more charity work than any collection of lib organizations you could name combined.

Iraq is the only legit beef you libs can have with the guy...AND IT MAY TURN OUT OK! What will ya do then? He expanded governmet like a true lib. As someone stated above...Bill Clinton was more conservative. Maybe you libs don't really like LIBS as much as you thought? HAHA!

Yes, all liberals are for expanding government - it really does not matter for what purpose other than to give conservatives a talking point.

I will leave your first statement alone, as "lib" organizations are mostly made for "lib" cause promotion not charity work. Actual non faith based charities do seem to be doing pretty well though, as far as I can tell. Christian charities, for the most part, have one main purpose, and that is recruitment.

Bush pushed for an amendment to the Constitution to limit the freedoms of gay people. Bush allowed illegal wiretapping of US citizens, was directly responsible for Gitmo and our terrorist outsourcing programs to the former Eastern Bloc nations, refused to properly implement the 9/11 commissions recommendations on port security, reduced the effectiveness of the EPA and Parks Departments, put religious dogma over scientific research, and butchered our language. And he managed to piss off the only reasonable person in his Cabinet, Colin Powell, so much he jumped to the other side.

And then he did the Iraq thing. And that is not just the war, it's the lack of intel, it's the doctored intel, it's the "greet us as liberators", it's the "Mission Accomplished", its the "Iraq is a safe haven for Al Queida"/"wait, Iraq has WMDS"/"wait, Iraq needs freedom" fallbacks. And no, we are not going to "win". We are going to get out; and thats a win enough for me. At the very least, McCains prediction of us being there for "generations" has a shot at not happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, all liberals are for expanding government - it really does not matter for what purpose other than to give conservatives a talking point.

Liberals are for expanding government's role in our lives. They want Uncle Sam to take from his richest nieces and nephews and dole it out to the ones who don't have as much, regardless of whether they deserve it.

Any liberal who doesn't admit this is lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberals are for expanding government's role in our lives. They want Uncle Sam to take from his richest nieces and nephews and dole it out to the ones who don't have as much, regardless of whether they deserve it.

Any liberal who doesn't admit this is lying.

I wouldn't call myself a liberal, but I did vote for Obama. I wanted Bush to succeed, I was behind him after 9/11 when we thought it was handled right, but then it all went down and he did fail, and it was his fault, and that's when I lost hope on him, but even then, I didn't want him to fail. Even when we went to Iraq, knowing it was not the right thing to do, I wanted out men/women to win it fast, I wanted that country to become democratic, but it just didn't happen and it was handled wrong. We should always want our leader to succeed. You all are being too selfish with this liberal/conserv. BS, babbling on about it like your sports teams. If people would back up and look at the big picture, they'd probably realize both parties are retarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not even close to true.

lib⋅er⋅al   /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.

10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.

11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.

12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.

13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.

15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:

1325–75; ME < L līberālis of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to līber free + -ālis -al 1

Liberalism is about the ends, not the means. Feminism is a liberal concept, and we did not have to invent a "Department of Women". Equality for minorities required changes in the law, which required government to monitor but not a "Secretary of Minorities". You are confusing liberalism and socialism or more to the point, communism. Your analogy is like me saying that all conservatives want more war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes or no, do you think the rich should pay a higher percentage than the poor?

I don't think anyone would suggest the poor should pay a higher percentage. Conservatives think we should all pay the same percentage. It's called Fair Play. Liberals want Fair Share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that he meant that all Dems want a larger more involved government.

The problem is, pubs are wanting the exact same thing.

Many of us, myself included, want smaller central government and more states rights. Our voice is trampled on by the shouts about stem cell research and abortion BS.

Many of the issues that we debate about and bitch over are not even the issues that many of us care the most about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the rich should pay a higher share than the poor. The government has agreed with this approach for over a century, and falls in with the economic idea that lower income people spend more on goods so their money is more needed to keep the retail economy going, while the rich tend to put more of their money into savings.

I am not in love with the idea, but it seems to make the most sense for people who are not selfish greedy bastards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes or no, do you think the rich should pay a higher percentage than the poor?

I don't think anyone would suggest the poor should pay a higher percentage. Conservatives think we should all pay the same percentage. It's called Fair Play. Liberals want Fair Share.

Unfortunately, the rich have so many loopholes right now they pay less of a % than middle class/lower class does. If that was fixed, I'd like to see how it works. I think people SHOULD pay more depending on what they make, HOWEVER the tax system is flawed. I think it needs more brackets, it's stupid to go from 250,000+ then there is a big difference between 250k and 2 million. It needs fixed, the brackets need to be more gradual. Everyone just wants to point fingers instead of FIXING the issue. It's either destroy and recreate or keep it the way it is, not let's adjust or fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the rich should pay a higher share than the poor. The government has agreed with this approach for over a century, and falls in with the economic idea that lower income people spend more on goods so their money is more needed to keep the retail economy going, while the rich tend to put more of their money into savings.

I am not in love with the idea, but it seems to make the most sense for people who are not selfish greedy bastards.

I am sorry, but I do not agree that anyone should pay a higher % than anyone else.

I am surrounded by people who pay very little, own no property, and use far more of the public goods than I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites