What Do Liberals Want

Hate to burst your fact proof bubble, because the whole red/blue bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is what's plaguing this country, but the three states you listed as "blue" have GOP governors and veto proof dominated state legislators bodies. So, how exactly does that qualify them as "blue"? Just wondering.

 

Solving simple poverty in the name of the moral of true witness bearing to own federal doctrine and State at-will employment laws.

 

Really?! BULL!

Romney never told me or my Sons or my Grandsons that we would not qualify for a decent college education on account of our "Sins and Guilt" for being born White Males.

Those who call themselves "Liberals" have denied U.S. based on our race and gender.

The Conservatives don't Sneer and Condescend at U.S. because of something we did not choose and cannot change, being born a Pale-Male. The "Liberals" have done just that over and over and over again.

The Conservatives treat me with respect and dignity due a human being, and give me the chance to compete for a spot in the capitalistic pursuit of happiness and prosperity.

The Liberals declared that I am a "Dinosaur" who needs to be restrained until such time as I die off or can be other wise eliminated.

YOU, ... you... don't get to choose the Labels, any more than I do. They call themselves Liberals, not Progressives or Socialists. That makes them Liberals!

If there are any Classic Liberals still around, they certainly have NOT stood up to defend their name, ...
nor stand against the last forty years of Government Institutionalized Racial Discrimination.

The Conservatives have, on many, many occasions, burned a great deal of political capital trying to fight the good fight against Racial Preferences.

It is CLEAR who is a friend and ally, and who needs to go!

-

 

Not really. I think what the test scores are showing is that Red States are plaguing us with their nincompoop spawn, bringing down the collective intelligence.

It's a real problem, which I think we could solve with chemical castration. But that's just me, since I'm a solutions guy and not merely one who laments the problems we face. We have the technology -- solve the problem!

 

I must say that that doesn't look like a bad list. I want to say something though. One of those makes it look like liberals are full of resent. And the trouble is, if they are full of resent, then maybe their motives for the other 6 things are wrong also. That would give question to whether or not the other 6 items are really a good thing.

The item in question is number 6.

 

Yes really, so let's try this again. If a state has a GOP governor, and a GOP dominated state legislator, how are they blue states. Pretty simple question.

 

Fuzzy logic. Severability is assumed in any list, specifically ...

If an item on this List is or becomes resentful, invalid or not-nice feeling in any jurisdiction, that shall not affect:

1. the validity or niceness in that jurisdiction of any other item on the List; or
2. the validity or enforceability in other jurisdictions of that or any other item enumerated within the List.

In short, you don't need to like all of it; only the parts that seem likable, to you. Ain't it great!

 

Seems you're not understanding the classification. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

And when reading up on it, be sure to print out the maps. It's a real plus when traveling, since avoiding the Red ones helps to avert running into too many abject morons, and their cross-eyed, drooling, idiot spawn.

Until we solve the problem, at least we can avoid it. Ain't it great?!

 

So public education is significantly better in the red states. And it improved greatly under Regan and Shrub.

 

Ok great, the source you provided confirms what I've been saying all along.

 

Now let me comment on the other 6 items. What you fail to realize is that some of those items ARE outcomes. They are not 'opportunities'.

What is an outcome to you if 'decent housing' isn't an outcome?
1 Healthcare wouldn't be so much of a concern if Congress would put the correct legislation in place to limit the profit of health-related industries.

3 You can't base education on ability or certain people wouldn't deserve education. I think education should probably be FREE to all. Expensive? Stop funding things like Planned Parenthood or bridges to nowhere.

4 I don't understand what you mean by fair tax system. I'm not sure that the rich should have to pay a higher % of tax, BUT, BUT, BUT if we would enforce certain laws and create other very sensible laws, the rich could not achieve such huge wealth in the first place and income disparity would be much less. For example limit advertising (i.e. commercial hypnotism)

5 -you have no #5

6 we discussed

7 Of course. You MUST have a legal system that treats all equally.

 

Please do some research into stepped up basis for capital gains in the IRS tax code for estates. Also might want to research carried interest, the history of capital gains and dividend taxes and the IRS rules on generation skipping estates.

I for one am not resentful since I have personally benefitted greatly from IRS rules that aid the wealthy families in preserving fortunes. The fact that I have benefitted does not preclude my believing a fairer tax code would be better for the country.

As for what would constite a really fair and simple tax think about a percentage tax on total net worth.

 

For me it makes sense to modify such ideas to incorporate new discoveries, ideas, and our people's subsequent experiences, and to satisfactorily address emerging challenges in a world whose environs are in a continuous process of change. No idea or person is above question, from my perspective, and I gladly engage in revisionism in my efforts to put forth a political agenda that advances the interests of all. Incidentally, I engage in far more revision of socialist than liberal ideas, which is perhaps why the former folk tend to think me liberalist.

It may just be a matter of biasing experiences though, as I see in your later posts here that you assign the label "socialist" to people who most definitely are not unless one uses a very expansive definition of what is socialism. The classifications offered for Romney and Obama are objectionable to me. Nevertheless, I respect your position and enjoy seeing in this thread your voice, expressing liberalism in its original form!

Affirmative action is pretty controversial insofar as its compatibility with social liberalism is concerned. It can be difficult to find labels that actually fit leaders well these days, with the self-described "liberals" and "conservatives" each advocating a number of policies which conflict with the connotations of those words.

Some do, provided you replace "Pale-Male" with a different affixed status. It is offensive of them in either case.

It is all a matter of perspective really. A number of Conservatives treat me as deviant and as a rotter, and do not much care to what extent forces beyond my control limit my chances to compete for a spot in the capitalistic pursuit of happiness and prosperity. Such people deem me a naive youngin' who needs more "real-world experience," so that I'll become a capitalist with conservative attitudes like them. It is no less disrespectful.

The word "liberal" has been made toxic by demagogues on the right and as such, most of the classical liberals in the United States today refer to themselves as libertarians. They're a small faction, and are nearly as marginalized in political culture as reds like me. The only voices that can easily be heard these days come from the Republican and Democratic parties. Both have liberal roots but have become perverted over the years in different ways.

 

You misunderstand what I've posted. The left took control of the entire American public school system throughout virtually the entire country two generations ago. That's why US students test so poorly compared to their peer foreign competitors as determined by the OECD. The failure of the American left in public education can be measured and quantified.

 

Did you know that corporate welfare has paid multimillion dollar bonuses in the aid of the pursuit of Happiness of the wealthiest while the right clamors to reduce social spending on the Happiness of the least wealthy?

 

Shakes head. You jumped the gun there pal.

I'm talking about how US students compare to their peer foreign competitors as measured by the OECD. American students are at the back of the pack. That says much about America's future.

 

I agree to disagree that this dilemma can be blamed on the left due to their policies alone. Education is more complicated due to the changing nature of society and our elected representatives still practicing promoting the general welfare, even after two hundred years, and due to the length of time involved in educating our electorate.

However, I do agree that our federal and State Constitutions and the Federalist Papers should be required reading before "earning" the franchise.

 

So what is the difference in their heirs doing absolutely nothing for it ... and you or the government doing absolutely nothing for it?
Who do you think you are to have the right to steal it from them?

 

Can you actually document the assertion that the left took over the public school system two generations ago. Would appreciate a source for the assertion.

Always willing to learn.

 

Gotcha. Well it's a mixed-bag, Al. If some cracker rightie in rural Kansas keeps popping out his/her retarded spawn, we need not merely fear the highly-educated Western Europeans, but even a below average kid from Cote d'Ivoire could think circles around them, putting us at a sever intellectual disadvantage in the global market.

But if, as I propose, we chemically-castrate righties, and then future generations are spawned in Liberal Enclaves like the Greater Seattle Area, with just over 5% unemployment, and global giants such as Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon and many others, then we can kick ass and take no prisoners, anywhere on the planet.

Thanks for asking!

 

This post makes no sense. I don't want to steal from the rich. I am the rich.A lot inherited due to favorable tax laws and a bunch actually earned by working and smart investing.







.

 

If you're asking for footnotes I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to invest the time. But if you are willing to let me shoot from the hip I will explain myself.

Unionization of credentialed and classified personnel in the public school system didn't begin in earnest prior to 1970. Public sector unions, like the teachers union, are creatures of the Democratic Party.

In most of the country the teachers unions finance and help elect the members of most school boards. Thus, most school boards are union controlled to one degree or another.

Conservatives have no similar influence on public school in such a systemic fashion. The decline in the performance of American students compared to foreign students has occurred at the same time as the takeover of the public schools by the American left. Draw your own conclusions.

 

Wealthy white kids aren't the problem. It's all of the other kids. Their schools and families aren't up to snuff. That leaves those kids in the dust.

Take the average class of kids in Shanghai. They speak better English than most American kids do. Uncle Sam is raising a bunch of future losers.

 

It's not a race thing, Al. It's a rightie-retard vs. educated-liberal thing. You see, Al, we Libbies are cuttin' a fat hog and having way less unemployment in Oh-So-Leftie King County, WA, are having spawn that litter the Ivy League. But, we ain't all Whites. We come in all colors, with a strong emphasis on White, Asian, South Asian, Southeast Asian, Hispanic, Black and South Pacific / Pacific Rim folks.

That help?

 

Not true, Al. We (Seattle Libbies) speak English very well indeed, as do our college educated spawn. Perhaps you've been kicking it with Righties down at the Sunny Hills Mobile Home Park and Coin-Op Laundry, and have a jaundiced view of English language skills. But really; we do speak it, by and large, far better than folks in China, Shanghai or elsewhere, many of whom I have business contact with and can tell you that the language barrier is an issue, even dealing with educated Chinese middle and upper middle class businesspeople.

And they speak English because it's the international language of business, and vital. We benefit from speaking it from birth, having been a British Colony at one time. Pretty remarkable for a small island nation off the coast of France, whose language is so popular worldwide.

That help?