Open-Minded Liberals?

[Knutey]

thiers a movie called the last supper that`s  about some liberals killing conservatives

if you talk to some liberals they will say they would kill bush or reagan

but I don`t recall any conservative ever saying they would kill clinton.
my question here is would a conservative say they would?

You obviously never participated in Washington Watch Room during the Bill Clinton lynching. Some RW nut threatened to kill Bill almost hourly.

[kimba1]

I don`t know about that, but it`s really good for big business
ex. green
the goal of any good business is to get the customer to spend as much as possible and alittle bit more.
in all the talks about green ,not once has anybody mention the word cheaper.
and the crazy part about green is it doesn`t even have to work well
it`s all assumed to be good.
ex. corn
p.s.
about the clinton threats
wow
seriouisly all i hear are complaints,but no talk of killing

[Michael Tee]

<<While I scratch my head in bewilderment at so many well intentioned folks on the left side of the ideological aisle, who would actively facilitate and enable so much suffering, so much poverty, so much polarization........to what end?  Power?  The utopian pipe dream that all suffering and evil can be eliminated by talking & "redistributing wealth", and everyone is equal to everyone else, in every way?  To reinforce the sense of feeling so superior to those who simply don't realize they're in the presence of such intellectual superiority??   To what end, indeed?>>

That's a very good question, to what end?  Maybe to apply a little logic and factual analysis to the problems of the day, instead of "solving" them with macho posturing, flag-waving, drum-beating and the instant  demonization of anyone who dares to question the motives or the methods of Gawd and His Own Chosen Country, Amerikkka?  Maybe because they feel that rushing off to war after war on phony prefabricated pretexts is not good for anybody, Amerikkka included?

[sirs]

And yet strangely, all that "logic and factual analysis" continues to perpetuate and enable even greater amounts of suffering and Government need...........<ahhhh, then comes the little lite bulb>.........in order to need Government to "come to the rescue", one needs to perpetuate the problems that allow for the call....all the while facilitating the same viscious cycle of poverty, suffering, & need, while know-it-all liberals demonstrate their obvious intellectual superiority of telling eveyone else what they need, how they're to live, what they're to buy, what they can own, and who's to blame for all their misery in life....because of course, they know better, than the rest of us.

To what end, indeed

[Rich]

>>To what end, indeed?<<

Why to put themselves in power of course. This is the kind of thing you find from every despotic regime. The communists of old had it right you see, they just didn't have the right people running it is all. Our current crop of communist/fascists believe that they'll get it right because they are smarter and have the right intentions. History of course teaches otherwise.

[kimba1]

the big problem is whoever is in charge people still say it`s more of the same.
nobody is willing to admit that no one political party is the answer.

[Rich]

I'm willing to admit that the Republican Party has many more correct answers than the democrat party.

[sirs]

You're right there, Kimba.  It's not the party, it's the mindset that's needed.  And neither party is providing any substantive responsible mindset currently.  Claims of being a Reagan Republican...In the mold or Reagan....my ass     

[Michael Tee]

<<And yet strangely, all that "logic and factual analysis" continues to perpetuate and enable even greater amounts of suffering and Government need..........>>

Why do you assume that logic and analysis will always come to the conclusion that more government funding is needed?  Isn't that like admitting that logic and fact DO prove the need for even more government aid?  Especially since what they've been forking over so far has not been enough to resolve the problem?  Seems to me that government funding operates on the principle that if I ask them for ten dollars they will give me five.  In other words, no government has ever adequately funded any social welfare program as originally requested.  So why would it be surprising that habitually under-funded programs habitually under-perform?

<< . . . in order to need Government to "come to the rescue", one needs to perpetuate the problems that allow for the call....>> 

So poverty is caused, not by sub-standard housing, poor parenting skills, lack of educational resources, lack of early childhood development resources or any of the generally accepted causes.  Poverty is caused by politicians interested in preserving poverty since that creates the need which requires their intervention, which gives them more power.  It's an interesting theory.  I kind of wonder, though, how the politicians manage to perpetuate poverty all on their own.  Do they sneak over to the schoolhouse door in the wee hours of the morning and nail it shut with a posted warning:  "School Closed Due to Cholera Outbreak?"  Do they create "Do Not Hire" lists of poor people and their children and distribute them to all employers within a 20-mile radius of each and every slum?

<<all the while facilitating the same viscious cycle of poverty, suffering, & need, while know-it-all liberals demonstrate their obvious intellectual superiority of telling eveyone else what they need, how they're to live, what they're to buy, what they can own, and who's to blame for all their misery in life....because of course, they know better, than the rest of us.>>

I think it's a little misleading to think of one big bad liberal doing it all.  One guy - - Michael Harrington, say - - writes a book like "The Other America: Poverty in the United States."  That's a pretty seminal book.  It's pretty well researched, so they say.  Presents a lot of facts that very few people knew.  Other people read the book.  Some of the readers are conservative.  They don't give a shit.  They can read it cover to cover, and after they absorb it all, they say something like, "Fuck it, who gives a shit?"  or "Niggers.  Whatcha expect anyway?"  or  "Tough shit, that's life"  or even "So what?  Isn't it their own damn fault anyway?  My folks were just as poor and  blah blah blah."  So that's the conservative response.  Then the fucking liberals get the book and it's "Holy shit, this is terrible," and "What can be done about it?" and "I'm gonna write my fucking Congressman."  So pressure builds on the legislature and some "liberal" legislators draw up bills and programs and proposals and meet with community activists, etc. and sooner or later some watered-down form of the initial draft bill becomes law.  Nice.

Now who are the "liberals" that sirs is so pissed off with?  The academics who conduct the studies and write the books?  But they're just the messengers, aren't they?  What were they supposed to do, shut their eyes and just write that all's well and good in this, the greatest country on God's green earth?

Maybe sirs is pissed at the concerned citizens who read the book and start to form neighbourhood improvement associations and write their Congressmen to stop the blight?  Yeah, I can see that.  Why can't the little pricks just learn to say "Fuck it" and look the other way?

Or maybe he's pissed off at the "liberal" legislators who actually listen when their constituents demand action on poverty.  Yeah.  Why can't they just grow a pair and say no to all the poverty-stricken families, concerned citizens, academics and activist citizens?  Fuck it, were they elected to scurry at the beck and call of their constituents or to lead the nation?  Obviously the latter, so get out of their way, liberal advocates, we've got a fucking war on our hands, do. you. read. me?

Ahh, it's a rough world, sirs, made all the worse by liberal piss-ants.  But don't worry, my friend, WE SHALL OVERCOME.  And in the meantime just ignore them.  Pretend that they're not here.

[sirs]

<<And yet strangely, all that "logic and factual analysis" continues to perpetuate and enable even greater amounts of suffering and Government need..........>>

Why do you assume that logic and analysis will always come to the conclusion that more government funding is needed?  Isn't that like admitting that logic and fact DO prove the need for even more government aid? 

No, ususally it's quite the opposite.  It's simply that "the Government" has access to $$$ that individuals libs don't.....everyone else's.  It's the best of all worlds for the left; they push well intetioned but fatally flawed programs, use other people's money to do so, and boast at how smart they were for coming up with the program, and the only reason they consistently fail is that not enough $$$ have been "invested" (translated, we haven't taxed "the rich" near enough yet), and of course, it's the fault of Bush and those Fascist Republicans

All the while, the viscious cycle continues of enabling the same poverty, strife, and misery that faciltates the call for "more Government".  Congrats, you have it working quite well, currently.

[Plane]

So poverty is caused, not by sub-standard housing, poor parenting skills, lack of educational resources, lack of early childhood development resources or any of the generally accepted causes.  Poverty is caused by politicians interested in preserving poverty since that creates the need which requires their intervention, which gives them more power.  It's an interesting theory.  I kind of wonder, though, how the politicians manage to perpetuate poverty all on their own.  Do they sneak over to the schoolhouse door in the wee hours of the morning and nail it shut with a posted warning:  "School Closed Due to Cholera Outbreak?"  Do they create "Do Not Hire" lists of poor people and their children and distribute them to all employers within a 20-mile radius of each and every slum?

It isn't that complex.

Every dollar taken by he government from the public is a dollar less availible for hireing work .

Pushing for excessive taxation is directly pushing for unemployment.

Meanwhile to a modern American Liberal "excessive taxation " sounds like an oximoron.

[Michael Tee]

<<Every dollar taken by he government from the public is a dollar less availible for hireing work.>>

Whoah, that is a big pill to swallow.  First of all, every dollar taken from the public is a dollar to invest in early childhood development or better education and training or disease control, etc.  Your government doesn't take the dollars and buy drugs with them until they're all pissed away.

Second, your "dollar for hiring work" paradigm just doesn't work.  If a businessman sees the need for expanding his work force, he's not gonna postpone it until such time as the government sees fit to either cut taxes or rebate back, he just goes to the fucking bank with a plan showing what he can do with that extra payroll bulge in his line of credit.  If the bank believes the guy can turn a healthy profit on the new help, they'll advance it to him or increase his LOC accordingly.  The fact of the matter is that businessmen don't like to hire because it increases their liabilities and their bookkeeping in many different ways. 

A businessman handed an unexpected windfall in tax rebates or cuts would be much more likely to try to apply it to labour-saving technology that would enable him to lay off some of the existing work-force, than to go out and hire more workers.   He might decide to increase his advertising budget, but that's more or less taken care of the same way as work-force - - it's already been budgeted for the fiscal year and deployed.  There isn't much room for impulse buying in business advertising.  If he wanted to increase the current year's advertising budget, he would have gone to his bank with a plan outlining the projected benefits.  If he was struggling under a heavy debt load, he might apply the windfall to paying some of it down (a very likely application) but - - and I think there was a survey which actually bore this out once - - he would be most likely to pocket the windfall and use it for personal self-indulgence.  Which isn't all to the bad, as it puts more money into the hands of the service industry workers.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I'm willing to admit that the Republican Party has many more correct answers than the democrat party.
======================================
First off, it is STILL called the DEMOCRATIC Party, and second, pretty much all the so-called 'answers' that the Republicans claim they had have been demonstrably wrong. Invading Iraq was certainly a wrong idea, while immigration reform and SS reform could be the right idea, as expressed by Juniorbush they were the wrong idea because they failed to result in any action whatever. A skilled leader gets at least some legislation passed.

The manner in which the war in Iraq was fought was the wrong idea for at least four years, and the way that the war in Afghanistan was carried out was clearly wrong because in seven years and more they still have not captured Bin Ladin, and the Taliban are still in control of a vast part of the country.

The main result of the tax cuts for the super rich have been to increase the deficit, thereby necessitating borrowing more money from the Chinese.

The Republicans say they are for smaller government and a balanced budget, but Reagan, Olebush and Juniorbush have all made government bigger and have given it more control of the people's lives, and have increasded the national debt. So even if a smaller government and a balanced budget are indeed better ideas, they have simply LIED about their pursuing these objectives, since their actions have been in the opposite direction.

[sirs]

I'm willing to admit that the Republican Party has many more correct answers than the democrat party.
======================================
The main result of the tax cuts for the super rich have been to increase the deficit, thereby necessitating borrowing more money from the Chinese.

ahh, that must explain the substantial increase in Federal Revenues, continued record employment #'s, and the LOWERING of the deficit.        Was math, not your strong suit, Xo?

[Rich]

>>ahh, that must explain the substantial increase in Federal Revenues, continued record employment #'s, and the LOWERING of the deficit. Was math, not your strong suit, Xo?<<

It makes you wonder doesn't it?

Normally you would try to ascribe people with good intentions, but when they so blatantly lie about things that are as plain as the nose on their face, you have to wonder about their motivations. Is math a problem for them really? Or are they simplyout and out lying? Fans of communism and totalitarian regimes have never had a problem telling the Big Lie" in order to fool the little people into believing just about anything that helps them gain and maintain power.