Why Dont Liberals get it? - Page 7

Why Dont Liberals get it?

This is a discussion on Why Dont Liberals get it? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; If you want to see what happens when everyone thinks the same,where the only viewpoint is "conservative", when the majority rules with an iron fist, ...

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 91 to 104 of 104

Thread: Why Dont Liberals get it?

  1. #91
    Ex Member Array PNUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    913
    If you want to see what happens when everyone thinks the same,where the only viewpoint is "conservative", when the majority rules with an iron fist, just look at any Muslim country. Due to lack of critical thinking, creativity, personal freedom etc those cultures have been completely stifled for the past 1400 years. No new inventions, technology, books, art, personal freedom,nothing, not even modern toilets, a total lack of innovation and progress in every aspect of life.
    I don't think that being anti-gun makes someone a Liberal, it just makes them anti-gun. It's not mutually inclusive.
    As far as some people thinking that Conservative people are more logical ,and Liberals are emotional. Please explain this, most conservatives are religious, now, what could be more emotional than believing something with no proof. Something that science has proven wrong.There's no logic at all there.
    What's logical about being anti-choice ? That's pure emotion.
    What's logical about caring if your gay neighbor marries their friend ? What logic is that based on ?
    What's logical about denying a single mom a couple hundred bucks in food stamps, but giving a huge corporation billions in tax breaks ?
    Where's the logic in being against stem cell research ? What's logical about stifling science ?

    Personally, I hold views from both sides, and I think that we all do. People don't fit into neat little boxes, or under labels. Demonizing people who you disagree with is stupid . At the end of the day we're all in this together.We're all Americans and we all want our country and our families,friend,neighbors,and country to prosper. To believe that someone is trying to sink the country because they don't agree with your views is so small minded. I listen to Rush/Hannity/Savage etc and to me it feels like they just want someone to hate, they want so badly to be the hero, the good guy, that they have to manufacture a bad guy,a devil. So they pick a word, Liberal and make that the 'they"..the 'other". Obama has been President for less than 100 days, now, what has he REALLY done that's so horrible ? Like Bandit asked, What freedoms have we lost ? What freedoms is he threatening ? I just don't see it.Where was the uproar when Bush/Cheney decided that it was ok to wiretap Americans without a warrant ? Now that's a REAL freedom lost, not an allegation that someone wants to do something. That's all I hear on the radio"Obama wants to do this,Obama wants to do that,Obama thinks this,Obama thinks that" ...according to the radio host, not to Obama himself.
    Not accusing anyone here but it sure is funny how as soon as the black guy got sworn in people started running around like Chicken Little..."the sky is falling"....if the shoe fits,you know what to do with it.
    One other thing that bugs me, people call a radio show and call each other great Americans.....everyone's a hero now. I served with some real great Americans, real heroes, and it bugs me to hear these smug, self congratulating clowns on the radio throwing those words around like they're cheap. If calling a radio show makes you a great American then I want my monument right next to Lincolns!
    ok, My rant is done.


  2. #92
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,118

    Unimportant issues

    Quote Originally Posted by United93 View Post
    I disagree with you there.

    The right to life, the right to keep and bear arms, the traditional definition of marriage, etc., are all beliefs that I share with most conservatives. Most liberals, however, in my experience, seek to undermine these things.
    These are very important issues to those who hold strong beliefs about each, one way or the other, but have nothing whatsoever to do with important stuff like getting along with other nations; having a productive economy; preserving personal rights and liberties against state intrusion; feeding people; housing people; providing medical care for people; educating people; developing and improving infrastructure.

    These things you mentioned are side shows in the scheme of things.

    It is entirely possible that all of the goals you mentioned could be achieved but the overall quality of life of the average Joe would be miserable. We might feel that achieving broad 2A rights is important, but that is a really liberal position--- a belief in the importance of the BOR. (That is why the 9th Circuit (supposedly liberal) went ahead with incorporation.) You see, labels don't quite work, and results don't always fit with the labels.

    What liberals want is the right for people to be themselves; to keep the government out of the bedroom and out of the doctor's office with regard to sensitive personal issues. It is called, liberty, and that is the root of the word liberal.

    All you need to do to see the truth of what I am saying is look at the many arguments posted in this forum by self-identified conservatives who absolutely oppose the application of 2A to the states. That is oppose a proper and correct interpretation of the 14th amendment. These folks don't care either about liberty or 2A. And while that extremism is a minority view here, that is where extreme conservatism actually leads.

    The world (our world) is complex, and on each of the issues you mentioned--especially on the traditional marriage thing--- there are no simple answers as a substantial portion of the population, many of whom are economic conservatives, or foreign policy conservatives, perhaps even neocons, don't hold that view.

    You see, people are complex. Whether liberal or conservative, they are going to vary from the "orthodox" viewpoints of radio hosts and party leaders on at least some issues.

  3. #93
    Distinguished Member Array mr.stuart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    usa-southeast texas
    Posts
    1,733
    That is an excellent post PNUT Lot of truth.

  4. #94
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,118

    In the ineterst of disclosure

    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    For the sake of full disclosure it is noted that both Hopyard and Bandit383 indicate government as their occupation and I am a retired career banker.

    Off topic:

    If the 383 in Bandit's name has anything to do with a Mopar engine then it was a good 'un.
    In the interest of disclosure, Hopyard here is retired from a government position. So what. There are plenty of conservatives in government. Probably more so than in other areas of endeavor. My prior employment isn't where my policy views come from. They come from growing up poor in the 1940s and 50s, when both The Great Depression and WWII were fresh on everyone's mind; and important stuff like not getting nuked and survival were the predominant themes.

    You see, you can only worry about small stuff like marriage equity when you aren't worrying about big stuff like the H bomb.

    And, you can't get too worked up about folks on food stamps when you remember a time when folks had nothing and had no way to get any assistance no matter how dire their situation. It was, btw, liberals in the form of LBJ who fixed that.

  5. #95
    Ex Member Array United93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    911
    Quote Originally Posted by PNUT View Post
    Something that science has proven wrong.There's no logic at all there.
    What's logical about being anti-choice ? That's pure emotion.
    What's logical about denying a single mom a couple hundred bucks in food stamps, but giving a huge corporation billions in tax breaks ?
    Where's the logic in being against stem cell research ? What's logical about stifling science ?
    Science does not prove anything, PNUT. In fact, it has many times shown to be false what it before held to be true. Religion cannot be proved wrong, nor, IMO, can it be proved right.

    When 'choice' entails abortion, the killing of innocent humans, then there is plenty of logic in being 'anti-choice'. It is not pure emotion. It is justice.

    Giving corporations millions in tax breaks is not something true conservatives support.

    Embryonic stem-cell research destroys innocent human life, and is therefore unacceptable. Adult stem-cell research, on the other hand, is not only moral, but it actually works better than embryonic stem-cell research.

  6. #96
    Ex Member Array PNUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    913
    United93.

    I have a rebuttal ,but it's long and boring. I copied it from a couple of websites. Not my best effort but I'm tired.
    God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however, can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of God.1 In the words of Laplace, science has no need of that hypothesis.2 By demonstrating that God is not needed to explain anything, science has proven that there is no more reason to believe in the existence of God than to believe in the existence of phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, or Vulcan.
    . Also, that the Gods described in the Abrahamic religions are certainly disproved by the factual contradiction of the monotheistic texts' metaphysical claims regarding the origins of our species and cosmos, as well as their descriptions of who God is and what God is like. Science has adopted much more accurate and verifiable explanations for the observable world and universe; so good, it has been said, that had we had these scientific explanations to begin with, religion would have never taken root in the first place. Evolution has been proved, and that does not support the creation story.

    Why not use adult stem cells instead of using human embryonic stem cells in research?
    Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent—that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent—restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult stem cells are thought to be.There are currently several limitations to using adult stem cells. Although many different kinds of multipotent stem cells have been identified, adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify. There is also evidence that they may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells do. Finally, adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies during the course of a lifetime. These potential weaknesses might limit the usefulness of adult stem cells.
    More particularly, embryonic stem cell research and therapy would use donated embryos that, by virtue of donor instructions, will never enter a uterus. An embryo is no more a person, than an egg is a chicken.

  7. #97
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by United93 View Post
    Science does not prove anything, PNUT.
    It doesn't claim to. The scientific method is just that a method, a means of investigation.

    When 'choice' entails abortion, the killing of innocent humans, then there is plenty of logic in being 'anti-choice'. It is not pure emotion. It is justice.
    No, it's emotion as an offshoot of a philosophical choice. When a life begins is a purely philosophical construct. If you think it begins at conception, then it's murder. If you don't, you don't. It is not black and white and there's nothing you or any priest or scientist can do to "answer" the question. And aren't conservatives supposed to stay out of people's lives....?

    Embryonic stem-cell research destroys innocent human life, and is therefore unacceptable. Adult stem-cell research, on the other hand, is not only moral, but it actually works better than embryonic stem-cell research.
    No it doesn't. See how easy that was? What's more, the types of embryos that are desired for experimentation are discarded. They will either be used for science or they will be thrown in the trash. You would rather government, who you hold to be incompetent and intrusive, to decide for science and medicine what is necessary and you would wield government to force them to throw embryos in the garbage rather than used for science.

    That's the ultimate lesson. Conservatives are against big intrusive government except for when they are in favor of big intrusive government.

  8. #98
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,504
    Of course I consider LBJs "Great Society" programs a huge step forward in redistribution of wealth that socialists so dearly love.

    Or, what's wrong with Socialism?

    I detest food stamps and other entitlements. Personally I don't want want the government compelling me to contribute to forced benevolence which ends up as nothing more than vote-buying, masquerading under the guise of doing good. My contributions to my Church and other organizations of my choice do good and don't contribute to the election of liberal scoundrels. Taxpayers are held hostage by a voting populace who will never fail to vote itself more goodies. Liberal politicians, along with Republicans who want to look like second rate Democrats, will always be on hand to assist in the bilking of the taxpayer. Take such a scenario to it's logical extreme conclusion. When does it end? When we all are equally destitute and penniless? How can any thinking person fail to see through liberalism?
    Charter Member of the DC .41 LC Society "Get heeled! No really"

    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  9. #99
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,118

    Food stamps/ farm subsidies in disguise

    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    Of course I consider LBJs "Great Society" programs a huge step forward in redistribution of wealth that socialists so dearly love.

    Or, what's wrong with Socialism?

    I detest food stamps and other entitlements. Personally I don't want want the government compelling me to contribute to forced benevolence which ends up as nothing more than vote-buying, masquerading under the guise of doing good.
    What people often forget is that one major driving force in creation of the food stamp program had nothing to do with feeding the poor---which is a proper and laudatory thing to be doing. The rural states reps in Congress strongly supported the program because it made a market for agricultural commodities. In other words, the program was a form of price subsidy for the farmers. In a perverse sort of way, we all benefit from this because these programs create a situation in which we are all better able to find affordable food.

    Earlier I mentioned that too many think in one dimensional good v bad mode. Opposition to the food stamp program, based on a lack of a desire to help others, besides being immoral and selfish, overlooks the underlying complexity and complex purposes of the program.

    Maybe if you posed your objections differently, as contempt for subsidies for large agribusiness instead of contempt for the poor, I'd be more open to the objection.

    The word "socialism" keep popping up in this forum as a dirty word and something to be avoided. Usually, it is misused, as is the term liberal as well. However, there is absolutely nothing in our constitution which promotes or forbids any particular set of economic policies. Our leaders are free to make decisions as to what they think will do the most good for our society as a whole; and sometimes they even get it right. There will always be tensions between different viewpoint on policy, and that is how it should be. Just don't go around believing that one approach, free-market capitalism, is somehow ordained to be the only way.

  10. #100
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    I detest food stamps and other entitlements. Personally I don't want want the government compelling me to contribute to forced benevolence which ends up as nothing more than vote-buying, masquerading under the guise of doing good. My contributions to my Church and other organizations of my choice do good and don't contribute to the election of liberal scoundrels.
    Hummmm...I seem to remember our troops on food stamps at one time. Not too many churches standing in the door to help the soldiers feed their family while fighting for our country. World history has shown if one can not feed their family/themselves...one will get anarchy.

    I cringe everytime I hear children going malnourished in the richest country in the world.

  11. #101
    Ex Member Array United93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    911
    I am afraid that to attempt to refute some of your arguments concerning abortion, religion and stem-cell research would bring me in clear violation of forum rules. I may respond via PM.

    Thank you for your opinions and insights.

  12. #102
    Ex Member Array PNUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    913
    You can PM me if you want. I like to read.

  13. #103
    Ex Member Array United93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    911
    Great!

  14. #104
    1943 - 2009
    Array Captain Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    10,372
    This thread has reached its end. Abortion, stem cell research, religion and food stamps are way beyond our focus here.



    When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
    And the women come out to cut up what remains,
    Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
    And go to your God like a soldier.

    Rudyard Kipling


    Terry

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. I get to educate some liberals
    By SilenceDoGood in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: March 1st, 2010, 09:58 PM
  2. Liberals and Gun Control?
    By jimtem in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: January 31st, 2010, 08:09 PM
  3. Liberals Pro Gun
    By mr.stuart in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: November 15th, 2007, 12:00 PM
  4. we are losing to the liberals
    By Rugerman in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 1st, 2006, 02:47 PM
  5. Liberals have done it before....
    By Administrator in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 12th, 2005, 10:50 AM

Search tags for this page

abortion

,

liberals

Click on a term to search for related topics.