I’m no David Letterman, but these are my Top 10 Reasons Liberalism Is Bad for America. In the coming days, I will also write articles as separate posts to accompany each of the 10 to explain my positions.
1. Liberalism lacks respect and in many cases opposes the most basic of human rights: life. This one is by far the biggest reason liberalism is bad for America. The rest are in no particular order.
2. Liberalism seeks to weaken our national sovereignty.
3. Liberals originated the movement toward political correctness.
4. Liberals are for a weak military, or at least their actions say that they are.
5. To call themselves “people of tolerance”, liberals are some of the most intolerant people on earth.
6. Along the same lines as the tolerance issue, liberals are tolerant of all religions except for Christianity and Orthodox Judaism.
7. Liberals started the current environmental/animal rights/go-green efforts which are not as much about sensible protective measures for the earth and its creatures, but about punishing humans for imposing themselves on the earth and its creatures.
8. Liberals like high taxes. They think they can spend your money more wisely than you can, especially if you’re “wealthy”.
9. Liberals are largely anti-capitalism. They tax and regulate businesses so much that many are discouraged from trying to go into business for themselves.
10. Liberals meddle in the private affairs of individuals, businesses, states and localities, and others via big-government.
Stay tuned for the articles over the next couple weeks.
We need both liberals and conservatives if only for no other reason than to keep each other honest.
What we do NOT need are the Neoconservatives (the Nazis of our day)who have gotten us into the Iraq fiasco ,wrecked our economy and have given real Conservatives a bad name.
Actually Ronald Reagan was a neoconservative who led the nation into a decade of economic and social prosperity
True, a lot of politicians have integrity issues and a one-party system would certainly lead to a dictatorship. I just have fact-based arguments that the liberal ideology when implemented at a governmental level is a negative in our society and stifles our constitutional system of government, common sense and mainstream values.
I’m not sure how you are comparing neo-cons of our day such as George W. Bush and even John McCain to Nazis. The neo-cons are pro-life, Nazis–well, not so much. Can you honestly tell me that the neo-cons are guilty of genocide? If you can, I’ve got to hear this. The Nazis ruled through fear and absolute control. The so-called neo-cons eliminated a dictator (Saddam Hussein) that ruled that way so that Iraqi people could have a chance at some form of democratic rule.
How have the neo-cons treated us like nazis? By what, cutting taxes, defending life, overthrowing a dictator, and keeping the terrorists (the real nazis) on the run ever since 2001? If those things make a person a nazi, then they are guilty. But if not, how?
It’s quite obvious that you are more than likely a liberal yourself because liberals don’t argue ideas, they insult people with whom they disagree by inflammatory name-calling (like Nazi) and by assaulting their character. Come with the facts next time, please.
They cut taxes for the rich and they lied us into the Iraq fiasco in a blundering attempt to plunder their oil. But keep on drinking the kool-ade.
For Bush to be so “dumb” like liberals say he is, he sure fooled a lot of you by “lying us into Iraq”. How could a supposed “blundering fool” (not my words, but theirs) devise such an elaborate scheme so as to deceive every intelligence agency in the world concerning the threat posed by Saddam Hussein? If that’s the case, according to my calculations (and I’m decent at math), that makes Bush an “evil genius” or at least one rung higher on the intelligence ladder than the liberals who were “fooled” by him. Liberals (mostly) were all for the war and its real purpose until the kook fringe of the Democrat party raised heck over it. Then they had to move back to the left so Howard Dean could raise money for them again at election time. For liberals, it’s all about political expediency.
Stay tuned for more on this in coming posts.
Do you read? I’m not saying you should be reading congressional reports or publicly released government documents, but you should at least gather an understanding of the world around you.
But I’m sure your “calculations” are enough, even though you’re missing basically all of the numbers.
Fab
GW Bush was a front for the Neocons/PNAC
The members of the Project For a New American Century (PNAC )had their agenda prepared and published before they propped up an uninformed, inexperienced, failed businessman named George W. Bush as their poster candidate. He had great appeal among the good ole boys and the bible thumpers who were not very likely to vote for the scowling man behind the curtain, Dick Cheney. George W. Bush had not been sitting around for the previous 10 years thinking about foreign policy. Rather, he was being coached on foreign policy by handlers who had to teach him that Africa was a continent and not a country.
The stated aims of PNAC can be followed from their war plans to their hopes of global military superiority. George W. Bush was not a factor when PNAC was writing its openly published policies. But once the 2000 election was secured, PNAC members became and remain the mainstay of the Bush administration, holding virtually every major position relating to foreign policy.
Liberalism can also be understood quite differrently when viewed from the road less travelled…
See also this blog
Was lying us into the Iraq fiasco and running up the national debt conservative???
First of all, if you have real evidence that Bush “lied us into Iraq”, by all means present it and I’ll consider your evidence. Otherwise, I would suggest giving that tired old liberal talking point a rest. Saddam Hussein was evil, should have been removed, and got what he deserved when he was hanged. You can’t convince me otherwise.
Now on Bush’s spending policies, I was less than pleased. Government grew under Bush and spending on entitlements and governmental waste increased on his watch. I must say that on that aspect of his presidency I was disappointed. Bush is not a conservative purist, rather he is fairly conservative on lots of things. He did cut taxes for EVERYBODY, but then turned around and spent more than we had.
Bush said that the USA was in great danger from Iraq and we needed to invade immediately. THAT WAS A LIE
Yes Saddam got what we deserved. Unfortunately at the cost of over 4000 American lives, 30,000 WOUNDED, 3 TRILLION $ etc.
IT WAS NOT WORTH THAT TO US .
THE RICH BENEFITTED FROM THE TAX CUT. YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING WHY THE MIDDLE CLASS GOT NO OVERALL BENEFIT SO I WILL NOT EVEN TRY TO EXPLAIN.
Someone’s getting a little testy when talking about the rich… 😮
To me, paying less taxes is a benefit. Why don’t you (gasdocpol) explain otherwise? Maybe someone here has some logic and reasoning that you are assuming we lack.
gasdocpol: I am firmly established in the middle class and I got a tax cut (actually a higher percentage than the so-called “rich”). Not only do I make more gross income than ever before under the “evil” GWB, but I get to keep more of it, too. How am I NOT gaining from that?
And, I hate to burst your bubble, but I gained from the rich getting a tax cut, too. When the wealthy of this country (who just happen to be the job creators of this country) get a tax cut by way of a cut in income tax, capital gains tax cuts, etc., the money that they would have been giving to government is invested into their businesses instead which creates jobs and/or pay increases for us in the middle class.
Some tax facts for you:
Under Bill Clinton in 1999-Single making 30K – tax $8,400
Under GWB in 2008-Single making 30K – tax $4,500
Under Bill Clinton in 1999-Single making 50K – tax $14,000
Under GWB in 2008-Single making 50K – tax $12,500
Under Bill Clinton in 1999-Single making 75K – tax $23,250
Under GWB in 2008-Single making 75K – tax $18,750
Under Bill Clinton in 1999-Married making 60K – tax $16,800
Under GWB in 2008-Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Under Bill Clinton in 1999-Married making 75K – tax $21,000 Under GWB in 2008-Married making 75K – tax $18,750
Under Bill Clinton in 1999-Married making 125K-tax 38,750 Under GWB in 2008-Married making 125K – tax $31,250
If I’m understanding you correctly, you think we should punish the success of the wealthy (the ones who make it possible for us middle classers to have jobs in the first place) to make us feel better about our belonging to the middle class, when all along, the fact is that rich people pay an overwhelming majority of all taxes collected already. Consider these startling statistics that are available from the IRS:
-97% of all taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners.
-86% of all taxes are paid by the top 25% of wage earners.
-39% of all taxes are paid by the top 1% of wage earners. This last statistic is up from 37% in the year 2000 when President Bush took office. So, according to IRS data, the rich are paying more taxes than ever before under a President who supposedly gave tax cuts that only benefited the rich! The facts seem kinda ironic when compared to the class-warfare bologna used by the left in this country.
All of this will not matter once Osama, excuse me, I mean Obama, gets to be President. He will sit down with all the terrorists and ask them to stop being terrorists and they will tell him they are sooooo sorry , they just didn’t know better and will stop all their actions because he was so nice to ask them and they won’t do it again.
He will then put all of his experiences (which is none) to work and raise all our taxes to an unreal rate, even the stinken rich, which in turn will have to lay off the middle class worker……. that’ll help this country, he will show those rich folks what he knows.
He will then wave his left arm and invite all the stem cell researchers to go ahead and do what is necessary, regardless of how many babies they kill, to find a cure for whatever they want and he will give everyone of us healthcare insurance, regardless if you’ve worked a day in your life or not.
He will hire Jerimiah Wright as his closest adviser, Louis Faracon (Misspelled)but I don’t care, as his Defense Minister and then give Oprah exclusive rights to all interviews of him and Ted Kennedy when they go and get married in California.
God, have mercy on The United States of America.
Wow, these are great posts. Well-laid out positions that clearly define the issues. How you can read all this and continue to believe what the left does is pure EMOTIONALISM, not common sense or informed thought. And it’s funny that the left will often sneer their nose at conservatives and claim “you are not capable of understanding my position.”
Sigh…
Right… The Iraq invasion was a great example of common sense and informed thought as was the tax cuts that favorized the rich who do not need tax cuts , cut down on goverment expenditures that reduced benefits to American people and skyrocketed the national debt.
The government spends money which helps provide necessary services such as
transportation, education ,training, employment, health, disaster relief, maintenance of infrastructure, law enforcement,etc. In the process, people are employed and money circulates and recirculates.
Under GW Bush much less money came from very rich people in taxes and a lot of money was wasted in the Iraq fiasco with the result that the national debt skyrocketed.
The rich got richer and the middle class got poorer.
(sigh)
I hate to keep confusing you with the facts, but the tax data I provided was from the IRS, not concocted. The FACT is the rich are paying a larger percentage and a higher dollar amount in taxes than they ever have, even after the Bush tax cuts that supposedly helped only the rich. As for the record deficits, I can’t argue in favor of Bush spending like a liberal at times. I can however argue that the balanced budget of the liberal darling Billy Bubba Clinton gutted our military and intelligence capabilities which Bush had to start spending on again, thus pushing us again into deficit spending.
Another interesting fact about taxes: The highest 50% of wage earners earned 87.17% of the nation’s total income, yet they paid (are you ready for this) 97% of the taxes. A “fair share” to any fair minded person would be that these people would pay 87.17% of the taxes, yet they paid an additional 10 percent. This is a higher percentage of their income paid in taxes over an entire TWENTY YEAR PERIOD! This data is only current through 2005 (I couldn’t find data for 2006 posted yet and 2007 still has returns outstanding), but this is a higher percentage of the share of taxes paid than in both of Bill Clinton’s terms.
Now to address this class warfare nonsense: I’m not even close to being rich (although I’d LIKE TO BE blessed financially), so I don’t have a dog in this fight (at least not yet), but how arrogant it is of liberals to say that “the rich….do not need tax cuts”. Who died and made liberals the final arbiters that decide who does and who does not make enough or too much or too little money? If liberals don’t think the government gets enough tax money, I urge each of them right now to forgo any deductions on their tax returns and even send in some extra since you don’t think enough taxes are being paid. 🙂 But get your hands out of the pockets of those who legitimately earn their money.
Yes we should pay our fair share, but the rich already pay MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE! Liberals should cease and desist with the whole “Robin Hood” mentality. It made for a descent storybook tale, but this is the reality: productivity and achievement are being punished (and thus discouraged) while mediocrity and downright laziness are being rewarded and thus encouraged.
Whether you’re for or against the Iraq War as a matter of principle, your own logic (gasdocpol) should cause you to at least be FOR the war from a fiscal standpoint. Those folks in the military ARE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND PART OF A BIG GOVERNMENT PROGRAM! Their employment provides a necessary service and they get paid for it and that money is added back into the economy and circulated and recirculated. Also, all the defense contractors (like Halliburton) and civilian workers (like employees of Halliburton) make money and circulate and recirculate and spend and buy and invest, etc.
As far as government benefits, I have a post tells what I think government should provide and a few examples of what it should stay out of and get out of our way.
April 16, 2005
Bush Tax Return Shows an Income of $784,219
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
WASHINGTON, April 15 – President Bush and Laura Bush reported income for last year of $784,219 and paid federal income taxes of $207,307, according to copies of their 2004 tax returns released Friday by the White House.
The tax cuts that Mr. Bush has signed into law since taking office saved them $28,846 last year, according to an analysis of their returns by Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal research group that is critical of the administration’s tax policies.
Vice President Dick Cheney and Lynne Cheney reported that they paid $393,518 in taxes on total income of $2.17 million and taxable income of $1.74 million. The Cheneys saved $81,336 from the Bush tax cuts, Citizens for Tax Justice said.
The Bushes paid a tax rate of 26.4 percent on their adjusted gross income and the Cheneys paid a rate of 22.7 percent.
Mr. and Mrs. Bush reported his salary as president, $397,065, plus $363,483 in taxable interest income from the trusts into which they placed their wealth. They reported smaller amounts of income from dividends and royalties.
The Bushes claimed itemized deductions totaling $111,431, including $77, 785 in charitable gifts. The White House said they gave money to a variety of churches and charitable groups. Their return shows that the Bushes had too much money withheld last year and decided to apply that amount, $38,534, to their taxes for 2005, rather than get a refund.
The return filed by the Cheneys included Mr. Cheney’s salary as vice president of $203,000, plus deferred compensation of $194,852 he received last year from Halliburton, the oil-field services company, where he was chairman and chief executive before becoming Mr. Bush’s running mate in 2000.
Mrs. Cheney also reported more than $400,000 in business income, much of it deferred compensation from Reader’s Digest, where she served on the board until 2003.
The Cheneys also had considerable investment income, most from the sale of tax-exempt bond funds. Their returns showed long-term capital gains of $224,607 on the sale of more than $15 million worth of securities.
The Citizens for Tax Justice analysis showed that the cut in the rates on capital gains and dividend income signed into law by Mr. Bush saved the Cheneys more than $35,000 in taxes last year. The Bushes saved almost $2,800 in taxes on dividends from the change, the group said.
Both couples also saved substantial amounts of money from the reduced personal income tax rates pushed through Congress by Mr. Bush, the Citizens for Tax Justice analysis found. The Bushes saved more than $26,000 last year relative to what they would have paid before the tax cuts and the Cheneys saved more than $46,001, the group said.
and:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/tax-j15.shtml
“Perhaps the most grotesque figures appeared in the newspaper USA Today, which reported that each of the five children of the late Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton would save $197 million on their taxes under the Bush plan. The combined total comes to $984 million—nearly one billion dollars a year—in new tax breaks for one of the wealthiest families in America, whose fortune is based on the exploitation of low-wage labor. The five Waltons stand to collect far more from the White House proposal than the nearly one million workers who are employed in Wal-Mart stores.
While Bush described the centerpiece of the tax plan as the elimination of all taxes on stock dividend income, the actual provisions proposed by the administration are far more complex, and include special benefits for those companies—largely high-tech computer and software firms—that make large profits but pay no dividends. Microsoft is typical of such companies, never having paid a dividend since it was founded nearly 30 years ago.”
About the war for control over the profits from oil in Iraq – have a look here: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justifindex.htm
and here´s a quote for you:
It’s clear that the U.S.-led invasion had little to do with national security or the events of Sept. 11. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill revealed that just 11 days after Bush’s inauguration in early 2001, regime change in Iraq was “Topic A” among the administration’s national security staff, and former Terrorism Tsar Richard Clarke told 60 Minutes that the day after the attacks in New York and Washington occurred, “[Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq.” He added: “We all said … no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan.”
from:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/?page=entire
and finally:
Crude Designs: The rip-off of Iraq’s oil wealth
from:
http://www.carbonweb.org/showitem.asp?article=57&parent=4&link=Y&gp=3
I appreciate your comments, but I disagree with the premise that the wealthy including the prez, vp and Wal-Mart executives should pay more taxes. The more money they are allowed to keep, the more money is re-invested which creates jobs and stimulates the economy. As high and lofty as your criticisms sound, they really are quite arrogant because you have the nerve to tell people that the government has more right to a person’s money that they worked and invested to earn than the person does and can spend it more efficiently and better than they can.
By the way, regime change in Iraq was the policy during the Clinton presidency as well. Saddam was a ticking time bomb and had to go. The Bush administration had the guts to finally do something and get rid of the murderous, maniacal, dictator and I’m glad he’s gone.
Also, if we really went after Iraq for their oil, why didn’t we pick someone with more oil like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela?
And a little note on Wal-Mart since you brought them up: People who work at Wal-Mart agree to work at Wal-Mart for the wages they are paid. Wal-Mart is competitive with other retail chains with their pay and benefits package. Wal-Mart is the single largest employer in the U.S. and out of that 1 million+ workers, I’ll bet not a single one of them is there by force. If they want to be paid more, they can go find another job that pays more or work hard and get promoted into management. The U.S. is a land of opportunity where we all make our own way. Many choose to make their way working for Wal-Mart. It really is their choice and I thought liberals were pro-choice.
It’s easy to frame statistics to create a point. Of the $197M that the Walton kids saved on taxes, what percentage is that of their gross income? That stat will get you closer to whether it’s fair or not. If their savings is the same percentage as someone who saved just $2,000, then wouldn’t that be fair?
We must consider statistics in context…
And like Fab said, it’s the people’s choice to work at Walmart. If any of the employees are being exploited there, they should leave and get a better job. If it’s really so bad to work there, then people should quit taking jobs there, and Walmart would be forced to improve their conditions. But if people agree to work for a certain wage in certain conditions, then that’s their choice and it’s their fault if they don’t like it.
Fab
The very rich have benefitted from the USA more than the middle class. They need to give back. When everyone does better everyone does better.Then National debt is skyrocketing, in part because they are paying less taxes. IT IS NOT GOOD TO BE IN DEBT. (DO I NEED TO EXPLAIN WHY?)
The Iraq war was unnecessary, counter productive and expensive. The money spent would have been better spent on goods and services for Americans.
Colonos
You seem to have read “The Price of Loyalty” and “Against All Enemies” books written by Bush White House insiders who were longtime members of many GOP White Houses.
To that I would add the account of Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s chief of staff who said that the White House was run by a Neoconserrvative cabal headed by Cheney and Rumsfeld.
If you consider the above three insiders along with PNAC and the Downing Street Memo you can see a seamless explaination of how and why Bush/Cheney lied us into the Iraq fiasco.
gasdocpol
“The Iraq war was not unnecessary, counter productive and expensive”. When compared to the continued drain on our resources and the regions defenses used allowing Saddam the mass murderer to say in power.
Also, the time spent being screwed around by the “inspection’ teams made for more than enough time to remove or hide the “weapons of mass destruction” which he obviously used on the Kurd s. (did everyone forget the gassing of the Kurd s). Every major intelligence agency in the world thought he had WMDS, This would demonstrate that perhaps a mistake was made.
I when a conservative makes a mistake it’s a lie meant to deceive so we can send our kids to war. When a liberal makes a mistake is human error.
When Iraq becomes “through hard work” a strong democratic country, friendly to the United States, in an area of the world where democratic country s have not existed in the past… George Bush will be seen as benefited our country greatly and a benefit to the Arab region in general.
Why do liberals seem to hope the democratically elected govt. fails in Iraq? They always seem to have that attitude. As, if Iraqs failure would justify their hatred of George Bush.
Liberals love open mindedness unless you disagree with them. I guess Stalin and the way he treated the “comrades” he disagreed with is a better way to handle opposition? I guess Murder by when perpetrated
by Liberals it’s ok cause they “care more than the rest of us”, but when Hitler comm-mitts mass murder, “it’s mean”.
I happen to think the extremism practiced by both parties is what is hurting this country, but we have gotten to this place where we seem to believe that every conservative is a ritght wing wako, and every liberal is a Commie Bastard that wahts to kill America as we know it. . If we cannot temper our arguments and truly try to understand that most people I know just want to live in peace, help others when we can and have an opportunity at happiness, for ourselves and others.
gasdocpol–
Why should people who work hard and become successful in the business world be punished for it simply because the rest of you settled for mediocrity? Every single person in America has the same opportunity to work hard in school, make good grades, attend college, study hard, and determine at some point in their lives to become successful. The thing is, only some of us choose to do so. The rest of us who decide that education and hard work aren’t important shouldn’t sit around and whine and cry because someone with more determination and discipline actually succeeded. And founded companies that give the rest of us jobs.
How can you continue to argue after reading the cold, hard facts from the IRS concerning the tax percentages the “very rich” pay as opposed to the rest of us? Did you actually bother reading them? Maybe you didn’t, so I’m more than happy to bring a few back up again.
Quoting Fab**
Consider these startling statistics that are available from the IRS:
-97% of all taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners.
-86% of all taxes are paid by the top 25% of wage earners.
-39% of all taxes are paid by the top 1% of wage earners. This last statistic is up from 37% in the year 2000 when President Bush took office. So, according to IRS data, the rich are paying more taxes than ever before under a President who supposedly gave tax cuts that only benefited the rich! The facts seem kinda ironic when compared to the class-warfare bologna used by the left in this country.
End quote**
You want to talk fair? How fair is it that the top 1% of wage earners pay almost 40% of all the taxes paid? That means the other 99% of us make up only 60% of the taxes paid. Hmmm……..just doesn’t seem fair to me. Or should I say, that seems more than fair. More than their fair share, anyway. Over-simplified, couldn’t it be explained this way?:
One hundred people have to come up with $100. Going by the statistic that was just stated, the richest one of those 100 people would have to pay $39. That would leave $61 for the other 99 people to make up; equaling about 0.616 per person. One person pays $39, ninety nine have to put in approximately 62 cents each.
$39 versus 62 cents. I can see where you think it’s not fair.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering….I’m one of those that dropped out of college years and years ago and am now making the most money I’ve ever made—a whopping $24,000 a year.
But that’s not Bill Gates’ fault.
FAB
BECAUSE THE VERY RICH CAN AFFORD IT AND IF WE HAVE TOO FEW PEOPLE CONTROLING TOO MUCH MONEY, IT IS NOT GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY.
I HAVE NOT SETTLED FOR MEDIOCRACY. I WAS A LIEUTENANT IN THE NAVY. I HAVE AN MBA, AN MD AND WAS BOARD CERTIFIED IN MY SPECIALTY WHEN I PRACTICED MEDICINE FOR 33 YEARS. I WORKED HARD AND WAS SUCCESSFUL.
WHEN EVERYONE DOES BETTER ,EVERYONE DOES BETTER.
I am very glad that you didn’t settle for mediocrity. I appreciate your service to our country in the military and would like to take this opportunity to wish you a happy Memorial Day. I also admire your educational and professional accomplishments and am sure your income was and is higher than Fab U. Less’s.
Now I must write something that I never thought I’d be typing ever since you began commenting (which I appreciate your participation, by the way). I agree with something you said 🙂 : When everyone does better, everyone does do better. Where we differ on this if I’m reading you correctly and in context, is you’re actually saying we all do better when government does better and gets more in taxes because rich people are forced to not only pay their fair share but everyone else’s fair shares and then some because they can afford it.
Governmental waste is at an all-time high, so I’m skeptical about how they would and do use this money. My suggestion is that the wealthy use their money ANY WAY THEY WISH aside from fair and reasonable taxes and fees. How do the wealthy use their money? They buy stuff. This puts money into the economy (jobs, small business, etc.) and sales taxes still find their way to governments at state and local levels. They also reinvest their money back into their businesses and other companies, creating jobs and wealth for others in the process. All the while, they still pay the lion’s share of the bills for our country.
You see, you and I don’t have goals that are that much different, we just disagree on the effectiveness of government in producing the desired outcome which is “everyone doing better”. I believe in the market and individual rights when it comes to earnings. You seem to believe government deserves more.
Liberals want to institute a “windfall profits tax” on companies and individuals that do well. I want to turn the tables and effectively (for lack of a better term) “tax the government” on their “windfall profits”. Governmental revenues are setting records each year (even with the Bush tax cuts, by the way), so it’s time for the people to “tax” the government on its “windfall profits” and demand more tax cuts or at least make the Bush tax cuts permanent. We should also demand less waste and a better accounting of government expenditures. Then everyone (including government) will be doing better because more wealth is being created in the private sector that will, in turn, be taxed.
Lastly, the offer still stands from comment #16: If you are feeling like you don’t pay enough taxes, by all means forgo your refund and rebate and send in extra. I’m sure it’ll make a big difference. 🙂 But if you don’t trust government to spend your surplus, you may send your check right here to Fab and his Fab Fam here on the Fab Fam Farm in Fantastic Fabville.
Please excuse that last line of randomness. I don’t really live in Fabville on a farm, but your check, cash, wire transfer, money order, or credit card payment are still welcome. Just let me know. 🙂 Thank you, drive through!
I couldn’t disagree more with your assertions of liberals being such a force of evil in the world… I mean… do you Right-wingers really want the world you preach? Where the rich run unfettered over the poor, where no one moves up in social class unless he joins ‘the club’? Where movies might have a kiss scene at most? Where the military has an unbridled budget to suck funds from domestic programs? Is that what you want? Do you want every teenager who has sex to have to raise their child off minimum wage alone? (Don’t even try the abstinance talk… you know how effective that is… ) Do you want a world where science is thwarted in the name of a six thousand year old oral tradition (which is actually older… it dates back to the Babylonians (horror!) about two naked people and a snake? Is this what you want?
Come down from the pedestal. Down, Down! Come back to reality. Breathe… Think… For every action of force, there is an equal and opposite reaction of force. Liberals are the necessary duality of Conservatives. We’re here to keep each other in line. Many Liberals aren’t evil or bad… and many Conservatives aren’t either 🙂 Some are bad in both.
You neither I, nor anyone except the quacks want a completely liberal world nor a completely conservative world.
So, please… Liberalism is good for America… and so is Conservatism. They complement each other and each in its turn is useful for protecting against the overuse of the other.
Just think… If it weren’t for the liberals, we may have already attacked Iran… So be glad 🙂
I never can put all of my thoughts down where they make sense, but I just have to try now……
It’s ironic to me that your argument FOR liberals mentions abstinence and teen pregnancies and “a kiss scene at most” in movies. Are you saying that we need liberals so we can have more sexually transmitted diseases, deaths from AIDS, abortions, and children having children? Kinda what it sounds like to me.
Why are liberals so opposed to teaching kids (yes, teenagers are still kids) that abstinence is okay? That they don’t have to submit to peer pressure to engage in potentially life-threatening behavior? In today’s world, having sex with the wrong partner could literally KILL you. You would think ANYONE, whether liberal or conservative, would want to try to get that message across. Why you are all so adamantly against it I’ll never understand……
As far as movies having only “a kiss scene at most”, do you not think that abstinence would be easier to teach and have teenagers agree to if they weren’t bombarded with the whole “sex is okay and it doesn’t mean anything and you should do it do it do it” message that permeates music, tv and movies these days?
Before you try to say that entertainment has nothing to do with it, let me ask you this. If we aren’t affected by things we see on tv, in movies, etc, then why do auto commercials have to put disclaimers on all ads telling people that their stunts were performed by professional drivers and not to attempt them at home? Because somebody, somewhere in the past tried to imitate something they saw on a commercial and more than likely gravely injured themselves and tried to sue.
Along those same lines, maybe Hollywood should be forced to put disclaimers on their “products”;
“Warning: Engaging in casual sex, although presented in this film as nothing of consequence, can have LIFE-ALTERING consequences. Do not participate unless you are prepared for the following:
1) gonorrhea, syphilis, HPV (and possibly cervical cancer), AIDS, etc;
2) an unwanted pregancy resulting in abortion, and the life-long emotional scars resulting from;
3) becoming a parent while still a child yourself.”
I mean, what’s the worst that could happen if liberals and conservatives joined together in telling kids that casual sex isn’t a wise choise? I can hardly think it would hurt if teenagers actually did the more responsible thing and chose to remain abstinant. I can just see it now:
“Warning: Abstaining from casual sex, although presented in this film as prudish, right-wing lunacy, can have the following consequences. Do not participate unless you are prepared for the following:
1) Remaining healthy and free from all sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhea, syphilis, HPV (and possibly cervical cancer), AIDS, etc;
2) Never having to make the decision to abort your unborn child and living with the emotional scars that would result;
3) Spending your entire childhood as a child, carefree and totally dependent on your parents for everything, rather than having to grow up too soon and take on the responsibility of becoming a parent yourself.”
Yeah. That would totally suck.
How in the world can people say abstinence doesn’t work?!?
If you don’t have sex, you will not catch a sexually transmitted disease, and you will not get pregnant. How is that not effective?!?
What’s not effective is the message that society gives teens, implying there’s no consequences, that you should do what feels right. But it’s not just movies, TV, and music — many “adults” live that way, too…
Besides the potential pitfalls mentioned above, what is left out far too often when talking about premarital sex is that everyone will have to give an account to God, and it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage. Of course, if you don’t believe in God now, you won’t care, but you’ll still have to give an account when you stand before Him someday.
Abstinance sounds like a good way to guarantee not having fun,
Sex outside of marriage sounds like a good way to guarantee going to hell…
Not that I would judge anyone on that, but that’s what God’s law says, and that’s what we’ll be judged by… People are free to do what they want in this life, but we will give an account before God.
How the h*** does liberalism support anti-capitalism? Capitalism is a market system where everything is privately owned and operated, much like liberals support, individual businesses with competition.
What the h***! You think liberal created “go-green” as PUNISHMENT!? Do you have any proof, any reasoning, any quotes?! NO! Ever think that MAYBE there are people who are trying to make a positive change in the world?
I am SICK AND TIRED of people talking about the “evil liberal agenda” It’s like you think we support Hitler!
It took 33 comments, but Hitler was finally brought up. Why is that significant? Well, it’s becoming inevitable, particularly in political discussions.
Here’s a quote I saved a while back by someone who noticed this trend:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1; … given enough time, all discussions — regardless of topic or scope — inevitably wind up being about Hitler and the Nazis. … There is a tradition in many newsgroups, and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically “lost” whatever debate was in progress. ~ Mike Godwin
Ironically, the use of Hitler in the previous comment wasn’t derogatory towards a group (like normal) but was self-deprecating, like they expected it to be used on them. Which is evidence that it’s becoming widespread.
Why can’t we just discuss the issues instead of calling names and putting people in boxes?
The green movement is simply a way for the Algores of the world to get rich using pseudo-science to guilt uneducated, deceived, or uninformed people into paying to somehow assuage their guilt. I don’t think these people are Hitler-like, unless they’re anti-Semitic guys with hokey looking little mustaches coupled with a greasy comb-over.
When will conservatives learn that tax cuts for the rich WILL NOT create jobs, they just pocket the money.
I find it interesting that you say that Liberal’s have no respect for life, and yet at the same time attacking them for their attempts to protect the earth. “They attacked us and killed us so their bad. So we can go and kill them and were good.” That is the reasoning for Iraq.
Conservatives try to keep things the same and keep their lives the same, that is the basis of their name “conserve”. While at the same time we live in a world where things always change and move forward and that is the only constant. Wouldn’t you say that is selfish and naive?
Two things drive people to do things: Fear and Desire. Conserving something is the fear of changing it. Thats why people fought for slavery, because they didn’t want their way of life changing despite that it was at the cost of someone else’s suffering. Its ironic that you say that Liberals have no respect for life while historical conservatives have enslaved people so that it makes their own lives easier.
Liberals do act for more govermental control of companies and their lives which is irresponsible for their own actions. Instead of changing their own lives to help the less fourtunate they blame the goverment and call for reform. They pin needles on conservatives, wealthy, politics, banks, and other individuals. They call for more taxes on the wealthy despite the fact that they earned it.
However, history has proven that there have always been people who resist change because they fear it or they just don’t really care. Its arguable that its only natural. However it is in our own DNA like the double helix that moves forward, to evolution. America, and mankind for that matter, will move forward, and despite how much you may try to stop change, it will be like holding back a hurricane with a stick.
Im still young and have a lot to learn. I don’t suport Conservatives and neither Liberals. If you have the time to reply with something I would appreciate it. Im interested in what you saying and aggre with some of it, just not all.
You failed to provide any evidence and the entire list was opinionated. So I consider this (deleted expletive).
Yes, the list was opinionated because this is an OPINION blog. I even said in the post this is “my” list. The only evidence is the current state of affairs in the political world. Oh, and no cursing on this blog please.