• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What do the "liberals" really want?

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Liberals/Progressives could not survive without conservatives to fuel their expenditures. That is they neither manufacture nor grow anything (except government) substantive.
On the other hand, the conservative, who produce the majority of food and products, can survive quite well without the Liberals/Progressives.

What are you talking about? Have you ever heard of Farm Subsidies? Get a freaking clue. Those subsidies come from Liberal companies like Microsoft, Starbucks, etc.

You have to be joking around...it is April Fools today.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Liberals are not blind to the inherent nature of government, they count of the inherent nature of government to advance their agenda. Liberals use the power of government to restrict liberties, that is their intention.

LOL, you crack me up. Name one politician--they span all political ideologies--that isn't out to use the Government to advance their agenda. Please, give us one example.
 

nobama

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
756
Location
, ,
LOL, you crack me up. Name one politician--they span all political ideologies--that isn't out to use the Government to advance their agenda. Please, give us one example.

Rand Paul and Ted Cruze (splell check) just to name a couple. Oh and Barry, LOL!
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Rand Paul and Ted Cruze (splell check) just to name a couple. Oh and Barry, LOL!

Wrong! They have both run for Government positions, are elected, and are using the Government to advance their agenda. Nice try though. Anyone else you have in mind?

I love the Googler...Rand Paul, just one of his agendas:
Last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced “The Life at Conception Act,” a personhood measure that would outlaw abortions by declaring that “human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward.” “The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress,” Paul said in a statement. Anti-abortion activists have tried to advance similar measures across the nation. ... http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...s-case-against-the-pro-life-agenda/?mobile=nc

That's funny, Mr. Paul...according to Wethepeople, you don't have an agenda that requires you to utilize an arm of the Government.

Let me guess, Mr. Paul, you're against Government only when it conflicts with your agenda.

Wethepeople 0
Beretta92fslady 1
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
What are you talking about? Have you ever heard of Farm Subsidies? Get a freaking clue. Those subsidies come from Liberal companies like Microsoft, Starbucks, etc.

You have to be joking around...it is April Fools today.

Farm subsidies are wrong. And it's not just the large corporations that pay for them we all do. Subsidizing=keeping prices high, who pays for that? It hurts the poorer the hardest, increasing the number who can't afford food so the governments answer is hand out more EBT.

Subsidizing also raises food prices because it allows inefficient bad farmers to continue farming, keeping the prices high.

The government creates more problems than it solves.....the best answer is the free market.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Farm subsidies are wrong. And it's not just the large corporations that pay for them we all do. Subsidizing=keeping prices high, who pays for that? It hurts the poorer the hardest, increasing the number who can't afford food so the governments answer is hand out more EBT.

Subsidizing also raises food prices because it allows inefficient bad farmers to continue farming, keeping the prices high.

The government creates more problems than it solves.....the best answer is the free market.

Subsidizing ought to be done away with, IMO. I say let the farmer do what he does best...grow food!--or whatever else they grow.

The Government, by indirect support from the People, does do inefficient things.

It would be cool if they had an EBT program that gave the individual the option to go work on a farm for their food. Just an idea. The poor would eat healthier, feel healthier in mind and spirit, and likely have the energy to break from the bounds of the indignity of poverty...wishful thinking I suppose.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Subsidizing ought to be done away with, IMO. I say let the farmer do what he does best...grow food!--or whatever else they grow.

The Government, by indirect support from the People, does do inefficient things.

It would be cool if they had an EBT program that gave the individual the option to go work on a farm for their food. Just an idea. The poor would eat healthier, feel healthier in mind and spirit, and likely have the energy to break from the bounds of the indignity of poverty...wishful thinking I suppose.

The government lies and twists truths to get it's support. Just look at it's huge check kiting scheme of the federal reserve. Something very illegal for us to do.

Your last sentence reminds me of an ancient Hebrew tradition found in the Old Testament. You left the edges of your fields to be gleaned by widows and fatherless children.

Providing subsidized workers to farmers would be another moral hazard, and would still subsidize farming, even if it was in a round about way.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
The government lies and twists truths to get it's support. Just look at it's huge check kiting scheme of the federal reserve. Something very illegal for us to do.

Your last sentence reminds me of an ancient Hebrew tradition found in the Old Testament. You left the edges of your fields to be gleaned by widows and fatherless children.

Providing subsidized workers to farmers would be another moral hazard, and would still subsidize farming, even if it was in a round about way.

So do individuals; so does the media. Should we do away with individuals, and the media?

Is it illegal? It may be morally wrong, but illegal...no.

Well then, it seems we are back at square one...subsidies for farmers it is. And I thought we were gong to tackle this issue, once and for all, today!
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
LOL, you crack me up. Name one politician--they span all political ideologies--that isn't out to use the Government to advance their agenda. Please, give us one example.
No mention of politicians, only liberals. Your assessment of politicians can not be refuted. This is why I refer to liberals and conservatives from a ideological perspective. Anyone who claims to be conservative and then uses government to advance their agenda is a liberal. Unless, of course, their agenda is to limit their own power, government power, that is a conservative.

I always enjoy your posts because you, without fail, display for all to read what a liberal is and what liberals desire. You make many strong arguments and your arguments enlighten me and educate me. I am a more focused conservative thanks to you.

+1 to you.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
No mention of politicians, only liberals. Your assessment of politicians can not be refuted. This is why I refer to liberals and conservatives from a ideological perspective. Anyone who claims to be conservative and then uses government to advance their agenda is a liberal. Unless, of course, their agenda is to limit their own power, government power, that is a conservative.

I always enjoy your posts because you, without fail, display for all to read what a liberal is and what liberals desire. You make many strong arguments and your arguments enlighten me and educate me. I am a more focused conservative thanks to you.

+1 to you.

If it runs for office like a politician, panders like a politician, it's a politician.

I enjoyed your second line very much; I appreciate your acknowledging that Conservative--as you define it--does not exist any place but in the mind; because once action occurs, it's no longer Conservatism. Conveniently you left yourself a bit of an out with the following line...I'm guessing because you realized you had to redeem yourself from the corner you painted yourself into. The webs we weave. The mere occurrence of being elected to office increases their power.

Please, offer me an example of a Conservative in office, right now, or that has ever existed any the office of the US Government.

I enjoy posting.

+2 to this post of yours.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
So do individuals; so does the media. Should we do away with individuals, and the media?

Is it illegal? It may be morally wrong, but illegal...no.

Well then, it seems we are back at square one...subsidies for farmers it is. And I thought we were gong to tackle this issue, once and for all, today!

Red Herring, individuals do not equate to the government.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
If it runs for office like a politician, panders like a politician, it's a politician.

I enjoyed your second line very much; I appreciate your acknowledging that Conservative--as you define it--does not exist any place but in the mind; because once action occurs, it's no longer Conservatism. Conveniently you left yourself a bit of an out with the following line...I'm guessing because you realized you had to redeem yourself from the corner you painted yourself into. The webs we weave. The mere occurrence of being elected to office increases their power.

Please, offer me an example of a Conservative in office, right now, or that has ever existed any the office of the US Government.

I enjoy posting.

+2 to this post of yours.
Uh.....ya got me on that one. I was ready to drop the names of several local, county and even a few state level vermin.

I'll just go and dunce cap.jpeg now if you don't mind. :p
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Red Herring, individuals do not equate to the government.

Not necessarily. Farmers who accept Government subsidies sure love suckling the Government teat, just like the poor...except there's one huge difference: The poor don't own farms, typically, and can't grow their own food.

I know..red herring.:rolleyes:
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Not necessarily. Farmers who accept Government subsidies sure love suckling the Government teat, just like the poor...except there's one huge difference: The poor don't own farms, typically, and can't grow their own food.

I know..red herring.:rolleyes:


Again they couldn't do that without the force of government who would kill those who refuse to pay taxes to subsidize the farmers.

The poor can grow their own food, you don't have to own a farm to do that, oh wait but they'll come and fine you and eventually kill you for growing food in your yard in many areas..........:rolleyes:

I am not sure what you are getting at since I don't think subsidies should exist, I disagree with them, but like the housing bubble, the education bubble, etc, the government creates a moral hazard that distorts the whole market, so that farmers are either forced to take subsidies, because they either won't make it because so many others will take them, or they will be killed for not taking them........
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Again they couldn't do that without the force of government who would kill those who refuse to pay taxes to subsidize the farmers.

The poor can grow their own food, you don't have to own a farm to do that, oh wait but they'll come and fine you and eventually kill you for growing food in your yard in many areas..........:rolleyes:

I am not sure what you are getting at since I don't think subsidies should exist, I disagree with them, but like the housing bubble, the education bubble, etc, the government creates a moral hazard that distorts the whole market, so that farmers are either forced to take subsidies, because they either won't make it because so many others will take them, or they will be killed for not taking them........

Come on now, let's calm down--I know, coming from me, right:rolleyes:


You are correct, 'they' couldn't do that without the force of the Government. Who would kill?---let's not go off the deep end here.

You can only grow food if you have the space to grow the food...most poor people live in the city, in apartment buildings.

Agreed, subsidies ought not exists. I'm not ever getting at anything...don't ever be looking for that in any of my posts.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
As most people use the term today, that is true. As the term would have been used 250 years ago, that is not true.

To make that distinction and to make sure that discussions don't degrade into arguments, it is best to refer to those two vastly different kinds of liberals as "progressives" and as "classical liberals." I am a conservative and a classical liberal.

I've said many times that we allow progressives an unstated victory every time we call them "liberals."

The left is bolstered by their use of the word. True liberalism – anti-authoritarianism – is an ideal and a moral high ground to which all should ascribe. Many progressives do believe they occupy this moral high ground, and rightly feel proud when someone calls them a liberal.

We should take this away from the illiberal, authoritarian left. Why allow them even a single unstated victory?

I exclusively reserve the word "liberal" for use in its proper context, consistent with its etymology, international use, and even my dictionary definition. Progressives are illiberal. Illiberalism is a scourge upon the earth.

eye95 is illiberal, too.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Why do the vast majority of liberals prefer the term "progressive." I believe that "liberal" evokes a image of a anti-liberty, anti-citizen, dope smoking, tree hugging, gun rights infringing, anti-christian who routinely drinks chai latte something-or-others. They are right.....for the most part.

The progressive moniker is used in a attempt to evoke a image of "moving forward" and other such liberal hogwash. Simple re-branding to hide who and what liberals are, nothing more. Ironically, when a progressive opens their pie-hole and starts to speak folks hear a anti-liberty, anti-citizen, dope smoking, tree hugging, gun rights infringing, anti-christian who routinely drinks chai latte something-or-others liberal speaking.
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Why do the vast majority of liberals prefer the term "progressive." I believe that "liberal" evokes a image of a anti-liberty, anti-citizen, dope smoking, tree hugging, gun rights infringing, anti-christian who routinely drinks chai latte something-or-others. They are right.....for the most part.

The progressive moniker is used in a attempt to evoke a image of "moving forward" and other such liberal hogwash. Simple re-branding to hide who and what liberals are, nothing more. Ironically, when a progressive opens their pie-hole and starts to speak folks hear a anti-liberty, anti-citizen, dope smoking, tree hugging, gun rights infringing, anti-christian who routinely drinks chai latte something-or-others liberal speaking.

There is a cafe here in Fredericksburg, VA, owned by a conservative Christian family. Said cafe serves chai latte.
 
Top