Crazy liberals!
How dare you question the status quo?
How dare you have high hopes for the future of our nation?
How dare you hope for peace?
How dare you work to level the playing field for all people?
How dare you care about the least among us?
How dare you spend our taxes for the betterment of society?
How dare you NOT spend our taxes on war?
How dare you recognize the value of nations that are different from ours?
How dare you value the education of our children?
How dare you protect free speech?
How dare you interfere with our ability to get whatever information we want through whatever means necessary?
How dare you try to stem the tide of destruction that industry has released on our natural resources?
How dare you hope?
What audacity!
I know I'll get some hate mail on this one, but that's sort of the point. The above are considered liberal values, but I just consider them the decent thing to do. I've seen people get pretty heated over these very ideas, and I don't always understand the reason for the animosity.
For example (and this is just one example, and not the whole point of the blog), when did being kind to the environment become anti-Christian? I've seen so many arguments from conservative Christians that global warming is bunk, so they are going to just keep on doing what they are doing, and every time I think, regardless of what you feel about global warming, we are going to run out of oil within a few generations, so isn't it about time to start looking at alternatives? And what would be wrong with cleaner air and water in the short term?
I think we've come to a place in politics and policy-making where whatever the other guy thinks must be dismissed out of hand. Don't look at the idea's merits or potential benefit to society, because it is all about winning the fight! And in order to win, there has to be something over which to argue! I don't understand how we got so far apart from each other that we can't even agree on being nice.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
How dare you maintain the status quo?
How dare you have high hopes for the future of our empire?
(addressed below)
How dare you work to steal in order to redistribute wealth?
How dare you care about sending us all to the (State-funded) poorhouse?
How dare you spend our taxes for the buraeucratizing of society?
How dare you NOT spend our taxes on this particular war (liberals had no problem with Viet Nam or Korea)?
How dare you recognize the value of nations that are different from ours (though some are more valuable than others)?
How dare you value theft to indoctrinate children?
How dare you protect free speech for certain ideologies (if I remember correctly, anti-abortion activists can no longer protest at an effective distance from an abortion clinic)?
How dare you interfere with the Republicans' ability to get whatever information they want through whatever means necessary (but if Obama has this power, eveything's okay)?
How dare you interfere with my private property rights?
How dare you hope to control your enemies the same way they control you now?
The Soviet Union and Socialist China embody(ied) your ideals. Look how they turned out. Hitler's massacre machine (9 million killed) was dwarfed by Stalin's (~45 million). Mao made the Rape of Nanking look like child's play (estimated 50 million by some compared to a 'measley' 300,000).
Yup, "liberalism" (you stole the early libertarians' label) is looks really good.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
That guy was just braught up wrong, or took blunt force to the head.
Most(all) logical ppl think like you you're fine edible.
--
Everything, you have done, and will do, is chemically predisposed by matter, even the fact you are reading this message. You make no choices, only perceive a given reality.
Thanks for playing.
"The Soviet Union and Socialist China embody(ied) your ideals. Look how they turned out. Hitler's massacre machine (9 million killed) was dwarfed by Stalin's (~45 million). Mao made the Rape of Nanking look like child's play (estimated 50 million by some compared to a 'measley' 300,000)."
You might be interested to know that calling liberals communists is an old joke. Please, for the love of originality, find some other way to fight back.
T.k.
I called her a socialist. Read the comment again, for the love of accuracy.
Communism, actually, isn't all that bad. Just impractical, thanks to the natural lack of altruism inherent in humanity.
EDIT: At least I got an interesting discussion going....
I think we're interpreting this different ways, and I'm sorry if the error is on my part. As far as I know, Mao and Stalin were communists, which, while closer to socialism than, say, feudalism, is not quite the same thing. What did you mean?
It's a noble idea in theory, but awful in practice, like so many other things.
T.k.
Mao and Lenin, while heavy on the communist rhetoric, were dictatorial socialists (however redundant that may be). They made no steps to implement the systems they claimed to support.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They were corrupted, even if they started with good ideals.
Anyway, socialism, in my mind, is any system that has a totalitarian or authoritarian regime where individual rights are crushed underneath the boot of government coercion. All work for the government, in essence.
Communism is actually a brilliant idea, if human nature could ever be reprogrammed. Communism is at its heart anarchy with a decided humanitarian bent. All work as hard as possible for the common good and only take what they need.
Left that one backwards so you cant figure it out.
Sorry to break it to you, but you're misinformed ***, INHereant in humanity, *** there is humanity in what edible says ***
***
Tooth for a tooth makes everything hard to swallow.
Eyes for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
Have fun blindly choking.
----
Everything, you have done, and will do, is chemically predisposed by matter, even the fact you are reading this message. You make no choices, only perceive a given reality.
***[Comment Edited By engkatiemarie 11:21 PM EST March 9, 2008]
"Trad" is not a word. Originality in insults is not your forte.
I should probably stop at the fallacy, but I think I'll continue.
'Fairness and equality' cannot be given by a government, which is evil in its inception, as it is nothing but coercion and the threat of imprisonment if you don't walk its version of the straight and narrow.
If you knew me, you'd not say anything about 'money-hungry.' But right now I'm trying to pay for college, which would be helluva easier if I didn't have Feds raping my income. Most other lower middle-classers would probably agree. What was that about treading on other human beings? I'm the one being tread on, philistine.
Most of the second part of your body paragraph is incomprehensible. Perhaps if you paid attention in English class....I mean, 'ppl?' Come on. Three more keystrokes and you actually would have a word. I do believe you're attempting to create a straw man fallacy in conjunction with the ad hominem. The two go together, really.
I can, however, discern that you believe that I'm a xenophobe. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've seriously looked at your Statist religion and rejected it outright as a violation of human rights and dignity.
The first of the last two paragraphs is pure conjecture.
The last is a pitiful mantra coined by the unjust to get themselves out of restitution and to elicit pity. I spit on it with every ounce of gastric acidity I can muster. If you want a more eloquent and reasoned explanation of why I disagree, perhaps you should look into the same.
But first, take a logic class, if you can understand it. If you're lucky you might even pull off a 'C.' Won't that be nice?
You're getting dangerously close to a personal attack, ChemicalPredisposition. Actually, I think you've crossed the line. If you want to criticize Libertarianism_is_not_libertine's philosophy on the subject, don't treat Libertarianism's (too lazy to type the whole thing twice) ideas as sub-human. You need to have respect for Libertarianism's beliefs for Libertarianism to have respect for yours. Does that make sense?
Look, I'm not saying that Libertarianism's view is my view, but Libertarianism DOES bring up a few good points, as does ediblewoman. I would just like to say that a lack of respect will never sway your ideological opponents, while having respect for their beliefs and trying to get your point across through logic could.
For the constructive criticism, but I don't need the help, he's welcome to respond in the same way. I was tired and irritable at the time of writing that and a few things came out wrong there, but I was typing my mind and that will occur. I'm not all that worried about elimation for disrespect and I'm not going to be soft to him so he will be more likely to side with me. A person such as him is stuck in their unhumanitarian beliefs like every libertarian I've ever met. If you have someting to ad to the arguement (other than my tired mispellings or mistypings) feel free, but you are not yet working for this site as a social adviser and dont need to worry yourself with other peoples conduct unless it is against you.
Thanks tho
--
Everything, you have done, and will do, is chemically predisposed by matter, even the fact you are reading this message. You make no choices, only perceive a given reality.
Your original comment has been edited for TOS violations. Please refrain from continuing this thread or conversation.
Thank you,
Katie
Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
I wonder if there is a corollary for a comparison to a group whose massacre machine dwarfed the Nazis. To LINLiP's credit, they trotted this foolishness out early and disabused us of any notion of their rationality.
There is free speech, and then there is rude speech. It is legal to say the word "nigger" - but SHOULD we say it?? No. It is legal for people to yell in women's faces about their decision to abort (which, if you ever think it's an easy one, think again), but is it decent? Is it right? Is it really necessary? No - it's rude. Methinks you have been listening to Rush LImbaugh for too long, young grasshopper, because it sounds like that's where you are getting your ideas about "liberals." Talk about serious stereotypes. Holy cow.
A couple of notes:
"How dare you NOT spend our taxes on this particular war (liberals had no problem with Viet Nam or Korea)?"
Um, I have a problem with those wars. I have a problem with war.
"How dare you recognize the value of nations that are different from ours (though some are more valuable than others)?"
I really hope that you didn't mean what that sounds like you mean. Are you seriously putting the U.S. on a pedistal? Are you honestly saying that valuing nations that are different from ours is wrong? Some sort of bizarre treason? Isn't this a nation meant to embrace diversity and freedom? It sounds like you have just betrayed yourself - but I think that your statement here is very confusing and unclear.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kariskoett
"Um, I have a problem with those wars. I have a problem with war."
I applaud and wholeheartedly agree with you.
But the negative must follow.
"Methinks you have been listening to Rush LImbaugh for too long, young grasshopper"
I abhor that Statist with most every bone in my body. Incidentally, you agree with him more than you realise. It's just a matter of degree and direction. You would send soldiers to Africa while he would keep them in the Middle-East. The result is the same. More bodies, more bullets, more waste.
"I really hope that you didn't mean what that sounds like you mean. Are you seriously putting the U.S. on a pedistal? Are you honestly saying that valuing nations that are different from ours is wrong? Some sort of bizarre treason? Isn't this a nation meant to embrace diversity and freedom? It sounds like you have just betrayed yourself - but I think that your statement here is very confusing and unclear."
I apologise for the perceived lack of clarity. The idea was to show that the politicians you elect show the same favoritism with regards to foreign policy. Must kiss Arabia's ass to keep the oil flowing (Nevermind the blatent human rights violations inherent in its outmoded feudal system), but must sanction Iran because they're so obviously evil. Must bow to Europe (though they've started both world wars). Must hate China (though they have a smaller proportion of their population in prison).
On another note: The united States don't need me to put them on a pedestal. They've done that themselves. The pedestal ain't as shiny as they think, neither.
As for the first paragraph, rudeness does not concern me. I don't particularly give a darn if you call me 'whitey,' 'cracker,' 'spic,' or what have you. Rudeness, however, does have its place. Showing corpses from Darfur can hardly be construed as polite. But how else can you shock a population into action?
That's all the time I have, but I look forward to your response.
Still... you assume too much.
For one, we don't need to get into a discussion about Rush Limbaugh. We both dislike him, that much is clear. But don't assume that you know what I would have our country do in terms of war or soldiers. Faith and politics are similar in this way: there are big titles, but doctrines and practices generally vary from person to person. To assume that I would have soldiers sent to Africa instead of relief (such as to the refugee camps) is a huge assumption. However I do believe that there is blatent hypocrisy in our government to send soldiers to only particular countries that are economically beneficial to our own - but I think that you have said something like that already.
For two, rudeness is a very different concept from - what should we call it? - reality, or saying that truth which needs to be said. Showing bodies from Darfur, for example, would not fall under the category of "rude." It is a necessary truth to know. Throwing racial and gender slurs is, in contrast, rude and untrue, therefore unneeded. You may not care if someone calls you a cracker in public, but that doesn't mean calling someone else a name under the same terms is not offensive to them. You are not alone in this world, your opinions are not the only ones that matter and are just that, opinions, and your feelings about how other people treat you are not universal to everyone else. Out of whatever human decency exists still in this world, please get over yourself on that matter and be considerate of how your words affect other people. Whether you like it or not, or mean for them to or not, they do; words are powerful. Moving on. Some truth does not need to be said out loud, such as calling someone on their weight or how they look; that would also be considered rude. Educating the public, reglardless of how gruesome it is or how hard it is to realize, is not rude. I doubt it happens nearly enough.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kariskoett
"All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else."
-Buddha
"But don't assume that you know what I would have our country do in terms of war or soldiers."
That I will concede. You did say that you oppose war, and for my assumption I apologise.
"For two, rudeness is a very different concept from - what should we call it? - reality, or saying that truth which needs to be said."
Regardless of our thoughts on rudeness, it's not the government's job to regulate speech in any form. I don't disagree, however, that racial slurs are wasted breath. Showing bodies would be in the same governmental power as other forms of speech, which is to say not at all.
"Out of whatever human decency exists still in this world, please get over yourself on that matter and be considerate of how your words affect other people."
I try.
"liberals had no problem with Viet Nam or Korea"
True progressives did. LBJ didn't. Read the writing on the walls of 1968. Please avoid the assertion.
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
So sorry that libertarians are still considered "too radical" to get a viable presidential candidate into the mass media (internet aside, thank you Ron Paul). It's either be liberal and an optimist, be conservative and a bigot, or generally be invisible politically. I'm currently invisible, but I respect the optimism of some the way that I respect the religion of others. Just because I'm a nihilist doesn't give me a right to deny others belief in life having meaning any more than being an invisible political would-be-revolutionary-if-I-could-make-revoltion-without-
mass-bloodshed means I can deny those who truly believe in the good-looking ideas Obama seems to support the belief that those good-seeming ideas might be put into action.
I'd be much obliged if you could sound a bit less like an arrogant malcontent, and more like a civil human being. Perhaps something along the lines of "Apparently good ideas, but being a 'liberal' is the wrong means by which to achieve them." Or just rant about and/or postulate genuine fixes for the current corrupt system.
Otherwise, you are merely angry noise, doomed to be ignored because you offend. You are not so invisible as I am, but the smear you leave behind is more eagerly ignored or gotten rid of than my more approachable transparency.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
edible woman....clap, clap, clap, clap
what about this one
How dare you not agree with Bill O'Rielly, or Ann Coulter?....lol
You sound like my father! Bill O'Reilly is the only news he gets.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
The reason people get so heated over things like this is exactly what you say in your blog...It is the decent thing to do. Unfortunately we see many conservatives not doing this though, thus they become liberal values. If everyone would do what is "decent" , or at least the contenders for power over the country, there wouldn't be this huge problem.
....they stop being decent when a person can't opt out. Helping the poor is great, but only when I willingly contribute through a charity. Putting a gun to my head and taking my money, even to feed a starving orphan, is ignoble in the greatest degree.
The thing is, there are those of us who recognize that not one of us is a completely singular entity. We rely on the labor of others for our food, clothing, housing, etc. Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of human beings do not thrive without other human beings around. We call that community. And when one member of the community is having a hard time getting the resources they need to survive there are those of us who believe that they should not have to wait while a pending willing contribution is dangled in front of their face. And until one can say that one has completely separated oneself out and needs no help from any other human being to survive, there are those of us who believe that one is thus obligated to give back to a community that one has taken from.
And I prefer hippie, not commie.
Basically, you say I signed a 'social contract' by simply existing in my culture, something I could help and at this time cannot change. I am stuck as part of the hive.
What exactly do I 'take' from a community if I work, interact amiably with my neighbors, donate to charities, and generally try to get along in the world? I do plenty for others and simply demand that they don't take what I've earned.
I don't call people communists. Read the post. Mao and Stalin were socialists. Communism is a form of anarchy. No coercive institution (known as "government") required.
"What exactly do I 'take' from a community... I do plenty for others and simply demand that they don't take what I've earned."
Honestly? You're being serious?
Everyone is a taker at some point, even if it is simply time and natural resources. Humans are takers. We are givers, too, but sometimes we are just at a point where we need to be just takers. So perhaps now is not necessarily your time to be entirely a taker, but that day may come. It would be unfortunate if your whole community had your mindset of, "What do I owe THAT extremely needy person who put themselves in that low position all on their own?" It isn't a matter of trade-offs; we're not talking about a product that you can buy and sell. Service is not a currency. What you earn invariably costs someone else something more than you can give. So until you can really pay off what you take, I don't think that anyone, including me, can ever have the right to make cop-out statements like that one. I'm not one to steal from the rich to give to the poor, and I don't necessarily think that sacrificing the upper-class is the answer, but no one really pays wholly for what they own. Do you really know what it cost to make the clothes and shoes you are wearing? or the computer that you are using? or the food that you eat? What human being doesn't have a natural right to community? I get that there are extreme takers out there, people that refuse to give back, but I think you will find that they are not as common among the poor as you would like to believe.
Oy, I hate money.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kariskoett
"What do I owe THAT extremely needy person who put themselves in that low position all on their own?"
Compassion breeds charity. Fortunately, I don't deal with needy people on a strictly business basis. I don't want other people taking control of my propert (money) and distributing it as they see fit, but first taking a cut for themselves.
Just a note: I don't necessarily believe that the poor are all takers that refuse to 'give back.' But your insinuation is irrelevant. I'm not a Republican and don't believe their tax-and-spend-elsewhere rhetoric.
"Service is not a currency."
Currency is 'stored' labor. Service is definitely a currency. Ever broken a person's window and worked to pay him back? When you get a job, you trade labor (your commodity) for money (the employer's commodity).
"What human being doesn't have a natural right to community?"
I put more store in the right to be left alone ('privacy,' as left-wingers put it) and free association. Your 'community' would be, in essence, busybodies pushing into someone's life and violating his right to privacy.
You assume too much.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kariskoett
And that is inadequate.
"Putting a gun to my head and taking my money..."
Sucks to be you. They just sent me my tax forms in the mail.
See where that gets you.
You could always go off the grid?
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I need Social Security papers, birth certificate papers, driver's license papers, etc. to do anything in this country, including to leave it.
Most every other place on earth is worse, though. To live in my ideal political environment I'd have to go to Iceland, ~300 A.D. Wish me luck getting there.
I hate the cold anyway.
They do have those lovely hot springs, though! I wouldn't mind being off the grid in Iceland.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
"Try not filing sometime."
Tried that. It got me more mail from them. Eventually it would have gotten me a judgment lien on my house. Lucky for me, my winning personality is very disarming and keeps them from putting a gun to my head.
Actually, I have been on the wrong end of the barrel of a gun before. It's nothing like paying taxes. But I'll quit teasing about the gun comment -- it was obviously just a bit of hyperbole, which I've been known to resort to myself when my argument was similarly unpersuasive and untenable.
When you actually feel like arguing the point, let me know.
"Actually, I have been on the wrong end of the barrel of a gun before. It's nothing like paying taxes. But I'll quit teasing about the gun comment -- it was obviously just a bit of hyperbole, which I've been known to resort to myself when my argument was similarly unpersuasive and untenable."
Tell them in your most 'winning' and 'disarming' way that you are not going to pay, and you will be at the wrong end of more guns than ever before.
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.
I think the disarming part was a pun.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
"Tell them in your most 'winning' and 'disarming' way that you are not going to pay, and you will be at the wrong end of more guns than ever before."
No, I won't. I'll have a tax lien on my house. Truly, a fact IS always better than an ideal.
"I'll have a tax lien on my house."
Refuse to pay the lien, or surrender the house. Now tell me what the man putting the cuffs on you has attached to the side of his belt?
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
The liens expire after 10 years, unless the government renews them. Remarkably enough, they rarely do this. Generally the liens go unenforced for 10 years, then they go away. Apparently the government lacks the will to go vigorously after non-payers, probably for a number of reasons, including the great expense of foreclosing on a property, the typical lack of equity in a home 'owned' by someone unable or unwilling to pay their taxes (i.e. the money from the foreclosure sale goes to the bank with the mortgage, not the government), the harmful effect to the public good to reduce homeownership, the potential public/voter backlash over such heavy-handed collection efforts, etc. So the reality is far different from the dystopian image you are promulgating. Sure, the government could theoretically get more aggressive, but I'm more interested in the truth of what actually goes on. Again, a fact is always better than an ideal.
"For each year a taxpayer willfully fails to timely file an income tax return, the taxpayer can be sentenced to one year in prison.[39] In general, there is a six-year statute of limitations for with respect to Federal tax crimes.[40]"
"The statute is Internal Revenue Code section 7201:
Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.[27] "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasion
http://www.gnn.tv/threads/25878/Couple_refuse_to_pay_taxes_get_5_years
2,000/year is about the average
http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=108792,00.html
They don't want to shoot you, they just want the money. You can avoid force by obeying your civil masters. If you choose to disobey is what we are discussing.
Connect the lip service to facts with links where someone just refused to pay them, then had a lien 'expire' after ten years without being coerced. Even one such case would open my eyes to the reality to which you refer. In the country I live in you knuckle under or they knuckle you by force.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Rabid squirrel. What does that say about you?
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
"Rabid squirrel. What does that say about you?"
It says that I like the cookie.
The wiser course is to think of others also when pursuing our own happiness. This will lead to what I call "wise self-interest," which hopefully will transform itself into "comprised self-interest," or better still, "mutual interest."
--The Dalai Lama
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
.The wiser course is to think of others also when pursuing our own happiness. This will lead to what I call "wise self-interest," which hopefully will transform itself into "comprised self-interest," or better still, "mutual interest."
--The Dalai Lama.
See but this quote doesn't apply to the liberal-conservative argument. Thinking of others in ones personal life is not the same as the government telling someone to do it. It does not even lead to happiness because you don't get the realization that helping others is fundamental to your own happiness, because you are only doing what is required by law. I mean, if you don't give what you can afford, I don't believe you can call yourself a decent person. I completely believe in charity. If a homeless dude asks me for change, I give it to him if I can. Maybe I'm helping him buy crack, but, I don't care, because I'd rather risk helping someone buy crack than risk denying someone a meal. But I don't believe in the government doing this kind of thing for me. Nobody can call me selfish for this.
You're right-- This quote transcends American politics completely. But I do think it makes a right turn and circles back to the blog's discussion.
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
Personally I find it hilarious when people try to insult others by calling them "liberals".
---------------------------------------------------
Please see my recent blog post, "Genocide and Student Activism": http://www.progressiveu.org/041447-genocide-and-student-activism
My dad does that, and I always tell him that it is only an insult to people like him, so I hope he's getting everything he needs out of calling people that, because it doesn't really hurt them (us) or serve any purpose other than to affirm their (our) position and increase the divide.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
First... let me say that I am the anti-Liberal.
I believe in smaller government, privately funded organizations that are better at distributing money and identifying those who need it (because clearly the government is extremely inept at this, judging by the amount of money alloted to social welfare and the amount that actually makes it to the intended recipients), abolition of the welfare program, a lower flat tax or no tax with a sliding scale federal tax rate, think anthropogenic global warming is a crock, and, above all else, I think universal health care is the stupidest idea upon this earth.
But... I am also not a conservative...
I support gay marriage (ect.), am a devoted agnostic who thinks all religious zealots are either complete idiots or disgusting manipulators, don't agree with workfare, support a woman's right to abortion if she so chooses, obsessively support local and sustainable farming, and I want to see us eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels within the next two decades.
I believe that's considered a radical.
I don't think it's fair to ridicule conservatives or liberals... but I reserve the right to mock both at will. : )
The word "radical" must be read like a surfer dude.
Sorry that doesn't address your point at all. It's not that kind of a day, I guess. Too much homework.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I don't think I really had a point... honestly it just ended up as a ramble about my political beliefs and how it's "ok" to not be a liberal OR a conservative.
"Progressive" is not synonymous with "Liberal." <---- That was more my point.
But did I give the impression I was saying otherwise in my post? That was not my intention, if I did.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
This post was very contradictory... it started out as an attack on conservatives and ended with a plea to "play nice in the sandbox." I'm not sure you'll get a lot of people to start making nicey-nice when you start out by mocking their ideals.
But the intention was to highlight the exact animosity that I was talking about. I did so using my liberal ideals, because I felt it was better than using someone else's political beliefs as the vehicle. The point is, I know what I believe and why I believe it, I know what the other major party believes, and somewhat why they believe it. I don't know why some of the liberal ideals inspire such anger. They don't seem to be anger-making ideals to me.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Personally, the very thought of universal health care makes my blood boil. I will not pay for a system that kills. (My mother has brain cancer... but that's another story for another day.)
For most people, it's a personal thing. For example, most conservatives and liberals grew up in a conservative or liberal household, respectively. When you carry those ideas and beliefs around your whole life, it's kind of hard to let go; especially because somebody telling you it's wrong means they are saying that your parents were wrong, or the people you admired as a child were wrong. People just do not like to have their bubble popped; it's human nature.
I'd like to hear that story sometime.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I've been putting off blogging about it because I don't want to sound like a pity case.
"Personally, the very thought of universal health care makes my blood boil. I will not pay for a system that kills. "
It sounds like you have a very precise personal definition of 'universal health care', but it is actually a very broad, vague term. Universal health care can simply mean a program to make sure everyone has health insurance, and everything is still privately owned and privately run. Many people have gotten the mistaken impression, however, that 'universal health care' is synonymous with 'socialized medicine', in which medicine is for the most part state run. Most people I know who adamantly oppose universal health care hold this notion. I don't know what your own reasons are, but I wanted to point out the potential mix-up so you didn't condemn one form of health care when you actually meant to be condemning another.
Personally, I would have trouble being against the goal of everyone receiving health care (i.e. universal health care). Sure, there could be bad ways of accomplishing that goal, but I'd prefer to have the 275 million people of this country devote themselves to creating a profoundly improved system in which everyone can receive care than to resign ourselves to the catastrophically bad system we have now. (And for anyone reacting, "That's b.s. -- we have the best medical system in the world": That's empirically untrue by just about any measure, except perhaps by level of medical technology, which is pretty meaningless compared to the larger question of "How healthy are our people?")
I think you are the one who doesn't realize - Universal Health Care means you have no control over your own medical care.
There are other ways of aiding those citizens here in the United States who are lacking health care, and desire to have it. Hybrid programs that allow the opportunity for people to invest in their own program in addition, rather than being forced into a public program with a low quality of care and extremely slow response times. UHC eliminates the need for personal responsibility in health.
Those who support the destruction of the greatest medical care in the world - right here in the US - really have it wrong. We can give health care to the people who don't have it - and still maintain the private system that advances our technology and drugs to the point where people flock here for care.
Your initial post discussed "universal health care", but now you are discussing "Universal Health Care". Perhaps the proper noun you just introduced to the discussion is referring to some particular program or legislation of which I am unaware. To my knowledge, no such thing as "Universal Health Care" exists, only universal health care. Regardless, your first post was about the latter, which is what I was responding to.
Universal health care systems exist in several parts of the world already, and there are, as you know, initiatives trying to bring the same thing to the U.S. About the only trait all these programs share is the attempt to make sure everyone receives adequate health care. The way they accomplish this can take any form, so broad claims about the negative effects of universal health care -- absent any details of the particular program -- are inappropriate. In fact, what you seem to be describing as your ideal system is not at all incompatible with the ideal of universal health care. It may not be compatible with "Universal Health Care", whatever that is, but again, that's not what was being discussed.
Ugh.... now you are just spewing rhetoric instead of responding.
*throws hands up in the air*
Just read my blog on the subject. You'll benefit more from that than furthering this discussion through comments.
http://www.progressiveu.org/102850-universal-healthcare-is-a-sham
http://studentnewsdaily.com/conservative_vs_liberal_beliefs.shtml
I'm thinking the bias on the site I'm citing is a bit conservative, but I feel that both sides of the debate should be placed "side-by-each and parallel," as my mother would say. Yes, I agree with what edible woman says, but I also agree with a little of the criticism she received from Libertarianism_is_not_libertine.
When ediblewoman says "I think we've come to a place in politics and policy-making where whatever the other guy thinks must be dismissed out of hand. Don't look at the idea's merits or potential benefit to society, because it is all about winning the fight! And in order to win, there has to be something over which to argue! I don't understand how we got so far apart from each other that we can't even agree on being nice," it should go without saying that a reasonable debate taking BOTH belief systems into account should be brought to the fore. I hate to break it to you, edible, but you've done exactly what you criticize. You present the liberal views as the ABSOLUTE EPITOME of what is the right thing to do, while disregarding the fact that there are some conservative beliefs that are also good.
Heck, sometimes there are cross-overs of beliefs, as shown in the StudentNewsDaily.com breakdown of the political beliefs of the two ideological powerhouses in American politics. According to SND, Conservatives are "wary of parts of the Patriot Act," which liberals flat-out oppose. Both liberals and conservatives like the idea of LEGAL immigration, but oppose ILLEGAL immigration. They do, I'll admit, have much different ideas about how to DEAL with illegal immigration, but they do agree on the problem.
Do not think I'm some straight-laced conservative trying to teach you that big business is more important than equality. I'm actually very liberal, personally. I just don't like attacking belief systems based solely on biases. Let's just say that discrimination is the dirtiest word I know.
I said that I consider them to be the right thing to do. That's far from absolutism. I also said that I don't understand the animosity, which was an invitation for others to explain it, I was hoping without animosity. I didn't put a question mark at the end of it, so I think the central question of the post has been missed by a lot of readers. It could have been clearer, I admit.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I guess what I was trying to say is that you showed ONLY the positive aspects of liberalism and only a few negative views of some conservatives, so that your bias seems a little bit more pronounced than your query calls for. If you want to ask about the animousity, it helps if you show both sides in a good light.
One of the ideas most dangerous to our freedom is the polarity our two party rulers try to sell us at every election.
If you agree with every plank in either of the Republican or Democrat party platforms you are a sucker. First of all you are letting someone else think for you, Second you are missing the fact that there is almost no difference except talking in how the two parties act.
Look at your list:
How dare you question the status quo? Neither
How dare you have high hopes for the future of our nation? Both
How dare you hope for peace? Both
How dare you work to level the playing field for all people? Both
How dare you care about the least among us? Both, but only to get elected.
How dare you spend our taxes for the betterment of society? Democrat (and they want to do A LOT more of it)
How dare you NOT spend our taxes on war? Neither
How dare you recognize the value of nations that are different from ours? Neither
How dare you value the education of our children? Both
How dare you protect free speech? Republican ('fairness doctrine"?)
How dare you interfere with our ability to get whatever information we want through whatever means necessary? Both
How dare you try to stem the tide of destruction that industry has released on our natural resources? Neither (90% of donations for both parties come from the same poluters)
How dare you hope? Both
If you think even a small part of these are 'liberal' and not 'conservative' you have already been divided. Conquored comes next.
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.