Ah, the maturity and open-mindedness of the far left....

[MattTheSkywalker]

http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4663575&postcount=3

CFZB provides another example here of the tool of "obfuscation", a common tool introduced to limit discussion away from relevant issues.

CFZB is undoubtedly being persistent in obfuscating because he wants to make the point that the political system encourages obfuscation rather than issues resolution.

 

[DJ_UFO]

CFZB provides another example here of the tool of "obfuscation", a common tool introduced to limit discussion away from relevant issues.

CFZB is undoubtedly being persistent in obfuscating because he wants to make the point that the political system encourages obfuscation rather than issues resolution.

That's characteristic in him. When he is out of arguments, and when he feels guilty, he post links to reply as an ultimate desperate action.

 

[CFZB]

That's characteristic in him. When he is out of arguments, and when he feels guilty, he post links to reply as an ultimate desperate action.

http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4663575&postcount=3

 

[-SD-]

(1) Term limits for Congressmen. Three terms, both houses.
(2) Give the president the line-item veto. This function can only be used to reduce spending; it harms no one. Create a line-item override, too.

too easy.

Ahh yes. but that would require the congressmen to enact legislation that is detrimental to each congressman's continued existance in congress. Kind of like asking a board of directors to say "yea, lets get some fresh blood in here and appoint new board of directors every X-years".
So in congresses case its a solution so good and obvious that theres no way its going to happen. Because that is the nature of government like you said.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

United, we st... ahhh fuck it.

 

[EnderJE]

I agree that liberalism has its faults for an entire society (see Canada). However, don't you think that dismissing a group of people based on a classicification of ideology is a little extreme?

I'm sure there are zealot like liberals who twist every point into their favour or throw enough stuff to confuse people. At the same time, I'm sure that there are cons who do it as well. Both sides have some problems when taken to extreme degrees.

 

[AristotleBC]

it is hard to work with anyone who clings to a belief system that is inherently person-hating. Make no mistake, liberalism is person hating. Someone like WODIN will probably come on here and say that liberals overcame decades of conservative suppression of sexuality etc., but they are wrong, those who did that were libertarians, despite their party affailitation. Today's liberalism by definition includes the concept of "wealth redistribution". This is anti-producer, and therefore person hating. You either must give up your wealth, or wait for someone else to provide for you.

Almost all of today's politicians have become liberal in this sense. Even "neo-con" (whatever that is) GW Bush authorized the highest ever federal budget and has provided more funding to Medicare and SS than any other President. he is actually seeking to expand these programs. Politics today is a game of trading voters.

Politicians almost always seek to expand government; it makes them more relevant. In order to expand government, you need a "reason". An external threat is one reason; there is a famous line from Hermann Goering about the ability to bring the will of the people to the mindset of the leader by using an external enemy. History is replete with this.

The other way to expand government is to identify problems and suggest public sector solutions. The problems do not have to be real, they just have to be perceived as real. The War on Drugs is a good example, so is Social Security, of this type of politics.

So it is not "liberals" per se that are the cause of any societal ills, rather, a government composed of individuals who, seeking to retain or expand power, consider only enlarging the government. Sadly, no one has yet found a rewind button.

There is no easy fix, but there are a few ideas that would go a long way,

(1) Term limits for Congressmen. Three terms, both houses.
(2) Give the president the line-item veto. This function can only be used to reduce spending; it harms no one. Create a line-item override, too.

too easy.

Very nice analysis.


PS to my earlier post, by lack of control of their emotional responses, (the kneejerk effect) they also respond to criticism on an emotional level. It takes a strong thinker to cut through emotionalism and maintain objectivity in the face of an emotional issue. Liberals often lack this capability.

This is a lower form of thinking btw, it is the province of animals to act on emotion and instinct, humans are different because we have the capacity to reason and be rational.

If we acted purely on an emotional level we would behave as animals.

Person hating is another very fine and accurate insight IMO.

 

[ChefWide]

PS to my earlier post, by lack of control of their emotional responses, (the kneejerk effect) they also respond to criticism on an emotional level. It takes a strong thinker to cut through emotionalism and maintain objectivity in the face of an emotional issue. Liberals often lack this capability.

Ever discuss any disenting opinion point with a member of the Young Christian Coalition? Daughters of the American Revolution? Your gross generalizations smack of the shallow mindedness that any level of extreme politics breeds. I had a number of neo-cons on this board suggest that I should be tried for treason and/or put to death because of my anti-war sentiments, and that they would be glad to supply the bullets needed to kill me. I am positive that Jersey remembers those threads. That is a prime example of (sic) 'strong thinkers cutting through emotionalism and maintaining objectivity in the face of an emsotional issue'? hmmmm....

This is a lower form of thinking btw, it is the province of animals to act on emotion and instinct, humans are different because we have the capacity to reason and be rational.

Ahhh.. so your assertation that 'Liberals' are emotional and unobjective (much like neocon freak zealots) followed by this quaint 'David Attenborough Moment' suggest what? Innane commentary like this really dillutes your message and paints you as that which you profess to despise.

If we acted purely on an emotional level we would behave as animals.

Ahhh.. that clears it all up for me...

Did you actually have a point?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Very nice analysis.


PS to my earlier post, by lack of control of their emotional responses, (the kneejerk effect) they also respond to criticism on an emotional level. It takes a strong thinker to cut through emotionalism and maintain objectivity in the face of an emotional issue. Liberals often lack this capability.

This is a lower form of thinking btw, it is the province of animals to act on emotion and instinct, humans are different because we have the capacity to reason and be rational.

If we acted purely on an emotional level we would behave as animals.

Person hating is another very fine and accurate insight IMO.

Thanks bor.

It is incredibly important to differentiate between a liberal viewpoint, statism, and politics.

A liberal viewpoint has at its heart the idea of wealth redistribution. This is what liberalism is today, period.

Statism is using the government to enforce social or economic goals. The two often go hand in hand, but not always. President Bush is a statist, so was Clinton and many others. FDR was a statist AND a liberal.

Politics today is really just the art of maintaining power, by any means necessary. Lying is really big here, so is paying people off, but the quintessential politcal maneuver is giving something to a large group at the expense of a small group.

Liberals, true liberals, hate people. Statists just want to use the state to hasten certain goals; another evil to be sure, but one that should not be combined with liberalism.

And politicians are the scumbags that use all of this shit as a smokescreen to continue enlarging the public sector at the expense of the productive private sector.

I like fish.

 

[Lumberg]

I offer up Matt the Skywalker as exhibit 1.

Constantly ragged on, poked fun at, and attacked on his ideas. I have noted zero cases of editing or post deletion, even when thet attack was particularly personal against him. He articulated his point of view, and gave back as good as he got.

The "free speech" liberals have a much less honorable record, despite hundreds of hypocritical threads to the contrary.

One example does not define an entire group of people.