Imagine an America with no Liberals...

Agricultural subsidies. Deregulation of the financial sector. Bailing out of the banks.

 

Given that much of what passes for conservative propaganda reads like satire to me, it's not necessarily easy to tell when it's serious and when it's just self-parody. Something akin to Poe's Law applies.

 

And we'd lose a lot in the exchange. LIke freedom (humans will always have differeing opinions, the only way to make everyone the same is through dictatorship). We'd loose the chance to grow and better ourselves. We'd never be ready when someone tries to conquer us or silence us.

What a waste.

 

How difficult is it to move from Xian to the US, in terms of government red tape?
How difficult is it to visit Beijing from Xian?

I am just curious if you actually believe anything you say, or if you are just being a good girl?

 

Unfortunately I don't live far enough away from Detroit to see the humor in that. Detroiters are fleeing to the suburbs, and bringing some of the city's ills with them.

 

Libs have made all American's lives SO much better over the decades that haters have long had the luxury of ignorance and convenient forgetfullness.

Get rid of all cons and watch America suddenly prosper and party down like never before!

 

Depends on your situation, but neither case is by any means harder to emigrate in China than in India.

 

Isn't that the problem? In Idaho, we're fed up with Californians who move there to get away from California, and then try to turn Idaho into another California. They are fleeing the effects of bad ideas while clinging to the very same ideas that caused the problem.

 

This thread is just too stupid for words.

 

Happens in many places. There are people in Maine who want to separate from what they call "North Massachusetts" because of similar population movement. California itself has a long history of people trying to partition that state.

 

Sorry, but Detroit's problem isn't so much liberalism or Democrats as it is decades of corruption.

 

"Sorry, but Detroit's problem isn't so much liberalism or Democrats as it is decades of corruption."

And just who is responsible for fostering and continuing that inner-city corruption?

The Democrats!



Lee Plaza Hotel Once one of the most luxurious residential hotels in Detroit, Lee Plaza closed in the 1990s.

"Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity." This is what the liberal Democrats often do when they foolishly tax and spend and drive the middle class out of the central business districts of the urban cities.. America's Beautiful, Horrible Decline courtesy of the foolish, tax and spend and very misguided liberal Democrats!

http://www.time.com/time/photogaller...850982,00.html

 

No, you really didn't. The logical conclusion would be that someone who really doesn't like liberals posted about what would happen if there weren't any.

That you saw a boogeyman who would really strip you from your home due to it is truly just an overactive imagination on your part. As tongue-in-cheek as the OP was, it limited actions taken against liberals only to providing - free of charge - an area for them to go live if they didn't feel comfy in society.

It'd be better than simply killing you as the result of a war, would it not? (if you don't want to acknowledge tongue-in-cheek, then I guess I won't either).

Yes. Remember that when you decide that increasing portions of the Constitution do not apply to you as you see fit - when others who disagree decide to object physically.

Sounds delicious. Can I have a scoop of vanilla with that?

 

Who do you blame for this, and is it applied equally to all farms?

What deregulation - specifically - do you object to? I see forced regulation via GSEs (fannie and freddie) as having wrought more damage than just about any deregulation, but I'll engage any conversation on deregulation you want to discuss...

Agreed. Which was made possible by giant sums of money illicitly collected from the American taxpayer to feed a gigantic Government - which shouldn't have had the money, nor should it have chartered the FED without direct and full control at the Congressional level.

 

Then it should apply to you as well.

 

It began with the New Deal, but it was extended via agricorporations and their influence on politicians.

ADM is a much bigger recipient of these subsidies than small farmers (who barely exist anyway).

Repealing the Glass-Steagall Act was a collossal mistake.

I'd like to get rid of the Fed too.

 

...and ended with a question of how to end liberalism, the entire post preceding that question being a suggestion of what would happen if that effort were to succeed.

Sorry, but I'm not the one who imagined sending certain groups of people to the Mojave Dessert. That was the author of the OP.

I have no reason to doubt that he and those who share his thinking would do exactly that if they had the power. I'm not inclined to ignore threats to my liberty and existence, whether the suggestion comes from someone's 'dreams' or their actual advocacy.

Then you need to re-read it. He didn't say it was liberals who'd be sent to the inhospitable environment. After all, liberals would have ceased to exist, remember?

I have no obligation to feel 'comfy' in a society that would rather be rid of me.

I'm not actually convinced that it would.

Now you're just talking crap. Nothing more to say.

 

Hence my editing the post to make clear that what I said was meant as sarcasm.

I'm not persuaded that libhater doesn't actually believe what he wrote.

 

We're in agreement - it appears the only issue is where we identify the start of it, and I identified Socialism, which epitomizes what the New Deal - and the institution of the FED as a necessary component - was about.

 

I am not so sure about the tongue in cheek scenario, esp when looking at the last paragraph...

What's more, LH is talking about getting all able bodies back to work. How?
How do we go about it, when we are bleeding jobs daily?
How do we get folks off the Gov dole, when we don't have anything to get them to?
As far as I can tell, Gov regulations aren't just a liberal invention, and neither is unfair trade.
As most scenario, it all looks great at first glance, but when you ask about the how, people are starting to stutter.

 

OP sounds pretty much like modern Iran. Relgious Totalitarianism is so much fun!

 

Simply adhering to the Constitution ends liberalism.

Not 'sending'. "Providing a place to go if they felt disenfranchised".....by all the Constitutionalism taking place.

You have exactly as much reason to believe that as Conservatives have reason to believe that if Liberals were in power.

You shouldn't ignore them. You should fight for them...and lose .

But you were the one who was saying:

...so I'm not sure why you're getting bent out of shape, as they're not supposed to be your liberties or existence.

You need to re-read it. He offered the space - for free - if that list of people didn't feel comfy.

No, you don't. Which is why he - generously - offered you a place in it regardless. Your hyperbole is directing his lampoon far afield.

Depending upon what you'd choose to do in this fictional world he dreamed up in his OP, you may get the chance to decide. I guess.

Hey...I'm just following where you're leading, and having fun with it in the process. If you're gay, you do have a right to marry: just find another person of age of the opposite sex, just like every other person in this country.

Of course, my position on the topic is far more nuanced: I believe special rules for marriage in taxation and other benefits should be stripped, and I believe that only States should have the power to decide these things, and that other States should not be obligated to respect such rules.

 

That's a very naive statement. Nevermind that people disagree about what constitutes adhering to the Constitution.

I'm so not going to play this game of "that's not what was said". "Providing a place to go" is political euphemistic double-speak for forced relocation. The whole reason it's phrased that way is for plausible deniability when called out on it later. He's not fooling me, and neither are you.

I lived through the 80s when some of the more extreme conservatives called for "quarantining" gay people to prevent the spread of HIV. So you're wrong - I have more reason to believe it from conservatives - not that I'm prepared to give liberals a pass, either.

I'm a member of more than one of his targeted groups.

There is nothing generous about offering Native Americans and gay people, etc. an inhospitable place to live in hopes that they'll die.

Pretend you're a literalist all you like. Like I said before, you're not fooling me. I think you're more than capable of reading between the lines and discerning the intent behind libhater's post.

The last part of the post asks how to make it a reality. I don't believe for one second that I'd be given a choice - and I seriously don't believe that you do either.

Not going to take your bait to argue off-topic. He didn't mention marriage. He was talking about gay people in general, not the issue of marriage.

 

Yeah: liberals. That's because they're disagreeing with the people who are correct about it.

Oh, you're already playing a game, by replacing phrases like "providing" with "sent".

You're making your own boogeyman to more easily defeat.

I'd suggest that whining about every comment that challenges your status has made you a very afraid and paranoid human being.

And in breaking news, the sky is blue.

You're doing it again, since the comment was:

How far out of your way do you have to venture to fall on swords which you placed so carefully?

I suspect you 'interpret' the Constitution similarly.

You'd better not read any fiction: you may find yourself storing up vampire anti-venom, etc.

It's not off-topic if you believe that the Constitution actually provides you the right to marry someone of the same sex - which you so clearly do.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, and that's all this is.

You're still not fooling anyone, and neither is libhater. Seriously, we're talking here about someone who chose a username that describes himself as a hater. The dots aren't that hard to connect, unless you're purposely covering your eyes so as not to see what's right in front of your face.

You're clearly choosing to just ignore the snide bit later about "How they become self sufficient in growing food in the desert will be their problem alone." Only the space will be "provided" (an inhospitable one where survival is unlikely) and then delighting in the possibility of their starvation.

I take note that he hasn't bothered to defend himself against the accusations of not-so-subtle hatred.

And I suspect you're trying to change the subject to bait me to argue off-topic. Constitutional interpretation isn't the topic of this thread. A world without liberalism (and getting rid of those libhater finds undesirable) is.

It is off-topic, you know it's off-topic, and you're still trying to get me to argue it with you anyway.

I'm not going to indulge you in such attempts, nor respond to your venomous personal attacks. Funny that you would try to defend hate with more of the same, only personalized.