The Problem With Liberals in 5 Cogent sentences:

liberals hate themselves.

 

You are correct, mikezila.

"The progressive, therefore, is a self-appointed social redeemer, leading a movement to destroy his own society and liberate the masses."

Check this out.

 

James, I'm sorry, but that's not only borderline delusional, it's downright offensive. Who exactly do you think is "weeping" for bin Laden? Show me this supposed liberal deification of bin Laden. Characterizing him as a "secular deity" is just plain bizarre. I'm sure if you had called him that to his face, he'd have killed you on the spot. Literally - I'm quite sure he'd have seen it as rather extreme blasphemey.

This load of garbage is a blatant example of demonizing your political opponents of the worst sort, and could easily be seen as a call for violence against liberals. You should be ashamed to have not instantly dismissed it on coming across it, to say nothing of repeating it.

However, as even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut, there is a nugget of truth buried in this load of BS, and it needs to be addressed.

Characterizing all liberal ideas as being rooted solely in moral superiority, emotional gratification, and personal identity is simply laughable. However, it is true that there are some ideologues on the left that are like that. The thing is that ideologues on the right are the exact same way. In point of fact, this describes all ideologues quite well, no matter what their politics. Regardless of the ideas on which it is based, all ideology comes down to essentially the same thing: "We're Right and everyone else is Wrong, so we're better then everyone else." And it is a frighteningly short step from there to adding, "And therefore we are morally justified in whatever we chose to do to everyone else." This is why ideology - all ideology - is so dangerous and destructive. This why you can find ideological regimes based on radically different ideas acting in virtually the same way. From assorted theocracies to Nazi Germany to Stalinist Russia to even the darkest days of the French Revolution, you see the exact same sorts of behavior time and time again.

 

Did you mean "welfare is capitalism"? Capitalism is a social system with no welfare or public ownership of anything. Welfare payments require theft of one man's income or property for the benefit of the unearned. This abrogates the rights a government under capitalism is charged with preserving.

 

So I trust that as a good capitalist, you'll be refusing to take Social Security and Medicare when you retire? That you'll be telling FEMA to get lost should a disaster strike your home? That you'll be saying thanks but no thanks to unemployment should you lose your job? That you'll dutifully starve should you become disabled?

Paying taxes to support the social safety net is really no different then paying insurance premiums. You're buying a service that just so happens to be provided by the government.

Taxes are the price of living in a civilized society, and yet it still amazes me how so many people seem to feel entitled to the benefits of that society without having to pay for it. The real theft here is when certain people avail themselves of the social infrastructure that generations have labored to build up while at the same time doing their very best to weasel out of having to contribute to maintain it.

 

I'll take all the social security that is coming to me. Is this a problem? I did pay the FICA tax during my working life. Am I not entitled to recover the income looted from my paycheck? Incidentally, all I did in my reply was identify what capitalism is and here you are asking me what I will do about any benefits I may be eligible for. What's the point?

 

My point is that if someone steals from you, are you then entitled to turn around and steal from someone else?

If you really believe that taxation to pay for the social safety net is a form of theft, then accepting benefits from the social safety net is knowingly participating in that theft. That would make you a thief and a criminal by your own logic. Of course the alternative is to admit that you're just whining about having to pay your share of taxes, which merely makes you guilty of hypocrisy.

So which are you, a thief or a hypocrite?

 

Liberals are both. What's shockingly immoral about the Left is that the very ones that pay into the system to cover benefits are never themselves eligible for them. We pay for things we'll never benefit from and the Left sees no problem with this. The American left commits the sins of greed, envy, and coveteousness with their politics of stealing from some to give to others. It is neither a Christian value nor a moral value in any sense.

 

Well considering the richest keep getting richer and big huge corporate titans are doing better than ever before, it looks like people who supposedly want the wealthy to cease existence aren't getting their way, unlike what people who rail against Obama consistently say. In fact, Obama is extending tax cuts for the rich!!!

Not that I'm in support of Obama or any other puppet politician.

 

So you stand for nothing. You just stand in the sidelines and throw popcorn at the parade. When you die, you won't have made one bit of difference in this world. Is that what you're saying?

 

ummm....no?

I stand for people not being taken advantage of, by either force or economic indirect influence.

 

First...sorry I didn't check this earlier...

No I haven't...because I believe it only makes sense to:
A. Have a uniform national agenda for education.
B. Same goes for Healthcare.

This idea that each state should be responsible for such things is...like a fart in a wind storm IMO. It would make moving about the country unnecessarily more complicated and it would make education of kids...different depending on where they live? Does that make any sense to anyone?

The US military is INSANELY HUGE!!! Especially when you consider the perceived enemy...

The Patriot Act is a blatant infringement on these precious liberties and freedoms I hear being howled about all the time.

I do indeed. Which is why I think twice the casholla should be spent. This can be done with just a little work on entitlements and other spending...like the military.

The we agree. The Clinton tax rates should be imposed on all. But keeping the rates where they are now is just silly.

 

Really? Well that's interesting.
Maybe you should explain this to you cohort here...

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...10-why-democrats-arent-winning-elections.html

Gee...Guess you got screwed. How's that taste?

 

Really? So you're never going to retire? You're never going to turn 66? There is absolutely no possibility you could ever lose your job? You're immune to natural disasters? You have some sort of divine protection against financial ruin? Being injured or disabled could never happen to you?

Just how short sighted are you, anyway?

 

Ask everyone in my age demographic or younger if they think SS will be there for them when they retire. Resounding no. Yet we are forced to "contribute" to it to support current seniors because it's a massive PONZI SCHEME.

I'm actually one of the responsible ones. I have a savings account with plenty of money in it.

You are a typical left wing hack. You think that just because we don't want unrestrained entitlements that we don't want government intervention ever. That's ridiculous and no conservative believes it. But it's a fairy tale that the wacky *******ocracy tells themselves about conservatives.

 

REALLY? NOT CHRISTIAN???
Let's all get this straight...you're saying that taking something from those who have more than they need...and giving it to those who have nothing...is NOT CHRISTIAN???

I think you should read the following my good CHRISTIAN!
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job 31:13-28;&version=NASB;

Have a warm and fuzzy day...

 

That's precisely what I'm saying. You score no points in heaven for reaching into other pockets to help the poor. Your "good" deed is cancelled out by your theft. Those who stand before the judgement seat of Christ having only voted democrat and supported government programs are going to find their "good works" burning up like so much straw. You don't get to decide that somebody has more than they need and can afford for you to steal from them. That's precisely how burglars justify their actions to themselves. In the end, liberalism is based on the nonchristian vices of avarice and coveteousness and they are in danger of hellfire.

 

Say What???

This drivel would be hilarious...were it not so bloody closed-minded and soul-less.

But hey "good Christian", keep it up. One day, you too will have a nice chat with good ol' Peter...after which...I believe there is a nice worm condo waiting for ya way down south.

 

Well, if the Republicans have their way, Social Security will most certainly not be there for anyone, since they've been trying to undermine it pretty much since the day it was passed. Saying that a program should be junked because it's in danger of collapse when the danger exists because you are actively trying to bring about that collapse is not a valid argument. It just isn't.

And I do wish folks wouldn't use "SS" to mean Social Security. That particular acronym has some rather unfortunate associations.

Good for you, that's very admirable. But you're assuming that you'll be able to find another job in a fairly short amount of time. How long have some people been out of work because of this recession? So what happens when your savings account runs dry?

You're right, it is ridiculous. And I sincerely hope you're right that conservatives don't actually believe it. However, I would point out that disability benefits are provided by Social Security, and that people faced with financial ruin would turn to things like unemployment benefits, food stamps, or welfare. Aren't those the very programs you were just railing against? I've even heard some conservatives going on about FEMA.

If conservatives want to offer constructive proposals to reform the various benefits programs, that'd be great and I'd look forward to that discussion. Things like ways to help the unemployed get back to work are ideas that we can all get behind. But that's not what I'm hearing in the current political climate. All I'm hearing is how horrible entitlements are, and let's just get rid of them all, because everything that government does is inherently evil. I for one would be much happier talking about realistic proposals that don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

Who are you to determine if someone has more than they so-call need? The people who are rich and are Christian give way more to charities of their choosing than does some government who takes that money at the point of a gun. There is nothing Christian in stealing someone else's money.

 

Actually, it's socialism. Communism is something different entirely.

 

I am VERY skeptical that the five best sentences ever written would be written by some guy on a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty internet forum. If they are so wonderful and enlightening why has the author of them submitted them to a more reputable source than this forum? No, these sentences are NOT the best sentences I have ever read, not even close.

 

None of that is true. What "faith"? I have no faith in any politician, especially not Obama. They're just people, stupid people for the most part. (*)(*)(*)(*) em.

 

Those are the 5 best reasons why "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" does not work in reality. But when people are emotionally tied up in an ideology, no amount of logic, reason, or evidence will separate them from it. They are married to it, and they will die for it.

In short, commies will be commies.

 

LOL Haven't you noticed that far too many people use labels like communist, socialist, progressive, and even nazi simply to mean anyone they don't like? Half the time when labels like that are used, the user pretty cleary has no idea what the terms actually mean, and is even more clearly blissfully unaware that there's any distinction between them.