Liberalism

[kipper456]

Why is being a liberal in America always seen as bad

considering the amount of times you guys use the word liberty in pretty much EVERYTHING remotely linked with your history

[JoS]

It would help if Americans in general, and many of the users on here knew what a liberal actually was.

[kraor024]

Most people confuse Liberal with Democrat & liberals tend not to trust the government which is considered "unpatriotic"

[GrammerNaziElite]

Because every single Liberal is a Communist.

Yup.

Sarcasm.

[mrhardrock]

because liberals always want to change everything even if it is good and want to raise taxes and stuff like that which is wat i say because i am strongly conservative as u can tell problly but a lot of people associate liberals with hippies which smoke pot, hate the government, and stuff like that that society doesnt like which is y both conservatives and general people hate liberals

[Saruman200]

At 9/23/08 10:08 PM, mrhardrock wrote: because liberals always want to change everything even if it is good

Uh, where'd you come to this conclusion. Show me an example of how liberals want to change "everything".

and want to raise taxes and stuff like that which is wat i say because i am strongly conservative as u can tell problly but a lot of people associate liberals with hippies which smoke pot, hate the government, and stuff like that that society doesnt like which is y both conservatives and general people hate liberals

Bull, there are more liberal Democrats in the United States then there are conservative Republicans. "People in general" don't hate liberals any more than they hate conservatives. So basically your justifying your hatred with the idea that you are believe liberals are hippies who smoke pot and hate the government, an obviously untrue stereotype and generalization? Logic fail...

You people don't seem to understand the point of this post. The Democratic Party of the United States is not really "liberal", it is "progressive", if we are using the actual definitions of those words. A more "liberal" political party would be the Libertarian Party of the United States. Liberal is just a term that's entered popular usage to refer to people on the left of the political spectrum. While I refer to those on the left as "liberals" in reality that is incorrect. But I hate getting tied up in linguistic, hence why I don't really care if I call people on the left "liberals".

[MultiCanimefan]

Conservatives are drunk on their own Testosterone and Liberals are high. That should pretty much cover the stereotypes.

[MortifiedPenguins]

Because for most of history, liberalism was something that I would have supported. A republican or non centralized government, rights of man, free market.

[Ship]

At 9/23/08 10:28 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Conservatives are drunk on their own Testosterone and Liberals are high. That should pretty much cover the stereotypes.

What about libertarians?

[MultiCanimefan]

At 9/23/08 10:37 PM, Ship wrote:

At 9/23/08 10:28 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Conservatives are drunk on their own Testosterone and Liberals are high. That should pretty much cover the stereotypes.

What about libertarians?

I was focusing mainly on Liberals and Conservatives, but I don't know exactly a Libertarian's beliefs without going to Wikipedia which, on this issue, I'm hesitant to trust.

[fli]

At 9/23/08 09:03 PM, kraor024 wrote: Most people confuse Liberal with Democrat & liberals tend not to trust the government which is considered "unpatriotic"

I'm not sure if you're understanding this correct, but...
If anything, Liberal would "trust" the government more since they're more for the government taking role into life.

But trusting someone is a highly individual characterstic, so let's not use that word anymore.

Republicans, on the other hand, would like the government takes less active stance to many things.
For example, let's take healt care.

Republicans would say, "People pay for what they get. Let them pay individually. Let's leave out the government."

Democratic approach: "Let's try to socialize some aspects of health care in a way that everyone can pay, and everyone can receieve."

[Proteas]

At 9/23/08 11:25 PM, fli wrote: Democratic approach: "Let's try to socialize some aspects of health care in a way that everyone can pay, and everyone can receieve."

That, and...

- approving minors to have abortions without parental consent,
- lowering the drinking age and repealing the drug laws regardless to fit European standards while ignoring the rampant substance abuse problems in this country
- helping out in every humanitarian crisis no matter how piddly when we're considered "sticking our nose in somebody else's" business when it doesn't fit their viewpoint
- taxing the SHIT out of anyone who manages to make something of themselves financially because it's not fair to everyone else
- repealing gun ownership laws because guns somehow magically sprout legs and start firing at random people on their own
- absolving people of all personal responsibility for any action that might be remotely influenced by society or their upbringing
- refusing to discipline their kids in a manner appropriate for their behavior IF they discipline at all

.... did I miss anything?

[Coherent]

At 9/24/08 12:18 AM, Proteas wrote: - approving minors to have abortions without parental consent,

What's wrong with this? Even notifying parents of an abortion might pressure the poor kid to not report the pregnancy to anyone, which reduces the chance of a safe delivery.

- lowering the drinking age and repealing the drug laws regardless to fit European standards while ignoring the rampant substance abuse problems in this country

I don't see what's wrong with this either. What someone puts in their own body is their business. besides, drug laws dont really stop use (as demonstrated by the prohibition in the 1920's), all they really do is create black markets for drugs which then in turn fund more organized crime.

- helping out in every humanitarian crisis no matter how piddly when we're considered "sticking our nose in somebody else's" business when it doesn't fit their viewpoint

From what I've heard, the US gives a relatively low amount of humanatarian aid to other countries. That is, when you compare the amount given to the amount the US has.

- taxing the SHIT out of anyone who manages to make something of themselves financially because it's not fair to everyone else

We could argue for hours about why the rich become rich. But for the purposes of this argument, I'll just say it's not as simple as you're trying to portray it to be: The rich are able to make more of themselves because they have better oppurtunities than most people do. I would argue that most of them are born into their wealth.

- repealing gun ownership laws because guns somehow magically sprout legs and start firing at random people on their own

While I myself am against banning guns, I think this is a poor argument. Maybe it is true that guns don't kill people, but the vast majority of murders in this country are what we call "crimes of passion". What this means is that the murder was committed in the heat of the moment, and was not premeditated. So one could make the argument that if the killer had not had access to the gun, that the crime would have never happened.

- absolving people of all personal responsibility for any action that might be remotely influenced by society or their upbringing

I'm not sure I agree with you on this. I consider myself a more moderate liberal, but I don't think someone is immediately excused from taking responsibility just because they had a bad upbringing. But it is always wise to keep an open mind and understand that this in fact the root of the problem, which is why you may see many liberals arguing that increasing spending to education and national infrastructure helps to reduce crime and poverty.

- refusing to discipline their kids in a manner appropriate for their behavior IF they discipline at all

This is just pure bias.

Proteas, the key difference you need to understand between liberals and conservatives, is that liberals tend to follow a Positivist line of thinking, while conservatives tend to follow a Naturalist line of thinking. Naturalists (what I believe you are) tend to argue that laws and regulations should be driven by moral analysis, or what is "right" and what is "wrong", while Positivists tend to argue that laws and regulations should be guided by an interpretation of human behavior.

Now I'm guessing that when you think about drugs or abortion you immediately come to the conclusion: "they are wrong, therefore they should be illegal. case closed." But you have to realize that not everybody is going to necessarily agree with you, and most of anyone who would have persued those activities while they were legal, will still pursue them while their illegal. This is why you have to realize that Democrats in Congress are not necessarily saying that abortions are "right", rather they are understanding that laws that do not take human behavior into consideration tend to be ineffective and even harmful.

[fli]

At 9/24/08 12:18 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/23/08 11:25 PM, fli wrote: Democratic approach: "Let's try to socialize some aspects of health care in a way that everyone can pay, and everyone can receieve."

That, and...

- approving minors to have abortions without parental consent,
- lowering the drinking age and repealing the drug laws regardless to fit European standards while ignoring the rampant substance abuse problems in this country
- helping out in every humanitarian crisis no matter how piddly when we're considered "sticking our nose in somebody else's" business when it doesn't fit their viewpoint
- taxing the SHIT out of anyone who manages to make something of themselves financially because it's not fair to everyone else
- repealing gun ownership laws because guns somehow magically sprout legs and start firing at random people on their own
- absolving people of all personal responsibility for any action that might be remotely influenced by society or their upbringing
- refusing to discipline their kids in a manner appropriate for their behavior IF they discipline at all

.... did I miss anything?

At 9/24/08 12:18 AM, Proteas wrote: .... did I miss anything?

*eye rollie*
Oh pu-lease.

Neither side is without faults, controversies, and etc.
but, if you want tit-for-tat, then what about these things?

Republicans SAY that they don't tax. But, why is it that taxes always are driven up? Heck, Governator says he won't tax people... and it was partially true. The Rich, who are mostly compromised of Republicans, didn't feel what he did to the middle class to balance the budget. If a Democrate taxes, at least we the public can have the benefit of seeing it put to use, where as in a Republican system... it's taxes, and less money for schools, less money for community things, less money for everything that, essentially, great.

Republicans are sure great about persecuting the social ills, creating laws to persecute just every offense. And yet, they're compromised every other few months in compromising ordeals... think Larry Craig.

"absolving people of all personal responsibility for any action that might be remotely influenced by society or their upbringing" WTF???? Look at these banks! These banks whose owners and shareholders are mostly Republicans!!! If people say, "Oh, why can't we have our taxes create some sort of comprehensive social health care system." And the Republican party are screaming bloody murder and saying, "This is Communism!" AND YET-- when they've steeped the nation to a near crisis, they say, "We need taxes to fix this problem... my'bad..."

And how is it even possible that the Republicans, in these rather difficult times, are able to get richer in these 8 years when we're seeing people lose homes? You would think their wealth should stay the same, but it didn't.

Let's face it. We've had 8 whole years where Republicans have forced their ideologies onto peoples, and onto the world. Verdict is in: Republicans has seriously harmed the US.

BUT I SERIOUSLY DIDN'T WANT to digress into this discussion, but at least let's get practical.

Let's just leave it the way I said before, and leave out the criticisms we've made for each party.
At least this is the most fair way to show the dichotomy of each side without plunging into these stupid little things such as, "Well, Republicans did this..." Or, "Well, Democrates are that..."

[ThePretenders]

The term 'liberal' is already confusing without the Americans bastardising it even more.

[HogWashSoup]

In america, if your opinion isnt the same as others, you are not an american

[ThePretenders]

At 9/24/08 01:54 AM, fli wrote:

Republicans SAY that they don't tax.

"Read my lips: no new taxes"

[JoS]

At 9/24/08 01:10 AM, Coherent wrote: What's wrong with this? Even notifying parents of an abortion might pressure the poor kid to not report the pregnancy to anyone, which reduces the chance of a safe delivery.

At some point I am sure someone will notice. Its nto like you can hide a pregnancy for ever.

I don't see what's wrong with this either. What someone puts in their own body is their business. besides, drug laws dont really stop use (as demonstrated by the prohibition in the 1920's), all they really do is create black markets for drugs which then in turn fund more organized crime.

The people will do it anyways argument does not really fly with me. People murder anyways, so why have laws against it. We just waste a lot of money and time investigating them.

From what I've heard, the US gives a relatively low amount of humanatarian aid to other countries. That is, when you compare the amount given to the amount the US has.

% wise, yes, absolute amount, they are the highest. People seem to have some kind of fixation on % of GDP, complete ignoring the absolute amount.

While I myself am against banning guns, I think this is a poor argument. Maybe it is true that guns don't kill people, but the vast majority of murders in this country are what we call "crimes of passion". What this means is that the murder was committed in the heat of the moment, and was not premeditated. So one could make the argument that if the killer had not had access to the gun, that the crime would have never happened.

No, they would just beat them to death with a golf club, hammer or knife. Not every crime of passion is done with a gun, usually whatever is handy. Likewise criminals will always be able to get guns somehow. If you advocate legalizing drugs because those who want to get them will get them anyways, why doesn't the same apply to guns? People who want one bad enough will still get it.

I'm not sure I agree with you on this. I consider myself a more moderate liberal, but I don't think someone is immediately excused from taking responsibility just because they had a bad upbringing. But it is always wise to keep an open mind and understand that this in fact the root of the problem, which is why you may see many liberals arguing that increasing spending to education and national infrastructure helps to reduce crime and poverty.

I think my women studies professor would disagree with you. People are always poor because of society, not because of anything they did or bad choices they made.

[Jizzlebang]

At 9/24/08 12:18 AM, Proteas wrote: - refusing to discipline their kids in a manner appropriate for their behavior IF they discipline at all

Oh wow. Clever.

Way to take a low shot which can't be backed up.

[Proteas]

At 9/24/08 01:10 AM, Coherent wrote: What's wrong with this?

It implies that a 17 year old is just as mature as a full grown adult in their decision making ability, which they are not, and may act in a way that is not in accordance with their overall well being.

And more importantly, why would you need to hide an abortion from your parents?

I don't see what's wrong with this either.

Beyond ignoring what I said about the rampant substance abuse problems we have in this country? You think giving an alcoholic another drink is somehow going to magically solve his drinking problem?

I would argue that most of them are born into their wealth.

And you think I'M making blanket generalizations? Sheesh.

So one could make the argument that if the killer had not had access to the gun, that the crime would have never happened.

Magical thinking. What your line of reasoning shows is that you do subscribe to this liberal viewpoint that the gun actually causes the crime, and without the availability of such a device, crime would magically disappear.

This is just pure bias.

One you won't touch with a ten foot pole, I notice.

while Positivists tend to argue that laws and regulations should be guided by an interpretation of human behavior.

That's moral relativism renamed positivism to gain influence with those who are otherwise uninitiated to liberal bullshit.

"they are wrong, therefore they should be illegal. case closed."

And you would be wrong, I think they should be tightly regulated if made available at all.

But you have to realize that not everybody is going to necessarily agree with you

Shock of all shocks.

This is why you have to realize that Democrats in Congress are not necessarily saying that abortions are "right", rather they are understanding that laws that do not take human behavior into consideration tend to be ineffective and even harmful.

And weirdly enough, you're not taking human behavior into consideration in your decisions.

At 9/24/08 01:54 AM, fli wrote: Neither side is without faults, controversies, and etc.
but, if you want tit-for-tat, then what about these things?

What's the title and aim of this topic, again? We have topic after topic where you can go and piss and moan all day long about the conservatives, and you want to take a topic dedicated to discussing the perceived ills of American liberalism and derail it like this?

At 9/24/08 10:36 AM, Jizzlebang wrote: Way to take a low shot which can't be backed up.

Do you have something to actually contribute to the topic at hand? No?

[Rideo]

At 9/24/08 09:39 AM, JoS wrote: The people will do it anyways argument does not really fly with me. People murder anyways, so why have laws against it. We just waste a lot of money and time investigating them.

The difference is that the illegality of these substances is what causes crime, not the act itself. No one is harmed when you smoke a doobie. We all know marijuana does not cause the users to do violent acts, we also know that it's one of the healthiest drugs you can put into your system.

Cannabis arrests now comprise nearly 47.5 percent of all drug arrests in the United States.

Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent, 775,138 Americans were charged with possession only. The remaining 97,583 individuals were charged with "sale/manufacture," a category that includes all cultivation offenses, even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use. Nearly three in four of those arrested are under age 30.

Almost half of all the people in jail are in for marijuana possesion, these people are in jail, yet they are not criminals. They lead otherwise normal and legal lives, yet we still prosecute them for a habit that is not dangerous to society.

The comparison you made with murder is actually quite an old stance on the subject that has been proven illogical many times over. Murder involves one human ending another humans life, the human whose life has ended has been wronged. Drug use involves an individual using a drug, the individual might be harmed, but he is not wronged as he is doing this to himself willingly and knowingly.

Police arrested a record 872,721 persons for marijuana violations in 2007, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Report. That is a record for our nation and we are climbing up to that crazy number, next year or the year after that possibly we will have one million people arrested in a single year for cannabis possesion.

"Of further note, this year the Midwest saw a 13.3% increase in cannabis sales/cultivation-related arrests, while the West saw a 14% increase in possession-related cannabis arrests."

The total number of marijuana arrests in the U.S. for 2007 far exceeded the total number of arrests in the U.S. for all violent crimes combined, including murder, manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

So basically if you still want marijuana illegal your stance is this:

Hey, this isn't working, so let's just keep doing it.

October 10, 2008 will mark the arrest of the 20 millionth cannabis consumer arrested under cannabis prohibition, circa 1937.

We have arrested 20 million law abiding Americans for a non-criminal act.

I also have bad news to you if you think that we will see the numbers drop eventually

Yearly marijuana arrests:

2007-872,721

2006-829,625

2005-786,545

2004-771,608

2003-755,187

2002-697,082

2001-723,627

2000-734,498

1999-704,812

1998-682,885

1997-695,200

1996-641,642

1995-588,963

1994-499,122

1993-380,689

1992-342,314

1991-287,850

1990-326,850

Clearly marijuana is becoming more ingrained into our culture and society and will not be removed from it by prohibition (see: alcohol in the 1920s)

Now for the other harder drugs, I'm not for their legalization, but I am for reformation of their laws. Many users go to jail for possesion, when they should be placed in rehabilitation programs.

At 9/24/08 10:58 AM, Proteas wrote: Beyond ignoring what I said about the rampant substance abuse problems we have in this country? You think giving an alcoholic another drink is somehow going to magically solve his drinking problem?

You think throwing a crackhead in jail solves his crack problem?
You think throwing a heroin addict in jail solves his heroin problem?
You think throwing a pothead in jail will actually keep marijuana off the streets?

If you do you are delusional.

Drug laws need reform, we should not be punishing people with an addiction, we should be helping them to recover from it.

[MultiCanimefan]

At 9/24/08 12:18 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/23/08 11:25 PM, fli wrote:

- lowering the drinking age and repealing the drug laws regardless to fit European standards while ignoring the rampant substance abuse problems in this country

It's actually been shown and proven in studies that countries that allow social drinking among children, especially in family gatherings, those children do NOT become alcholholics or dependent because they are taught at a young age to consider moderation and to think critically, whereas in this country no effort is made to do so. Also, children who are Rastafarian smoke Marijuana and DON'T become dependent or pot heads because they are taught responsiblity.

- refusing to discipline their kids in a manner appropriate for their behavior IF they discipline at all

Care to back that one up? Also, what punishment people believe to fit the crime is subjective.

.... did I miss anything?

Only the lack of evidence for some claims.

[TehChahlesh]

At 9/23/08 07:47 PM, kipper456 wrote: Why is being a liberal in America always seen as bad

considering the amount of times you guys use the word liberty in pretty much EVERYTHING remotely linked with your history

This is a stupid post.

I wouldn't even know where to start correcting this IQ-dropper of a topic.

[Harmpie]

Actually, if you look at liberalism the correct way, in philosophical terms (not polictical terms) the Republican Party of the USA are liberal convervative.

Liberal because they beleive in laissez-faire market (economic liberalism), but conservative because it want to keep traditions, religious values and a overall respect for authority (police, military..etc.)

Where as the Democracts would be closer to Social Liberalism. Less strict on social policies, basic social security, keeping the civil rights, social rights and civil liberties.

As in Europe, straight forward liberalism is neither on the side of conservativism or socialism.
However in the US, liberalism is just a contrast to conservativism.

[Coherent]

At 9/24/08 09:39 AM, JoS wrote: At some point I am sure someone will notice. Its nto like you can hide a pregnancy for ever.

No you can't, but you can hide it for quite a bit, and the longer you wait to tell someone the less chance you have of a safe delivery.

The people will do it anyways argument does not really fly with me. People murder anyways, so why have laws against it. We just waste a lot of money and time investigating them.

Well actually that's wrong. By and large people tend to not kill each other, even if there isn't a law in place. Luckily for us, it isn't human nature to be fatally aggressive towards one another. And of course, the people that actually commit murder would commit it whether there was a law in place or not.

% wise, yes, absolute amount, they are the highest. People seem to have some kind of fixation on % of GDP, complete ignoring the absolute amount.

Well maybe that's because the amount of impact it actually has on the people donating is taken into consideration when you compare the amounted donated to the GDP. For example: A homeless person donates one of his two dollars to another homeless person, while a multi-billionaire CEO gives a 5 dollar bill to a homeless person he finds on the street. In an absolute amount, the CEO gave up 5 times as much money as the homeless man, but when you take into account how much he was giving up compared to his total wealth, you'll realize that the homeless man was far more generous.

In this respect we realize that overall, US taxpayers really don't give a very large amount of their tax money to foreign humanitarian aid.

No, they would just beat them to death with a golf club, hammer or knife. Not every crime of passion is done with a gun, usually whatever is handy. Likewise criminals will always be able to get guns somehow. If you advocate legalizing drugs because those who want to get them will get them anyways, why doesn't the same apply to guns? People who want one bad enough will still get it.

Yes, but a golf club, hammer, or knife are all much easier to defend yourself against than a gun. Also, you're much more likely to survive a wound from a golf club, hammer, or knife. Also, if you had taken the time to actually read my previous statement, you would realize that I said right at the beginning that I am against banning guns. That being said, I support gun ownership because of the black markets that form under gun bans, which in turn fund more crime, not because I subscribe to the argument that "guns dont kill people, people kill people". Guns certainly don't kill people, but that was never the point, guns make it significantly easier to kill people.

I think my women studies professor would disagree with you. People are always poor because of society, not because of anything they did or bad choices they made.

Some people do end up poor because of bad choices. But by and large your woman studies proffesor is correct. While the US's capitalist system claims to give everyone equal opportunity, most educated on the subject would agree that this is decidedly false. You can't honestly expect that a poor black child growing up on the streets of Compton, has the same opportunities as a middle class white kid in Suburbia.

That aside, the argument was never about why they end up where they are. The argument was over whether or not someone should be held responsible for their actions even if they did end up that way because of a poor upbringing. Which obviously they should be.

[Coherent]

At 9/24/08 10:58 AM, Proteas wrote: It implies that a 17 year old is just as mature as a full grown adult in their decision making ability, which they are not, and may act in a way that is not in accordance with their overall well being.

It doesn't imply that at all. What it does do is show an understanding of human behavior. If parents were notified it would pressure the pregnant teenager to hide her pregnancy, which could cause serious health effects.

And more importantly, why would you need to hide an abortion from your parents?

I cant imagine explaining a pre-marital pregnancy to ones parents is ever a pleasant experience even in the most liberal of households. The child would most likely fear punishment or retribution from their parents, which is a reasonable fear.

Beyond ignoring what I said about the rampant substance abuse problems we have in this country? You think giving an alcoholic another drink is somehow going to magically solve his drinking problem?

What do you think is going to happen if we legalize drugs? You're an educated adult Proteas, are you going to start doing crack as soon as it's legalized? Most people who don't do drugs now, aren't going to start doing drugs after they're legalized, and inversely, most people who do drugs when they're legal, will also do them if they're illegal. So why make them illegal, when all that will serve to do is create black markets which will in turn fund organized crime? Furthermore, how exactly is throwing a drug addict in jail going to help him with his addiction?

And you think I'M making blanket generalizations? Sheesh.

Well think about it for a second Proteas. Do you think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of people who are born lower class stay lower class? Do you think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of people who are born rich stay rich? When I say that the upper class is born into it's wealth, I'm not making a blanket generalization. I'm making a supported claim.

Magical thinking. What your line of reasoning shows is that you do subscribe to this liberal viewpoint that the gun actually causes the crime, and without the availability of such a device, crime would magically disappear.

Well, crime would be reduced. I don't believe anyone has ever said that crime would magically disappear. That would be a strawman argument.

One you won't touch with a ten foot pole, I notice.

It's completely opinionated, there's nothing to argue against because you haven't made a backed statement.

That's moral relativism renamed positivism to gain influence with those who are otherwise uninitiated to liberal bullshit.

Moral Relativism usually goes hand in hand Positivism, but one can be a Positivist and still believe in absolute morals. Positivists simply believe that laws should be based off of what is effective, not what is "right" or "wrong".

And weirdly enough, you're not taking human behavior into consideration in your decisions.

Where exactly?

[Saruman200]

At 9/24/08 12:18 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/23/08 11:25 PM, fli wrote: Democratic approach: "Let's try to socialize some aspects of health care in a way that everyone can pay, and everyone can receieve."

That, and...

- approving minors to have abortions without parental consent,

No problem here.

- lowering the drinking age and repealing the drug laws regardless to fit European standards while ignoring the rampant substance abuse problems in this country

Again, all good here.

- helping out in every humanitarian crisis no matter how piddly when we're considered "sticking our nose in somebody else's" business when it doesn't fit their viewpoint

So your saying we shouldn't respond to humanitarian crisis? What?

- taxing the SHIT out of anyone who manages to make something of themselves financially because it's not fair to everyone else

Well, not every rich person is self-made. And they have the most money, so they should be taxed the most. There quality of life will still be higher than the average Americans, so don't bitch about it.

- repealing gun ownership laws because guns somehow magically sprout legs and start firing at random people on their own

Well, this is obviously a strawman arguement, but I'm against gun control, so I won't bother.

- absolving people of all personal responsibility for any action that might be remotely influenced by society or their upbringing

Another strawman. Prove liberals want to do this any more than conservatives.

- refusing to discipline their kids in a manner appropriate for their behavior IF they discipline at all

Huh? How is how you discipline your kids any how related to liberalism? Unless your refering to spanking, how to discipline your kids isn't a political issue. If you are refering to spanking, then wow, just wow. Spanking only suceeds in making kids more rebellious, not to mention the abusive nature of it.

.... did I miss anything?

A few things: logic, facts, evidence, common sense, and anything that isn't a strawman arguement.

[Proteas]

At 9/24/08 12:41 PM, Rideo wrote: If you do you are delusional.

That's not what I said or even remotely implied. What I said was that we have serious issues with substance abuse in this country and scaling back the laws might not be the wisest idea at this point in time.

At 9/24/08 06:02 PM, Coherent wrote: It doesn't imply that at all.

Yes, it does; you're putting full responsibility for a very adult decision in the hands of someone who is not in the best position to be making such decisions wisely on their own and removing parental involvement in what is SUPPOSED to be the upbringing of their own offspring.

So why make them illegal, when all that will serve to do is create black markets which will in turn fund organized crime?

We have some of the highest per-capite drug abuse rates in the modern world, explain to me how loosening those particular laws is somehow going to encourage people who show no self control to begin with to take a laissez-fair attitude towards drugs?

Furthermore, how exactly is throwing a drug addict in jail going to help him with his addiction?

I NEVER FUCKING SAID THAT YOU ILLITERATE JACK-OFFS, QUIT TWISTING MY WORDS AROUND ON ME.

Well, crime would be reduced. I don't believe anyone has ever said that crime would magically disappear. That would be a strawman argument.

You just did in your last post, and this one as well.

Where exactly?

The underage abortion thing, the magical thinking with regards to guns, the bit about substance abuse....

At 9/24/08 06:30 PM, Saruman200 wrote: A few things: logic, facts, evidence, common sense, and anything that isn't a strawman arguement.

You do realize that despite this little closing statement, you just wrote a post agreeing and defending the "strawman statements" I made about liberals, right?

[RaharuHaruha]

At 9/23/08 07:47 PM, kipper456 wrote: Why is being a liberal in America always seen as bad

considering the amount of times you guys use the word liberty in pretty much EVERYTHING remotely linked with your history

Liberal is not the same word as liberty. They have the same root word, but they're completely different. In fact, some might call them opposites.

[mrdurgan]

At 9/23/08 08:56 PM, JoS wrote: It would help if Americans in general, and many of the users on here knew what a liberal actually was.

americans do seem to be pretty bad for twisting political words around. i remember having a page long argument here with a guy who believed that the american version of libertarianism was the only type, even tho in most other countries it covers tons of different ideologies from anarchists to neo-liberals.