What do YOU think a liberal is?

[Charade]

What has this woman been listening to?

The premise of this comment is that consveratives somehow can't think for themeselves and are some how prodded along by some guiding light right-wing radio talk show host.

 

[Charade]

Liberals are Young, Sexy, Vibrant, Talented, Savy, Giving, Caring, Smart, Cultured and the envy of all Conservatives!

 

[Aidensmom]

I think Liberal and Conservative both carry connotations of stereotypes (many of which are mentioned on this thread) that actually describe very few people. I think most people are actually a lot farther towards the middle than towards the extremes, or they hold ideas on both sides of the spectrum depending on the issue.

I think it is disrespectful of anyone to think they can summarize a person's being by the political party they are registered with or by their feelings on one issue. Sure, there are some people that just follow a party line, but most people can think for themselves on each individual issue. There are good and bad, moral and immoral, intelligent and ignorant people affiliated with every political party.

 

[escape]

I think Liberal and Conservative both carry connotations of stereotypes (many of which are mentioned on this thread) that actually describe very few people. I think most people are actually a lot farther towards the middle than towards the extremes, or they hold ideas on both sides of the spectrum depending on the issue.

I think it is disrespectful of anyone to think they can summarize a person's being by the political party they are registered with or by their feelings on one issue. Sure, there are some people that just follow a party line, but most people can think for themselves on each individual issue. There are good and bad, moral and immoral, intelligent and ignorant people affiliated with every political party.

Yes! I couldn't have said it any better!

 

[MassJester]

2. If hate-speech is illegal, and if cross burning is illegal, then so should flag-burning. (The question is whether flag-burning is hate-speech.) I feel that it is hate speech, just like cross burning, and should also be illegal. If cross burning is illegal, then so should flag burning.

Actually, cross burning is not illegal, even cross burning as a symbol of racial hatred. Cross burning on someone else's lawn is illegal. (see R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul)

 

[Fitswimmer]

Actually, cross burning is not illegal, even cross burning as a symbol of racial hatred. Cross burning on someone else's lawn is illegal. (see R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul)

I can see a law prohibiting cross burning as an act of racial hatred. My concern is if it would be considered illegal as "speech". I get really concerned when we start messing with speech rights-no matter how much someone's speech may anger me, I don't ever want to see a law against it.

I think Liberal and Conservative both carry connotations of stereotypes (many of which are mentioned on this thread) that actually describe very few people. I think most people are actually a lot farther towards the middle than towards the extremes, or they hold ideas on both sides of the spectrum depending on the issue.

 

[Wishing on a star]

I can see a law prohibiting cross burning as an act of racial hatred. My concern is if it would be considered illegal as "speech". I get really concerned when we start messing with speech rights-no matter how much someone's speech may anger me, I don't ever want to see a law against it.

Yes, thank you Fitswimmer. I can definitely see your point!

All of this is fuzzy and subject to interpretation....

 

[Wishing on a star]

Okay, to change the subject. Back to 'aid to those who need it'.

This was the headline on Yahoo when I just logged on.
I copied the beginning of the story below.

ONE IN SIX PEOPLE rely on government assistance.
Surely I am not the only one who sees a problem with this.
And, boy, the use of the words 'Welfare State' is a statement in itself.

______________________________________________________________

WELFARE STATE GROWS

WASHINGTON - The welfare state is bigger than ever despite a decade of policies designed to wean poor people from public aid.

The number of families receiving cash benefits from welfare has plummeted since the government imposed time limits on the payments a decade ago. But other programs for the poor, including Medicaid, food stamps and disability benefits, are bursting with new enrollees.

The result, according to an Associated Press analysis: Nearly one in six people rely on some form of public assistance, a larger share than at any time since the government started measuring two decades ago.

.............
_______________________________________________________________

 

[smartestnumber5]

Okay, to change the subject. Back to 'aid to those who need it'.

This was the headline on Yahoo when I just logged on.
I copied the beginning of the story below.

ONE IN SIX PEOPLE rely on government assistance.
Surely I am not the only one who sees a problem with this.
And, boy, the use of the words 'Welfare State' is a statement in itself.

______________________________________________________________

WELFARE STATE GROWS

WASHINGTON - The welfare state is bigger than ever despite a decade of policies designed to wean poor people from public aid.

The number of families receiving cash benefits from welfare has plummeted since the government imposed time limits on the payments a decade ago. But other programs for the poor, including Medicaid, food stamps and disability benefits, are bursting with new enrollees.

The result, according to an Associated Press analysis: Nearly one in six people rely on some form of public assistance, a larger share than at any time since the government started measuring two decades ago.

.............
_______________________________________________________________

Of course this is a problem. A lot of problems actually. One is that the time limits imposed on payments during the Clinton administration haven't actually solved anything. If I recall, the big concern was that people were just lazy and had no incentive to stop receiving payments, so the time limits were supposed to give them an "incentive" to stop eating bon bons all day on the couch and go out and get that $35,000 per year job that is just waiting for them. Except apparently the bon bon picture of reality was not accurate, and therefore the same people who were receiving welfare are now still not making enough money to survive which is why they qualify for these programs.

One of the women profiled in the article demonstrates this perfectly:

Nia Foster fits the pattern of dependence on government programs. She stopped getting cash welfare payments in the late 1990s and has moved from one clerical job to another. None provided medical benefits.

The 32-year-old mother of two from Cincinnati said she supports her family with help from food stamps and Medicaid.

Foster said she did not get any job training when she left welfare. She earned her high-school equivalency last year at a community college.

"If you want to get educated or want to succeed, the welfare office don't care," Foster said. "I don't think they really care what you do once the benefits are gone."

Foster now works in a tax office, a seasonal job that will end after April 15. She hopes to enroll at the University of Cincinnati this spring and would like to study accounting. She is waiting to find out if she qualifies for enough financial aid to cover tuition.

"I like data processing, something where it's a bunch of invoices and you have to key them in," Foster said. "I want to be an accountant so bad."

The article only offers one example of a program that has actually worked to lhelp people get out of poverty, rather than just keeping them in poverty while they work a minimum wage job with no benefits:

The program, called the Access Project, accepts about 25 welfare-eligible parents a year. Hamilton waives tuition for first-year students and the program supplements financial aid in later years. Students get a host of social and career services, including help finding internships and jobs and financial assistance in times of crisis.

About 140 former welfare recipients have completed the program and none still relies on government programs for the poor, said Adair, the Hamilton professor who started the Access Project in 2001.

Stanfield, who still gets Medicaid and food stamps, plans to graduate in May with a bachelor's degree in theater. She wants to be a teacher.

"I slowly built up my confidence through education," Stanfield said. "I can't honestly tell you how much it has changed my life."

Programs such as the Access Project are not cheap, which is one reason they are rare. Tuition and fees run about $35,000 a year at Hamilton, and the program's annual budget is between $250,000 and $500,000, Adair said.

Of course, there are serious problems with this kind of program too. 1) They have enormous costs--$35,000 a year per person for tuition! and 2) Even if we could somehow afford for significant numbers of people receiving public assistance to enter a program like this, there are only so many jobs available for people with generic college degrees. Someone still has to be the receptionist and the nurse's aid, and those jobs will never pay enough to live on and will never include sufficient benefits.

 

[MassJester]

As if i had to weigh in...

I am definitely, 100%, a red-white-and-blue, true American Liberal through and through.

I think "goodness" is the natural condition of man.

I am a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union. What I don't understand is why anyone who doesn't love the Constitution and the rights it secures to each of us wouldn't be.

I think anyone who believes that we can make America safer by giving law-abiding citizens handguns has somehow forgotten that President Ronald Reagan was shot while surrounded by more than a score of the finest trained, most heavilly armed guards in history.

I think the pre-emptive attack on Iraq was wrong. I think we've made a mess we have no idea how to clean up. And what's worst of all, whenever we pull out of that mess, we will have created a breeding ground for terrorism that is much larger and more productive than anything that existed before we jumped in with both feet. We excuse the whole thing with absurd statements like, "Well, no more attacks yet" like some idiot child who has wandered out into traffic and yells, "See, I've been standing here and no car has hit me yet."

I think if we spent half the money we've spent invading Iraq on Education, Healthcare, and Border Security -- we'd be safer, happier, smarter, healthier and have a lot fewer enemies.

I think it's ironic that while we were invading Iraq over weapons of mass destruction (didn't find any), they were starting the process to build them next door in Iran. Even worse, unlike Iraq, Iran is actually sending in soldiers, arms and resources to kill American soldiers, and all we can seem to do about it is say "stop...or I'll say 'stop' again." Could we look any more impotent to the rest of the world?

I think the "big government" charge against liberals rings hollow when you take a look at how much the federal government grew under Nixon, Reagan and Bush (Jr.) when compared to Carter and Clinton.

I think that the Department of Homeland Security is an Oxymoron.

I believe that my Lord Jesus Christ was a Liberal.

 

[MassJester]

Okay, to change the subject. Back to 'aid to those who need it'.

This was the headline on Yahoo when I just logged on.
I copied the beginning of the story below.

ONE IN SIX PEOPLE rely on government assistance.
Surely I am not the only one who sees a problem with this.
And, boy, the use of the words 'Welfare State' is a statement in itself.

______________________________________________________________

WELFARE STATE GROWS

WASHINGTON - The welfare state is bigger than ever despite a decade of policies designed to wean poor people from public aid.

The number of families receiving cash benefits from welfare has plummeted since the government imposed time limits on the payments a decade ago. But other programs for the poor, including Medicaid, food stamps and disability benefits, are bursting with new enrollees.

The result, according to an Associated Press analysis: Nearly one in six people rely on some form of public assistance, a larger share than at any time since the government started measuring two decades ago.

.............
_______________________________________________________________

Thank God the Liberals aren't in charge. Imagine what a mess they would have created instead of this fine result.

 

[Wishing on a star]

MassJester,
While we are obviously in disagreement on some things, I just wanted to say that I thought most of your first post was positive and did give a real insight into your views. I was impressed.

edited to add: Now I see your second post above.... And, I really do not feel quite the same way.

As has been said since page one of this thread. It is not 'morals' that is the real difference. It is all relative, priorities, and how one comes to make these decisions.

 

[MassJester]

MassJester,
While we are obviously in disagreement on some things, I just wanted to say that I thought your first post was positive and did give a real insight into your views.

As has been said since page one of this thread. It is not 'morals' that is the real difference. It is all relative, priorities, and how one comes to make these decisions.

Now I see your second post above.... And, I really do not feel quite the same way.

Well, I am actually sorry for that. I viewed the post of the article as a disingenuous jab--using a problem that has stumped liberals, conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. And yet, it seems somehow that the idea of public assistance programs gets laid on the door step of liberals.

The truth is we give public assistance to individuals and corporations like it was some sort of addiction. We give money to people to help them quit smoking, and we give money to tobacco farmers to subsidize their crop. At the enmd of the day, I think the principal activity of Government over the last 30 years (no matter which party has been in control) has been to find new ways to give out money.

We bemoan the government spending money on condom distribution as money badly spent on a project poorly concieved, and yet here in Boston we spent $14 billion to put a single roadway underground--where is the outrage over this project that is over 1000% over budget? (and it isn't even done yet)

At the end of the day, I'm not sure I care much for folk who poop on my door step and tell me it isn't personal.

 

[BuckNaked]

This is a bit of a simplistic view.

Overly simplistic, as usual.

I think liberals want what they see as best for America, but what they see as best, I see as a disaster.

Liberals want equal outcomes, regardless of level of effort.

Liberals want as much income redistribution as possible, since the people at the top of the income ladder really don't "deserve" to have so much (we're not supposed to notice that the people at the top are paying for the people at the bottom).

Liberals aren't as concerned with national defense as they are with being liked by other nations.

Liberals care more about "groups" than individuals within those groups.

Liberals, for all of their crying about the poor, want programs that keep the poor dependent on government so that they'll have a steady flow of votes.

 

[MassJester]

Overly simplistic, as usual.

I think liberals want what they see as best for America, but what they see as best, I see as a disaster.

Liberals want equal outcomes, regardless of level of effort.

Liberals want as much income redistribution as possible, since the people at the top of the income ladder really don't "deserve" to have so much (we're not supposed to notice that the people at the top are paying for the people at the bottom).

Liberals aren't as concerned with national defense as they are with being liked by other nations.

Liberals care more about "groups" than individuals within those groups.

Liberals, for all of their crying about the poor, want programs that keep the poor dependent on government so that they'll have a steady flow of votes.

You might...just might...manage a credible contribution by sticking to a statement on what you believe--instead of absurdly characterizing the beliefs of others.

 

[MassJester]

I can see a law prohibiting cross burning as an act of racial hatred. My concern is if it would be considered illegal as "speech". I get really concerned when we start messing with speech rights-no matter how much someone's speech may anger me, I don't ever want to see a law against it.

I've always had real problems with the whole idea of prohibiting hate speech. It sounds a lot like outlawing bad thoughts.

Laws against hate speech don't seem to me to be sufficiently narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate end.

As a rule, I think public fora should remain open to all types of speech, no matter how unpopular.

 

[Charade]

You might...just might...manage a credible contribution by sticking to a statement on what you believe--instead of absurdly characterizing the beliefs of others.

None of that is true?

 

[MassJester]

None of that is true?

His second sentence, and only because it includes the words "I think."

The rest of it is drivel.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

Well, I am actually sorry for that. I viewed the post of the article as a disingenuous jab--using a problem that has stumped liberals, conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. And yet, it seems somehow that the idea of public assistance programs gets laid on the door step of liberals.

The truth is we give public assistance to individuals and corporations like it was some sort of addiction. We give money to people to help them quit smoking, and we give money to tobacco farmers to subsidize their crop. At the enmd of the day, I think the principal activity of Government over the last 30 years (no matter which party has been in control) has been to find new ways to give out money.

We bemoan the government spending money on condom distribution as money badly spent on a project poorly concieved, and yet here in Boston we spent $14 billion to put a single roadway underground--where is the outrage over this project that is over 1000% over budget? (and it isn't even done yet)

At the end of the day, I'm not sure I care much for folk who poop on my door step and tell me it isn't personal.

The first step to solving a problem is admitting that there is a problem. You make a very valid point though.

 

[MassJester]

The first step to solving a problem is admitting that there is a problem.

On that we are in complete agreement.