CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I am a liberal because I believe progressivism is a virtue! I believe in social tolerance (legalizing gay marriage, abortion etc) I am discontent about the system. I am opposed to how the establishment works. Because I believe the security of the individual is more important than the security of authorities, that's one of the reasons I am opposed to the war on drugs. I believe in civil liberties. I believe isolationism is best for the well being of our national security and national securities worldwide! I am opposed to wiretapping/spying as well which is something both Democrats and Republicans fail to understand is wrong. I am a secular person and I oppose Republican theocracy! I believe in science and reality and believe that Climate Change is a real threat to the planet and I believe the government should get involved in it. I think the government should have a roll in making a better society and make life easier for people, I also think they deserve the financial authority they have to do it. I support the new deal which arguably created a middle class! And I believe regulative capitalism is the furthest system from hierarchy, the new deal kept capitalism away from its hierarchical roots and I say we keep it that way! I am a progressive because I believe that the world would be a much better place if all the people were living for today, as Thomas Jefferson once said "the living should be governed by the living, not the dead."
You repeatedly mention that the government should get involved. That's like the exact opposite of what should happen. Private companies/charities/donors/sponsors/corporations have contributed more accurate and efficient research about global warming than the government ever has. The difference? The government has NO sense of how to spend money.
Also, for the love of god, don't return with the typical "but corporations are evil" thing.
Also, for the love of God, don't return to the corporations are evil argument
Corporations have been bribing our politicians in government with money to serve their corporate agenda, of course they are evil.
Not only have they fucked up the meaning and purpose of Democracy, but they have even directly hacked into it. In the election of 2004 corporations like Diebold and Premier literally raised the margin of error to its highest percentage in history, a 2006 study confirms these machines are more susceptible to tampering and a whistle blower also came out and revealed that the results on the machines were in fact hacked!
Corporations have been bribing our politicians in government with money to serve their corporate agenda, of course they are evil.
"If you give legislators control over what is bought and sold, don't be surprised when legislators themselves are bought and sold."
The government shouldn't have the power it does over industry and commerce. How else do you think large corporations are able to eliminate smaller competition? The Federal government taxes small business out of existence, larger companies can take their place... And yet some people think that it's a lack of regulations that allow corporations to essentially monopolize???
The best way we can stop this problem IMO is by replacing private funding of electoral campaigns with public funding and by abolishing crappy voting technology that stole the 2000 and 2004 elections from the Democrats, what would result is a restoration of our democracy.
replacing private funding of electoral campaigns with public funding
The problem with public funding is that it's money that was forcibly taken from the people, whereas private funding is money that was acquired from mutual exchange of goods and services.
what would result is a restoration of our democracy.
Expanding government power will certainly not eliminate corruption in politics, particularly if you give the state more power over the economy. A restoration of constitutional principles are much more important than restoration of democracy, seeing as how the two can easily conflict. I mean, we don't want mob rule now do we?
A restoration of constitutional principles are much more important than restoration of democracy, seeing as how the two can easily conflict. I mean, we don't want mob rule now do we?
We might not live in a genuine direct democracy but that does not mean we don't live in a representative democracy. The most important thing any politician can do is the represent the American people by listening to them also we don't want to end up in the great depression again and ignore what the issues are for the American people simply because "that's not important" or "we don't have the authority to do anything under the constitution" here is a fun little fact about the constitution most of the founding fathers disliked the result of the constitution, and others hated it most significantly Thomas Jefferson he believed that instead of the amendments we rewrite the constitution every two decades! Now if we listen to an economic system mandated by the constitution (Laissez-faire Capitalism) the middle class would not exist it took government involvement throughout the 20th century to essentially create the middle class!
here is a fun little fact about the constitution most of the founding fathers disliked the result of the constitution, and others hated it most significantly Thomas Jefferson he believed that instead of the amendments we rewrite the constitution every two decades!
Indeed Thomas Jefferson didn't believe that the Constitution went far enough for him. Notice how he never advocated expansion of government, even when being dissatisfied with the constitution?
Now if we listen to an economic system mandated by the constitution (Laissez-faire Capitalism) the middle class would not exist it took government involvement throughout the 20th century to essentially create the middle class!
Quite the opposite: If we listened to the system dictated by the classic conservatives / modern progressives, we'd no longer have a middle class! At the very least under feudalism, active regulations via guilds and usury laws prevented anyone except special licensed charterers from owning and operating a private enterprise or private financial institution. Regulations existed to literally prevent people from rising out of their class. It was only once liberalization occurred in most of Europe that a middle class arose.
Why else do you think Business and liberalism has always been associated with the Middle class?
Well I think too much government and too much regulation can create a hierarchy but the same goes the other way around, when their is not enough government and not enough regulation corruption could create a new hierarchy this one is called wealth inequality.
What you said offends me, and is also blatantly wrong.
Most studies in the US have concluded that conservatives give significantly more to charity on average than liberals. Self described "liberal" women are several times more likely than self described "conservative" women to cheat on their significant others.
1) Conservatives are more religious, which is a given. Religious morality has and always will encourage charity.
2) Conservatives focus more on what the individual can do to improve society, rather than what society as a whole can do. This encourages them to place a greater responsibility on themselves.
3) Welfare is occupied mostly by left wing folks ie conservatives don't wait on society to provide their own damn needs and thus don't see people as morally obligated to support them, so they're more open to view it as the other way around.
Religion doesn't equate to morality; you don't have to worship a deity to be a good person. I know horrible religious people just as much as very nice religious people. And the same is true with non-religious people. It's ironic because if anything obligates people to be morale, it's religion and the bible.
Have you ever heard of the phrase: 'The whole is more than the sum of it's parts?' Well the same is true with society. I would always choose a well synchronized company over detached group of individuals who can't get along, just as much as I'd choose a lovely seaside villa over a heap of bricks and mortar.
1) Conservatives are more religious, which is a given. Religious morality has and always will encourage charity. 100% NOT true. Liberals can be religious too.
Goodness gracious, you haven't even seen my "proof". How would you know if it isn't "logical"?
There are a billion articles that you can google, if you want me to pull up a specific one that's perfectly fine, but there's not going to be any real significance here or there as the internet is already full of articles with varying views on the topic.
I'd also recommend that you look up charitable givings among red states versus blue and charitable givings among the religious vs non-religious. It's not by any means precise, but it gives you an idea.
I'm well aware that being religious does not necessitate one being charitable, or even believing in god, but there is a positive correlation between being conservative and being religious, and being religious with being charitable.
That's a pretty bigoted statement you have there. You have, on multiple occasions, compared conservatives to COMPLETELY wrong information. I think you need to spend a little time to get you damned facts straight about who and what you are voting for.
"Or why was I not as a hidden untimely birth, as infants that never see the light? There the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary are at rest. There the prisoners are at ease together; they hear not the voice of the taskmaster. The small and the great are there, and the slave is free from his master."
"Or why was I not as a hidden untimely birth, as infants that never see the light? There the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary are at rest. There the prisoners are at ease together; they hear not the voice of the taskmaster. The small and the great are there, and the slave is free from his master."
So? The Bible was written thousands of years ago. Laws have changed. It had to do with taking the lives of innocent people, not just the unlawful aspect of it.
Exodus 23:7
"Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked."
Tu quoque again. You criticize me to prevent others from being able to criticize you. I do not support elective abortion, just abortion to prevent trauma or if the baby will live a miserable life.
Supporting Evidence:
Tu quoque.
(yourlogicalfallacyis.com)
I consider myself liberal or at the very least libertarian. From what I observe from the right on politics (though this doesn't apply to all republicans/conservatives) is that they seem to be strongly motivated by emotion/sentiment, where democrats are motivated by progression. I don't like how republicans represent themselves, of course that isn't a reason for them being wrong. I do agree with liberals on more social issues though, I don't know much about economic issues, however I haven't been convinced that republicans really exceed liberals on financial issues. If I did then I'd probably be a libertarian. However if it is true that republicans are more about the money, and democrats are more about the people, I'd have to say it is a no brainer that the people should be a higher priority than the money. A political stance that puts money above man doesn't make any sense to me. Considering money is only important because of man.
First off, I'd just like to mention that Liberal and libertarian views are two different ends of the spectrum.
Second, are you sure it's how Conservatives/Republicans represent themselves? Or is it how you favorite news station represents them? In complete seriousness, most major news stations are left-leaning, or completely left, for that matter. MSNBC, CNN, all those. Fox News is one of the few credible right-leaning news sources, and for that, they are shut out as misinforming by other news stations. So, chances are, as you have stated that you consider yourself to be liberal (for the most part), you most likely watch one of the left-leaning news stations.
Try watching Fox some time, and even some smaller, independent news sources some time. Sit back and watch the "facts" differ.
Let's start with economic policy. The further to the left you go, the more socialistic, and eventually communistic, it gets. The idea of redistributing the wealth is just wrong; it tampers with the flow of currency, and hurts the people who work for their money, and enables those who do nothing to benefit from the hard work of others. Higher taxation of the rich is also wrong, percentages are percentages. Liberalism creates hostile business environments, where they demonized and buried in regulation and taxation. Incentives for lack of effort, et al, United States welfare, which provides no incentives for actually finding a paying job rather than living off government money, and does a very poor job of distinguishing who actually needs welfare, and people who just don't want to work.
Social policies. The notion of government-funded healthcare is a bad idea. The competitive free-market healthcare system has and always will be more stable and affordable than anything any politician (liberal, conservative, or otherwise) could sling at us. Liberal views on gun control are just wrong. Just because not everyone needs or wants to own a gun doesn't mean it should be hard to get one (or, in many cases in this day and age, illegal). Not only that, but it has been proven that crime rates in areas where the legal gun-to-citizen ratio is higher, the crime rate is considerably lower. The death penalty is a perfectly justifiable act for a person who has committed such a serious crime as murder. Most liberals, including one of my best friends, seem to argue that it's more humane to keep a mass-murderer in prison for life, spending millions of dollars in food, clothing, equipment, etc. than to simply end their life (which is the end result either way, correct?), putting other inmates out of danger's way.
Enough about policies, let's take a look at an individual example:
Detroit, MI. Once home to the bragging rights of highest average household income in America, in addition to, a thriving automotive industry, now is the national sight-seeing location for old, abandoned, crumbling skyscrapers and factories. This is all thanks to the liberal policies first enacted by Jerome Cavanagh, who expanded the role of government in Detroit to unprecedented levels, and set in motion it's demise. Labor unions gained considerable power, granting its members positions in job banks and access top-of-the-line health benefits, just to name a few things, which made businesses suffer. The local government also had zero competence in terms of spending, so when the wealth left the city, along with the tidal waves of forward-looking people, the big-government programs that had depended on the government's money began to collapse, along with the economic stability of the people who themselves made the mistake of becoming dependent on said programs. The wealth left, the stability toppled, and the government insisted that it would get better by maintaining those policies.
There. I have made my case, take it you wish, ignore it if you wish. And thank you for waiting, by the way.
1. There are many people who cannot afford healthcare, should they just die? 2. Not all liberals are communists. I am a democratic socialist liberal except on the issue of progressive taxation. I support a flat income tax, maybe 20% minimum. I would also like to point out that said flat income tax is the only tax I believe in. The Democrats do a poor job of representing true liberals. Anywhoo. 3. What is wealth redistribution? 4. You are very welcome. I welcome an honest, respectful debate. Upvote for having class and dignity.
And the more right you go the more you lean into hierarchy where the top 1% gets 75% of the country's wealth while the 99% sufferers!
The idea redistributing the wealth is just wrong it hurts the people who work for their money
Much of our policies already harm the people who work for money, the income tax in general takes away money people worked for and yet without it the government would not be able to function properly, income taxes give money to the government who uses wisely.
and enables those who do nothing to benefit from the hard work of others.
So your solution is to just ignore the poor and middle class while having the system benefit rich people and corrupt big business, Gotcha.
United States welfare, which provides not incentives for actually finding a paying job rather than living off government money
Look at Norway, they are a welfare state and they are one of the riches countries on earth! I rest my case
The notion of government funded healthcare is a bad idea.
So what exactly is your solution of the more the 3 million Americans without health insurance, last time I checked the traditional conservative solution is to die quickly! This is another example of why other countries happen to be beating us, every developed country has free health care with the US as an exception!
Liberal views on gun control are just wrong.
Conservative views on gun control (gun anarchy) are FAR worse!
Just because not everyone needs or wants to own a gun doesn't mean it should be hard to get one
Great an attack on background checks! Look we don't want to make it harder for everyone to get guns, we just want to make it harder for criminals and psychopaths to get guns. And you should not bitch about guns until assault rifles are outlawed which is as common sense as you can get on guns.
The death penalty is a perfectly justifiable act for a person who has committed such a serious crime as murder.
Capital punishment is one of the most embarrassing and outdated things we have retained in this country, plus the damn thing is rather ineffective! 68% of people who have been convicted to capital punishment have later been proven to be innocent as libertarian God Ron Paul agrees. Don't bother using the deterrent excuse since the murder rate in death penalty states are higher than the murder rates in non death penalty states, so it must be a shitty deterrent!
Most liberals, including one of my best friends, seem to argue that it's more humane to keep a mass-murderer in prison for life, spending million of dollars in food, clothing, equipment, etc.
The fact keeping a mass-murderer on death row for years and than committing capital punishment is more expensive than life in prison suddenly makes life in prison a more welcoming choice doesn't it? I needn't argue with that.
Let's start with economic policy. The further to the left you go, the more socialistic, and eventually communistic, it gets.
I actually agree with you, though at the same time liberals are still not the same as socialists, and in the same light some republicans are closer to socialism then others, and it might be arguable that in the same sense I think you mean that, conservatives are "more socialistic" than a dictatorship where the dictator and the people working under the dictator are making more money than everyone else there for equal distribution of wealth is even LESS enforced thus making it further from socialism right?
Also I'm not completely convinced that socialism is inferior to capitalism nor vice versa, I understand that giving everyone the same cut regardless of what role they play in the country is flawwed, but honestly so is capitalism. There is no such thing as a perfect government. Also a little bit of socialism is necessary for any government, we all pay taxes so we can share things that come along with society right? How is that not distributing wealth more equally? We put in money for schools that everyone can go to, for roads for everyone to use, we share our wealth to some extent don't we? Secondly to say something is wrong because a perceived extreme of it is wrong is a fallacious argument in and of itself. Eating too much food can be bad for you, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't starve ourselves either.
The idea of redistributing the wealth is just wrong; it tampers with the flow of currency, and hurts the people who work for their money, and enables those who do nothing to benefit from the hard work of others.
True, but this is necessary to some extent, a government is basically people working with people for a better life, we share a government, we share its benefits to some extent otherwise it is not a government. Also liberals aren't into wealth redistribution as much as I think you think they are, they aren't socialists, maybe they want to even the playing field between the poor and the rich a little via welfare, etc, they don't want everyone to have the exact same income. As far as how are system works the harder working don't always get the good end of the stick, capitalism is so much more complex because it requires a much more tedious form of money management making sure everyone gets their fair share. For example there are plenty of people whom get rich off their parents inheritance, these people didn't work hard at all, their parents did, but they didn't, this goes against the goals of capitalism and I could bring up more examples.
Higher taxation of the rich is also wrong, percentages are percentages.
I think higher taxes for the rich makes sense, when you consider that the rich have a higher capacity to make money then the poor. This is the only reason I might support it, but not all liberals, I don't even know if most liberals are for higher taxes for the rich necessarily.
Liberalism creates hostile business environments, where they demonized and buried in regulation and taxation.
Can you elaborate?
Incentives for lack of effort, et al, United States welfare, which provides no incentives for actually finding a paying job rather than living off government money, and does a very poor job of distinguishing who actually needs welfare, and people who just don't want to work.
Can you give me a statistic, anything to show HOW badly we can't distinguish? I know there are people who take advantage of the system, but do the cons outweigh the pros?
The notion of government-funded healthcare is a bad idea.
well I don't know how well OUR healthcare is but it seems Canada is doing just fine. They had healthcare for a long time and they aren't in debt like us.
The competitive free-market healthcare system has and always will be more stable and affordable than anything any politician (liberal, conservative, or otherwise) could sling at us.
Can you back this up?
Liberal views on gun control are just wrong.
Can you elaborate?
Just because not everyone needs or wants to own a gun doesn't mean it should be hard to get one (or, in many cases in this day and age, illegal).
Well I don't know about you, though I care much about my paranoid schizophrenic uncle, I don't like the idea about him being able to get a gun just like that. Your argument here is the equivalent to saying that we shouldn't require driving licences because it makes it to difficult for eveyone to be able to drive.
Not only that, but it has been proven that crime rates in areas where the legal gun-to-citizen ratio is higher, the crime rate is considerably lower.
From a little bit of digging you might have a solid argument against gun control, however I still think that there should be something we can do to get guns out of the hands of dangerous people and more in the hands of responsible people. I'd imagine gun control can be done in many different ways, and if someone were able to come up with a form of gun control that reduced crime, would you be against it?
The death penalty is a perfectly justifiable act for a person who has committed such a serious crime as murder.
I honestly am a bit on the fence on this issue, however I'd be interested in seeing anything about the death penalty efficiently discouraging murder in our country.
Most liberals, including one of my best friends, seem to argue that it's more humane to keep a mass-murderer in prison for life, spending millions of dollars in food, clothing, equipment, etc. than to simply end their life (which is the end result either way, correct?), putting other inmates out of danger's way.
I think this is a great point carry on, though at the same time what constitutes the requirement of the death penalty? Murder
.
.
.
Now that you have taken the time to explain to me what you don't like about the liberal ideology let me explain what rubs me the wrong way about the republican ideology. Thing I like least is the social issues of republicans, a lot of them anyway. First example would be their view on abortion, consciousness requires some sort of brain activity which doesn't start till around 28 weeks.
If something isn't conscious then he/she doesn't care whether it is alive, just like a tree doesn't. I would say something about homophobia but I feel that would be a low blow. As far as immigration goes I actually kind of side with republicans a little more on that, at the same time we should keep paper work and what not pretty easy and convenient.
Marijuana shouldn't be illegal as it is less harmful to individual and society than alcohol is (I regretfully admit that alcohol contributing to a leading cause of death makes me question whether it should remain legal sometimes, and I drink alcohol).
Republicans also aren't AS supportive for separation of church and state as liberals it seems. Republicans also aren't as supportive for equal pay among women it seems.
And the more right you go the more you lean into hierarchy where the top 1% gets 75% of the country's wealth while the 99% sufferers!
The idea redistributing the wealth is just wrong it hurts the people who work for their money
Much of our policies already harm the people who work for money, the income tax in general takes away money people worked for and yet without it the government would not be able to function properly, income taxes give money to the government who uses wisely.
and enables those who do nothing to benefit from the hard work of others.
So your solution is to just ignore the poor and middle class while having the system benefit rich people and corrupt big business, Gotcha.
United States welfare, which provides not incentives for actually finding a paying job rather than living off government money
Look at Norway, they are a welfare state and they are one of the riches countries on earth! I rest my case
The notion of government funded healthcare is a bad idea.
So what exactly is your solution of the more the 3 million Americans without health insurance, last time I checked the traditional conservative solution is to die quickly! having more unfortunate people without healthcare die, that sounds very "pro-life" to me. This is another example of why other countries happen to be beating us, every developed country has free health care with the US as an exception!
Liberal views on gun control are just wrong.
Conservative views on gun control (gun anarchy) are FAR worse!
Just because not everyone needs or wants to own a gun doesn't mean it should be hard to get one
Great an attack on background checks! Look we don't want to make it harder for everyone to get guns, we just want to make it harder for criminals and psychopaths to get guns. And you should not bitch about guns until assault rifles are outlawed which is as common sense as you can get on guns.
The death penalty is a perfectly justifiable act for a person who has committed such a serious crime as murder.
Capital punishment is one of the most embarrassing and outdated things we have retained in this country, again it shows the hypocrisy on Republicans of being pro-life only in the case of a fetus but when you are in a foreign country the US does not happen to like, lacking healthcare or are a "convicted" criminal all of a sudden the Republicans say fuck life, plus the damn thing is rather ineffective! 68% of people who have been convicted to capital punishment have later been proven to be innocent as libertarian God Ron Paul agrees. Don't bother using the deterrent excuse since the murder rate in death penalty states are higher than the murder rates in non death penalty states, so it must be a shitty deterrent!
Most liberals, including one of my best friends, seem to argue that it's more humane to keep a mass-murderer in prison for life, spending million of dollars in food, clothing, equipment, etc.
The fact keeping a mass-murderer on death row for years and than committing capital punishment is more expensive than life in prison suddenly makes life in prison a more welcoming choice doesn't it? I needn't argue with that.
First off, I'd just like to mention that Liberal and libertarian views are two different ends of the spectrum.
As I understand it, libertarianism is a compromise between liberalism and conservatism, the best of both worlds so to speak.
Second, are you sure it's how Conservatives/Republicans represent themselves? Or is it how you favorite news station represents them?
Try watching Fox some time, and even some smaller, independent news sources some time. Sit back and watch the "facts" differ.
That is awfully presumptuous don't you think? I could say the same thing to you and be equally justified, also let's see how well fox news represents republicans, Fox news ironically is EXACTLY what I am talking about.
For the record I used to watch CNN from time to time, yes but I much prefer BBC as it is much less biased. To be honest though other than BBC I watched very little news, and what I am reffering to is the arguments I've heard and do hear by republicans in general (even friends) and some of the arguments I hear. Again I find it awfully presumptuous that you think I watch a lot of CNN, perhaps more than fox news but not a lot.
I am a liberal because I believe progressivism is a virtue! I believe in social tolerance (legalizing gay marriage, abortion etc) I am discontent about the system. I am opposed to how the establishment works. Because I believe the security of the individual is more important than the security of authorities, that's one of the reasons I am opposed to the war on drugs. I believe in civil liberties. I believe isolationism is best for the well being of our national security and national securities worldwide! I am opposed to wiretapping/spying as well which is something both Democrats and Republicans fail to understand is wrong. I am a secular person and I oppose Republican theocracy! I believe in science and reality and believe that Climate Change is a real threat to the planet and I believe the government should get involved in it. I think the government should have a roll in making a better society and make life easier for people, I also think they deserve the financial authority they have to do it. I support the new deal which arguably created a middle class! And I believe regulative capitalism is the furthest system from hierarchy, the new deal kept capitalism away from its hierarchical roots and I say we keep it that way! I am a progressive because I believe that the world would be a much better place if all the people were living for today, as Thomas Jefferson once said "the living should be governed by the living, not the dead."
I am a liberal conservative except when it comes to economic policy. I am a conservative all the way on economic policy. Oh, and I can't stand socialization of things like healthcare!
Oh and I can't stand socialization of things like healthcare!
I don't see a huge problem with it, it gives over 3,0000 people health insurance! Also if you have a business there is really no need to worry about the individual mandate under the affordable health care act only businesses with 50+ employers have to give health insurance to their workers, this literally only effects 1% of businesses. So I don't really see a big need to panic about Obamacare, just relax and let it happen.
It's just a tax, yes I know people dislike taxes but I would much rather have my tax money go to helping the sick and myself if I need it then feed the military industrial complex, yes that's were over 50% of our tax money goes to, the military.
So I can say:
That's like me giving you tanks, plains & weapons and forcing you to make all of the payments, whether you wanted the artillery or not.
So in a nut shell it all comes down to, helping life or helping death?
It's an extra tax. Not everyone thinks that they need healthcare, but everyone would like to have a military to defend their nation... and only 19% of our tax dollars go to the military. 21% of our tax dollars goes towards Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP. Obamacare introduces twenty new tax hikes.
So in a nut shell it all comes down to, helping life or helping death?
The military isn't helping life? The military defends us.
So you're saying that we shouldn't have a military?
No, I am saying we don't need to spend more money on the military industrial complex.
I might not think that I need to take Vitamin C, but I probably do. It should still be my decision whether I want to purchase it or not.
The consequence of not buying vitamin C is much smaller than the consequence of not having healthcare. It is a humanitarian benefit to have universal healthcare it would save many lives! Every other developed country has free health care! Besides most people happen to like the provision in the affordable health care act so it is popular.
No, I am saying we don't need to spend more money on the military industrial complex.
Why not? Military assets are destroyed during conflicts. With war comes further demand. If our enemy increases their own military, we need to make sure that we are equipped to defend ourselves. The money doesn't just go into increasing our arsenal, but our military technology as well.
Not as much of our taxpayer dollars goes into the military as you think.
It is a humanitarian benefit to have universal healthcare it would save many lives
It's an encroachment on our freedom of choice.
Every other developed country has free health care!
It isn't free. It'll cost us more.
Besides most people happen to like the provision in the affordable health care act so it is popular.
You're making that up. The only people who like it are the ones who don't understand it.
Panic is necessary when the government is forcing you to buy something when you have the right not to. It's going completely against the Constitution that our Founding Fathers wrote. We follow this Constitution because it's the backbone of our Nation...it's what made our Nation so great back then. So...when the president/government tries to force us to do something that we are ENTITLED not to do...I'm going to panic a little bit.
We follow this Constitution because it's the backbone of our Nation its what made our nation so great back then
The constitution condoned slavery and enforced laissez faire economics which led to the great depression we have lawmakers for a reason to make new laws the constitution did not make. Besides none of the founders liked the constitution Thomas Jefferson said that the constitution should be rewritten every 2 decades saying that "the living should be governed by the living not the dead"
No, no, no, you are not going to sit there and say that you are a liberal conservative. While it is possible to hold a centrist or moderate view with beliefs from both sides, liberals and conservatives are radically different.
I'm fiscally conservative but for the most part more liberal on social issues. I do think women should have the right to choose regarding abortion. After all, they are the ones who will have to live with the consequences either way. And I really don't care if gay people want to subject themselves to marriage. After all, why should only straight people suffer? LOL I just don't think Churches should be forced to marry them, or businesses forced to provide services for their marriages if that would go against their biblical beliefs.
First of all our founding fathers were not even religious the majority of them were deists, Thomas Jefferson even re wrote The Bible! Second of all today's standards don't even really matter they were VERY progressive in those standards! Besides they were self described progressives.
First of all, our Founding Fathers made the Bible a required text book in school. They were religious.
Second, Jefferson didn't rewrite the Bible. He wrote down all of his favorite verses and made it into a seperate book. He made that Bible specifically for him, because those verses made him feel good.
Third, they were liberal compared to British standards. Why do you think Republicans are called "conservative"? Do you think they're trying to conserve British tradition? No, American! Current liberals want to transform America, where as conservatives want to stick with the original values.
Second, Jefferson didn't rewrite the Bible. He wrote down all of his favorite verses and made it into a separate book.
I'm pretty sure Jefferson took out his favorite parts of the Bible and additionally modernized some of the verses to conform to modernity, I don't think he viewed the Bible as a perfect book.
I had to study about it when I took a World Religion course in college. I've also seen it in person. Do you know how he originally made it? He cut out verses directly from the Bible.
Did he tamper with any of the verses at all? Or is it an exact duplicate of the original Bible, I've never read the Jefferson Bible but I assumed it was to conform to modernity.
It's not an exact duplicate in the sense that it is shorter. He took his favorite verses and put them together in one book, so that he could get his daily dose of religious inspiration without having to flip through all of the other mumbo jumbo lol.
Current liberals want to transform America, where as conservatives want to stick with the original values.
Not completely, conservatives used to stick the original foreign policy until 2001 then they adopted the neo-conservative view point which isn't that genuinely conservative.
Not completely, conservatives used to stick the original foreign policy until 2001 then they adopted the neo-conservative view point which isn't that genuinely conservative.
Different presidents make different decisions. Times change. They're still traditional at the core of their beliefs.
Progressive in what way? The fact that they were establishing laws and values that would certainly encourage progress, especially in comparison to other nations? Of course they were "progressive" in that sense, they were establishing a whole new country! It's quite obvious that Obama's agenda leans toward socialism, and Hillary Clinton intends to continue in his footsteps. Wanting to raise the minimum wage to $12+ an hour, for instance? That's like dropping a bomb on everything that capitalism stands for.
Wanting to raise the minimum wage to $12+ an hour, for instance? That's like dropping a bomb on everything capitalism stands for.
That's not socialism, that's simple economic regulation. Second of all if raising the minimum wage is dropping a bomb on everything that capitalism stands for than government control of all distribution of wealth (actual socialism) would be a modern day earth destroying NUKE! on capitalist values.
No, it's not "economic regulation". The current minimum wage is above poverty level, and it's a good starter pay for people who are just entering the workforce. If we were to raise the minimum wage that much, then what reason would there be to continue moving up? Do you think anyone will be motivated to go through the headache of getting a degree, when they can make $12 an hour flipping burgers or scanning groceries anyway? It's socialism --- it's attempting to close the gap between the rich and the poor.
It's attempting to close the gap between the rich and the poor.
We aren't anywhere close to that. The top 1% own 40% of the nations wealth if liberals are trying to close the gap between the rich and the poor than they're doing a pretty shitty job at it!
The first step would be raising the minimum wage by such a significant amount. A jump like that would hurt a lot of companies badly, and it would also keep the less experienced from getting and keeping jobs. Nobody will want to pay a newbie that much money.
That is still not complete socialism though that is just post new deal regulative capitalism. I support this system because pre new deal capitalism is just as hierarchical as socialism.
It's not complete socialism, no, but I fear that it will continue along the path toward complete socialism. There's nothing more "equal" in the minds of my generation today than socialism, and equality is the current hype --- even pertaining to wages.
I doubt they will go that far! But I should bring up Capitalism before Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was just bad as socialism would be. There wasn't even really a middle class. What liberals want to do is move to an economic system as far away from hierarchy as possible and they also want a middle ground system we are also very inspired by how many foreign countries are doing it they are in great shape with things like free health care!
Conservatives hate the separation of church and state (they don't even think it exists), are for the death penalty, think the 2nd amendment means they can start terrorist groups and overthrow the government, and they can ban gay rights. How do conservatives agree with the FF?
Compared to what? The British? American conservatives are trying to conserve American tradition. Conservatives back then wanted to conserve British tradition.
It's really not that difficult to understand. American conservatives are trying to conserve the tradition that our founding fathers began. A liberal is open to changes. The only changes the founding fathers would have wanted politically back then, were in regards to British ideals... not American.
Liberalism fits the Constitution, the Bill Of Rights and the Declaration of Independence better than any other view point, and I have studied them all.
Liberal: adjective: favorable to progress or reform, as in religious or political affairs. Of, pertaining to, or about: liberalism (the idea of liberty). The word liberal comes from the Latin word liberalis, which means liberty, naturally.
I tend to lean more to the right, but I don't think that party affiliation means much. It's more about the candidate. I just can't stand most liberals.
I would. I just think that liberals are assholes (no offense). If someone was attacking liberals, in the same manner that you were attacking conservatives, then I would definitely come to their aid... but I could only defend them for so long, because let's be honest... the liberal record isn't that great lol.
It's sad, but it's true. We've had more shitty presidents than we've had good ones... but the only good liberal was assasinated. Before you bring up presidents before him, let me remind you that Kennedy was the first modern liberal. The Pre-Kennedy Democratic party was considered the "Southern" party, similar to how the Republican party is viewed today.
Actually two good progressives were assassinated lets not forget about Lincoln. Also I think most liberals have been good, from our founding fathers to modern Democrats!
Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt would be a modern-day conservatives? Are you serious? And second of all the pre-Wilson liberals were progressives for the standards of their time the founding fathers and Abraham Lincoln were great liberals. Even Lincoln would be a liberal if he were alive today in 2013.
FDR opposed the abolition of segregation among other things. He did have many left views though, but times have changed. What makes you think he would be a liberal today?
Woodrow Wilson was pretty damn religious. He actually grew up on conservative values. I highly doubt he would support abortion or gay rights. Based on today's standards, he'd probably be conservative.
Lincoln shared many views from both parties. He was kind of a moderate.
I'll give you Wilson and Lincoln but FDR was extremely liberal he would probably be in favor of the affordable health care act if alive today! I will give you the segregation argument though but I get the feeling that if he didn't die he would probably come out in favor of the abolition of segregation the same way Obama came out in favor of gay marriage his feelings would evolve on the issue until he changes his mind.
He would be considered a religious freak by liberals today.
As far as Pre-Kennedy Democrats go, he was probably the most liberal.
I'd also like to point something out that I just realized... the most famous Democratic presidents, all had affairs. FDR, Kennedy, and Clinton. What's up with that? Lol
Yeah, so? I could already tell you were a liberal so, I think it was unnecessary for you to press the dispute button just to say you are a liberal when I said, I was a conservative.
When I said I was a conservative and then when you disputed me it tells me that you have problem with me being a conservative because you said you were a liberal (which I already knew that before you even said to me).
I wasn't really even being hostile, liberalism is just the natural rivalry of conservatism so I thought it would be appropriate to hit the dispute button. If you have such a problem with that I will just hit the clarify button (which I am doing right now).
I agree kiddo, but it helps to give a reason. you could point out the conservative record of being antichoice, opposing equal pay, etc. You can prove em wrong. :)
Liberals being douchebags to Conservatives for no good reason? Nothing out of the ordinary here. Conservatives being douchebags to liberals for no good reason? Nothing out of the ordinary here.
