Do liberals seem elitist to you?

Post Reply New Topic

Obama let Princess Pelosi and Prince Harry run everything and then wonders why everything went to hell in a handbasket. Seriously he should have publicly told Harry and Pelosi to quit clowning around and acting drunk on power.

charity = dumping money out in the poor so that the poor stay poor.


taxes = giving money to government so that they can administrate all of the citizen's money and hopefully do something of benefit with it. Should it be welfare so that those boys get actual education and a chance to beat their poor status instead of , you know, becoming criminals and killing your guts for your money. Or should it be cops to protect your property, or roads so that you don't have to pay your own roads... Depends on the government.

charity are and will always be a poor excuse for not wanting to pay taxes.

Excuse me, it was Lieberman, it was the Blue Dogs, it was Nelson and Lincoln and Landrieu, it was the two Republican senators from Maine who were treated like royalty and allowed to decide everything. They were not on board with the programme and that's an important reason why the programme was so half-hearted. A real president would have threatened these people with real consequences if they refuse to play on their team. Not with the two Republican senators but he still could have threatened to punish Maine if they did not play ball. The real problem in the end is that Obama is still a neoliberal, he chose Rahm Emanuel who did the first step in watering down the stimulus into ineffeciveness, his own affinity is with these Blue Dogs and DLC types. This comes down in the end to the fact that the vetting process for presidential candidates is more effective than the Guardian Council in Iran is in assuring that only the correct people are on the ballot.

Explains why charities tend to do a much better job of making sure money goes where it is supposed to.



There are some things that government should handle, but they get an F on education. Tax money used for schools tends to be mispent particularly when it involves poor kids, and in fact children sponsored by individuals to go on to private schools away from the failing schools tend to actually make it up the ladder out of poverty.



It's actually more of a statement that we don't trust the government to spend the money in a responsible manner (which is usually the truth).

Also here is another example of xenon13's other political idol in all his glory.

CARACAS, Dec 5 (Reuters) - President Hugo Chavez blamed "criminal" capitalism on Sunday for global climate phenomena including incessant rains that have brought chaos to Venezuela, killing 32 people and leaving 70,000 homeless.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN0517626320101205

Yeah blaming the rich for excessive rainfall...

At least he did not blame the Jews.

ruveyn

There is one HUGE flaw in your post. You are taking away the personal responsibility of criminal behaviour. A criminal isn't some good person gone bad, a certain mentality allows the lifestyle to be compatible with them in the first place. Criminals are known to be egocentric, have a sense of entitlement, victim playing, blaming others, disregard other people, have poor impulse control, etc. In short, criminals are simply selfish. Crime ISN'T an isolated incident since it can be traced back to this pattern of thinking.

And I'd much rather have two hands on a gun than one on the phone. I don't need the government to babysit me neither do I need to naive enough to think being able to dial 911 is a given. No one said the government has absolutely NO place in society, so what you're saying about public roads and cops are straw man arguments. A lot of right wingers think the government's role is protecting citizens from danger, so it makes no sense to make the accusation of not wanting cops in society.

Actually, it is.

How? Criminals think completely differently from regular people. Although everyone is selfish to some extent. criminals take it to the extreme. Their behaviour is motivated by instant gratification, a sense of entitlement, an active disregard for other people's rights, and egocentricity. You can't tell me those characteristics are even compatible with a decent work ethic. Listen to gangsta rap lyrics and tell me you don't see these traits manifesting...

http://members.cox.net/samenow/concept.html

Some of these articles should give you some insight...

@ Ace of Spades

I suggest you save your breath, liberals are not prone to admitting they are wrong, they will even go after their own like rabid dogs if one doesn't toe the party line. Furthermore, liberals even here have a tendency to dismiss anything a Conservatice says as being wrong. They view conservatives as evil or stupid for not believing the Left Wing Ideology. They despise people whom are religious, people in the military, etc.


That however is just what I've noticed from observation, there are liberals out there that are not like this but I haven't seen that many of them.

It's a website full of unsourced rants. It's like the drunk old guy you come across on the street who just starts yapping at you about how "gubmint dun mayde evreh thing too complicated".

Just cause someone has a speech impediment or a bad accent when typing doesn't mean they are uneducated, nor does it mean they don't know what they are talking about. And some people deliberately type in a way that makes it look like they have an accent.

Additionally, as far as unsourced ranting aren't you being a little hypocritical?

This guy is a supposed doctor in psychology but his writing just sounds like he's writing from a position of personal opinion and without any curiosity on the subject matter: ie, he's just ranting. On top of that, he fails to even posit any material that is verifiable or give any proof that any of what he's ranting about is backed up by any kind of study or any numbers.

As far as the whole "a criminal isn't a good person gone bad": the reason why it is is because such problems can be traced back to problems in their developmental stages; sometimes it can be reformed but a lot of times it can't but the person wasn't born a criminal and that's a distinction that I think is very important to make and a distinction that must always be understood when dealing with criminals or else you simply start looking at these problems in a lazy, haphazard manner. Also why I state "supposed" with this guy being a PhD in psychology: because he shows a lack of understanding of the basic developmental process in the human psyche.

I was going to post something about the guy being a partisan hack but was thinking of your attacks on Republicans Skafather84.


Anyways, the article that was posted by Ace of Spades does make a valid point, one just has to look at Hollywood as an example of the revolving door.