Okay, I'll help you out but he's still not going to answer you.
A Person's Liberal Background
- Thread starter demsformd
- Start date
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Ok, ok...
I admit it...I'm dems4.
Always wanted to be a tokin' liberal and call everybody who doesn't agree with me a Nazi.
I admit it...I'm dems4.
Always wanted to be a tokin' liberal and call everybody who doesn't agree with me a Nazi.
Originally posted by bluto
While you are here....
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by demsformd
In summary, I am liberal because the government's aid has made my family's farm strong and has helped us during our greatest times of need. It helped me go from being a tobacco farmer to a corporate lawyer and partner of one of DC's largest firms. I believe that racism is an epidemic that has not been halted yet and it will take years and generations more to do so. And I believe that the poor need our help much more than the corporations do. This is the conscience of a liberal and just my humble opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you a stooge of America's corporate culture if you believe the poor need your help more than corporations do? You must be taking down the system from within, like in Fight Club, right?
Just because I am part of the corporate world, does not mean that I believe that no one should be as well-off as me. Look at Senator John Corzine, someone that you would label as being a stooge as well. He is as liberal as they come and fully subscribes to the populist message that the Democratic PArty believes in.
Hello, Dems! Apparently when you were concocting your story about being a corporate lawyer, you forgot to look up the job description.
Regardless of what you have found the fact remains the same that Iraq has not fully complied with any of the UN resolutions regarding this continuing situation. The clarity of the resolutions is clear and in all following resolutions the previous ones are either reaffirmed or recalled indicating that they are still in affect, otherwise they would rescind them.
Beyond these resolutions our Congress has passed into law two separate joint resolutions authorizing the President to take any and all actions necessary against Iraq to bring them into compliance.
As to the no-fly zones I think 678 speaks clearly on this matter and the aircraft operating there have only reacted in a defensive manner when threatened or attacked, which has been on a continuing basis.
It seems you will never be satisfied simply because Bush is calling the shots and not the joke of a candidate that the Democrats ran against him. I wonder, would you still have a problem with any of this if old Billy Boy had attempted to do his duty after the first joint resolution became law instead of letting this continue to fester?
Doesn't anyone but me remember "Operation Desert Fox"? And the Democrats reaction to it, compared to the reaction now? Or is that something else I hallucinated?
On December 16, 1998, United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) military forces launched cruise missile attacks against military targets in Iraq. These strikes were ordered by the President of the United States and were undertaken in response to Iraq's continued failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors. The strikes were designed to deliver a serous blow to Saddam Hussein's capability to manufacture, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction and his ability to threaten or otherwise intimidate his neighbors.
In November 1998, US President William J. Clinton warned Iraqi leadership that force would be used if they continued to hamper United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors efforts. This operation, dubbed Desert Fox, was a rapid and intense use of air power that lasted four days (17-20 December 1998), ending on the first day of Ramadan, the ninth month of the Muslim year during which Muslim believers must fast between dawn and dusk. It was also the first operation that used B-1B Lancer bomber aircraft in a combat role. As in earlier confrontations between coalition forces and Iraqi military forces in the Persian Gulf, the intent was to show the coalition's resolve to continue to support the UN's monitoring effort. This was basically the "straw that broke the camel's back" in the year-long tug of war between Hussein and the coalition. In fact, the US deployed forces to the Persian Gulf in February 1998 as part of operation Desert Thunder. Like confrontations in the past, Hussein selected a time when the US and her European allies were busy with preparing for another situation, again in the former republic of Yugoslavia.
I guess its okay as long as we just lob the cruise missiles in without really doing anything effective. It sure seemed to solve everything, didn't it.
Hessian
Well-Known Member
Vrai...you get the gold star...Love the Bill Clinton Avatar you found with the nose!
When I read the first posting...it sounded very earthy & real...but my thoughts were...How self reliant are you? Huh?
Every turn...every slump, ...instead of turning to family, community...you went straight to uncle Sam and demanded more $$
That, ladies and gentlemen:
IS DEPENDENCE!
We've got a government junkie here...looking for another fix. And corporate Lawyers rank WAY up there as leaches on society. Raising premiums & insurance rates just to buy that extra vacation condo, boat..etc.
Gee, I bet he won't pay for his kid's college education...even with his Corporate lawyer checks...He'd disown the kid when he's 17, Then have him apply as a ward of the state and get a boat load of cheap college loans.
Training the next generation to nudge up to the biggest suckling teat and not let go....real good Dems (junkie)
When I read the first posting...it sounded very earthy & real...but my thoughts were...How self reliant are you? Huh?
Every turn...every slump, ...instead of turning to family, community...you went straight to uncle Sam and demanded more $$
That, ladies and gentlemen:
IS DEPENDENCE!
We've got a government junkie here...looking for another fix. And corporate Lawyers rank WAY up there as leaches on society. Raising premiums & insurance rates just to buy that extra vacation condo, boat..etc.
Gee, I bet he won't pay for his kid's college education...even with his Corporate lawyer checks...He'd disown the kid when he's 17, Then have him apply as a ward of the state and get a boat load of cheap college loans.
Training the next generation to nudge up to the biggest suckling teat and not let go....real good Dems (junkie)
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I think that the Libs have lost all credibility on the Iraq debate. They are trying to stand up for a regime that's actions are 100% against everything that the Libs support, and trying to say that they are making a stand on moral grounds. The fact is that they are just following the "The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend" idealology, and if Bush was supporting Hussein the Libs would be calling for both of their heads right now.
I agree with Dems that there's nothing wrong with him making use of student loans, farm subsidies, AA, or any other government program. He's mearly taking advantage of an adventageous situation, and that's the core of the Capitalistic ideal is it not? What does bother me is that people like Dems forget, or never really learn, that all of these government good deals are not free. They all cost someone, somewhere, something. All of these "government" dollars that Dems has used were provided primarily by "The Rich" and "The Big Corporations" that he and the other Democrats so despise. I can also see why Dems has no problem with paying a 37% income tax as he's getting a pretty healthy return on his investment.
The author that I posted about last week said something that I think applies well here. When he said that he was against government handouts he said that this was why: If "I" have a sandwich and a hungry person asks me to share with him, and I give him half of my sandwich, two things happen: "I" feel good for helping out someone in need, and the person I helped feels some gratefulness to me for helping him. When the government comes in and takes my sandwich and gives it the hungry person, "I" get no feeling of satisfaction and the person's gratitude is to the government and not to the actual provider of the benefit. This also results in the benefit receiver feeling a sense of entitlement because he sees no real downside to the actual provider... he just sees the government helping him out.
This view is 100% validated by Dems statements... he sees the Government as the provider, not the people who the government takes the money from. He and his fellow Liberals criticize the wealthy and corporations for having so much because they have no appreciation for all of the dollars that these folks generate to give them their benefits... he sees everything as coming from "The Government." He also doesn't see that folks like me in the "real" working man environment don't like telling our kids that we can't afford to give them nice things because a big chunk of our income is going to support irresponsible people in our society. Guys like me make enough money to pay a lot of taxes, but too much to receive any benefit from it. That's the curse of the "real" working people of the US, and we're stuck with it because the government has created such a huge entitlement environment.
One more thing... I was surprised to read Dems comments about the need for AA to prevent the return of racism. I thought that the purpose of AA was to rectify the injustices of the past? I think that as long as people are making out from the program, someone will be able to come up with some reason, however invalid, to keep the program going. Like the old saying from the Catholic Church... "If the Devil didn't exist, we would have to invent him."
I agree with Dems that there's nothing wrong with him making use of student loans, farm subsidies, AA, or any other government program. He's mearly taking advantage of an adventageous situation, and that's the core of the Capitalistic ideal is it not? What does bother me is that people like Dems forget, or never really learn, that all of these government good deals are not free. They all cost someone, somewhere, something. All of these "government" dollars that Dems has used were provided primarily by "The Rich" and "The Big Corporations" that he and the other Democrats so despise. I can also see why Dems has no problem with paying a 37% income tax as he's getting a pretty healthy return on his investment.
The author that I posted about last week said something that I think applies well here. When he said that he was against government handouts he said that this was why: If "I" have a sandwich and a hungry person asks me to share with him, and I give him half of my sandwich, two things happen: "I" feel good for helping out someone in need, and the person I helped feels some gratefulness to me for helping him. When the government comes in and takes my sandwich and gives it the hungry person, "I" get no feeling of satisfaction and the person's gratitude is to the government and not to the actual provider of the benefit. This also results in the benefit receiver feeling a sense of entitlement because he sees no real downside to the actual provider... he just sees the government helping him out.
This view is 100% validated by Dems statements... he sees the Government as the provider, not the people who the government takes the money from. He and his fellow Liberals criticize the wealthy and corporations for having so much because they have no appreciation for all of the dollars that these folks generate to give them their benefits... he sees everything as coming from "The Government." He also doesn't see that folks like me in the "real" working man environment don't like telling our kids that we can't afford to give them nice things because a big chunk of our income is going to support irresponsible people in our society. Guys like me make enough money to pay a lot of taxes, but too much to receive any benefit from it. That's the curse of the "real" working people of the US, and we're stuck with it because the government has created such a huge entitlement environment.
One more thing... I was surprised to read Dems comments about the need for AA to prevent the return of racism. I thought that the purpose of AA was to rectify the injustices of the past? I think that as long as people are making out from the program, someone will be able to come up with some reason, however invalid, to keep the program going. Like the old saying from the Catholic Church... "If the Devil didn't exist, we would have to invent him."