Kaz, you may use this particular subject of Welfare if you like, but just like you've implied both parties are to blame for the failures of this program. And might I add this. Who is the only President to place any restrictions on this program and significantly reduce the number of recipients. Here's a hint. It was not a republican president.
Well, congratulations for being one of the few who apparently had enough insight to actually read the page for a better understanding. As I’ve stated before it is not the basis for my entire belief, but it certainly is more in line with them. Quite frankly it doesn’t matter who wrote the definition. Does it matter who wrote the King James version of the Holy Bible? No, plenty of people seem to be able to take away their own beliefs from every reading. I’ve known people who read the very same passages of the bible I have and have had a very different interpretations than myself. Does that make either of us wrong or right? Not necessarily. So stop lumping people into a category simply because it makes it easier for you to understand. As an educated adult you should not be so naïve or allow yourself to make such a contrived effort.
And I stand by my statements to Cutie122403. I have every right to feel the way I feel about her decision to choose the side that states “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”. Did I once say she was wrong for choosing that side? NO, I DID NOT. I did state that I was disappointed that she did. As usual you have tried putting words into my mouth that were never spoken (typed). That is such an irritating trait. If you are going to argue with me about former statements then please make certain that I have actually made them, and that once again you are not making another incorrect assumption. The truth of the matter is Mama Kaz that you feel threatened by my political beliefs, ideologies, and overall intelligence. So you simply attack what you don’t truly comprehend instead of making the conscious effort to understand what makes the other side tick. I am very opinionated and as you can see I will not allow you to “speak” for the other side when you clearly don’t understand the other side. Especially when your ideas of what a liberal truly represents are so far from reality it begs the question “Are you just making this up as you go along?” And I reserve the right to do so because I am to an extent “the other side”.
You have no right to call me a hypocrite. I believe in freedom of speech. I never once said that Cutie had no right to choose that side. She has every right as I have every right to disagree. That is THE definition of freedom of speech. If you want to talk “hypocrisy” try this on for size. You claim that this administration is full of arrogance. Let us not play ignorant to the fact that we both know that you voted for Bush as President. This is the man who blatantly invaded a country they claimed had weapons of mass destruction, and when the time came to produce this evidence, they had none. NONE. Years later he admitted that the decision to go to war with Iraq was one he made simply to remove Saddam Hussein from power and because he could. He didn’t have to answer to anyone. He could do whatever he wanted because he had Executive power on his side. You want to talk about an administration who displays utter arrogance? There you go. You can call me a hypocrite all you want, but we both know nothing I said was hypocritical. For you to make a statement that the current administration is arrogant, but to have voted twice for a man who showed nothing his entire administration but complete arrogance and disdain for anyone who opposed his decisions is nothing short of hypocrisy! And that DOES make YOU a HYPOCRITE!
Forgot to give you an example of too much compassion:
The ongoing extensions to unemployment. Members of both parties are to blame. Now I will say that political leaders are likely motivated by re-election more than compassion but those average people who support this are definitely blinded by compassion.
Extended unemployment may seem like a great thing to do but it enables a large number of people to put off or discontinue looking for work. We'll have to do a rivalry on this so we can discuss it in more detail.
Rick,
I never claimed it to be a fact. Never. It is 100% my personal opinion which is what I was offering. I was not insinuating that you were too compassionate. I don't know of a situation to date to where I could claim that. Again, this rivalry is a silly one; with that being said an opinion is what I offered.
All right Kaz. At what point during any of my statements did I say the Wikipedia page was an absolute bearer of the truth? Did I ever say that it exemplified every ideology I represent? Have I ever stated that Wikipedia is the be all end all of all necessary and worldwide information gathering? NO, I DID NOT. I simply suggested to several of you to read it, as I believe the particular definition in question was more in line with what liberalism actually means instead of the concocted belief most people have. Is it entirely accurate? NO, and I never said it was. Once again you, Mama Kaz, and TNinfidel have decided to make up your own minds as to what a liberal really feels instead of actually asking someone. In other words, you don't know me! You'd like to think in all of your infinite wisdom that somehow you have gained a better understanding of other political ideologies, and yet with every statement you make it sends a very clear signal that you DON'T! You don't have the slightest clue, and you simply lump every democrat into the liberal column because it's the easy thing to do. That’s just irresponsible and ignorant of someone who claims to be the least bit intelligent!
While I believe such programs as the Welfare program are far too enabling I believe a fair amount of compassion is certainly due, and when used moderately can work wonders for some. I will not presume to say that any political party is without compassion because I know better. Yet you seem to have no problem once again with stating that most liberals are too compassionate. The only ignorance being displayed is that by you for assuming you know the traits of the majority of liberals in this country when you clearly do not. Name one liberal you have ever spoken to or seen that has displayed too much compassion in any given situation. Name one liberal that you have honestly ever had a conversation with that has led you to this assumption. You and I have never spoken of this matter. We have never spoken once of these “traits”, and whether or not you believed I was far too compassionate. I have never made mention of such a thing, so please tell me what proof you have that the majority of liberals in this country are far too compassionate. The answer is none. It is an assumption you have made based upon loose terms and personal political beliefs. Does that make you wrong? No, but it does make your presumptuous and ill informed. So if either of us are the sheep grazing on the range I simply have one thing to say. You missed a spot!
I was really making a novel attempt at staying out of this rivalry but can’t withhold anymore.
First and foremost I don’t believe liberalism is a mental condition; it’s a balance of values, ideas, beliefs, any beyond. The primary problem I see with liberalism is the imbalanced amount of compassion most liberals possess. That’s right I said problem. Something I like to say is that too much of any character trait is pure ignorance and that includes compassion. It doesn’t stop there, too much greed, envy, (etc…) is ignorant as well. I say ignorant simply because those who possess too much of any given character trait more than likely don’t realize or refuse to admit it.
Example: A man with a giant heart goes out of his way to help battered woman, sexually abused children, and anyone who has a very troubled life; it’s one thing to spend time, money, love on any particular person but it’s another thing entirely when you’ve become so compassionate(blinded) that you allow the very people you so desperately wanted to help take advantage of you. First you start by taking them food, then by giving them rides, then by giving them a place to stay, electricity, food, clothing….It’s gotten to a point to where you’re no longer helping them, you’re enabling them. Why would these people want to help themselves when they know there are people who will provide it for them? I won’t drift too far off topic but this is similar to the US food stamp program.(Just about any of the social welfare programs.)
To play devil’s advocate liberals would claim conservatives are too greedy and self serving. To generalize I’d disagree but there certainly are conservatives that do have an imbalance of character traits.
I for one haven’t read wikipedia’s entry for liberalism; I don’t see a need. The simple fact that Rick has claimed that they believe in small government tells me one of two things; either the ideology has been hijacked and the meaning of the word has undergone a transformation just like so many other political words have done; republic, democracy, progressive, etc… or those who are in politics that claim the liberal ideology are failing miserably to abide by that principle.The bottom line is that no single Wikipedia entry should entirely represent your political beliefs. If one page sums you up as a person than one of two things has occurred; you are a sheep grazing on the range or you authored the Wikipedia entry yourself.
@Rick,
I do have to say that I find a couple of things humorous about your comment. First, anyone who casted a vote for President Obama (And so tirelessly supports him) has absolutely no right(don’t take this literally, yes you have the right to say it but I don’t believe it’s valid) to say they believe in small government unless you speak out against nearly all of the actions Obama has taken as president, which you haven’t and won’t because you honestly believe he has the nations best interest at heart, which I adamantly disagree with.
You mention Freedom from a overreaching government: Seriously? Come on Rick. The health care bill gives the government powers they never had before; they’re taxing medical devices, taxing high cost insurance plans (Not sure if this one made the final bill, you’ll have to lmk), requiring citizens to purchase a private good, they’ve been talking about a tax on soft drinks, attempting to eliminate sodium from our diet by persuading companies to comply (That’s the first step), the government controls 90%(guestimate) of loans for home loans, even more control over student loans, the president is ridiculing states for the laws they pass, publicly calling out supreme court justices for decisions rendered, they’re attempting to pass legislation that will require home owners to pass environmental standards for their homes energy efficiency before they can sell their home, they’re working on gps by the mile taxation instead of being taxed by the gallon due to the drop in revenue from the more fuel efficient vehicles on the road. I could go on……Overreaching?
No I’m not kidding about the last one:
“Oregon has already been field testing such a road tax since 2007. And groundwork laid out by the University of Iowa’s Public Policy Center a decade ago provides a solid basis for how such a tax scheme can be ideally carried out. The University of Iowa just received a $16M USD government grant to carry out road tests with 2,700 vehicles in six states. The GPS-equipped vehicles will send data to the University "billing center" which will generate simulated "bills". Source: http://tinyurl.com/lac8xr
Disclaimer or not you previously had an issue with using Wikipedia as a source and now you want us to read it word by word taking it for absolute validity?
A comment of yours in response to one of my sources:
“By the way, as far as the report from Wikipedia concerning the "estimate" of the debt/gdp, even Wikipedia has a disclaimer at the top of the page that doubts the neutrality of the report and some who contributed to it. If you're going to cite pages please read them in their entirety first. It helps with the credibility of your statements.”
I highly doubt the composition of the Liberalism Wikipedia page was a bipartisan effort.
Of course you should be ticketed. None of us are mind readers. It wouldn't be law in almost all of the 50 states if it weren't somehow important during the course of operating a vehicle. This happens to me all the time and normally I'm very easy going in all other areas of the day, but let someone in front of me turn or change lanes without using their signal properly and I honk my horn as loud as I can!!! I hope it embarrasses the heck out of them. It's not as if the driver has some complex act to commit in order to turn the device on. You simply push up to turn right or down to turn left. It's not rocket science for god's sake and yes, it saves lives!! Not to mention it's just plain old common courtesy.
No you are crazy! Just admit most "normal" people wouldn't even understand that or be interested in it. Even if they did they wouldn't have the patience to sit through it!
Well, thank you. I do like her and she is good but the negatives outweighs the positives. You think I should schedule an appointment with Dana before the 5th? I thought about calling today but I didn't get the chance. I have her information that you gave me in my purse.
Honestly Rick, you are describing yourself as a libertarian not a liberal. Perhaps you are confused and have been relying on Wiki a bit too much. It is not a credible source as it can be manipulated to reflect agendas.
(Answer: William Jefferson Clinton)
And I stand by my statements to Cutie122403. I have every right to feel the way I feel about her decision to choose the side that states “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”. Did I once say she was wrong for choosing that side? NO, I DID NOT. I did state that I was disappointed that she did. As usual you have tried putting words into my mouth that were never spoken (typed). That is such an irritating trait. If you are going to argue with me about former statements then please make certain that I have actually made them, and that once again you are not making another incorrect assumption. The truth of the matter is Mama Kaz that you feel threatened by my political beliefs, ideologies, and overall intelligence. So you simply attack what you don’t truly comprehend instead of making the conscious effort to understand what makes the other side tick. I am very opinionated and as you can see I will not allow you to “speak” for the other side when you clearly don’t understand the other side. Especially when your ideas of what a liberal truly represents are so far from reality it begs the question “Are you just making this up as you go along?” And I reserve the right to do so because I am to an extent “the other side”.
You have no right to call me a hypocrite. I believe in freedom of speech. I never once said that Cutie had no right to choose that side. She has every right as I have every right to disagree. That is THE definition of freedom of speech. If you want to talk “hypocrisy” try this on for size. You claim that this administration is full of arrogance. Let us not play ignorant to the fact that we both know that you voted for Bush as President. This is the man who blatantly invaded a country they claimed had weapons of mass destruction, and when the time came to produce this evidence, they had none. NONE. Years later he admitted that the decision to go to war with Iraq was one he made simply to remove Saddam Hussein from power and because he could. He didn’t have to answer to anyone. He could do whatever he wanted because he had Executive power on his side. You want to talk about an administration who displays utter arrogance? There you go. You can call me a hypocrite all you want, but we both know nothing I said was hypocritical. For you to make a statement that the current administration is arrogant, but to have voted twice for a man who showed nothing his entire administration but complete arrogance and disdain for anyone who opposed his decisions is nothing short of hypocrisy! And that DOES make YOU a HYPOCRITE!
The ongoing extensions to unemployment. Members of both parties are to blame. Now I will say that political leaders are likely motivated by re-election more than compassion but those average people who support this are definitely blinded by compassion.
Extended unemployment may seem like a great thing to do but it enables a large number of people to put off or discontinue looking for work. We'll have to do a rivalry on this so we can discuss it in more detail.
(Had to join a side sadly so i could post this...)
I never claimed it to be a fact. Never. It is 100% my personal opinion which is what I was offering. I was not insinuating that you were too compassionate. I don't know of a situation to date to where I could claim that. Again, this rivalry is a silly one; with that being said an opinion is what I offered.
While I believe such programs as the Welfare program are far too enabling I believe a fair amount of compassion is certainly due, and when used moderately can work wonders for some. I will not presume to say that any political party is without compassion because I know better. Yet you seem to have no problem once again with stating that most liberals are too compassionate. The only ignorance being displayed is that by you for assuming you know the traits of the majority of liberals in this country when you clearly do not. Name one liberal you have ever spoken to or seen that has displayed too much compassion in any given situation. Name one liberal that you have honestly ever had a conversation with that has led you to this assumption. You and I have never spoken of this matter. We have never spoken once of these “traits”, and whether or not you believed I was far too compassionate. I have never made mention of such a thing, so please tell me what proof you have that the majority of liberals in this country are far too compassionate. The answer is none. It is an assumption you have made based upon loose terms and personal political beliefs. Does that make you wrong? No, but it does make your presumptuous and ill informed. So if either of us are the sheep grazing on the range I simply have one thing to say. You missed a spot!
First and foremost I don’t believe liberalism is a mental condition; it’s a balance of values, ideas, beliefs, any beyond. The primary problem I see with liberalism is the imbalanced amount of compassion most liberals possess. That’s right I said problem. Something I like to say is that too much of any character trait is pure ignorance and that includes compassion. It doesn’t stop there, too much greed, envy, (etc…) is ignorant as well. I say ignorant simply because those who possess too much of any given character trait more than likely don’t realize or refuse to admit it.
Example: A man with a giant heart goes out of his way to help battered woman, sexually abused children, and anyone who has a very troubled life; it’s one thing to spend time, money, love on any particular person but it’s another thing entirely when you’ve become so compassionate(blinded) that you allow the very people you so desperately wanted to help take advantage of you. First you start by taking them food, then by giving them rides, then by giving them a place to stay, electricity, food, clothing….It’s gotten to a point to where you’re no longer helping them, you’re enabling them. Why would these people want to help themselves when they know there are people who will provide it for them? I won’t drift too far off topic but this is similar to the US food stamp program.(Just about any of the social welfare programs.)
To play devil’s advocate liberals would claim conservatives are too greedy and self serving. To generalize I’d disagree but there certainly are conservatives that do have an imbalance of character traits.
I for one haven’t read wikipedia’s entry for liberalism; I don’t see a need. The simple fact that Rick has claimed that they believe in small government tells me one of two things; either the ideology has been hijacked and the meaning of the word has undergone a transformation just like so many other political words have done; republic, democracy, progressive, etc… or those who are in politics that claim the liberal ideology are failing miserably to abide by that principle.The bottom line is that no single Wikipedia entry should entirely represent your political beliefs. If one page sums you up as a person than one of two things has occurred; you are a sheep grazing on the range or you authored the Wikipedia entry yourself.
@Rick,
I do have to say that I find a couple of things humorous about your comment. First, anyone who casted a vote for President Obama (And so tirelessly supports him) has absolutely no right(don’t take this literally, yes you have the right to say it but I don’t believe it’s valid) to say they believe in small government unless you speak out against nearly all of the actions Obama has taken as president, which you haven’t and won’t because you honestly believe he has the nations best interest at heart, which I adamantly disagree with.
You mention Freedom from a overreaching government: Seriously? Come on Rick. The health care bill gives the government powers they never had before; they’re taxing medical devices, taxing high cost insurance plans (Not sure if this one made the final bill, you’ll have to lmk), requiring citizens to purchase a private good, they’ve been talking about a tax on soft drinks, attempting to eliminate sodium from our diet by persuading companies to comply (That’s the first step), the government controls 90%(guestimate) of loans for home loans, even more control over student loans, the president is ridiculing states for the laws they pass, publicly calling out supreme court justices for decisions rendered, they’re attempting to pass legislation that will require home owners to pass environmental standards for their homes energy efficiency before they can sell their home, they’re working on gps by the mile taxation instead of being taxed by the gallon due to the drop in revenue from the more fuel efficient vehicles on the road. I could go on……Overreaching?
No I’m not kidding about the last one:
“Oregon has already been field testing such a road tax since 2007. And groundwork laid out by the University of Iowa’s Public Policy Center a decade ago provides a solid basis for how such a tax scheme can be ideally carried out. The University of Iowa just received a $16M USD government grant to carry out road tests with 2,700 vehicles in six states. The GPS-equipped vehicles will send data to the University "billing center" which will generate simulated "bills". Source: http://tinyurl.com/lac8xr
Disclaimer or not you previously had an issue with using Wikipedia as a source and now you want us to read it word by word taking it for absolute validity?
A comment of yours in response to one of my sources:
“By the way, as far as the report from Wikipedia concerning the "estimate" of the debt/gdp, even Wikipedia has a disclaimer at the top of the page that doubts the neutrality of the report and some who contributed to it. If you're going to cite pages please read them in their entirety first. It helps with the credibility of your statements.”
I highly doubt the composition of the Liberalism Wikipedia page was a bipartisan effort.