• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Walker takes broad swipe at public employee unions

Status
Not open for further replies.
This really is getting old, liberalism is a complete and absolute failure just like "your" President. The facts are overwhelming. Obama rhetoric always trumps facts. Do you know that Obama has not given the Federal public union employees the benefits that Wisconsin public service employees have? Continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the results. Defending the indefensible makes you look foolish.

Liberalism originally meant free markets and individual freedoms. The failure is the inability of right wingers to distinguish between that--the original definition of liberalism--and the mischaracterizations of it spread by your Messiahs (rush, hannity, o'reilly, etc.).

obama, btw, is not a liberal. He's just another sleazy anti-freedom pol who successfully exploited his African-American heritage and speech making abilities to create the impression that he represented change, and I appropriately didn't vote for him.
 
from Conservative


so you have you voted for in the last ten presidential elections?

I voted for LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan(2), GHW Bush(2), Dole, GW Bush(2), McCain. Carter ruined me for the Democrat party. Unfortunately not all were conservatives but I wasn't going to throw my vote away on someone with no chance to win. Sorry, but third party candidates give the office to a Democrat.
 
Nope, he is a "Progressive"....but worse....he surrounds himself with Revolutionaries.

At least be honest.

Liberalism originally meant free markets and individual freedoms. The failure is the inability of right wingers to distinguish between that--the original definition of liberalism--and the mischaracterizations of it spread by your Messiahs (rush, hannity, o'reilly, etc.).

obama, btw, is not a liberal. He's just another sleazy anti-freedom pol who successfully exploited his African-American heritage and speech making abilities to create the impression that he represented change, and I appropriately didn't vote for him.
 
Liberalism originally meant free markets and individual freedoms. The failure is the inability of right wingers to distinguish between that--the original definition of liberalism--and the mischaracterizations of it spread by your Messiahs (rush, hannity, o'reilly, etc.).

obama, btw, is not a liberal. He's just another sleazy anti-freedom pol who successfully exploited his African-American heritage and speech making abilities to create the impression that he represented change, and I appropriately didn't vote for him.

I don't think I will be taking any advice from a proclaimed Libertarian. Liberlism has never meant free markets and individual freedoms, liberalism has always been about wealth redistribution and social justice. It just took me a while to figure it out.
 
And who should I vote for. I am not a Republican, I am a conservative and right now the GOP beats the alternative.




Couldn't agree more, it isn't the Government's responsibility to create jobs nor can they that actually produce anything.




That is what liberalism thinks they can do, take money and spend it wisely to redistribute wealth. It never works.

Liberalism doesn't advocate forcible wealth redistribution.

Liberalism favors a minimal, non-intervening government. Forcible wealth redistribution is primarily a GOP practice, and it's a propoganda tactic of the GOP to falsely claim it's fiscally conservative while liberalism is about tax-and-spend--a tactic which you seem gullible enough to fall for.

You were doing so well, spending causes debt not tax cuts that promote the private sector. CEO's and corporate board members of private companies do not affect the U.S. Debt at all.

CEOs and board members actively increase the debt, because the pols you vote for bend over backwards to tax Americans (or future generations of Americans) and steer that tax money to their projects.
 
Last edited:
Not originally.

I was coopted first by Teddy Roosevelt....and has led to this.

I don't think I will be taking any advice from a proclaimed Libertarian. Liberlism has never meant free markets and individual freedoms, liberalism has always been about wealth redistribution and social justice. It just took met a while to figure it out.
 
Liberalism doesn't advocate forcible wealth redistribution.

Liberalism favors a minimal, non-intervening government. Forcible wealth redistribution is primarily a GOP practice, and it's a propoganda tactic of the GOP to claim liberalism is about tax-and-spend--a tactic which you seem gullible enough to fall for.



CEOs and board members actively increase the debt, because the pols you vote for bend over backwards to tax Americans (or future generations of Americans) and steer that tax money to their projects.

Better tell that to modern day liberals who I believe will disagree with you.

As for CEO's and board members again you focus on the revenue side of the govt. and not the expense side. If you have less revenue coming in then cut spending. Govt. doesn't do that.
 
Not originally.

I was coopted first by Teddy Roosevelt....and has led to this.

Teddy was a long before my time. If that is true I stand corrected about always been about wealth redistribution.
 
liberalism is a term the left has coopted mainly in response to social mores. economically america's left is essentially reactionary parasitic statist
 
Not Liberalism originally.

Originally Liberalism was what we are today...

It actually started before Teddy, but he was the first to articulate it clearly.

Teddy was the first false choice given to America.

Teddy was a long before my time. If that is true I stand corrected about always been about wealth redistribution.
 
I don't think I will be taking any advice from a proclaimed Libertarian. Liberlism has never meant free markets and individual freedoms, liberalism has always been about wealth redistribution and social justice. It just took me a while to figure it out.

LOL, you haven't figured out anything. You just listened to your talking heads at FoxNews and rush limbaugh and regurgitated what they told you about liberalism. Liberalism originally meant exactly what I said it did. . .

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Modern political philosophy - Google Books

It's a sad fact of the modern US that because of spend-thrifty GOPers who prefer to run up deficits by building useless weapons and backing dictators that sensible individuals are reduced to having to re-steer that money into something useful.

In an ideal liberal world, there would be no need for this re-steering, because there would no attempt by any pol to run up deficits to make specific businesses (i. e. the offense sector) rich.
 
LOL, you haven't figured out anything. You just listened to your talking heads at FoxNews and rush limbaugh and regurgitated what they told you about liberalism. Liberalism originally meant exactly what I said it did. . .



It's a sad fact of the modern US that because of spend-thrifty GOPers who prefer to run up deficits by building useless weapons and backing dictators that sensible individuals are reduced to having to re-steer that money into something useful.

In an ideal liberal world, there would be no need for this re-steering, because there would no attempt by any pol to run up deficits to make specific businesses (i. e. the offense sector) rich.

The new deal set the basis for both parties to spend way beyond the tenth amendment boundaries
 
The New Deal was set up by decades long events manipulated and stroked by the elites of the time.

yeah, I dont think we have a disagreement
 
Better tell that to modern day liberals who I believe will disagree with you.

Many of the intelligent individuals who call themselves "liberals" only advocate spending policies that attempt to re-steer money allocated for silly GOP projects, i. e. useless fighter engines, dictator sponsorship, to something more useful.

And accordingly, many of the less informed conservatives claim that such an attempt is "reckless spending", because. . .

that's what FoxNews told them to think

So long as there are those who vote for airheads like palin, there must be liberals who try to ensure taxpayer money is spent wisely, and not wasted by building bridges to nowhere, bailing out oil companies from their own liabilities, propping up Third World political factions or buying caviar for Netanyahu.

The ideal non-interventionist liberalism originally advocated by those like Jefferson can only exist once the deficit-spending idiots (boehner, gingrich, mcconnell, mccain, . . .) are gone.

But, alas, as long as individuals are duped by michelle malkin and friends, that's not likely to ever happen.

As for CEO's and board members again you focus on the revenue side of the govt. and not the expense side. If you have less revenue coming in then cut spending. Govt. doesn't do that.

Corporation, PACs, and equity firms create US debt because they direct politicians they sponsored (like mcconnell or boehner) to spend lots of taxpayer $$ on their projects, or advocate anti-competitive laws that favor their interests over those of the free market.

You seem clueless about the fact that the US is a plutocracy. Might wanna look that up--FoxNews never mentioned that word :)
 
I love populists who whine about fox
 
Oh please.

Dude...you are a walking cliche.

I have no idea what you mean by that drive by post. The guys ays he is not a Republican... so lets find out.
 
Nope, sorry.

You have been weighed...measured...and found to be a parrot.



Many of the intelligent individuals who call themselves "liberals" only advocate spending policies that attempt to re-steer money allocated for silly GOP projects, i. e. useless fighter engines, dictator sponsorship, to something more useful.

And accordingly, many of the less informed conservatives claim that such an attempt is "reckless spending", because. . .

that's what FoxNews told them to think

So long as there are those who vote for airheads like palin, there must be liberals who try to ensure taxpayer money is spent wisely, and not wasted by building bridges to nowhere, bailing out oil companies from their own liabilities, propping up Third World political factions or buying caviar for Netanyahu.

The ideal non-interventionist liberalism originally advocated by those like Jefferson can only exist once the deficit-spending idiots (boehner, gingrich, mcconnell, mccain, . . .) are gone.

But, alas, as long as individuals are duped by michelle malkin and friends, that's not likely to ever happen.



Corporation, PACs, and equity firms create US debt because they direct politicians they sponsored (like mcconnell or boehner) to spend lots of taxpayer $$ on their projects, or advocate anti-competitive laws that favor their interests over those of the free market.

You seem clueless about the fact that the US is a plutocracy. Might wanna look that up--FoxNews never mentioned that word :)
 
I voted for LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan(2), GHW Bush(2), Dole, GW Bush(2), McCain. Carter ruined me for the Democrat party. Unfortunately not all were conservatives but I wasn't going to throw my vote away on someone with no chance to win. Sorry, but third party candidates give the office to a Democrat.

Nine out of ten times you voted Republican.... but you are NOT a Republican.

sure.
 
Nope, sorry.

You have been weighed...measured...and found to be a parrot.

Unable to explain yourself..... sad... really sad. Maybe someday you will learn more words. Or not. I am betting on the second alternative.

It looks like Turtle and Amazed have really hit it off. Cute.
 
Last edited:
Nine out of ten times you voted Republican.... but you are NOT a Republican.

sure.

well Guy Incognito admits to almost always voting dem and he claims (LOL) to be a libertarian

aren't you the one who goes nuts when I bash fraudulent libertarians

you claim I have no right to deny those the status they claim

now you do essentially the same thing with this fellow
 
It's a sad fact of the modern US that because of spend-thrifty GOPers who prefer to run up deficits by building useless weapons and backing dictators that sensible individuals are reduced to having to re-steer that money into something useful.
There is no doubt that the Bush administration ran up too much debt while in office, with that said Obama has doubled down in 2 years what it took Bush 8 years to do. As far as your argument about weapons.... defense is only about 5-7% of the total budget where social programs demand much more.

As far as your comment about weapons being worthless I'd have issue with that. If this country couldnt defend itself then what good are the social programs going to do much less anything else if we are defeated militarily by our enemies. You wouldnt have the freedoms you have in this country today had we not supplied our brave soldiers with the best possible weapons we can give them.

Concerning the comment about dictators I'd like to point out that Democrats have backed dictators just like republicans and sometimes its actually the better choice. I'd think you would see this if the muslim brotherhood ever took control in Egypt. Sometimes the only chioce is between bad & worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom