• 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!

Do Democrats hate wealth?

It is probably most accurate to say that Democrats get their knickers in a bunch about wealth they can't control.

Liberal Democrats, anyway. Conservative Democrats don't care so much.
 
because they are evil ,jealous and every negative thing:lol:
 
waas said:
To me this whole thread is nothing more than dangerous generalizations... :(
Click to expand...

You will get used to it after awhile, we get alot of it. Welcome to the board, love that avatar.
 
Harshaw said:
It is probably most accurate to say that Democrats get their knickers in a bunch about wealth they can't control.

Liberal Democrats, anyway. Conservative Democrats don't care so much.
Click to expand...

Nope, that is not it either. It is so fun watching people show how they are so ignorant of what liberalism is.
 
The answer to the OP question, do democrats hate wealth - only when it's other people's wealth.
 
Redress said:
Nope, that is not it either.
Click to expand...

Oh . . . but it is. If I'm wrong, describe the liberal position on wealth in such a way that it doesn't boil down to what I said.

It is so fun watching people show how they are so ignorant of what liberalism is.
Click to expand...

Heh. We'll see.
 
Harshaw said:
Oh . . . but it is. If I'm wrong, describe the liberal position on wealth in such a way that it doesn't boil down to what I said.



Heh. We'll see.
Click to expand...

Liberals do not have a position on wealth. We are not for it, against it. It exists. What is the conservative position on the moon?
 
joko104 said:
I heard a Democrat challenger of the Dem ocratic incumbent for this area (state offtce) whose radio ad for the Democratic primary boasted that he "isn't rich. Isn't it time we elect a REAL Democrat?"The near total campaign theme of Obama and national democrats is that wealthy people are evil. It is the campaign against Romney. It is overall the constrant drum beating otherwise that the wealthy are evil and the Democrats are ongoing to punish them. Do Democrats hate the wealthy?
Click to expand...

I don't hate wealth, just greed.
 
Carleen said:
I don't hate wealth, just greed.
Click to expand...

Who's greed? You do realize that unions pushing higher and higher wages is also greed, not just corporations or rich people wanting more money. People who want the government to support them benefits and reduced taxes are also being greedy.

So, do you really hate greed or only greed that you disagree with?
 
Re-do the thread with why do liberals target the rich for their rhetoric and we can discuss.
 
Redress said:
Liberals do not have a position on wealth. We are not for it, against it. It exists. What is the conservative position on the moon?
Click to expand...

It exists? As in it grows on trees? Or it is the product of someone's individual effort? It seems to me that libals believe the former since they like to claim it as their own to do with as they see fit, rather than respect it as the property of others to with as they see fit. Without wealth and without the ability to confiscate the wealth of others, liberalism ceases to exist.
 
Fletch said:
It exists? As in it grows on trees? Or it is the product of someone's individual effort? It seems to me that libals believe the former since they like to claim it as their own to do with as they see fit, rather than respect it as the property of others to with as they see fit. Without wealth and without the ability to confiscate the wealth of others, liberalism ceases to exist.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that you once again have no clue what liberals think. Since the last was too complex for you, I will simplify: some people are wealthy. We know this. Some are born to it, some get lucky, some work incredibly hard for it. There is nothing wrong with being wealthy. We are not for being wealthy, we are not against it, both positions would be unrealistic. It is simply something that is.

Now, what you describe is your biased and unreasoned description of how you see others in an attempt to demonize a position you cannot actually argue against. What you are doing would be almost exactly like if I described conservatives as being against the poor, that the only use conservatives have for the poor is for slave labor for themselves. The poor should shut up and take what you let them have, and don't forget to shop at the company store. That is not an accurate description of conservatism, just as your description of liberalsim has a similar complete lack of basis in reality.
 
Redress said:
Liberals do not have a position on wealth. We are not for it, against it. It exists. What is the conservative position on the moon?
Click to expand...

I don't know about conservatives, but I personally want to see us up there looking down instead of all of us down here looking up. Lets go there, tap the resourse and exploit them for expansion. Kind of like liberals policy on wealth.
 
kmiller1610 said:
Re-do the thread with why do liberals target the rich for their rhetoric and we can discuss.
Click to expand...

It's because they get their knickers in a bunch about wealth they can't control. :)
 
Harshaw said:
It's because they get their knickers in a bunch about wealth they can't control. :)
Click to expand...

And you continue to show that you have no understanding of what liberals think, and no ability to debate liberals other than to build straw men.
 
Fletch said:
It exists? As in it grows on trees? Or it is the product of someone's individual effort? It seems to me that libals believe the former since they like to claim it as their own to do with as they see fit, rather than respect it as the property of others to with as they see fit. Without wealth and without the ability to confiscate the wealth of others, liberalism ceases to exist.
Click to expand...

All of which requires the mental focus of a contortionist. And a lot of pretending.

Since it is obvious that rich people pay for most of what liberals want to do, what is the logic of castigating them while trying to get everyone else to support taxing them more?

It does explain their desire to control speech. The big lie is always waiting to emerge.

Like Obama telling us we can't go back to the policies of the past.

Uh.. like what policies have you changed Barak?
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
And you continue to show that you have no understanding of what liberals think, and no ability to debate liberals other than to build straw men.
Click to expand...

And your response, when I asked you what they do think, is that they don't.
 
waas said:
What exactly do you think a liberal is? :confused:
Click to expand...

I think liberals are stuck on equality of outcome versus equal protection of the law.

I think they want the poor, lower, and middle classes to receive more from... somewhere... without considering what implications that has on the entity providing more to them.

I think they want to force the terms of private employment contracts, forcing employers to pay more than they need to or agree to.

I think they fail to see the way need-based handouts encourage the culture to learn to be needy.

I think they blame a lack of savings on insufficient income rather than on people's choice to spend all their money rather than save any.

I think liberals want peace all around but fail to grasp some of the basics about financial incentives, basic human behaviorism, and individual rights.

I think liberals understand the delicate environmental balance we're ****ing with, but refuse to acknowledge how helping the poor and feeding the hungry and giving everyone a maximum standard of living is ultimately environmentally destructive.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
It seems to me that you once again have no clue what liberals think. Since the last was too complex for you, I will simplify: some people are wealthy. We know this. Some are born to it, some get lucky, some work incredibly hard for it. There is nothing wrong with being wealthy. We are not for being wealthy, we are not against it, both positions would be unrealistic. It is simply something that is.
Click to expand...
You continue to say that wealth 'exists' or that is is 'simply something that is.' But wealth has a source. It has to be created. Which is why it exists in abundance in some places and is absent in others. So I am not arguing against what you believe regarding wealth, I am attempting to point out the flaw in thinking the way you do.

Now, what you describe is your biased and unreasoned description of how you see others in an attempt to demonize a position you cannot actually argue against. What you are doing would be almost exactly like if I described conservatives as being against the poor, that the only use conservatives have for the poor is for slave labor for themselves. The poor should shut up and take what you let them have, and don't forget to shop at the company store. That is not an accurate description of conservatism, just as your description of liberalsim has a similar complete lack of basis in reality.
Click to expand...
To say, as I did, that without the ability to confiscate the wealth of others liberalism would cease to exist is not biased or unreasonable, but fact. It is impossible liberalism to exist as a political reality if it cannot first confiscate from some the wealth it plans to transfer to others. Liberalism is about correcting what is seen by some as an unequal distribution of wealth that freedom and the free market create. The liberal antidote is coercion, theft and redistribution. I admit that that is not a particularly flattering description of liberalism, but it is accurate just the same.
 
Harshaw said:
And your response, when I asked you what they do think, is that they don't.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, that was not my response. So lies on top of straw men. Well done!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom