- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Can someone tell me what the "liberal agenda" is?
Posted on 6/22/14 at 9:43 am to The Calvin
Posted on 6/22/14 at 9:43 am to The Calvin
Of course, there are "extremes" on each 'side'. So, I will ignore those.
To me, the chief difference is to what degree one wants a homogenized American experience.
The "liberals" (as constituted by the 'left' in the body politic, today) tend to want MORE of a centralized, Federal Gov control / determination of how things must be. It creates a more homogeneous experience. Each group, state, etc is given an edict on how 'things should be'.
The problem is that creates a HUGE bureaucratic monster that is difficult to administer AND virtually eliminates competition of ideas between States. One state is not free to try a different approach to problem solving and letting citizens vote by moving. Understanding that it creates difficulty on SOME citizens for whom "moving" is more difficult.
IMO, the "left" sees that there are needs for safeguards to keep some 'elites' from taking advantage of others by misbehavior and fraud, etc. The Gov is needed to more even the playing field and to make sure that some business owner or local bigwig isn't as easily able to harm or steal from the citizenry.
My belief is it simply switches the location of the 'elite' that is causing harm from the local to the federal level. And, the inefficiencies cause more harm than good.
For all the trolling as assholerry that Rex, et al, post on here....there would be very little difference in the way the nation exists were his views to be in "control".
I think the biggest decline would be in the lack of competition between states (noted above). But,that is simply opinion and the entire basis of of form of government. And, in fact, the opposing "side" point of view provides the very competition of ideas that I think is so healthy. Thus, aside from the extremes, I think it is a net good that we have BOTH views being expressed and competing.
I am conservative (Libertarian)..but, do not see liberalism as an enemy.
ETA: I think dishonest, disingenuous "side supporting" is the enemy. BOTH 'sides' have plenty of that. We would be better off with fewer hacks that simply let "my side" get away with it based upon previous "other side" behavior.
To me, the chief difference is to what degree one wants a homogenized American experience.
The "liberals" (as constituted by the 'left' in the body politic, today) tend to want MORE of a centralized, Federal Gov control / determination of how things must be. It creates a more homogeneous experience. Each group, state, etc is given an edict on how 'things should be'.
The problem is that creates a HUGE bureaucratic monster that is difficult to administer AND virtually eliminates competition of ideas between States. One state is not free to try a different approach to problem solving and letting citizens vote by moving. Understanding that it creates difficulty on SOME citizens for whom "moving" is more difficult.
IMO, the "left" sees that there are needs for safeguards to keep some 'elites' from taking advantage of others by misbehavior and fraud, etc. The Gov is needed to more even the playing field and to make sure that some business owner or local bigwig isn't as easily able to harm or steal from the citizenry.
My belief is it simply switches the location of the 'elite' that is causing harm from the local to the federal level. And, the inefficiencies cause more harm than good.
For all the trolling as assholerry that Rex, et al, post on here....there would be very little difference in the way the nation exists were his views to be in "control".
I think the biggest decline would be in the lack of competition between states (noted above). But,that is simply opinion and the entire basis of of form of government. And, in fact, the opposing "side" point of view provides the very competition of ideas that I think is so healthy. Thus, aside from the extremes, I think it is a net good that we have BOTH views being expressed and competing.
I am conservative (Libertarian)..but, do not see liberalism as an enemy.
ETA: I think dishonest, disingenuous "side supporting" is the enemy. BOTH 'sides' have plenty of that. We would be better off with fewer hacks that simply let "my side" get away with it based upon previous "other side" behavior.
This post was edited on 6/22/14 at 9:47 am
Posted on 6/22/14 at 9:55 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
We would be better off with fewer hacks that simply let "my side" get away with it based upon previous "other side" behavior.
the "hack" population seems to be growing every day, unfortunately.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 9:57 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
I am conservative (Libertarian)..but, do not see liberalism as an enemy.
ETA: I think dishonest, disingenuous "side supporting" is the enemy. BOTH 'sides' have plenty of that.
Cosigned.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 10:01 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
Reasonable people can disagree, have the same goals with different means. Paul Ryan's "inner city" words were not racist and these wild daily conspiracy theories we see here are ridiculous. And the sick thing is the guys starting this crap know it's not true. But they put it out there and let one blog say it, the 2 then 10 then 50, then message boards, then radio and the main stream media pick it up. If it's debunked, just move on to the next faux outrage. Throw Grandma off the cliff. FEMA camps.
I heard this radio program discussing this guy who was the victim of these crazy rumors on the Topix site. One woman with multiple screen names in this small name started multiple rumors about this guy. That set off a wildfire that just about ruined this guy's life. He hired an attorney and found out it was this one woman, and won a size able lawsuit. Of course she's judgment proof and won't pay anything. But that's an example of how stupid crap can be put out their against your enemy and it takes on a life of its own.
Politicians know this and exploit it.
I heard this radio program discussing this guy who was the victim of these crazy rumors on the Topix site. One woman with multiple screen names in this small name started multiple rumors about this guy. That set off a wildfire that just about ruined this guy's life. He hired an attorney and found out it was this one woman, and won a size able lawsuit. Of course she's judgment proof and won't pay anything. But that's an example of how stupid crap can be put out their against your enemy and it takes on a life of its own.
Politicians know this and exploit it.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 10:04 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
disingenuous "side supporting" is the enemy.
One thing I would love to see go away is "straight ticket" voting options. If you can't research a race to at least determine if the candidate on your side is a total bum, then just don't vote in that race. In fact, I'm quite confident in saying that voters checking the straight ticket box are lazy pigs...
Posted on 6/22/14 at 10:09 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
For all the trolling as assholerry that Rex, et al, post on here....there would be very little difference in the way the nation exists were his views to be in "control".
Bingo. There's a lot of "team players" out there but the reality is that we're much more similar than we give the other side credit for.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 11:21 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
I wouldn't say there is any kind of "agenda". That is something media outlets bring up to stir up controversy for ratings.
If you put ten liberals, in a room and asked what their beliefs were, you would probably get ten different responses. I'm sure it would be the same with conservatives.
I consider myself liberal. Most people would automatically think I hate guns, however, I am against gun restrictions in general.
The only people that shouldn't be allowed to own firearms are felons who were convicted of violent crimes and people that are emotionally or mentally ill and are a threat to themselves or others. Other than that I don't care what or how many guns someone owns.
If you put ten liberals, in a room and asked what their beliefs were, you would probably get ten different responses. I'm sure it would be the same with conservatives.
I consider myself liberal. Most people would automatically think I hate guns, however, I am against gun restrictions in general.
The only people that shouldn't be allowed to own firearms are felons who were convicted of violent crimes and people that are emotionally or mentally ill and are a threat to themselves or others. Other than that I don't care what or how many guns someone owns.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)