First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Liberalism
67737 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Online
Posted 11/12/10 , edited 11/12/10

Allhailodin wrote:



Social Justice = Authoritarianism which is something Conservatives don't want but Liberals do.


Oh You seemed pretty happy in the Prop 19 debate that The Fed was going to use its Authority to Overrule California's theoretical attempt to grant people more freedom to poison themselves as they will.

Hello Allhailodin, The Liberal.


10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/12/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:



Social Justice = Authoritarianism which is something Conservatives don't want but Liberals do.


Oh You seemed pretty happy in the Prop 19 debate that The Fed was going to use its Authority to Overrule California's theoretical attempt to grant people more freedom to poison themselves as they will.

Hello Allhailodin, The Liberal.



No, i was just pointing out that its null and void.

I cannot possibly be a liberal because I believe in personal and economic freedom and individual liberty, things that liberals despise with enough passion to fill the local void twice over.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/12/10 , edited 11/12/10

Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

First- America is pretty great, warts and all. We can type 'Free Tebitia' and not have police cars outside our doors.

Second- I don't know if you have been around Children, they don't have the sense that we developed with age. They also don't know when to stop- and parents aren't like to let them stop because they don't want the child to start a ruction, a few extra dollars is worth not having the head-ache. This begins their addiction to fastfood- and all commonsense is trump by this when they reach adulthood.

Third- Government's responsibility is to look out for the commonwealth of society- you can make the same argument toward drugs- its not the government's position to interfer, individuals should have the choice of wheter they want to f--k up their lives. That's their right. But we don't, what then should be banned and not banned by the Federal Government? But, like I said, government insures our welfare so long as it doesn't infringe on the Liberties as given by the Bill of Rights, though, the Bill of Rights, not being absolutely perfect, should get bent, from time to time. Such instances when it does cause harm to the general welfare of the community and groups, like 'Hate Speech' or 'Angst-ridden homocidal teen coming on school with a gun'. Additionally, addiction trumps commonsense, as said above. Beside, people still have the right to clog their arteries, just they don't get little toys with it anymore.


Fast food isn't an addiction. Meth is an addiction but a double cheezeburger is not.

The bill of rights should never be bent, and hate speech is protected under the first amendment as it should be, free speech should be absolute and cover everything no exceptions.


Ah- the law says otherwise, but enough of this- because I am guaranteed the right to bear arms, and under no circumstances can this great law ever be bent, I can go ahead and buy myself a semi-automatic, and go anywhere I want with it, to the children's playground, to someone's private poperty, &c. But its your logic, not mine. Also, a little research will show that fastfood is addictive- explaining why someone would abuse themselves as to buy such disgusting food.
Posted 11/12/10

Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

First- America is pretty great, warts and all. We can type 'Free Tebitia' and not have police cars outside our doors.

Second- I don't know if you have been around Children, they don't have the sense that we developed with age. They also don't know when to stop- and parents aren't like to let them stop because they don't want the child to start a ruction, a few extra dollars is worth not having the head-ache. This begins their addiction to fastfood- and all commonsense is trump by this when they reach adulthood.

Third- Government's responsibility is to look out for the commonwealth of society- you can make the same argument toward drugs- its not the government's position to interfer, individuals should have the choice of wheter they want to f--k up their lives. That's their right. But we don't, what then should be banned and not banned by the Federal Government? But, like I said, government insures our welfare so long as it doesn't infringe on the Liberties as given by the Bill of Rights, though, the Bill of Rights, not being absolutely perfect, should get bent, from time to time. Such instances when it does cause harm to the general welfare of the community and groups, like 'Hate Speech' or 'Angst-ridden homocidal teen coming on school with a gun'. Additionally, addiction trumps commonsense, as said above. Beside, people still have the right to clog their arteries, just they don't get little toys with it anymore.


Fast food isn't an addiction. Meth is an addiction but a double cheezeburger is not.

The bill of rights should never be bent, and hate speech is protected under the first amendment as it should be, free speech should be absolute and cover everything no exceptions.
What's so free about hate? Do you love to hate for no good reason whatsoever? Just because you were abandoned by your own mother since birth, what gives you the moral and subsequently legal rights for you to spread hatred, not justice? Is this your idea of liberty? To hate for no good reason? Where's the justice in that?

What about the negative rights of minimizing harm to others? What about the positive rights of individual human dignity? Are they all just free games in your own personal liberty to be trample upon, just because you don't even respect yourself anymore so than how your own mother disrespected you?

Might makes right is tyranny, not objective morality based on reasoning.


Allhailodin wrote:



Social Justice = Authoritarianism which is something Conservatives don't want but Liberals do.
And you are full of shit, when you abused your freedom of speech by yourself telling lies, when social justice is the foundation for civil society. You OTOH is the sole example of authoritarianism with your lies, injustice, and unquestionable attitude.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/12/10 , edited 11/12/10

Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

Ehmmm, I don't want to butt in or something,
But prohibiting toys with a meal isn't something a ''true liberal'' would do, as I stated before, a liberal wants less gouverment control on the economy.



I guess I'm kinda trying to say that this subject is sort of off topic


Most American Liberals would be for more Government intervention in Business-

One- businesses are only concern with making money, they don't care for how shitty their products are or how dangerous the work condition, they want to make money. Correct- now most Liberals would believe that the government should interfer by setting standards and regulating business from unsafe practices, such as painting toys with lead paint or locking up a flammable factory. While many conservative would concede some regulation, they believe that too much regulation would hinder businesses.

Two- Most liberals, as distinguished from conservatives, wants not equalitity, for everyone has different needs, but rather social justice. You have them to thank for installing those ramps for the disabled and for welfare. Most conservatives, on the otherhand, do believe in equality and individuality- wanting to remove government intervention from all the above mentioned (except, probably, the ramps), because they believe that it grants government too much power, leading to, amongst many other things, the loss of individuality, statism, and authoritarianism.

Three- Some liberals would ban toys because they believe that it poses a risk to children- Children are guileless and easily swayed, and marketing something that unhealthy toward them is, like marketing cigarettes and alcohol, completely immoral, trying to get them hooked on MacDonald at so tender an age.

So when some random conservative rants about 'Big Government Liberal', most Liberals do want a big government, because they see Government as a implimentor of Social Justice (such as during the Civil Rights era). And when they say they are for small government, they sometimes do mean just that, they want less government intervention- though sometime to the point of Laissez Faire- that government infringes on the right of the individual. But most people are centralists- that is that they are not part of either party, rather they believe in some Liberal values- say government should help the poor- while endorsing some conservative values- say government should keep out of business.

Keep in mind that this is very basic beliefs of Modern Liberalism and Conservativism is in America (not being a citizen of any other nation, I cannot say the same for their countries with any certainty), and contain innumerable inaccuracies. In addition, I hope that I am not bias, for that is the greatest sin any man can commit when speaking of politics.


Social Justice = Authoritarianism which is something Conservatives don't want but Liberals do.


Ah, just a question- does the government telling the southern states, "Y'know what, guys, Black folks are people too, you shouldn't lynch them" count as authoritarianism? That is social justice, and, apperantly authoritarianism. Additionally, if you were wheelchair bound, would you not want 'social justice' in the form of ramps, which is obviously tyranny against businesses? Or making sure that people don't- say- attack you based upon something like political beliefs- with clugles and clubs and all that, or you are actively discriminated against in business or by the local government? I would guess the Conservative thing to do, by your standard, is to shrink government more, because obviously giving the government less power to curb these issues would make everything all the better.

10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/12/10 , edited 11/12/10

longfenglim wrote:

Ah, just a question- does the government telling the southern states, "Y'know what, guys, Black folks are people too, you shouldn't lynch them" count as authoritarianism? That is social justice, and, apperantly authoritarianism. Additionally, if you were wheelchair bound, would you not want 'social justice' in the form of ramps, which is obviously tyranny against businesses? Or making sure that people don't- say- attack you based upon something like political beliefs- with clugles and clubs and all that, or you are actively discriminated against in business or by the local government? I would guess the Conservative thing to do, by your standard, is to shrink government more, because obviously giving the government less power to curb these issues would make everything all the better.



No, Social Justice means giving the government absolute authority over our lives and feeding our individual liberties down into the garbage disposal. Social justice is all about giving the government more and more power to regulate and dictate our lives while sacrificing our freedoms in return. Something liberals want. Liberals want an authoritarian government to dictate our lives. They don't want freedom on any level, individual, economy, of personal.

Social justice means that the government dictates every aspect of our lives, where we can work, how much money we are allowed to make, what we are allowed to spend it on, what we are allowed to do in our free time, what kind of cars we are allowed to drive, how much health care and what kind of health care we are allowed, how much energy we are rationed, that's social justice. Total government dominance over us. But somehow in the eyes of a liberal, giving the government that kind of authority is a good thing because the government is perfect in every way right ?

Saying black people are humans too and giving cripples ramps is not social justice it is giving them individual liberty. Which is opposite social justice.
67737 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Online
Posted 11/12/10

Allhailodin wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:



Social Justice = Authoritarianism which is something Conservatives don't want but Liberals do.


Oh You seemed pretty happy in the Prop 19 debate that The Fed was going to use its Authority to Overrule California's theoretical attempt to grant people more freedom to poison themselves as they will.

Hello Allhailodin, The Liberal.



No, i was just pointing out that its null and void.

I cannot possibly be a liberal because I believe in personal and economic freedom and individual liberty, things that liberals despise with enough passion to fill the local void twice over.


And advertising IS brainwashing.

67737 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Online
Posted 11/12/10 , edited 11/12/10

Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Ah, just a question- does the government telling the southern states, "Y'know what, guys, Black folks are people too, you shouldn't lynch them" count as authoritarianism? That is social justice, and, apperantly authoritarianism. Additionally, if you were wheelchair bound, would you not want 'social justice' in the form of ramps, which is obviously tyranny against businesses? Or making sure that people don't- say- attack you based upon something like political beliefs- with clugles and clubs and all that, or you are actively discriminated against in business or by the local government? I would guess the Conservative thing to do, by your standard, is to shrink government more, because obviously giving the government less power to curb these issues would make everything all the better.



No, Social Justice means giving the government absolute authority over our lives and feeding our individual liberties down into the garbage disposal. Social justice is all about giving the government more and more power to regulate and dictate our lives while sacrificing our freedoms in return. Something liberals want. Liberals want an authoritarian government to dictate our lives. They don't want freedom on any level, individual, economy, of personal.

Social justice means that the government dictates every aspect of our lives, where we can work, how much money we are allowed to make, what we are allowed to spend it on, what we are allowed to do in our free time, what kind of cars we are allowed to drive, how much health care and what kind of health care we are allowed, how much energy we are rationed, that's social justice. Total government dominance over us. But somehow in the eyes of a liberal, giving the government that kind of authority is a good thing because the government is perfect in every way right ?

Saying black people are humans too and giving cripples ramps is not social justice it is giving them individual liberty. Which is opposite social justice.


No it doesn't. That's just what corporations say it does to wave the flag of personal freedom over their agenda of more power to do whatever the fuck they like.

Your sort of assinine assertions are why people dissmiss you on this forum.

for an example of conservative hypocrisy just as bad as any liberals...

why must individuals pay the consequences for the unhealthy living. IE foot expensive medical bills for the self inflicted wounds of bad diets etc.

but at the same time making corporations pay the REAL cost of resource extraction (ie cleaning up the mess they leave behind) some kind of evil environmental plot?

You sir, Are UNFAIR with every statement you make. Which as way I will continue to call you a liberal as long as you say liberals are the ones with a core value of unfairness.

(edited for completion.)

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/12/10 , edited 11/12/10

Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Ah, just a question- does the government telling the southern states, "Y'know what, guys, Black folks are people too, you shouldn't lynch them" count as authoritarianism? That is social justice, and, apperantly authoritarianism. Additionally, if you were wheelchair bound, would you not want 'social justice' in the form of ramps, which is obviously tyranny against businesses? Or making sure that people don't- say- attack you based upon something like political beliefs- with clugles and clubs and all that, or you are actively discriminated against in business or by the local government? I would guess the Conservative thing to do, by your standard, is to shrink government more, because obviously giving the government less power to curb these issues would make everything all the better.



No, Social Justice means giving the government absolute authority over our lives and feeding our individual liberties down into the garbage disposal. Social justice is all about giving the government more and more power to regulate and dictate our lives while sacrificing our freedoms in return. Something liberals want. Liberals want an authoritarian government to dictate our lives. They don't want freedom on any level, individual, economy, of personal.

Saying black people are humans too and giving cripples ramps is not social justice it is giving them individual liberty. Which is opposite social justice.



Wow! I don't know how you manage to do it, but you manage to change Social Justice into 'Greatest and Evilest of Evils'. Now, let's look at the definition by the Catholic Church, which is only one of the millions of definitions you can find:

SOCIAL JUSTICE
The virtue that inclines one to co-operate with others in order to help make the institutions of society better serve the common good. While the obligation of social justice falls upon the individual, that person cannot fulfill the obligation alone, but must work in concert with others, through organized bodies, as a member of a group whose purpose is to identify the needs of society, and, by the use of appropriate means, to meet these needs locally, regionally, nationally, and even globally. Implicit in the virtue of social justice is an awareness that the world has entered on a new phase of social existence, with potential for great good or great harm vested in those who control the media and the structures of modern society. Christians, therefore, are expected to respond to the new obligations created by the extraordinary means of promoting the common good not only of small groups but literally of all humanity.


Yes, those damned Commie Papists, calling such a great evil a 'virtue'. Now the basic premise of Social Justice, that is everyone should be treated fairly and have an equal playing field, and government should assist in alliviating whatever disadvantage which their condition have imbued upon them, and that government should look out for the commonwealth of society, is, appearantly, so evil that the word 'evil' is too good a word to apply to it.

Likewise, how is installing ramps giving cripples 'individual liberty'? They, as an individual, have the same liberty, ie they are allowed the freedom of entering the building, but, are given social justice in the form of the ramp-that is that the government are 'leveling the field' so that his initial condition, being crippled, is alliviated. Such is great tyranny to business, as it forces them to build ramps when they don't want to, damn oppressin' big government. Or of African Americans, they are discriminated against, and 'Social Justice' kicked in by ending that discrimination, infringing on the Southerner's almighty STATE RIGHTS to have seperate and "equal" facilities for African Americans, African Americans have the right to apply for a job (though God be with them if they want to actually get hired) and drink in public fountains, even if it is seperate, it still is "equal", isn't it. But, oh the great evils of Social Justice, telling the States they don't have the right to segregate black people. That's infringing on the 9th amendment.

So, in other words, your definition of 'individual rights and liberty' is 'Social Justice that would be asolutely folly to go against'.

10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/12/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Ah, just a question- does the government telling the southern states, "Y'know what, guys, Black folks are people too, you shouldn't lynch them" count as authoritarianism? That is social justice, and, apperantly authoritarianism. Additionally, if you were wheelchair bound, would you not want 'social justice' in the form of ramps, which is obviously tyranny against businesses? Or making sure that people don't- say- attack you based upon something like political beliefs- with clugles and clubs and all that, or you are actively discriminated against in business or by the local government? I would guess the Conservative thing to do, by your standard, is to shrink government more, because obviously giving the government less power to curb these issues would make everything all the better.



No, Social Justice means giving the government absolute authority over our lives and feeding our individual liberties down into the garbage disposal. Social justice is all about giving the government more and more power to regulate and dictate our lives while sacrificing our freedoms in return. Something liberals want. Liberals want an authoritarian government to dictate our lives. They don't want freedom on any level, individual, economy, of personal.

Social justice means that the government dictates every aspect of our lives, where we can work, how much money we are allowed to make, what we are allowed to spend it on, what we are allowed to do in our free time, what kind of cars we are allowed to drive, how much health care and what kind of health care we are allowed, how much energy we are rationed, that's social justice. Total government dominance over us. But somehow in the eyes of a liberal, giving the government that kind of authority is a good thing because the government is perfect in every way right ?

Saying black people are humans too and giving cripples ramps is not social justice it is giving them individual liberty. Which is opposite social justice.


No it doesn't. That's just what corporations say it does to wave the flag of personal freedom over their agenda of more power to do whatever the fuck they like.

Your sort of assinine assertions are why people dissmiss you on this forum.

for an example of conservative hypocrisy just as bad as any liberals...

why must indivi


Yes it does, that's the core of Social Justice and liberalism, give the government absolute power to regulate and control everything and anything.

Social Justice = Big Government.

Big Government paves the path to Oppression and Tyranny = China + Russia + North Korea + Iran.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/12/10 , edited 11/12/10

longfenglim wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Ah, just a question- does the government telling the southern states, "Y'know what, guys, Black folks are people too, you shouldn't lynch them" count as authoritarianism? That is social justice, and, apperantly authoritarianism. Additionally, if you were wheelchair bound, would you not want 'social justice' in the form of ramps, which is obviously tyranny against businesses? Or making sure that people don't- say- attack you based upon something like political beliefs- with clugles and clubs and all that, or you are actively discriminated against in business or by the local government? I would guess the Conservative thing to do, by your standard, is to shrink government more, because obviously giving the government less power to curb these issues would make everything all the better.



No, Social Justice means giving the government absolute authority over our lives and feeding our individual liberties down into the garbage disposal. Social justice is all about giving the government more and more power to regulate and dictate our lives while sacrificing our freedoms in return. Something liberals want. Liberals want an authoritarian government to dictate our lives. They don't want freedom on any level, individual, economy, of personal.

Saying black people are humans too and giving cripples ramps is not social justice it is giving them individual liberty. Which is opposite social justice.



Wow! I don't know how you manage to do it, but you manage to change Social Justice into 'Greatest and Evilest of Evils'. Now, let's look at the definition by the Catholic Church, which is only one of the millions of definitions you can find:

SOCIAL JUSTICE
The virtue that inclines one to co-operate with others in order to help make the institutions of society better serve the common good. While the obligation of social justice falls upon the individual, that person cannot fulfill the obligation alone, but must work in concert with others, through organized bodies, as a member of a group whose purpose is to identify the needs of society, and, by the use of appropriate means, to meet these needs locally, regionally, nationally, and even globally. Implicit in the virtue of social justice is an awareness that the world has entered on a new phase of social existence, with potential for great good or great harm vested in those who control the media and the structures of modern society. Christians, therefore, are expected to respond to the new obligations created by the extraordinary means of promoting the common good not only of small groups but literally of all humanity.


Yes, those damned Commie Papists, calling such a great evil a 'virtue'. Now the basic premise of Social Justice, that is everyone should be treated fairly and have an equal playing field, and government should assist in alliviating whatever disadvantage which their condition have imbued upon them, and that government should look out for the commonwealth of society, is, appearantly, so evil that the word 'evil' is too good a word to apply to it.

Likewise, how is installing ramps giving cripples 'individual liberty'? They, as an individual, have the same liberty, ie they are allowed the freedom of entering the building, but, are given social justice in the form of the ramp-that is that the government are 'leveling the field' so that his initial condition, being crippled, is alliviated. Such is great tyranny to business, as it forces them to build ramps when they don't want to, damn oppressin' big government. Or of African Americans, they are discriminated against, and 'Social Justice' kicked in by ending that discrimination, infringing on the Southerner's almighty STATE RIGHTS to have seperate and "equal" facilities for African Americans, African Americans have the right to apply for a job (though God be with them if they want to actually get hired) and drink in public fountains, even if it is seperate, it still is "equal", isn't it. But, oh the great evils of Social Justice, telling the States they don't have the right to segregate black people. That's infringing on the 9th amendment.

So, in other words, your definition of 'individual rights and liberty' is 'Social Justice that would be asolutely folly to go against'.



Social Justice = Big Government

The bigger the government the smaller the people. Social justice makes the government huge and thus its subjects very minute. Why do you keep ignoring this great ?

If the government is huge by extension it has all kinds of power and authority over its citizens and can at the snap of a finger violate and infringe upon all the rights and liberties of its subjects.

We already see this today on both a state and federal level.

A state level example of this is Chicago's unconstitutional attempt to completely ban the sale of hand guns.
A federal level example is obama care.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/12/10 , edited 11/12/10


Did you read anything? Social Justice= Government should look out for the commonwelfare of society, and do so by dispensing justice where it is lacking, holding their end of the great contract betwixt government and people. The government expands to protect and uphold the rights of its citizenry- if they don't do so, some random business can come up to a house, tear it down, and build a factory, all while people are still in it. In addition, expansion of the government does not mean that it will become authoritarian- for example, during the Progressive Era, not only did government expand, but so did the power of the union, the right of women (though franchaisment came with war), &c. Calling big government totalitarianism is like saying small government is anarchy-

Small government= Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Rawanda

Big government= Sercurity, Freedom, and Protection of Liberty from the xenophobic mass.

"Individualism" as defined by you= Loss of liberty to great mass of unwashed and ignorant bullies, mob rule, and terror.

If you associate an idea with its extreme, every idea becomes unappealing.

In addition- 'Obamacare' as you so call it, is merely this- 'Everyone should buy health insurance', thanks to your Republicans refusal to actually participate in it, and only crying foul when everyone had just about enough of it and decides to put an end to all this (Along with in party bickering- which is why we should have a parliamentry system based Proportional Representation). This whole compromise is not a victory for 'Social Justice', it is a victory for 'Endless and Useless negotiations resulting in much of the same'.

And Chicago- why, if you want to curb shooting, obviously getting rid of guns would be the way to do it. People with guns kill people. Unless you live in the wood and hunt for food, you only have a gun for the purpose of either looking tough or shooting someone else.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/12/10

longfenglim wrote:

Did you read anything? Social Justice= Government should look out for the commonwelfare of society, and do so by dispensing justice where it is lacking, holding their end of the great contract betwixt government and people. The government expands to protect and uphold the rights of its citizenry- if they don't do so, some random business can come up to a house, tear it down, and build a factory, all while people are still in it. In addition, expansion of the government does not mean that it will become authoritarian- for example, during the Progressive Era, not only did government expand, but so did the power of the union, the right of women (though franchaisment came with war), &c. Calling big government totalitarianism is like saying small government is anarchy-

Small government= Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Rawanda

Big government= Sercurity, Freedom, and Protection of Liberty from the xenophobic mass.

"Individualism" as defined by you= Loss of liberty to great mass of unwashed and ignorant bullies, mob rule, and terror.

If you associate an idea with its extreme, every idea becomes unappealing.

In addition- 'Obamacare' as you so call it, is merely this- 'Everyone should buy health insurance', thanks to your Republicans refusal to actually participate in it, and only crying foul when everyone had just about enough of it and decides to put an end to all this (Along with in party bickering- which is why we should have a parliamentry system based Proportional Representation). This whole compromise is not a victory for 'Social Justice', it is a victory for 'Endless and Useless negotiations resulting in much of the same'.

And Chicago- why, if you want to curb shooting, obviously getting rid of guns would be the way to do it. People with guns kill people. Unless you live in the wood and hunt for food, you only have a gun for the purpose of either looking tough or shooting someone else.


Your delusional if you think the government if there to look out for your interest, the governments only has two interests, robbing the taxpayers blind, stealing our land and property and expanding its power over its property(you and me), to the government we are just walking $$$ signs and property that is all. By expanding it and thus its power all you succeed in doing is giving it more control over our lives.

The government is by no means your friend or buddy it never was and never will be and social justice will just make it worse be expanding its already excessive power and dictation over our lives.

Your lack of ability to understand this is typical of liberals and will be the death of all freedom and liberty in this once great but currently dead nation.

Small government secures your freedom and liberty by ensuring that the government doesn't have the power to encroach our liberties and freedoms which is exactly what the government is doing as we speak. The government doesn't protect your liberties it takes them away, every year we loose dozens of freedoms to the government and get none in return.


And obamacare punishes those who refuse to buy health care with taxes and fines, it also has so little to do with health care that its laughable, it has everything to do with redistrobution of wealth.

The right to bear arms is a right all americans have, people need to be able to protect themselves which they cannot do if they cannon own guns, taking away ones right to self defense leads to an increase in crime actually.
67737 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Online
Posted 11/12/10

Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Did you read anything? Social Justice= Government should look out for the commonwelfare of society, and do so by dispensing justice where it is lacking, holding their end of the great contract betwixt government and people. The government expands to protect and uphold the rights of its citizenry- if they don't do so, some random business can come up to a house, tear it down, and build a factory, all while people are still in it. In addition, expansion of the government does not mean that it will become authoritarian- for example, during the Progressive Era, not only did government expand, but so did the power of the union, the right of women (though franchaisment came with war), &c. Calling big government totalitarianism is like saying small government is anarchy-

Small government= Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Rawanda

Big government= Sercurity, Freedom, and Protection of Liberty from the xenophobic mass.

"Individualism" as defined by you= Loss of liberty to great mass of unwashed and ignorant bullies, mob rule, and terror.

If you associate an idea with its extreme, every idea becomes unappealing.

In addition- 'Obamacare' as you so call it, is merely this- 'Everyone should buy health insurance', thanks to your Republicans refusal to actually participate in it, and only crying foul when everyone had just about enough of it and decides to put an end to all this (Along with in party bickering- which is why we should have a parliamentry system based Proportional Representation). This whole compromise is not a victory for 'Social Justice', it is a victory for 'Endless and Useless negotiations resulting in much of the same'.

And Chicago- why, if you want to curb shooting, obviously getting rid of guns would be the way to do it. People with guns kill people. Unless you live in the wood and hunt for food, you only have a gun for the purpose of either looking tough or shooting someone else.


Your delusional if you think the government if there to look out for your interest, the governments only has two interests, robbing the taxpayers blind, stealing our land and property and expanding its power over its property(you and me), to the government we are just walking $$$ signs and property that is all. By expanding it and thus its power all you succeed in doing is giving it more control over our lives.

The government is by no means your friend or buddy it never was and never will be and social justice will just make it worse be expanding its already excessive power and dictation over our lives.

Your lack of ability to understand this is typical of liberals and will be the death of all freedom and liberty in this once great but currently dead nation.

Small government secures your freedom and liberty by ensuring that the government doesn't have the power to encroach our liberties and freedoms which is exactly what the government is doing as we speak. The government doesn't protect your liberties it takes them away, every year we loose dozens of freedoms to the government and get none in return.


And obamacare punishes those who refuse to buy health care with taxes and fines, it also has so little to do with health care that its laughable, it has everything to do with redistrobution of wealth.

The right to bear arms is a right all americans have, people need to be able to protect themselves which they cannot do if they cannon own guns, taking away ones right to self defense leads to an increase in crime actually.



On the other hand you in turn just want to hand everything over to the corporations. and anyone with a big enough paycheck. They aren't your buddies either. But you don't seem to get that. you're so mired in your Right wing propaganda that you make me feel obliged to protect the left. and I'm not particular fond of that Granola hugging, Tree eating crowd.


10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/12/10 , edited 11/12/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

On the other hand you in turn just want to hand everything over to the corporations. and anyone with a big enough paycheck. They aren't your buddies either. But you don't seem to get that. you're so mired in your Right wing propaganda that you make me feel obliged to protect the left. and I'm not particular fond of that Granola hugging, Tree eating crowd.




~Threat~

Government > Corporations

The government can throw you in jail for life and can legally kill and torture you.

A corporation cannot do that legally.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.