[Y3a]

What is a Liberals Ideal world? I'm curious. is it no war, food for everybody, true communism or what? Why would you want a world created by liberals?

[davesimondotcom]

Lots of tye dye, everyone is a vegetarian, smelling of patchouli, holding hands, singing folk songs and spinning in circles. Don't forget smoking pot, lots and lots of pot.

Seriously though, I don't have any idea what you expect people to say. Think about it as yin-yang. Without Liberal, there is no Conservative. Ergo, there is no way to have a totally conservative ideal world or totally liberal ideal world.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Y3a

What is a Liberals Ideal world? I'm curious. is it no war, food for everybody, true communism or what? Why would you want a world created by liberals?

Before there were conservatives or liberals, there was a world.

What you might ask yourself is: "why the world should bother with either?"

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Before there were conservatives or liberals, there was a world.

Ogg was a conservative. Pro-hunting, keep the woman in the cave kinds of guy.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Y3a

What is a Liberals Ideal world? I'm curious. is it no war, food for everybody, true communism or what?

Liberal is another word for free. A liberal's ideal world is a world with maximum freedom for the individual – economically and personally. That means things like low taxes so everybody can decide for himself what to do with his money, minimal interference of the state in personal matters like marriage, education, religion, etc.
Communism is not quite a system with a high degree of freedom, so no, that wouldn't be a liberal's idea of an ideal world.

Originally Posted by Y3a

Why would you want a world created by liberals?

Because humans prosper in freedom.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Y3a

What is a Liberals Ideal world? I'm curious. is it no war, food for everybody, true communism or what? Why would you want a world created by liberals?

An honest forward looking government.

BTW, as a liberal, I take offense to the communist stereotype. I think Communism is a horrible form of government, and I hate it when people say Liberals simply want Communism. I'm a Democrat, not a communist. Thank you.

[budster101]

Don't liberals want big government? The kind that decides what is best for you?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by budster101

Don't liberals want big government? The kind that decides what is best for you?

No, but from the standpoint of logistics it's necessary to bring about what they do want: a world in which it's impossible to screw up your own life no matter what you do.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by goMac

An honest forward looking government.

BTW, as a liberal, I take offense to the communist stereotype. I think Communism is a horrible form of government, and I hate it when people say Liberals simply want Communism. I'm a Democrat, not a communist. Thank you.

I think the more accurate stereotype is Marxism/Socialism. Not Communism. However, one can argue the similarities. I'm a relatively moderate Republican. (though I may be looking to register Independent.) I wear an earring. I love the Lord, but I also enjoy a couple of drinks on the weekend. I've been known to discuss Biblical text and even conduct Bible studies once a week. I play drums and sing in the worship group at Church, but I'm also in two secular bands. (nothing offensive mind you.) What makes the difference between liberal and conservative is what they believe constitutes "forward-looking" government. A government that authors a bill to set quotas for hiring based on skin-color is not "forward-looking" in my view. A government that wants to give socialized medicine a chance is not "forward-looking" for this would require knowledge of those systems in play today to decide what's best for us tomorrow. A sect of liberals opposed to war under all circumstances is not "forward-looking" and depends on degrees of isolationism that have failed us historically. Looking-forward means understanding history and learning from it. It means not focusing on our differences, but our similarities. It means letting people manage their own lives in the manner they best see fit. It means freedom yes, but a society without a compass is a boat without an oar, tossed about by the winds of change and out of control. I believe ethics are important for society. complete freedom is a misnomer, you can't have complete freedom and maintain a peaceful, productive society. That is conservatism. Though the lines have been severely blurred for conservatism by the current administrations' diarrhea of the wallet and lack of border-control, they have removed themselves from my view of conservatism in many respects, they still offer hope in that they are willing to do tough things today in preparation for a volatile tomorrow.

Ironically, there are many a "forward-looker" who would like you to do absolutely nothing about a failing Social Security program, nothing about an increasingly volatile globe, nothing about border control, and nothing about spending. To me, conservatism means; "think before you act" and "balance" in all aspects of legislating and governing. Cautious and patient to enact change in the interest of smooth transition toward progress always keeping ethics in mind. It means not twisting interpretation into our founding document, but read it for what it clearly says and understanding the "spirit" in which it was drafted. Knowing history.

Truth be told, humans can't live up to the ideals they've given themselves as evidenced by violent "peace protesters" and "religious people" calling for the heads of leaders abroad.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Liberal is another word for free. A liberal's ideal world is a world with maximum freedom for the individual – economically and personally. That means things like low taxes so everybody can decide for himself what to do with his money, minimal interference of the state in personal matters like marriage, education, religion, etc.

Communism is not quite a system with a high degree of freedom, so no, that wouldn't be a liberal's idea of an ideal world. Because humans prosper in freedom.

But, see, the problem here is that you just described classic liberalism or libertarianism.

"Liberals" as the term is today, do not believe in a world with maximum freedom for the individual. They believe in centralized government power, and a world run by a group of elitists who think they know best for everyone.

They will use government to carefully craft what they think is a utopian society. Banning smoking from public places - for the good of everyone, because they know best. Never mind the guy who goes out of business because his restaurant was a hangout for smokers. Taxing Big Box stores or not allowing them to be built.

They believe that economic equality can be created through the tax system. Taxing the "rich" and giving to the poor, without expectation of anyone earning what they make. The poor get dependant on the government, therefore more power for the elites.

Of course it's not much better from the other side. Conservatives today want to impose their religious views upon the way government operates. They think it's a sin to be gay, so it should be illegal, or at least those gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. They think they know best, based on their faith, and they want everyone else to feel the same way.

They believe that if everyone follows their rules, everyone gets a fair shot and if you are poor it's your fault. They view the tax system as a way to fund the essential functions of government, which to them are mostly military. The tax system to them is not a way of manipulating social and economic equality.

---

The above are SEVERE generalizations.

What doesn't seem to be recognized by most on this board is that the political spectrum has people from both extremes, but the majority lie somewhere in the middle. The problem is, as soon as someone disagrees with you and you are a more conservative member, they are obviously a left-wing freak. And vice versa.

I don't really think I could change the way things work on here. Just thought I'd rant about it a bit. I guess the point is that everyone thinks their way is right. But nobody seems to look at what common goals we have and build upon that.

[TETENAL]

Dave, nobody can honestly call the people you described "liberal".

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by Millennium

No, but from the standpoint of logistics it's necessary to bring about what they do want: a world in which the consequences of one's actions can never be negative.

I don't know any liberals who want this, nor have I ever heard this from any public liberal in the US. Why is it that mostly conservatives are responding to a question directed at liberals?

[Timo]

^^^It's because "liberal" is a code word for "bogeyman" on this board.

Were I to take seriously the thread's title, "What is a Liberals [sic] Ideal world?" my answer would start with precision in expression, the embracing of nuance and viewpoints, and better grammar.

[Spliffdaddy]

The answer is :

A world with no human beings.

After all, humans are the root cause of everything that's bad.

[Sven G]

Ideal world? IMHO, libertarian socialism.

Ok, today, maybe, it's pure utopia (i.e., a "non-place", which doesn't completely exist, yet) - but in the future, maybe, who knows...

[goMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Looking-forward means understanding history and learning from it.

Liberals tend to use history as a guide to where we should go in the future. Conservatives tend to want to take the government back where it was historically. Hence the words Liberal and Conservative.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by budster101

Don't liberals want big government? The kind that decides what is best for you?

The philosophy of communism/Marxism is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. For liberals individual rights take precedence and hence are the exact opposite of communist ideas.

The rest aka `big government' is not what makes communism communism, it was originally intended to be the other way around (small democracies on every level). In the same sense, capitalism doesn't equate small government (can you say Department of Homeland Security ).

The goal of a `thin' government is akin to the goal of a `perfect' (note the quotation marks, please) society in Marxism. You need rules and a government to enforce them. Be it police, judges, streets or a Department of Homeland Security. Ditto for many rules in business (don't sell this to that country, is it ok if company A buys the other big company B) … you need those rules (in the sense of protection of individual rights) to ensure a peaceful coexistence.

[Wiskedjak]

I don't think there's much difference between the "liberal ideal world" and the "conservative ideal world" ... peace on earth, no disease, no poverty, etc. The difference lies in the ideal path perceived in how to get there.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man

I don't know any liberals who want this, nor have I ever heard this from any public liberal in the US. Why is it that mostly conservatives are responding to a question directed at liberals?

Because it's a good chance to air perceptions, I guess. I stand by my claim, though I clarified it a bit after you replied. Although it's true that I've never heard this said by any liberal (or conservative, for that matter), actions have spoken far louder than words. There is a very strong and very consistent element in nearly all liberal policies of protecting people from themselves. Usually this is dealt with in one of two ways: either forcing people to make "good" choices by banning even remotely risky practices, or negating the results of "bad" choices at the expense of those who have already made "good" choices.

There is much talk among liberals of caring for the unfortunate. However, for all the talk, there is astonishingly little effort at telling the truly unfortunate (i.e. who are physically unable to recover their own lives after some remarkable happenstance) apart from those who have messed up their own lives and could recover on their own if only they would take responsibility from themselves. Any who would attempt to actually make such distinctions, or even devise ways that such distinctions could be made, are derided as "selfish" or "uncaring". The truly unfortunate could receive much better care if the leeches could be weeded out, and I do not doubt that this thought must cross liberals' minds, but the fact that nothing is done to deal with this problem indicates that caring for the unfortunate may not be the end goal after all.

Of course, I believe that much of this comes from the fact that most modern liberal platforms do not believe in a separation of Society and State. Either they see no distinction between the two, or they see the State as the only way to Get Things Done, and Things must Be Done at any cost.

[von Wrangell]

IMO opinion it's a world were equal opportunities are offered to everyone no matter what family they are born into. A world were the government provides just the simple necessities like health care, security and education and everyone has equal access to it no matter rich or poor your family is. An economic model built for the small companies and individual rather than for the large multi-national corporations. And a world were freedom for the individual is valued.

In short a world were everyone starts from the same point when they are born and not a system like today when your future largely (or at least somewhat) depends on how your parents did or where you are born.

Sounds terrible doesn't it?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Millennium

There is a very strong and very consistent element in nearly all liberal policies of protecting people from themselves. Usually this is dealt with in one of two ways: either forcing people to make "good" choices by banning even remotely risky practices, or negating the results of "bad" choices at the expense of those who have already made "good" choices.

That's socialism/ democratic socialism. Not liberalism.

[Maflynn]

As gomac said an honest forward looking government.

The question isn't really fair one. I think everyone wants a world that there needs are met, they feel safe, the standard of living improves and the promise of tomorrow is bright.

Librerals and Democrats have a reputation of trying to bring that about by leveling the playing field by taxing and taking money away to give it too the poor via programs. Unfortunitly the rich have ways to avoid paying their fair share so the burden falls on the middle class.

Conservatives and Republicans on the other hand want to encourage the poor to raise their standard of living through economic incentives and tax breaks. The end result is the rich pay get the tax breaks, but the middle class sees nothing.

The bottom line is regardless of who's in the white house the the middle class comes up short.

Here's a good example - Me

My wife and I are expecting twins - yippee. Now we are what you would consider middle class, we both are professionals and we make a decent salary. However because of the state of the world (gas prices, food prices mortgages, etc) we cannot afford to live on one paycheck so my wife will have to work. To do that we need to get day care. The cost of day care will probably eat up 80% of my wife's paycheck. Add in commuting costs and day to day needs and she's basically working just to pay for day care. Doesn't make sense.

The rich, they hire a nanny.
The poor get food stamps, and other entitlements. The middle class is left out in the cold. I have no idea what we are going to do The twins were certainly not planned but the Lord blessed us with them, so we'll make due, I just have no idea.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not down on the poor and they certainly need help, they also need the tools and education to succeed and not live on handouts from the government. I am down on the rich.

Mike

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

My wife and I are expecting twins - yippee. Now we are what you would consider middle class, we both are professionals and we make a decent salary. However because of the state of the world (gas prices, food prices mortgages, etc) we cannot afford to live on one paycheck so my wife will have to work. To do that we need to get day care. The cost of day care will probably eat up 80% of my wife's paycheck. Add in commuting costs and day to day needs and she's basically working just to pay for day care. Doesn't make sense.

The rich, they hire a nanny.
The poor get food stamps, and other entitlements. The middle class is left out in the cold. I have no idea what we are going to do The twins were certainly not planned but the Lord blessed us with them, so we'll make due, I just have no idea.

Congratulations on the impending twins!

I've seen many of my friends calculate out things the very same way, basically coming the the conclusion that they had one person working full time just to pay for day care. And it has never made sense to me.

Why not be a little thriftier, pinch some pennys and have one of you stay home, as that's obviously your goal? (And a good one at that.)

And not all rich people hire a nanny. Some actually take advantage of their wealth and spend more time with their children.

Just saying.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by budster101

Don't liberals want big government? The kind that decides what is best for you?

Recently liberals have been anti big government, and Republicans have been for it.

Government instituted religion, restriction of gay marriage, patriot act, these are all big government things.

Restrictions on businesses, environment controls, anti-imperialism, these are all strong on individual rights.

[Y3a]

<< IMO opinion it's a world were equal opportunities are offered to everyone no matter what family they are born into. A world were the government provides just the simple necessities like health care, security and education and everyone has equal access to it no matter rich or poor your family is. An economic model built for the small companies and individual rather than for the large multi-national corporations. And a world were freedom for the individual is valued.

In short a world were everyone starts from the same point when they are born and not a system like today when your future largely (or at least somewhat) depends on how your parents did or where you are born.

Sounds terrible doesn't it? >>

YUP! What about how to deal with agressors into your perfect world? Where do you plan for that with that "forward looking" stuff??

<< Unfortunitly the rich have ways to avoid paying their fair share so the burden falls on the middle class.>>

A flat tax IS NOT what we have in this country, so the rich DO PAY MORE as a percentage than the poorer classes.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Y3a

YUP! What about how to deal with agressors into your perfect world? Where do you plan for that with that "forward looking" stuff??

Is "agressors" the only thing you right wingers can think about ?

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Congratulations on the impending twins!

I've seen many of my friends calculate out things the very same way, basically coming the the conclusion that they had one person working full time just to pay for day care. And it has never made sense to me.

Why not be a little thriftier, pinch some pennys and have one of you stay home, as that's obviously your goal? (And a good one at that.)

And not all rich people hire a nanny. Some actually take advantage of their wealth and spend more time with their children.

Just saying.

Its cool, can't wait.
The wife and I are definitely looking at cutting back, not just pinching pennies but really curtailing all extra spending, still you factor in a car payment, mortgage, utilities and all that combined is more then what I make. Its not like we're driving around in a lincoln town car, its just a sedan, but the price of cars now a days...

We'll make out, the point though is the middle class is continuing to get squeezed.

Don't get me wrong, being rich doesn't equate to being evil. There are people who have worked exceedingly hard and have been rewarded for that hard work, but you read and see about people who have the $$ and they get out from paying their fair share through a variety of ways.

[Y3a]

<< Is "agressors" the only thing you right wingers can think about ? >>

Why is it that liberals think that someone won't destroy their utopian society?
What are you thinking about, daisys??
Is being liberal also being careless with your freedoms? How DO YOU protect youself, by talk?
Are you going to surrender yourselves so you won't have to endure a war?
Maybe put up a wall?

[Y3a]

<< An economic model built for the small companies and individual rather than for the large multi-national corporations. >>

So who creates the jobs? Who will do the big items like airplanes, cars, ships?

[spauldingg]

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Is being liberal also being careless with your freedoms?

No, it's not. I think you are confusing liberal with anarchic here.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Y3a

So who creates the jobs? Who will do the big items like airplanes, cars, ships?

People spend the money they earn which creates jobs. Liberalism is about where you put that money. If you put the money in the upper class, you end up with a society where the upper class controls the government, business, and the economy, which is not a system of equal representation. The reality is you need money to have a say in government. By controlling wealth, you give back rights to individuals rather than allowing the slim minority in this country to have control.

This isn't about neutering Capitalism in this country (which is where we become different than socialists), this is about ensuring equal opportunity and say within this country.

In short. Money = Power. Democrats want an even spread of power throughout the country. Again, very strong on individual rights.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Y3a

<< Is "agressors" the only thing you right wingers can think about ? >>

Why is it that liberals think that someone won't destroy their utopian society?
What are you thinking about, daisys??
Is being liberal also being careless with your freedoms? How DO YOU protect youself, by talk?
Are you going to surrender yourselves so you won't have to endure a war?
Maybe put up a wall?

No, right wingers are so pre occupied with "agressors" and self defense that it's getting beyond the point of obsession.

I never said we don't need to defense ourselves.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Y3a

A world were the government provides just the simple necessities like health care, security and education and everyone has equal access to it no matter rich or poor your family is.

YUP! What about how to deal with agressors into your perfect world? Where do you plan for that with that "forward looking" stuff??

Read it again.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Y3a

<< An economic model built for the small companies and individual rather than for the large multi-national corporations. >>

So who creates the jobs? Who will do the big items like airplanes, cars, ships?

You seem to have some comprehension problems or you are just intentionally a bit dense. Read the post again. The model is built for the small companies and individuals (where most of the innovation comes from) but that doesn't mean there won't be big companies.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Y3a

What is a Liberal's Ideal world?

No 4x4s, no rich people, no conservatives, no Christians.
I don't think they've thought about it much beyond that.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No 4x4s, no rich people, no conservatives, no Christians.
I don't think they've thought about it much beyond that.

You are confusing socialism/marxism/communism with liberalism. Perhaps you should read up on it? Or stop listening to the American definition of it as it's way off base.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

You are confusing socialism/marxism/communism with liberalism. Perhaps you should read up on it? Or stop listening to the American definition of it as it's way off base.

Actually... ...I was using it in the way implied in the question, which seems to be the current popular definition for it. However, in the real world my answer would apply equally well to both the popular and correct definitions - but for different reasons.

I know what you're on about.
You know what I'm on about.
So let's not confuse the issue, eh?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No 4x4s, no rich people, no conservatives, no Christians.
I don't think they've thought about it much beyond that.

Oh no. We support 4x4s, rich people, conservatives, and Christians. Those are all individual rights.

However...

Owning a car that pollutes the air other's breath impedes on individual rights.

Having the power in this country controlled by a small rich minority impedes on individual rights.

Conservatives who push people with other viewpoints out of the system impede on individual rights.

Christians who force other people to follow the same values impede on individual rights.

Sadly the majority of most those groups do exactly those things.

[Y3a]

<< the model is built for the small companies and individuals (where most of the innovation comes from) but that doesn't mean there won't be big companies. >>

But you will kill off the big companies by being overly oppressive.

I think it's funny that it's been implied that liberals want to punish acheivers by 'leveling the playing field'.

When you are just starting out in the workforce, you see your boss in his big car and reserved spot, big corner office, and you sit in a cube. you are jealous. So after a few years you have a great idea, get a few folks together and start your OWN business. then YOUR idea/product takes off and soon you have a big car, corner office, and a wheelbarrow load of bucks. But now the liberals want you to not just pay the same PERCENTAGE for taxes when you didn't make much money BUT an even LARGER percentage. You used to make $25K/year and pay 18 percent for taxes, now you make $300K/year and you pay 45 percent. You worked harder, took more risk, hired a bunch of folks, but even though you're one person just like before, you pay LOTS MORE TAXES. So does your company. Where does it say that you should be forced to pay extra for charity(welfare). putting limits on capitalism punishes inovators.

This same crap is happening in schools where we no longer want johnny dumbell to feel bad and resentful because he's getting straight D's, while Tyrone Shulace gets A's. Liberals have tried to remove the concept of an individuals failures so johnny dumbell can still feel good about himself in spite of not knowing how to read, or where Canada is. He thinks he's just as good as Tyrone, and seems to be all that matters. How can our country have a future when this type of philosophy is accepted?

[Y3a]

<< Owning a car that pollutes the air other's breath impedes on individual rights.

Having the power in this country controlled by a small rich minority impedes on individual rights.

Conservatives who push people with other viewpoints out of the system impede on individual rights.

Christians who force other people to follow the same values impede on individual rights.

Sadly the majority of most those groups do exactly those things.>>

Urban Myths at best. Ficticious Stereotypes.

Like: liberals was to destroy all religion,
Liberals was every woman to have an abortion
Liberals are all tax-n-Spenders
Liberals want no one to judge them, etc, which are also stereotypes.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Y3a

When you are just starting out in the workforce, you see your boss in his big car and reserved spot, big corner office, and you sit in a cube. you are jealous. So after a few years you have a great idea, get a few folks together and start your OWN business. then YOUR idea/product takes off and soon you have a big car, corner office, and a wheelbarrow load of bucks. But now the liberals want you to not just pay the same PERCENTAGE for taxes when you didn't make much money BUT an even LARGER percentage. You used to make $25K/year and pay 18 percent for taxes, now you make $300K/year and you pay 45 percent. You worked harder, took more risk, hired a bunch of folks, but even though you're one person just like before, you pay LOTS MORE TAXES. So does your company. Where does it say that you should be forced to pay extra for charity(welfare). putting limits on capitalism punishes inovators.

This same crap is happening in schools where we no longer want johnny dumbell to feel bad and resentful because he's getting straight D's, while Tyrone Shulace gets A's. Liberals have tried to remove the concept of an individuals failures so johnny dumbell can still feel good about himself in spite of not knowing how to read, or where Canada is. He thinks he's just as good as Tyrone, and seems to be all that matters. How can our country have a future when this type of philosophy is accepted?

Again, you misunderstand. Money is power, surely you must understand that. By having unbalanced wealth, you have unbalanced power. Liberalism wants to protect individual rights to representation in society. By taking power from the upper classes and transferring it to the lower classes you stabilize the government and prevent oppression.

A minority upper class with a majority of power in this country would only be interested in building more power for themselves while pushing the majority of the population out of power. This leads to exploitation of workers, a lack of representation in government for a majority of the country, and eventual economic collapse when power becomes so consolidated under the upper class that the lower class no longer has any money to drive Capitalism. See the American Guilded Age For reference (which led us into the depression).

Liberalism is about sustaining American wealth and business, whether big or small.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Urban Myths at best. Ficticious Stereotypes.

Like: liberals was to destroy all religion,
Liberals was every woman to have an abortion
Liberals are all tax-n-Spenders
Liberals want no one to judge them, etc, which are also stereotypes.

Urban myths? I think it's time for case and point!

Prayer in Schools: Pushing Christian religion on those that are not Christian (Liberals believe that Christians are allowed to pray independent of the school, that is their right).
Homosexual Marriage: Forcing Christian Believes on Marriage on those that don't share those same values.
Pollution Controls: Republicans want to lax pollution controls. In fact, they have.
Political Viewpoints: Republicans, such as yourself, want either Muslims or Liberals to be labeled as un-American and terrorists, making us unfit to be part of the political process. If I had a nickel for how many times I've seen this on this board... well.. I'd have better things to do than post on this board.

[Y3a]

OPINION STATED AS FACT:
Money is power, surely you must understand that. By having unbalanced wealth, you have unbalanced power. Liberalism wants to protect individual rights to representation in society. By taking power from the upper classes and transferring it to the lower classes you stabilize the government and prevent oppression.

The upper classes didn't just inherit the wealth but MADE THE WEALTH, so you want those who are poorer, less educated etc to have a say in government above the power of the vote? This weakens us as a nation/people. You have learned nothing from nature. Power is not wealth but can be used to gain it if you are smart. Just because some toothless trailer trash guy win's 100 million doesn't make him suddenly powerful, just a big spender.

<<Urban myths? I think it's time for case and point!

Prayer in Schools: Pushing Christian religion on those that are not Christian (Liberals believe that Christians are allowed to pray independent of the school, that is their right).
Homosexual Marriage: Forcing Christian Believes on Marriage on those that don't share those same values.
Pollution Controls: Republicans want to lax pollution controls. In fact, they have.
Political Viewpoints: Republicans, such as yourself, want either Muslims or Liberals to be labeled as un-American and terrorists, making us unfit to be part of the political process. If I had a nickel for how many times I've seen this on this board... well.. I'd have better things to do than post on this board.>>

But isn't the left pushing just the opposite? Athiesm is still a religious viewpoint, it just states that there is no God, which is still an assumption just like the assumption that there IS a God.

You are assuming that I'm a repub too, which is incorrect as well. Perhaps label me a radical conservative! LOL

Pollution Control??? Environmental types and weathermen can't even predict the weather 2 weeks from now because they STILL don't completly understand how weather and climate work, so any predictions of 100 years from now or 15000 years ago is a guess at best. Tey don't even know how to estimate how much crap is blown out of a volcano or what effect the ocean has on dampening out some effects.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Y3a

But isn't the left pushing just the opposite? Athiesm is still a religious viewpoint, it just states that there is no God, which is still an assumption just like the assumption that there IS a God.

Stopping prayer (christian prayer) in school in NO way encourages nor supports atheism. It supports all religions. You know, like when you're chewing gum in class, and the teacher says "did you bring enough for everyone?" If yes, everyone gets gum, if no, you get to spit yours out. Schools can't possibly support every religion out there, so they support none.

Pollution Control??? Environmental types and weathermen can't even predict the weather 2 weeks from now because they STILL don't completly understand how weather and climate work, so any predictions of 100 years from now or 15000 years ago is a guess at best. Tey don't even know how to estimate how much crap is blown out of a volcano or what effect the ocean has on dampening out some effects.

Regardless of the weather, I don't want harmful chemicals (lead, mercury, etc.) polluting my environment.

You have an issue with using quotes?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Y3a

But isn't the left pushing just the opposite? Athiesm is still a religious viewpoint, it just states that there is no God, which is still an assumption just like the assumption that there IS a God.

You are assuming that I'm a repub too, which is incorrect as well. Perhaps label me a radical conservative! LOL

Pollution Control??? Environmental types and weathermen can't even predict the weather 2 weeks from now because they STILL don't completly understand how weather and climate work, so any predictions of 100 years from now or 15000 years ago is a guess at best. Tey don't even know how to estimate how much crap is blown out of a volcano or what effect the ocean has on dampening out some effects.

You're stating lack of religion is a religion? The left is not forcing anyone to not be religious. The left is saying that you can not force religion of any kind on anyone. If you want Christian prayer in schools, you also should have Muslim Prayer for the Muslims, Buddhist prayer for the Buddhists, Scientology Prayer for the Scientologists, and the Atheist minute for the Atheists.

At this point the Liberal's solution would be to let all students do their own prayer in school. Which, I know, isn't as crazy as you'd like, but it's the best I can do.

You're a wonderful environmentalist. Let's let nature do it's job and stop screwing with the environment. As you said, nature does it's own thing, lets not mess it up.

If you're saying industrial pollution, and say, smog over Los Angeles reducing life spans, is something intended by nature, thats just crazy talk.

[Kerrigan]

If the world was run exclusively by liberals, it would be crap. The same thing is true of conservatives.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

If the world was run exclusively by liberals, it would be crap. The same thing is true of conservatives.

Yep, conservatives would be crap if they were run exclusively by liberals.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Ogg was a conservative. Pro-hunting, keep the woman in the cave kinds of guy.

Nope.

Ogg was hungry; he hunted. He needed to procreate; got himself a woman.

The woman was most likely hunting with him, or gathering fruits, or even, hunting for him while he was in the cave doing nothing.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by goMac

If you're saying industrial pollution, and say, smog over Los Angeles reducing life spans, is something intended by nature, thats just crazy talk.

Not entirely, though your example may not have been the best. Although the term 'smog' is a recent invention, it has been documented in that region since the times of the first pioneers to send word back. At that time, of course, the smoke was likely caused more by brush fires than anything else, but the point is that smog can and -in rare occasions- does occur in nature.