Every day I visit tons of website, forums, and social networks for all types of topics, most of which are technology based in some sort of form. This election cycle has really brought out the best of the liberal “group think” mentality regarding Obama. On just about every social network Obama is praised as “the one” and any hint of disagreement with his policies or ideals is immediately responded with accusations of racism, or just plain insults. Anybody who wants to claim that liberals are tolerant to others, please give me a shout because I can quickly debunk that. Even here on our network of sites, there have been insults tossed at the slightest hint of either supporting McCain, or being against Obama. I’m certainly not saying conservatives don’t dish out their fair share, but the mentality of liberals has once again bordered on the insane and hateful.
It’s tough being a proud conservative, as I will say what I think regardless of what the group and mob mentality is. The real shame is so many people, especially bloggers in the tech area, are afraid to do the same. I have received so many private notes and comments in support of standing up for conservatism, it’s almost crazy. The best comparison I can make is how conservative actors in Hollywood are often ridiculed or turned down for roles because of their conservative beliefs, and the same mentality is going on right now in the blogosphere. Conservative bloggers, some of which can be considered A-list are having to remain silent about their thoughts on Obama and McCain, simply because they are afraid of retribution from their employers or just not being able to pickup work from other sites. It’s a shame, and it’s more telling about liberals than it is anything.
I am a conservative, I don’t like Obama, and I will never let anyone intimidate me because of that.
You wouldn't WANT it to be mine, and right now I'd fair much better if I was technically in poverty. Working poor really sucks.
Not to get all Buddhist on you here, Zubaz, but doesn't living in a neighborhood with a guy down the block who made poor choices and can't pay his/her bills spill over into your yard? When that neighbor gets hungry enough, don't you think he's going to think about busting into your place and liberating you from some of your worldly goods that can be pawned so he can get caught up on some of those bills, and doesn't that element of crime bring down your property value?
I know what the constitution says, and I know that our country has run on a capitalistic form of government now for that past 230+ years now, but maybe we've out-grown that model?
It's these sort of statements which you have repeated on numerous occassions to the drumbeat of if there's any negativity it's only from the left which demonstrate you show bias.
I think this post and there were others show clearly your contention is tainted with bias ID. Please notice this item was directed at me. And, in addition to being inflammatory on its own, it also suggests that I am a racist since I had been tagged as a liberal and I had stated my support for Obama. This item was ignored by you and other moderators.
This sort of item would have gotten this thread locked if it were directed at Palin and Palin supporters. I rest my case.
I kind of figured you would. I assume most of us don't have a problem with sharing our surplus, we just don't want anyone taking from what we consider our own needs. And here's where I see the problem of the Republican vision of things...continually "creating wealth" for ourselves, "trying to keep your hands off of my stack" as Pink Floyd sang, the definition of what constitutes surplus and what constitutes necessity gets skewed.
Hmm, seems as if I missed that part in the Constitution where it says the Government has the right to take some of my hard earned money and give it to people that are "Less fortunate". Don't get me wrong, it's not right to let these people suffer like that but it's also not right taking money out of someone else's pocket to give to these people. Many of which don't even have jobs or even try to better their lives. Things like welfare are unconstitutional and the fact that many people praise it and live off it without even attempting to support themselves is outrageous.
Calling upon the Government to help you out for every single problem is not the right answer. I think we can all agree that when the government gets involved in anything it ends up either becoming worse or just flat out broken. People need to stop looking for that quick fix, it's failed in the past and it will fail again. A perfect example would be our economy. Everyone had to be treated fairly, buying bigger homes than they previously could, as well as getting larger loans that they couldn't pay for. Guess who decided to make the call to allow the selling of riskier loans to people? THE GOVERNMENT! And everyone seems to expect these same people to not only fix the problem they started but also fix the problem of poverty and "equality", but at the same time they'd just be hurting things like small businesses in the process who can already barely get by in this horrible economy which was a direct result of their idiocy.
If you want this kind of "equality" move to Russia where they already have the What's mine is yours and What yours is mine policies in place. Look how well they've done with Communism. It's not like it failed for them, right? Last time I checked every single time Communism is tried it's resulting in failure. I have no idea why people are so intent on giving it a try here in America. Call it what you like, it's still Communism. You can spray paint a peice of dog shit green, it's still dog shit.
People need to stop sticking their hand out and asking for help and actually try helping themselves for once. And don't give me that bullshit about some of these people not having the opportunity. This is America we are talking about, and even Obama praises that opportunity, not only does he praise it he also has lived it. He came from nothing and is now going to be our next President. Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to tell everyone your going to help them out by taxining people who make more than a certain amount of money because it's unfair to the poor and "less fortunate", yet at the same time brag how you went from nothing to the very top of our own Government?
So from what I am to understand, rich people are horrible people because they chose to better themselves and worked hard to get where they are today, and poor people are in need of help because many of them choose to not better their lives but instead ask for handouts. So we help them by taking money from the rich people. And at the same time we can also brag about the American dream and that only in America could someone come from nothing to become our next President! Makes a lot of sense, I get it now!
That doesn't sound even slightly hypocritical to any of you? It's either one or the other. Either these people wont help themselves because they can't, or they can help themselves because this is America: The Land of Opportunity but just choose not to. You can't have it both ways.
First of all, Russia has been a capitalist country since the Sovient Union collapsed in 1992. And you say EVERY single time communism is tried is results in failure? Well, what about Communist China (you know...the country that supplies us all our stuff to buy right now? The country that owns a bunch of the United States debt)?
If I'm going to move anywhere, it would be the Netherlands (a socialist democracy). However, it's extremely difficult to immigrate to the Netherlands, plus I don't have the cash to buy a passport, so I certainly don't have "move out of the country" funds, and I don't speak Dutch.
Is that not part of our own Government's doing? Did you know that not even the Chinese would buy chinese made toys for their children? Yet somehow they seem to make quite a pretty penny off us for this. Again, we deserve to be in debt and have all these problems. No one is to blame but us. Stop pointing the fingure and start fixing the problems already.
Communism does fail, it's human nature to want more and more power. More power comes with larger responsibilities and we all know that it get's to a certain point where corruption is abroad. Hence why Communism fails. China may be doing fine now, but eventually the corruption will be the end of their current economic success. You can't expect to give people large amounts of power and not have them abuse it.
I hear Panama is a nice place to live at the moment..
Sigh.
Let me walk you through this:
I support Bush's policies in general. I don't support Obama's stated policies. I will oppose Obama's policies tooth and nail because I think they're bad for the country.
In other words, swallow or spit out the sour grapes and get back to working as a united nation, not a Party divided one
The problem with liberals is that you guys always seem to think it's about emotions. It's not.
I didn't vote for McCain. So it's not about "sour grapes".
I don't want to support Obama because I don't want him to be effective. I don't want any of his stated policy "changes" to get implemented. It's not personal. I don't hate him (which is a lot better than the way Bush was treated by the left). But I don't want the country on the track Obama and his supporters want it on. I don't want a nation "united" on socialistic or left-wing ideology.
Is that clearer?
When is the last time you read the constitution? Cause the first sentence is....
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Welfare means well being, that doesn't mean take money out of someones paycheck and give it to someone else. What I said still stands. No where in the Constitution does it say the Government has the right to take money out of my paycheck to give to someone else, that doesn't promote well being it promotes laziness. Good luck finding that one anywhere in it.
And that's been my point throughout... why I can't understand this political fragmentation of a nation (I ain't supporting Obama) when its guts up in trouble over banks belly-up, wars and people losing their homes and jobs, largely as a result of Banks/Wall Street/corporate greed
Irrespective of politics, we in Australia are as one and don't need to rally around to get it together when tragedy strikes. We're always together as one, as a nation, and the support is instant no matter what.... regardless of ones political beliefs/affiliations. That is our strength, and one the US could learn from...being as one.
Australia has a smaller population than some US states that is nearly all white, nearly all one culture.
What "lesson" do you think the US should learn from Australia?
Walking lock-step is easy. Functioning as a stable democracy for 200+ years with massive demographic differneces within is one of the things that has made the United States the US the richest, more powerful, and most influential nation in the world.
I closed the Palin thread.
And I am biased. I make no bones about it. I'm a conservative and I don't make any claim of objectivity.
I would close this thread too if it became a flame war or if the original topic was insulting and juvenille (which I thought the Palin one was).
Both the highlighted terms could be interpetted towards a state where the distribution of community wealth could be applied. Having said that . . "general welfare" is everyone . . not those that have failed for this or that reason. It should promote the general welfare of everyone evenly.
You might want to research this a bit before saying that. You are making a modern intrepretation to something that explicitly didn't mean that. The federalist papers discuss this to some extent (written by Madison and Hamilton) to expressly state that that phrase most certainly does not indicate that the federal government should be able to take money from one citizen to give to another.
The founding fathers would almost certainly consider the taking from one man to give to another an act of tyranny.
At that point it was. The personal attacks directed to me continued. Nothing was done as this occurred other than Lantec claiming I was intolerant. ID at one point said play nice yet ignored the ignorance of the above mentioned post.
The premise of this thread is duplicitous for it attempts to present what is a one-sided view as a fact while ignoring that intolerance knows no such politically based boundries.
Yes I am. I have to. Getting rid of modern day welfare is not possible now. I can't look at it from a 200 year old perspective no matter how much I would like to see welfare reduced to a bare minimum.
So descriptives are now personal attacks? WHat newspeak words would you have me pen?
And I only called one person a liar, and not on this thread.
Welcome to 1984!
Apparently personal attacks are anything descriptive now. ok for them to say far worse, but for us to say "hypocrite" to describe a hypocritical action is now taboo - said Big Brother.
We should send Elizabeth Kucinic in to negotiate a "Historical Patriotic Tax" with the 1% wealthiest. Convince them they will go down in History as great American Patriots if they collectively dumped 1 Trillion $ back into the economy right now. Because I'd give her a Trillion if I had it.
Brad....population size-wise and you're right. Having a country size essentially the same as the US but with less than a 1/10th of the population means there's a wee bit more 'elbow room'...but population diversity of nationalities probably rivals/passes any other country on the planet. Eg. Melbourne is still classified as the world's 3rd largest Greek city [and that includes Greece]. Since we got rid of the Liberal-based white-Australia policy that was probably mostly a knee-jerk reaction to Japan's bombing/attacks on our soil the majority of Immigration has come from Asia/Africa...
No pride. Sorry, even when we were "working poor" we had pride of ownership. No one "gave" us anything, and we worked for every penny. I have been the "working poor" and I know I never want to be on welfare or poverty. What someone gives, they can take too.
Yes, what about China - circa 1970. My how they were in utopia!
China does not own a piece of us, but they do have a good trade balance. WHy? It was not communism. They are getting out of it and going to a market economy and THAT is what is saving them. Not communism. Still, they are a dictatorship. Why dont you emigrate if it is so shangra-la?
Taht does not mean 20th century welfare. The statement (and the intent) was to provide a safe place to live, not what became welfare as we know it. You may have read it, but it does not appear you understand it.
p.s. They get around the constitution with the interstate commerce clause. Have you ever wondered why you dont go the federal Social Services agency for your food stamps? That is because they are run by the states. Tehy may be chearing the system, but so far they have not thrown out the constitution. Yet at least.
I saw the quote...but not the source [musta missed it] .... but that description would be no different to the US. Australia is really just alike....except we drive on the other side of the road...and spell English words 'correctly'....
BDBF, this was not directed specifically at you - it was a reference to public (and published) threats/claims made by leftist fear-mongers. I've not accused you of being a racist. Liberal, yes, but that is not a personal attack, even if you choose to make unfounded assumptions.
Those are the reasons stated for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, not a Constitutional license or rationale to take from one to give to another. That's as far as they intended it to go - it was the Preamble, called Preamble for a reason. They enumerated the general objectives to be achieved by adopting the Constitution, nothing more.
Article 1, Section 8 addresses the authority of Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. I think the Fifth Amendment gives us a better idea as to the attitude of the Founders toward 'taking' '... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'
I already had been characterized as a leftist and a liberal. It's all over throughput this thread. When I specifically had indicated my objection to this characterization which was based on "our candidate losing" your initial response was trite with "who do you think". Furthermore your level of hostility towards me escalated thereafter. I think you were intentially flaming at me specifically because the mentioned offensive comment was specifically addressed to me.
Additionally, when I was trying to make clear to Dr Guy I was unwilling to discuss something with him you jumped on me again. So, Daiwa since nothing has been said to you I think my complaint with the moderation of this thread is valid.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
