I am just curious

Originally posted by Creed
I am just curious

In my humble opinion, because most liberals lack moral values. Without moral values, we fall apart as the human race. Bleeding heart liberals is how my hubby refers to them. I try to look at both sides of the fence because both sides have valid points, but there is a right and a wrong on most issues.

You can please some of the people some of the time
You can please some of the people all of the time
But you you can't please all of the people all of the time.

how do "liberals" lack moral values? In Canada, liberal means someone thats in favour of national health care and education. You are against cutting taxes and try to have things a little bit more balanced.

Maybe I am missing something but caring about national health insurence and education doesn't seem like a lack of moral values. Maybe the word loses something in the translation?

http://www.indulged.com/articles/images/hippie2.jpg

http://www.gpss.co.uk/hippy.gif

Then we have a difference of opinion on the definition. In this house a liberal is someone who gives to (I'm quoting my hubby on this one)"every ****ing crybaby who comes up and says, the poor turtles, the poor trees, the poor this and that etc. etc. etc." Areas in our state have been closed down because they think a certain turtle is living in that area and is going extinct. Yada yada yada.....we live we die. life goes on....should we bring back the dinosours?

I picked up on this one real quick because this word has a very different meaning in Australia. I think I got it nailed down, stop me if I'm wrong.

Liberal out here is pretty much about espousing complete freedom, usually without any grounds or boundaries. Often without any checks against undesirable behaviour (which they can't nail down since just about all behaviour is acceptable under the first ammendment apparently). Yet they want stringent checks on all government to prevent abuse of power or imposing on their freedom.

Then there is the mirror opposite, the Republican, which would like to pretty much do the reverse and turn the country into a police state and introduce it's own definition of order. Basically it feels it knows best for the country and making just about everything a criminal activity, introducing severe penalties, using buzzwords like "terrorism" and "defending freedom" as catchcries to justify their activity and yet still refer to the country as "land of the free, home of the brave".

Have I got it right?

- J.

Originally posted by The Jake
I picked up on this one real quick because this word has a very different meaning in Australia. I think I got it nailed down, stop me if I'm wrong.

Liberal out here is pretty much about espousing complete freedom, usually without any grounds or boundaries. Often without any checks against undesirable behaviour (which they can't nail down since just about all behaviour is acceptable under the first ammendment apparently). Yet they want stringent checks on all government to prevent abuse of power or imposing on their freedom.

Then there is the mirror opposite, the Republican, which would like to pretty much do the reverse and turn the country into a police state and introduce it's own definition of order. Basically it feels it knows best for the country and making just about everything a criminal activity, introducing severe penalties, using terrorism as defending freedom as catchcries to justify their activity and yet still refer to the country as "land of the free, home of the brave".

Have I got it right?

- J.

Pretty much, IMHO. Hubby and I don't really discuss politics because I am a middle of the road type of person on most issues. I like to hear both sides. Then I may or may not make a judgement or give an opinion.

I guess its just a difference in opinion. American politics is a lot more right wing than Canada. George W would that weido on the ballet that gets like 500 votes in Canada.

Not saying ethier side is right, its just a lot different

When I learned the difference, I thought I would lean more Republican. Then I learned that Bush was a Republican. Then I looked at the legislature he has passed post 9/11 and looked at the legislation he is trying to sneak in now.

Funnily enough you may think I would be a Democrat or Liberal. Instead it just gave me a deeper appreciation of what rights and freedom really is and how it needs to be protected.

Realistically, I am still leaning more to Republican although I hold a more moderate view really and I do think that Bush is a really bad example of a Republican and doing extreme damage to the party, the country and in effect the world.

- J.

I am opposed to tax cuts. I belive they only help the rich and cuts to public education and health care hurt the middle class. I feel raising the minimum wage is a better way to put money into the pockets of the people as it also increases the money people pay in taxes. I feel the war in iraqi, if done for the reason they are saying, is good. However, I have a hard time beliving them and I know there is a hidden motive. However I am not dumb enough to think that we were better off before Sadam was gone. I belive in national health insurence and think that national auto insurence would be a great idea. I belive although the enviroment is important, there are more imporant things. We should save the bald egle and the wolf, but if **** smelling european slime algie is dying, so what?

What would that make me in america?

ok folks. lesson learned here is that canada has more intelligent people than america.
yay, point taken, clap clap, move on.

All I can say is that if the war on Iraqi was to get better prices on fuel, California has yet to see it.

I'm not sure if tax cuts are a bright idea in the long term, but they do spur short term growth (and therefore greater faith in the economy) which leads to greater spending, which can lead to more stable LONG term growth. It doesn't always work this way but from my understanding, that's the theory. It's a good one too and hard to argue.

- J.

No, Canada does not have more intelligent people than america......we only have like 35 million people.

I do think our system of goverment works better, and I don't understand a lot of american politics. However, I am sure thats because I am not american. I am sure the electoral college makes sense to someone in america. The fact that it confuses' the **** out of me is just too bad for me. I mean, if it was up to me I would have the votes from each state reflect the % of the population that voted for each candidate. For example.

a state worth 10 points is split 60-40 in the vote. Mr A gets 6 points while Mr X gets 4. That makes sense to me. Why isn't it done this way? There must be a reason but I can't see it because I am Canadian

well without delving into tax cut stances, liberal definitions, and mr A vs. mr X....i'm going to conclude that our system of government works better because we have a strong economy, strong military, and most of the world has spent the last 100 years either copying our methods or trying to become a u.s. citizen.

Originally posted by Purity
we have a strong economy, strong military, and most of the world has spent the last 100 years either copying our methods or trying to become a u.s. citizen.

One could quite easily argue trying to build a new and improved version of an obviously flawed model....


Not everyone is trying to copy America or *GASP!* wants to be American, Purity.... (http://www.globalmma.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14895)

- J.

Originally posted by Purity
well without delving into tax cut stances, liberal definitions, and mr A vs. mr X....i'm going to conclude that our system of government works better because we have a strong economy, strong military, and most of the world has spent the last 100 years either copying our methods or trying to become a u.s. citizen.

No, america is big and powerful now because of one thing "Location Location Location"

Its also a melting pot so after a generation or two, everyone is the same. Its not affected by the reigonal nationalism that europe was/is so they are able to control a land mass large enough to support industry thru access to national resources. That allows a powerful industry to be built up and that gives them the ability to support a powerful military. Even if not the biggest, it is the best equiped and as military history has shown (at least in the last century) better equipment will beat larger numbers 9 times out of 10, unless outnumbered 9 to 10 (world war 2) .

If Canada had been a warmer place, Canada would have 300 million people living in it right now. Thats my view. The united states scouped up some prime lrealisate. That and 200 years of history have turned it into a super power.

****, what was my point again? Its too late

Originally posted by The Jake
One could quite easily argue trying to build a new and improved version of an obviously flawed model....


i interpret that as saying that the world of transportation was hurt because of henry ford but is now gifted because ferrari makes high performance cars. just because something can be improved doesn't mean that the groundbreaker wasn't a good thing.
if it weren't for henry then NONE of us would be enjoying transportation in the way that we enjoy it so give respect where respect is due.
if it is "obviously flawed" then it would have been completely discarded and nobody would try to "build a new and improved version" of it.
Originally posted by The Jake

Not everyone is trying to copy America or *GASP!* wants to be American, Purity....
oh really? gee you're right. maybe i should go back and change "everybody" into "most" so that way my quotes don't get misconstrued.

actually, its not even most anymore Tony.

Originally posted by Purity
i interpret that as saying that the world of transportation was hurt because of henry ford but is now gifted because ferrari makes high performance cars. just because something can be improved doesn't mean that the groundbreaker wasn't a good thing.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean a better solution cannot be found, nor that we should not seek to innovate (and I say INNOVATE not COPY as you imply).


if it weren't for henry then NONE of us would be enjoying transportation in the way that we enjoy it so give respect where respect is due.
if it is "obviously flawed" then it would have been completely discarded and nobody would try to "build a new and improved version" of it.

Sorry mate, that's like saying a Ford is a better car then a Ferrari or Lamborghini because the original concept beats them all.

What I'm saying is that (sticking with analogy here a bit) is that original Ford was a good idea but that is not to say that you cannot improve on an existing model and other car manufacturers have proven this to be true.

Nearly all of my (American) co workers here refuse to buy American cars, ESPECIALLY Fords. I've heard this from my (American) mechanic as well.

Funny how come these people can acknowledge that there is something better out there and it doesn't have to be American made. Care to comment?

And please don't come back with the car analogy not sticking, because you bought it up and it does work.


oh really? gee you're right. maybe i should go back and change "everybody" into "most" so that way my quotes don't get misconstrued.

I guess this makes you more naive than I thought you were.

- J.

Liberals are one step down from communists

Originally posted by Christopher Chaos
Liberals are one step down from communists

Wtf?

How do u figure?

- J.