Customer Discussions > Politics forum

What exactly do people have against hippies/liberals?

Discussion moved to this forum by Amazon on Jul 26, 2012 7:09:31 AM PDT.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 901-925 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on Sep 27, 2011 1:46:14 PM PDT
L. Taylor says:
Society likes things to be contained into easily identifiable 'boxes'... hippies and liberals don't conform and can't be put into labelled boxes.. this unsettles the masses... ignorance spreads fear and fear becomes pandemic to prejudice...

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 1:27:36 PM PDT
"I've named names -"

Naming names means exactly nothing, if you don't back it up with a valid, cohesive political philosophy -- which means one that points to causes, effects, mistakes, and successes.

And we are still waiting for those, from you.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 1:24:40 PM PDT
"It seems that when the [Australian "Liberal"] party was formed, the conservatives who formed it were looking for a name that would attract working-class voters (the majority of the people), and they believed that calling themselves conservative would lose votes. So they named themselves the Liberal Party. "

This sort of purposeful misrepresentation of their own image is part and parcel of Conservatives, these days. I say "THESE days," because the true "Party of Lincoln" would have none of that tripe.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 1:21:41 PM PDT
"Sometimes it's better to appear a food than to speak and erase all doubt."

Personally, I try NOT to appear to be a food to ANYONE. It's a good way to get eaten up. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 1:19:25 PM PDT
The fact that Liberals are angry at current developments, to you means that they are ill-spirited? Does that mean that you see nothing at all worth getting angry at?

Gimme a break.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 1:17:55 PM PDT
"Most of it is wrong....Shell oil not paying taxes, and republicans wanting to keep poor people poor. "

Shell oil DOESN'T pay much taxes at all -- indeed, they get DIVIDENDS from exploration tax credits. In effect, WE pay THEM to help pollute the world.

First, here's a link to the Wall Street Journal's note on how much money Shell would "lose" over ten years, if their tax breaks were taken out (you DO trust the "Journal," don't you?)

http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2011/05/12/shell-says-eliminating-oil-tax-breaks-will-affect-supply-prices/

And here's an article from USA Today, another Reich Wing bastion, detailing the tax breaks the oil industry gets:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2011-05-12-oil-industry-tax-breaks_n.htm

As for wanting to keep people poor, how else are we to interpret an attitude that insists BOTH, that people who don't find jobs are just lazy, AND that resists job creation. You can count as well as I can. There are simply not enough life-supporting jobs to go around, and yet the Republicans are willing to just cut off our UI benefits -- leaving the newly poor with nothing to do but march on Wall Street....Hmmmm...

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 12:47:58 PM PDT
"Oh dear a grammar cop. The method losers use to save face. "

Against a subject-changer, I'd rather be a grammar cop every time. But no, I was not pointing out faulty grammar, but rather faulty parsing of the issues, a core failing, when trying to carry an argument. Calling such a dodge "grammar" is misrepresentation of my intention, and is an implied uplifting of your own stance to distract from its flaws.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 12:43:56 PM PDT
I like the best example that there was no mention of airplanes in any of the documents so that means we shouldn't use them. Plus there needs to be some standards for education. Good thing NCLB is being changed. It helped no one. All the bad and lazy kids still went on to the next grade no matter what their grades were. Maybe kids would put more effort into their schooling if they knew they'd be an 18 year old in a class full of 14 year olds (I hope). . .

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 12:34:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 27, 2011 12:37:03 PM PDT
"The Constitution is clear in regards to federal powers."

Moreno, you have to understand what the Constitution IS, to start with. It is a bedrock document that is meant to define the absolute limits of what it oversees: the responsibilities and obligations of the Federal Government. It does not deal AT ALL with the State Governments, for instance -- EXCEPT to define the interface between Fed and State responsibilities.

And your word "clear" can be a bit misleading, as the Constitution from the start was written in very broad language, to facilitate future interpretation. Much of the "fuzziness" you see in the Supreme Court's interpretations was in fact foreseen by the founders in that respect. They did not see themselves -- nor should we regard them as -- all knowing and all wise, in the matter of the governance of the future nation.

So what, if the government was "never meant" to be in charge of education, healthcare, and social safety nets? The Founders themselves, if and when informed of such a future development, might well shrug, and then ask "So how's it doing at that?" -- THAT being the pertinent question, not the detailed expansion of the responsibilities they laid down.

They KNEW that new issues would come up, and they KNEW that the government would have to decide how to handle them. Regional division of powers, ala letting the states handle such details, was the ONLY sensible option in a world where the fastest way to travel (and communicate) was as Paul Revere did -- by a galloping-horse relay system.

Now we have cars, trains, and airplanes (not to mention cigarette boats, omg!), and better than any of those, we now have lightspeed communications. All of these made our world functionally much smaller. We now don't need the electoral college, for instance -- we don't need to "send" our votes anywhere, to have them be "represented" for us by others.

And your promotion of the "experiments" of the 50 states is close to being UnAmerican, Moreno. Pretty soon, states would opt out of the military adventures your kind love so, and then where would we be? To "experiment" with things that have been long settled seems just another way to get out of the Union that's not working out so well, for the Southern States.

I've heard of refighting wars, but do you really want to go back to the Confederacy?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 7:14:05 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 27, 2011 7:14:59 AM PDT
R. Moreno says:
The Constitution is clear in regards to federal powers. The federal government was never meant to be the head of education, healthcare, and social safety nets. Or give out exemptions, subsidies, and regulate all aspects of commerce. All this does is create a buracracy with negative incentives and unintended consequences. Let the states handle any welfare and social safety nets. We are a Republic of 50 experiments, liberals want all 50 states to be equal. Thus their love of federal government.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 10:36:16 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 26, 2011 11:00:16 PM PDT
1) The 'free-er' the market, the fewer people 'win' because there are always the insiders with superior knowledge (or faster computers). Same as big business with only immediate profit goals; without regulation, workers and customers lose to those profit motives (markets and large corporations aren't humans wishing the best for all of us, regardless of what the Supreme Court recently ruled).

2) People came to this country because there was NO religious bent to the government (set up that way by our founders who fled or were deported from other countries because poor or 'different' whether race or religion). Instead a land of laws meant to be fair to all, though it certainly hasn't always worked that way. Part of the dream of the USA was our education being equal for all paid via taxes, where more recent immigrants (unless Native American, we're actually all immigrants) could build improved lives for themselves and their kids (and now with more and more being deregulated for the first time in generations the young are expected to live shorter lives than their parents - a shame). But the big deal about the USA was no religion having a say in government (instead religion or lack thereof being a personal choice) and the rich not ruling a peon class. We didn't really get that until the New Deal came into effect; before we had robber barons and peons, with 3-5 depressions per century because of an unregulated (but thankfully not bailed out by us) market. Our mid-20th century stability (social and economic) steadily eroding now with those it will hurt the worst voting for the erosion. Government was (and should be again) the only entity large and impartial enough to provide the basics - laws and courts, environmental protections, basic health care, firemen and police, roads, power - which altogether creates a good environment for us all and for business. Those are things all of us share (unless we personally decide to go off grid) and why our country was so attractive to others. What isn't attractive any more is the extreme split to the fringes and the hate we show to each other, to immigrants, and to the rest of the world.

3) Ron Paul IMHO has one good idea - that the USA should quit being the world's cops - our military/industrial complex is really what is dragging us down. But his other ideas are just another way of saying 'I've got mine, tough luck if you don't have yours' - even if you were born poor, or disabled, whatever.

I recently re-read the whole King James bible after a long hiatus. With it fresh in my mind again I have to ask you which testament you think we should live like? I would chose the new testament myself, where we are told to all care for each other, feed each other, bath each other's feet, don't make $ robbing each other (the camel and eye of the needle bit), and give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's (sure sounds like government to me).

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 9:25:11 PM PDT
I remember from my American Gov't class in high school that during the primaries the candidates fight to get to the furthest ends of the political spectrum (the most radical or extreme) and then do the opposite when it comes down to the general election. So, for example, the Liberal Candidate spends his(her) primaries trying to be as liberal as possible and then backtracks during the general election and tries to be the most moderate to get the majority of the population who hover around the middle. The real person you should vote for is the person who doesn't claim to be the most (insert description here) and back tracks. The candidate who sticks to what they say and stand behind it is who you should look at. And as a piece of advice, read as much as you can about the candidates including any and all articles you can find about them. The "educated" voter is a good voter.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 9:02:23 PM PDT
I've named names - you've seen (and perhaps worn) the t-shirts. I don't own any Che themed clothing. Our candidates don't co-opt the whole Che color scheme/theme and have folks in and around them quoting Mao and Marx.

The left loves to invest itself in so called "great men" who gladly take the mantle of power, proclaim themselves God, build the cult of personality, lord over the masses, conduct purges, nationalize businesses, and lead their countries to death and ruin.

Lenin
Stalin
Mao
Castro
Che
Chavez

Obama ...

Posted on Sep 26, 2011 8:59:46 PM PDT
David Baldi says:
To answer the discussion title: they have not experienced that which the "hippies" experienced. Liberals? Another label I don't care for. But the experience of the hippies... maybe there's something there.

Posted on Sep 26, 2011 7:53:46 PM PDT
J. Stensrude says:
I recently moved back to the U.S. from Australia. The two major parties are the Labor Party, who are generally liberal, and the Liberal Party, who are generally conservative. I never met an Australian who could explain to me why the conservatives named themselves the Liberal Party. I finally found something about it on the Internet. It seems that when the party was formed, the conservatives who formed it were looking for a name that would attract working-class voters (the majority of the people), and they believed that calling themselves conservative would lose votes. So they named themselves the Liberal Party. I don't know that it's made any difference. Everyone in Australia seems to know that the Liberal Party is conservative.

I'm an independent. I used to vote for a lot of Republicans, but Republicans aren't what they used to be. So many times the best of the lot (someone I once voted for) have embraced some pretty angry, divisive philosophies in order to get enough votes to get into office. In the days when the South was solid Democrat, the part was loaded with people who feared change, who depended on racism to convince themselves they were better than someone else. In those days, Republicans were fiscal conservatives and Democrats were always pressing for social reforms. We needed a Democrat to get some changes made for society, then we needed to follow up with a Republican to pay for the reforms. The last time we had a balanced budget was under a Democrat president, and the last time we had a spend-thrift, treasury-looting president, he was a Republican. I'm afraid to vote for a good Republican because they keep such bad company these days. When Johnson signed the Civil Rights legislation, the South became Republican. I don't think they were worried about balancing budgets when they crossed the aisle.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 7:52:19 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Sep 26, 2011 7:53:02 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 7:51:06 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 26, 2011 7:57:24 PM PDT
Suzanne Case says:
No, they are racists (Tea Party) that have been hiding in the weeds until Sarah Palin came along and gave them a voice.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 7:19:12 PM PDT
Excuse me, fool not food.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 7:18:28 PM PDT
Sometimes it's better to appear a food than to speak and erase all doubt. If you don't know by now then I would say it's too late. You cannot rationalize with the irrational.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 6:52:06 PM PDT
thames says:
Tea Bags are going to get thrown under the Republican bus. I look forward to watching this happen as it will be entertaining for our country.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 6:50:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 26, 2011 6:52:49 PM PDT
thames says:
I'm fascinated by the Civil War. Been reading quite a bit lately, so you saying you're going to give me a "history lesson" makes me think, "this guy is pretty cool. I like how he makes good points and has interesting things to say and isn't a jerk". Or ...not. Anyway,
The Republican Party is nothing like the party of Lincoln you stooge. Lincoln would be horrified at American politics in general today and terribly disappointed in what became of his party. Did you know Lincoln had a correspondence with Karl Marx? Interesting history there. Look it up. Actually, Lincoln would be a mainstream liberal I suspect. No way to Know for sure but he wouldn't be like you weirdos. He was too smart.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 5:05:02 PM PDT
bennwj says:
Excellent post. Great to see there are those who understand on here.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 5:02:48 PM PDT
bennwj says:
S if somebody writes a book full of wrong ideas, does that make it right?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 5:02:00 PM PDT
bennwj says:
I think it is wonderful that you believe what you do. Most of it is wrong....Shell oil not paying taxes, and republicans wanting to keep poor people poor.

The truth is Exxon (they were the source of a talking point that said they pay no taxes...not Shell) actually paid BILLIONS in taxes.

Republicans believe that if YOU earn it YOU get to keep it. Kinda makes sense to most people.

Socialism fails every time it is tried. It is failing here in this country today. But on the plus side....Obama is going to guarantee a repuglican congress and white house for many years......

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 4:58:30 PM PDT
bennwj says:
Um.....the Tea Party hasn't been "hired", and never will be. It isn't a political party, but rather groups of people who believe we need to return to smaller government and constitutional principles.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Health forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Blu Cigs 255 11 minutes ago
Oncologist admits no cure to cancer. 597 2 hours ago
What would happen if we stopped giving vaccines? 9571 7 hours ago
The Honey Revolution 1182 12 hours ago
Is this killer lurking inside you? 0 13 hours ago
Why Are Our Lives Getting Shorter? 26 15 hours ago
Hair Loss Due to Botox Injections 148 18 hours ago
Ebola vaccine 100% effective 6 20 hours ago
MONSANTO 8058 21 hours ago
Rife Machine Usuage 4582 1 day ago
Natural immunity to Chicken Pox 156 1 day ago
Cleanse Balance Build 11 1 day ago

Thank you for your support of Amazon Discussion Forums. Due to the changing needs of Amazon Forums, we have decided to stop supporting the ‘Active discussions in related forums’ feature in order to focus on providing the most value for our customers.  
   
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  324
Total posts:  1483
Initial post:  Sep 10, 2011
Latest post:  Aug 10, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 22 customers

Search Customer Discussions