Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'liberal'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Main Rooms at the "Liberal Forum"
    • No Holds Barred Political Forum
    • "Liberals Only" Room
    • The Water Cooler Chat Room
  • Liberal Forum Perspectives On Helping America
    • Political Books and Related Literature Forum
    • Health Insurance For All Americans
    • Jobs for Americans

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Gender


Location


Interests


Anti-Spam Check


Website URL

Found 9 results

  1. Hello! My name is Galen Ross, a 17-year-old Libertarian. I agree with Liberals on many social issues, but I have HUGE problems with their economic ideas. I believe that: -The minimum wage is one of the worst laws we have -Taxing the rich is morally wrong -Bernie Sanders would be a TERRIBLE president -The government shouldn't pay for schools, health care, social security, or even ROADS! -Obama is a terrible president -We need LESS gun regulations -The less government we have, the better! If you are a Liberal and would like to debate me, please email me at galenross3@gmail.com. Please let me know your name, topic of debate, and Skype username (Debates are held over Skype). Also, here's a link to my Youtube channel, for those interested: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtZ8jquEcTcTDu0--sNo77Q I hope that we can discuss these important issues, soon! -Galen
  2. As a young man in college I was not always the most diligent student. One weekend, near the end of term, was particularly eventful and I found myself on Monday morning sitting, looking at a Dynamics final and no memory of any of the fine formulas we had studied that semester. Then I remembered F=ma. From that kernel I was able to derive all of the formulas I needed and ended up doing pretty well. More importantly, I realized the importance of fundamental concepts; I found that if one has a good understanding of core principles the smaller details are easier to work out. This led me a few years ago to ask myself, aside from the individual policies which align my thinking with “liberals”; why am I a liberal? After some consideration I arrived on four succinct statements, which I believe also gave me some insight to what motivates the “other” side. I am a parent. As a parent I will do anything within my power to advantage my child. I am a citizen. As a citizen I believe it is vitally important that we write rules that prevent that. It is only natural that parents do all they can for their children, however as wealth accumulates this presents a threat to democracy. This is the threat that concerned Jefferson when he spoke of the need for inheritance taxes, not as a form of revenue but a means to protect the democracy from citizens that might become too powerful, and then threaten the will of the people. It is easy to see how this has become the case in America today. The dangers of inherited wealth to our economy are not unlike monarchy to the health of any nation, when power is derived from birthright rather than one’s labor it is more often foolishly applied. As more and more of our economy becomes “inherited wealth” it becomes more of a target for con men and less a tool for innovators. The world’s financial power has been diverted from improving the human condition into money making schemes designed to enrich those who create them. I do have some specific suggestions that I feel would be helpful long term: Public financing for public elections Flat rate Social Security Tax, first dollar to last all forms of income Index minimum wage to the average increase in CEO pay for the S&P 500
  3. Liberals love to bash conservatives as climate change deniers, but it feels like liberals are only slightly ahead of the curve on this one. Years ago, I read how society had to make dramatic cuts to our carbon emissions to avoid the "point of no return" that would create a planet that would be uninhabitable by humans. So we are talking about a risk of total human extinction here if we wait too long and do too little to reduce carbon emissions. What is too long? What is too little? There's a lot of debate, of course. Some scientists (and some people I know with genius-level I.Q.s) are convinced we have already gone too far and tripped too many environmental feedback loops, which will make human existence impossible within 50 - 150 years. The notion we've gone too far, that our extinction is now mathematically certain, is still a fringe view. In between the climate change deniers, and those who feel we've already gone too far so that any efforts we make now are pointless, we have the rest of us -- people who agree that if we do not do enough to change, and do it quickly enough, we WILL have gone so far that our extinction will be inevitable. For those of us holding this "middle" view, it's hard because there's no clear answer to how much we have to change, or how quickly, to avert our extinction. I found a 2012 news article discussing a study that said 2017 was the point of no return if we did not drastically reduce carbon emissions (note, we have not reduced carbon emissions drastically, if at all, since 2012). Unfortunately, the uncertainties about this issue seem to pave the way for the majority -- including most liberals -- to just shrug and accept minor changes that are not even concrete. President Obama's big climate change plan involves a target of 30% reduction by 2030. Note, these "targets" can easily be missed. What do you do if you tell companies to reduce carbon emissions and they instead increase them? Impose a fine? Great, but it does not really make up for the resulting human extinction, does it? Do we really want to trust our very existence to large businesses toeing the line to strictly adhere to governmental environmental mandates? Their track record on this is woefully bad. Perhaps even more importantly, even if we reach this target, no scientist I know of has actually said that a 30% reduction in 15 years will avert certain doom for humanity. Everything I've read (excluding material from conservative lap dogs) suggests this is too little, too late. I feel like there is an astounding disconnect going on here. If a cage full of spiders at the zoo breaks open and one of them stings you, and the zoo people tell you that the spiders are deadly poisonous, but he's not sure how long you have till it'll be too late, what do you do? Do you make a "target" of going to the hospital the day after tomorrow to get checked out and see about an antidote? Do you finish your tour of the zoo before heading off to the hospital? Of course not! You rush straight to the hospital as quickly as you can, not because you know you'll die if you don't, but precisely because you do NOT know how long you actually have. See, when you're life is on the line, and you are faced with an uncertain time-table, the only sane and logical decision is to act with all possible haste. So, if that's how we act when our life is on the line, how should we act when our human survival is on the line? Set target deadlines decades away for modest carbon reductions? Even though there are plenty of scientists saying that'll be too little, too late? That's insanity, that's suicidal. In the face of uncertainty as to the extent of change, and the time table for change, that is needed to avert our extinction, we need to act like we are dying and rushing to the emergency room in an ambulance, running red lights, exceeding the speed limit, etc. It's kind of funny when you think about the comparative harms of making a mistake being too fast or too slow on this issue: What's the risk of we erroneously move to fast to cut carbon emissions, doing it with decades to spare? The normal growing pains when people have to rapidly change their way of life. That's it. On the other hand, what's the risk if we erroneously move to slow to cut carbon emissions? Human extinction. Hmm... Comparing these, should we really be talking about targets to cut carbon emissions fractionally in 15 years? Shouldn't we actually be talking about declaring martial law? Shouldn't we be having a serious discussion about having the government take over all factories that emit greenhouse gases with armed soldiers and shutting them down, only letting them open after they've been re-engineered to renewable energy? Shouldn't we be talking about making it a mandatory law that employers must require telecommuting for every employee who can possibly telecommute? Shouldn't we outlaw all fuel burning cars effective, say, Jan. 1, 2016? Heck, I'd even be willing to bail out the auto companies again for any financial loss they incur from having to move "overnight" to electric cars. Shouldn't we be talking about massive solar and wind energy projects, not by some vague laws that give some kind of incentives to private companies, but by just building the damn things as a government project so it just gets done? Shouldn't pass a law right now that guarantees free college tuition to every person who majors in environmental sciences, so we have as many minds as possible working on a cure? Is this overkill? Maybe... Just like it's overkill to speed to the hospital for a spider bite when you MIGHT have days or even weeks before the poison kills you. But, since you just don't know, overkill is the only sane approach. I'm a reasonably intelligent person, maybe not brilliant. I try to stay on top of important issues, when I can. I've tried honestly to read up on climate change to figure out what we need to do, by when, so I don't have to worry we are the generation responsible for committing global suicide. And I honestly cannot find any clear answer to how much we have to change, or how soon. And I think most people are in a similar state of uncertainty. However, I look around and it feels like the masses who share this sense of uncertainty are not driven by this uncertainty to a desire for urgent action. Instead, it feels like they think, "Gee, since I don't KNOW that we are taking action too slowly to avert our doom, I won't make waves, I'll just vaguely encourage my politicians to make the environment a priority... And that seems so crazy to me. You don't need certainty to act in response to a grave threat. If you give me a gun with 1,000 chambers and only one bullet, I won't point it at my head and pull the trigger. One in a thousand risk of death is too great. Every day we sit back and let the current inept and corrupt politicians quibble about minor climate change measures, I feel like we are pulling that trigger. And eventually there will be a bullet in that chamber, maybe as soon as tomorrow. Given the gravity of the situation, the question should not be "how much do we need to change, and by when?" Because that makes it sound like we are going to try to just squeak by with the minimum we have to do to survive. The question should be, "Are we doing everything conceivable and possible to reduce our carbon footprint and restore the atmosphere as fast as possible?" The answer to the latter question -- the better question -- is definitely "no." Which reflects a disconnect not just with government, but among the people who sit by and shrug it off. Can anyone give me definitive proof that we are doing enough to avert disaster? Because if not, then that proves we should be doing more. Ken
  4. What is your favorite political parody? Comedy is important to politics because it seems like comedians can be more honest about politics through comedy. People on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, all hold back on some of their stronger opinions because they cannot be blatantly honest and they have a formula they have to follow. Comedy allows people to be free. What is your favorite political parody? This is mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSnMSrXzMpA It is of a man who claims to be a tea party member singing about how President Obama doesn't love America.
  5. As is the case in Iraq, a fighting force called the Peshmerga defend Rojava, the name of the Kurdish portion of Syria. – where people of various religions and cultures had once found a welcoming, non-discriminating home. Unlike Iraqi Kurdistan, however, Rojava does not have a cordial, lucrative relationship with the Turkish government. Royava ‘s relationship with the Internationally designated terrorist group PKK, a Marxist, Kurdish group originating in Turkey, has led to a lack of military support and equipment by the Turks and their NATO allies, fearing such weaponry could fall into PKK hands. The ubiquitous sights of Peshmerga soldier’s fresh graves serve as constant reminders of the price Syrian Kurds have paid to short-handedly defend their homeland. The Kurdish PKK party is correctly labeled terrorists, in the sense that PKK operatives committed terroristic offences against the Turkish Government and civilians. Currently in a cease-fire with Turkey, the PKK’s more Leninist atrocities came to a conclusion – more or less- with the 1999 capture of JAILED PKK leader Abudla Ocalan. Since 2013, currently in a standing cease fire, PKK/ Turkish conflicts have dropped sharply. Currently based in the mountains of northern Iraq, the PKK has even become one of the most successful forces against the Islamic State, assisting in the Syrian fight for the last 3 years and significantly contributing to the rescue of the Yazzidi people of Iraq. PKK assistance, though essential to the survival of the Syrian Kurds, has caused the normally expulsive international community to be extraordinarily cautious about supplying heavy weaponry to the Syrian Peshmerga. The PKK’s conflict with Turkey – which is often justified by the extraordinary lengths the Turkish government has gone through to erase the Kurd’s existence – caused the United States, NATO, and the EU to label the Marxist revolutionaries terrorists. The unceasing, non-progressing Turkey/Kurd conflict eventually made both sides seek more peaceful methods of accomplishing their respective goals, but consequences of the IS opprobrium in Syria have led to new tensions. In addition to refusing participation in military action against IS, Turkey has been hesitant to allow Turkish Kurds to aid their Syrian counterparts, and their recent refusal to allow PKK and other Turkish Kurds through the Turk/Syrian border resulted in enthused protests. Regardless of any historical strife between Kurdish and Turkish groups, over 100 thousand Kurds have already crossed into Turkey to escape the I.S; over 400 thousand might soon be on their way. This influx of Kurds could have tremendous consequences within Turkey. Despite the tremendous loss of life and displacement near Kobani, the recent IS launched, chemical assault on Iraqi soldiers in Fulijia will likely cause more immediate consequences for Syria than any casualty count ever could. Within the same day that 300 Iraqi soldiers were killed by IS employed chlorine gas, the United States has begun striking IS revolutionary targets in Syria. Passionately opposed to the Assad regime, the Obama Administration has been hesitant to perform any action that would benefit the embattled Syrian president. The use of chemical weapons, with their massive potential for death, has finally forced the US to look past their efforts in the proxy-fueled Syrian revolution, only a year after proposing bombing the Syrian Government. The much needed air support will be vital in the efforts of moderate rebels and Kurds to vanquish IS from the once peaceful, religiously tolerant lands of Rojava. A note to aspiring countries. Myopic, often reactionary actions are the central BEHAVIORALtrait of a declining society. America must now quell a proxy war it was vital in creating – while scraping every dime it can from both intentions. I pose to any hardened capitalist, can our American, capitalistically driven foreign policy lead to anything but the assorted cast of Middle Eastern, strong armed Dictators we claim to loath; the instability we present as crises; the deaths we feign to save? Using the philosophy of the Industrial revolution, western industry has attempted to maximize profits in their attempts to nation build- designing culturally unsympathetic, amoral, inclusive factories rather than founding democratic countries, and exchanging the harmony, long term stability, and wealth potential of other countries’ populations for the gains of a few. The Kurds in Iraq, along with all other aspiring democracies, should watch how their capitalistic teachers have preformed in the Middle East Classroom. Although disharmony has led to the discovery of easily exploitable situations and more control over various economic markets for the world powers, the level of strain has seemingly reached a point where the affected peoples are returning to their religious or ethic roots – no longer caring for capitalist gains. The result of numerous, diverging proxy wars have threatened the foundation and safety of all people, and there will be no suspension of this destabilizing, war producing behavior in the future. To the countries that aspire to become the next great capitalistic power – is this moral BANKRUPTCY and perpetual war profiteering truly what you desire?
  6. If libs honestly think it's racist to require an ID to vote then why aren't they out there with sharpton's bullhorn yelling about everything else in life that requires ID as being racist and discriminatory? To me, this alone proves that they just want to make voter fraud easier. Besides, a little skinny white dude went to eric holder's district and could have voted as holder, our black attourney general who should be well known especially in his own district. The republicans are morons though, along with all the free crap we give to everyone as if we can afford it (17 trillion in debt!!!), they could pass a bill to allow people to apply for free IDs in all states and it would castrate the lib's already insane argument.
  7. I have written a 17pg paper/rant told from a neutral point of view that has potential to change things. It is a new system of govt that caters to all wings ideals, from the value of work and respecting labor, while realizing materialism is the new natural resource. I am looking for more critique of the idea, not the literary rules of writing. It has a huge potential and I am only doing this because of the push from peers that have both seen the hard copy, and heard the verbal run-down. I am somewhat ignorant of political forums when it comes to finding forums specifically meant to cater to one side. Here is the link. http://jakemill00.wix.com/solutions
  8. Oh right.... there are none. No inventions, no discoveries no cure for diseases. Yet society has the audacity to preach that women are of equal intelligence to men pffft. More on the subject matter here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkeADv5nRbc
  9. Hi there, I get fed up of Christians being characterised as being anti-gay just because they're Christians. This is also the case with Christian marriage. I wrote my own theology, as a Christian, about the matter and I hope I've showed that Christians can be liberal too while maintaining their Christian belief. Here's an article I wrote detailing this: http://www.newyorkdailysun.com/gay-marriage-some-theological-considerations/1128 Let me know what you think and if you have any challenges for my theology. James
×
×
  • Create New...