LOL...yeah, I admit it, I'm a complete idiot when it comes to women. The more I think I know about them, the more I realize that women don't operate with any kind of logic at all.
Money, the root of all?
- Thread starter Supracentral
- Start date
^lol, that about sums it up! Except the cobras might be less cruel. At least you can be pretty sure when they're about to strike their death blow...women are tricky however!
Adjuster
Supramania Contributor
Joel, I can understand the fear of losing land due to rising taxes. Your parents are being taxed to pay for the ideas and goals of those who don't always have their best intrests at heart. And so is everyone else in this country.
I really feel for places where the liberal elite media, and environmentalists have either taken over, or are very close to it. The personal freedoms of everyone who lives under their grasp is threatened, and your parents rising taxes are a perfect example of it.
They expect the tax payer to bear the burden of those who will not, or claim to not be able to work, and they also pay the burden of those who would spend their money on silly ideas and programs that produce nothing in many cases, or are blatant power abuse on the part of the politicians.
So, how to answer your question? I belive very strongly that land ownership and military service are things that should give you the right to vote, and state your opinion in how your land is governend. By owning land or property, you show your commitment to the country, and your commitment to your town and city. You should be the one voting on taxes, schools, defense and all the other important things we have government do for us. (Not to us as it is right now.)
To stay on topic with this thread, being a land owner means you have produced the money needed to live where you do, and you should enjoy the fruit of your labor, not have to sell it due to high taxes, and overbearing government costs and control.
I belive if landowners and the military were the only ones voting, your parents taxes would be reasonable. The idea that only a low percentage of people would own property would not be a problem. It would likely spur a growth in total land ownership, and that is good for the economy, and country in general.
Think of it this way. Do you take care of your own home better than you do a rental? Sure you do, and so does everyone on this planet. It's because you have a stake in your property, and your just "living" in the rental, it's someone elses problem right?
If I don't own anything, and I treat my country like I do a rental, why should I be allowed to vote?
One more thing. Someone said that my welfare/workfare idea is not nice, or constitutional... It would not be mandatory to be on the program by any means. If you want to go it alone, or use religious forms of help, or whatever floats your boat, go right ahead.
I'm just saying that if you choose to use the program, you should abide by the rules.
Some key points we should have on welfare.
1) Those in the program get no spending cash. (They don't need it.)
2) Meals are provided in chow halls 3 times a day. (If you are at work, the lunch is either brought with you, or setup as mobile chow halls where you work.)
3) There will be no booze, cigarettes and other vices paid for while your on this program.
4) Clothes are provided, and a central laundry washes everything for you. (It's one of the jobs those on Welfare should be doing as part of the 60hours a week they would work.)
Your free to go whenever you like, and your money is yours at that time. The catch is taxes. If you buy a home, and become a productive part of society, there are NO taxes on money you earn while in the welfare program. However, if you spend the money on anything other than real estate, it's taxed at whatever your normal taxes are for your area.
Those who chose to use the military option would be treated like anyone else in the military since you would not be on "welfare" anymore would you?
What is funny about this idea, is why there is so much opposition to it? What I'm proposing is an end to a cycle of poverty and despair called Welfare. There is no way out of the cycle because the program is currently designed to limit your ability to earn money. I think you should earn money, and have your basic needs provided at very low cost to you. This would allow a family to save up and get out of the hole very quickly if done right, and make a better life for themselves. Sure it would not be easy, but it would be honerable. (And that is something totally lacking in our system today.)
I really feel for places where the liberal elite media, and environmentalists have either taken over, or are very close to it. The personal freedoms of everyone who lives under their grasp is threatened, and your parents rising taxes are a perfect example of it.
They expect the tax payer to bear the burden of those who will not, or claim to not be able to work, and they also pay the burden of those who would spend their money on silly ideas and programs that produce nothing in many cases, or are blatant power abuse on the part of the politicians.
So, how to answer your question? I belive very strongly that land ownership and military service are things that should give you the right to vote, and state your opinion in how your land is governend. By owning land or property, you show your commitment to the country, and your commitment to your town and city. You should be the one voting on taxes, schools, defense and all the other important things we have government do for us. (Not to us as it is right now.)
To stay on topic with this thread, being a land owner means you have produced the money needed to live where you do, and you should enjoy the fruit of your labor, not have to sell it due to high taxes, and overbearing government costs and control.
I belive if landowners and the military were the only ones voting, your parents taxes would be reasonable. The idea that only a low percentage of people would own property would not be a problem. It would likely spur a growth in total land ownership, and that is good for the economy, and country in general.
Think of it this way. Do you take care of your own home better than you do a rental? Sure you do, and so does everyone on this planet. It's because you have a stake in your property, and your just "living" in the rental, it's someone elses problem right?
If I don't own anything, and I treat my country like I do a rental, why should I be allowed to vote?
One more thing. Someone said that my welfare/workfare idea is not nice, or constitutional... It would not be mandatory to be on the program by any means. If you want to go it alone, or use religious forms of help, or whatever floats your boat, go right ahead.
I'm just saying that if you choose to use the program, you should abide by the rules.
Some key points we should have on welfare.
1) Those in the program get no spending cash. (They don't need it.)
2) Meals are provided in chow halls 3 times a day. (If you are at work, the lunch is either brought with you, or setup as mobile chow halls where you work.)
3) There will be no booze, cigarettes and other vices paid for while your on this program.
4) Clothes are provided, and a central laundry washes everything for you. (It's one of the jobs those on Welfare should be doing as part of the 60hours a week they would work.)
Your free to go whenever you like, and your money is yours at that time. The catch is taxes. If you buy a home, and become a productive part of society, there are NO taxes on money you earn while in the welfare program. However, if you spend the money on anything other than real estate, it's taxed at whatever your normal taxes are for your area.
Those who chose to use the military option would be treated like anyone else in the military since you would not be on "welfare" anymore would you?
What is funny about this idea, is why there is so much opposition to it? What I'm proposing is an end to a cycle of poverty and despair called Welfare. There is no way out of the cycle because the program is currently designed to limit your ability to earn money. I think you should earn money, and have your basic needs provided at very low cost to you. This would allow a family to save up and get out of the hole very quickly if done right, and make a better life for themselves. Sure it would not be easy, but it would be honerable. (And that is something totally lacking in our system today.)
No truer words have been spoken!!!
But you missed my point, I think... Let me explain it for you, so you can understand the concepts and risks involved with your plans...
What you are talking about is called "Minority Rules" where the upper class makes the rules... Do you really think your going to be one of the "1% upper upper class" that makes all the rules?? lmao...
You won't even come close in the long run buddy.. You will end up being forced out of your own home, by your very own ideas like the rest of us.. Only the super rich will prosper by your ideas...Everyone else can only suffer the results...
I agree with some of what you say, but not all of it..You want to know what happends when the minority rules the majority?, Look at history, China, Africa, and even US history tells us it ends up bloody, every time...
Usually the ones being repressed by the ones in power, rise up and revolt against and kill the ones in power...Either way, you will loose all, by your own plan.
That is not a place I want to live...
Adjuster
Supramania Contributor
Over 200 years of US history proves you wrong Joel.
Minority rules is a liberal scare word, and it was less of a problem when the country was first organized, and only landowners could vote... ! (IIRC, it was property owners, but you get the point.)
Are your parents in the 1% Joel? Mine are not, and neither am I, but I own a house and so do they, and so do millions of other Americans who could vote and have proven they have a stake in the future of this country.
Here is a link to a very revealing article on home ownership. And it put's to rest your fear of the rich controlling everything. (Like they don't right now? LOL)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1221.cfm
Quote from the article.
In fact, numerous government reports indicate that most "poor" Americans today are better housed, better fed, and own more personal property than average Americans throughout most of this century. Today, inflation-adjusted expenditures per person among the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the average American household in the early 1970s. 1
The following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau are taken from various government reports:
In 1995, 41 percent of all "poor" households owned their own homes.
The average home owned by a person classified as "poor" has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Over three-quarters of a million "poor" persons own homes worth over $150,000; and nearly 200,000 "poor" persons own homes worth over $300,000.
Only 7.5 percent of "poor" households are overcrowded. Nearly 60 percent have two or more rooms per person.
The average "poor" American has one-third more living space than the average Japanese does and four times as much living space as the average Russian. 2
Seventy percent of "poor" households own a car; 27 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent have a color television. Nearly half own two or more televisions.
Nearly three-quarters have a VCR; more than one in five has two VCRs.
Two-thirds of "poor" households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Sixty-four percent of the "poor" own microwave ovens, half have a stereo system, and over a quarter have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, the "poor" are far from being chronically hungry and malnourished. In fact, poor persons are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons. Nearly half of poor adult women are overweight.
Despite frequent charges of widespread hunger in the United States, 84 percent of the "poor" report their families have "enough" food to eat; 13 percent state they "sometimes" do not have enough to eat, and 3 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.
The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms.
Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes that are 100 percent above recommended levels.
Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, growing up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
Minority rules is a liberal scare word, and it was less of a problem when the country was first organized, and only landowners could vote... ! (IIRC, it was property owners, but you get the point.)
Are your parents in the 1% Joel? Mine are not, and neither am I, but I own a house and so do they, and so do millions of other Americans who could vote and have proven they have a stake in the future of this country.
Here is a link to a very revealing article on home ownership. And it put's to rest your fear of the rich controlling everything. (Like they don't right now? LOL)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1221.cfm
Quote from the article.
In fact, numerous government reports indicate that most "poor" Americans today are better housed, better fed, and own more personal property than average Americans throughout most of this century. Today, inflation-adjusted expenditures per person among the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the average American household in the early 1970s. 1
The following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau are taken from various government reports:
In 1995, 41 percent of all "poor" households owned their own homes.
The average home owned by a person classified as "poor" has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Over three-quarters of a million "poor" persons own homes worth over $150,000; and nearly 200,000 "poor" persons own homes worth over $300,000.
Only 7.5 percent of "poor" households are overcrowded. Nearly 60 percent have two or more rooms per person.
The average "poor" American has one-third more living space than the average Japanese does and four times as much living space as the average Russian. 2
Seventy percent of "poor" households own a car; 27 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent have a color television. Nearly half own two or more televisions.
Nearly three-quarters have a VCR; more than one in five has two VCRs.
Two-thirds of "poor" households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Sixty-four percent of the "poor" own microwave ovens, half have a stereo system, and over a quarter have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, the "poor" are far from being chronically hungry and malnourished. In fact, poor persons are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons. Nearly half of poor adult women are overweight.
Despite frequent charges of widespread hunger in the United States, 84 percent of the "poor" report their families have "enough" food to eat; 13 percent state they "sometimes" do not have enough to eat, and 3 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.
The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms.
Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes that are 100 percent above recommended levels.
Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, growing up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
Adjuster
Supramania Contributor
Oops! SO much for the idea that the poor don't own homes. (And are not fed well.)
So, taking in that the middle class generally owns homes, and we have about 50% of the poor owning homes, are you so fast to say that only 1% of the population would be able to vote there Joel?
So, taking in that the middle class generally owns homes, and we have about 50% of the poor owning homes, are you so fast to say that only 1% of the population would be able to vote there Joel?
Go back a few more years Adjuster... :3d_frown:
(so sad but I am not suprised at all)
American history proves I am right!!!
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/index.html
That link is down, here is another one.. sorry..
http://www.historycentral.com/Revolt/causes.html
No, They are lower/middle class.
I am less than poor..
In the long run of your idea, that is what I am saying.. YES!!!
Adjuster
Supramania Contributor
Go back into more history? What to when the King of England was taxing the new world?
Dude, this is America now, and we pay more in taxes now than our ancestors did back then! It sucks, and it's socialism at work, plain and simple.
What I was saying is that your idea of only 1% of the people in this country owning land is absurd. Even the poorest segments of our population have a home/land ownership of nearly 50%. It is higher in the upper segments of the population income wise, and I'd imagine as you get to the final 1% of the wealty, they obviously own land/property and pay taxes on that same property just like the rest of us do.
Why is it such a bad idea to let those that pay the property taxes, be the only ones that get the opportunity to vote? It does not discrimiate by race, sex, color or any other value. If you own your home, you get to vote. If your in the military, or have been, you get to vote.
Simple really. (Totally scary for the liberal elite's, but tough for them.)
I'm for a flat tax too. 15% for everyone. Does not matter if you make 10,000 per year, or 10,000,000.00, you pay 15%.
States are free to either have, or not have income taxes. (How it is now.)
Sales taxes are up to the states too. (Just like now.)
School age children are alloted a voucher worth whatever it takes to attend a regular school in that area of the country. The parents are allowed to use that voucher in public, or private education. (Obviously the parents would have to pay any difference between what the voucher is worth, and the cost of the private school, but it would force public schools to compete overnight with the private sector, and our education system problems would solve them selves. (The shitty schools would go under overnight, and those with great programs and teachers would thrive if the parents had a choice backed up with money from the vouchers.)
I guess, in keeping with this thread, it all boils down to money right?
If you earn your money, you should be in charge to a great extent in how that money is spent. Those that don't earn the money telling those that did how to spend it is communism to the extreme.
Dude, this is America now, and we pay more in taxes now than our ancestors did back then! It sucks, and it's socialism at work, plain and simple.
What I was saying is that your idea of only 1% of the people in this country owning land is absurd. Even the poorest segments of our population have a home/land ownership of nearly 50%. It is higher in the upper segments of the population income wise, and I'd imagine as you get to the final 1% of the wealty, they obviously own land/property and pay taxes on that same property just like the rest of us do.
Why is it such a bad idea to let those that pay the property taxes, be the only ones that get the opportunity to vote? It does not discrimiate by race, sex, color or any other value. If you own your home, you get to vote. If your in the military, or have been, you get to vote.
Simple really. (Totally scary for the liberal elite's, but tough for them.)
I'm for a flat tax too. 15% for everyone. Does not matter if you make 10,000 per year, or 10,000,000.00, you pay 15%.
States are free to either have, or not have income taxes. (How it is now.)
Sales taxes are up to the states too. (Just like now.)
School age children are alloted a voucher worth whatever it takes to attend a regular school in that area of the country. The parents are allowed to use that voucher in public, or private education. (Obviously the parents would have to pay any difference between what the voucher is worth, and the cost of the private school, but it would force public schools to compete overnight with the private sector, and our education system problems would solve them selves. (The shitty schools would go under overnight, and those with great programs and teachers would thrive if the parents had a choice backed up with money from the vouchers.)
I guess, in keeping with this thread, it all boils down to money right?
If you earn your money, you should be in charge to a great extent in how that money is spent. Those that don't earn the money telling those that did how to spend it is communism to the extreme.
I know this is America, That is how we got here!!!
That was taxation with out representaition. We vote on taxes now don't we? Your possibly talking about taking that right away from me if I am a renter or non land owner. I will not let you do that! That's just me.. Soap box, ballot box, ammo box.. In that order guys..
I love this place, but it needs reforming. not re-writing. Our system works if used properly, So people can decide which of the two evil people to elect. Why only two? It should not be left or right man...
The problem is politics tends to cover up the real issues to confuse the masses to keep making money and so no one is held accountable for their actions once elected. (forced to keep their word or punished and removed):biglaugh:
If only the ones with money make all the rules, they will make all the rules in their favor only (self serving) after time. Eventually, there will be less and less rich people and more and more poor people under the boot..
Our current system is not perfect, but it has functioned ok for a few hundred years. We just need to educate ourselves about the issues and get off our asses and vote!!!
Crap, Iraqi's had a better vote turn out than Americans did, and each of their lives was threatened with death if they did vote.. +1 to them...(same thing is happening now but few realize it..Take a guess)
Again I have no problem with you all making your money as long as it is done in a proper way and not screwing every one else over. (killing or harming people) Competition can be good!!! Lust can be good!!! Greed can be great!!! "Can" being the key word here..
That was taxation with out representaition. We vote on taxes now don't we? Your possibly talking about taking that right away from me if I am a renter or non land owner. I will not let you do that! That's just me.. Soap box, ballot box, ammo box.. In that order guys..
I love this place, but it needs reforming. not re-writing. Our system works if used properly, So people can decide which of the two evil people to elect. Why only two? It should not be left or right man...
The problem is politics tends to cover up the real issues to confuse the masses to keep making money and so no one is held accountable for their actions once elected. (forced to keep their word or punished and removed):biglaugh:
If only the ones with money make all the rules, they will make all the rules in their favor only (self serving) after time. Eventually, there will be less and less rich people and more and more poor people under the boot..
Our current system is not perfect, but it has functioned ok for a few hundred years. We just need to educate ourselves about the issues and get off our asses and vote!!!
Crap, Iraqi's had a better vote turn out than Americans did, and each of their lives was threatened with death if they did vote.. +1 to them...(same thing is happening now but few realize it..Take a guess)
Again I have no problem with you all making your money as long as it is done in a proper way and not screwing every one else over. (killing or harming people) Competition can be good!!! Lust can be good!!! Greed can be great!!! "Can" being the key word here..
Adjuster
Supramania Contributor
I would anticipate losing the core liberal vote for sure. (They are mostly not land owners, and either got rich by accident, or inherited the money, or are actors.)
It's the moderate liberals that might vote against my ideas, but they would be so far outnumbered on the basics that it would not matter. (Majority rules in a democracy as you know, and the majority that works, makes money and owns property in this country has it's opinion seriously diluted by millions of voters with no stake in this country, that don't produce anything and are basicly living here for free on the backs of others.)
Your comment that you don't mind me making money as long as you don't think I'm screwing everyone else over... LOL That's rich man! So, you as a holder of no stake in this country at the moment get to determine what I can decide to spend the money I earn on? And how I earn it?
Please read the first page very carefully. You just became the exact problem being discussed there. The looter who produces nothing, yet wants to control the loot via laws and ideals, putting themselves in power by mandate, and enslaving the producers by rote. (More liberal/communistic dogma I might add.)
I have to say the producers in this country continue to work and produce and are too busy in many cases to vote, and do not feel they can acomplish much becasue of the diluted voter pool. The worst thing we did in this country was to allow those with no stake in the country, the non producers if you will, to vote. The only fair test of voting worthiness is land ownership for reasons I've outlined before. The other act that shows your stake in the country is military service. Acomplish either, and your showing your here to stay, so you have earned the right to vote in my opinion.
Problem is, we are so screwed up now, the idea of returning to our roots would be voted down by those with no stake in the country so they can hold onto the unearned, and unwarrented power they wield.
It will be interesting to see if we can hold together as a government in the next 200 years. With the voter pool we have now, I don't see it hapening.
It's the moderate liberals that might vote against my ideas, but they would be so far outnumbered on the basics that it would not matter. (Majority rules in a democracy as you know, and the majority that works, makes money and owns property in this country has it's opinion seriously diluted by millions of voters with no stake in this country, that don't produce anything and are basicly living here for free on the backs of others.)
Your comment that you don't mind me making money as long as you don't think I'm screwing everyone else over... LOL That's rich man! So, you as a holder of no stake in this country at the moment get to determine what I can decide to spend the money I earn on? And how I earn it?
Please read the first page very carefully. You just became the exact problem being discussed there. The looter who produces nothing, yet wants to control the loot via laws and ideals, putting themselves in power by mandate, and enslaving the producers by rote. (More liberal/communistic dogma I might add.)
I have to say the producers in this country continue to work and produce and are too busy in many cases to vote, and do not feel they can acomplish much becasue of the diluted voter pool. The worst thing we did in this country was to allow those with no stake in the country, the non producers if you will, to vote. The only fair test of voting worthiness is land ownership for reasons I've outlined before. The other act that shows your stake in the country is military service. Acomplish either, and your showing your here to stay, so you have earned the right to vote in my opinion.
Problem is, we are so screwed up now, the idea of returning to our roots would be voted down by those with no stake in the country so they can hold onto the unearned, and unwarrented power they wield.
It will be interesting to see if we can hold together as a government in the next 200 years. With the voter pool we have now, I don't see it hapening.
Adjuster said:
Just because I am still struggling in life does not make me a looter or a non producer (I still have a stake in all this), silly. Just try and take my voting right away, I will join the military and I will fight to the death!!! It just might not be on your side or in your best interest if I do!!
Stop voting for the evil that you hate so much and things can get better.
Joel W. said:
Slap that shit on a t-shirt and sell it!! Haha...if only people would take that one line to heart and actually do it!
--------------------------------
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Joel W. again."
SupraDerk said:
Thanks Derk. How many bumper stickers would you like and what colors? I will produce them.
Dammit, I am already mad and I have not had any coffee..:cry:
It's the way the system is being manipulated now by the evil ones in power that is preventing me from buying land.. Don't you see that???
JustAnotherVictim
Supramania Contributor
LoL, more like turtle in your cup. I'll find that story again one day.SupraDerk said:
Aha: http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051110/NEWS01/511100302/1079
Define: Liberal
broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
having political or social views favoring reform and progress
tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The Liberal Party was one of the two major British political parties from the early 19th century until the 1920s, and a third party of varying strength and importance up to 1988, when it merged with the Social Democratic Party to form a new party which would become known as the Liberal Democrats.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_(UK)
Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty as the purpose of government. It typically favors the right to dissent from orthodox tenets or established authorities in political or religious matters. In this respect, it is sometimes held in contrast to conservatism. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_(politics)
people who generally like to reform current conditions. Liberals are often referred to as the left wing.
www.enchantedlearning.com/election/glossary.shtml
In the US political spectrum, “liberals” are said to be slightly left-of-center or somewhat left-of-center. Of the two main political parties, the Democrats are thought to be more liberal, as the term is currently defined. ...
www.uta.fi/FAST/GC/poliglos.html
When referring to trade policy, relatively free of import controls or restraints and/or exhibiting a preference for reducing existing barriers to trade, often contrasted with the protectionist preference for retaining or raising selected barriers to imports.
www.giagroup.com/terms-of-trade-l.cfm
The British Liberal Party developed from the Whigs. In the 50 years after the Reform Bill of 1832 was the dominant party. Leaders included Gladstone. Became divided over Home Rule for Ireland. Its decline was also partly because many of the reforms on its programme had been carried out, and the rise of the Labour Party which supplanted it as the official opposition in 1922. In the early 1980s it aligned itself with the newly formed Social Democratic Party. [RE]
www.embassy.org.nz/encycl/l3encyc.htm
Political viewpoint with origins in Western Europe during the 19th century; stressed limited state interference in individual life, representation of propertied people in government; urged importance of constitutional rule and parliaments. (p. 702)
occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/stearns_awl/medialib/glossary/gloss_L.html
Political view that supports gradual change and government spending to assist lower classes in society.
www.cyberlearning-world.com/nhhs/html/vocansw.htm
A liberal is a person who supports moderate social progress and reform.
www.tomgreengop.org/politicalterms.htm
In 1872 the opponents of Gen. Grant for a second term met in convention at Cincinnati to adopt a platform, and make a nomination. It was composed of representative men of both parties, disaffected Republicans being in the majority. The name taken was Liberal. It relegated the tariff question to the several congressional districts, and made the reconciliation of North and South in an era of fellowship paramount. Horace Greeley was nominated for President, B. ...
www.people.virginia.edu/~rmf8a/gaskell/poldict.htm
A political or social views that put a great emphasis on creating new social patterns or values, often with the help of direct government action. (Contrast with conservative views, which put more emphasis on the importance of traditional values and social patterns.) Liberals view society as something that can be easily reshaped to meet changing conditions. They believe that many existing social patterns, including marriage, gender roles, and race relations are severely flawed and unfair. ...
www.fasttrackteaching.com/termsmodern.html
Traditionally, the word liberal means to be open to new ideas and tolerant of others. To be liberal politically, is to emphasize political and economic freedom. They tend to favor gradual changes in society and promote government programs to solve problems.
warrensburg.k12.mo.us/iadventure/allamerican/glossary.html
Giving or generous, or broad minded, tolerant of other ideals, nontraditional.
Pick the one that scares you the most and we can refer to "those guys" as something else...Please.. If you don't like how things are now or you think they can be better??
YOU ARE A LIBRAL! (or at least you have liberal tendencies.):naughty:
broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
having political or social views favoring reform and progress
tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The Liberal Party was one of the two major British political parties from the early 19th century until the 1920s, and a third party of varying strength and importance up to 1988, when it merged with the Social Democratic Party to form a new party which would become known as the Liberal Democrats.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_(UK)
Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty as the purpose of government. It typically favors the right to dissent from orthodox tenets or established authorities in political or religious matters. In this respect, it is sometimes held in contrast to conservatism. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_(politics)
people who generally like to reform current conditions. Liberals are often referred to as the left wing.
www.enchantedlearning.com/election/glossary.shtml
In the US political spectrum, “liberals” are said to be slightly left-of-center or somewhat left-of-center. Of the two main political parties, the Democrats are thought to be more liberal, as the term is currently defined. ...
www.uta.fi/FAST/GC/poliglos.html
When referring to trade policy, relatively free of import controls or restraints and/or exhibiting a preference for reducing existing barriers to trade, often contrasted with the protectionist preference for retaining or raising selected barriers to imports.
www.giagroup.com/terms-of-trade-l.cfm
The British Liberal Party developed from the Whigs. In the 50 years after the Reform Bill of 1832 was the dominant party. Leaders included Gladstone. Became divided over Home Rule for Ireland. Its decline was also partly because many of the reforms on its programme had been carried out, and the rise of the Labour Party which supplanted it as the official opposition in 1922. In the early 1980s it aligned itself with the newly formed Social Democratic Party. [RE]
www.embassy.org.nz/encycl/l3encyc.htm
Political viewpoint with origins in Western Europe during the 19th century; stressed limited state interference in individual life, representation of propertied people in government; urged importance of constitutional rule and parliaments. (p. 702)
occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/stearns_awl/medialib/glossary/gloss_L.html
Political view that supports gradual change and government spending to assist lower classes in society.
www.cyberlearning-world.com/nhhs/html/vocansw.htm
A liberal is a person who supports moderate social progress and reform.
www.tomgreengop.org/politicalterms.htm
In 1872 the opponents of Gen. Grant for a second term met in convention at Cincinnati to adopt a platform, and make a nomination. It was composed of representative men of both parties, disaffected Republicans being in the majority. The name taken was Liberal. It relegated the tariff question to the several congressional districts, and made the reconciliation of North and South in an era of fellowship paramount. Horace Greeley was nominated for President, B. ...
www.people.virginia.edu/~rmf8a/gaskell/poldict.htm
A political or social views that put a great emphasis on creating new social patterns or values, often with the help of direct government action. (Contrast with conservative views, which put more emphasis on the importance of traditional values and social patterns.) Liberals view society as something that can be easily reshaped to meet changing conditions. They believe that many existing social patterns, including marriage, gender roles, and race relations are severely flawed and unfair. ...
www.fasttrackteaching.com/termsmodern.html
Traditionally, the word liberal means to be open to new ideas and tolerant of others. To be liberal politically, is to emphasize political and economic freedom. They tend to favor gradual changes in society and promote government programs to solve problems.
warrensburg.k12.mo.us/iadventure/allamerican/glossary.html
Giving or generous, or broad minded, tolerant of other ideals, nontraditional.
Pick the one that scares you the most and we can refer to "those guys" as something else...Please.. If you don't like how things are now or you think they can be better??
YOU ARE A LIBRAL! (or at least you have liberal tendencies.):naughty:
Define: Elite
F), the select.
www.willdurant.com/glossary.htm
The economic designation for inventories of the wealthiest decedents which exceed in quantity and quality all the criteria of the "Aspiring" classification.
gunstonhall.org/probate/glossary.htm
Small group of people that posses disproportionally large amounts of scarce sources of influence over political decision-making: money, social prestige, political power, etc...
www.elissetche.org/dico/E.htm
makes a needle electrolysis machine
www.hairfacts.com/terms/termse.html
the people at the apex of the European hierarchy, for whom the present World Order quite closely conforms to their visions of Utopia. Roget's Thesaurus offers the interesting synonym, "the four hundred."
www.maquah.net/We_Have_The_Right_To_Exist/WeHaveTheRight_26Glossary.html
A small group of people with a disproportionate amount of public decision-making power.
www.comune.venezia.it/atlante/documents/glossary/nelson_glossary.htm
elect: selected as the best; "an elect circle of artists"; "elite colleges"
a group or class of persons enjoying superior intellectual or social or economic status
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The Covenant Elite (also known as Sangheili, the Covenant name for the race) is a fictional race in the video games Halo and Halo 2. One of the oldest and most faithful races of the Covenant Armada, the Covenant Elite is an alien ground troop that usually wields Plasma Rifles, Carbines, Beam Rifles, Fuel Rod Cannons, Needlers, or Energy Swords.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_(Halo)
Elite is a seminal space trading-game, originally published by Acornsoft in 1984 for the BBC Micro and Acorn Electron computers and subsequently ported to many others. It was written and developed by David Braben and Ian Bell, who had met while both undergraduates at Jesus College, Cambridge University.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_(computer_game)
That's not me or most of us..(sounds more like you)
F), the select.
www.willdurant.com/glossary.htm
The economic designation for inventories of the wealthiest decedents which exceed in quantity and quality all the criteria of the "Aspiring" classification.
gunstonhall.org/probate/glossary.htm
Small group of people that posses disproportionally large amounts of scarce sources of influence over political decision-making: money, social prestige, political power, etc...
www.elissetche.org/dico/E.htm
makes a needle electrolysis machine
www.hairfacts.com/terms/termse.html
the people at the apex of the European hierarchy, for whom the present World Order quite closely conforms to their visions of Utopia. Roget's Thesaurus offers the interesting synonym, "the four hundred."
www.maquah.net/We_Have_The_Right_To_Exist/WeHaveTheRight_26Glossary.html
A small group of people with a disproportionate amount of public decision-making power.
www.comune.venezia.it/atlante/documents/glossary/nelson_glossary.htm
elect: selected as the best; "an elect circle of artists"; "elite colleges"
a group or class of persons enjoying superior intellectual or social or economic status
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The Covenant Elite (also known as Sangheili, the Covenant name for the race) is a fictional race in the video games Halo and Halo 2. One of the oldest and most faithful races of the Covenant Armada, the Covenant Elite is an alien ground troop that usually wields Plasma Rifles, Carbines, Beam Rifles, Fuel Rod Cannons, Needlers, or Energy Swords.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_(Halo)
Elite is a seminal space trading-game, originally published by Acornsoft in 1984 for the BBC Micro and Acorn Electron computers and subsequently ported to many others. It was written and developed by David Braben and Ian Bell, who had met while both undergraduates at Jesus College, Cambridge University.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_(computer_game)
That's not me or most of us..(sounds more like you)