ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[tzor]

I am not racist. You obviously can't read. I treat everyone as though they are here LEGALLY, or are a CITIZEN. I never stated "I hate hispanics, they are all illegals.

You made it pretty clear you assume all illegals are hispanic, which is very far from the truth.

What is truth?

Demographics, poll data show complexities of immigration issues: 4/13/2006 Catholic News Service

About 36 percent, or 2.3 million, of the estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants are single men with no children; another 12 percent, or 740,000, are single women with no children. About 540,000, or 9 percent, are couples without kids. According to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of census data, the other 41 percent or so break down into an assortment of "mixed status" families where parents aren't here legally.

Those "mixed status" categories include 1.5 million families where all the children are U.S. citizens, but at least one parent is in the country illegally; 630,000 families where all the children are also here without legal papers; and 460,000 families in which some minor children are U.S. citizens and others are not.

Among Mexicans, who make up about half the illegal immigrant population, 48 percent are married or have a common-law spouse; more than two-thirds of that percentage live with their spouses in this country. The Pew report noted that about one-third of illegal Mexican immigrants with families have left all their children in Mexico.

Here is some 2006 data from Wikipedia

Code: Select all

Country of origin Raw number Percent of total 
Mexico            6,570,000                57
El Salvador         510,000                 4
Guatemala           430,000                 4
Philippines         280,000                 2
Honduras            280,000                 2
India               270,000                 2

[Symmetry]

No, if Mexicans stayed out of the country, we would have more expensive chicken or hotel rooms or housing costs (generalizing some of the industries that have high illegal labor). But also we would not be spending millions on their healthcare, imprisoning them or even needing a Border Patrol (we don't police Canada's borders heavily). My ancestors immigrated LEGALLY to this country. That does not make me a racist. I don't want CRIMINALS of any color, race or religion in this country. And sorry, that is what illegal aliens are. They are criminals. Are some of them nice people? Yes. DO some of them have only good intentions? Yes. But are ALL of them lawbreakers. YES!

I think HISPANICS are readily accepted now, considering I grew up in NM and AZ and currently live in TX. It is the non citizens that face a back lash here. And I think it is rightfully so. Every person trying to immigrate to the US should disapprove of these "line jumpers".

And as for corporations, I don't care if they move a call center. It is their business to run. But one that employs illegals should face multi million $ fines.

JBrett- I think some of the misunderstanding comes from this post, which I also initially read with a bit of anger. That first line equates all Mexicans with all illegals. I don't think that's what you wanted to say, but is a legit reading of that post.

[Phatscotty]

No, if Mexicans stayed out of the country, we would have more expensive chicken or hotel rooms or housing costs (generalizing some of the industries that have high illegal labor). But also we would not be spending millions on their healthcare, imprisoning them or even needing a Border Patrol (we don't police Canada's borders heavily). My ancestors immigrated LEGALLY to this country. That does not make me a racist. I don't want CRIMINALS of any color, race or religion in this country. And sorry, that is what illegal aliens are. They are criminals. Are some of them nice people? Yes. DO some of them have only good intentions? Yes. But are ALL of them lawbreakers. YES!

I think HISPANICS are readily accepted now, considering I grew up in NM and AZ and currently live in TX. It is the non citizens that face a back lash here. And I think it is rightfully so. Every person trying to immigrate to the US should disapprove of these "line jumpers".

And as for corporations, I don't care if they move a call center. It is their business to run. But one that employs illegals should face multi million $ fines.

JBrett- I think some of the misunderstanding comes from this post, which I also initially read with a bit of anger. That first line equates all Mexicans with all illegals. I don't think that's what you wanted to say, but is a legit reading of that post.

The overwhelming majority of Illegals are hispanic. With those kind of odds, it is very, VERY difficult for some people to diffuse the connection of "all illegals...". However, One thing I promise you, most people have NO CLUE what is really going on underneath the fabric.

You guys know me. At least, right or wrong, I look into a lot of issues and try to educate myself with further debate. We may not always agree, but at least I think I have given honest attempts to declare and define WHY we disagree, and try to build on that. I work in an industry that employs vast, VAST amounts of illegals. It's a complete joke around the work place, with on many occasion, my mexican co-workers, joke in the open that they are working there with my social security number. some of the better workers dissapear one day, the word comes around he was deported, and comes back with a different SS# and a bucket of laughs about it.

My point is, before I took this job, I thought I knew a lot about the issues of illegal immigration, and posted in other forums and blogs about it at the time (2000-2006) Needless to say, this job was an eye opener akin to my first visit to a third world country, and I have not changed my opinions on the issues, just the reasoning behind it with a bit more compassion. I know most Americans, and especially most foreigners, have no idea what is really going on here.

[jbrettlip]

No, if Mexicans stayed out of the country, we would have more expensive chicken or hotel rooms or housing costs (generalizing some of the industries that have high illegal labor). But also we would not be spending millions on their healthcare, imprisoning them or even needing a Border Patrol (we don't police Canada's borders heavily). My ancestors immigrated LEGALLY to this country. That does not make me a racist. I don't want CRIMINALS of any color, race or religion in this country. And sorry, that is what illegal aliens are. They are criminals. Are some of them nice people? Yes. DO some of them have only good intentions? Yes. But are ALL of them lawbreakers. YES!

I think HISPANICS are readily accepted now, considering I grew up in NM and AZ and currently live in TX. It is the non citizens that face a back lash here. And I think it is rightfully so. Every person trying to immigrate to the US should disapprove of these "line jumpers".

And as for corporations, I don't care if they move a call center. It is their business to run. But one that employs illegals should face multi million $ fines.

JBrett- I think some of the misunderstanding comes from this post, which I also initially read with a bit of anger. That first line equates all Mexicans with all illegals. I don't think that's what you wanted to say, but is a legit reading of that post.

But that was 2 nd post as a rebuttal. I do not think of all Mexicans as illegals. Or all hispanics as illegal Mexicans. My crack on reading comprehension was in reference to her stating that I wanted unions involved in employment issues.

If I had my way, all the money we are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan would be better spent in Mexico. I would have an incentive fo rcompanies that moved manufacturing or call center to Asia to reloccate them in Mexico. Heck it would save on shipping alone, plus it helps our neighbor and ourselves. I am not an isolationist, but I am proud of our country and would like to see it thrive once again.

[Symmetry]

No, if Mexicans stayed out of the country, we would have more expensive chicken or hotel rooms or housing costs (generalizing some of the industries that have high illegal labor). But also we would not be spending millions on their healthcare, imprisoning them or even needing a Border Patrol (we don't police Canada's borders heavily). My ancestors immigrated LEGALLY to this country. That does not make me a racist. I don't want CRIMINALS of any color, race or religion in this country. And sorry, that is what illegal aliens are. They are criminals. Are some of them nice people? Yes. DO some of them have only good intentions? Yes. But are ALL of them lawbreakers. YES!

I think HISPANICS are readily accepted now, considering I grew up in NM and AZ and currently live in TX. It is the non citizens that face a back lash here. And I think it is rightfully so. Every person trying to immigrate to the US should disapprove of these "line jumpers".

And as for corporations, I don't care if they move a call center. It is their business to run. But one that employs illegals should face multi million $ fines.

JBrett- I think some of the misunderstanding comes from this post, which I also initially read with a bit of anger. That first line equates all Mexicans with all illegals. I don't think that's what you wanted to say, but is a legit reading of that post.

But that was 2 nd post as a rebuttal. I do not think of all Mexicans as illegals. Or all hispanics as illegal Mexicans. My crack on reading comprehension was in reference to her stating that I wanted unions involved in employment issues.

If I had my way, all the money we are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan would be better spent in Mexico. I would have an incentive fo rcompanies that moved manufacturing or call center to Asia to reloccate them in Mexico. Heck it would save on shipping alone, plus it helps our neighbor and ourselves. I am not an isolationist, but I am proud of our country and would like to see it thrive once again.

JBrett, I wasn't trying to argue with you here, just wanted to point out where others might have misread your post causing anger. Seemed like a way to defuse some of the arguments when I didn't feel that people were arguing against your actual beliefs. I wanted to say that it was a fair reading of the post, but I don't think it's the only reading, and certainly not the one you intended.

[jbrettlip]

Oh yeah, and I really don't like to be called a racist, since I have been on the opposite side of every argument about race on here. Search my posts, if you don't believe me.I am against racism of all forms. I don't deal in stereotypes either. As I stated I grew up in AZ,NM and now live in TX. I used to live in inner city Pittsburgh, a place where my father in law wouldn't come with out his handgun. I lived on military bases, so I was around all races all my life. I have black family. My best friend in all the world is black. Just because I am a white conservative, does not make me a racist. Maybe I wans't as eloquent as I should have been, and sometimes I have a hard time typing out my thoughts. But I am NO RACIST.

[bradleybadly]

I am NO RACIST.

Doesn't matter

If you don't support homosexuals getting married you're a homophobe. If you don't support President Obama you're a racist. If you don't support unlimited abortion you're a sexist and hate womens' rights. If you don't support illegal immigration you're a redneck jerk and possibly part of a right wing militia group. Whatever the issue, many on the left have got a label for it so they don't have to argue the merits.

[Phatscotty]

I am NO RACIST.

Doesn't matter

If you don't support homosexuals getting married you're a homophobe. If you don't support President Obama you're a racist. If you don't support unlimited abortion you're a sexist and hate womens' rights. If you don't support illegal immigration you're a redneck jerk and possibly part of a right wing militia group. Whatever the issue, many on the left have got a label for it so they don't have to argue the merits.

Sa Da Te

[PLAYER57832]

Oh yeah, and I really don't like to be called a racist, since I have been on the opposite side of every argument about race on here. Search my posts, if you don't believe me.I am against racism of all forms. I don't deal in stereotypes either. As I stated I grew up in AZ,NM and now live in TX. I used to live in inner city Pittsburgh, a place where my father in law wouldn't come with out his handgun. I lived on military bases, so I was around all races all my life. I have black family. My best friend in all the world is black. Just because I am a white conservative, does not make me a racist. Maybe I wans't as eloquent as I should have been, and sometimes I have a hard time typing out my thoughts. But I am NO RACIST.

Well, if I misunderstood your post, I am sorry. It did sound to me like you were trying to link Mexicans with illegals.

When it comes to healthcare and treatment of the same, though (to get back on topic), the question becomes critical. There absolutely are regions where it is thought Mexican = "almost certainly illegal". The primary reason why we MUST provide for at least emergency and urgent care of even illegals is plain and simply that most people don't bring documents with them all the time. Too often the way someone looks, their accent or their failure to understand and speak English well (true for many completely legal immigrants) is used as "proof" of their "illegal status".

I don't think we benefit by having anyone in this country without insurance or unable to pay for all health care. Inevitably, we all wind up paying for injuries and serious illnesses for the uninsured. That is a big reason why I actually wish even illegal aliens could buy insurance. Deny them a job, etc, but since we plain cannot eliminate heatlh care for them (as explained above), them let's provide a way for them to pay for that care, when they need it.

[PLAYER57832]

I am NO RACIST.

Doesn't matter

If you don't support homosexuals getting married you're a homophobe. If you don't support President Obama you're a racist. If you don't support unlimited abortion you're a sexist and hate womens' rights. If you don't support illegal immigration you're a redneck jerk and possibly part of a right wing militia group. Whatever the issue, many on the left have got a label for it so they don't have to argue the merits.

So many names, yet all extreme rightist seem to say is "liberal". At least we seem to be more creatively descriptive in our names.

[GabonX]

I am NO RACIST.

Doesn't matter

If you don't support homosexuals getting married you're a homophobe. If you don't support President Obama you're a racist. If you don't support unlimited abortion you're a sexist and hate womens' rights. If you don't support illegal immigration you're a redneck jerk and possibly part of a right wing militia group. Whatever the issue, many on the left have got a label for it so they don't have to argue the merits.

So many names, yet all extreme rightist seem to say is "liberal". At least we seem to be more creatively descriptive in our names.

Stereo types..

[john9blue]

So many names, yet all extreme rightist seem to say is "liberal". At least we seem to be more creatively descriptive in our names.

But you can't go wrong with "liberal". It's a self-descriptor among the ones who follow it and almost an insult among those that don't. Stuff like "homophobe" and "racist" have negative connotations everywhere.

[PLAYER57832]

Except, you wish to blame people who only want to work. The ones you should REALLY blame are those who hire these people. And if you want to know the real reason why we have so many immigrants, its because SO MANY BUSINESSES ARE QUITE HAPPY TO HIRE THEM, and will even try to "justify" it by claiming that "US workers demand too much", "US workers don't work as hard"... etc.

I wasn't really blaming anyone; doesn't everyone want to work? (There are businesses who are responsible for generating a demand and there are people who are responsible for the demand. Cut the demand and you cut the supply which is why the flow of illegal immigration dropped like a rock in the recent recession.) My point is that illegal immigration threatens legal immigration more than it does regular working jobs. There are many jobs that only immigrants want to do, especially in the field of farming where the hours are long, seasonal and irratic. The profit margins of small family farms are so low that any increase in the wage scale of the workers would literally put these small farms out of business. (They can't raise their prices to compensate because they are already having a hard time competing with imported foods from South America.)[quote

And it's not a union thing; most unions do more harm than good. The New York City Teacher's Union was recently lobbying for the repeal of laws in the state that exempt farm workers from overtime laws. (The way farm work is, you work when the weather is good, even if it does mean that you have to work on a weekend.) Small farms would have to fallow their fields because they can't afford the additional expense and no one wants to work for a loss. That would mean more legal immigrants on the streets looking for day labor jobs.

I see, well you might want to read up on Ceasar Chavez a bit. And, its "just possible", I know a tad bit about this whole bit. I did grow up in CA, on a farm.

[PLAYER57832]

So many names, yet all extreme rightist seem to say is "liberal". At least we seem to be more creatively descriptive in our names.

But you can't go wrong with "liberal". It's a self-descriptor among the ones who follow it and almost an insult among those that don't. Stuff like "homophobe" and "racist" have negative connotations everywhere.

Problem is most of you throwing out that term don't have a clue of what a real liberal thinks or says.

Justice Stevens is just retiring, recently the most liberal of all the justices. Except.. when he was appointed it was by a conservative and he was considered a conservative.

The pendulum has swung so far to the right you haven't even heard the true left, never mind trying to criticize it. Instead, you just use it as a slurr. And the term is now meaningless. So, mission NOT accomplished.

[Phatscotty]

Except, you wish to blame people who only want to work. The ones you should REALLY blame are those who hire these people. And if you want to know the real reason why we have so many immigrants, its because SO MANY BUSINESSES ARE QUITE HAPPY TO HIRE THEM, and will even try to "justify" it by claiming that "US workers demand too much", "US workers don't work as hard"... etc.

I wasn't really blaming anyone; doesn't everyone want to work? (There are businesses who are responsible for generating a demand and there are people who are responsible for the demand. Cut the demand and you cut the supply which is why the flow of illegal immigration dropped like a rock in the recent recession.) My point is that illegal immigration threatens legal immigration more than it does regular working jobs. There are many jobs that only immigrants want to do, especially in the field of farming where the hours are long, seasonal and irratic. The profit margins of small family farms are so low that any increase in the wage scale of the workers would literally put these small farms out of business. (They can't raise their prices to compensate because they are already having a hard time competing with imported foods from South America.)[quote

And it's not a union thing; most unions do more harm than good. The New York City Teacher's Union was recently lobbying for the repeal of laws in the state that exempt farm workers from overtime laws. (The way farm work is, you work when the weather is good, even if it does mean that you have to work on a weekend.) Small farms would have to fallow their fields because they can't afford the additional expense and no one wants to work for a loss. That would mean more legal immigrants on the streets looking for day labor jobs.

I see, well you might want to read up on Ceasar Chavez a bit. And, its "just possible", I know a tad bit about this whole bit. I did grow up in CA, on a farm.

Ceaser Chavez clashes with everything America was founded on. It's a "steal from the rich" and "f*ck the guy that gives me employment"

[bradleybadly]

Problem is most of you throwing out that term don't have a clue of what a real liberal thinks or says.

It's fairly easy based on what they write here in the forums:

*Blame the rich and corporations for national economic problems
*Establish entitlement programs
*Glorify the poor

[PLAYER57832]

Problem is most of you throwing out that term don't have a clue of what a real liberal thinks or says.

It's fairly easy based on what they write here in the forums:

*Blame the rich and corporations for national economic problems
*Establish entitlement programs
*Glorify the poor

Like I said, you haven't a clue... cannot even be bothered to check a dictionary.

Just for a start, a number one attrribute associated with the term "liberal" is tolerance. Tolerance is foremost, not this stupid garbage you like to trot out about "expanding government". In fact, liberals are the ORIGINAL "don't trust the government" folks. Try asking BK about that!

All you can do is recite what you have been trained to say. I used to respect you. I did not agree with you, but way back in that homosexual thread, for example, but I understood your reasoning, accepted that it was a position you came to with thought. Recently you have turned into another incarnation of Phattscotty. Actually , even that is probably an insult to Phattscotty. On a rare occasion he actually has a few decent things to say.

[jbrettlip]

Problem is most of you throwing out that term don't have a clue of what a real liberal thinks or says.

It's fairly easy based on what they write here in the forums:

*Blame the rich and corporations for national economic problems
*Establish entitlement programs
*Glorify the poor

Like I said, you haven't a clue... cannot even be bothered to check a dictionary.

Just for a start, a number one attrribute associated with the term "liberal" is tolerance. Tolerance is foremost, not this stupid garbage you like to trot out about "expanding government". In fact, liberals are the ORIGINAL "don't trust the government" folks. Try asking BK about that!

All you can do is recite what you have been trained to say. I used to respect you. I did not agree with you, but way back in that homosexual thread, for example, but I understood your reasoning, accepted that it was a position you came to with thought. Recently you have turned into another incarnation of Phattscotty. Actually , even that is probably an insult to Phattscotty. On a rare occasion he actually has a few decent things to say.

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

[john9blue]

I would probably be a liberal if this was 50/100 years ago. What they are doing today seems to me to be harmful to the country... not unlike what many conservatives are doing as well. Man, I hate labels.

[bradleybadly]

Problem is most of you throwing out that term don't have a clue of what a real liberal thinks or says.

It's fairly easy based on what they write here in the forums:

*Blame the rich and corporations for national economic problems
*Establish entitlement programs
*Glorify the poor

Like I said, you haven't a clue... cannot even be bothered to check a dictionary.

Just for a start, a number one attrribute associated with the term "liberal" is tolerance. Tolerance is foremost, not this stupid garbage you like to trot out about "expanding government". In fact, liberals are the ORIGINAL "don't trust the government" folks. Try asking BK about that!

All you can do is recite what you have been trained to say. I used to respect you. I did not agree with you, but way back in that homosexual thread, for example, but I understood your reasoning, accepted that it was a position you came to with thought. Recently you have turned into another incarnation of Phattscotty. Actually , even that is probably an insult to Phattscotty. On a rare occasion he actually has a few decent things to say.

It's a good thing I'm not asking for your approval or respect then. Yeah yeah yeah - I've also seen you use this against Nobunaga and Tzor. You "used to respect them" but now they're just trolls or whatever.

I am aware of the dictionary definition of liberal. I'll agree that a liberal back during the time of the founding was someone who generally distrusted government. Today's liberals, and those who post in these forums, would more likely be statists.

Now to the issue of tolerance. "Tolerance" can be defined by both sides to mean what they want. We also have to look at what behavior or action is being tolerated. I believe the left (whatever you want to use - liberals, statists, progressives) uses the word to justify making victims of people, putting them into a "group", pitting them against other so called "groups", and then using this to justify starting an entitlement program which will "protect" them from some "intolerant group". It's all a bunch of redefinitions in order to reach the goal of utopia through government enforcement.

I do respect you, Player. I strongly disagree with your interpretations and opinions. There's a difference. I think you're a good mother to your children, a good wife to your husband, and a good parishoner with whatever group of theists who you worship with.

Me on the other hand..............I don't give a damn if people disagree with me or not. I think America's a great place when it leaves people alone for the most part. This is a country where I'm free to earn as much money as possible and pass it on to my child when I die. I'm free to not go to church or have people knock on my door preaching at me. I haven't been trained by anyone to believe what I believe, but my life experiences are definitely different than yours so that's probably why we have such strong disagreements and how we view the government.

[PLAYER57832]

Problem is most of you throwing out that term don't have a clue of what a real liberal thinks or says.

It's fairly easy based on what they write here in the forums:

*Blame the rich and corporations for national economic problems
*Establish entitlement programs
*Glorify the poor

Like I said, you haven't a clue... cannot even be bothered to check a dictionary.

Just for a start, a number one attrribute associated with the term "liberal" is tolerance. Tolerance is foremost, not this stupid garbage you like to trot out about "expanding government". In fact, liberals are the ORIGINAL "don't trust the government" folks. Try asking BK about that!

All you can do is recite what you have been trained to say. I used to respect you. I did not agree with you, but way back in that homosexual thread, for example, but I understood your reasoning, accepted that it was a position you came to with thought. Recently you have turned into another incarnation of Phattscotty. Actually , even that is probably an insult to Phattscotty. On a rare occasion he actually has a few decent things to say.

I am aware of the dictionary definition of liberal. I'll agree that a liberal back during the time of the founding was someone who generally distrusted government. Today's liberals, and those who post in these forums, would more likely be statists.

Wrong. Liberal is a term that harsh conservatives, and right-wing "shock jocks" have decided they should throw out to deflect people from actually looking at what folks are saying. Like all slurs, its about "Let's just call names instead of debating any real issues". Rush Limbaugh was king of calling anyone with whom he disagreed "liberal" as a slurr, though he hardly invented it.

Here is the ironic truth. Liberalism, what people who called themselves liberal back in the 60's believed has not really changed. The faces of who believes what have changed, but not not the issues. Ironically enough the tea party movement is fundamentally a liberal movement (its surface presentation... the racist stuff is an add-in).

However, by neatly packaging all of these ideas together.. anti-abortion is tied to anti-homosexual and even anti-tax... the conservatives have very neatly fostered years of boosting big business over the very people who are now complaining.

Teh tactic? Get people riled over abortion, get people fearing homosexuals converting and teaching their kids.. then we can sneak in all this economic stuff and they will just go along.

Of course, in with this are some true fiscal conservatives and people who actually do look at the issues. Greekdog isn't a sheep. In the past you have stood apart.

Now to the issue of tolerance. "Tolerance" can be defined by both sides to mean what they want. We also have to look at what behavior or action is being tolerated. I believe the left (whatever you want to use - liberals, statists, progressives) uses the word to justify making victims of people, putting them into a "group", pitting them against other so called "groups", and then using this to justify starting an entitlement program which will "protect" them from some "intolerant group". It's all a bunch of redefinitions in order to reach the goal of utopia through government enforcement.

Well, no. People can claim tolerance to be things, and certainly the whole "PC" movement has pushed the extremes. However, as with liberal the basic term still does have a meaning.

We either accept people who are different or we do not. Almost everyone has some limits. Very few people are accepting of pedophilia (thankfully!). Homosexuality is a debate right now, with complexities regarding our understanding. Race is virtually a "non-issue" except in extremes.

I do respect you, Player. I strongly disagree with your interpretations and opinions. There's a difference. I think you're a good mother to your children, a good wife to your husband, and a good parishoner with whatever group of theists who you worship with.

Me on the other hand..............I don't give a damn if people disagree with me or not. I think America's a great place when it leaves people alone for the most part. This is a country where I'm free to earn as much money as possible and pass it on to my child when I die. I'm free to not go to church or have people knock on my door preaching at me. I haven't been trained by anyone to believe what I believe, but my life experiences are definitely different than yours so that's probably why we have such strong disagreements and how we view the government.

Thank you for the first bit.
As I have said before, if we only talk with people who think the same as us, we rarely learn much (besides, its not as much fun). That last sentence, I believe is very true. I guess that is why I feel discussion is important. We each only have one life, one set of experiences. Yet, we all, each of us contribute to this world and society. As much as we can each at least communicate, at least share how we think and believe (without necessarily agreeing), it helps us all to just make better decisions.

[PLAYER57832]

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Yes, which would place the Tea Party firmly in the "liberal" realm. I believe more than a few would be shocked by that.

[Night Strike]

Then how about we just call them all "progressives", just like Hillary referred to herself as in the 2008 primaries. She said she likes to think of herself as a 1920s progressives like Woodrow Wilson.


Of course, progressives are much worse than liberals.

[Timminz]

That's another word that seems to be misunderstood regularly.

Why would anyone actually be against the progression of our society?

Times change, and so should the ways we deal with things.

[tzor]

First and foremost, both liberalism and progressivism have specific meanings when applied in the political sense. Things can get confusing because they are similar but not exactly the same.

In the United States, the term progressivism emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson.

…

American progressives tend to support interventionist economics: they advocate progressive taxation and oppose the growing influence of corporations. Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system.

The term liberalism, without a qualifier, in the United States for the last 70 years usually refers to modern liberalism, a political philosophy exemplified by Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s, and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in the 1960s. It is a form of social liberalism, whose accomplishments include the WPA and the Social Security Act in 1935, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Community Reinvestment Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In a nutshell, the progressive theme is economic, with government control over corporations, while the liberal theme is social, with government control over the “care” of others, whether it is their employment, their retirement, their rights, or just giving them a free lunch in terms of housing.