Posts tagged liberals
Posts tagged liberals
There are 40 hour work weeks instead of 12 to 16 hour days, 7 days a week?
That there is something called time and a half, for any hours worked beyond 40?
That there is any medical insurance whatsoever paid in part, or in total by some employers?
That there are pensions and other retirement benefits?
That there are organizations like OSHA to make it safer and cleaner where you work? [Do you have any idea how hazardous, toxic, and filthy working conditions used to be?]
That there are child labor laws so little ten year old Johny and Janie don’t have to work in grimy, smokey, toxic filled factories all damn day. Or the fact that it is illegal to make them work in the first place.
That there is something called workman’s compensation?
Pregnancy leave? Child care for employees?
Sick Leave? I could go on
Unions are all but dead thanks to a succession of republican administrations going all the way back to Nixon. But Unions are the reason that any of the above came into existence in the first place, and it’s memory alone, and past practice that keeps the private sector, including Wal Mart into still giving some fractured, cruelly deficient versions of some, or all of the above.
And where do you think the notion of unions came from, aside from the basic humanity of it all? Liberal with a capital L, that’s where. In the beginning the word liberal in the full context of what it became didn’t exist, but the idea did.
Many people were brutalized, and murdered before unions got a foothold. And who do you think did all the brutalizing and murdering? The private sector, with Henry Ford being one of the most formidable forces against unions.
So now you have a slice of life idea why I hold conservatives in such contempt, and any actual, successful results from the libertarian philosophy should be a criminal offense.
The problem is a lot of the younger libertarians are deluded into believing that helping their fellowman is readily done on a voluntary honor system where the private sector, and individual contributors take care of it all. Even though historically, and certainly currently, that couldn’t be further from the case.
Corporate America won’t give you anymore than they legally have to, to get you to give them your blood, sweat, and life. That’s how pure untempered capitalism works. It is a predator by nature, and it only feeds and cares for it’s offspring
And all of those libertarians, and conservatives out there that aren’t on the high end of the food chain, then you are aiding and abetting your own demise. Because this is where we are heading, and have been for about 30 years now.
Try seeing how well your system works with minimum wage, or I should say the working poor. You also get a big thanks for that as well. The fact that this piss poor $7.50 an hour wage we have is more of an insult, than the reality of survival.
Reasonable people know, and understand the inadequacies of our species, and that is why we make laws, and have unions to try to give everyone humane treatment, and equality as human beings. Capitalism on the other hand will give you a heart transplant for a mere 280,000 dollars. And you have to have the money, or the insurance to get it. You won’t receive one at the local ER
There is no other way to get uniform, and meaningful help, and support to the middle class, and those less fortunate,. There is no other way to keep this country from becoming a two class, instead of a three class system. The phrase middle class now is bordering on misnomer.
Stop believing in the bullshit you are being told, and start reading the truth before historical revisionists eliminate that as well. As if they haven’t already been doing a bang up job on that. It works particularly well with people that didn’t live the history, just read about a bastardized version of it.
Originally posted by the late Tim Rambo on 06/27/2008
Note: Tim Rambo died several years ago because he couldn’t afford adequate health care for his illnesses. Lately I’ve been revisiting a few of his old blogs and have decided to share a select few of them here.
How to compare and contrast America’s two “populist” movements — the Tea Party movement vs. the Occupy Wall Street/We are the 99%ers movement…
- Both are angry at Wall Street bailouts, American plutocracy, and our whorish two-party system.
- One blames the poor, immigrants, unions, non-Christians and Americans who happen to be liberal for what’s wrong; the other blames Wall Street, plutocrats. and whorish politicians.
- One is funded by right-wing billionaires and corporate money; the other isn’t really funded by anybody.
- One got major media coverage (lead by FOX) even when they could only produce a few hundred people at a rally in Washington, DC; the other got almost no media coverage even when they produced demonstrations coast to coast.
- One shouted down Democratic constituent town meetings, threatened secession, packed guns, somehow were never hassled by police, and were called “patriots;” the other came without guns, threatened no one, appealed to American ideals, got arrested, and were called “mobs.”
- One trades on what divides us because they are proxies for powerful interests who benefit from public division; the other appeals to what unites us because they still believe in an American Promise which actually includes all Americans.
As of today the United States unconstitutional government sanctioned discrimination policy—“Don’t ask, don’t tell”—is officially no more. As much as many of us are disappointed with President Obama’s failures, it’s important that we keep in mind his many successes, this being one of them. Rest assured, this would have never happened under a Republican administration. Equality for all!
A fellow Wiregrass citizen wrote the letter above in today’s Dothan Eagle railing against atheists and liberals for opposing Alabama’s new immigration laws. This is my response.
Although I am an atheist and a liberal, one doesn’t have to be an atheist or a liberal to oppose the Governors legislation. In fact many Christian organizations and individuals are against these laws. Also, one does not have to be for illegal immigration to oppose this legislation.
This law obliges police to arrest anyone that looks like an illegal immigrant if they’re stopped for any other reason, requires public schools to determine students’ immigration status and also makes it a crime to transport an illegal immigrant for any reason.
This is why several secular human rights and civil rights organizations have joined forces with religious groups to strike down this legislation.
Since you appear to consider yourself a Christian Mr. DeJournett, I put forth the following question you.
Under this legislation, what would happen to Jesus if he were caught feeding, sheltering or helping an illegal in Alabama, in any way?
The parable told by the character Jesus in the Gospel of Luke 10-:25-37, which tells the story of the Good Samaritan, is probably one of the most admirable stories in the Christian Bible and is very agreeable to atheists, agnostics and humanists. In fact, it is a key tenet of secular humanism which is why I am so fond of it.
It is a story that champions love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness and tolerance over intolerance.
Of course the ethics of this parable do not originate with the tales of Jesus or exemplify the overall moral principles taught by the Gospels but it does appeal to the more caring sensibilities of liberal believers.
As for many who call themselves Christian, right wing Christians like Governor Robert Bentley, the Gospel teachings of Matthew 5:17-19, 10:21, 10:34, 11:20, 15:4-7, 19:29, Mark 7:9 and Luke 12:47 may be more appealing.
Which Jesus do you prefer Mr. DeJournett?
Note: In recent months, many of my fellow SEAFA members and I have been expressing our opinions in the area’s top news paper. Sometimes we get rants like this directed at us as a response but we’ve also gotten some positive feedback and gained a few new members as a result. If you have a fledgling freethought group in your area, encourage your members to do the same. The theists, right wingers and haters only maintain their social power and sense of superiority by our silence.
Yeah, I’m a liberal, rationality demands it!
A fellow liberal and atheist friend of mine posted the following response to an article titled Religion Does Not Lead to Liberty which a conservative atheist friend of mine posted in our local freethought forum with the header “Suck this, socialist liberals and religious whackjobs!!!”.
Non-Straw Man Liberal here – let’s see how well I do in the checklist implied in paragraph 4.
1. “Favor Individual Rights” – Check, and it certainly seems that when it comes to individual rights (to name a few - gay rights, abortion rights, women’s rights, freedom from having religion curtail our rights, “Blue Dog” democrats support of gun rights, etc) that the democrats and liberal agenda is much, much more in favor of individual rights than the GOP, especially now that they are being held hostage by the Tea Baggers. And Mr. Paul, the Savior of Mankind, wants to repeal Roe vs Wade, is anti-gay (co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act in 2004), and supports “alternative views” to evolution (“the right to be stupid”). If you favor individual rights, you must go democrat, baby.
2. “Favor Capitalism” – Check. Capitalism is, by definition – “an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, as contrasted to state-owned means of wealth” No problems there at all (but do notice it says “chiefly” and not “only” or “always”). Capitalism does allow the greatest freedom for a talented individual to better themselves. However, capitalism must not be unfettered. The banks and industry have proven time and time again they cannot and will not police themselves adequately. If we had perfectly ethical banks and industries maybe we could try complete hands off or “laisez-faire” capitalism – but does that match the world we live in? Their current track record includes nasty raping of our countries land and water resources, selling the same fake derivative IOU’s over and over again and knowingly packaging bad investments together and betting against them internally but selling them as great investments to unsuspecting individuals, pension funds and other banks (see Goldman Sachs). Capitalism is fine, but you gotta have a watchdog and some things do need to be the purview of government. The author even mentions later in his post gov’t should concern itself with objective (foreign and domestic) fraud.
3. “Favor a Strong Republic with Limited Powers” – Check. “Strong Republic” – no one can be against that. “Limited Powers” – ah, such a precise word – limited. I’m fine with limited – don’t want them going to war without thinking it through, after all (oopsy). Limited doesn’t mean you can’t have “essential powers” that need to be the responsibility of government. Do you want to be able to eat meat that was inspected by a third party (gov’t) or have a higher chance of dying from your next burger? Who determines what those essential powers are? One persons “must have enough nukes to destroy Russia twice over” is another persons “must have healthcare coverage for America’s children”. Which is more essential than the other? Every time I hear Tea Baggers and their new lap-dogs the GOP say “limited government” I hear “limited to what we think it should be”. Hey, I’m all for limited government – more freedom for us all – but there are valuable services that only a government can provide. It’s just a matter of how you define “limited”.
So, as paragraph 4 states, I am a rational person who believes in individual rights, properly policed capitalism and “limited” (haha – so specific) government. Yet I am a liberal who cares about America and all it’s citizens. Join us, rationality demands it. (Quick, objectively name the 5 current nuttiest politicians in the US – which side of the fence are most, or all, of them on?)
Cenk Uygur (host of The Young Turks) explains why he turned down a new, significantly larger MSNBC contract after hosting a prime-time show on the network that was beating CNN in the key demo ratings.
I have huge amounts of respect for Cenk after watching this. I was never really a big fan of his, but in this video he explains that he turned down a large amount of money because he’s just not willing to “play ball” when it comes to self-censorship. MSNBC didn’t want an outspoken liberal that’s not willing to play whipping boy to conservatives- reminds me of when they fired Phil Donahue because he opposed the war in Iraq.
I’ve always like Cenk as well as the rest of the Young Turks and this just reinforces my respect for him.