Thank a Liberal

[Nitrogen]

I'm a gun nut.  I'm also a Liberal, big L.  While I don't agree with everything my liberal friends do, I do agree with quite a bit.  This is an old essay, but I'd love to start some good discussion on some of these points.

Good discussion doesn't include questioning someone's patriotism who you might not agree with, name calling etc.


Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. 

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his workday. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards.
Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

[Balog]

The part about his Dad living on Social Security and a union pension made me laugh. Social security's a Ponzi scheme; that sucking sound you hear is the Fed's wasting my money instead of letting me invest it myself. And the union's outrageous demands are bankrupting the American auto industry.


At one point in time there were genuine social ills that needed .gov intervention. Then, it was noble to be a "liberal" because it meant you wanted to expand the right to vote, or end segregation.

Now a liberal is someone who thinks the .gov can run my life better than I can. People are too dumb to caveat emptor; the .gov has to do it for them. People are too dumb to invest for their retirement; the .gov has to do it for them. The .gov should not be in the business of making my life happy and nice. Even if I'm so inept and irresponsible that a huge bureaucracy can run my life better than I can, being stupid is not a disease. People should be accountable for their actions.

[Nitrogen]

While I could possibly agree about social security being a ponzi, I do not agree that the government shouldn't  work for the good of the commons, meaning clean air, water, food, and affordable health care.

Banning trans-fats is taking a good idea to extremes to be laughable, for instance.  Trans fats don't kill anyone in moderation; you have the choice to ingest foods with them or not.

If your air isn't clean, you don't have a choice to breathe "better" air.  Same with water.

I also see the value in government working for minimum standards in food, keeping standards in imports, etc.  The government shouldn't protect us from ourselves, but I do see a value in some of what it does.

[mtnbkr]

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

If my company was paying me the money they spend on my health insurance, I could afford to buy it on my own, from the provider of my choosing.  Instead, I'm stuck with what they offer me and I don't get $10 prescriptions.

Chris

[wooderson]

I suspect this thread will not end well.

[Balog]

While I could possibly agree about social security being a ponzi, I do not agree that the government shouldn't  work for the good of the commons, meaning clean air, water, food, and affordable health care.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just ddoooeessnnnnn't  belong.

And even if we agree that corporations should be hrld accountable for not selling E Coli infected food or dumping mercury into the water table, can we also agree that the way the liberals in charge of doing those things have gone about their work is A: UnConstitutional and B: almost laughably poorly executed?

[Manedwolf]

Every time I have to go through an area of a city that used to be nicely-kept working-class housing but is now a hellhole of crack dens, prostitution and gangs because of Section 8 subsidized housing, every time I hear about a once-nice apartment complex that went to hell because of Section 8 putting people in it, yeah, I thank a liberal.

When I went to a machine gun shoot recently and had a ball, and wondered why it is that I'm not allowed to buy and play with an M3A1 grease gun, which could be made for less than $100 in parts and machining, I thank a liberal for denying me that.

When I look at my paycheck and see how much is being sucked out to pay for an enormous Ponzi scheme that I'll never see a dime from because it'll be bankrupt by the time I get there, yup, I thank a liberal.

And when I see evil people out there in the world who want to destroy our way of life and make us into a 12th century pit where women have no rights, where gays and adulterers are stoned to death, where politics and totalitarian religion are the same...and see liberals rolling out the red carpet for them, telling us we're "afraid" of them and ought to be "tolerant", that it's our fault that they're killing our soldiers because we don't understand them, I want to thank a liberal so much that they'll be in a full-body cast for a month.

How's that?

[K Frame]

So, your essay proves what, exactly?

That Joe's a beneficiary of the liberal nanny state and its "wealth distribution" programs?

God almighty, where do I sign up?

[Nitrogen]

How is clean air, water, and safe food a nanny state program?

[Balog]

How is clean air, water, and safe food a nanny state program?

If liberals stopped there we'd be ok. But they go on to include things like "affordable healthcare/housing" or "mandatory retirement security" that involve socialistic wealth redistribution. That's where conservative and libertarian types object.

[K Frame]

So, in other words, all that's good and well in this world is the direct result of liberals, and that you and the rest of your kind are really unsung heros of the revolution?

And by extension, all that is bad, evil, and harmful in the world is the direct result of some evil, satanic conservative...

The problem with liberals is that they just never quite figure out when it's time to stop, when the supposed "benefits" actually become far more harmful to the common good than the evils that they're supposed to correct.

Let's hear it for the liberals who brought us the labor unions that have helped largely destroy the American automotive, steel, and textile industries by making it far too easy to say "Paying someone $100,000 a year to hold a screw gun, guaranteeing them lifetime job security and lifetime health benefits is simply not feasible, so we're firing you all and moving the plant somewhere else."

Let's hear it for the liberals who have brought us environmental protection laws that arrest a homeowner in California for using a bulldozer to cut a firebreak that saves his house from a wild fire but disturbs the habitat of the endangered kangaroo rat.

Let's hear it for the liberals whose zeal for "public health standards" induces them to attack shooting ranges as pollution vectors despite the nearly wholesale lack of evidence of the elemental lead generated by shooting ranges posing any short- or long-term adverse health effects.

Let's also thank liberals for creating the modern welfare state, where a hard-working American is penalized for his industriousness as a means of "making whole" the third and fourth generation of professional welfare recipients.

Yes, there's much to thank a liberal for.

[Boomhauer]

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

Joe begins his workday. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards.
Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Why should Joe's employer have to pay for his medical insurance and expenses?
Why should Joe's employer have to pay him what the union determines he should be paid instead of what the employer determines Joe's service is worth?
Who came up with the idea that Joe is entitled to this and that in the way of vacations and paid holidays? If Joe isn't at work earning money for himself and his employer, then Joe shouldn't get paid.

My father runs a small business. He doesn't get medical benefits, paid holidays, vactations, etc. He pays a health insurance plan from his paycheck. He doesn't have a union "helping" him.

[K Frame]

Let's not forget to thank a liberal for giving organized crime a direct source of income, as well...

Although now that union membership is falling, that's less of a concern.

[Nitrogen]

The difference here is ideas vs execution.

I'd never say that conservative ideals are evil, but many ideas as executed by conservatives are no better than the good ideals executed by today's liberals.

My point in posting this was to remind people (liberals included!) what real liberal ideals should be.
Do you think that modern day liberal voters are for the examples you give here?  I'd go out on a limb and say 99% of liberal voters would decry that activity.

The problems that get blamed on liberalism (and conservatism for that matter) are really a problem with government corruption, and public servants that forget their place.  This isn't a liberal or conservative problem it's a people problem, and a "voters that don't kick the bastards out" problem.

Labor unions are a good idea.  Giving workers the power to collective bargin is one of the cornerstones of the middle class.  The problem isn't with labor unions is the same with government; corruption.

Someone that gets arrested for bulldozing a firebreak, thats an abortion of justice, we'd all agree.  Again, thats a corruption problem.  No liberal voter would agree that that is the right thing to do.

As far as the welfare state, sure, modern day welfare needs to be reformed.  Let's remember who passed welfare reform, a liberal, Bill Clinton.

Here's the problem:  The whole liberal vs. conservative "war" only helps one thing: the corrupt politician, be it a left or a right winger. 

Liberals have many valid things to contribute to society, just as conservatives do.  No one side has a lock on being "right" or "wrong".  When you mindlessly demonize one side, you alllow the corrupt folks to continue corrupting, and wasting your tax money.

[Fly320s]

I'm not a liberal, but I do enjoy having clean air, water, and food, but I can't give all the credit to liberals.

As for the rest of the essay, and liberal's policies, no thanks.  I don't like living my life by another's ideals.

[K Frame]

"Someone that gets arrested for bulldozing a firebreak, thats an abortion of justice, we'd all agree.  Again, thats a corruption problem."

No, that's NOT a "corruption" problem.

It's a direct, conscious, intentional action by liberals who passed that law to put the welfare of a RAT above that of a human.

It's no different than laws that were enacted to protect wetlands. They seem to be good on their face, but the presence of a SINGLE wetland plant on a parcle of land that would never, in a million years, be thought of as wetlands, is enough to convert an entire farmer's field into a protected wetlands.

" Let's remember who passed welfare reform, a liberal, Bill Clinton."

Oh, really?

You mean the same Clinton government that stonewalled, threatened lawsuits against, and then FINALLY acquiesced to the state governments that were converting the endless handouts provided by welfare to time limited programs that forced welfare recipients to obtain job training or lose their benefits?

The liberal-led screeching at the hubris of those changes, virtually every one of which happened in states controlled by conservatives, was absolutely monumental. What RIGHT does a conservative have to expect a welfare recipient to at least attempt to better him/her self?

That's just unamerican!

Despite dire liberal pronostications, Welfare to Work programs have proven to be very successful, and have stopped the endless cycle of free money to people who had absolutely no incentive to do anything to make their lives better.

Interestingly enough, Lyndon Johnson, the main proponent of "lets toss a lot of money at the problem, it's easy and it looks like we're doing something" actually included time limits and job training proposals for welfare recipients.

But, oddly enough, those provisions were stripped out of the final "Great Redistribution of Wealth" bill.

Who stripped those provisions out?

Liberals.

Thanks, liberals, you get all the credit for creating the professional handout class.

[wooderson]

When I went to a machine gun shoot recently and had a ball, and wondered why it is that I'm not allowed to buy and play with an M3A1 grease gun, which could be made for less than $100 in parts and machining, I thank a liberal for denying me that.

Wait a sec, who signed FOPA into law?

[K Frame]

"Wait a sec, who signed FOPA into law?"

Ronald Reagan.

Who ADDED those machine gun limitations at virtually the last minute in a procedural floor vote hoping to making FOPA 1986 a poison pill?

LIBERALS, who added it in a desperate last minute attempt to be able to point to something, ANYTHING

Why did Ronald Reagan sign the bill?

Because it came down to question of would signing the bill into law help more gunowners than it would hurt?

The answer is yes, FAR more gunowners were helped, even those machine gunners who were hurt by the last-minute provisions of the law.

 

[wooderson]

That doesn't sound like the 'party of personal responsibility' to me.

So what you're saying, then, is that without Ronald Reagan's signature, Manedwolf would still be able to build that M3A1 grease gun?

[HankB]

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. Of course, the same liberal insisted on a huge government bureaucracy to control it, sucking plenty of Joe's pay out of his wallet . . .

With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. Too bad they cost $100 instead of $5 because liberals, in league with tort lawyers, make it easy to sue the drug manufacturer if 1/1000 of 1% of the people who take the drug get an adverse reaction.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan other people because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. Too bad liberals made meat inspection into patronage jobs, so most of the food is actually uninspected.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Except the amounts aren't listed . . . too bad.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. That's right, conservatives want to poison the air they breathe.

He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized taxpayer-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor. forces everyone - at gunpoint if necessary - to cough up the fruits of their labor to benefit someone else.

Joe begins his workday. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. And like so many of his union bretheren, Joe is a leaner - his job is leaning on a shovel. Fortunately, his job won't be outsourced to China or India, like the manufacturing jobs liberal activism blessed with excellent pay, medical benefits, paid holidays and vacation . . .

Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune. In fact, he hasn't been to Florida for a while - he feels a backache coming on. Maybe around a week from Friday . . .

etc. etc.

[K Frame]

"So what you're saying, then, is that without Ronald Reagan's signature, Manedwolf would still be able to build that M3A1 grease gun?"

Maybe.

But, try looking at the big picture.

Imagine had Reagan veto'ed the bill. There's a very good chance that it never would have been presented or voted again. Far too much political capital was expended just getting it to the floor.

Care to imagine this?

1. No mail order ammunition. FOPA made mail order ammunition legal.

2. Signing the log book for every box of ammunition that you purchase. FOPA did away with the record keeping for ammunition.

3. No foreign surplus military firearms. FOPA made it possible to bring millions of collector-grade, as well as millions of shooter-grade, firearms of all types into the United States, including firearms that had originally been made in the United States but provided to allies overseas.

4. FOPA 1986 also once again made it functionally possible to conduct interstate firearms purchases of rifles and shotguns.

5. FOPA 1986 provided us with the "safe passage" law.

As well as a few other, lesser, things.

I'm pretty sure that FOPA also very directly prohibited creation of a Federal firearms registry.


No, FOPA 1986 wasn't perfect.

The inclusion of machine guns was, unfortunately, something that couldn't be stopped, so lawmakers were presented with a hard choice. The lawmakers who voted to pass FOPA 1986 in its final form, as well as Ronald Reagan, decided to come down on the side of what helped the most gun owners.

I know there's a relatively small group of machine gun enthusiasts who lambast Reagan to this day; I know more than one who does so all the while ordering case loads of ammunition that are shipped directly to them.

It shouldn't be of any surprise to anyone that in the years after FOPA 1986 the price of ammunition in the United States dropped like a stone.

I still have some boxes of American Eagle (Federal) 9mm that I bought around 1984-85. Nothing like paying $17 a box for 115-gr. ball ammo in 1982 dollars. By 1990 I was paying, at the same gunshop, less than $10 a box for the same thing.

So, to answer the question you've asked, possibly yes, Manedwolf would be able to build his M3 Grease Gun.

The bigger question is...

Would he be able to afford to shoot it?

I'd really hate to see just how much a box of .45 ACP hardball ammo would be had FOPA 1986 never opened up the mail order, foreign and surplus ammunition markets.


So, when ever anyone screeches about how horrible a person Ronald Reagan was becuase he made machine guns go up in price, try thinking logically, deductively and expansively, and temper that with the well-proven concept that politics of any type is rarely a total win situation for one side. It is, and always has been (or at least it should be), what is of the most benefit to the most people.


But, as the saying goes, let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees.

[wooderson]

But, try looking at the big picture.

Dude, I'm not criticizing Reagan for his involvement. I'm just saying it's patently unfair to blame the lack of readily available full-autos on 'liberals,' when the Fearless Conservative Leader signed the restriction into law, because he thought 'full-auto rights' were worth trading in.

We don't have easy access to full-auto because no one in the political spectrum (people with power - Ron Paul need not apply) wants us to have them. They might be ambivalent, but they aren't using political capital to help gun owners in that arena.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Joe sounds like a pathetic lout.  Anyone who can't feed himself without government, who can't bathe himself without the government helping, who can't get himself to work in the morning without government doing it for him, who can't convince an employer to hire him without resorting to threats from a union, who can't take care of his father (and who has a father who didn't bother to plan for his own retirement), who can't figure out that he should save a prepare against the inevitable day when he has some bad luck, who can't...

...well, anyone like Joe who can't cope with modern life should probably count his lucky stars that there's a nanny government to take care of all those grownup things he's too immature to do for himself.

 

This sounds like a lot of liberal insecurities on parade.  Only a Liberal would think Americans are as pathetic and helpless as "Joe".  No doubt these thoughts reassure the typical liberal, providing a comforting reminder that they aren't the only ones as laughably helpless and degenerate as Joe.

[Nitrogen]

Joe sounds like a pathetic lout.  Anyone who can't feed himself without government, who can't bathe himself without the government helping, who can't get himself to work in the morning without government doing it for him, who can't convince an employer to hire him without resorting to threats from a union, who can't take care of his father (and who has a father who didn't bother to plan for his own retirement), who can't figure out that he should save a prepare against the inevitable day when he has some bad luck, who can't...

...well, anyone like Joe who can't cope with modern life should probably count his lucky stars that there's a nanny government to take care of all those grownup things he's too immature to do for himself.

 

This sounds like a lot of liberal insecurities on parade.  Only a Liberal would think Americans are as pathetic and helpless as "Joe".  No doubt these thoughts reassure the typical liberal, providing a comforting reminder that they aren't the only ones as laughably helpless and degenerate as Joe.

Read it again.  I think you misunderstood it.

[K Frame]

"I'm just saying it's patently unfair to blame the lack of readily available full-autos on 'liberals,'"

Oh?

Who slipped the language into FOPA 1986 at the last minute in a piece of procedural ice skating?

Two of the most liberal members of Congress at that time.

Did Reagan come swooping over to the hill to meet with the Democrats to BEG that that little item be inserted?

Nope.