Dumb liberal answers to "20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer"
By Donald Sensing
20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer poses the questions below, which writer John Hawkins says liberals can't answer. Silly John, of course they can! And below, seriatim, I offer the answers a typical liberal would give:
1) A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?
Because conservatives are evil and Muslims are an oppressed minority in this country and victims of centuries of Western colonialism and exploitation in the Middle East. That the Boston bombers were Muslim is understandable. The chickens continue to come home to roost.
2) If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?
At "gunpoint?" No. But the federal government must see to it that the wealth is spread around through higher taxes on high earners. Taxes are not coercive, they are contributions of one's fair share. And the more money you make, the more you need to contribute.
3) How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?
Sorry, I don't understand your question. Seems like it's about only sex, or something. More to the point, the morals and character of non-liberal politicians do matter because they do not care about the poor and disadvantaged and gays and immigrants and women and they oppose abortion and wealth redistribution. That means they are evil. But liberal politicians are on the right side of history and have pure political motives so it does not matter what they do in their personal lives.
4) What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that he’s earned that he should be able to keep?
All your income are belong to us. You should be able to keep only enough to provide for your own needs, as we define those needs. And believe me, our needs are always greater than yours.
5) Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes?
Here you prove you do not understand the purpose of taxation. Taxes are not to fund government. Taxes are the tool by which we exercise control over the economic, hence personal, lives of Americans (that is, "fairness"). No matter the revenue flowing into government coffers, lower tax rates mean greater personal freedom for individuals. That is why we oppose lowering rates.
6) Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it's pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they'd like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?
"Pro-choice" is a term nonsensical for anything other than abortion. Abortion is the only decision that individuals (women only, of course) are able to make intelligently. In every other decision individuals are incapable of doing the right thing. We the enlightened ones who truly care about the planet and the public good must make the rules for the people's own good.
7) If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?
Only if they pay the foreign workers American minimum wage and provide full benefits and let American unions form chapters there.
8) How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn't doing well because we aren't spending enough money when we're already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?
Deficits don't matter. Federal spending is the primary engine of the economy. These are the main tenet of liberal economic theory. Why didn't you know that?
9) If Republicans don’t care about the poor, why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?
We pay taxes, which fund federal social equality and assistance programs, all of which do far more good than unorganized personal charity.
10) Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn't change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we're seeing in Greece or Cyprus?
Never: see question 8.
11) Since we "all agree" with the idea that our level of deficit spending is "unsustainable," what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?
Are you dense? Do you have a learning disability? We do not "all agree" on this. Read again my answers to questions 2, 5 and 8.
12) If we change God's definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what's the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?
There is no logical argument against them and we don't claim there is. In fact, the more the better because then we can tell polygamists and siblingers that only by voting for us will their sexual libertinism be preserved.
13) In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it's feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?
In the long run, maybe not. But of course, "In the long run, we're all dead." But as I said above, it is fair for top earners to pay more, so why are your talking about long-term consequences? 25-86 is fair, end of discussion.
14) If you win a lawsuit that's filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?
Because the "English system" as it is called would freeze out the poor and disadvantaged from seeking relief through the courts. It would not be fair. And if we supported such a change, the trial lawyers' donations would drop like rock.
15) How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?
What a stupid question. Abortion is about women's freedom to choose what happens to their own bodies. Capital punishment is just legalized murder almost without exception of felons who come from our main voting blocs. And no, don't start telling me that women (or men, but who cares about them?) should also have the freedom to choose what they ingest into their bodies, such as Big Gulps in New York. See question 6.
[Disclosure: I oppose both abortion and capital punishment - DS]
16) A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What's the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?
It is easy for the media to find and interview someone who is employed at minimum wage and will express gratitude that we pushed through a raise for him/her. It is almost impossible to identify an individual whose job was cut because of the minimum wage increase and the media would not interview such a person anyway. So it's win-win for us all around: We tell low wage earners that only we will protect their new wage level and that the evil Tea Bagger Republicans want to keep them in poverty. So once again your question makes no sense because employment isn't the point; trapping people into voting blocs is the point.
17) The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we've seen over the last century. Since we can't adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?
The science is settled and anyone who says otherwise is just a denialist. And we must have expanded powers of the government to regulate emissions of all kinds, including exhaling, or we are all going to die.
18) We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn't government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states’ rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?
There may be more choices, but that only means that people will make more stupid, wrong choices (except when a woman decides to get an abortion). I already answered this in question 6.
19) If people in the middle class aren't willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don't think it's worth the money, shouldn't we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?
I keep repeating myself: taxation is not about funding government. Taxes are about "fairness" as we define it. See also question 8, "Deficits don't matter."
20) If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don't we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace?
Because women are not as willing to exploit women as men are. Besides, most businesses are still dominated by white-male privilege mindsets, even if they are led by women.
senseofevents.blogspot.com  |
