What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[Uncensored2008]

Corporations built the computer and the wire lines that allow people such as yourself to post nonsense.
Guess they aren't all that bad, eh Chrissy.

LIES, lies...

Algore created the internet....

 

[Foxfyre]

Now here you are being extreme. I agree that President Bush's policies on entitlements, energy, immigration, environment, and education were not conservative positions and I opposed many of his policiies there and some other things too.

It is not true that he was not conservative in anything, however. His tax poliicy quickly pulled us out of what could have been a devastating recession following 9/11. He publiically called for reform and reining in of Fannie and Freddie at least 27 different times over his two terms and was openly opposed by the Democrats in doing so when they took power in 2007. Before the housing bubble burst, we had strong growth, full employment, and were on a solid track back to a balanced budget. I don't think any Democrat would have been as competent in tightening security and preventing another mass murder terrorist attack.

I have no problem with hanging our elected leaders for their crimes. But I do insist that they be hanged for the crimes they commit and not for those they don't commit.

Bush was a social conservative, an economic moderate and very liberal on foreign policy.

Drock is very liberal on social issues and very conservative economically and with foreign policy.

I am also very conservative with economics and foreign policy, and moderately liberal on social issues.

This made Bush a problem, there were very few issues that I agreed with him on. I want to protect OUR border, not Iraq's.

I believe Bush was honest in his belief that Saddam had WMD. Otherwise there would have been many more people questioning that including some of the most liberal members of Congress. Nobody on the UN Security Council, no Arab neighbors, nobody in the U.S. Congress, and very few heads of state in the free world questioned that, however. So, in the wake of 9/11, and with all believing Saddam was capable of committing a similar act given a chance, I'll give him a pass on that. At the very least it ended the cruel sanctions that were devastating the Iraqi people and likely conributed to the deaths of tens of thousands.

But once the issue of WMD was determined, the objectives became extremely vague and muddied and I do hold President Bush accountable for the incompetent way all that was handled from that point.

President Bush definitely should have exercised the veto pen more re runaway spending in Congress--at least runaway spending for that period--but Presidents typically don't veto Congressional budgets. His economic practices otherwise were fundamentally sound and effective.

I don't fault anybody for criticizing President Bush for legitimate failures or ill advised policy. I certainly have criticized him a LOT. I have sent emphatic e-mails, telegrams, and made phone calls when they were doing something I thought truly outrageous--such as that senior prescription bill.

But to denounce President Bush as a total failure in everything is simply wrong headed. Everybody, even President Obama, deserves credit for what they get right. And I try to give it.

That's all I was saying with that post.

 

[thereisnospoon]

liberals argue with there feelings, conservatives argue with facts and logic, you will never get a liberal to change how they feel, so it pretty much voids the facts to them.

You're an idiot.

God, why you guys make me call you names?

Grunt is 100% correct.
The indicator is...a liberal will always use the phrase.."I feel".
Liberalism is based in emotion. Liberals claim compassion as their base and their exclusive province.
When challenged on statements liberals react with emotion. Rarely do they allow facts to be debated. That branches into their idea of the world being shades of grey.
Now, you will call me some silly name.
Another liberal trait is predictability.

 

[Bern80]

You're an idiot.

God, why you guys make me call you names?

Unfortunately it's true. Look at your policies for a second. Everything you do is about making you and others FEEL good. Paying for everyone's health care sounds like the compassionate thing to do. Giving people money to buy food FEELS like the compassionate thing to do.

The reality is liberals are enablers and hypocrites. They think they help people by paying for the stuff which really only enables the behavior that put people in the bad positin they're in to begin with and they are hypocrites because they demand other people's money to do the helping instead of simply doing it themselves.

No, see... It's really not. If you want to discuss those specific policies I'm happy to do so... In another thread or privately.

The feeling may be an attract-er to the Democratic party for some people, but the policies are not feelings based, they're rooted in logic. Welfare programs have existed for thousands of years. When you help others, you help yourself. Bread and circus in Rome for example. If you give them enough to survive, they don't come lookin for what you've got, and it's cheaper than hiring the guns to control them, and with a better return for the aggregate.

Those labels in my opinion only stick tentatively, but if you're gonna try to stick them, Grunt has them backwards. Liberalism is based on logic, whereas conservatism is based more in tradition and religion as guiding principles.

That's just the way it is - Unlike Grunt I'm not trying to stick them as a perceived pejorative, I'm just stating what is.

And I simply can't agree with that. Or it seems to me at least that a logical action is a matter of perspective. If you give people enough to survive I guess that is logical from the perspective that it keeps you from being bothered by them. Whether it is logical in terms of actually improving their lives is another matter. Another similar example to the above would be a parent who has a drug addict child. The child demands money claiming it's for food. An addict will guilt you into it, beg, cheat, cheat steal etc. to get the money for their fix. They may genuinely not have the money to buy food, that doesn't mean because you give it to them, that's what it's going to get spent on. If the parent gives them the money they do it to esuage their own guilt. They convince themselves it's going to food when they know better or because they convince themselves if they don't they're a bad parent that doesn't care. And all you're really doing is prolonging the problem. From a certain perspective their is a certain logic to that action in the sense that it is an efficient way to make YOU feel better. But it is most certainly not logical from the perspective of actually helping the addict.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Now here you are being extreme. I agree that President Bush's policies on entitlements, energy, immigration, environment, and education were not conservative positions and I opposed many of his policiies there and some other things too.

It is not true that he was not conservative in anything, however. His tax poliicy quickly pulled us out of what could have been a devastating recession following 9/11. He publiically called for reform and reining in of Fannie and Freddie at least 27 different times over his two terms and was openly opposed by the Democrats in doing so when they took power in 2007. Before the housing bubble burst, we had strong growth, full employment, and were on a solid track back to a balanced budget. I don't think any Democrat would have been as competent in tightening security and preventing another mass murder terrorist attack.

I have no problem with hanging our elected leaders for their crimes. But I do insist that they be hanged for the crimes they commit and not for those they don't commit.

Bush was a social conservative, an economic moderate and very liberal on foreign policy.

Drock is very liberal on social issues and very conservative economically and with foreign policy.

I am also very conservative with economics and foreign policy, and moderately liberal on social issues.

This made Bush a problem, there were very few issues that I agreed with him on. I want to protect OUR border, not Iraq's.

I believe Bush was honest in his belief that Saddam had WMD. Otherwise there would have been many more people questioning that including some of the most liberal members of Congress. Nobody on the UN Security Council, no Arab neighbors, nobody in the U.S. Congress, and very few heads of state in the free world questioned that, however. So, in the wake of 9/11, and with all believing Saddam was capable of committing a similar act given a chance, I'll give him a pass on that. At the very least it ended the cruel sanctions that were devastating the Iraqi people and likely conributed to the deaths of tens of thousands.

But once the issue of WMD was determined, the objectives became extremely vague and muddied and I do hold President Bush accountable for the incompetent way all that was handled from that point.

President Bush definitely should have exercised the veto pen more re runaway spending in Congress--at least runaway spending for that period--but Presidents typically don't veto Congressional budgets. His economic practices otherwise were fundamentally sound and effective.

I don't fault anybody for criticizing President Bush for legitimate failures or ill advised policy. I certainly have criticized him a LOT. I have sent emphatic e-mails, telegrams, and made phone calls when they were doing something I thought truly outrageous--such as that senior prescription bill.

But to denounce President Bush as a total failure in everything is simply wrong headed. Everybody, even President Obama, deserves credit for what they get right. And I try to give it.

That's all I was saying with that post.

Presidents Bush 41 and Clinton also stated their belief based on the word of advisers that Iraq had and was using WMD's.
In fact, the weapon Saddam Hussein was using vs the Kurds( poison gas ) was indeed a WMD.
Look, if the Iraqi military could hide fighter and bomber jets in concrete bunkers, the chances them also hiding WMD's is pretty damned likely.

 

[Dr.Drock]

liberals argue with there feelings, conservatives argue with facts and logic, you will never get a liberal to change how they feel, so it pretty much voids the facts to them.

You're an idiot.

God, why you guys make me call you names?

Grunt is 100% correct.
The indicator is...a liberal will always use the phrase.."I feel".
Liberalism is based in emotion. Liberals claim compassion as their base and their exclusive province.
When challenged on statements liberals react with emotion. Rarely do they allow facts to be debated. That branches into their idea of the world being shades of grey.
Now, you will call me some silly name.
Another liberal trait is predictability.

Hence why having welfare is incredibly important to them, but paying for it, isn't.

 

[Bern80]

Corporations destroyed the world economy in 2008.

Corporations spilled 2 million barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

Corporations created a garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean twice the size of Texas.

Corporations created a hole in the ozone bigger than Antarctica.

I'm glad you listed all those negatives about corporations, because come to think of it, I can't think of any negatives about government.


I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT, GOVERNMENT CAN SAVE US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Glad you see the light.

Governments are elected by the people.

Corporations are not.

Yes. Actually they are. When you do business with those corporations you are picking them to be the winner of your money and that of other consumers. You are in a very real sense indeed voting for them.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'm glad you listed all those negatives about corporations, because come to think of it, I can't think of any negatives about government.


I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT, GOVERNMENT CAN SAVE US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Glad you see the light.

Governments are elected by the people.

Corporations are not.

Yes. Actually they are. When you do business with those corporations you are picking them to be the winner of your money and that of other consumers. You are in a very real sense indeed voting for them.

Even more so than gov't. If i don't vote for Obama, and Obama wins, my vote was meaningless. A corporation can't force their will on me, I either give them my money or I don't. Doesn't matter if my neighbor gives them money or someoen 10 states over does, mine is still in my pocket or it's in the cash register of another business.

 

[Bern80]

Bush was a social conservative, an economic moderate and very liberal on foreign policy.

Drock is very liberal on social issues and very conservative economically and with foreign policy.

I am also very conservative with economics and foreign policy, and moderately liberal on social issues.

This made Bush a problem, there were very few issues that I agreed with him on. I want to protect OUR border, not Iraq's.

I believe Bush was honest in his belief that Saddam had WMD. Otherwise there would have been many more people questioning that including some of the most liberal members of Congress. Nobody on the UN Security Council, no Arab neighbors, nobody in the U.S. Congress, and very few heads of state in the free world questioned that, however. So, in the wake of 9/11, and with all believing Saddam was capable of committing a similar act given a chance, I'll give him a pass on that. At the very least it ended the cruel sanctions that were devastating the Iraqi people and likely conributed to the deaths of tens of thousands.

But once the issue of WMD was determined, the objectives became extremely vague and muddied and I do hold President Bush accountable for the incompetent way all that was handled from that point.

President Bush definitely should have exercised the veto pen more re runaway spending in Congress--at least runaway spending for that period--but Presidents typically don't veto Congressional budgets. His economic practices otherwise were fundamentally sound and effective.

I don't fault anybody for criticizing President Bush for legitimate failures or ill advised policy. I certainly have criticized him a LOT. I have sent emphatic e-mails, telegrams, and made phone calls when they were doing something I thought truly outrageous--such as that senior prescription bill.

But to denounce President Bush as a total failure in everything is simply wrong headed. Everybody, even President Obama, deserves credit for what they get right. And I try to give it.

That's all I was saying with that post.

Presidents Bush 41 and Clinton also stated their belief based on the word of advisers that Iraq had and was using WMD's.
In fact, the weapon Saddam Hussein was using vs the Kurds( poison gas ) was indeed a WMD.
Look, if the Iraqi military could hide fighter and bomber jets in concrete bunkers, the chances them also hiding WMD's is pretty damned likely.

Not finding is not the same thing as not having. Something libs don't seem to get. You can do a lot of damage with just a barrel of some toxic chemical if weaponized.

P.S. To the libs who say Saddam had no WMDs. I have hidden a 50 gallon drum with a millions dollars in it somewhere in or below the state of California (roughly the size of Iraq). Get back to me when you find it, okay?

 

[Vast LWC]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

If you are actually for completely limited government, then you are not a "Conservative", you are a Libertarian.

Conservatives are for "limited government" as it applies to business and economics.

However, they are NOT in favor of limited government as it applies to placing moral or cultural restrictions on the populace.

Liberals are the opposite. They support governmental control of economic/business matters, but no governmental control of morality and cultural matters.

Libertarians are for limited government in all of these areas.

I suspect, however, that you are in fact a Conservative, and therefore are not simply in favor of general "limited government", which is why you find it so difficult to talk to your polar opposite, a Liberal.

 

[candycorn]

"Corporations are people, my friend...." Willard Romney.

Shocking that this is the guy they've nominated.

Do you have a 401k? Do you have any stock? A bond? If so, guess what.....you are invested in a corporation douchebag

I own a lot of stock. I don't own people. According to Mitt I may. Douchebag.

 

[Bern80]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

If you are actually for completely limited government, then you are not a "Conservative", you are a Libertarian.

Conservatives are for "limited government" as it applies to business and economics.

However, they are NOT in favor of limited government as it applies to placing moral or cultural restrictions on the populace.

Liberals are the opposite. They support governmental control of economic/business matters, but no governmental control of morality and cultural matters.

Libertarians are for limited government in all of these areas.

I suspect, however, that you are in fact a Conservative, and therefore are not simply in favor of general "limited government", which is why you find it so difficult to talk to your polar opposite, a Liberal.

It's difficult even for libertarians. I consider myself one. And it's difficult because I think at the most basic level liberals seem to think the purpose of government is to continually strive to make things better for people. Libertarians recognize while that sounds like the warm and fuzzy thing to do, it's ultimately a bad idea. It's not even a matter of believing that helping people is wrong. It's a matter that it's simply not an activity government should engage in. They recognize the road to tyranny is indeed paved with the best of intentions. As such it is best that government just stay out of it and focus on simply ensuring people's freedom to live their lives how they see fit.

 

[Cuyo]

Unfortunately it's true. Look at your policies for a second. Everything you do is about making you and others FEEL good. Paying for everyone's health care sounds like the compassionate thing to do. Giving people money to buy food FEELS like the compassionate thing to do.

The reality is liberals are enablers and hypocrites. They think they help people by paying for the stuff which really only enables the behavior that put people in the bad positin they're in to begin with and they are hypocrites because they demand other people's money to do the helping instead of simply doing it themselves.

No, see... It's really not. If you want to discuss those specific policies I'm happy to do so... In another thread or privately.

The feeling may be an attract-er to the Democratic party for some people, but the policies are not feelings based, they're rooted in logic. Welfare programs have existed for thousands of years. When you help others, you help yourself. Bread and circus in Rome for example. If you give them enough to survive, they don't come lookin for what you've got, and it's cheaper than hiring the guns to control them, and with a better return for the aggregate.

Those labels in my opinion only stick tentatively, but if you're gonna try to stick them, Grunt has them backwards. Liberalism is based on logic, whereas conservatism is based more in tradition and religion as guiding principles.

That's just the way it is - Unlike Grunt I'm not trying to stick them as a perceived pejorative, I'm just stating what is.

And I simply can't agree with that. Or it seems to me at least that a logical action is a matter of perspective. If you give people enough to survive I guess that is logical from the perspective that it keeps you from being bothered by them. Whether it is logical in terms of actually improving their lives is another matter. Another similar example to the above would be a parent who has a drug addict child. The child demands money claiming it's for food. An addict will guilt you into it, beg, cheat, cheat steal etc. to get the money for their fix. They may genuinely not have the money to buy food, that doesn't mean because you give it to them, that's what it's going to get spent on. If the parent gives them the money they do it to esuage their own guilt. They convince themselves it's going to food when they know better or because they convince themselves if they don't they're a bad parent that doesn't care. And all you're really doing is prolonging the problem. From a certain perspective their is a certain logic to that action in the sense that it is an efficient way to make YOU feel better. But it is most certainly not logical from the perspective of actually helping the addict.

Can't agree with what? All I did was say it's based on logic, and explained the logic. You responded with a long paragraph describing why you disagree with that logic.

But you do agree that it constitutes logic nonetheless?

 

[koshergrl]

It isn't logical to pay people for not working. Period.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you are actually for completely limited government, then you are not a "Conservative", you are a Libertarian.

True.

Conservatives are for "limited government" as it applies to business and economics.

However, they are NOT in favor of limited government as it applies to placing moral or cultural restrictions on the populace.

Liberals are the opposite. They support governmental control of economic/business matters, but no governmental control of morality and cultural matters.

Utter nonsense. Leftists demand governmental control of cultural and moral matters. Leftists use to the implied violence to the state to silence those who would dare pray on sacred government grounds. They use the state to force people to perform weddings for homosexuals, to regulate what games people can play.

American leftists seek to micro-manage every aspect of the lives of the subjects under the rule of the government.

Libertarians are for limited government in all of these areas.

True, Libertarians are the ONLY political group that wants government out of social issues.

I suspect, however, that you are in fact a Conservative, and therefore are not simply in favor of general "limited government", which is why you find it so difficult to talk to your polar opposite, a Liberal.

Obamabots and most democrats are not "liberals," you are leftists. The ideals of Marx, Mao and Mussolini are the motive power of the American left, not the ideals of Mason, Jefferson and Franklin.

 

[Cuyo]

It isn't logical to pay people for not working. Period.

Yes, it is as I explained. Why is this so hard for you people to wrap your head around?

I'm gathering that in your opinion it's stupid logic, but Grunt claimed it was all based on empathy and that's really just not the case.

 

[boilermaker55]

You mean like the way anyone receiving public assistance is a welfare cheat and all union workers are lazy, overpaid slobs?

You mean like those corporations that get public hand outs, and the CEO's who take the money out of the hands of the workers to build their mansions and their wealth.
Of course.

 

[Vast LWC]

If you are actually for completely limited government, then you are not a "Conservative", you are a Libertarian.

True.

Conservatives are for "limited government" as it applies to business and economics.

However, they are NOT in favor of limited government as it applies to placing moral or cultural restrictions on the populace.

Liberals are the opposite. They support governmental control of economic/business matters, but no governmental control of morality and cultural matters.

Utter nonsense. Leftists demand governmental control of cultural and moral matters. Leftists use to the implied violence to the state to silence those who would dare pray on sacred government grounds. They use the state to force people to perform weddings for homosexuals, to regulate what games people can play.

American leftists seek to micro-manage every aspect of the lives of the subjects under the rule of the government.

Libertarians are for limited government in all of these areas.

True, Libertarians are the ONLY political group that wants government out of social issues.

I suspect, however, that you are in fact a Conservative, and therefore are not simply in favor of general "limited government", which is why you find it so difficult to talk to your polar opposite, a Liberal.

Obamabots and most democrats are not "liberals," you are leftists. The ideals of Marx, Mao and Mussolini are the motive power of the American left, not the ideals of Mason, Jefferson and Franklin.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

You confuse the "Left" with "Totalitarians" or "Statists", (which I've recently learned are also known as "Progressives"). Statists can lean left or right.

Of course, left and right partisans like to apply any qualities they think of as negative to the other side, but that is simply not the case.

This is the case:

And what exactly does this mean?

They use the state to force people to perform weddings for homosexuals, to regulate what games people can play.

Who is forcing someone to "perform a wedding for homosexuals"?

 

[Foxfyre]

If you are actually for completely limited government, then you are not a "Conservative", you are a Libertarian.

True.

Conservatives are for "limited government" as it applies to business and economics.

However, they are NOT in favor of limited government as it applies to placing moral or cultural restrictions on the populace.

Liberals are the opposite. They support governmental control of economic/business matters, but no governmental control of morality and cultural matters.

Utter nonsense. Leftists demand governmental control of cultural and moral matters. Leftists use to the implied violence to the state to silence those who would dare pray on sacred government grounds. They use the state to force people to perform weddings for homosexuals, to regulate what games people can play.

American leftists seek to micro-manage every aspect of the lives of the subjects under the rule of the government.

Libertarians are for limited government in all of these areas.

True, Libertarians are the ONLY political group that wants government out of social issues.

I suspect, however, that you are in fact a Conservative, and therefore are not simply in favor of general "limited government", which is why you find it so difficult to talk to your polar opposite, a Liberal.

Obamabots and most democrats are not "liberals," you are leftists. The ideals of Marx, Mao and Mussolini are the motive power of the American left, not the ideals of Mason, Jefferson and Franklin.

Where it gets muddied in the minds of the unschooled, however, is that Mason, Jefferson, and Franklin were classical liberals which is emulated almost 100% by modern day Tea Partiers, aka modern American conservatives. They were not liberal in the way that modern American liberals conduct and describe themselves at this time.

I do not believe Libertarians are the only ones who truly want limited government. Libertarians too often do not want states or local communities to be able to legally form the sort of society they wish to have if that should involve restriction of anything such as prostitution, drugs, adult bookstores, nudie bars or whatever. Libertarians are also far to willing to restrict religious displays and activities based on what I believe is a misinterpretation of the First Amendment. There are exceptions, most notably such as my heroes Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, et al. who embody the very best of libertarianism (little 'L") and the very best of Classical Liberalism as is manifested in modern American conservatism.

Modern American Conservatives want the federal government to provide the national defense (which would include national security), to promote the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare and not a targeted few--and to recognize and secure iour rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

 

[Vast LWC]

Where it gets muddied in the minds of the unschooled, however, is that Mason, Jefferson, and Franklin were classical liberals which is emulated almost 100% by modern day Tea Partiers, aka modern American conservatives. They were not liberal in the way that modern American liberals conduct and describe themselves at this time.

I do not believe Libertarians are the only ones who truly want limited government. Libertarians too often do not want states or local communities to be able to legally form the sort of society they wish to have if that should involve restriction of anything such as prostitution, drugs, adult bookstores, nudie bars or whatever. Libertarians are also far to willing to restrict religious displays and activities based on what I believe is a misinterpretation of the First Amendment. There are exceptions, most notably such as my heroes Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, et al. who embody the very best of libertarianism (little 'L") and the very best of Classical Liberalism as is manifested in modern American conservatism.

Modern American Conservatives want the federal government to provide the national defense (which would include national security), to promote the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare and not a targeted few--and to recognize and secure iour rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

Actually, where it gets muddled, is when conservatives, like yourself, try to group people on the left into the same category as statists, and people on the right into the same category as Libertarians.

This is simply not the case.