What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[Uncensored2008]

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.

There is no confusion. The left is totalitarian by nature and by design.

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:

As I said, the left are not "liberals." The left are totalitarians.

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"?

Vermont Inn Sued Over Refusal to Host Gay Couple's Wedding - ABC News

It means precisely what it said. The left is deeply involved in using the state to dictate social behavior. That the model they seek to force is different than the model the religious right seeks to force doesn't alter the fact that they do indeed use force.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I doubt you'll find any conservatives who support handouts for corporations. Liberals are the ones who support that. The UAW bailout and Solyndra are the proof.

How can CEO's take money of out of the hands of workers that never belonged to the workers in the first place?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Actually . . . they are neither democratic nor populist. They are run by owners and stock holders, not the people. "Winner of your money"? Which megaoil corporation did you vote to be the winner of your money? Think this through, please.

 

[koshergrl]

Owners and stock holders aren't people?

News to me. And undoubtedly to them, as well..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Read the whole text and put it into context, Allie. You never do that well.

 

[koshergrl]

Of course I do. In fact, I'm gifted in that realm. Truly gifted.

Unfortunately, you're unable to phrase your utterances in a way that makes them anything but unintelligible gibberish. I enjoy pointing it out. It's a hobby of mine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

loony girl, loony girl the tune runs through your head.

 

[Bfgrn]

Owners and stock holders aren't people?

News to me. And undoubtedly to them, as well..

Owners and stock holders are people. But the American people are 'stake' holders. There is a huge difference.

 

[Vast LWC]

Vermont Inn Sued Over Refusal to Host Gay Couple's Wedding - ABC News[/url]

It means precisely what it said. The left is deeply involved in using the state to dictate social behavior. That the model they seek to force is different than the model the religious right seeks to force doesn't alter the fact that they do indeed use force.

No-one was forcing that Inn to "perform a gay wedding".

The Inn was refusing admittance to the gay couple for their reception.

That means that the owners of the Inn were saying "you can't hold your party here because you're gay".

And so the couple are suing the Inn because their actions were unconstitutional, as per the Civil Rights Act.

Now, as far as I know, the Civil Rights act was signed by a whole bunch of Republicans, so, which part of this is "the Left forcing people to perform a gay wedding"?

 

[Vast LWC]

I doubt you'll find any conservatives who support handouts for corporations. Liberals are the ones who support that. The UAW bailout and Solyndra are the proof.

How can CEO's take money of out of the hands of workers that never belonged to the workers in the first place?

Oooh, "the UAW bailout and Solyndra are the proof".

Yeah...

Because the Wall Street bailouts never happened, to the tune of 600 billion dollars, right?

Or is it, that George W Bush isn't a "conservative"?

 

[Vast LWC]

Of course I do. In fact, I'm gifted in that realm. Truly gifted.

Unfortunately, you're unable to phrase your utterances in a way that makes them anything but unintelligible gibberish. I enjoy pointing it out. It's a hobby of mine.

Hey Kosher...

Tim Tebow lost.

My hometeam won.

nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah.

 

[Billy000]

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.

But, of course on the flipside, you cons have no trouble labeling us as lazy socialists.

That is just politics.

 

[koshergrl]

On the flip side, you are lazy socialists.

Sometimes labels are accurate.

 

[koshergrl]

Of course I do. In fact, I'm gifted in that realm. Truly gifted.

Unfortunately, you're unable to phrase your utterances in a way that makes them anything but unintelligible gibberish. I enjoy pointing it out. It's a hobby of mine.

Hey Kosher...

Tim Tebow lost.

My hometeam won.

nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah.

Lol..meh, I don't even follow football. I couldn't even tell you what team Tebow is on. Superbowl Sunday I spent at church, hiking and daycamping with my kids.

 

[Cuyo]

On the flip side, you are lazy socialists.

Sometimes labels are accurate.

Shuddup, you vile cretin. I work about 360 days a year and employ 5.

 

[Vast LWC]

Lol..meh, I don't even follow football. I couldn't even tell you what team Tebow is on. Superbowl Sunday I spent at church, hiking and daycamping with my kids.

But... you're avatar is Tim Tebow...

 

[JakeStarkey]

She has vilely wonderful dreams about Tebow. Many girls and women, good girls and good women, good Christian girls and good Christian women, do. This is one of the very few normal things about her.

 

[Bern80]

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?

Yes and no. It is logical as a means of making yourself feel better. That same action is not logical in terms of it's effectiveness in actually helping people.

 

[Bern80]

Actually . . . they are neither democratic nor populist. They are run by owners and stock holders, not the people. "Winner of your money"? Which megaoil corporation did you vote to be the winner of your money? Think this through, please.

You telling people to think, weasel? That's a good one. With some research and choice you can choose from whom and how much oil you consume. You actually illustrate a point rather well. The free market does work...if everyone does their part. The problem is some of you don't want to do your part. You blame others for victimizing you because you're too lazy to educate yourself about the companies you purchase things from. Choosing oil? You can choose that too. How much and from whom with a little research. Did you know there are grades of gasoline and certain gas stations sell certain grades. Did you know you can choose vehicles based on how much oil and gas they use? A consumer for example may decide they don't want to buy gasoline from bp. Obviously you can choose not to buy gas at a bp station for starters, but with a little research you can probably find out what gas stations use gasoline refined by from oil owned by bp and you could then choose not to shop there too. But that's too much to ask of you lazy fucks isn't it. Proving yet another thing us conservatives know all too well about you libs. You make excuses for everything. Blame everyone else and are accountable for nothing.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

I doubt you'll find any conservatives who support handouts for corporations. Liberals are the ones who support that. The UAW bailout and Solyndra are the proof.

How can CEO's take money of out of the hands of workers that never belonged to the workers in the first place?

GE....Tax FREE!!!! Why? Because GE brass supported Obama's green energy bullshit.