What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[IndependntLogic]

No, we describe liberals as liberals.

Liberals don't like that because they prefer lying about who they are, and what they stand for.

Thank you for proving my point!!!!

So would you call someone "Liberal" if they agreed with the following:

Global Warming is not definitely proven.
Unions have too much power and have contributed to our UnEmployment Problems.
ObamaCare Sucks.
Christians are often treated unfairly - especially compared to other faiths.
Gun laws don't reduce gun crime.
Oh and yes, we do have a right to bear arms, tyvm.
It's not all Bush's fault.
8.5% is not a "Good" number folks!
We should eliminate about two dozen government agencies altogether.


I could go on but let's just start there. Is the above the description of a Liberal? No. But whackjobs instantly label anyone disagreeing with them on anything as being Liberal.
And no, I don't know any Liberals who want to pretend to be otherwise. That's a whackjob ego fantasy.

Like I said, I've had my opinions influenced by reasonable Conservatives. The idiots who think that there are "Super Secret Agent Liberals from Force Delta" out there, influence no one but themselves.
But I've never seen a Liberal here, call me or any of the other Moderates or Independents (aka "Liberals" to the whackjobs) a "Conservative" just for disagreeing with them or acknowleding that FOX shows valid counterpoints.

There aren't many old time liberals left.

I've taken to using the term "progressive" to the far left. For the most part, progressives call themselves liberals, and liberals call themselves moderates.

Again, it's a matter of wanting to be perceived as more mainstream as they are.

Gotcha. I was using the contemporary definition. I consider myself a Social Liberal (e.g. I really don't give a rip if gays marry) but I have a lot of Conservative (well, by the 80's definition, anyway) views as well.

The more extreme Liberals call you an idiot or project views onto you that aren't true when you disagree with them (e.g. I'm a Christian and no, I don't believe the Earth is 5,000 years old).
The more extreme Conservs claim "Oh, you must be a Liberal!" the moment you disagree with them - usually when they're owned on the issue being discussed.
Both sides are prone to change the subject, sling insults, use moral comparatives etc... when facts and such get in their way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How many corporations (SME & Enterprise) are there in the US and the world, and what's the best resource to find this data?

The 2006 US Census Bureau estimates a total of 6 million firms based in the US. Of these, only 18,000 have more than 500 employees, yet they represent 50% of employment and 60% of total US revenues. To get the world numbers you would need to get census data for the main countries. For example, Mexico has over 4 million firms but only 4,000 are larger than 500 employees; Chile has 1 million firms but only 9,000 are big, and so on.
How many corporations (SME & Enterprise) are there in the US and the world, and what's the best resource to find this data? - Quora

Most incorporated businesses have less than 5 employees.

THIS is what the left demonizes.

LLC, LLP, and Inc - it's about limiting liability, not about size.

You didn't really expect liberals to know this much about business, did you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

And are there millions? I would be surprised if there were 100,000 corporations (note, I say coporations, not businesses). And are theyreally competing with each other? How many telephone carriers are there? 10?20? Ditto television station owners?

Yes, but then, you're a rather ignorant troll.

It's why you're a leftist.

There are 23 million incorporated businesses in America.

Statistics about Small Business from the Census Bureau

Yes, there are. I can go and incorporate myself as a business tomorrow, and that would make 23 million and 1 "corporations".

Of course, you know very well that's not what the poster was referring to.

Tell me, if I go out and start hooking up telephones for people tomorrow, and call myself a "corporation", do you really think I have a chance in hell of competing with Verizon?

Yeah, because it's our job to debate based on what idiot liberals "think" is true, rather than what is, and based on what they "meant".

Tell me, are we supposed to care that you "think" being a corporation has to do with who you can and can't compete with, or are we supposed to go with what being a corporation is ACTUALLY about?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Most incorporated businesses have less than 5 employees.

THIS is what the left demonizes.

LLC, LLP, and Inc - it's about limiting liability, not about size.

Yes, they do. Because people go out and incorporate their consultant businesses, etc, for the tax write-offs. Happens all the time.

Actually, dumbfuck, they do it so that if the business goes under - which happens to over half of all small businesses every year - it doesn't take their personal assets down with it.

That would be why the poster you're responding to said "it's about limiting liability". Duhhh.

 

[Liability]

I never said the case didn't happen. I SAID:

The SCOTUS did NOT declare corporations to be legal entities, persons, in 1878, under Chief Justice Harlan.

So you can easily prove me wrong now that you have a copy of the ruling. Provide the sentence and/or paragraph from the ruling that declares corporations to be legal entities, persons.

I will be waiting..................................................................................................

Oh, you built a straw man.

How clever.

Say sparky, should it be legal to make a movie criticizing Mitt Romney?

Straw man? No. Clever? Of course it is. YOU provided the actual ruling, SO, if what you say is true, it shouldn't be difficult to provide the sentence and/or paragraph from the ruling that declares corporations to be legal entities, persons.

So you are saying you can't. Now THAT is a straw man.

The use of that case as authority comes from a comment made FROM the BENCH during oral arguments. It got cited in a SCOTUS decision FOR that proposition, in fact.

If you want it IN the actual written Court decision of a SCOTUS case, look to:

Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26, 28 (1889).

* * * * The validity of this law was assailed in the state court, and is assailed here, as being in conflict with the first section of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States, in that it deprives the railway company of property without due process of law, so far as it allows a recovery of double the value of the animals killed by its trains; and in that it denies to the company the equal protection of the laws by subjecting it to a different liability for injuries committed by it from that to which all other persons are subjected.

It is contended by counsel as the basis of his argument, and we admit the soundness of his position, that corporations are persons within the meaning of the clause in question. It was so held in Santa Clara Co. v. Railroad Co., 118 U.S. 394, 396 , 6 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 1132, and the doctrine was reasserted in Mining Co. v. Penusylvania, 125 U.S. 181, 189 , 8 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 737. We admit also, as contended by him, that corporations can invoke the benefits of provisions of the constitution and laws which guaranty to persons the enjoyment of property, or afford to them the means for its protection, or prohibit legislation injuriously affecting it. * * * *

-- The Opinion of Court by Justice Field. See: FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[Bern80]

No. You can't. Look through my threads on unions, Christianity, Global Warming, gun rights, ObamaCare, Obama's Mistake with Catholics (which predicted exactly what would ahppen as of today, tyvm) etc....

Liberals argue the issues with me. Some of the extreme left moonbats even call me names. That's normal. Liberals always call Republicans silly names wingnuts etc.. But they don't call Independents "Conservative" the moment someone agrees with them.
But the extreme right whackjobs on the right instantly label anyone disagreeing with them on any subject Liberal. It's the Rush Limbaugh mentality. Agree with me on everythig or you're one of them.

Well I didn't wanna have to name names, but yes I can. Chris, Old Rocks, Starkey (aka the weasel), Bfgrn, I could go on. You can't tell me these people haven't at one time or another labeled someone a Rush parrott at some time or other for no other reason than not holding the same beliefs. I KNOW you can't tell me that because they've done it to me. You can pretend the libs are slightly better all you want. It isn't reality.

 

[Bfgrn]

Political views 'hard-wired' into your brain

Scientists have found that people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions.

On the otherhand, they have a smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life.

The "exciting" correlation was found by scientists at University College London who scanned the brains of two members of parliament and a number of students.

----------------------------------------------

Are There Differences Between Liberal and Conservative Brains?

In October, a study published in the journal Nature Neuroscience found that these differences in thinking may be traceable to brain differences. New York University neuroscientist David Amodio and his colleagues showed that brain responses to quick, unexpected changes in strategy differed between liberals and conservatives.

And I wonder if you would be citing it if a study of a few student showed that liberals "may" be illogical and irrational, i.e. lack common sense, more often than conservatives?

Everyone has common sense. Intelligent people, however, have a tendency to overapply their analytical and logical reasoning abilities derived from their general intelligence incorrectly to such evolutionarily familiar domains and as a result get things wrong. In other words, liberals and other intelligent people lack common sense, because their general intelligence overrides it. They think in situations where they are supposed to feel. In evolutionarily familiar domains such as interpersonal relationships, feeling usually leads to correct solutions whereas thinking does not.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...s-are-more-intelligent-conservatives-why-are-

And while I consider the results of your cited study quite inconclusive, as would any scientist worthy of the term, I also think it is absurd to speculate that intelligent people lack common sense. Or that 'feeling' is preferable to 'thinking'.

I think it is neither a matter of intelligence nor common sense. I see it as a disconnect between intent and results.

Liberals will more often promote and applaud anti-poverty programs because the intent is right, the titles of the programs sound noble, and it 'feels' compassionate.

Conservatives are no less compassionate--conservative still continue to significantly out give liberals out of their own pockets to charity, to volunteer more, to donate more blood, to found and staff organizations targeted at helping the poor, etc.--but they also are able to see the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of government programs more than liberals seem able to do.

Liberals seem to operate on the basis of "if the motives and intent are right, the government should force everybody to do it."

Conservatives more often operate on the basis of do it if it works, fix things that are broken, and stop doing things that are not accomplishing the objectives or goals and/or that do more harm than good and/or are wasteful and counter productive and/or can even be uncompassionate. And because the federal government will almost always be the least efficient and effective way to do charity and breeds corruption when it tries, it should not do it at all."

But then you get into very frustrating dscussions with liberals who accuse conservatives of being greedy, uncaring, selfish, and generally bad or stupid people because they hold the point of view as I am stating here.

Irony abounds in your post, and the continuation of lies.

Conservatives operate almost completely on 'feelings' vs. thinking. They feel people are basically evil and act accordingly. Conservatives are controlled by fear, the strongest emotion.

Liberals will more often promote and applaud anti-poverty programs because they ARE more compassionate, and believe that people are basically good, and they don't need to be punished.

THE Arthur Brooks study

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

I posted this the last time you tried to beat your chest. Now, will you continue to LIE Foxfyre?

Liberals operate on doing what works best. Conservatives don't. Instead, they cling to dogma, no matter how much proof dismisses their beliefs. Health care is a prime example. America has the most expensive health care costs in the world. Other industrialized nations have government run universal health care that costs half as much, AND, outperform ours in human outcomes.

And that is where the 'fear' and dogma take over the conservative mind. They will NEVER accept that there are things governments can do better, more efficiently and effectively.

 

[koshergrl]

Bfgrn is really rtard, isn't he?

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn is really rtard, isn't he?

WOW, you are certainly proving the abilities of conservatives to engage in intellectual debate...

 

[sealybobo]

What makes arguing with Republicans so frustrating is that when they can no longer defend the position they have taken, they very easily change their position and the public allows it.

They said the economy isn't getting better, but now they are saying "if it is, its because of GOP governors like Christie and Perry".

Certainly Obama gets no credit. Like killing Osama. Bush got the credit. LOL.

 

[Foxfyre]

Bfgrn is really rtard, isn't he?

No. He spells and punctuates too well to be classified as a rtard. But he is either one of USMB's most dishonest posters or he is so ideologically brainwashed that he often cannot distinguish between truth and fiction.

There is probably a pretty good reason he didn't provide a link for his Arthur Brooks reference however, as Brooks, who has done the most exhaustive and comprehensive study on the subject to date that I am aware of in no way suggested there is little or no difference between conservatives and liberals in charitable giving. I have read the books, the reviews, and the commentaries on those studies, and, while there are individual exceptions of course, he was pretty adament that conservatives overall are more generous than liberals overall in ALL categories of charity except one. They are more charitable when it comes to giving of their personal wealth, their life's work, their time, their talent, and their blood.

In the one area in which liberals are more generous than conservatives is that liberals are more generous in giving other people's money via taxes and government. Conservatives generally object to a lot of that and with good reason.

 

[Mr Natural]

Bfgrn is really rtard, isn't he?

No. He spells and punctuates too well to be classified as a rtard. But he is either one of USMB's most dishonest posters or he is so ideologically brainwashed that he often cannot distinguish between truth and fiction.

There is probably a pretty good reason he didn't provide a link for his Arthur Brooks reference however, as Brooks, who has done the most exhaustive and comprehensive study on the subject to date that I am aware of in no way suggested there is little or no difference between conservatives and liberals in charitable giving. I have read the books, the reviews, and the commentaries on those studies, and, while there are individual exceptions of course, he was pretty adament that conservatives overall are more generous than liberals overall in ALL categories of charity except one. They are more charitable when it comes to giving of their personal wealth, their life's work, their time, their talent, and their blood.

In the one area in which liberals are more generous than conservatives is that liberals are more generous in giving other people's money via taxes and government. Conservatives generally object to a lot of that and with good reason.

The whole system is based on other people's money.

Example, your congressman gets to keep his job by bringing other people's money (in one form or another) home to his district.

 

[Bern80]

Bfgrn is really rtard, isn't he?

No. He spells and punctuates too well to be classified as a rtard. But he is either one of USMB's most dishonest posters or he is so ideologically brainwashed that he often cannot distinguish between truth and fiction.

There is probably a pretty good reason he didn't provide a link for his Arthur Brooks reference however, as Brooks, who has done the most exhaustive and comprehensive study on the subject to date that I am aware of in no way suggested there is little or no difference between conservatives and liberals in charitable giving. I have read the books, the reviews, and the commentaries on those studies, and, while there are individual exceptions of course, he was pretty adament that conservatives overall are more generous than liberals overall in ALL categories of charity except one. They are more charitable when it comes to giving of their personal wealth, their life's work, their time, their talent, and their blood.

In the one area in which liberals are more generous than conservatives is that liberals are more generous in giving other people's money via taxes and government. Conservatives generally object to a lot of that and with good reason.

The whole system is based on other people's money.

Example, your congressman gets to keep his job by bringing other people's money (in one form or another) home to his district.

That we agree on. That really is the problem with the whole system. Politicians have learned the best way to get elected is to promise people stuff. Stuff the don't really owe them and getting government ends up getting into areas it has no business being in.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That we agree on. That really is the problem with the whole system. Politicians have learned the best way to get elected is to promise people stuff. Stuff the don't really owe them and getting government ends up getting into areas it has no business being in.

Why not just make liberalism illegal since thats what the Constitution was designed to do?

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin

 

[jillian]

How many corporations (SME & Enterprise) are there in the US and the world, and what's the best resource to find this data?

The 2006 US Census Bureau estimates a total of 6 million firms based in the US. Of these, only 18,000 have more than 500 employees, yet they represent 50% of employment and 60% of total US revenues. To get the world numbers you would need to get census data for the main countries. For example, Mexico has over 4 million firms but only 4,000 are larger than 500 employees; Chile has 1 million firms but only 9,000 are big, and so on.
How many corporations (SME & Enterprise) are there in the US and the world, and what's the best resource to find this data? - Quora

Most incorporated businesses have less than 5 employees.

THIS is what the left demonizes.

LLC, LLP, and Inc - it's about limiting liability, not about size.

that isn't what the "left" demonizes.

i love when extremist toons pretend they know what "the other side" is thinking and then use what they made up to vilify the "other side"

 

[koshergrl]

The left demonizes anything that gets in their way. Anything that interferes with their trampling of individual rights, anything that points out the similarities between their ideology and the truly brutal and repugnant tyrannies that share the same ideology are demonized.

 

[Bfgrn]

The left demonizes anything that gets in their way. Anything that interferes with their trampling of individual rights, anything that points out the similarities between their ideology and the truly brutal and repugnant tyrannies that share the same ideology are demonized.

Therein lies your problem. There are none. Liberalism is the antithesis of tyranny.


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.

of course that's idiotic and perfectly mistaken since an authoritarian needs the apparatus of a big liberal government to be authoritarian; so by definition authoritarians are liberal. Why do you think our liberals spied for Stalin?

See why we say liberalism is the absence of intelligence? Is an other conclusion possible?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Liberalism is the antithesis of tyranny.

how on earth would that be possible given that a tyranny requires a big liberal government???????

conservative governemnt cant be tyranical since the government is by definition limited. This is exactly 100% why our founders gave us a conservative limited government. Welcome to your very first lesson in American History.

 

[Oddball]

How many corporations (SME & Enterprise) are there in the US and the world, and what's the best resource to find this data?

The 2006 US Census Bureau estimates a total of 6 million firms based in the US. Of these, only 18,000 have more than 500 employees, yet they represent 50% of employment and 60% of total US revenues. To get the world numbers you would need to get census data for the main countries. For example, Mexico has over 4 million firms but only 4,000 are larger than 500 employees; Chile has 1 million firms but only 9,000 are big, and so on.
How many corporations (SME & Enterprise) are there in the US and the world, and what's the best resource to find this data? - Quora

Most incorporated businesses have less than 5 employees.

THIS is what the left demonizes.

LLC, LLP, and Inc - it's about limiting liability, not about size.

that isn't what the "left" demonizes.

i love when extremist toons pretend they know what "the other side" is thinking and then use what they made up to vilify the "other side"

The term "Randian" comes immediately to mind.