What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[koshergrl]

They did a study of people who watch all the news like CBS and CNN and Fox viewer and Daily Show viewers and Daily Show viewers overwhelmingly had their facts straight and Fox viewers were the most uninformed of all the respondents.

False.

As is the case with most leftists - you're simply lying. (And too fucking stupid to grasp that this was debunked years ago.)

PolitiFact | Jon Stewart says those who watch Fox News are the "most consistently misinformed media viewers"

Wrong again bucko! Let me explain. So Fox sent another survey out asking questions about things they weren't purposely misleading their viewers on, and on those questions/stories/facts, Fox viewers did very well.

Do you understand what I am saying? The original survey asked quesitons like

Was Saddam involved in 9-11 or Did your taxes go up or down under Obama and on questions where Fox has been lying to you, Fox viewers prove the lies have worked. Fox viewer are the most misinformed. Why else did a judge rule that Fox can legally lie?

So Fox viewers are still the most misinformed viewers. Not because they are dumb or not paying attention. In fact, the survey proves that Fox's brainwashing is working

And we're supposed to just take your word on this?

Lol..loser.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Except for maybe a year when Tom Dashell and Pat Leahy were around, the GOP controlled all three branches of government. Remember that was when Chaney sent both of them Anthrax because they were against the Patriot Act.

Fucktardation - it's a real problem.

Once Chaney got rid of them,

That would be "Cheney," fucktard - "Cheney."

the GOP controlled the House, Senate and White House.

And those are the three branches of government, fucktard?

Tom Delay ran the House like a hammer.

You misspelled "whorehouse," moron.

Trent Lott was Senate Majority leader or Bill Frist from 2003 to 2006. They did a lot of damage in those years. A LOT.

Yep - GDP growth above 5% - unemployment below it.

Things are so much better now that Barry has Unemployment close to 9% and GDP below 2%....

We held a slim majority in the Senate for a couple years. But from 2003 to 2006, the GOP controlled all three. Senate, House and White House.

And remember if Democratic senators didn't go along with Bush bankrupting in Iraq, we weren't supporting the troops. You guys were good at getting your way. The corporate media helped.

I find it funny more Republicans don't remember this.

Are you a conservative doing a sock-puppet to defame the left?

Serious question....

 

[Uncensored2008]

That would be TWO branches of government, the Executive and the Legislative.

I knew you were stupid but damn!!!!

Oh and where is your proof that Cheney sent both of them Anthrax because they were against the Patriot Act?

He can't be for real.

He has to be a sock spoofing the fucktard left.

 

[koshergrl]

No, he really is that stupid.

 

[thereisnospoon]

To return to the original thread topic, the most frustrating thing about arguing with liberals, hands down, is that they're so damned IGNORANT and uninformed. It's just appalling.

Here is what makes arguing with us so frustrating. We have award winning documentaries explaining in full detail exactly how your party crashed the economy.

For example, the MoveOn Academy Award-winning documentary Inside Job. The film explains how Wall Street destroyed the economy and cost millions of Americans their homes, jobs, and retirements.

Show me one documentary, Acadamy award winning or not that explains your version of who's responsible for crashing the economy.

And stop saying the media is liberal. If it were, you would already know that Wallstreet and the GOP policies from 2000-2006 are what crashed the economy.

But you don't know, because the media is corporate owned and controlled and you are brainwashed if you are middle class and still voting GOP.

Yes... You can go on believing this if it makes you feel better.
Award winning...Give me a huge fucking break.
Listen sunshine, you have been bleating out all kinds of out of the Solar System conspiracy theories on here which leaves you the credibility level of precisely DICK.
MoveOn?.....Are you on crack? Do you know who owns moveon.org?
If I were a lib, I'd shove a wet sock in your mouth and cut off your internet because I would not want a fucking kook like you speaking for me.
You are far left wing moon bat.
i can hear the crinkling of your tin foil hat from here.

 

[Bern80]

Healthcare companies can not be allowed to monopolize and gouge us and deny coverage for pre existing conditions. I know your free market thinking says they can, but they can't, or shouldn't be allowed. Big diff between the Dems and GOP. Dems won't let the oil and healthcare and things that need to be regulated go unregulated.

Monopoly in the health care industry? What exactly are you smoking? There's no monoply in health care providers. There are all kinds of insurance companies owned by different. And all kinds of different doctors and hospitals. The only way we're going to be in jeopardy of having an actual monopoly is if government sticks its nose in more or takes it over all together. Good god man in your very next paragraph you essentially argue FOR a monopoly if you're suggesting in to be nationalized or socialized. That would be a monopoly. Pribate monopolies are bad, but government ones, those are okay huh?

We made a deal with the heatlhcare giants long ago to be the middle man between us and doctors. If they are gouging us, we will nationalize or socialize it. Same with gas. We let them have our land cheap to dig for oil and they don't gouge us. If they do, maybe its time we nationalize the oil companies. Do you understand these corporations have lobbied the GOP and even Democrats to turn a blind eye as they needlessly jack up prices.

There in lies the problem. That is not a deal we should have made. That was immoral and irresponsible on the part of consumers like you. You libs are sickening. You want no responsibility for anything. You idiots don't get if the public took some responsibility and did its own regulating as it should in a free market you would see the cost of health care fall

And the auto industry is too important to let it go overseas with the rest of the manufacturing community. Every other country knows to protect their vital industries, except the USA, because the people who own those companies think Americans make too much money.

and de-unionizing would go a long way to accomplishing that

The rich pay the majority of the taxes only because they have the majority of our wealth. The less we make, the less we pay in taxes. Pay us more so we can pay more in taxes. Easy solution.[/QUOTRE]

Stupid solution void of reason. You are not compensated based on need. You are compensated based on your value. When you become more valuable then you can earn more and pay more taxes. Or how about you just fork more over voluntarily if you think government needs more?

And they don't pay more percentage wise. They actually only pay 12% or less. We pay more than 30%.

And 6 percent on your groceries means a lot more to you than it does to a rich person.

The middle class is getting hosed!

So how about we bring everyone's taxes down to what the rich pay percentage wise instead of suggesting they pay more?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So how about we bring everyone's taxes down to what the rich pay percentage wise instead of suggesting they pay more?

if you do that the liberal Marxist class warfare argument has no purpose?

The rich have to be evil even as they obviously contribute more to society than the poor.

 

[newpolitics]

So how about we bring everyone's taxes down to what the rich pay percentage wise instead of suggesting they pay more?

if you do that the liberal Marxist class warfare argument has no purpose?

The rich have to be evil even as they obviously contribute more to society than the poor.

What do they contribute to society? They are a selfish golfing class. It is impossible that they contribute more to society than the poor, because there are so few of them, they merely possess all of the power concentrated into a few hands. This doesn't make them virtuous. Just the opposite. Many are liars, cheaters, and thieves who have swindled their way to the top. Some are honest who just worked hard. The poor perform all of the duties that make this country run. Without them, you're fucked, so stop acting so high and mighty about who is 'more' important. It's completely ridiculous.

 

[uscitizen]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating?

It is always frustrating when you are proven to be wrong.

just sayin.

Not that all liberals are correct, but neither are all cons.

 

[Vast LWC]

Being wrong is always frustrating.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So how about we bring everyone's taxes down to what the rich pay percentage wise instead of suggesting they pay more?

if you do that the liberal Marxist class warfare argument has no purpose?

The rich have to be evil even as they obviously contribute more to society than the poor.

For liberalism/progressiveism(sic) to survive it must create an enemy. In this case the perceived enemy is wealth and those who posses wealth.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Being wrong is always frustrating.

Well, you would be the expert on that.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So how about we bring everyone's taxes down to what the rich pay percentage wise instead of suggesting they pay more?

if you do that the liberal Marxist class warfare argument has no purpose?

The rich have to be evil even as they obviously contribute more to society than the poor.

What do they contribute to society? They are a selfish golfing class. It is impossible that they contribute more to society than the poor, because there are so few of them, they merely possess all of the power concentrated into a few hands. This doesn't make them virtuous. Just the opposite. Many are liars, cheaters, and thieves who have swindled their way to the top. Some are honest who just worked hard. The poor perform all of the duties that make this country run. Without them, you're fucked, so stop acting so high and mighty about who is 'more' important. It's completely ridiculous.

Is spewing old hat cliches high on your list of hobbies?
Hey douche bag...I am not rich and I play as much golf as time allows.
Yes yes yes....Wealthy people need to be punished just because they are wealthy.
This is one of the major issues which makes liberalism unpopular. That is, liberalism in order to function must create criminals. It must create a perception of the existence of pf people who are inherently evil by their very existence.
BTW, poor people DO NOT produce anything. For the most part the working poor are that way because they work low wage or entry level service jobs. These jobs are low paying because they produce little if any revenue for the employer. Even though these jobs are necessary, the workers are plentiful that can do them. This of course is one more confirmation that labor is indeed a commodity. Because there is low demand and an abundant supply of unskilled workers, wages for these positions are low. It is what it is.
Newsflash..there is no nobility in poverty.
Without wealth, there is no job creation. Period.
Maybe your friends and neighbors honor your hammer and sickle ideas, but around here it will get you slammed off the planet.

 

[uscitizen]

So how about we bring everyone's taxes down to what the rich pay percentage wise instead of suggesting they pay more?

if you do that the liberal Marxist class warfare argument has no purpose?

The rich have to be evil even as they obviously contribute more to society than the poor.

For liberalism/progressiveism(sic) to survive it must create an enemy. In this case the perceived enemy is wealth and those who posses wealth.

And the perceived enemy of the right is the poor. The non Christians, etc.

Same game different channel.
Do not play the game, see the truth.

 

[thereisnospoon]

if you do that the liberal Marxist class warfare argument has no purpose?

The rich have to be evil even as they obviously contribute more to society than the poor.

For liberalism/progressiveism(sic) to survive it must create an enemy. In this case the perceived enemy is wealth and those who posses wealth.

And the perceived enemy of the right is the poor. The non Christians, etc.

Same game different channel.
Do not play the game, see the truth.

Please give examples of how and where conservatives consider the poor to be their enemy?
Provide examples of facts that state all Christians are conservatives and also provide examples of how all non-Christians are not Conservative.
See ya in about a month with your bullshit Huff Puff link.

 

[Peach]

So how about we bring everyone's taxes down to what the rich pay percentage wise instead of suggesting they pay more?

if you do that the liberal Marxist class warfare argument has no purpose?

The rich have to be evil even as they obviously contribute more to society than the poor.

The rich have to be evil even as they obviously contribute more to society than the poor.
****************************************

That knocks out Mother Teresa, Ghandi, Poe, Keats, Mendel, ETC. as contributing to society.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So how about we bring everyone's taxes down to what the rich pay percentage wise instead of suggesting they pay more?

if you do that the liberal Marxist class warfare argument has no purpose?

The rich have to be evil even as they obviously contribute more to society than the poor.

The rich have to be evil even as they obviously contribute more to society than the poor.
****************************************

That knocks out Mother Teresa, Ghandi, Poe, Keats, Mendel, ETC. as contributing to society.

Who said anything about those extraordinary people?
I think you just out yourself. Next time, don't text while walking. Door and walls can get in the way.

 

[yidnar]

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.

arguing with a liberal is like arguing with a spoiled teen ..

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

arguing with a liberal is like arguing with a spoiled teen ..

Arguing with liberals is like trying to herd house cats.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating?

It is always frustrating when you are proven to be wrong.

So you must be constantly frustrated.

just sayin.

Not that all liberals are correct, but neither are all cons.

Leftists recite what the hive instructs, right and wrong aren't concepts that the drones grasp.