What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[Vast LWC]

LOL, you really need to get over it.

Just about everything I say is honest and truthful.

Just because you don't happen to agree with my points, or happen to think that my data is wrong, doesn't make me a liar.

It might (rarely), make me mistaken but that is the point of debate, to prove the other person wrong, now isn't it?

I believe it was Kant who pointed out the difference between "Truthfulness", which is when you believe you are telling the truth, and "The Truth". Apparently you don't realize the difference, and so accuse me of being dishonest whenever you happen to disagree with me.

Strange though, that instead of trying to prove me wrong, you instead resort to personal attacks and odd instances of meaningless neg-repping.

And it's especially ironic in a conversation specifically about how difficult it can sometimes be to talk to people who are politically diametrically opposed to you.

Apparently, you still don't really see the irony in that, but that's OK. You are who you are KG.

 

[Vast LWC]

And I will neg you again as soon as I possibly can.

Oh, dear Lord, is he sniveling about rep AGAIN? Why does he think anyone cares?

Personally, I could care less, I was simply making fun of KG for wasting a little of her time each day to Neg-Rep me.

I think it's a bit on the silly side, but to each their own.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

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.

You are correct. We are intended to be a Federal Republic, not a flaming, draconian, socialist democracy.

We are:, "all for one and one for all", period!!!

Robert

 

[Cecilie1200]

And I will neg you again as soon as I possibly can.

Oh, dear Lord, is he sniveling about rep AGAIN? Why does he think anyone cares?

Personally, I could care less, I was simply making fun of KG for wasting a little of her time each day to Neg-Rep me.

I think it's a bit on the silly side, but to each their own.

OF COURSE you don't care . . . which is why you post and snivel about it each and every time it happens.

 

[Vast LWC]

You are correct. We are intended to be a Federal Republic, not a flaming, draconian, socialist democracy.

We are:, "all for one and one for all", period!!!

Robert

Of course, in a Republic, it is up to the people, and the elected representatives of those people, to decide on the nature of the government.

That of course was the point of the founding fathers in allowing for changes to be made in the law of the land.

And I'm not really sure if the people of Sweden, for instance, would agree that their government is "draconian", but I imagine that is a matter for interpretation.

 

[Vast LWC]

OF COURSE you don't care . . . which is why you post and snivel about it each and every time it happens.

Blah, blah, blah....

You gonna waste your time neg-repping me too?

Oh Noes! I'z scared!

If "sniveling" is the same as "laughing at you for being petty", then I guess I must "snivel" a lot in your Bizarro world.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Of course, in a Republic, it is up to the people, and the elected representatives of those people, to decide on the nature of the government.

That of course was the point of the founding fathers in allowing for changes to be made in the law of the land.

Uh, the method proscribed by the founding fathers to change the law of the land is the amendment process, not edicts by an unelected judiciary.

 

[Vast LWC]

But really, I've had enough of proving my point here.

LOL.

 

[Vast LWC]

Uh, the method proscribed by the founding fathers to change the law of the land is the amendment process, not edicts by an unelected judiciary.

And?

There was no method mentioned there, only a blanket statement as to what the government "should" be.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Conservatives say they are for limited government but they're really not.

there has not been one so called conservative president who actually decreased the size, scope and cost of government in the last half century

 

[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.

Conservatives say they are for limited government but they're really not.

there has not been one so called conservative president who actually decreased the size, scope and cost of government in the last half century

Truth.

Oh sure, they all say they want to reduce government. But it never actually happens.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Conservatives say they are for limited government but they're really not.

there has not been one so called conservative president who actually decreased the size, scope and cost of government in the last half century

I think conservatives really are committed to limited governmetn. I think they have just made the mistake in the past of trusting the wrong people.

I think they're coming around now, and I think the ranks are increasing. I hope so.

 

[Clementine]

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.

I agree with you. Government does have a purpose, but was never meant to micro-manage the country like they are attempting to do. We have departments for everything and, for the most part, they are useless and do not achieve what they were created to do. Take the Dept of Energy, which was created to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Yea, good job guys. We are more dependent than ever, the dept has increased in size over the years and they have a gigantic, ever-growing budget. What the hell are they doing, anyway?

The Dept of Education hasn't improved education over the years. We still hear the same complaints, maybe more so. Seems that when government starts hiring bureaucrats to solve a problem and throws millions, even billions at them to fix things, they manage to make things worse.

The war on welfare hasn't decrease the number of poor, nor has it elevated anyone. It has caused millions to become helpless and rely on government to survive. And they pretend they are unaware that their dependents won't bite the hand that gives them freebies.

Liberals especially like power and have the audacity to believe that they know better than the rest of us how we should live our lives. We are too stupid to know what to eat unless they tell us. hence the food police in schools. Still amazed that a government agent actually confiscated that child's turkey sandwich and claimed it wasn't adequate.

I imagine that the liberals see a country of people who sit drooling on themselves and praying that an appointed czar or other government official will come and tell them what they should do.

Liberals falsely claim that they are the benevolent ones. They want to give everyone a fish every day to ensure they don't starve while Repubs think people should not only get what they need on their own (what a feeling of accomplishment), but go further and create their own business catching fish and create jobs.

No liberal program has worked as promised. Billions spent on the war on poverty have left record numbers on welfare. Schools are still zoos where kids can't read and write.

It's hard to argue with them because they'll talk about their good intentions. They refuse to acknowledge the failure of every program, but want us to feel good because they claim to care. (of course, they care about their cushy government jobs with all the perks they gave themselves)

Of course, for some liberals, it really is about being all touchy feely. For those in government, it isn't about caring or wanting to see people succeed. It's about power and control. You can't control an independent, self-sufficient population. There must be a crisis, or two or three, that government must save them from and I think government creates most problems. They are not the solution, though often at the root of the problem.

Government's role is to create and enforce fair laws and all must be according to the constitution. Obama is forever confounded by the constitution and sees it as a road block. As he stated in the radio interview while senator of IL, he feels the founders got it wrong. The constitution doesn't allow government to do enough. I guess the fact that it gave the power to the people by design isn't something he understands or appreciates. I suspect he feels that the general public isn't smart enough to have any power, so should cede it to higher beings like himself.

Liberals will tell you they are kind because they care about poor, illegal aliens and even terrorist suspects. Never mind they make things worse with their programs they claim will help. It only helps the liberal politicians in the long run because it keeps them in power and it gives them excuses to continue to confiscate our money and our freedom. You can't argue with big egos, benighted followers or those with a radical agenda. They will attack you viciously because any dissention slows them down. You know, narcissists can't tolerate criticism and arguing with them sets them off.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

there has not been one so called conservative president who actually decreased the size, scope and cost of government in the last half century

this is obviously because independents decide elections, not because conservatives and libertarians are not conservatives and libertarians.
This is a concept far over a liberals head I'm afraid.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You know, narcissists can't tolerate criticism and arguing with them sets them off.

yes great points!! The liberal is a morality bigot. They feel superior merely because they support welfare of all kinds. Liberal programs amounted to a near genocide against American blacks but even that did not slow liberals down.


we could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism- Walter Williams

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often weren’t permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do,” Mr. Williams says. “And that is to destroy the black family.”

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Truth.

Oh sure, they all say they want to reduce government. But it never actually happens.

Republicans since Jefferson, the first Republican, have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments. Liberals have killed them all, every last one. What does that tell you??

 

[Vast LWC]

Clementine,

The Department of Energy was created to oversee the "United States' policies regarding energy and safety in handling nuclear material."

"Its responsibilities include the nation's nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor production for the United States Navy, energy conservation, energy-related research, radioactive waste disposal, and domestic energy production. DOE also sponsors more basic and applied scientific research than any other US federal agency; most of this is funded through its system of United States Department of Energy National Laboratories."

Source: United States Department of Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was definitely not "was created to decrease our dependence on foreign oil".



The recent success or failure of the Department of Education is debatable, depending on your point of view, but our children have in fact been being educated, for some time now, at a reasonable rate for a relatively reasonable cost.


I wasn't aware there was a "war on welfare". When did that start?


Aside from that, your post consists of broad generalizations concerning a group of people that you apparently don't understand, or try to understand at all.

And, in the end, I believe that is what "makes arguing with liberals so frustrating" to some conservatives, to answer the OP. (Notice I said "some")

Some conservatives have a pre-conceived notion about what it is to be a liberal. Usually that pre-conceived notion is based on a lot of mis-information that they are fed by people who's job it is to convince them that liberals are their enemy. And so, usually, said pre-conceived notions are incorrect.

If you start with an imperfect understanding of the person you are talking to, and never bother to try to understand them better, you will continuously be frustrated when you attempt to speak to them.

Don't get me wrong, there are MANY people on the left-hand side of the fence that do the exact same thing. Pre-conceived labels and pre-judgments are not limited to any one group.

But the question was asked, and there's your answer. Like it or not.

 

[Vast LWC]

this is obviously because independents decide elections, not because conservatives and libertarians are not conservatives and libertarians.
This is a concept far over a liberals head I'm afraid.

But Conservatives are not Libertarians.

True libertarians would agree as much with true liberals as they would with true conservatives.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

our children have in fact been being educated, for some time now, at a reasonable rate for a relatively reasonable cost.

where have you been??? Our kids are the dumbest in the civilized world thanks to liberalism. Conservatives want a revolution for the most obvious reasons on earth, while liberals lack the IQ to understand at all.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

this is obviously because independents decide elections, not because conservatives and libertarians are not conservatives and libertarians.
This is a concept far over a liberals head I'm afraid.

But Conservatives are not Libertarians.

True libertarians would agree as much with true liberals as they would with true conservatives.

Jefferson was a Republican for very very limited government as are Ron Paul, Grover Norquist, Newt, Tea Party, and Reagan.