What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[zeke]

however... "comprise" to democrats means "DO THINGS OUR WAY, OR NO WAY."


You must mean like the way the Repubs showed a willingness to work on revenue increases. Is that the famous Repub "compromise" you were talking about?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Not having enough brainpower to understand their superior intellect?

Show some first, ass wipe.

Does this board now have any sane mods, or are they all wingnuts like you?

Wait a minute - I've been away from these boards for quite some time. Are you seriously telling me that Pale Rider (who calls people who disagree with him ass wipe) is a moderator???????

 

[nodoginnafight]

Bias <> Inaccurate.

Fox lacks the far left slant that other news agencies have. As such, we can say they have a center or right bias. They present things in ways that may not always be supportive of the democratic party. This sets them apart from CNN and MSDNC, but does that make them "inaccurate?" Is accuracy determined by how well a story serves the party? CBS certainly thinks so, but I'm not convinced.

Bias does not equate with 'inaccurate' or hype-partisanship.

When you have learned that a particular potting soil grows bigger, healthier, more robust and/or productive plants, you will develop a strong bias for that particular potting soil. It may or may not be the best there is, but you will look for it and buy it at Lowe's or Home Depot. The bias does not create inaccuracy. It only cxreates a preference for a particular product. If a better product is presented to us, our bias will likely change.

When you get past the minutiae and anecdotal stories and diversions involved with government policy, dedicated study, critical thinking, and objective analysis will produce conclusions that trigger a bias for or against particular government policies. That bias creates principles that guide us. Principles that may or may not be grounded in fact.

Example: if we conclude that local charities more often do a better job of helping people out of their unsatisfactory situations than big government programs do, and they do that far more efficiently, effectively, and economically than what big government programs can do, we will develop a strong bias in favor of local charities over big government programs to solve many different kinds of problems. Until somebody can show us that our bias is misplaced, that bias does not create inaccuracy. And it is that kind of bias that contributes to right wing ideology. Rejection of that concept contributes to leftwing ideology.

I can defend and support the rightwing ideology on that issue. I cannot defend and support the leftwing ideology on that issue. I don't think anbyody else can either. Therefore, on that issue, I am a rightwinger.

The left will look at Fox and think it is serving a particular party or candidate or whatever. I look at Fox and see a perspective presented in a different way--in the way I see it--as opposed to what I can get from the left leaning media who does not provide that perspective. If presenting a fact as a fact is inconvenient to the leftwing bias/perspective, it is nevertheless a fact and not at all dishonest or even necessarily biased.

Init sees that as dishonest. He has not provided any examples of such dishonesty, but his own bias does not seem to allow him to see it any other way.

I see Fox news reporting as some of the most balanced and fair that you can find anywhere. And they are the ONLY mainstream television news outlet that makes any effort to give the conservative point of view a fair hearing. Those with leftist bias hate them for that. Many hate them so much that they would destroy them and drive them off the air if they could.

But still facts are facts. If those facts are inconvenient to the particular ideological bias of somebody, it makes them no less facts. And if you present a fact as a fact, there is no other alternative to that. There is only alternatives in how the consequences of the fact will be interpreted.

Nuff said - you are hyper-partisan in spite of your protestations to the contrary. Fox news lies everytime they use the words "Fair and Balanced." Those who cocoon themselves in such biased "reporting" are doomed to know less than half there is to know about any issue and so their opinions cannot be trusted.

 

[bripat9643]

however... "comprise" to democrats means "DO THINGS OUR WAY, OR NO WAY."


You must mean like the way the Repubs showed a willingness to work on revenue increases. Is that the famous Repub "compromise" you were talking about?

Spening cuts first, revenue increases later.

That's how things are going to work from now on.

Charlie Brown isn't kicking the football any longer.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

Everything you're talking about makes for a great discussion but I think there is something more here, which is a divide that has brought someone like me to this site.

I think you're reflecting your own views and maybe not the views by the elected Republicans in Washington.

As fiscally conservative as you and I are, the House doesn't seem too much to care about passing a transportation bill. I mean, that stuff used to pass in everybody's sleep, didn't matter who was in charge.

My conservative friends might take offense to this, but it's my feeling that Washington Republicans seem to now hold the view that all gov't is bad, it must be stopped from spending except on tax cuts and defense and making gov't just small enough to get in our bedrooms.

I find there's a disconnect between some of us conservatives with the ruling conservatives.

I don't think I'm a bad Republican because I think helping to make our infrastructure work in a way that grows our economy is a good thing to do presently. I mean, this is a historically bi-partisan thing. One of Ike's biggest achievements was highways!

They're great for business! In real life, me and my conservative friends seem to be in agreeance on this stuff, but the folks in Washington appear to feel that all domestic spending is wasteful pork.

I just disagree, and I want them to pass something together.

I can't really comment so much on the "frustration with arguing with liberals", because I'm happy to argue with anybody and anybody who can give me more than just talking points gets my respect, left, right or center.

I mean, anyone stuck in talking points or in absolutes or extremes is frustrating to argue with because that person is bigoted, and bigotry is a word that has no party affiliation, imho.

Good post... however... "comprise" to democrats means "DO THINGS OUR WAY, OR NO WAY." We have seen that for the last decade or more. It's time for conservatives to take control away from the leftists because they have screwed things up under obama so bad in the last three years that it will take conservatives another decade to straighten it out.

#1... REPEAL OBAMACARE.

This is the type of dishonesty you see commonly from the right. When they are quilty of something - simply accuse the other side.

Anyone who has paid attention at all realizes that Obama's overtures at compromise have been bull-headedly rebuffed by the right. GREAT case in point is the individual mandate. Obama would have undoubtedly preffered a single-payer format. But he struck a compromise with the GOP and included THEIR individual mandate model instead. NOW the GOP claims it's communism.

So rather than own up to their obstructionism - they just claim it's the Democrats who are obstructing.

Now if you don't believe a measure is a good deal for the country - vote against it. And if you don't think it is wise to compromise or try to meet in the middle - that's fine. Don't do it. No problem there.

But when YOU are the ones rejecting and refusing to negotiate - it is lying to call the other guys the obstructionist. If you believe that what you are doing is right, why would you feel the need to lie about it?

 

[nodoginnafight]

however... "comprise" to democrats means "DO THINGS OUR WAY, OR NO WAY."


You must mean like the way the Repubs showed a willingness to work on revenue increases. Is that the famous Repub "compromise" you were talking about?

Spening cuts first, revenue increases later.

That's how things are going to work from now on.

Charlie Brown isn't kicking the football any longer.

Charlie Brown NEVER kicked the football.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

It can be very succinctly summed up by one quote:

That government is best which governs least -Thomas Paine

 

[nodoginnafight]

Dishonesty from the left:
I did not have sex with that woman
Al Gore on Climate Change
Today show doctoring Martin 911 tapes

Dishonesty on the right:
Pat Tilman
Jessica Lynch
Justifications for Iraq War
Fox news open mike gaffe caught over estimating Tea Party attendance

The truth is not a priority among the zealots of either end of the political spectrum. If you try to make excuses for the dishonesty of your ideology while holding the other guys' feet to the fire - you are a hyper-partisan.

 

[koshergrl]

The *dishonesty on the right* list is a little sketchy and open for debate.

Unlike the *dishonesty on the left* which are blatant lies....

 

[nodoginnafight]

The *dishonesty on the right* list is a little sketchy and open for debate.

Unlike the *dishonesty on the left* which are blatant lies....

The dishonesty on the right is clear and blatant - you just try to whitewash it because you agree with them.

That's exactly how hyper-partisanship works.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Everything you're talking about makes for a great discussion but I think there is something more here, which is a divide that has brought someone like me to this site.

I think you're reflecting your own views and maybe not the views by the elected Republicans in Washington.

As fiscally conservative as you and I are, the House doesn't seem too much to care about passing a transportation bill. I mean, that stuff used to pass in everybody's sleep, didn't matter who was in charge.

My conservative friends might take offense to this, but it's my feeling that Washington Republicans seem to now hold the view that all gov't is bad, it must be stopped from spending except on tax cuts and defense and making gov't just small enough to get in our bedrooms.

I find there's a disconnect between some of us conservatives with the ruling conservatives.

I don't think I'm a bad Republican because I think helping to make our infrastructure work in a way that grows our economy is a good thing to do presently. I mean, this is a historically bi-partisan thing. One of Ike's biggest achievements was highways!

They're great for business! In real life, me and my conservative friends seem to be in agreeance on this stuff, but the folks in Washington appear to feel that all domestic spending is wasteful pork.

I just disagree, and I want them to pass something together.

I can't really comment so much on the "frustration with arguing with liberals", because I'm happy to argue with anybody and anybody who can give me more than just talking points gets my respect, left, right or center.

I mean, anyone stuck in talking points or in absolutes or extremes is frustrating to argue with because that person is bigoted, and bigotry is a word that has no party affiliation, imho.

A well thought out post/argument and I agree with a lot of it. As a conservative, however, I do NOT want them to 'pass something together' just so they can say they passed something. I want them to pass good laws and good regulation in which the benefits far outweigh any negatives. And I want them to block and/or refuse to pass bad laws and bad regulation in which the negatives far outweigh any positives. And I want them to know the difference between these two things.

I also want them to understand what laws, regulation, and projects should be the prerogative of the Federal government and what should be left to the states to do. Ike's interstate highway system, for instance, was a legitimate federal prerogative because:

a) It was/is for the primary purpose of providing the common defense, a constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

b) It promoted the general welfare because it improves the quality of life for all Americans, rich and poor alike, without respect for party affiliation, race, ethnicity, ideology, or socioeconomic status.

In my opinion, the disconnect between the rank and file citizen and members of Congress, especially for Republicans who are more likely to resist an overreaching government while Democrats are more likely to embrace it, is that the current culture of the nanny state corrupts most of those who go to Washington. The ability to use the people's money to enhance the professional politician's power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth becomes a powerful addiction and the only thing that is important after awhile. And the people benefitting from government benevolence also become addicted and corrupted, which of course what keeps that viscious cycle going.

Take away the federal government's ability to use the people's money to buy power, influence, and personal wealth, and we will again have citizen legislators who are interested in doing the best job possible rather than concentrating on benefitting themselves. We would also see the election process significantly shortened and the process costing a tiny fraction of what it now costs to run for public office.

As for arguing with liberals, I thoroughly enjoy the mental workout with an intelligent, thoughtful, and well informed liberal. I do not enjoy arguing with the idiots, numbnuts, and exercises in futility all that much.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The dishonesty on the right is clear and blatant - you just try to whitewash it because you agree with them.

That's exactly how hyper-partisanship works.

There may be some that are, but not what you listed.

Clear and blatant:

Dan Rather forged then broadcast service records that impugned George W. Bush. There is no wiggle room, it was a fabricated hatchet job.

Jessica Lynch? Are you fucking kidding me? The military generally enhances battlefield heroics. There is nothing partisan about it, it's a psychological tool to glorify combat. Ultimately it's a recruitment tool. The ONLY reason that the party press decided to attack and tear down Lynch is to attack Bush. These types of war exaggerations are not only common, but the norm.

I don't think this works out for your side, bud. Lynch was savaged by the party press in an effort to attack the opposition party. I think this highlights the danger of having a news media that is dedicated to a certain party.

 

[koshergrl]

The *dishonesty on the right* list is a little sketchy and open for debate.

Unlike the *dishonesty on the left* which are blatant lies....

The dishonesty on the right is clear and blatant - you just try to whitewash it because you agree with them.

That's exactly how hyper-partisanship works.

No, it's not. I haven't whitewashed anything.

Getting caught red handed in a blatant lie and fabricating *facts* is a lot different than making a questionable decision about something, or withholding information for cause, or glorifying an event that maybe isn't as spectacular as you paint it, but still took place.

 

[Foxfyre]

The *dishonesty on the right* list is a little sketchy and open for debate.

Unlike the *dishonesty on the left* which are blatant lies....

The dishonesty on the right is clear and blatant - you just try to whitewash it because you agree with them.

That's exactly how hyper-partisanship works.

No, it's not. I haven't whitewashed anything.

Getting caught red handed in a blatant lie and fabricating *facts* is a lot different than making a questionable decision about something, or withholding information for cause, or glorifying an event that maybe isn't as spectacular as you paint it, but still took place.

So is sensationalizing a story for fun, profit, and/or political expediency or for ideological purposes a lot different than making a questionable decision or withholding information for justifiable cause. During WWII, the media was entrusted with a lot of information they were requested to sit on until a military initiative had been accomplished or other sensitive operations were no longer a factor. And in those days the media did act responsibly or they would not have been entrusted with the information.

Can you imagine giving such information to today's media? It would be akin to allowing our troops no suprises and being required to give full disclosure of our intentions to the enemy before lifting a finger.

Every single day in this country, horrendous crimes are committed far more terrible and viscious than anything that could have happened in the Zimmerman/Martin incident. But do we see the others addressed on every newscast or slapped across every front page? No, we don't.

We have the best educated, most professional, and best behaved military in the history of our country. But today the White House and Pentagon are all adither because of some photos published by the L.A. Times showing a few soldiers posing with dead Afghani suicide bombers. That kind of thing has been going on since there have been cameras, and while definitely a dumb thing to do to take photos and let them get out, it is something that warranted a reprimand from their immediate commanding officer and that should have been it. What made it a story was the LA Times sensationalizing it and making it into a huge deal.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

It can be very succinctly summed up by one quote:

That government is best which governs least -Thomas Paine

The man viewed as the philosophical founder of modern Conservatism:

"Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government"
Edmund Burke

 

[Mr.Nick]

however... "comprise" to democrats means "DO THINGS OUR WAY, OR NO WAY."


You must mean like the way the Repubs showed a willingness to work on revenue increases. Is that the famous Repub "compromise" you were talking about?

Yeah, compromise to democrats is "do it our way."

Besides - I would never compromise with democrats...

Democrats demands are unrealistic.....

 

[Londoner]

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.

Son, there is no government.

Our country is run by big business and concentrated wealth.

Eli Lilly, Goldman Sachs, and the Koch brothers have way more power than the President.

Son, ALL Media is owned by 5 mega-companies.

AOL/Time Warner
News Corp
Walt Disney
Viacom
Vivendi Universal

All sectors have been monopolized by a handful of companies. . . .

(Can you name the companies that make up Big Finance, Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and Big Oil? If you can't, you need to stop posting and do some research. You owe to yourself to learn who funds elections and staffs government)

Talk Radio and FOX News are paid to cover up who owns the country by directing rage at a straw man called government.

Were you out of the country during the Bush economic meltdown of 2008?

Did you not see the trillions handed by government to the private sector?

The American Government is a fake corporation used by business to absorb losses.

Your cliches about small government are too simplistic. They sound great but they ignore who really controls Washington.

(psst: Your view of government would make sense if Washington wasn't an ATM for business, handing out subsidies, pork, bridges to nowhere, and no-bids to the private sector. Son, private power, not government, runs the world. Your news sources have failed you. You still live in the world of Ayn Rand's youth, when Stalin stole her family's pharmacy. Time's have changed my boy. The pharmaceutical now owns government. Please turn off talk radio. You need to learn where the real concentrated power is)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Our country is run by big business and concentrated wealth.

Eli Lilly, Goldman Sachs, and the Koch brothers have way more power than the President.

Son, ALL Media is owned by 5 mega-companies.

AOL/Time Warner
News Corp
Walt Disney
Viacom
Vivendi Universal

All sectors have been monopolized by a handful of companies. . . .

(Can you name the companies that make up Big Finance, Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and Big Oil? If you can't, you need to stop posting and do some research. You owe to yourself to learn who funds elections and staffs government)

Talk Radio and FOX News are paid to cover up who owns the country by directing rage at a straw man called government.

Were you out of the country during the Bush economic meltdown of 2008?

Did you not see the trillions handed by government to the private sector?

The American Government is a fake corporation used by business to absorb losses.

Your cliches about small government are too simplistic. They sound great but they ignore who really controls Washington.

(psst: Your view of government would make sense if Washington wasn't an ATM for business, handing out subsidies, pork, bridges to nowhere, and no-bids to the private sector. Son, private power, not government, runs the world. Your news sources have failed you. You still live in the world of Ayn Rand's youth, when Stalin stole her family's pharmacy. Time's have changed my boy. The pharmaceutical now owns government. Please turn off talk radio. You need to learn where the real concentrated power is)

Absent the hyperbole there is an essence of truth to this, particularly the naïve notion of ‘small government.’

 

[bripat9643]

however... "comprise" to democrats means "DO THINGS OUR WAY, OR NO WAY."


You must mean like the way the Repubs showed a willingness to work on revenue increases. Is that the famous Repub "compromise" you were talking about?

Spening cuts first, revenue increases later.

That's how things are going to work from now on.

Charlie Brown isn't kicking the football any longer.

Charlie Brown NEVER kicked the football.

That's because Lucie always pulls it away. Democrats never come through on the spending cuts they promise. That's why the Republicans would have to be certifiable morons to vote for more tax increases.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Absent the hyperbole there is an essence of truth to this, particularly the naïve notion of ‘small government.’

why naive when Jefferson created America to be about freedom or small government and in doing so created the greatest country in human history.

There could be no liberal fascist or crony capitalist welfare if liberals would shrink the government to a Jeffersonian size.

Liberals have a low IQ and so always imagine that BO for example will be a good liberal fascist heatlh care czar, not a bad liberal fascist health care czar. Jefferson knew better 200 years ago.