Why do people hate Liberals?

[RKMBrown]

Most of his Liberal arguments were lame at best. He should of made an intelligent point on the Liberal side of things to be truly clever.

But that would be unrealistic and tip the reader off that the point was not made by a leftist.

And yes, that would be an interesting experiment to try. I'll bet it would be difficult for people on both sides to step outside their shell and argue the other side intelligently.

One side is based on a rational and intelligent analysis of events and factors, and the other side is the left.

I could do it. I could make the argument for the liberal side using conservative statements.

For example:

Unemployment. I would argue, correctly, that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. You see, most of the unemployed actually slow everyone down at work. Thus paying them to stay home is a net increase in productivity.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I could do it. I could make the argument for the liberal side using conservative statements.

For example:

Unemployment. I would argue, correctly, that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. You see, most of the unemployed actually slow everyone down at work. Thus paying them to stay home is a net increase in productivity.

Intelligent argument!

You must operate within the parameters of the challenge.

 

[RKMBrown]

I could do it. I could make the argument for the liberal side using conservative statements.

For example:

Unemployment. I would argue, correctly, that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. You see, most of the unemployed actually slow everyone down at work. Thus paying them to stay home is a net increase in productivity.

Intelligent argument!

You must operate within the parameters of the challenge.

I forgot. What are the challenge rules? Make the argument for the left that is unintelligent? If I do that I'll just get negged again. Should I make an unintelligent conservative argument for the left side? I'm getting confused.

 

[Wolfsister77]

Most of his Liberal arguments were lame at best. He should of made an intelligent point on the Liberal side of things to be truly clever.

But that would be unrealistic and tip the reader off that the point was not made by a leftist.

And yes, that would be an interesting experiment to try. I'll bet it would be difficult for people on both sides to step outside their shell and argue the other side intelligently.

One side is based on a rational and intelligent analysis of events and factors, and the other side is the left.

I could do it. I could make the argument for the liberal side using conservative statements.

For example:

Unemployment. I would argue, correctly, that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. You see, most of the unemployed actually slow everyone down at work. Thus paying them to stay home is a net increase in productivity.

Makes no sense and you have no proof.

 

[RKMBrown]

But that would be unrealistic and tip the reader off that the point was not made by a leftist.



One side is based on a rational and intelligent analysis of events and factors, and the other side is the left.

I could do it. I could make the argument for the liberal side using conservative statements.

For example:

Unemployment. I would argue, correctly, that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. You see, most of the unemployed actually slow everyone down at work. Thus paying them to stay home is a net increase in productivity.

Makes no sense and you have no proof.

Keeping employees on that are a net negative is what makes no sense.

Not All Employee Turnover Is Bad ? Celebrate ?Losing the Losers? - ERE.net

At least 25% of all turnover is “desirable turnover.”

Current unemployment is under 25%, thus my statement that the majority of the unemployed are a good thing is not only provable. I could argue that 100% of all unemployed workers are good for us because they are in the 25% that is desirable turnover.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I could do it. I could make the argument for the liberal side using conservative statements.

For example:

Unemployment. I would argue, correctly, that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. You see, most of the unemployed actually slow everyone down at work. Thus paying them to stay home is a net increase in productivity.

Intelligent argument!

You must operate within the parameters of the challenge.

I forgot. What are the challenge rules? Make the argument for the left that is unintelligent? If I do that I'll just get negged again. Should I make an unintelligent conservative argument for the left side? I'm getting confused.

The argument you made, was indeed typical of what I expect from the left; but failed to prove your point because it was a stupid argument.

You said you could make an intelligent argument from the left.

Assertion: Business is better off with high unemployment

Reasoning: The unemployed slow everyone down at work

Conclusion: Paying people to stay home increases productivity


So, your syllogism is entirely stupid and utterly illogical. While a fine example of an argument one would expect from Rdean or Synthaholic - it is anything but intelligent.

 

[RKMBrown]

Assertion: Business is better off with high unemployment

Reasoning: The unemployed slow everyone down at work

Conclusion: Paying people to stay home increases productivity


So, your syllogism is entirely stupid and utterly illogical. While a fine example of an argument one would expect from Rdean or Synthaholic - it is anything but intelligent.

Your analysis is flawed, because you miss quoted me. I'll correct your error:

Assertion: Business is better off booting bad workers onto the unemployment line
Reasoning: The selected bad workers reduce overall productivity
Conclusion: Paying bad workers to stay home increases productivity

It's really a simple argument. If I'm paying someone 20k a year and they worth -5k a year to me (25k in production -20k in salary -10k) in errors and reduced production, then I would be better off paying them to go on the unemployment line for a few months to a year. My net increase is 5k a year by booting him. Simple math.

 

[Wolfsister77]

Why do you think all people on unemployment are lazy and not good workers? Perfectly good employees get laid off or lose their jobs for various reasons.

Wouldn't it be better if more of the unemployed were working to not only contribute to the tax base but also to buy the products that businesses sell and wouldn't it also be a fair argument to say low unemployment helps the economy and therefore helps business?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your analysis is flawed, because you miss quoted me. I'll correct your error:

Assertion: Business is better off booting bad workers onto the unemployment line
Reasoning: The selected bad workers reduce overall productivity
Conclusion: Paying bad workers to stay home increases productivity

It's really a simple argument. If I'm paying someone 20k a year and they worth -5k a year to me (25k in production -20k in salary -10k) in errors and reduced production, then I would be better off paying them to go on the unemployment line for a few months to a year. My net increase is 5k a year by booting him. Simple math.

I did NOT misquote you, I used your exact words - you have attempted to rewrite your claim once it was demonstrated how stupid your assertion was.

FURTHER - now that it is rewritten, it is no longer consistent with leftist thought.

Firing dead wood is something a leftist would NEVER advocate.

 

[koshergrl]

I hate liberals because they're dishonest fascists.

 

[Wolfsister77]

OK-firing unproductive workers is different than what you originally said which was that companies should pay the unemployed to stay home and not work because they are not productive.

Were you just talking about firing unproductive workers or were you talking about paying the unemployed to stay home?

 

[RKMBrown]

You said and I quote

Assertion: Business is better off with high unemployment

Reasoning: The unemployed slow everyone down at work

Conclusion: Paying people to stay home increases productivity

However that is not what I said. I did not make the assertion that "Business is better off with high unemployment." You are lying.

What I said is "that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home." That is not the same as high unemployment is good. You are just making shit up. Typical righty.

 

[RKMBrown]

Your analysis is flawed, because you miss quoted me. I'll correct your error:

Assertion: Business is better off booting bad workers onto the unemployment line
Reasoning: The selected bad workers reduce overall productivity
Conclusion: Paying bad workers to stay home increases productivity

It's really a simple argument. If I'm paying someone 20k a year and they worth -5k a year to me (25k in production -20k in salary -10k) in errors and reduced production, then I would be better off paying them to go on the unemployment line for a few months to a year. My net increase is 5k a year by booting him. Simple math.

I did NOT misquote you, I used your exact words - you have attempted to rewrite your claim once it was demonstrated how stupid your assertion was.

FURTHER - now that it is rewritten, it is no longer consistent with leftist thought.

Firing dead wood is something a leftist would NEVER advocate.

Wrong you lied. Hint. Use quotes pecker wood.

 

[koshergrl]

And their eternal yapping about how smart they are gets wearisome. Academia maintains they are the smartest people in the world..and the leftist loons who swallow what they're fed by academia think there's some sort of magical transferrence...as if they can osmos and absorb the *intelligence* and *intellectualism* the academics maintain drives their lofty ideals.

And their leaders view them as expendable, stupid sheep. The only people impressed by them are...well, they themselves.

 

[RKMBrown]

OK-firing unproductive workers is different than what you originally said which was that companies should pay the unemployed to stay home and not work because they are not productive.

Were you just talking about firing unproductive workers or were you talking about paying the unemployed to stay home?

Your no different than all the other righty liars. I said "that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. " Use quotes next time instead of rewriting what I said based on your bad memory and horrible reading skills.

Hint: Most unemployed workers were workers at one point in time that got fired because they were unproductive workers. The ones that were productive workers... but got laid off anyways, yeah they don't stay unemployed long enough to collect many if any unemployment checks.

Therefore by logical reasoning... almost all if not all of the people who get on and stay on unemployment ... yeah for those folks we are better off they stay there rather than they screw up someone's business by getting hired again

 

[Wolfsister77]

You said and I quote

Assertion: Business is better off with high unemployment

Reasoning: The unemployed slow everyone down at work

Conclusion: Paying people to stay home increases productivity

However that is not what I said. I did not make the assertion that "Business is better off with high unemployment." You are lying.

What I said is "that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home." That is not the same as high unemployment is good. You are just making shit up. Typical righty.

You changed your story. This is not really a good example of how Liberals or Conservatives argue. It is just a really bad argument in general and when you were called on it, you changed it to something more reasonable and you were called on that too.

Like I said before, Lame.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You said and I quote

Assertion: Business is better off with high unemployment

Reasoning: The unemployed slow everyone down at work

Conclusion: Paying people to stay home increases productivity

However that is not what I said. I did not make the assertion that "Business is better off with high unemployment." You are lying.

What I said is "that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home." That is not the same as high unemployment is good. You are just making shit up. Typical righty.

Again, I backquoted your exact words.

{Unemployment. I would argue, correctly, that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. You see, most of the unemployed actually slow everyone down at work. Thus paying them to stay home is a net increase in productivity.}

I then broke it into a syllogism to demonstrate how deeply flawed it is - after which you began rewriting the entire premise.

 

[Wolfsister77]

OK-firing unproductive workers is different than what you originally said which was that companies should pay the unemployed to stay home and not work because they are not productive.

Were you just talking about firing unproductive workers or were you talking about paying the unemployed to stay home?

Your not different than all the other righty liars. I said "that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. " Use quotes next time instead of rewriting what I said based on your bad memory and horrible reading skills.

Calling me a righty is funny.

You could be giving an example of a really bad debater on either side of the political spectrum. It isn't right or left. It's just dumb.

I see what you're doing but it doesn't work.

Although it could if, like I said earlier, you gave an INTELLIGENT Liberal argument.

 

[RKMBrown]

And their eternal yapping about how smart they are gets wearisome. Academia maintains they are the smartest people in the world..and the leftist loons who swallow what they're fed by academia think there's some sort of magical transferrence...as if they can osmos and absorb the *intelligence* and *intellectualism* the academics maintain drives their lofty ideals.

And their leaders view them as expendable, stupid sheep. The only people impressed by them are...well, they themselves.

Should I make that argument too from the right? I'm a non-liberal arts computer science geek with a math major and an IQ/brain the size of the planet. I can out think, out smart, and out liberals in my sleep. How am I doing

 

[RKMBrown]

You said and I quote

Assertion: Business is better off with high unemployment

Reasoning: The unemployed slow everyone down at work

Conclusion: Paying people to stay home increases productivity

However that is not what I said. I did not make the assertion that "Business is better off with high unemployment." You are lying.

What I said is "that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home." That is not the same as high unemployment is good. You are just making shit up. Typical righty.

Again, I backquoted your exact words.

{Unemployment. I would argue, correctly, that our businesses are better off with most of the unemployed being paid to stay at home. You see, most of the unemployed actually slow everyone down at work. Thus paying them to stay home is a net increase in productivity.}

I then broke it into a syllogism to demonstrate how deeply flawed it is - after which you began rewriting the entire premise.

Your assertion was not my assertion. It was your poor reading skills that led you to an incorrect assumption of what I meant by my opening statement. IOW you lied.