Why do people hate Liberals?

[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 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

OK, I quoted you this time. Your exact comments are visible. How easy is it to collect unemployment if you were fired for being unproductive? Also, are you kidding me? Many folks who are laid off are on unemployment for extended periods of time due to the terrible job market.

Again, it would greatly benefit business for unemployment to be low so people are contributing to the tax base and buying products that these business sell. Also, the better the economy, the better it is for business.

 

[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 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.

Typical authoritarian. You have lost the argument... the debate is mine... so now you are deflecting.

 

[Wolfsister77]

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.

Typical authoritarian. You have lost the argument... the debate is mine... so now you are deflecting.

Declaring victory already?

 

[Wolfsister77]

What you are doing is too easy RKMBrown.

 

[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

OK, I quoted you this time. Your exact comments are visible. How easy is it to collect unemployment if you were fired for being unproductive? Also, are you kidding me? Many folks who are laid off are on unemployment for extended periods of time due to the terrible job market.

Again, it would greatly benefit business for unemployment to be low so people are contributing to the tax base and buying products that these business sell. Also, the better the economy, the better it is for business.

>>> How easy is it to collect unemployment if you were fired for being unproductive?

Very. I have two different relatives that collected it for two years straight under Obama. It's only hard to collect unemployment if you were fired for misconduct.

>>> Also, are you kidding me?

I'll tell you that after I win the argument. I'll switch sides and win the other way.

>>> Many folks who are laid off are on unemployment for extended periods of time due to the terrible job market.

Anyone that refuses to "work" for an extended period of time.. yeah for those people we are better off paying them to not work than to have them pollute the employers who actually want good workers. People can move, people can work for themselves. No excuses. If you need one .. you are a bad worker anyways.

>>> Again, it would greatly benefit business for unemployment to be low so people are contributing to the tax base and buying products that these business sell. Also, the better the economy, the better it is for business.

Wrong. Not with these people. We are better off shuffling these people into small apartments where they will just be consumers and possibly sire children that may be more productive than they are. Or perhaps they can serve some other useful function at home. Either way we are better off with them out of the job market. That way the good workers have jobs, vs having to compete for jobs with the bad workers. Think about it this way. At school they are only allowed to move on when the slowest kid gets it. Just think how much better we'd be if that kid stayed home and let everyone move ahead. Or better yet just give the kid an A so we can move on. It's cheaper to watch out for the bad kids at school than it would be to let them roam the streets causing trouble.

 

[RKMBrown]

What you are doing is too easy RKMBrown.

I think that was my earlier point. Arguing for the left... from any perspective, reasonable or not, is just terribly easy. Maybe that's why so many people become leftists? Hmmm

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Honestly, not too well, at this juncture.

My BS is in CIS, and I have an MBA (feel free to ask what it's in.)

I understand economics, ergo I am a Laissez Faire Capitalist. This is akin to stating that I am good at guitar, ergo I play the blues. The two are naturally bound. I am ultimately liberal, I am so liberal as to be minarchist, in a Harry Browne kind of way.

Since you seek to out think me, perhaps you should go to sleep? You know, considering your poor performance whilst awakened....

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Typical authoritarian. You have lost the argument... the debate is mine... so now you are deflecting.

Declaring victory already?

It's a part of the left's point of view and also employed by the authoritarian right. Declare victory early and often. Did I do it wrong?

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Honestly, not too well, at this juncture.

My BS is in CIS, and I have an MBA (feel free to ask what it's in.)

I understand economics, ergo I am a Laissez Faire Capitalist. This is akin to stating that I am good at guitar, ergo I play the blues. The two are naturally bound. I am ultimately liberal, I am so liberal as to be minarchist, in a Harry Browne kind of way.

Since you seek to out think me, perhaps you should go to sleep? You know, considering your poor performance whilst awakened....

Well, then we generally hold the same views. Don't confuse this bad attempt at defending a left position as my politics.

 

[Wolfsister77]

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

OK, I quoted you this time. Your exact comments are visible. How easy is it to collect unemployment if you were fired for being unproductive? Also, are you kidding me? Many folks who are laid off are on unemployment for extended periods of time due to the terrible job market.

Again, it would greatly benefit business for unemployment to be low so people are contributing to the tax base and buying products that these business sell. Also, the better the economy, the better it is for business.

>>> How easy is it to collect unemployment if you were fired for being unproductive?

Very. I have two different relatives that collected it for two years straight under Obama. It's only hard to collect unemployment if you were fired for misconduct.

>>> Also, are you kidding me?

I'll tell you that after I win the argument. I'll switch sides and win the other way.

>>> Many folks who are laid off are on unemployment for extended periods of time due to the terrible job market.

Anyone that refuses to "work" for an extended period of time.. yeah for those people we are better off paying them to not work than to have them pollute the employers who actually want good workers. People can move, people can work for themselves. No excuses. If you need one .. you are a bad worker anyways.

>>> Again, it would greatly benefit business for unemployment to be low so people are contributing to the tax base and buying products that these business sell. Also, the better the economy, the better it is for business.

Wrong. Not with these people. We are better off shuffling these people into small apartments where they will just be consumers and possibly sire children that may be more productive than they are. Or perhaps they can serve some other useful function at home. Either way we are better off with them out of the job market. That way the good workers have jobs, vs having to compete for jobs with the bad workers. Think about it this way. At school they are only allowed to move on when the slowest kid gets it. Just think how much better we'd be if that kid stayed home and let everyone move ahead. Or better yet just give the kid an A so we can move on. It's cheaper to watch out for the bad kids at school than it would be to let them roam the streets causing trouble.

I'm going to address your last paragraph which is the one I disagree with the most. Is it really fair or right to just take a group of people and shove them somewhere out of the way? They'd probably have to collect welfare and they'd probably not be able to buy much to contribute to society.

Why not just kill them instead?

And for the slow kid making them stay home? Would it not be better for society to find a way for that kid to learn and be a productive member of society and able to contribute?

Or should we just shoot them too?

 

[RKMBrown]

Is it really fair or right to just take a group of people and shove them somewhere out of the way? They'd probably have to collect welfare and they'd probably not be able to buy much to contribute to society.

Why not just kill them instead?

And for the slow kid making them stay home? Would it not be better for society to find a way for that kid to learn and be a productive member of society and able to contribute?

Or should we just shoot them too?

Who said anything about shoving them out of the way. We're just making the world more productive through redistribution programs.

Killing people? Forcing people to be productive? Wow why don't you just bring out the whips, chains, and ovens?

 

[Wolfsister77]

sarcasm-it's an interesting concept.

 

[RKMBrown]

sarcasm-it's an interesting concept.

 

[koshergrl]

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

I'm so confused. For the life of me, I can't figure out what your politics are, or even what you're saying.

 

[koshergrl]

I thought you said you were smarter than liberals, but then I see you bashing righties, or something.

Meh. Good communication skills are typically a symptom of super high intelligence. The ability to get ideas across. And I'm not seeing that.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

Such bullshit. The vast majority of the unemployed LOST their jobs due to no fault of their own. And guess what, to qualify for unemployment insurance you had to HAVE a job for a significant period of time.

You people are such turds.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm so confused. For the life of me, I can't figure out what your politics are, or even what you're saying.

He's playing at being clever, but he ain't no Bil Stunbmun....

 

[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

I'm so confused. For the life of me, I can't figure out what your politics are, or even what you're saying.

Then it's working. FYI... I'm just joking don't take the contents of this thread seriously I'm a constitutional conservative attempting, poorly, to make arguments for the left.

Man its hard to maintain two personalities.

 

[Foxfyre]

He's a hard line libertarian, KG, about as close to anarchist as you can get without being one. But he did argue like a liberal pretty convincingly.

 

[Bfgrn]

You opinion of Liberals is duly noted. I frankly get bored with all the Liberal bashing. If you Conservatives just want to sit and talk amongst yourselves and pat each other on the back, by all means have fun. Right-wing circle jerks are boring just as left-wing ones are.

In all due respect Wolfsister, I love you dearly, but the thread was started by a dedicated left wing liberal and the title is "Why do people hate liberals?" Many if not most posting on the thread have been addressing the thread topic. Don't blame us. Blame Saigon.

And I think to the credit of us conservatives, not all but most have refused to focus on 'hating liberals' and reject that concept as we don't hate people who happen to be liberals. But we do hate the negative consequences of liberalism. It is an honest and could be productive topic for a message board, most especially for those who do blame liberalism for many ills of society that we have today.

Liberals can be lovable and great folks.
Liberalism not so much.

The consequences of liberalism has been to extend freedom, opportunity and rights to all Americans and all people. The consequences of conservatism has been to restrict those freedoms, opportunities and rights.

Every significant freedom, opportunity and right that has benefited We, the People has come from, been advocated by and passed by liberals. There is no conservative legacy of expanding rights or liberties.

The consequences of conservatism invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man; the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."