Liberals Vs Conservatives

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Blablahb:

harmonic:
Thank you for giving us an example of exactly what MammothBlade was talking about. Yes, the Republicans are all evil bogeymen coming to eat you. You just keep ignoring the heavy-handed incompetence, broken promises, and ideological dissonance of your own tribe, thinking it can do absolutely no wrong.

Now you must be being purposely obtuse. There's no way you'd have been able to miss the republican sabotage around the debt ceiling crisis, the fiscal cliff, and now the new debt ceiling crisis. They're holding the US hostage over something fairly trivial because they want to push more special privileges for their rich backers, and the citizens of the US are going to pay for that.

Not a thousand accusations thrown at the democrats can change that.

You call it holding the country hostage, we call it attempting to get our house in order. You and your cooky tribe have suggested absolutely nothing that indicates you're serious about finding a way to pay for the insane obligations you promise. Just keep kicking the can down the road forever. Where does it stop? 20 trillion? 200 trillion? As Paul Krugman himself said, "the sky's the limit!"

Oh right, I forgot, government spending is good. Borrow more more more, spend more more more. The bigger the house of cards gets, the better.

harmonic:
You call it holding the country hostage, we call it attempting to get our house in order. You and your cooky tribe have suggested absolutely nothing that indicates you're serious about finding a way to pay for the insane obligations you promise. Just keep kicking the can down the road forever. Where does it stop? 20 trillion? 200 trillion? As Paul Krugman himself said, "the sky's the limit!"
Oh right, I forgot, government spending is good. Borrow more more more, spend more more more. The bigger the house of cards gets, the better.

Maybe you should try to respond to my actual point of view rather than making someone up and responding to that like you're Clint Eastwood and I'm a chair.

For one thing the democrats have put forward plans to increase goverment revenue, and make large cuts to unnecessary military spending. The US is undergoing a financial crisis due to undertaxation, and more specifically because of a lack of progressiveness in tax rates.

Obviously the way out is to raise taxes and make them more progressive. As has been explained a few hundred times already, for every dollar you cut on social spending, you pay ten dollars making up for damage it does to society, as US social spending is already dangerously low.


And whichever way you go about it, it will hurt. The US has been digging its financial grave for over 50 years of small government conservatism. You don't right half a century of bad policies in a few years. This will be what the US spends a good part of the 21st century doing.

It doesn't change the fact that taxation and reforms is the answer, and not more of the conservatism that caused the problem to begin with.

Blablahb:

For one thing the democrats have put forward plans to increase goverment revenue, and make large cuts to unnecessary military spending. The US is undergoing a financial crisis due to undertaxation, and more specifically because of a lack of progressiveness in tax rates.

The military budget used to be huge in comparison to the overall federal spending, but not so anymore. Most people, including myself, believe the Pentagon could get a little trimmer at least. However, the "social spending" you venerate to the point of religious fanaticism dwarfs military spending.

Answer this question seriously, Bla. If spending is so great, if Paul Krugman's fake alien invasion idea is so great, why do you want to cut military spending? After all, much of that goes to pay salaries of servicemen, who then spend the money on consumer goods. Also, much of that goes into R&D, which has yielded countless civilian technologies over the past century. Also, much of that goes into manufacturing military hardware, which creates jobs. According to you, wouldn't it be prudent to spend as much as possible?

Also, lack of progressiveness in the US taxes? You're wrong, dead, dead wrong. Look at how much the top tiers pay compared to the bottom 50% in income tax, and that's just one example that tears your ignorant argument to pieces.

As has been explained a few hundred times already, for every dollar you cut on social spending, you pay ten dollars making up for damage it does to society, as US social spending is already dangerously low.

This is pure and unbridled insanity. Cite, cite, cite. Give me graphs, stats, and from credible, neutral sources. You're going to have to try really hard to prove that this horse shit has even a shred of credibility.

Wait, no, I can see it now. You will select stats from select sources (it's the internet. There's a place and a group for anything, any opinion, any thought) or point to something Noam Chomsky said, or something on the Huffington Post. Don't even bother, now that I think about it.

Meh, there are problems with politics, but its mostly just posturing, I think most everyone in Washington knows what the score is and what really needs to be done, and will do it, but only after the longest most obtuse "fight" possible because they need to please their constituents. Its not perfect but what are you gonna do?

harmonic:

Please re-read what I said. I said Libertarians where somehow associated with theocratic/authoritarian BY LEFTISTS. Please tell me you understand now. Nobody, ever, ever, ever, has said leftists are theocratic. Ever.

By the way, the American left is rather authoritarian on all matters other than what happens in the bedroom.

Haha! This is what I get for waiting until just before bed to post! Sorry!

I'd like you to note that the American "Left", AKA Democrats, do not hold many fans among those I consider the "hard" left. They are just as statist as the Repubs and Republican "Libertarians", and in someways even more so.

Chromatic Aberration:

Hap2:

The really infuriating part is that the major problem is all of us. You're right, we can be manipulated and persuaded through appeal to our emotions and our values, and because they are so intrinsic to our being, we don't always notice how easily swayed we can be. Often it's the only way people can be convinced to vote - we are not always rational beings, and with many individuals comes complexity. Conservative politicians seem to know this better than liberal politicians, and if the US Republicans or the Canadian Conservatives are any indication, they're using this flaw well: how often do we see conservatives appealing to concepts such as 'family values', or using weasel words such as 'job creators' instead of calling them what they are: rich capitalists. The trouble lies in that we sometimes convince ourselves that we can't be manipulated, that attack ads don't affect us, that we are more rational, wise, and experienced: we 'know better' than everyone else, and thus are capable of making our own decisions.

A small qualification: I don't think "manipulation" should be just seen as appeals to emotion. They are as well the specific use and presentation of data to foster a certain viewpoint. I'd guess it all comes down to the psychological desire to try to reduce cognitive dissonance i.e. clashes between viewpoints, social environment and apparent reality. Manipulation in such a sense is simply trying to
make reality fit to the viewpoints in such a way that this dissonance is reduced. Consider for instance a particularly empathic individual who is always reluctant to endorse measures that might lead to physical harm to other people - a pacifist if you like. Manipulation in this regard would then for instance be to paint the opposition during wartime in such a negative light that it surpasses the threshold of our person in question to endorse the use of violence. It's important to emphasize that this does not necessarily mean the construction of a straw-man as the "facts" that underpin the presentation might very well be accurate in describing the group.

This is also the reason why I'd not simply conclude that appeals to emotion should be more employed by the liberal part of the US political spectrum to successfully persuade the audience: that little optimistic and philanthropic core that I keep and protects me from descending into utter cynicism, usually tells me that reality or rather the best fit to it eventually wins out. The use of data, even with the inevitable distortion and ambivalence that goes into contested issues is always preferable, since those always imply a sort (regardless how small) of scrutiny for the conclusion. Even better, if those fit with observations done by the individuals themselves (such as gay people not being the sinful, corrupted spawns of evil that some fundamentalist Christians like to paint them as) I like to think they will be more persuasive than the alternative.

Never meant it to be, hence why I added the values aspect as well. I completely agree that there are more ways to manipulate than just appeals to emotions, such as values, the language one uses, the way information is slanted towards an audience, etc. Our psychology has a number of terrible flaws that often work against us and go unnoticed even when we are vigil. Though I admit, I was half asleep when I wrote that last post, so my usual editing skills were not up to their usual standard; I should have had a "such as" somewhere in there; my apologies.

The problem I was trying to get at is that conservatives are using such psychological flaws to their advantage, while various progressive groups seem to be letting themselves get steamrolled in the hope that people will be rational. As evilthecat demonstrated in the quote you provided, conservatives are using our flaws to manufacture 'truths' as opposed to using real fact (e.g. 'job creators', 'climate change' (instead of global warming), 'small business' instead of capitalism, etc.). As brutal as this sounds: humans are, for the most part, not rational creatures. Unless we have been raised or trained to use careful reasoning and skepticism, we will often 'think with our gut' instead of our minds, and even with such training there are no guarantees (conservative politicians seem to understand and exploit this, whereas progressives are failing to work a counter to turn things around). One still can be deluded about oneself and one's motives and be incapable of recognizing one's problems - addictions are a good example of this.

A philosopher's life is neither simple nor easy however. It is often more easier for people to let themselves be swayed by their 'gut' then it is to maintain that precarious balance on the cliffs of skepticism towards oneself and others without falling into the darkness of outright cynicism and utter self-doubt. Frankly, I find it immensely frustrating. So many of us desire the world to change, but so few seem to wish to take what little responsibility and power they have and make use of it. More often than not, those that do are out to make the world easier for themselves: ideologists with no sense of grounding or fact, who are often under the conservative banner rather than progressive; though I cannot say I am much in favour of today's progressives either - these problems of understanding are not exclusive to the right. We civilians are more content to sit back and whine like impatient dogs than we are to act like responsible adults and be realistic about what we can and cannot do right here, right now.

That must change if we are to work towards a future without petty partisan nonsense.

Blablahb:

harmonic:
You call it holding the country hostage, we call it attempting to get our house in order. You and your cooky tribe have suggested absolutely nothing that indicates you're serious about finding a way to pay for the insane obligations you promise. Just keep kicking the can down the road forever. Where does it stop? 20 trillion? 200 trillion? As Paul Krugman himself said, "the sky's the limit!"
Oh right, I forgot, government spending is good. Borrow more more more, spend more more more. The bigger the house of cards gets, the better.

Maybe you should try to respond to my actual point of view rather than making someone up and responding to that like you're Clint Eastwood and I'm a chair.

For one thing the democrats have put forward plans to increase goverment revenue, and make large cuts to unnecessary military spending. The US is undergoing a financial crisis due to undertaxation, and more specifically because of a lack of progressiveness in tax rates.

Obviously the way out is to raise taxes and make them more progressive. As has been explained a few hundred times already, for every dollar you cut on social spending, you pay ten dollars making up for damage it does to society, as US social spending is already dangerously low.


And whichever way you go about it, it will hurt. The US has been digging its financial grave for over 50 years of small government conservatism. You don't right half a century of bad policies in a few years. This will be what the US spends a good part of the 21st century doing.

It doesn't change the fact that taxation and reforms is the answer, and not more of the conservatism that caused the problem to begin with.

Yet our debt is still 16 trillion, and even if they control two own branchs of goverment they have gotten nothing done, and I doubt they will get it done. They say they will get it done long term, but by then they will be out of office, and laughing at us.

Gergar12:
Yet our debt is still 16 trillion, and even if they control two own branchs of goverment they have gotten nothing done, and I doubt they will get it done. They say they will get it done long term, but by then they will be out of office, and laughing at us.

I don't see how it relates to my post? Plus it seems ridiculous to claim 'nothing's gotten done', so I'm going to ignore that point untill you prove it, which seems impossible seeing as I regularly encounter examples of things the US government did, in the news.

Hap2:
I should have had a "such as" somewhere in there; my apologies.

Ach. Don't bother! I'm the last person to get touchy about such semantical issues :)

The problem I was trying to get at is that conservatives are using such psychological flaws to their advantage, while various progressive groups seem to be letting themselves get steamrolled in the hope that people will be rational. [...] As brutal as this sounds: humans are, for the most part, not rational creatures.

Heh I can only agree. And to be honest I go even further in terms of brutal realism and abstraction: I tend to conceptualize the behaviour of the large mass of people in the same way that I'd some gas of charged particles. They interact in some complicated way you cannot discern but yet display some common emergent behaviour if you apply some force to it. Like the application of an electrical field to the gas, that if sufficiently strong can supersede the particles inertia and provide an average movement towards the direction specified by the force. While it's certainly a very simplistic a model it proves rather useful in modeling the use of such psychological tricks.

But back to the topic: I'd agree with you that extremists in general and the right-wing populist fringe especially seek to employ such manipulative means more often, or simply much more overt than progressive or centrist groups. This might be due to the topics which determinedly try to polarize groups in an effort to make use of the human desire to create and identify with social groups. The usual scapegoating mechanisms. Providing easy answers to complicated questions due to it's simplicity is also more often employed, regardless of it's actual validity. In terms of language they might be more adept at selling whatever they want to sell, perhaps many of their adherents or leadership figures have experience in those kinds of things by for instance being formely employed in that branch or perhaps their target is simply more susceptible, so that it merely seems more effective. Last but not least, there are also the ethical objections to such blatant machinations that will be less impeding to extremists of either fashion.

In that sense, I think there are certain structural factors that could (and, ethically speaking, should) not be employed by sane political groups. I think it would be more advantageous for them to stick to what politicians need to do: they need to explain, they need to use symbols to carry it, they need to have examples that are in line with the apparent reality of the common person. This is the most useful and (at least I like to think so), the most persuasive thing they can do. Extremists usually just use symbols and emotions and don't care much if it coincides with reality, and this I like to think is their weakness. Hence, what progressive groups need to learn is to properly use reality and simple pragmatic arguments to their advantage. Explaining is difficult and getting people to listen too but (and here I'am at my very core: ultimately an idealist) if done carefully and with a little bit of entertainment in it, will prove more persuasive since it minimizes cognitive dissonance and friction more than the alternative.

One of the current problems why that doesn't stick so much in the US anymore is that, in my opinion, the whole society has already become too polarized to allow the influx of any ideas or viewpoints that are not mired in tribal colours, both from a structural point of view (the two-party system, the almost exclusively partisan media and the demographic and geographical divide) as well as from a psychological point of view (a political position is instantaneously equated to membership of the particular tribe in question, complete with all attached value judgements that go into it). Therefore I doubt that any more persuability from progressive or liberal groups in the US will significantly solve the problems the US political system faces.

I think it's obvious, but I'll mention it regardless: that is all just conjecture on my part with no claim to general validity.

That must change if we are to work towards a future without petty partisan nonsense.

Speaking from an outside perspective, yes indeed. A political movement that would aim to do away with the first-past-the-post voting system in your country would do a lot of good. But for that to happen, the political system must feel that pressure either through a large-scale grassroots campaign or the emergence of a strong third party that might break the dominance of the established two. And for that you need people...

Blablahb:

Gergar12:
Yet our debt is still 16 trillion, and even if they control two own branchs of goverment they have gotten nothing done, and I doubt they will get it done. They say they will get it done long term, but by then they will be out of office, and laughing at us.

I don't see how it relates to my post? Plus it seems ridiculous to claim 'nothing's gotten done', so I'm going to ignore that point untill you prove it, which seems impossible seeing as I regularly encounter examples of things the US government did, in the news.

I am saying WHEN have the democrats try to cut spending besides JUST military.

When have they cut any spending.

When have they try to pay off the the debt.

And the most important one: How they are going to stop getting us more into debt.

If they have not done number four they are just as bad as Bush was, and add in the raising oil prices, and 2010 job lost.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/02/news/economy/jobs_gone_forever/index.htm

You are trying to avoid the question because you know Obama has gotten us further into debt.

Gergar12:
I am saying WHEN have the democrats try to cut spending besides JUST military.

When have they cut any spending.

When have they try to pay off the the debt.

And the most important one: How they are going to stop getting us more into debt.

If they have not done number four they are just as bad as Bush was, and add in the raising oil prices, and 2010 job lost.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/02/news/economy/jobs_gone_forever/index.htm

You are trying to avoid the question because you know Obama has gotten us further into debt.

You do realise debt is not an inherently bad thing don't you?
All a large amount of debt indicates is that people are actually willing to lend you money as you are economically sound.

I mean look at the countries with the lowest amounts of debt. Taiwan, Liechtenstein, Macau. Not famed for being particularly rich are they.
You might even say "well our debt is pretty much 100% of our GDP." And again, the countries at the bottom end of the scale (where there debt is a tiny fraction of their GDP) we have Somalia, North Korea and the like.

The media do like sensationalise this kind of thing and use those big scary numbers to sell more papers/get more viewers. But in reality debt means little to nothing on its own.

Gergar12:
You are trying to avoid the question because you know Obama has gotten us further into debt.

I think the better question would be "when has a Republican gotten the USA even partially out of debt" or "put the USA back on the right track" because to my knowledge the only president in recent history who did anything good in that regard was Clinton. W. Bush was obviously an awful offender, but even St. Reagan massively increased the deficit, so it's not like these guys have any sort of good track record. The Republicans' only ace is that they are constantly playing pretend when it comes to fiscal responsibility. To the point where some people seem to accept it as "common knowledge" that Republicans are fiscally responsible and Democrats are fiscally wasteful. Hell, look at Romney wanting to remove massive slabs of income while also increasing spending on the bloated military. It's ridiculous what repeating a lie often enough can do to public perception.

Skeleon:

Gergar12:
You are trying to avoid the question because you know Obama has gotten us further into debt.

I think the better question would be "when has a Republican gotten the USA even partially out of debt" or "put the USA back on the right track" because to my knowledge the only president in recent history who did anything good in that regard was Clinton. W. Bush was obviously an awful offender, but even St. Reagan massively increased the deficit, so it's not like these guys have any sort of good track record. The Republicans' only ace is that they are constantly playing pretend when it comes to fiscal responsibility. To the point where some people seem to accept it as "common knowledge" that Republicans are fiscally responsible and Democrats are fiscally wasteful. Hell, look at Romney wanting to remove massive slabs of income while also increasing spending on the bloated military. It's ridiculous what repeating a lie often enough can do to public perception.

Yeah because that totally justifies what the democrats are doing right now, so instead of giving me a give modern statement you use history, and then afterwards avoid answering my question again. Answer my question don't give me another question. Your avoiding what I am saying Republicans were against both World Wars, but since the congress now, and was democrat controlled we can't do anything about it. Stop AVOIDING MY QUESTION. Bush was a progressive, and so was Obama, but just in different ways.

Smeatza:

Gergar12:
I am saying WHEN have the democrats try to cut spending besides JUST military.

When have they cut any spending.

When have they try to pay off the the debt.

And the most important one: How they are going to stop getting us more into debt.

If they have not done number four they are just as bad as Bush was, and add in the raising oil prices, and 2010 job lost.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/02/news/economy/jobs_gone_forever/index.htm

You are trying to avoid the question because you know Obama has gotten us further into debt.

You do realise debt is not an inherently bad thing don't you?
All a large amount of debt indicates is that people are actually willing to lend you money as you are economically sound.

I mean look at the countries with the lowest amounts of debt. Taiwan, Liechtenstein, Macau. Not famed for being particularly rich are they.
You might even say "well our debt is pretty much 100% of our GDP." And again, the countries at the bottom end of the scale (where there debt is a tiny fraction of their GDP) we have Somalia, North Korea and the like.

The media do like sensationalise this kind of thing and use those big scary numbers to sell more papers/get more viewers. But in reality debt means little to nothing on its own.

Debt leads to inflation which leads to increased prices, which slows the growth of the economy, and severely weakens it for several years until someone with a bit of common sense pays it back in full, and recovers the value of their money. It's common sense not to get into debt. We are not North Korea, and Somalia. That is a horrible comparison since those countries are 3rd world, and we are 1st world. Plus the interest rates alone will raise so you get youself deeper, and deeper into a sand-trap. Germany in the 1930's proves it. You are confusing good debt vs bad debt. Good debt is what you can pay off very quickly, and gain from bad debt keeps accumulating interest, and destroying the value of your money, and sapping future income. When the debt gets big enough, and you can't even pay back the interest you must inflate the money to pay it back, and that will hurt the economy based on how big it is because money quickly lessens in value.

Gergar12:

Smeatza:

Gergar12:
I am saying WHEN have the democrats try to cut spending besides JUST military.

When have they cut any spending.

When have they try to pay off the the debt.

And the most important one: How they are going to stop getting us more into debt.

If they have not done number four they are just as bad as Bush was, and add in the raising oil prices, and 2010 job lost.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/02/news/economy/jobs_gone_forever/index.htm

You are trying to avoid the question because you know Obama has gotten us further into debt.

You do realise debt is not an inherently bad thing don't you?
All a large amount of debt indicates is that people are actually willing to lend you money as you are economically sound.

I mean look at the countries with the lowest amounts of debt. Taiwan, Liechtenstein, Macau. Not famed for being particularly rich are they.
You might even say "well our debt is pretty much 100% of our GDP." And again, the countries at the bottom end of the scale (where there debt is a tiny fraction of their GDP) we have Somalia, North Korea and the like.

The media do like sensationalise this kind of thing and use those big scary numbers to sell more papers/get more viewers. But in reality debt means little to nothing on its own.

Debt leads to inflation which leads to increased prices, which slows the growth of the economy, and severely weakens it for several years until someone with a bit of common sense pays it back in full, and recovers the value of their money. It's common sense not to get into debt. We are not North Korea, and Somalia. That is a horrible comparison since those countries are 3rd world, and we are 1st world. Plus the interest rates alone will raise so you get youself deeper, and deeper into a sand-trap. Germany in the 1930's proves it. You are confusing good debt vs bad debt. Good debt is what you can pay off very quickly, and gain from bad debt keeps accumulating interest, and destroying the value of your money, and sapping future income. When the debt gets big enough, and you can't even pay back the interest you must inflate the money to pay it back, and that will hurt the economy based on how big it is because money quickly lessens in value.

Unfortunately the economy is not as simple as you would like to make out.
Please note how I wrote " debt means little to nothing on its own."
Even good debt vs. bad debt is an oversimplification.
I have more trust in economists than I do in the news.

Gergar12:

Debt leads to inflation which leads to increased prices, which slows the growth of the economy, and severely weakens it for several years until someone with a bit of common sense pays it back in full, and recovers the value of their money. It's common sense not to get into debt. We are not North Korea, and Somalia. That is a horrible comparison since those countries are 3rd world, and we are 1st world. Plus the interest rates alone will raise so you get youself deeper, and deeper into a sand-trap. Germany in the 1930's proves it. You are confusing good debt vs bad debt. Good debt is what you can pay off very quickly, and gain from bad debt keeps accumulating interest, and destroying the value of your money, and sapping future income. When the debt gets big enough, and you can't even pay back the interest you must inflate the money to pay it back, and that will hurt the economy based on how big it is because money quickly lessens in value.

I'm not sure what your concept of "bad debt" even means? I mean most countries, and even companies, are constantly in debt. Your definition of "bad debt" would basically mean almost every institution in the world has bad debt, which is obviously untrue. Debt only becomes bad when it is totally out of control, like in 1930's germany, and not like 2013 US. And here comes the funny part, the interest paid on US bonds is lower than inflation meaning the US govt is making money by borrowing money. Surely we can all agree this is not so problematic?

And inflation is in itself not a bad thing, it just needs to be controlled. If you reach inflation rates of 10% sure you have a problem, but with a 2% inflation in 2012 i'd say you're fine.

I'm not particularly fond of liberal or conservative ideologies. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go get a mop and bucket to clean up all the gray matter that just melted and leaked out of the ears of people who read that comment and can't fathom the idea of someone existing outside of the dichotomy that exists only in their absurdly simplistic worldview.

And for god's sake, don't tell them that there are different kinds of liberals and conservatives! I'll be too busy mopping up brains to have time to laugh at people who think either the Democrats or Republicans have anything resembling a workable plan to reduce debt, or even sincere intent to create such a plan.

harmonic:
By the way, the American left is rather authoritarian on all matters other than what happens in the bedroom.

There's an American left?

ComradeJim270:

There's an American left?

Yeah, only when conservatives and libertarians talk about 'The Left' they are referring to the imaginary wing of American government where everyone wants to be communist and put rich people into gulags.

Notsomuch:

ComradeJim270:

There's an American left?

Yeah, only when conservatives and libertarians talk about 'The Left' they are referring to the imaginary wing of American government where everyone wants to be communist and put rich people into gulags.

I know, right? It makes me feel so lonely sometimes. The only upside is the amusement I get from being a sort of bogeyman for conservatives.

Conservative: "... you sound like a SOCIALIST!"

*waits for me to get all defensive*

Me: Please continue.

Conservative: *nervous silence*

False equivalence.

There's a substantial difference between trivial policy leanings towards the center-left, and outright delusion.

One party has rational if sometimes misguided ideas. The other party thinks we're a weekend away from the Stalinist Nazis goose-stepping down Pennsylvania avenue towards the White-Christian-Bourgeois guillotine lunch-hour.

One political alignment is stupid. The other is batshit, glass-gargling insane. I'll give my support to stupid until the crazies retreat back to the demented fantasy they want to impose on the rest of us.

dharmaBum0:
False equivalence.

There's a substantial difference between trivial policy leanings towards the center-left, and outright delusion.

One party has rational if sometimes misguided ideas. The other party thinks we're a weekend away from the Stalinist Nazis goose-stepping down Pennsylvania avenue towards the White-Christian-Bourgeois guillotine lunch-hour.

One political alignment is stupid. The other is batshit, glass-gargling insane. I'll give my support to stupid until the crazies retreat back to the demented fantasy they want to impose on the rest of us.

You are awesome.

To be fair though, there are moderate Republicans, they're just not popular with the rest of the party right now. They'll get the last laugh though: the Republican party will have to swing back towards the center if it wants to survive.

Is it just me or has Harmonic by frequenting this argueable moderate forum gone even more right-wing than he used to be? Its like arguing the same tired point over and over again has gotten him more secure in it than ever before.

In his words, Too big.

In his words, can use a slight trim, but nothing more. Its been cut, I think.... Let that sink in for a bit, and from here we should only slightly trim it.

I mean, I'm all for people having their own opinion. But with all due respect, this is batshitcrazy insane. I dont think its an understatement when it was compared to Clint Eastwood and the Chair.

Oh, well. I am pretty biased, I realize this. And everyone else in the words tends to be pretty greedy when spending money on the military (We know those Chineese countries love their healthcare) And besides, he didn't argue that it wasn't bloated. He just argued that it was small compared to the social spending, so I found one from the same time as the last graph (Aka after the cuts) to compare with.

.... Alright, ehm... Wow.

60%, well... Sure, uhh... Nah. I got nothing. Thats all.

While the political parties are essentially the same thing, conservatism/liberalism are very different.
Conservatism is traditionalism.
Liberalism is non-traditionalism.
I personally hate liberals with all my inner heart as they won't stop whining and believing in cultural marxism and they support completely degenerate acts. Society is going down the drain and these liberals are making it quicker.
But I can also see how Liberals see conservatives as I was raised in a liberal, left wing household. Liberals hate conservatives because they think they are stupid, zealous, insensitive cunts.
The U.S government system is completely flawed. Nothing will change it.

GriffinStallion:
While the political parties are essentially the same thing, conservatism/liberalism are very different.
Conservatism is traditionalism.
Liberalism is non-traditionalism.
I personally hate liberals with all my inner heart as they won't stop whining and believing in cultural marxism and they support completely degenerate acts. Society is going down the drain and these liberals are making it quicker.
But I can also see how Liberals see conservatives as I was raised in a liberal, left wing household. Liberals hate conservatives because they think they are stupid, zealous, insensitive cunts.
The U.S government system is completely flawed. Nothing will change it.

I really don't get the impression you know what any of those words actually mean. Well... the disparaging ones, sure, but not the other ones that are more pertinent to this discussion. Really, conservatism and liberalism have a lot more in common than they do different.

ComradeJim270:

GriffinStallion:
While the political parties are essentially the same thing, conservatism/liberalism are very different.
Conservatism is traditionalism.
Liberalism is non-traditionalism.
I personally hate liberals with all my inner heart as they won't stop whining and believing in cultural marxism and they support completely degenerate acts. Society is going down the drain and these liberals are making it quicker.
But I can also see how Liberals see conservatives as I was raised in a liberal, left wing household. Liberals hate conservatives because they think they are stupid, zealous, insensitive cunts.
The U.S government system is completely flawed. Nothing will change it.

I really don't get the impression you know what any of those words actually mean. Well... the disparaging ones, sure, but not the other ones that are more pertinent to this discussion. Really, conservatism and liberalism have a lot more in common than they do different.

They are both Capitalist for one, I dont know how the hell he got the idea that socialism was a part of anything.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked