PDA

View Full Version : Understanding Leftists



Steve
02-20-2009, 07:55 PM
Rule #1 - They are irrational.
Rule #2 - The more passionate their beliefs, the more irrational they are.

Just look at the standard arguments

Bush just wants to take of his oil buddies
The rich are getting richer
Republicans don't care about the poor

None of these are defined statements that can be objectively proven true or false. They are not even worthy of consideration in a debate. Unfortunately, too many people in this country lap this nonsense up.

We may not collapse as a society. But unless something changes, I see us becoming another Euro welfare state.

JDogger
02-20-2009, 08:41 PM
Rule #1 - They are irrational.
Rule #2 - The more passionate their beliefs, the more irrational they are.


You mean something like this;


Whatever he spend on this party, it commemorates the darkes tday in america since Pearl Pearl Harobur and 811 combinded.
__________________
Bob Gutermuth
Canvasback Chesapeakes
BAN LIBERALS NOT FIREARMS!

The right is blathering much more. There are posts here lately speaking of
insurrection, insurgency, secession and impeachment, and they are not coming from the 'irrational' left.

JD

zeus3925
02-20-2009, 08:49 PM
You mean something like this;


Whatever he spend on this party, it commemorates the darkes tday in america since Pearl Pearl Harobur and 811 combinded.
__________________
Bob Gutermuth
Canvasback Chesapeakes
BAN LIBERALS NOT FIREARMS!

The right is blathering much more. There are posts here lately speaking of
insurrection, insurgency, secession and impeachment, and they are not coming from the 'irrational' left.

JD

What the hell is 811?

Bob Gutermuth
02-20-2009, 09:13 PM
Darn right the right is talking, we need to say a lot before the 1st amendment is repealed by the 'messiah'.

Steve
02-20-2009, 09:36 PM
You mean something like this;
The right is blathering much more. There are posts here lately speaking of
insurrection, insurgency, secession and impeachment, and they are not coming from the 'irrational' left.

Bob G. is more of a populist, like O'Reilly. When oil prices were racing up he was on the same warpath as you lefties. Poor choice of an example.

I wrote about secession and I think it worth consideration. I realize it won't happen because there is only about 5-10% on each side who are truly committed to their principles and the rest of the country watches American Idol.

While you quote Bob G., I could quote the leadership of the D. Party and the so called intellectuals on the left.

YardleyLabs
02-20-2009, 09:40 PM
Rule #1 - They are irrational.
Rule #2 - The more passionate their beliefs, the more irrational they are.

Just look at the standard arguments

Bush just wants to take of his oil buddies
The rich are getting richer
Republicans don't care about the poor

None of these are defined statements that can be objectively proven true or false. They are not even worthy of consideration in a debate. Unfortunately, too many people in this country lap this nonsense up.

We may not collapse as a society. But unless something changes, I see us becoming another Euro welfare state.

In fact, we seem to have developed an interesting pattern of argument here.
First a conservative will post an opinion piece containing no empirical information but lots of "factual" assertions.
Second a liberal will question those assertions posting contrary empirical evidence.
Third conservatives will challenge the methodology behind the evidence posted but offering no counter evidence.
Fourth, the liberal posts additional evidence and responds to specific challenges.
Fifth, the conservative condemns the liberal post and poster as an irrational, unpatriotic member of the socialist conspiracy.A couple of times I tried to break the pattern by simply asking for any evidence supporting the initially posted assertions. With the exception of the recent thread on the Rahms Curve, where the posted response was an unidentified Heritage Foundation article, I haven't seen a lot of responses. Now you seem to be trying to break the cycle yourself by skipping all the preliminaries and going straight to step five: "Rule #1 - They are irrational.
Rule #2 - The more passionate their beliefs, the more irrational they are.".

My observation is that the more reasoned and fact based the argument, the more irrational will be any ideologically based response. I am a liberal. I've never made any pretense otherwise. However, before I am a liberal I am a pragmatist. In my mind, the first test of every policy is "does it work?" If it doesn't, the ideology is irrelevant. Science, engineering, and economics are not political, they are analytical and evidence based. They may have political implications. However, if your ideologies cannot stand the test of fact-based analysis, they are worthless. Matters of faith are neither analytic nor fact-based (if they were, it wouldn't require faith to adopt them).

My biggest problem with the divisiveness that we have seen eating at our country is that it has placed ideology before reason. All facts are deemed to be matters of opinion to be adopted or shed when convenient. We are taking on many of the traits of a theocracy, blinded by the flags of our morality.

By the way, you gve three examples of "liberal" arguments that cannot be objectively proven. I believe that I presented some pretty convincing facts demonstrating that since 1979 "the rich have gotten richer". Of the three you mention, that is the only one that I have personally asserted.

Patrick Johndrow
02-20-2009, 09:49 PM
Rule #1 - They are irrational.
Rule #2 - The more passionate their beliefs, the more irrational they are.

Just look at the standard arguments

Bush just wants to take of his oil buddies
The rich are getting richer
Republicans don't care about the poor

None of these are defined statements that can be objectively proven true or false. They are not even worthy of consideration in a debate. Unfortunately, too many people in this country lap this nonsense up.

We may not collapse as a society. But unless something changes, I see us becoming another Euro welfare state.


Why even try to understand them?

JDogger
02-20-2009, 11:06 PM
Why even try to understand them?

Why Even Try...WET Yes, wet, describes you most succinctly.

JD

subroc
02-21-2009, 06:24 AM
I will never understand the left, they live in a bizzaro world.

Equating aborting a third term viable fetus with applying the death penalty to some deserving psychopath.

Rarely considering the law of unintended consequences as it relates to their view of environmental issues especially when forcing changes or advocating change to existing conditions. Example forced use of ethanol. Their hate of oil companies so skewed their logic that anything they perceived as harming big oil had to be good for the environment.

Proclaiming to be advocates of environmental issues yet rarely do their lifestyles differ appreciably, as it relates to conservation, from those they advocate against. In many cases, they use more resources than those they advocate against. Examples: Obama wanting the White House warm enough to grow orchids, Al Gore’ foibles are legendary as it relates to his home. Yet, President George W. Bush really lived the conservation lifestyle at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. He takes advantage of geothermal, passive solar, water collection among other conservation methods. Clinton/Gore are not noted for adding any conservation to the white House, yet President George W. Bush did a few things in the White house to conserve energy including motion sensor activated lighting and the installation of highly efficient air conditioning system. So who walks the walk and who talks the talk and who is considered the environmentalist?

They claim to be advocates of free speech, yet go to virtually any college campus and any invitee brought there to speak about an issue that isn’t in line with the left wing world view is shouted down and isn’t allowed to speak. Attempting to use the fairness doctrine to force media companies to assist them with propagandizing the nation with untenable positions that the market of ideas is tired of under the guise of equal time/free speech.

Claiming the first amendment means everyone, yet the second amendment doesn’t.

Claiming the Constitution is a living document, whatever that means, and isn’t to be taken literally.

zeus3925
02-21-2009, 08:53 AM
Rule #1 - They are irrational.
Rule #2 - The more passionate their beliefs, the more irrational they are.



If all rightists are rational, I have a new companion for you in your parallel universe-- Michelle Bachman.

The rich are getting richer? They have been saying that since Julius Caesar was in diapers.

As for passion mixed with irrationality, Look at how many threads are started by rightists vs leftists in this forums.

YardleyLabs
02-21-2009, 09:47 AM
I will never understand the left, they live in a bizzaro world.....

Liberal Bizarre: Equating aborting a third term viable fetus with applying the death penalty to some deserving psychopath.

Conservative Bizarre: Equating aborting a first or second trimester, non-viable fetus with aborting a third term viable fetus or with murder of an otherwise innocent and healthy child or adult.

Liberal Bizarre: Rarely considering the law of unintended consequences as it relates to their view of environmental issues ...

Conservative Bizarre: Rarely considering the law of unintended consequences as it relates to corporate behavior in polluting our environment or introducing new and virtually untested additives into our food supply with no consideration of long term consequences.

Liberal Bizarre: Proclaiming to be advocates of environmental issues yet rarely do their lifestyles differ appreciably, as it relates to conservation, from those they advocate against.

Conservative Bizarre: Claiming to be Christian while rejecting the most fundamental, and still radical, Christian concepts of charity, justice and compassion.

Liberal Bizarre: They claim to be advocates of free speech, yet go to virtually any college campus and any invitee brought there to speak about an issue that isn’t in line with the left wing world view is shouted down and isn’t allowed to speak.

Conservative Bizarre: Not even pretending to support free speech when the opinions are contrary and particularly opposing free speech of liberal professors in colleges.

Liberal Bizarre: Claiming the first amendment means everyone, yet the second amendment doesn’t.

Conservative Bizarre: Claiming the second amendment means everyone under all circumstances, but the first, fourth, fifth, fourteenth, etc., amendments should only apply when convenient.

Liberal Bizarre: Claiming the Constitution is a living document, whatever that means, and isn’t to be taken literally.

Conservative Bizarre: Claiming that the second amendment only includes the second half of a two-part sentence, or that the Constitution was somehow intended to protect the unborn, or that the Supreme Court's decision in overruling the Florida Supreme Court in 2000 was in some manner a fair and literal reading of the Constitution.

zeus3925
02-21-2009, 10:03 AM
Right on, Jeff!

K G
02-21-2009, 10:14 AM
Liberal Bizarre: Equating aborting a third term viable fetus with applying the death penalty to some deserving psychopath.

Conservative Bizarre: Equating aborting a first or second trimester, non-viable fetus with aborting a third term viable fetus or with murder of an otherwise innocent and healthy child or adult.

Liberal Bizarre: Rarely considering the law of unintended consequences as it relates to their view of environmental issues ...

Conservative Bizarre: Rarely considering the law of unintended consequences as it relates to corporate behavior in polluting our environment or introducing new and virtually untested additives into our food supply with no consideration of long term consequences.

Liberal Bizarre: Proclaiming to be advocates of environmental issues yet rarely do their lifestyles differ appreciably, as it relates to conservation, from those they advocate against.

Conservative Bizarre: Claiming to be Christian while rejecting the most fundamental, and still radical, Christian concepts of charity, justice and compassion.

Liberal Bizarre: They claim to be advocates of free speech, yet go to virtually any college campus and any invitee brought there to speak about an issue that isnít in line with the left wing world view is shouted down and isnít allowed to speak.

Conservative Bizarre: Not even pretending to support free speech when the opinions are contrary and particularly opposing free speech of liberal professors in colleges.

Liberal Bizarre: Claiming the first amendment means everyone, yet the second amendment doesnít.

Conservative Bizarre: Claiming the second amendment means everyone under all circumstances, but the first, fourth, fifth, fourteenth, etc., amendments should only apply when convenient.

Liberal Bizarre: Claiming the Constitution is a living document, whatever that means, and isnít to be taken literally.

Conservative Bizarre: Claiming that the second amendment only includes the second half of a two-part sentence, or that the Constitution was somehow intended to protect the unborn, or that the Supreme Court's decision in overruling the Florida Supreme Court in 2000 was in some manner a fair and literal reading of the Constitution.

So....Jeff....where's you empirical evidence to support these statements?

Good for the goose/gander regards,

kg

Illinois Bob
02-21-2009, 10:16 AM
Right on, Jeff!

You missed Jeffs original post before he edited it.He had 7 Liberal Bizarres vs. only 4 Conservative Bizarres clearly showing that liberals are more bizarre.;) He fixed it though to make you happy.

YardleyLabs
02-21-2009, 10:23 AM
You missed Jeffs original post before he edited it.He had 7 Liberal Bizarres vs. only 4 Conservative Bizarres clearly showing that liberals are more bizarre.;) He fixed it though to make you happy.

Actually, they were all there from the beginning. However, when the post saved the paragraph spacing was lost so that multiple points ended up in the same paragraphs.

In response to Keith's request that I provide empirical evidence, I will resort to my new tactic: I'll post mine when subroc posts his.:) In fact, I tend to think that both the original "liberal" perspectives and my countering "conservative" perspectives are over-stated and do a disservice to thoughtful people from both camps.

K G
02-21-2009, 10:27 AM
In response to Keith's request that I provide empirical evidence, I will resort to my new tactic: I'll post mine when subroc posts his.:) In fact, I tend to think that both the original "liberal" perspectives and my countering "conservative" perspectives are over-stated and do a disservice to thoughtful people from both camps.

Exactly what I expected.....:wink:

Guess you won't be using the argument in post #6 anymore regards,

kg

Illinois Bob
02-21-2009, 10:33 AM
Actually, they were all there from the beginning. However, when the post saved the paragraph spacing was lost so that multiple points ended up in the same paragraph

Sounds kind of like a Roland Burris explanation.:)

Julie R.
02-21-2009, 10:35 AM
Liberal Bizarre: Equating aborting a third term viable fetus with applying the death penalty to some deserving psychopath.

Conservative Bizarre: Equating aborting a first or second trimester, non-viable fetus with aborting a third term viable fetus or with murder of an otherwise innocent and healthy child or adult.

Liberal bizarre: Let's allow ALL abortions even 3rd trimester, let's fund them abroad too. But let us NEVER use the death penalty even for murdering pedophiles and serial killers.

Liberal Bizarre: Rarely considering the law of unintended consequences as it relates to their view of environmental issues ...

Conservative Bizarre: Rarely considering the law of unintended consequences as it relates to corporate behavior in polluting our environment or introducing new and virtually untested additives into our food supply with no consideration of long term consequences.

Liberal bizarre: Let's pass a stimulus package that places more importance on mice than jobs. Let's staff the new cabinet with tax cheats and scofflaws. Let's have an accountable government starting with a $400= million inaugggeration and push through a trillion dollar package of pork before anyone has time to read it. Let's not worry about the law of unintended consequences!

Liberal Bizarre: Proclaiming to be advocates of environmental issues yet rarely do their lifestyles differ appreciably, as it relates to conservation, from those they advocate against.

Conservative Bizarre: Claiming to be Christian while rejecting the most fundamental, and still radical, Christian concepts of charity, justice and compassion.

Liberal Bizarre: Let's claim Christian values especially if we're not.

Liberal Bizarre: They claim to be advocates of free speech, yet go to virtually any college campus and any invitee brought there to speak about an issue that isnít in line with the left wing world view is shouted down and isnít allowed to speak.

Conservative Bizarre: Not even pretending to support free speech when the opinions are contrary and particularly opposing free speech of liberal professors in colleges.

Liberal bizarre: Let's call everyone that disagrees with the president a racist. Let's have our attorney general teach us about racial equality by calling us a "Nation of Cowards" while ignoring the fact that blacks are the most racist group in America. Let's depend on college professors and 'community activists' to determine what's best for educating our kids and running our country.

Liberal Bizarre: Claiming the first amendment means everyone, yet the second amendment doesnít.

Conservative Bizarre: Claiming the second amendment means everyone under all circumstances, but the first, fourth, fifth, fourteenth, etc., amendments should only apply when convenient.

Liberal Bizarre: Claiming the Constitution is a living document, whatever that means, and isnít to be taken literally.

Liberal Bizarre: Let's actually change the Constitution so it more reflects what we want and deserve.

Conservative Bizarre: Claiming that the second amendment only includes the second half of a two-part sentence, or that the Constitution was somehow intended to protect the unborn, or that the Supreme Court's decision in overruling the Florida Supreme Court in 2000 was in some manner a fair and literal reading of the Constitution.

Liberal Bizarre: Let's claim the Constitution guarantees everyone a right to a $400,000 house, free medical care, loans whether or not you can pay them back, tax rebates even if you've never paid a dime into the system, an expensive car, rims, 40s, flat screen TVs and forgiveness of all past crimes unless you are a conservative taxpayer.

There...fixed it for ya Jeff ;-)

YardleyLabs
02-21-2009, 10:36 AM
Exactly what I expected.....:wink:

Guess you won't be using the argument in post #6 anymore regards,

kg

I'll stand by the following statement from post#6 as a non-statistically significant observation from my own personal experience, with the additional note that it does not take political sides:

"My observation is that the more reasoned and fact based the argument, the more irrational will be any ideologically based response."

Patrick Johndrow
02-21-2009, 10:36 AM
Why Even Try...WET Yes, wet, describes you most succinctly.

JD

My point is the difference between the liberal thinking I see in this country today is so far left of where I am there is no benefit in trying to understand them. All we conservatives need to do is defeat them in the next election (which I am positive will happen) and send them packing.

YardleyLabs
02-21-2009, 10:56 AM
Ahhh Julie:

Liberal Bizarre: Equating aborting a third term viable fetus with applying the death penalty to some deserving psychopath.

Conservative Bizarre: Equating aborting a first or second trimester, non-viable fetus with aborting a third term viable fetus or with murder of an otherwise innocent and healthy child or adult.

Liberal bizarre: Let's allow ALL abortions even 3rd trimester, let's fund them abroad too. But let us NEVER use the death penalty even for murdering pedophiles and serial killers.

I actually don't know any pro-choice advocates who suggest allowing unrestricted third term abortions of viable fetuses either here or abroad. I think that qualifies as a red herring. The death penalty is a separate issue. From a personal perspective, my only concern with the death penalty is what is does to us as people, not what it does to the criminals (assuming of course that they are actually guilty, which we know is not always true).

Liberal Bizarre: Rarely considering the law of unintended consequences as it relates to their view of environmental issues ...

Conservative Bizarre: Rarely considering the law of unintended consequences as it relates to corporate behavior in polluting our environment or introducing new and virtually untested additives into our food supply with no consideration of long term consequences.

Liberal bizarre: Let's pass a stimulus package that places more importance on mice than jobs. Let's staff the new cabinet with tax cheats and scofflaws. Let's have an accountable government starting with a $400= million inaugggeration and push through a trillion dollar package of pork before anyone has time to read it. Let's not worry about the law of unintended consequences!

Can't you at least make a pretense of relating your comments to the ones in the post?

Liberal Bizarre: Proclaiming to be advocates of environmental issues yet rarely do their lifestyles differ appreciably, as it relates to conservation, from those they advocate against.

Conservative Bizarre: Claiming to be Christian while rejecting the most fundamental, and still radical, Christian concepts of charity, justice and compassion.

Liberal Bizarre: Let's claim Christian values especially if we're not.

If you're talking about me, my values are almost entirely Judeo-Christian in origin. Like Milton Friedman, as I noted n another thread, I view those values as having grown out of the totality of human evolution. Their validity does not depend on whether or not they were defined by God.

Liberal Bizarre: They claim to be advocates of free speech, yet go to virtually any college campus and any invitee brought there to speak about an issue that isnít in line with the left wing world view is shouted down and isnít allowed to speak.

Conservative Bizarre: Not even pretending to support free speech when the opinions are contrary and particularly opposing free speech of liberal professors in colleges.

Liberal bizarre: Let's call everyone that disagrees with the president a racist. Let's have our attorney general teach us about racial equality by calling us a "Nation of Cowards" while ignoring the fact that blacks are the most racist group in America. Let's depend on college professors and 'community activists' to determine what's best for educating our kids and running our country.

Who have I called a racist? I think the Atty Gen is right. I believe your comments on blacks are ridiculous. If you think they're accurate, please start a thread with your evidence and we can have a discussion. I'll have to respectfully disagree with your last suggestion. I'd rather trust my kids with their own education and the electorate to help decide who will run our country.

Liberal Bizarre: Claiming the first amendment means everyone, yet the second amendment doesnít.

Conservative Bizarre: Claiming the second amendment means everyone under all circumstances, but the first, fourth, fifth, fourteenth, etc., amendments should only apply when convenient.

Liberal Bizarre: Claiming the Constitution is a living document, whatever that means, and isnít to be taken literally.

Liberal Bizarre: Let's actually change the Constitution so it more reflects what we want and deserve.

Actually, the Constitution makes specific provisions for how it can be modified. That's how we got the 14th amendment ending slavery and establishing equality under the law, and the 18th amendment giving women the vote among others.

Conservative Bizarre: Claiming that the second amendment only includes the second half of a two-part sentence, or that the Constitution was somehow intended to protect the unborn, or that the Supreme Court's decision in overruling the Florida Supreme Court in 2000 was in some manner a fair and literal reading of the Constitution.

Liberal Bizarre: Let's claim the Constitution guarantees everyone a right to a $400,000 house, free medical care, loans whether or not you can pay them back, tax rebates even if you've never paid a dime into the system, an expensive car, rims, 40s, flat screen TVs and forgiveness of all past crimes unless you are a conservative taxpayer.

Who suggested any of these were Constitutional issues? In fact, who has suggested all of these "policies" in any context?

subroc
02-21-2009, 11:09 AM
I donít think I overstated the left position at all. I actually think it is a bit understated if anything. The positions I stated are clearly mainstream left thought, not extreme or radical. If I had stated the extreme or radical positions, your claim of overstatement may have been valid.



Conservative Bizarre: Claiming to be Christian while rejecting the most fundamental, and still radical, Christian concepts of charity, justice and compassion.

??????? Could you explain this one?


Conservative Bizarre: Claiming that the second amendment only includes the second half of a two-part sentenceÖ

Not only do we not believe that, we require a reading of it in its entirety. We believe it should be taken in context and taken in the meaning of the day. The left, on the other hand is guilty of parsing it in an attempt to find a meaning in it interpreted in by those that want to disarm the population.


Conservative Bizarre: Not even pretending to support free speech when the opinions are contrary and particularly opposing free speech of liberal professors in collegesÖ

Untrue. The right fully supports the left wing ideological professors spouting their left wing venom but not at the expense of the open and free exchange of ideas. We reject indoctrination by those professors. We want professors that are capable of understanding the difference between advocating a position and indoctrinating young minds without the presentation of any opposing positions,

Julie R.
02-21-2009, 11:28 AM
Jeff, my post was very much tongue in cheek, not aimed at you personally (woke up with a dose of Obomo narcissim this morning? ;-)) the religious jab was about Obomo's muzzie connections and how he's courting Hamas. I'm way too lazy to go dig up facts. Check back with me in a few months about the law of unintended consequences vis a vis the stimulus package.

As far as the racist angle, it wasn't directed at you; I haven't heard you call anyone that dislikes Obomo racist. But let's not pretend that the race card hasn't been played regularly both before and after the election. I found it amusing Holder felt he needed to denounce 'a nation of cowards' about race relations because blacks in general are more racist than whites but everyone is afraid to say it in public. You can drum up more stats to try and prove me wrong, but for this purpose I'm using the fact Obomo won almost 100 percent of the black vote http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/racist.gif

As for guaranteed rights to own a home, car, take on debt you can't afford, etc. isnt' that what this bailout is about? It may not be a Constitutional right but this administration sure is acting like it is. Settle down there big guy, this ain't personal about you unless you're about to take a Cabinet position...http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Coffee.gifhttp://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/queen.gif

Gerry Clinchy
02-21-2009, 12:13 PM
In fact, I tend to think that both the original "liberal" perspectives and my countering "conservative" perspectives are over-stated and do a disservice to thoughtful people from both camps.

I surely agree with Jeff in this.

I really believe that most "liberals" and "conservatives", if they were to admit it to reflect on it, are really a mix depending on the issues.

I do think that third term abortions cross the line, but I have mixed emotions about early term abortions (though we must take into account medical advances that have been made over time WRT to fetus viabiity). I have no problem at all with birth control which prevents conception. This is neither totally in a a "conservative" camp, nor totally "liberal".

By the same token, any President will act in ways that look really bad in retrospect; or that may look better in retrospect than they did at the time of the action.

I am constantly amazed at how wrong things can go for a President even with the best of intentions. Carter was intelligent and had very good intentions, and, I believe, integrity, but that didn't necessarily lead to a fruitful presidency. Clinton was an individual lacking in integrity, yet one can point to some positive things that his administration accomplished (much as I am offended by his blatant dishonesty). Timing did help Clinton out a bit. Reagan was a good man and charismatic, but he also was not infallible in his decisions and was helped by the timing factor.

While I agree with Friedman that free enterprise is the best hope for improving economic well-being, I also expect industry not to be allowed to endanger lives dumping toxic waste where it shouldn't be dumped.

There are many intelligent people on this list. I doubt that any of them lack compassion. Compassion is at the root of charity: helping those less well off. That then became the root of government welfare. But I doubt that any of the compassionate individuals here would agree with welfare being made into a way of life for multiple generations.

I just don't really believe that any of the "liberals" on this list are totally liberal in all their beliefs; nor are the "conservatives" totally ultra-conservative on every issue. Politicians try to make us believe we are ;) They foster this devisiveness to get their votes. It's easier for them to address emotions than intelligent thought this way. Perhaps it's time to say, "shame on us" for falling for their bait?

Steve
02-21-2009, 12:35 PM
I am a liberal. I've never made any pretense otherwise.

A liberal used to mean someone who was for individual rights and limited government. Nowadays liberalism has morphed into selective rights for certain people and large government intervention.

I am an unapologetic advocate of free market capitalism. Politically, I am a Libertarian with conservative leanings (mostly military/foreign policy). I do not make irrational arguments.



My biggest problem with the divisiveness that we have seen eating at our country is that it has placed ideology before reason.

We can't even agree on the facts, there is no way we are going ever agree on policy.

The biggest difference is that the policies that I advocate do not force any action upon you other than to not violate individuals' rights. What the left advocates requires my participation whether I like it or not.



By the way, you gve three examples of "liberal" arguments that cannot be objectively proven. I believe that I presented some pretty convincing facts demonstrating that since 1979 "the rich have gotten richer". Of the three you mention, that is the only one that I have personally asserted.

First you have to define "rich". I guess "richer" could mean 1 penny more. I got run - Bearcats vs. Louisville. I'll post more later. I know you can yardly, err hardly wait. ;)

YardleyLabs
02-21-2009, 01:44 PM
A liberal used to mean someone who was for individual rights and limited government. Nowadays liberalism has morphed into selective rights for certain people and large government intervention.
I assume you're talking about the liberal programs to tap calls without warrants, search library records, and make it illegal to even disclose if you have been investigated in this manner? Or was it the liberal programs to incur a $5 trillion deficit in eight years (hard to think of a governmental intervention bigger than that).



I am an unapologetic advocate of free market capitalism. Politically, I am a Libertarian with conservative leanings (mostly military/foreign policy). I do not make irrational arguments.
If by "free market" you mean competitive, I would agree, but if you mean government support for efforts to limit competition (e.g. massive expansion of IP rights, outlawing cross border drug pharmaceutical purchases, outlawing competitive price negotiations for drugs purchased under Medicare, etc.) I think corporate welfare would be a better description. With respect to "irrational arguments, I think your entire post at the beginning of this thread would qualify along the second sentence of this post.





We can't even agree on the facts, there is no way we are going ever agree on policy.


It's hard to agree or disagree with your facts. You haven't mentioned any yet.



The biggest difference is that the policies that I advocate do not force any action upon you other than to not violate individuals' rights. What the left advocates requires my participation whether I like it or not.

It's hard to respond to this without some examples on both sides. The deficits incurred by Bush will certainly affect me and my children and my grandchildren for many years to come. The Patriot Act also affects me and mine in addition to having a name that should appear in the dictionary as an example of supreme irony.



First you have to define "rich". I guess "richer" could mean 1 penny more. I got run - Bearcats vs. Louisville. I'll post more later. I know you can yardly, err hardly wait. ;)
Well, the example I used was with the top 1% of wage earners with average increases in income of more than 200% while incomes for the lower 80% went up 15% and incomes for the lower 40% went up 5%. Statistics are less readily available for higher income groupings but appear to indicate that the higher you go the bigger the discrepancy.

Uncle Bill
02-21-2009, 02:51 PM
Well, the example I used was with the top 1% of wage earners with average increases in income of more than 200% while incomes for the lower 80% went up 15% and incomes for the lower 40% went up 5%. Statistics are less readily available for higher income groupings but appear to indicate that the higher you go the bigger the discrepancy.
__________________
Jeff Goodwin
http://jeffgoodwin.com

And your whining about this because? Did you have your taxes increased MORE than those upper wage earners? Did those upper wage earners (at least you have the sense to include the word 'earner') get their income by taking it away from the lower class...as is what's happening now?

As Dennis Miller said recently...I'm in favor of helping the helpless, but the clueless can take a hike.

Which category do you fall in, Jeff, so I know how to address you? Should we be sending out the welcome wagon? Or should we just consider you as being a clueless whining liberal, awaiting your governmental handouts?

You won't want to hear this, since I have no "factual evidence" to prove it, but based on what I know, both Algore and the current #2 make more in annual income than I do, but I have given more to charity than both those yahoos combined.

Some day the 'facts' of how much you and your leftist group are willing to tax your grandchildren, and their unborn children as well, will drop you to your knees. By that time of course, Atlas will have shrugged, and all your king's men will be left wondering how to make anything work again.

But then, since a picture is worth a thousand words, your position is guaranteed. The nation will always need you 'documenters' eh? Hope you can get into that upper 1%. All the others will be needing your handouts.

UB

YardleyLabs
02-21-2009, 04:21 PM
Well, the example I used was with the top 1% of wage earners with average increases in income of more than 200% while incomes for the lower 80% went up 15% and incomes for the lower 40% went up 5%. Statistics are less readily available for higher income groupings but appear to indicate that the higher you go the bigger the discrepancy.
__________________
Jeff Goodwin
http://jeffgoodwin.com

And your whining about this because? Did you have your taxes increased MORE than those upper wage earners? Did those upper wage earners (at least you have the sense to include the word 'earner') get their income by taking it away from the lower class...as is what's happening now?

As Dennis Miller said recently...I'm in favor of helping the helpless, but the clueless can take a hike.

Which category do you fall in, Jeff, so I know how to address you? Should we be sending out the welcome wagon? Or should we just consider you as being a clueless whining liberal, awaiting your governmental handouts?

You won't want to hear this, since I have no "factual evidence" to prove it, but based on what I know, both Algore and the current #2 make more in annual income than I do, but I have given more to charity than both those yahoos combined.

Some day the 'facts' of how much you and your leftist group are willing to tax your grandchildren, and their unborn children as well, will drop you to your knees. By that time of course, Atlas will have shrugged, and all your king's men will be left wondering how to make anything work again.

But then, since a picture is worth a thousand words, your position is guaranteed. The nation will always need you 'documenters' eh? Hope you can get into that upper 1%. All the others will be needing your handouts.

UB

You are welcome to believe anything that makes you feel better about me, my income, and my charitable contributions. You are very quick to make assumptions about things of which you know nothing. Check the facts. The overwhelming bulk of all budget deficits incurred by the Federal government since 1964 have been incurred under Republican administrations. The worst "culprits" have been Reagan and Bush II. Those "facts" come from the Heritage Foundation as well as the government.

My "career" as a photographer followed my career as a general partner at Ernst & Young, an officer of a major national engineering firm, and my career as President and owner of an IT consulting firm.

With respect to charitable contributions by Gore and Biden, I certainly hope you do better than Joe, who gives almost nothing. Gore's record may be trickier. He seems historically to have given little from his normal income. However, when he and Tipper have had extra income, they have been very generous. They gave $50,000 to UT in memory of Al Gore Sr. They also contributed all of the proceeds from Tipper's book and Gore's book to charity ($50-100,000 each). Since leaving public office, Gore's contributions are no longer a matter of public record. However, he did give 100% of the proceeds from his Nobel Peace Prize ($750,000) to charity as well as 100% of his income as head of a non-profit. For good measure, the Clinton's have given $10 million to charity since leaving the White House (not counting the $$$ "given" to Hilary's campaign.

Patrick Johndrow
02-21-2009, 04:43 PM
As far as the racist angle, it wasn't directed at you; I haven't heard you call anyone that dislikes Obomo racist.

I have resigned myself to the fact that in this administration I am going to be a racistÖit canít be helped in today environment. Unless you are drinking the from the liberal water trough you are a racist.

zeus3925
02-21-2009, 04:56 PM
I have resigned myself to the fact that in this administration I am going to be a racist…it can’t be helped in today environment. Unless you are drinking the from the liberal water trough you are a racist.

Ok, Pat. What is the source for your remarks or is it just opinion?

Patrick Johndrow
02-21-2009, 05:04 PM
Ok, Pat. What is the source for your remarks or is it just opinion?

The sources of my remarks are founded in conversation with liberals away from RTF. Believe it or not I have a full life away from RTF as most of us do.
I am not going to debate the issue of being or not being a racistÖso I will state in the current political environment I am a racist because I donít like anything about Obama and wish him nothing but expedient removal from the White House along with his political cronies.

Bob Gutermuth
02-21-2009, 05:13 PM
I don't want to understand liberals, I just want to keep them from running or ruining the country.

Steve
02-21-2009, 06:05 PM
I
While I agree with Friedman that free enterprise is the best hope for improving economic well-being, I also expect industry not to be allowed to endanger lives dumping toxic waste where it shouldn't be dumped.

Look around the globe. The worst polluted areas are those in "enlightened" Marxist countries. The biggest polluter in the US is the federal government.

Steve
02-21-2009, 06:23 PM
First off, I found Bush to be miles from a conservative. Except for the war and supreme court appointments, he was the best thing lefties could ask for.


I assume you're talking about the liberal programs to tap calls without warrants, search library records, and make it illegal to even disclose if you have been investigated in this manner?

Are you trying to defend leftists by attacking the Patriot Act. In other words are you saying "we suck, but we suck less?"



If by "free market" you mean competitive, I would agree, but if you mean government support for efforts to limit competition (e.g. massive expansion of IP rights, outlawing cross border drug pharmaceutical purchases, outlawing competitive price negotiations for drugs purchased under Medicare, etc.) I think corporate welfare would be a better description.

I mean free market. I am opposed to all government subsidies, tariffs, bailouts, etc. I do not believe the government has the right to tell companies who they can hire and fire. I don't even think government should keep economic statistics.




It's hard to respond to this without some examples on both sides.

OK, take Social Security. I don't wish to play in the government program. I will happily be an adult and take care of my own retirement, but I am not allowed.



Well, the example I used was with the top 1% of wage earners with average increases in income of more than 200% while incomes for the lower 80% went up 15% and incomes for the lower 40% went up 5%. Statistics are less readily available for higher income groupings but appear to indicate that the higher you go the bigger the discrepancy.

Even if it is true, so what? Why is it anyone's business what someone else earns.

YardleyLabs
02-21-2009, 06:29 PM
It sounds like your definition of liberal is anyone who has served in government in the last few hundred years.:D

Steve
02-21-2009, 06:35 PM
It sounds like your definition of liberal is anyone who has served in government in the last few hundred years.:D

Few hundred???? Is that Pelosi math :p

YardleyLabs
02-21-2009, 06:43 PM
Well tariffs were imposed from the beginning of the country. Economic statistics began not too long after and business taxes were an integral part of government financing. The first income tax was implemented in 1861. Business subsidies and even wars undertaken specifically to help American businesses happened throughout the 19th century. The first labor laws were also implemented at that time. I actually can't think of any time in our history when the types of programs you decry were not an on-going part of our government activities.

zeus3925
02-21-2009, 07:58 PM
The sources of my remarks are founded in conversation with liberals away from RTF. Believe it or not I have a full life away from RTF as most of us do.
I am not going to debate the issue of being or not being a racistÖso I will state in the current political environment I am a racist because I donít like anything about Obama and wish him nothing but expedient removal from the White House along with his political cronies.

Now you know how life was on the other side over the last eight years. Cheers!

Patrick Johndrow
02-21-2009, 08:07 PM
Now you know how life was on the other side over the last eight years. Cheers!


Not from me...I havent been happy with Bush as a conservative.


Enjoy your few days in the sun...we arent going anywhere brother ;)

zeus3925
02-21-2009, 08:12 PM
Not from me...I havent been happy with Bush as a conservative.

Enjoy your few days in the sun...we arent going anywhere brother ;)

At least we agree on one thing--Bush was just using conservatives.

Patrick Johndrow
02-21-2009, 08:18 PM
At least we agree on one thing--Bush was just using conservatives.

Not really...he was doing what the Reps wanted him to do...we are taking back our party...people who makes this country great are getting off the sideline and taking it back from the do nothing POSs that are have been running it....Obama is just the latest personification of that worthlessness.


Need to wean some worthless people regards.

zeus3925
02-21-2009, 08:25 PM
The sources of my remarks are founded in conversation with liberals away from RTF. Believe it or not I have a full life away from RTF as most of us do.


Pat, you really know any Libs? I would think they would be pretty few and far between in Oklahoma. Maybe there's an invasion on. Check under your bunk tonight.

Patrick Johndrow
02-21-2009, 08:34 PM
Pat, you really know any Libs? I would think they would be pretty few and far between in Oklahoma. Maybe there's an invasion on. Check under your bunk tonight.

Yeah...we imported a few from NYC a few years ago...not many of them left though...we went through them pretty fast. ;)

Julie R.
02-21-2009, 09:00 PM
Pat, you really know any Libs? I would think they would be pretty few and far between in Oklahoma. Maybe there's an invasion on. Check under your bunk tonight.


Sorry, but I think you owe Mr. Johndrow an apology for that remark. How dare you make sweeping generalizations about the fine citizens of OK.

http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/racist.gif

Patrick Johndrow
02-21-2009, 09:07 PM
Sorry, but I think you owe Mr. Johndrow an apology for that remark. How dare you make sweeping generalizations about the fine citizens of OK.

http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/racist.gif



No..no...Julie...OKlahoma is full of people that work hard, take care of themselves and pay their mortgages...we dont have many liberals here...they just arent hardy folk.

zeus3925
02-21-2009, 10:09 PM
No..no...Julie...OKlahoma is full of people that work hard, take care of themselves and pay their mortgages...we dont have many liberals here...they just arent hardy folk.

Thanks, Pat.

M Remington
02-22-2009, 12:31 AM
Julie, I love that picture. It makes me laugh everytime I see it.

Raymond Little
02-22-2009, 10:12 AM
Then I do believe that you are a "Racist" also Marx.

Uncle Bill
02-22-2009, 03:07 PM
From Yardley,

You are welcome to believe anything that makes you feel better about me, my income, and my charitable contributions. You are very quick to make assumptions about things of which you know nothing. Check the facts. The overwhelming bulk of all budget deficits incurred by the Federal government since 1964 have been incurred under Republican administrations. The worst "culprits" have been Reagan and Bush II. Those "facts" come from the Heritage Foundation as well as the government.


When you champion your vast knowledge of "the facts", why do you not point out...PRESIDENTS CAN'T SPEND ANYTHING. Only congess does that, and I think you'll find in most cases, the congress was contolled by your party during these periods you are so proud of.

And before you start showing us how well Slick Willy did, not only did he inherit a 'going jenny', but he had a conservative led congress during most of his smarmy and deceptive years in that office.

UB

YardleyLabs
02-22-2009, 05:15 PM
From Yardley,

You are welcome to believe anything that makes you feel better about me, my income, and my charitable contributions. You are very quick to make assumptions about things of which you know nothing. Check the facts. The overwhelming bulk of all budget deficits incurred by the Federal government since 1964 have been incurred under Republican administrations. The worst "culprits" have been Reagan and Bush II. Those "facts" come from the Heritage Foundation as well as the government.


When you champion your vast knowledge of "the facts", why do you not point out...PRESIDENTS CAN'T SPEND ANYTHING. Only congess does that, and I think you'll find in most cases, the congress was contolled by your party during these periods you are so proud of.

And before you start showing us how well Slick Willy did, not only did he inherit a 'going jenny', but he had a conservative led congress during most of his smarmy and deceptive years in that office.

UB
The Republicans controlled the Senate during the Reagan Presidency and the House presented little opposition in the face of Reagan's popularity. In fact, Congress actually appropriated slightly less money that Reagan requested in his budgets.

"The traditional pattern of running large deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982 [Reagan's first budget year], partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992." [emphasis added]

From "Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2006." Downloaded from www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf). Page 5.

Bush did two basic things to increase the deficit by almost $5 trillion: He implemented massive tax cuts and he launched the war in Iraq while saying it was our patriotic duty to keep living as if there were no war. Both of those actions were taken while congress was under Republican control.

The numbers are pretty clear and speak for themselves in a way that no amount of Teflon can cover:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

Republicans and Democrats alike operated in basically a fiscally conservative manner, paying down our national debt from the end of WWII until Reagan finally found his "feet". At that point, new Republican economic theories decided that deficits were OK if they were incurred to support tax cuts or expand defense spending. That "enlightenment" was the cause of deficit growth under both Reagan and Bush II. Bush Senior tried to put the brakes on and was crucified by his own party. Clinton proposed fiscally conservative policies throughout his administration -- a fact that cost him support from the more liberal ends of the party. He was bolstered by a Republican controlled House beginning in 1995. However, the deficit reduction plan which included but tax increases and spending cuts was actually adopted in 1993. However, the division of party control from 1995 was, I believe, a big factor helping to prevent either side from implementing grand schemes -- either in the form of massive tax cuts or massive spending programs -- that would increase the deficit. This was beneficial to the economy and economic growth combined with political deadlock are, I suspect, the reason the national debt was reduced so much.

I believe that both parties have the will to bankrupt our country given total control of the process. As a result, I almost always favor split control and complete ideological frustration of both the right and left.

Marvin S
02-22-2009, 09:34 PM
The Republicans controlled the Senate during the Reagan Presidency and the House presented little opposition in the face of Reagan's popularity. In fact, Congress actually appropriated slightly less money that Reagan requested in his budgets.

"The traditional pattern of running large deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982 [Reagan's first budget year], partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992." [emphasis added]

From "Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2006." Downloaded from www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf). Page 5.

Bush did two basic things to increase the deficit by almost $5 trillion: He implemented massive tax cuts and he launched the war in Iraq while saying it was our patriotic duty to keep living as if there were no war. Both of those actions were taken while congress was under Republican control.

The numbers are pretty clear and speak for themselves in a way that no amount of Teflon can cover:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

Republicans and Democrats alike operated in basically a fiscally conservative manner, paying down our national debt from the end of WWII until Reagan finally found his "feet". At that point, new Republican economic theories decided that deficits were OK if they were incurred to support tax cuts or expand defense spending. That "enlightenment" was the cause of deficit growth under both Reagan and Bush II. Bush Senior tried to put the brakes on and was crucified by his own party. Clinton proposed fiscally conservative policies throughout his administration -- a fact that cost him support from the more liberal ends of the party. He was bolstered by a Republican controlled House beginning in 1995. However, the deficit reduction plan which included but tax increases and spending cuts was actually adopted in 1993. However, the division of party control from 1995 was, I believe, a big factor helping to prevent either side from implementing grand schemes -- either in the form of massive tax cuts or massive spending programs -- that would increase the deficit. This was beneficial to the economy and economic growth combined with political deadlock are, I suspect, the reason the national debt was reduced so much.

I believe that both parties have the will to bankrupt our country given total control of the process. As a result, I almost always favor split control and complete ideological frustration of both the right and left.

It's not worth arguing over but I believe you have a few things wrong in your presentation. One thing being - total income increased with Reagan's cuts but he allowed Tip O'Neill to call the shots on spending. & there was the thing about neglected military spending where the D's excel.

YardleyLabs
02-23-2009, 06:04 AM
It's not worth arguing over but I believe you have a few things wrong in your presentation. One thing being - total income increased with Reagan's cuts but he allowed Tip O'Neill to call the shots on spending. & there was the thing about neglected military spending where the D's excel.

Actual appropriations under Reagan totaled $29 billion less than was requested by Reagan so "overspending" by Congress was not a factor. The budget deficit was bigger than he budgeted because his budget submissions persistently overestimated tax revenues in anticipation of the theoretical "supply side" boost.

As I noted before, each side, left to it own devices, will bankrupt the country. Republicans do it by cutting taxes while increasing defense spending. Democrats do it by increasing transfer payments and spending programs without funding them fully through taxes. The reality is that if our economy is growing, our budget should be balanced. If our economy is growing rapidly, our budget should have a surplus. It doesn't matter how "justified" you believe your own form of poison may be. Persistent deficits destroy the economy and represent a bigger threat to our security than any outside enemy. If the economy is in recession, the "cure" should be temporary or it will become part of a permanent problem.