Page 6 of 8 [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Shrapnel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 521

11 Mar 2014, 11:44 pm

TheGoggles wrote:
deer can and will attack humans if you get too close to them. The males can absolutely kill you, especially if you catch them around mating season.


Your original point was this:
TheGoggles wrote:
it's so the animals don't associate humans with food so they don't approach people and, you know, try to eat them.

See what you did there? You shifted from hungry animals to horny animals. And the Thomas Sowell quote was to the point, not to you.



TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

12 Mar 2014, 12:41 am

Shrapnel wrote:
TheGoggles wrote:
deer can and will attack humans if you get too close to them. The males can absolutely kill you, especially if you catch them around mating season.


Your original point was this:
TheGoggles wrote:
it's so the animals don't associate humans with food so they don't approach people and, you know, try to eat them.

See what you did there? You shifted from hungry animals to horny animals. And the Thomas Sowell quote was to the point, not to you.


Holy pedantry, Batman! The point is that if an animal has 0 fear of humans, there's a chance that it will attack just about anyone unlucky enough to cross paths with it. And the underlying point to all of this animal murder talk is that your goofy-ass analogy is ignorant at best, malicious at worst.



Shrapnel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 521

12 Mar 2014, 8:11 am

billiscool wrote:
do,Conservative have rights any more,or do
only Liberals have rights now a day.
Why do Liberals hate conservative opinion,
so much,That any time a conservative disagree
with a Liberals.Liberals try to censored them.


What's inevitably displayed is the liberal tendency to stifle debate through intellectual elitism and condescension. So arrogant in their belief that there is only one side to any argument since they view all conservatives as toothless, knuckle dragging, drooling, illiterate oafs. Even going so far as cite psychological theories of political attitudes to use pejoratively against conservatives, they see their condescension as justified. That people unlike them need not be taken seriously seems intrinsic to liberals. And it is exactly this manifestation of liberal condescension that suffocates the public debate that could help to unite Americans of all persuasions. It may be erroneous to assume that is the goal.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

12 Mar 2014, 8:20 am

Shrapnel wrote:
billiscool wrote:
do,Conservative have rights any more,or do
only Liberals have rights now a day.
Why do Liberals hate conservative opinion,
so much,That any time a conservative disagree
with a Liberals.Liberals try to censored them.


What's inevitably displayed is the liberal tendency to stifle debate through intellectual elitism and condescension. So arrogant in their belief that there is only one side to any argument since they view all conservatives as toothless, knuckle dragging, drooling, illiterate oafs. Even going so far as cite psychological theories of political attitudes to use pejoratively against conservatives, they see their condescension as justified. That people unlike them need not be taken seriously seems intrinsic to liberals. And it is exactly this manifestation of liberal condescension that suffocates the public debate that could help to unite Americans of all persuasions. It may be erroneous to assume that is the goal.


Using many of your own words:
What's inevitably displayed is the conservative tendency to stifle debate through a misplaced divine authority and condescension. So arrogant in their belief that there is only one side to any argument since they view all liberals as communist, mentally ill, anti-American, and godless. Even going so far as cite psychological theories of political attitudes to use pejoratively against liberals, they see their condescension as justified. That people unlike them need not be taken seriously seems intrinsic to conservatives. And it is exactly this manifestation of conservative condescension that suffocates the public debate that could help to unite Americans of all persuasions. It may be erroneous to assume that is the goal.

I'm really just saying that neither side has the moral high ground here.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Shrapnel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 521

12 Mar 2014, 8:39 am

sonofghandi wrote:
I'm really just saying that neither side has the moral high ground here.


I thought I was trying to say that as well, in the end. We seem to butt heads frequently sometimes even trying to make the same point. I'm obliged to point out that as an agnostic, religion has never clouded my perception of life. My conservative concerns are purely economic.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

12 Mar 2014, 9:16 am

Shrapnel wrote:
My conservative concerns are purely economic.


Most of my concerns come from a long-term economic standpoint. Reducing the deficit this year by $10 billion means nothing if those cuts are going to end up costing taxpayers $100 billion in ten years.

That is why I am dead set against eliminating social programs, because in the long run that would just cost the government more in terms of long term drains on the economy. I am, however, in favor of a comprehensive reform of social programs to improve efficiency and reduce wasteful spending of time and resources. I also think that the SSA should be rolled into the HHS, along with all government benefits (including the entire VA system). The combining of infrastructure alone would save trillions over the course of a generation. It just bothers me to see so many advocates of slashing parts of the budget that are going to cost more in terms of increased crime, increased poverty, and a higher degree of discontent and anger spreading through the populace. I am also extremely perturbed by the fact that every penny in spending reduction that the current Republicans have achieved has been coupled with backdoor increases in government spending for larger businesses and people who already have substantial wealth and assets. Long term economic dvelopment and growth relies on a strong consumer base. To improve the economy long term, the most efficient and most effective method would be to reduce poverty. That would reduce government spending on social programs as well as provide higher tax revenue (and decreased tax credits/deductions).


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

12 Mar 2014, 9:44 am

Shrapnel wrote:
billiscool wrote:
do,Conservative have rights any more,or do
only Liberals have rights now a day.
Why do Liberals hate conservative opinion,
so much,That any time a conservative disagree
with a Liberals.Liberals try to censored them.


What's inevitably displayed is the liberal tendency to stifle debate through intellectual elitism and condescension. So arrogant in their belief that there is only one side to any argument since they view all conservatives as toothless, knuckle dragging, drooling, illiterate oafs. Even going so far as cite psychological theories of political attitudes to use pejoratively against conservatives, they see their condescension as justified. That people unlike them need not be taken seriously seems intrinsic to liberals. And it is exactly this manifestation of liberal condescension that suffocates the public debate that could help to unite Americans of all persuasions. It may be erroneous to assume that is the goal.


Got any dressing to go with that word salad?



Shrapnel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 521

12 Mar 2014, 11:09 am

sonofghandi wrote:
To improve the economy long term, the most efficient and most effective method would be to reduce poverty.


I've condensed your comment.
The war on poverty has been ongoing for 50 years and has been an utter failure, it now seems to have transformed into a war on prosperity.

Both parties are guilty of the practice and the campaign promise of eliminating earmarks, yet the status quo still exists. Our federal government remains a collection of America’s most incompetent because a narrow perception of self-interest is what always seems to motivate voters. When our household encounters a cash flow problem we must adjust our spending habits accordingly. Unfortunately, when government has the ability to plunder the pockets of future generations through taxation, there isn't much incentive to do that. They keep demanding a greater slice of the pie, and the concept of creating a larger pie is inconceivable when the government implements roadblocks through over-regulation. Does regulation preserve market mechanisms or supersede them? I don’t know, but I do know that multi-national corporations will park their money where taxation and regulation is less, while declaring their losses where taxation is greatest. Can this be blamed on Conservatism or common sense?



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

12 Mar 2014, 12:34 pm

Shrapnel wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
To improve the economy long term, the most efficient and most effective method would be to reduce poverty.


I've condensed your comment.
The war on poverty has been ongoing for 50 years and has been an utter failure, it now seems to have transformed into a war on prosperity.


That is because anti-poverty programs don't address the causes of poverty; they only treat some of the symptoms. We need to reduce the numbers of people falling into poverty, not just maintain them when they get there.

As for a war on prosperity: poppycock!
The only way you could see things as a war on prosperity is if you find it perfectly acceptable for businesses to rely on the government to pick up the tab for the low wages/no benefits employees. Food assistance cuts and the expiration of jobless benefits have already impacted the economy negatively.

It is not a war on prosperity. It is more of a war on corrupt business practice. In FY 2012 Wal Mart could have more than doubled their payroll expenses for the dollar value of the dividends it paid to its investors. The total bonuses (not including the $1.2 million salary) paid to their CEO in 2010 alone would have been enough to create over 1200 full time minimum wage jobs. And yet Wal Mart is one of the companies largely responsible for so many full time workers qualifying for income based assistance. You want to cut social spending programs? Raise the minimum wage and index it to the poverty line.

We cannot continue to concentrate wealth within a tiny fraction of the population at the expense of the rest. Even with the most creative maths, it is simply unsustainable. The consumer base will eventually decline to a point that further economic growth is impossible and civil unrest will become the norm.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,895
Location: Aux Arcs

12 Mar 2014, 2:40 pm

Image


_________________
"Security is mostly a superstition.It does not exist in nature,nor do the children of men as a whole experience it.Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.Life is either a daring adventure,or nothing." Helen Keller


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,895
Location: Aux Arcs

12 Mar 2014, 2:42 pm

Image


_________________
"Security is mostly a superstition.It does not exist in nature,nor do the children of men as a whole experience it.Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.Life is either a daring adventure,or nothing." Helen Keller


salamandaqwerty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2013
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377

12 Mar 2014, 2:53 pm

Misslizard wrote:
Image


oh I used to have a tee shirt I screen printed with Eat the rich when I was a teen, I loved it so much.


_________________
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

12 Mar 2014, 3:23 pm

Shrapnel wrote:
The war on poverty has been ongoing for 50 years and has been an utter failure

That is not correct.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-les ... 30159.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1653433800
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-war-pove ... ng-success



Shrapnel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 521

12 Mar 2014, 4:46 pm

Misslizard wrote:
Image


With the ascension of Mao Tse Tung, his comrades killed all factory owners and all landlords and all farmers who employed at least one employee.
After that, they went after "the rich". They took the farms of large farmers and killed the farmers. After that, "the rich" included any farmer who owned his own land. They took that land too. Finally, "the rich" was defined as any peasant who owned a pig.
We will each be considered "the rich" after those who were above us are harvested. Class Warfare is like a grass fire...it is difficult to keep it from spreading and getting out of control.

LKL wrote:
Shrapnel wrote:
The war on poverty has been ongoing for 50 years and has been an utter failure

That is not correct.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-les ... 30159.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1653433800
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-war-pove ... ng-success


You've provided three links to op-ed pieces, I hope you understand that they are nothing more than someone else’s opinion. I can do that as well. So I have provided four op-ed links to dispute your three. I also find it interesting that one of your links is to the Wall Street Journal which is owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns Fox. I know that the majority of people here on WP delight in ridiculing Fox, accusing them of being untruthful in all things. So it’s rather odd that you would use something they’ve published to bolster your point. Or perhaps they are more balanced than people are willing admit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/busin ... .html?_r=0
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... l-failure/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... as-failed/
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/10/krugman ... as_failed/



Max000
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,765

12 Mar 2014, 8:01 pm

billiscool wrote:
do,Conservative have rights any more,or do
only Liberals have rights now a day.
Why do Liberals hate conservative opinion,
so much,That any time a conservative disagree
with a Liberals.Liberals try to censored them.


Oh, poor picked on conservatives. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: They only control every single major media organization in the US. But that is not enough for you.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-MURWDpyzU[/youtube]